Are sociopaths destined for hell?

[Flashpoint]

Christianity preaches many noble virtues such as compassion and empathy (though these do not always manifest in similar actions) and that one can attain forgiveness and access to heaven through accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Sociopaths (people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder) are known for their lack of empathy, and in more severe cases a lack of most recognisably human emotions. They also exibit persistent criminal or morally unacceptable behavior. To date there is no known way of treating and curing this psychological defect.

So my question is this:

If one is born to be a person who lacks most of what makes us human (including a moral compass) how can God condemn such a person to hell for simply being what he/she is?

[cnorman18]

Contrary to popular thought (even some Christians) being good, or even listening to your conscience, does not save you.

With all due respect, that's your belief; that doesn't make it true. The idea that thinking, something, AKA "holding the correct beliefs," is more important than what a person DOES, isn't something that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.

You're free to believe as you like, but don't expect everyone here to accept your beliefs because you claim their truth "contrary to popular thought." Your say-so isn't enough; the Bible isn't enough, because many (including many believers, like myself) don't agree that it comes directly from God; and threats of Hell and promises of Heaven aren't enough, either.

Briefly, dogmatism and a dollar will buy you a junior cheeseburger at McDonald's, as far as most of us here are concerned. It takes more than a bald statement of dogma to convince most people, and more than a Biblical proof text. What else have you got?

[justhere]

Contrary to popular thought (even some Christians) being good, or even listening to your conscience, does not save you.

With all due respect, that's your belief; that doesn't make it true. The idea that thinking, something, AKA "holding the correct beliefs," is more important than what a person DOES, isn't something that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.

You're free to believe as you like, but don't expect everyone here to accept your beliefs because you claim their truth "contrary to popular thought." Your say-so isn't enough; the Bible isn't enough, because many (including many believers, like myself) don't agree that it comes directly from God; and threats of Hell and promises of Heaven aren't enough, either.

Briefly, dogmatism and a dollar will buy you a junior cheeseburger at McDonald's, as far as most of us here are concerned. It takes more than a bald statement of dogma to convince most people, and more than a Biblical proof text. What else have you got?

1- THE QUESTION ASKED FOR A CHRISTIAN APOLOGY
She asked for an apologist, which would mean someone who defends the dogma.
I have no proof that there is a Hell or a God or that a sociopaths would be sent to Hell if there is one, but all of those terms were referenced in the question.

The question is from a non-believer, so it's hypothetical. Would a hypothetical God, hypothetically send a sociopath to a hypothetical Hell? I think from the Christian dogma (saying it's true for this scenario) that the answer is no. At least- not solely based on being a sociopath.


2- HYPOTHETICAL
I guess you could answer me "Who would win in a magical duel, a unicorn or a leprechaun?" It's hypothetical, so you'd have to wikipedia it for me. The short answer would be "I don't believe in either of those" but that wasn't part of the hypothetical question.

3- DEBATE INCLUDES BELIEFS, OPINIONS, VIEWS.
I thought this was called Debating Christianity & Religion. The definition of debate includes "opposing views", if I can't use my views or opinions or beliefs, then I can't debate.

Are we comfortable with the definitions of debate, and dogma?

4- NON-APOLOGIST ANSWER.
There is no proof of Hell or God, or Judgement. So stop asking questions.

[justhere]

With all due respect, that's your belief; that doesn't make it true. The idea that thinking, something, AKA "holding the correct beliefs," is more important than what a person DOES, isn't something that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.

Here is the definition of belief-
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Of course belief in something doesn't make it true.

Also- I don't believe that thinking something is more important than what a person DOES.

The verse I posted (again a belief according to Christian dogma, which was in question) talks about how DOING the right thing is sometimes better than paralyzing self-doubt. Though I think what you do and what you believe are both important.

For example, Sociopaths don't have self-doubt about right and wrong because they don't innately understand the difference between the two. In that case their correct/incorrect (or 'thinking errors') and their actions become very important.

Example- A sociopath is angry because someone cut in front of them in line. Their reaction is to murder the person. There is no innate right or wrong giving them direction on the situation, so if a sociopath has a BELIEF system outside of themselves to saying something like, "Murder is not advantageous in this situation" this may lead to an ACTION of sparing someone's life.

[cnorman18]

With all due respect, that's your belief; that doesn't make it true. The idea that thinking, something, AKA "holding the correct beliefs," is more important than what a person DOES, isn't something that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people.

Here is the definition of belief-
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

Of course belief in something doesn't make it true.

And your point is…?

Yeah, we’re expressing different opinions. As you point out, that’s what debate is. I get to express my opinions, too.

Also- I don't believe that thinking something is more important than what a person DOES.

Then you never said this:

Salvation is not based on how good or bad you are, but on a desire to be in union with God, and accepting that Jesus made up the distance between you and God.

If salvation depends on correct belief and not on “how good or bad you are,� doesn’t that make belief more important than actions?

The verse I posted (again a belief according to Christian dogma, which was in question) talks about how DOING the right thing is sometimes better than paralyzing self-doubt. Though I think what you do and what you believe are both important.

For example, Sociopaths don't have self-doubt about right and wrong because they don't innately understand the difference between the two. In that case their correct/incorrect (or 'thinking errors') and their actions become very important.

Example- A sociopath is angry because someone cut in front of them in line. Their reaction is to murder the person. There is no innate right or wrong giving them direction on the situation, so if a sociopath has a BELIEF system outside of themselves to saying something like, "Murder is not advantageous in this situation" this may lead to an ACTION of sparing someone's life.

And the action is all that matters. You can think about killing me 24-7 for the next six months, for all I care; if you try to DO anything about it, we have a problem. Similarly, you can believe that it’s good to feed the hungry and all that, but if you don’t DO anything about it, no one gets fed. Thoughts only matter, either way, if they are manifested in actions -including speech. With this iteration of Christian belief, thoughts - accepting Jesus as one’s personal savior and all that - are inarguably more important than actions. Is baptism salvific without belief? Ask any fundamentalist who preaches adult baptism; the answer is, No. Ergo, belief trumps action.

We disagree. That’s all.

[justhere]

With all due respect, that's your belief; that doesn't make it true.

^
This is redundant. That's why I posted the definition.
^
When I made the first post, I thought we were on the same page that I was stating a belief, but when you stated this, I thought I'd clarify that I know my post was my belief.

Also-
We don't agree when it come to 'having the right beliefs'. Christians do think that's important. But I agree with you that beliefs and actions are important. It's not even biblical to say that all you have to do is believe. It says very clearly several times that faith without action is dead.

[Flashpoint]

1- Salvation is not based on how good or bad you are, but on a desire to be in union with God, and accepting that Jesus made up the distance between you and God. Christians call this Repentance. Also- repentance in return inspires you to live for God. If your love for God is legit it 'bears fruit' of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control. But salvation does not come FROM those traits, they are EVIDENCE.

...

SO- if a sociopath finds some small way in their ability to surrender their will to goodness and love, in a way that is surrendering to Christ. It's up to God how to judge that. God judges the heart, not religion.

So really, it's a level playing field- scripture says so.

So if one desires to be with God then you will be saved? But why would an inherently anti-social person (a sociopath in our case) have any desire to be with any god?

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems to me such a person as a sociopath will have an automatic handicap when it comes to matters of 'salvation'.

If I am born incapable of feeling love, how can God expect me to love him?

She asked for an apologist

I have nothing against the ladies, but would just like to add that I have a Y-chromosome.

[justhere]

So if one desires to be with God then you will be saved? But why would an inherently anti-social person (a sociopath in our case) have any desire to be with any god?

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems to me such a person as a sociopath will have an automatic handicap when it comes to matters of 'salvation'.

If I am born incapable of feeling love, how can God expect me to love him?

I'm just saying it's possible... a sociopath is not doomed to eternal separation from God if the sociopath surrenders to God (whatever their reasons may be).

We are all handicapped when it comes to surrendering to God. Most of us aren't handicapped completely from morality, or feelings of love, or values... but those don't save us anyway... only surrender does (which is proved through our actions). This may sound wishy-washy, but I think it's the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit that brings people into understanding of surrender, and why it's important. So that has to happen no matter where someone is at, sociopath or not.

Why would a sociopath surrender to God? I'm not sure. I struggle to surrender to God everyday.

I have nothing against the ladies, but would just like to add that I have a Y-chromosome.

sorry dude!

[justhere]

So if one desires to be with God then you will be saved? But why would an inherently anti-social person (a sociopath in our case) have any desire to be with any god?

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems to me such a person as a sociopath will have an automatic handicap when it comes to matters of 'salvation'.

If I am born incapable of feeling love, how can God expect me to love him?

I'm just saying it's possible... a sociopath is not doomed to eternal separation from God if the sociopath surrenders to God (whatever their reasons may be).

We are all handicapped when it comes to surrendering to God. Most of us aren't handicapped completely from morality, or feelings of love, or values... but those don't save us anyway... only surrender does (which is proved through our actions). This may sound wishy-washy, but I think it's the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit that brings people into understanding of surrender, and why it's important. So that has to happen no matter where someone is at, sociopath or not.

Why would a sociopath surrender to God? I'm not sure. I struggle to surrender to God everyday.

I have nothing against the ladies, but would just like to add that I have a Y-chromosome.

sorry dude!

[Slopeshoulder]

Christianity preaches many noble virtues such as compassion and empathy (though these do not always manifest in similar actions) and that one can attain forgiveness and access to heaven through accepting the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Sociopaths (people suffering from Antisocial Personality Disorder) are known for their lack of empathy, and in more severe cases a lack of most recognisably human emotions. They also exibit persistent criminal or morally unacceptable behavior. To date there is no known way of treating and curing this psychological defect.

So my question is this:

If one is born to be a person who lacks most of what makes us human (including a moral compass) how can God condemn such a person to hell for simply being what he/she is?

Standard Jewish answer: Don't know; don't know that God does or will do that; don't know that there is a Hell in the first place.

God is the only Judge. What happens after we die, we leave up to Him. Might as well; we have no way of doing anything else, or of knowing what's going to happen.

In any case, the moral question is never about what one IS; it's about what one DOES. As a person with an autism-related spectrum disorder, I don't feel empathy for most people, either; I am deeply emotionally impaired in some ways even I don't understand. That doesn't mean I don't hold any moral responsibility if I murder someone.

You don't have to FEEL empathetic to behave decently. One of the more repugnant ideas of modern times is the idea that if you FEEL something, it must be okay to DO it - and that if you DON'T feel something, it's somehow hypocritical to act as if you do. That may apply to religious professions of belief, but it doesn't apply - not at all - to not murdering people. I don't care if you feel that it's not wrong or doesn't affect you or whatever. If you don't see a problem with it, we're going to lock your butt up till you do.

I only read this far and I LOVE this post.

[Slopeshoulder]

If one is born to be a person who lacks most of what makes us human (including a moral compass) how can God condemn such a person to hell for simply being what he/she is?

It's simply one of those "god" mysteries. Just like he can condemn homosexuals to hell for simply being what he/she is. Ask not why your gods tells you what he does, but ask how you can help him do it. "God, what is the best way to kill homosexuals?"*

* Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

I'm new here, and I'm sorry, but did someone just advocate the killing of gay people? is that allowed? (Is that not hate speech?) Or did I miss the irony? If so, sorry.
I'm straight FWIW, but gobsmacked and getting my feathers up.

I do agree that of there is a god there's plenty of mystery attached, but not the kind of mystery that would pick one text, interpret it literally, justify or advocate killing, and then post this on a non-nazi site. Did I misinterpret?
Or were you being ironic ans saying the opposite of what I took it to mean?