I'm glad that you're catching on to what I'm saying. But let's also put it this way: When a murderer commits his homicide, it's not the victim (deceased) who comes forth to forgive him (duh, they're dead), but the survivors: friends, family, and even community. Because there is more than one victim, and different levels and kinds of victimization. Is it appropriate for the mom to forgive the murderer of her daughter? I think we'd say yeah, because she was a victim, too.

OK, so when Hitler murdered all those innocent people, his crime was against them but it was also against God. It was an outrage against humanity and against the God who created them to have life. Joseph expresses the same kind of thought when he is tempted to adultery in Genesis 39.9. His sinning with Pot's wife would be a crime against his boss and is also a sin against God. Hitler's crime was against those people, their families, their religion, their communities, and against humanity at large. But it was also a sin against God. Therefore God, like the mom in the first example, is in a place to forgive him (or not too, as the case may be), for the infraction was multi-leveled.

As someone says if there is no victim, there is no crime. I agree that crime and punishment and morality are not absolutes, it changes over time.

Coming back the topic, I am totally fine for a design where Hitler could go to heaven provided all the people who he has pained have forgiven him. But for a third party (God) to forgive the perpetrator would not be a sensible thing from the victims' point of view. If that happens (Like the court in our case where a Judge decides to send someone to jail or not), there should be a place and time where the victims could argue and fight for justice (In whichever way the victims' seem sensible, it could be a simple sorry, or spending time in jail (hell), or monetary benefits etc).

In short, I am totally fine for Jesus/God to forgive Hitler, but only after giving the victims a fair chance to ask/fight for justice. Till then, Hitler could be in an in-between place. That would have been great, so not just repentance, but repentance PLUS a possible court case in front of God?

Then we can approach it from that vantage point. What is the nature of true forgiveness? I guess I would argue that true forgiveness is from the heart and based on sincere repentance. But if I ask you to achieve a certain level of integrity or morality, or to pay back a certain amount for damages, those are other things, namely character development and restitution, respectively. While I value both moral character development and just restitution, I see them as separate entities from forgiveness. Character development is a noble pursuit, and obviously deeply needed in a depraved and perverse person such as Hitler.

Question #1: Does he need to show character development as a requirement of forgiveness? I would say no, but his success at character development after forgiveness would prove to me the sincerity of his repentance and desire to change.

Question #2: Does he need to pay restitution before he can be forgiven? That's a judgment call. It's not necessary, but it sure would be helpful. Again, the payment of restitution is a separate issue from my willingness to forgive him.

To address both questions 1 & 2, we have all read in the papers where someone who was a victim of a violent crime chose to forgive the perpetrator without any show on the perp's part of character change or restitution paid. Is that unjust? I have even read of people becoming friends with a family member's murderer, to show love, grace, and mercy to the person despite what they have done. One may judge such actions as foolish and misguided, but another may evaluate them as the deepest love and grace they've ever witnessed.

What I'm saying is that the act of forgiveness stands apart from the separate, though possibly related, issues of character change and restitution. And there is nothing about graceful and merciful forgiveness that makes a person unjust or stupid.

You could take it as baiting, for me it's doubt in the the ideology that more than a billion people follow. Also I explicitly mentioned to substitute Hitler with any other that acts against 21st century. My real concern is about the justice of someone who is willing to allow someone so heinous to come to my house (Heaven).

This seems to be just baiting: Let's think of the most extreme and barbaric example possible, put a twist on it, and bait Christians into a ridiculous scenario. I'll choose to answer you this way:

1. God is a God of forgiveness for sin. God is clear that those who turn to him in sincere repentance, because they want to enter into a love relationship, can and will be forgiven.

2. God is clear that even though our status of salvation has nothing to do with works, our level of rewards or punishments in heaven or hell have everything to do with it. People will be treated according to what they did while they were alive.

3. God's treatment of everyone is based on themselves, not on what other people did to them. How God would deal with Hitler has nothing to do with how he will treat the people who were victims of his atrocities. Each person will stand before God for what they did while they were alive, not for what others did to them.

Hi,

I understand that repentance is one way by which God can forgive you of all sins. Hypothetically speaking, if Hitler had repented seconds before his death, what are the chances of him making to heaven. If he got admitted to heaven, what about the countless people who were offended, violated and pained by his doings? You could substitute Hitler with anyone who rapes, or does heinous crimes as per 21st century morality.

Thanks