Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[pocaracas]

Howdy

Hey, before I get started on this one, did you miss my post 572 on this thread?

Odd… I thought I’d answered it… Maybe I just read it on the phone (and I avoid replying in there, unless it’s something short and quick)…

Let’s see what it was about:

Oh, I get it! You are using a different understanding of forgiveness. I am using this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgiveness

I can’t be the judge. The question is, if you had any resentment towards the person, after you understand, do you forgive (wiki defn)? Do you hold his actions against him?

Can you see the mosquito perception?

You can understand the other’s reasons for acting the way s/he did, and persist in harboring negative feelings towards that other person.
Often thinking that the person “should have done something else”, or “should have known better”.

Can I forgive a mass murderer due to understanding that he was visualizing all his victims as mere mosquitoes? NO. He should have known they were human beings and should have acted in accordance.
Of course, thinking of others as mosquitoes may be the symptom of an underlying psychological problem with either physiological or sociological causes. One can blame his upbringing, one can blame his parents… but the ultimate decision to kill people comes from him. Hence, he is the guilty party and the negative feelings he elicits from me do not just disappear.
I’m on board in the train that claims that the human brain is a deterministic biological machine, so, at some deep level, there is no conscious blame to be attributed.
But at a higher level, consciousness should be aware of the consequences of such acts - death of other people - and that is what that serial killer should be aware of, but wasn’t… or refused to be…

This is not saying “no” to love, it is saying “no” to a vocabulary. It does show perhaps an unappreciation for a universal generic warm fuzzy. If so, that is a “rejection”, but it is not a rejection that I would hold against someone, and neither does the God I know. It is an unwitting rejection from my POV, if it can be classified as a “rejection”.

Well then, many atheists are safe from such an act of rejection!
Not all people who claim to be atheists, though… some do fit in the “angry at God” bill… although, down deep, they’re mostly angry at their upbringing in what becomes perceived as a lie. It’s never nice to realize you’ve been lied to, all your life.

Well, “love” is more than an emotion, in the Christian sense. Love includes a will to love, a commitment. Love is an inclusion rather than an exclusion, so it has a subtle universal dimension there - it involves what draws us together. When I love someone, I am including them in my “self”, they are part of me. It is an appreciation and connection at the deepest of levels. It is a complete tying together of my own good and that of another.

So, if someone does not see this tie to the other (especially to someone they have hurt), do they know what they are doing? Nope.

Can you see the relevance of such a tie? Yet, I stand to testify that experiencing such a tie is in the realm of human possibility. The “tie” is our oneness.

I can understand love towards another human being… even towards another animal… and even towards some other things (fictional characters, dolls, imaginary friends).
But to claim that there’s an entity that is like the “elementary particle of love” is just weird.

I read on the other thread that you were a physicist. All those weird particles, coming from nowhere and having all of those bizarre characteristics, by faith in science we sense that we will come to an answer, but will we ever answer the simple “why?” through science? The lack of story in science, addressing the “why?” is for me supplied by a Christian story.

That’s what’s called a loaded question.
This “why” presupposes an intent… a conscious intent.
Often, in human language, people ask “why” questions when they actually mean to ask “how”, like “why is the sky blue?”, “Why do some trees drop their leaves in the fall?”, etc… This then leads one to ask such questions as “why is there gravity?” “why is there a universe?”… which can only really be answered as if they are “how” questions.
The “why” question makes no sense, unless you posit a conscious entity behind those events… of course, any attempt to answer such “why” questions, purposefully avoiding the “how” bit, will land you in the extra-cosmical consciousness often identified as God… but that’s what the question presupposes, in the first place… so no surprise there.

 

[OneSheep]

Odd… I thought I’d answered it… Maybe I just read it on the phone (and I avoid replying in there, unless it’s something short and quick)…

Let’s see what it was about:

You can understand the other’s reasons for acting the way s/he did, and persist in harboring negative feelings towards that other person.
Often thinking that the person “should have done something else”, or “should have known better”.

Can I forgive a mass murderer due to understanding that he was visualizing all his victims as mere mosquitoes? NO. He should have known they were human beings and should have acted in accordance.
Of course, thinking of others as mosquitoes may be the symptom of an underlying psychological problem with either physiological or sociological causes. One can blame his upbringing, one can blame his parents… but the ultimate decision to kill people comes from him. Hence, he is the guilty party and the negative feelings he elicits from me do not just disappear.

Good Morning - er, afternoon.

My thinking is that whenever we use the word “should” in terms of a person’s behavior, it is our conscience speaking. The person violated our conscience, and we harbor negative feelings. If one still harbors negative feelings, then one still does not understand. When I am in the process of forgiving, to me the understanding comes in layers. The person has violated a whole bunch of my rules, and through understanding the negativity gradually isappears.

So, there is a “next” question. When there is negativity, there is always a next question! Let’s assume that he did not “know better”.

Why did he not know better?

I’m on board in the train that claims that the human brain is a deterministic biological machine, so, at some deep level, there is no conscious blame to be attributed.
But at a higher level, consciousness should be aware of the consequences of such acts - death of other people - and that is what that serial killer should be aware of, but wasn’t… or refused to be…

Yes, “why wasn’t he aware?”. It would also be worthwhile to investigate why he would refuse awareness. In Catholic teachings, God assesses more blame based on the type of ignorance. (Of course, this is all along the line of thinking that God forgives conditionally, which is understandable, but I do not agree.).

Well then, many atheists are safe from such an act of rejection!
Not all people who claim to be atheists, though… some do fit in the “angry at God” bill… although, down deep, they’re mostly angry at their upbringing in what becomes perceived as a lie. It’s never nice to realize you’ve been lied to, all your life.

Well, then, perhaps you may see how the tables turn! Atheists are indeed “safe” from rejection by me and God-as-I-know-Him. Atheists who reject God-who-forgives-conditionally condemn and reject atheists because “they should know better”, and are certain that they are destined for hell because “they should have known better”.

I can understand love towards another human being… even towards another animal… and even towards some other things (fictional characters, dolls, imaginary friends).
But to claim that there’s an entity that is like the “elementary particle of love” is just weird.

Yes, that is a bit weird. On the other hand, particle physics is weird. I am not claiming that there is a “God particle”. I think that in some way God is in all the particles.

That’s what’s called a loaded question.
This “why” presupposes an intent… a conscious intent.
Often, in human language, people ask “why” questions when they actually mean to ask “how”, like “why is the sky blue?”, “Why do some trees drop their leaves in the fall?”, etc… This then leads one to ask such questions as “why is there gravity?” “why is there a universe?”… which can only really be answered as if they are “how” questions.
The “why” question makes no sense, unless you posit a conscious entity behind those events… of course, any attempt to answer such “why” questions, purposefully avoiding the “how” bit, will land you in the extra-cosmical consciousness often identified as God… but that’s what the question presupposes, in the first place… so no surprise there.

No load intended! Yes, the human mind naturally goes to “What is the purpose to all of this?” and “where did I come from?” and “where am I going?”. Because there seems to be a purpose for things in the microcosm, there is intuitively a purpose for things in the macrocosm. Why is there gravity? Can indeed be answered in the framework of faith, the only difference is that there is no physical proof of a faith response. We have this problem with creating a controlled experiment. But remember, I don’t base faith on anything provable. It is all very subjective for me.

If the question presupposes God, the supposition is on the part of the one who asks, the one who receives, or both. We cannot avoid presuppositions; we can do our best to be aware of them, though. I can see that you have put away the questions in your own way, perhaps “there is no purpose”, “I came from my parents”, and “I’m not going anywhere when I die, and I don’t want to go anywhere.” Well, I like my answers better.

 

[OneSheep]

The short answer is yes, because God gave us all free will and we can exercise that will as we choose. So does anyone willingly reject God? Sure.

Does God ever willingly reject anyone? I don’t think so, for that would be a rejection of himself. I feel that God is omnipresent, meaning he lives within all things and in each of us. Even those who “reject God” are merely facets of Himself, living out the human condition and exercising their right to free will.

Good morning, and thanks for your contribution, Wezzyfish.

I agree that God never rejects anyone, but my claim is based on His unconditional love. There is a bit of mystery about our own autonomy. God is in all of us, but we still have a separate mind in some way. It is very mysterious.

I think that people may reject what they think is God, but actually they are rejecting something that is not God. For example, an atheist may see no evidence for God, and is thinking “If there is a God, he is not benevolent” or something like that. His subsequent rejection is not a rejection of God. It is my claim that if and when people know God, they simply do not reject Him.

In addition, if a person does somewhat know God, the person, as human, can be subject to blindness, which makes for the possibility of rejection.

In all cases, though, people who reject do not know what they are doing, as what happened when they hung Jesus on the cross.

If you can think of a counterexample, let me know! Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Regarding the topic " Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?"

Apparently, you both have never confronted “a” serial killer(s). Thank God we have the FBI to track 'em down. There is NO God present in a serial killer. A serial killer is a “happy” killer.

Hi LB,

I understand your sentiment, but what I am looking for here is whether the serial killer knowingly and willingly rejects God.

The way to understand the person who kills many is to first ask, “why did he kill?”.

Have you ever approached the question, or does your mind, understandably, reject the question altogether?

Thanks for your response.

 

[pocaracas]

Good afternoon - er, morning.

My thinking is that whenever we use the word “should” in terms of a person’s behavior, it is our conscience speaking. The person violated our conscience, and we harbor negative feelings. If one still harbors negative feelings, then one still does not understand. When I am in the process of forgiving, to me the understanding comes in layers. The person has violated a whole bunch of my rules, and through understanding the negativity gradually isappears.

So, there is a “next” question. When there is negativity, there is always a next question! Let’s assume that he did not “know better”.

Why did he not know better?

I’d say we use the word “should” when it is the behavior expected by the people in society. Not just “my conscience” speaking, but a collective “conscience”.

Why did he not know better?.. he wasn’t taught the rules of society? doubtful, since he wasn’t raised by wolves… he just didn’t care? The onus is on him alone, then.

Yes, “why wasn’t he aware?”. It would also be worthwhile to investigate why he would refuse awareness. In Catholic teachings, God assesses more blame based on the type of ignorance. (Of course, this is all along the line of thinking that God forgives conditionally, which is understandable, but I do not agree.).

yeah… you think he forgives everyone unconditionally, right?
The concept of hell becomes a distraction, instead of an actual possibility for the afterlife, huh?

Well, then, perhaps you may see how the tables turn! Atheists are indeed “safe” from rejection by me and God-as-I-know-Him. Atheists who reject God-who-forgives-conditionally condemn and reject atheists because “they should know better”, and are certain that they are destined for hell because “they should have known better”.

hmmm… I think you’re taking a whack at me, but are missing the mark!

Yes, that is a bit weird. On the other hand, particle physics is weird. I am not claiming that there is a “God particle”. I think that in some way God is in all the particles.

yeah… the “love particle” was more of a metaphor…

No load intended!

No worries, I didn’t think you did.
I know it’s a common conditioning of the mind and it’s not restricted to the english language.

If the question presupposes God, the supposition is on the part of the one who asks, the one who receives, or both. We cannot avoid presuppositions; we can do our best to be aware of them, though. I can see that you have put away the questions in your own way, perhaps “there is no purpose”, “I came from my parents”, and “I’m not going anywhere when I die, and I don’t want to go anywhere.” Well, I like my answers better.

I don’t doubt you do like your answer better. It is a comforting answer.
Mine can, in some people, lead to depression or something similar. It doesn’t affect me.
I’m happy that my answer is the one that seems the most accurate.

 

[OneSheep]

Good afternoon - er, morning.

I’d say we use the word “should” when it is the behavior expected by the people in society. Not just “my conscience” speaking, but a collective “conscience”.

By golly, you do speak for the collective conscience!
Seriously, though, we have to own our consciences. Everyone’s is a little different, and the reactions we have are triggered; it is the “fast thinking”, thinking that does not originate in the frontal lobes. So, our own conscience reacts to the stimulus, and later we can reflect with the frontal lobes and say “that is a negative everyone can agree with”. True? Later still, we can take steps to understand and forgive, if that is in one’s discipline or one tires of holding a grudge.

Why did he not know better?.. he wasn’t taught the rules of society? doubtful, since he wasn’t raised by wolves… he just didn’t care? The onus is on him alone, then.

The onus would still be on him even if he were raised by wolves, pocaracas. Yes, I think you are right, he did not care. “knowing better” is much more than simply knowing the rules, he was prepared to die after the murders. Knowing better meant knowing value.

Why didn’t he care?

yeah… you think he forgives everyone unconditionally, right?
The concept of hell becomes a distraction, instead of an actual possibility for the afterlife, huh?

As Catholics we believe that man has “free will”. Catholics also believe that hell is chosen; God does not “send” people there. There is no “gotcha” in my view either. I don’t believe anyone ever chooses hell, so I don’t think about it much. Many Catholics do, though. It is a big motivator for some people.

I’m happy that my answer is the one that seems the most accurate.

Maybe, (scientifically speaking) but my Dad is bigger than yours.

So, why didn’t the mass murderer care?

 

[pocaracas]

By golly, you do speak for the collective conscience!

“We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.”

Seriously, though, we have to own our consciences. Everyone’s is a little different, and the reactions we have are triggered; it is the “fast thinking”, thinking that does not originate in the frontal lobes. So, our own conscience reacts to the stimulus, and later we can reflect with the frontal lobes and say “that is a negative everyone can agree with”. True? Later still, we can take steps to understand and forgive, if that is in one’s discipline or one tires of holding a grudge.

One tires of holding a grudge?.. I’ve seen people holding them and taking them to the grave.
small tip: never say “everyone”… there are so many people that there’s bound to be some exception.
Also, never say “never”.

The onus would still be on him even if he were raised by wolves, pocaracas. Yes, I think you are right, he did not care. “knowing better” is much more than simply knowing the rules, he was prepared to die after the murders. Knowing better meant knowing value.

Why didn’t he care?

Maybe he didn’t have anything to lose and just wanted to have some fun (in a weird way)…?

As Catholics we believe that man has “free will”. Catholics also believe that hell is chosen; God does not “send” people there. There is no “gotcha” in my view either. I don’t believe anyone ever chooses hell, so I don’t think about it much. Many Catholics do, though. It is a big motivator for some people.

Indeed… many claim that choice is done while living in this world and that rejection of God (the one in the OP) stems from such a choice… right?
Or can the choice be done post-death, in the supposed afterlife where one can be a bit more cognizant?

Maybe, (scientifically speaking) but my Dad is bigger than yours.

Oh… it’s a d**k measuring contest, is it?

So, why didn’t the mass murderer care?

It’s complex… his dad didn’t care for him… his mum was a prostitute… he was raised in a brothel… his school mates kept making fun of him… he grew up to resent them… in time, he hit one of them and his parents complained and got him expelled from school… he roamed from school to school, never making friends, his resentment of others ever growing… until he god his hands on some means to get revenge. He liked it, so he just kept doing it… it became a drug… an addiction… he just kept going and going.
Wacky life stories exist aplenty, we don’t need to manufacture one, but that was pretty crazy! (the starting bit, I got inspired by a youtube video I saw today about Richard Pryor. )

 

[OneSheep]

“We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.”

Duly noted.

One tires of holding a grudge?.. I’ve seen people holding them and taking them to the grave.
small tip: never say “everyone”… there are so many people that there’s bound to be some exception.
Also, never say “never”.

Yes, some people do take their grudges to the grave. I am thinking that some grudge-keeping actually helps construct the conscience, but ultimately we are better off forgiving in the long run.

Everyone never knowingly and willingly rejects God. It works - sometimes. I’m still waiting for that “exception”!

So, my question was, "Why didn’t the murderer care about what he was doing?

Maybe he didn’t have anything to lose and just wanted to have some fun (in a weird way)…?

Yes, we know that he had nothing to lose, he had already written his suicide notes. His life was worthless in his eyes. Can you relate to this? I know what it is like to be very depressed, not wanting to live, not valuing life itself. Should I “know better” at those times? Sure, but my “knowing” is compromised by depression.

Let’s go to the other end of the emotional compromise, desire to be in control. The guy had control issues, for sure. He was angry at God about something, probably something he did not think he had control over - for instance, his desire to molest. Despair is what we feel when we are feeling out of control, right? So yes, when he decided to throw his worthless life (in his eyes) away, he was free to take control in whatever way he wanted, and this may have been very “fun” for him, in a very distorted way. He may have been acting out his own notion of being the embodiment of evil.

It’s complex… his dad didn’t care for him… his mum was a prostitute… he was raised in a brothel… his school mates kept making fun of him… he grew up to resent them… in time, he hit one of them and his parents complained and got him expelled from school… he roamed from school to school, never making friends, his resentment of others ever growing… until he god his hands on some means to get revenge. He liked it, so he just kept doing it… it became a drug… an addiction… he just kept going and going.
Wacky life stories exist aplenty, we don’t need to manufacture one, but that was pretty crazy! (the starting bit, I got inspired by a youtube video I saw today about Richard Pryor. )

For the benefit of any readers taking offense, neither you or I would be saying that these things are causative, but they are factors that may lead up to his low valuing of, and resentment towards, most people. These are not reasons to “feel sorry for him”, but they can be means of understanding him. These are not condonations of his behavior, but explanations of how a human can do seemingly unhuman acts. If we can dispense enough of our own negative feelings toward the guy, then we may be able to objectively understand the explanations and see the murderer as, to some degree, a victim of his own mind, which was formed by his processing of and reactions to his lifelong experiences.

So, pocaracas, yes, he “should” have known better, but are you satisfied with the explanations as to why he did not, or do you still hold some negative feelings toward him?

In addition, do you want to look into the possibility of his refusal to “know better”? We did not address that yet.

 

[OneSheep]

pocaracas:

]Indeed… many claim that choice is done while living in this world and that rejection of God (the one in the OP) stems from such a choice… right?
Or can the choice be done post-death, in the supposed afterlife where one can be a bit more cognizant?

Well, Catholics do believe in some kind of “purging” or preparation for heaven. It does make sense that we would come to see more clearly the effects of all of our misdeeds, but this is supposedly only for the “faithful”.

From the CCC:

I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul–a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

So, CCC 1021 is reflecting the “alternative 1” from my post 264, which being an organic view, should always remain part of our doctrine, IMO. Our nature demands such a view, which stems from the natural conscience. It is the God=Conscience view.

While the conscience demands that all misdeeds be punished, and rejection of God severely punished, the second alternative, which sometimes shows itself in the CCC (such as 399) and is quite apparent in Pope Francis’ “God always forgives us” as well as the words from other saints and theologians, is the view that God’s mercy is unlimited, that absolutely nothing (not even death) stands in the way of God’s love. It is only by a completely aware refusal that a person would ever live apart from God - and you know that I observe that people don’t ever do such rejection.

Supporting this view are the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus’ forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross, and the proclamation that God will “hold bound” what the Church holds bound. And since the call for forgiveness is primary, the whole Church is commanded to forgive everyone, so such “holding bound” would always involve forgiveness. The CCC falls short of explaining this alternative, but it is certainly out there. This alternative, as I do not hesitate to repeat, begins with knowing that God loves and forgives unconditionally, and that our call is to do just that, as a means of achieving “perfection”.

And, I must add, atheists are certainly quite able to achieve this aspect of “perfection”.

 

[pocaracas]

Hi OneSheep!

Yes, some people do take their grudges to the grave. I am thinking that some grudge-keeping actually helps construct the conscience, but ultimately we are better off forgiving in the long run.

Everyone never knowingly and willingly rejects God. It works - sometimes. I’m still waiting for that “exception”!

So, my question was, "Why didn’t the murderer care about what he was doing?

I don’t know…
I can make up stories, but none may be accurate enough.
Maybe he was evil incarnate!

Yes, we know that he had nothing to lose, he had already written his suicide notes. His life was worthless in his eyes. Can you relate to this? I know what it is like to be very depressed, not wanting to live, not valuing life itself. Should I “know better” at those times? Sure, but my “knowing” is compromised by depression.

Oh… depression… I can’t relate. I’ve never been at that state… and hope never to be.
It seems to be a perturbation of cognitive reasoning… you apply too much weight to some irrelevant things and too little to the relevant ones. It’s not a matter of not knowing… it’s a matter of incorrect perception of the importance of each thing.
Then, once in a while, things come in to focus, and people realize what they’ve done… and kill themselves.
It’s stupid… it’s strange that such a mechanism would naturally evolve… but I don’t study that… maybe someone has already thought about this.
It’s also strange that such a mechanism would have been purposefully built in by some creator, no?

Let’s go to the other end of the emotional compromise, desire to be in control. The guy had control issues, for sure. He was angry at God about something, probably something he did not think he had control over - for instance, his desire to molest. Despair is what we feel when we are feeling out of control, right? So yes, when he decided to throw his worthless life (in his eyes) away, he was free to take control in whatever way he wanted, and this may have been very “fun” for him, in a very distorted way. He may have been acting out his own notion of being the embodiment of evil.

The crazy things people do under certain “delusions”, huh?

Perhaps it would be important to teach people about psychology, as a mandatory subject at school?.. with emphasis on trying to keep deviant behavior in check and also how to seek help if it seems to become out of control.
Many people go through life with mental problems that never get diagnosed. Some snap…

For the benefit of any readers taking offense, neither you or I would be saying that these things are causative, but they are factors that may lead up to his low valuing of, and resentment towards, most people. These are not reasons to “feel sorry for him”, but they can be means of understanding him. These are not condonations of his behavior, but explanations of how a human can do seemingly unhuman acts. If we can dispense enough of our own negative feelings toward the guy, then we may be able to objectively understand the explanations and see the murderer as, to some degree, a victim of his own mind, which was formed by his processing of and reactions to his lifelong experiences.

Oh yeah… certainly those were factor that can lead to a particular outcome, but not certain, by any means.

So, pocaracas, yes, he “should” have known better, but are you satisfied with the explanations as to why he did not, or do you still hold some negative feelings toward him?

Ah… depression… the poor sod was depressed and didn’t know about it (?), so he let the depression take hold of his actions… huh?
No, he still should have known better. He should have tried to find medical help to treat the depression.

In addition, do you want to look into the possibility of his refusal to “know better”? We did not address that yet.

His refusal to know better… hmmm…
Possibly brought on by the depression itself.
Possibly the refusal to acknowledge the depression as a mental problem stems from some societal repulsion at such “diseases”. Psychologists and psychiatrists have battled for decades to get some recognition… it’s trickling into people’s minds… but slowly, so very slowly.
People, in general, aren’t very keen to admit they have brain damage… but many do, have it… specially in America, where such brain damage can be caused by some particularly rough sports and by explosions felt by many, abroad, on duty (nationalgeographic.com/healing-soldiers/blast-force.html).

 

[pocaracas]

Well, Catholics do believe in some kind of “purging” or preparation for heaven. It does make sense that we would come to see more clearly the effects of all of our misdeeds, but this is supposedly only for the “faithful”.

From the CCC:

So, CCC 1021 is reflecting the “alternative 1” from my post 264, which being an organic view, should always remain part of our doctrine, IMO. Our nature demands such a view, which stems from the natural conscience. It is the God=Conscience view.

While the conscience demands that all misdeeds be punished, and rejection of God severely punished, the second alternative, which sometimes shows itself in the CCC (such as 399) and is quite apparent in Pope Francis’ “God always forgives us” as well as the words from other saints and theologians, is the view that God’s mercy is unlimited, that absolutely nothing (not even death) stands in the way of God’s love. It is only by a completely aware refusal that a person would ever live apart from God - and you know that I observe that people don’t ever do such rejection.

Supporting this view are the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus’ forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross, and the proclamation that God will “hold bound” what the Church holds bound. And since the call for forgiveness is primary, the whole Church is commanded to forgive everyone, so such “holding bound” would always involve forgiveness. The CCC falls short of explaining this alternative, but it is certainly out there. This alternative, as I do not hesitate to repeat, begins with knowing that God loves and forgives unconditionally, and that our call is to do just that, as a means of achieving “perfection”.

And, I must add, atheists are certainly quite able to achieve this aspect of “perfection”.

I’ll try to remember than when I die and come face to face with the big guy.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi OneSheep!

I don’t know…
I can make up stories, but none may be accurate enough.
Maybe he was evil incarnate!

Hey, pocaracas

Are you actually presenting the possibility as a reality? This is the way the mind works, like I said. We see an evil act, and we attribute a negative value to the perpetrator. The negative value is an automatic response. For example, the people of ISIS were persecuted, and they subsequently saw their persecutors as evil “monsters”. This dehumanization must occur in the mind in order for us to “kill the enemy”. I am saying that it is an Evolved Psychological Mechanism (ESM).

The ESM is the reason for hate itself. Does the hate represent a reality? Well, as long as we maintain our emotional resentment toward a person, then it will remain that the hate-triggered perception is a reality. Hitler, Stalin, the people who hung Jesus, the perpetrators of the inquisition were all involved in the destruction of what they perceived as “evil incarnate” (or some other label that communicates a negative value).

Oh… depression… I can’t relate. I’ve never been at that state… and hope never to be.
It seems to be a perturbation of cognitive reasoning… you apply too much weight to some irrelevant things and too little to the relevant ones. It’s not a matter of not knowing… it’s a matter of incorrect perception of the importance of each thing.
Then, once in a while, things come in to focus, and people realize what they’ve done… and kill themselves.
It’s stupid… it’s strange that such a mechanism would naturally evolve… but I don’t study that… maybe someone has already thought about this.
It’s also strange that such a mechanism would have been purposefully built in by some creator, no?

The main effect of depression is the stifling of drive. There is a place for this in the human in terms of survival. There is a time where depression is good for the human, but yes, often depression happens when there is a lack of awareness about something.

The crazy things people do under certain “delusions”, huh?

Perhaps it would be important to teach people about psychology, as a mandatory subject at school?.. with emphasis on trying to keep deviant behavior in check and also how to seek help if it seems to become out of control.
Many people go through life with mental problems that never get diagnosed. Some snap…

If people knew how to understand and forgive, that would go a long way too!

Ah… depression… the poor sod was depressed and didn’t know about it (?), so he let the depression take hold of his actions… huh?
No, he still should have known better. He should have tried to find medical help to treat the depression.

Actually, I think that he was more in a state of despair, feeling out of control. Yes, he should have sought medical help, but he did not.

Which brings us to the next question! (and hey, thanks for your amazing patience!)

Why did he not seek medical help?

His refusal to know better… hmmm…
Possibly brought on by the depression itself.
Possibly the refusal to acknowledge the depression as a mental problem stems from some societal repulsion at such “diseases”. Psychologists and psychiatrists have battled for decades to get some recognition… it’s trickling into people’s minds… but slowly, so very slowly.
People, in general, aren’t very keen to admit they have brain damage… but many do, have it… specially in America, where such brain damage can be caused by some particularly rough sports and by explosions felt by many, abroad, on duty (nationalgeographic.com/healing-soldiers/blast-force.html).

Thanks for the article link. PTSD is very common in our society; they are saying now that rape or any traumatic experience can cause it. There is a strong possibility that Charles Roberts (the perpetrator) had PTSD. Of course this does not excuse what he did, but it may help provide an explanation.

So, why didn’t he seek medical help? (Let’s assume that he did not).

Thanks again!

 

[pocaracas]

hey, hey!

Are you actually presenting the possibility as a reality? This is the way the mind works, like I said. We see an evil act, and we attribute a negative value to the perpetrator. The negative value is an automatic response. For example, the people of ISIS were persecuted, and they subsequently saw their persecutors as evil “monsters”. This dehumanization must occur in the mind in order for us to “kill the enemy”. I am saying that it is an Evolved Psychological Mechanism (ESM).

The ESM is the reason for hate itself. Does the hate represent a reality? Well, as long as we maintain our emotional resentment toward a person, then it will remain that the hate-triggered perception is a reality. Hitler, Stalin, the people who hung Jesus, the perpetrators of the inquisition were all involved in the destruction of what they perceived as “evil incarnate” (or some other label that communicates a negative value).

Ah… no… It was just despair at the number of possibilities… leading up to the most ludicrous - evil incarnate.
I’m with you on this!

The main effect of depression is the stifling of drive. There is a place for this in the human in terms of survival. There is a time where depression is good for the human, but yes, often depression happens when there is a lack of awareness about something.

Now, you’ve made me curious… when can depression be beneficial in terms of survival?

If people knew how to understand and forgive, that would go a long way too!

yes… it could come with the package…

Actually, I think that he was more in a state of despair, feeling out of control. Yes, he should have sought medical help, but he did not.

Which brings us to the next question! (and hey, thanks for your amazing patience!)

Why did he not seek medical help?

Why?..
Some people don’t think they’re depressed;
some people don’t have access to a proper psychologist;
some people don’t trust the one psychologist that’s available to them, geographically; some people don’t want to expose themselves… don’t want to let others know that they have mental problems;
some people think it’s not manly to have mental problems - I’m a man, I can’t have those female diseases - macho mentality - peer pressure…

There may be many more reasons… as many as there are persons with mental problems and not seeing a doctor…

Thanks for the article link. PTSD is very common in our society; they are saying now that rape or any traumatic experience can cause it. There is a strong possibility that Charles Roberts (the perpetrator) had PTSD. Of course this does not excuse what he did, but it may help provide an explanation.

So, why didn’t he seek medical help? (Let’s assume that he did not).
Thanks again!

Sometimes, it helps to read about what others are doing!
hmm… why did you put that we’re assuming he didn’t seek help? Do you know something I don’t? Did he seek medical help?

 

[OneSheep]

Now, you’ve made me curious… when can depression be beneficial in terms of survival?

It’s just speculation, mostly. Given that the human has all these drives: dominance, sex, territory(wealth), status, etc., it would benefit the human that frustration of attempt would lead to some depression of the drives when continued striving may lead to disaster.

Sometimes the internal drives need an “off” button, this comes in the form of depression. The downward spiral happens when one gets depressed about being depressed. I have found that the best solution is to simply “ride it out”.

Why?..
Some people don’t think they’re depressed;
some people don’t have access to a proper psychologist;
some people don’t trust the one psychologist that’s available to them, geographically; some people don’t want to expose themselves… don’t want to let others know that they have mental problems;
some people think it’s not manly to have mental problems - I’m a man, I can’t have those female diseases - macho mentality - peer pressure…

There may be many more reasons… as many as there are persons with mental problems and not seeing a doctor…

Yes, these are all reasons, and there are many more for sure. The question is, do these explanations dissipate the “monster” aspect of Charles’ character? Are these explanations satisfactory, or is there yet some negative feelings you have toward him? This is not a matter of condoning, it is a matter of addressing all of the “monster” aspects.

Sometimes, it helps to read about what others are doing!
hmm… why did you put that we’re assuming he didn’t seek help? Do you know something I don’t? Did he seek medical help?

I see no evidence of it. I did find this:

Fred S. Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist and expert on sexual disorders, said it would be a mistake to accept Roberts’s statement about molesting children years ago as an explanation for what happened Monday. At most, Berlin said, the molestation, if it occurred, is just one piece of a complicated psychiatric puzzle.

“People can develop a major depression and, in the midst of that, begin to feel very guilty and troubled about perceived bad acts in a way that had not been a problem for them in the absence of depression,” Berlin said. “I’m speculating here, but it’s possible he became depressed and then began to be preoccupied and ruminative and guilt-ridden about these events that occurred so many years ago.”

If Roberts did molest two young relatives 20 years ago, when he was 12, it would not necessarily mean he was bound to repeat the behavior as an adult, Berlin said.

Although many adult pedophiles begin their misconduct as young people, “there’s good evidence that a majority of adolescent sexual offenders – if indeed he was that – do not go on to be adult offenders,” Berlin said. “People assume otherwise, but there’s some pretty compelling data suggesting that there are lots of kids who do things of a sexual nature during childhood that they ought not do, and they don’t do it again.”

If Roberts was suffering from depression and became fixated on his long-ago sexual misconduct, fearing that he would repeat the behavior, that could explain suicide, Berlin said.

“That still leaves a tremendous gap in our understanding of how he got from being troubled and guilty about doing that years ago to, in the end, murdering a number of innocent children,” Berlin said. “I mean, there’s a tremendous leap there that we would need to transcend in order to have a better understanding of why he did what he did.”

murderpedia.org/male.R/r/roberts-charles.htm

I think he just sort of “snapped”, and the murders were part of the aftermath. Something became rearranged in his mind. His fear of repeating the molestation behavior was based on the fact that he had some status in his community. His loss of status was equated with death itself, so he chose death. His resentment toward himself, God, etc. put him into a mode of devaluing life itself, and he wanted to destroy the object(s) of his desire. Charles was an insane man who seemed to be fairly skilled at putting up a front showing that he was not.

Did you read about the little girls who said “kill me first” to keep him from killing younger classmates? It is really hard to maintain any composure reading this stuff. I ordinarily avoid it; I don’t even watch the news. Upon reading about the tragedy, my mind goes to “he was a monster” but then when I go back to the “why?” questions, the perception dissipates.

 

[pocaracas]

It’s just speculation, mostly. Given that the human has all these drives: dominance, sex, territory(wealth), status, etc., it would benefit the human that frustration of attempt would lead to some depression of the drives when continued striving may lead to disaster.

Sometimes the internal drives need an “off” button, this comes in the form of depression. The downward spiral happens when one gets depressed about being depressed. I have found that the best solution is to simply “ride it out”.

Some people seem to find themselves riding it out for years… I can imagine that being a tiresome business…
Meds exist to help.

Yes, these are all reasons, and there are many more for sure. The question is, do these explanations dissipate the “monster” aspect of Charles’ character? Are these explanations satisfactory, or is there yet some negative feelings you have toward him? This is not a matter of condoning, it is a matter of addressing all of the “monster” aspects.

One may understand the whole succession of events that lead to the monster snapping… but still… not forgive him for snapping. “If I were in his shoes, I’d probably not snap” or “I wouldn’t snap like that”.
The monster crops up when he decided to act out the path that leads to the harming of others.
Had he snapped and just taken his own life, like many do, he wouldn’t be so monstrous…
Leads one to wonder… most religions I know have some afterlife penalty to suicide… does a monster suffer a heavier penalty?
According to you, no… God forgives it all, for he knows all… right?

I think he just sort of “snapped”, and the murders were part of the aftermath. Something became rearranged in his mind. His fear of repeating the molestation behavior was based on the fact that he had some status in his community. His loss of status was equated with death itself, so he chose death. His resentment toward himself, God, etc. put him into a mode of devaluing life itself, and he wanted to destroy the object(s) of his desire. Charles was an insane man who seemed to be fairly skilled at putting up a front showing that he was not.

Did you read about the little girls who said “kill me first” to keep him from killing younger classmates? It is really hard to maintain any composure reading this stuff. I ordinarily avoid it; I don’t even watch the news. Upon reading about the tragedy, my mind goes to “he was a monster” but then when I go back to the “why?” questions, the perception dissipates.

Well… like I said above, I’m not sure I could forgive him, even if I understood what led him to do it.
Some acts are just too monstrous to forgive…

 

[OneSheep]

One may understand the whole succession of events that lead to the monster snapping… but still… not forgive him for snapping. “If I were in his shoes, I’d probably not snap” or “I wouldn’t snap like that”.
The monster crops up when he decided to act out the path that leads to the harming of others.
Had he snapped and just taken his own life, like many do, he wouldn’t be so monstrous…

It would be interesting to investigate further. If I were in his shoes, I could snap, and I could do what he did. He was backed into a corner with his perceptions, his unwanted desire to molest, his great resentment toward what he perceived as God. Under these conditions, anything can happen in the mind, and it did.

I am wondering what your own mind is doing on a step-by-step basis, is it similar to my own? For example, we both look at what Charles did and we recoil in horror. We immediately feel a big negative toward Charles, he is condemned along with his acts, he is perceived to be a monster, something less than human. Next, since the conscience drives us to punish all wrongdoing, we are also driven to punish Charles severely, even to kill him. The human mind reacts mimetically, and the compulsion to kill Charles is strong. Can you admit that it is there?

However, denial can happen in order to protect self-worth from the compulsion. Indeed, the conscience makes a bit of a loop, reacting to itself. “I should never desire to kill under any circumstances”. If a person of normal conscience (in the modern day) senses a desire to kill, then he condemns the desire, and condemns himself for having the desire.

If a person has the rule, the “should never desire to kill, even monsters” the mind has two options when the desire to kill the monster arises in the mind:

1. “you should never have that desire” pops up immediately. I self-condemn, I feel guilty, and then I subsequently have to take the steps to forgive myself.

or

1. “you should never have that desire” pops up immediately. My mind protects me from the guilt by denying that the desire occurred.

Now, in the case of Charles, we are starting with someone whose chain of events led to the point that because seeing them triggered in him the desire to molest, he came to see the little girls as monsters. In his mind, they represented something evil. It very well may be that he was operating for most of his life on either #1 or #2 above. Then, after a long period of despair or depression over his desire to molest, (i.e. “I cannot molest, or I am sure to experience the “death” of loss of status”, the enormous fight in his mind) what finally “snapped” was his clinging to having to stay alive after he molests. He determines that after he gives into his desires, he destroys the “monsters” and then destroys himself. It is his way out.

Yes, it is a very bizarre set of circumstances, but the mindset is understandable to a person willing to painfully own up to the internal desire to kill monsters. This is what I did in order to understand the “worst” of murderers; I had to painfully admit my own desire to kill what I perceived as “monsters”. The seeing that they (murderers) are as human as I was simultaneous with the admission that I also have the desire to kill what I perceive as monsters.

So, think about it a bit. What happens in your mind? #1 or #2 above? Or, is there another option? (I am sure that there is, btw)

Leads one to wonder… most religions I know have some afterlife penalty to suicide… does a monster suffer a heavier penalty?
According to you, no… God forgives it all, for he knows all… right?

Well… like I said above, I’m not sure I could forgive him, even if I understood what led him to do it.
Some acts are just too monstrous to forgive…

Though most Catholics have somewhat “relaxed” the idea of God condemning suicide, there is certainly no relaxation of what God is perceived to think of other sins, especially murder.

In the case of suicide, a person may not have given full consent of the will. Fear, force, ignorance, habit, passion, and psychological problems can impede the exercise of the will so that a person may not be fully responsible or even responsible at all for an action. Here again the Catechism states, “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (#2282).

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-sin-of-suicide.html

(note: I disagree with the use of “responsible” above. I would substitute the word “blameworthiness” or something like that)

Yes, I forgive Charles because I understand him. I know that God is much more understanding and forgiving than I am, so I cannot imagine God not forgiving Charles. However, I would never understand Charles’ humanity unless I had long ago made the painful admission I described above.

So, the ordinary person’s way of dealing with the desire to kill is the conscience command of “thou shalt not kill”. I still have the rule and the reactions, but then I don’t just “put it away”. When I have the perception of “monster” about someone, there is a disturbance within, therefore I work toward understanding and forgiving the person so that I may regain the stasis of wholeness. Sometimes I have to make some additional “painful admissions”, but I always return to stasis.

Eva Kor (you can look her up) forgave under conditions that you and I will never experience, nor will anyone ever again (I hope) experience. Jesus forgave under even worse circumstances. Imagine the man Jesus, He is suffering greatly, but he looks upon his mother who is suffering even more than He is. Yet, He forgave. It is a Christian value to understand and forgive. I think many atheists take up this value.

 

[pocaracas]

It would be interesting to investigate further. If I were in his shoes, I could snap, and I could do what he did. He was backed into a corner with his perceptions, his unwanted desire to molest, his great resentment toward what he perceived as God. Under these conditions, anything can happen in the mind, and it did.

his desire to molest… keep that in mind…

I am wondering what your own mind is doing on a step-by-step basis, is it similar to my own? For example, we both look at what Charles did and we recoil in horror. We immediately feel a big negative toward Charles, he is condemned along with his acts, he is perceived to be a monster, something less than human. Next, since the conscience drives us to punish all wrongdoing, we are also driven to punish Charles severely, even to kill him. The human mind reacts mimetically, and the compulsion to kill Charles is strong. Can you admit that it is there?

No… I don’t want to kill him.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?
Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

• Gandalf, the grey.

I want to make sure that he never again has a chance at interaction with children… and keep an eye on his children and his grandchildren, for that desire I told you keep in mind may resurface in them.

However, denial can happen in order to protect self-worth from the compulsion. Indeed, the conscience makes a bit of a loop, reacting to itself. “I should never desire to kill under any circumstances”. If a person of normal conscience (in the modern day) senses a desire to kill, then he condemns the desire, and condemns himself for having the desire.

If a person has the rule, the “should never desire to kill, even monsters” the mind has two options when the desire to kill the monster arises in the mind:

I think I’d only wish death on such monsters when they have harmed my own family or my friends… This is why we should always let the justice system deal with the no-gooders… we’d be too emotional for an appropriate response.

Now, in the case of Charles, we are starting with someone whose chain of events led to the point that because seeing them triggered in him the desire to molest, he came to see the little girls as monsters. In his mind, they represented something evil. It very well may be that he was operating for most of his life on either #1 or #2 above.

I don’t think he saw the girls as monsters… more like as easy pickings on where to act out his desires (mainly, the one you remember from above).

Yes, it is a very bizarre set of circumstances, but the mindset is understandable to a person willing to painfully own up to the internal desire to kill monsters. This is what I did in order to understand the “worst” of murderers; I had to painfully admit my own desire to kill what I perceived as “monsters”. The seeing that they (murderers) are as human as I was simultaneous with the admission that I also have the desire to kill what I perceive as monsters.

So, think about it a bit. What happens in your mind? #1 or #2 above? Or, is there another option? (I am sure that there is, btw)

Some monsters need a broad sentence… like ISIS and similar groups who desire to impose their view by force.
Lone monsters, like Charles, need to be dealt with by the justice system.

Now, what can be done about such monsters, if the justice system doesn’t work, like it doesn’t in many places of the world?

Though most Catholics have somewhat “relaxed” the idea of God condemning suicide, there is certainly no relaxation of what God is perceived to think of other sins, especially murder.

In the case of suicide, a person may not have given full consent of the will. Fear, force, ignorance, habit, passion, and psychological problems can impede the exercise of the will so that a person may not be fully responsible or even responsible at all for an action. Here again the Catechism states, “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide” (#2282).

catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-sin-of-suicide.html

(note: I disagree with the use of “responsible” above. I would substitute the word “blameworthiness” or something like that)

Yes, I forgive Charles because I understand him. I know that God is much more understanding and forgiving than I am, so I cannot imagine God not forgiving Charles. However, I would never understand Charles’ humanity unless I had long ago made the painful admission I described above.

So, the ordinary person’s way of dealing with the desire to kill is the conscience command of “thou shalt not kill”. I still have the rule and the reactions, but then I don’t just “put it away”. When I have the perception of “monster” about someone, there is a disturbance within, therefore I work toward understanding and forgiving the person so that I may regain the stasis of wholeness. Sometimes I have to make some additional “painful admissions”, but I always return to stasis.

well… I’d prefer to have some island where all these screwed up people could go to and not harm anyone.
It may not be very humane, but it’s one way of keeping them out of society and out of harm’s way.
Let them play their own “survivor”.

 

[OneSheep]

his desire to molest… keep that in mind…
No… I don’t want to kill him.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?
Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

• Gandalf, the grey.

I want to make sure that he never again has a chance at interaction with children… and keep an eye on his children and his grandchildren, for that desire I told you keep in mind may resurface in them.

I think I’d only wish death on such monsters when they have harmed my own family or my friends… This is why we should always let the justice system deal with the no-gooders… we’d be too emotional for an appropriate response.

Hi pocaracas

Well, why would you would wish death on Charles if he had killed a friend or family member and not someone else? Would this be so because friends and family are more valued? Yet, I think you would admit that if you valued someone very much who is not a friend or family, your reaction would also be emotional, wanting the worst of punishment for the person who killed. Indeed, in reading about the Holocaust or other slaughters of the innocent, do you not desire death for the killers? The words of the character Ghandalf are there to counteract the natural response.

However, what if the justice system failed you? What if justice was not being carried out, a justice that you are convinced is real and necessary? Would you kill? I am going to assume not. Why not?

I don’t think he saw the girls as monsters… more like as easy pickings on where to act out his desires (mainly, the one you remember from above).

So, did he see the girls as he did his own children, of infinite value? (hopefully he at least saw his children that way) And yes, desire is also a big part of this. Desire, like resentment, also blinds us. When both resentment and desire are involved, there is a double-whammy of blindness.

Some monsters need a broad sentence… like ISIS and similar groups who desire to impose their view by force.
Lone monsters, like Charles, need to be dealt with by the justice system.

Yes, the people of ISIS are carrying out the broad sentence. They and their people were persecuted by the Syrian and Iraqi governments, and the justice systems were corrupt. Now they are carrying out what they see as justice, delivering the broad sentence.

They are blind, but they are carrying out justice. They are not killing what they perceive to be humans, they are killing what they perceive as having negative value. They do not know what they are doing.

Now, what can be done about such monsters, if the justice system doesn’t work, like it doesn’t in many places of the world?
well… I’d prefer to have some island where all these screwed up people could go to and not harm anyone.
It may not be very humane, but it’s one way of keeping them out of society and out of harm’s way.
Let them play their own “survivor”.

No, it would not be humane, because people who perceive monsters, but do not think of forgiving, are likely to continue killing “monsters” if they think they can get away with it. Indeed, our species is a big experiment, is it not? Can people learn how to understand and forgive?

How do we even know when we are blind? We can know we are blind when we see negative value in a fellow human. The blindness is very natural, but we are called to rise above out nature by understanding and forgiving even those who carry out the most horrible acts. This is using the wikipedia definition of forgiveness, of course, I am not talking about condoning behaviors or compromising the protection of society.

Thanks for your response, I am really grateful that you are taking the time here. It seems to me that you generally share my observations, but there is a leap to be made. Our minds so desperately want to punish, and to see good intent or see humanity means letting go of that desire to punish, and we don’t want to do that. Try letting go for a few hours, just for the heck of it. You can always pick it up again. Is it too disgusting to “go there”?

 

[pocaracas]

Hey OneSheep! It’s Sunday, over here!
But the Sun isn’t out…

Well, why would you would wish death on Charles if he had killed a friend or family member and not someone else? Would this be so because friends and family are more valued?

Because, I’m just a survival machine for my genes. And my family are carrying my genes, at least part of them… My friends are close enough to be considered family, as they share some of the same behaviors and values that I have, that my genes direct me to have.

(I’ve been reading Dawkins’ Selfish Gene book and some of it may have rubbed off!)

Yet, I think you would admit that if you valued someone very much who is not a friend or family, your reaction would also be emotional, wanting the worst of punishment for the person who killed. Indeed, in reading about the Holocaust or other slaughters of the innocent, do you not desire death for the killers? The words of the character Ghandalf are there to counteract the natural response.

The natural response has evolved to concern the tribe elements.
Nowadays, the tribe has lost a bit of meaning… we belong to a country, typically a damn big country (compared to a tribe) and full of lots of people we don’t know.

We are led to apply that natural response to our countrymen.

And, in a global village, we are to apply it to the whole world.

• Destroy those harming good, innocent folk.
• Destroy those who are preventing good, innocent genes from thriving.

However, what if the justice system failed you? What if justice was not being carried out, a justice that you are convinced is real and necessary? Would you kill? I am going to assume not. Why not?

I can’t say what I’d do for certain, but I’d guess that I would kill under some circumstances.
Within my society, I see no reason to do so… but, if I ever find myself in another kind of society… who knows?

So, did he see the girls as he did his own children, of infinite value? (hopefully he at least saw his children that way) And yes, desire is also a big part of this. Desire, like resentment, also blinds us. When both resentment and desire are involved, there is a double-whammy of blindness.

I doubt he saw any value in them, except as discardable play things…

No, it would not be humane, because people who perceive monsters, but do not think of forgiving, are likely to continue killing “monsters” if they think they can get away with it. Indeed, our species is a big experiment, is it not? Can people learn how to understand and forgive?

People can learn anything.
“big experiment”? why do you say that?

How do we even know when we are blind? We can know we are blind when we see negative value in a fellow human.

Shouldn’t we then try to teach people to realize when they are seeing negative value in a fellow human?

Thanks for your response, I am really grateful that you are taking the time here. It seems to me that you generally share my observations, but there is a leap to be made. Our minds so desperately want to punish, and to see good intent or see humanity means letting go of that desire to punish, and we don’t want to do that. Try letting go for a few hours, just for the heck of it. You can always pick it up again. Is it too disgusting to “go there”?

Thanks. You’re making me think a bit
Yes, I think we’re almost on the same track here… but you let them monsters get away with more than I do.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Perhaps they reject what they perceive to be God without really knowing him. I guess the shame in that is they never tried to get to know the one who made them. Or they gave up on him.