Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Amandil]

For God’s sake, Tony. You are the epitome of a broken record.

The principles are woorthy if existence was only to last a day, let alone a lifetime.

The problem is that in the face of the evidence, which you should be all about, that when it comes to those forms of atheism which took power in the last century and a half, such “concepts” coming from such secularists amount to nothing but empty platitudes.

 

[Peebo]

I don’t know what I would classify my brother as…an atheist??..even an atheist can reject God in a civilized manner…my brother not only rejects God…but the mere mention of religion sets him off on a tirade of cursing and mocking God…he or his wife have no faith whatsoever…his children who are adults have never been baptized…never set foot in a church…he was raised in the Anglican church as a kid.same as all the rest of us…confirmed…he has never had any trauma in his life …been married for 40 years…they both have well paid jobs and live comfortable lives…he would give you the shirt off his back through his generosity…never a violent person…why he has so much anger and hate towards God is beyond me…it’s no good trying to reason or explain…it just makes things worse…the only thing I can do is pray for him…his soul really is in peril

 

[Bradski]

I don’t know what I would classify my brother as…an atheist??..even an atheist can reject God in a civilized manner…my brother not only rejects God…but the mere mention of religion sets him off on a tirade of cursing and mocking God.

Good grief. That description above was all too close to home.

But It sounds like your brother is not a fan of religion. Not someone who rejects your God. You can’t be angry with something you don’t believe exists. But you can be angry at religion. And the attitudes of some religious people, as you may have noticed. But we all have a cross to bear.

Next time religion comes up in discussion, tell him that you are very happy where you are in relation to God. Tell him that if he is happy where he is, then you’re happy for him. You’ll have the nice brother you always wanted.

Then quote some scripture and tell him you are going to pray for his immortal soul and see what happens.

Let me know his reaction.

 

[tonyrey]

Most people hold the principles of liberty, equality and - above all - fraternity as valuable but they don’t have a* rational ***

You mean for the devil’s sake, Brad.

You are the epitome of a broken record.

The truth bears repetition even if unpalatable…

The principles are worthy if existence was only to last a day, let alone a lifetime.

They are worthy of respect regardless of time and space but are they are based on opinion or fact? You can’t have it both ways…

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve gone over this before with you. They had sufficient knowledge that the man, Jesus, was a man sent from God, and that they were putting an innocent man to death.

Well, they may have had the information, true, that He was innocent. They also had the information that He was guilty, and the authorities supported the latter. What this aspect boils down to is “Why did the crowd crucify Jesus?” and, since we only have our own experiences and knowledge to draw from (we have little to infer based on the Gospel about what was going on in their minds) the question quickly becomes “Why would I have crucified Jesus?” Indeed, we have an opportunity every year to be the crowd during the mass before Easter.

Why would you have crucified Jesus, Amandil? I know my answer, but my answer is based on my outlook. What about you?

Uh oh, there I go, making it about us again. I know, you would like to stick to the objective facts. There are very few. Do not feel obligated to answer my question. I think the question is very pertinent, though.

You don’t need to have complete knowledge of an act to have sufficient knowledge that the act is sinful and thus be guilty in the committing of said act.

It depends on the use of “sufficient”, I think. If we are trying to be in control of society by use of applied consequence, then we must say that knowledge of the law is sufficient to know that a bad act is wrong, and that even ignorance of the law is not a means to withholding punitive action.

In the sense, though that an act is “sinful”, to me this involves a gradient, as I have opined earlier in this thread. Once a person knows enough about the sinfulness of an act, the person will not commit the act. This is a matter of human nature. There are exceptions, of course, having to do with the occurrence of blindness. However, a person can learn how to know when blindness has been triggered. It takes some practice, in my experience.

One does not need to have “empathy” for a convenient store clerk to know that robbing the convenient store clerk at gunpoint is sinful, and that shooting him in order not to be identified is even more sinful.

I think the gradient applies here again. The person who has no regard for the life of a human is not going to be as aware of the gravity of the sinfulness. “Gravity” is used in the CCC. “Gravity” is not an on/off switch, to me it refers to the development of a conscience.

What this boils down to is i.e. “how can I forgive the psychopath?”. My forgiveness involves understanding the individual in the context of prayer. “Why would I have done that?”

When it comes to mortal sins and the evil perpetrated by them they are so utterly basic and self-evident that feelings such as “empathy” are utterly secondary if at all negligible to the act.

And last time I checked the Catechism, neither “empathy”, or any feelings or passions, were part of any of the criteria regarding the morality of human acts.

Those criteria are the object chosen, the intent, and the circumstances…

All three must be good for the act to be good.

Empathy played a huge role in the development of my conscience. Did it yours too? My catechism put a lot of emphasis on a developmental approach. The child learns right from wrong, “take our word for it”. As the child develops, he learns why some acts are right, and some acts are wrong, and he internalizes the law. Empathy plays a huge role in this. Is that your experience too?

So, empathy is not part of the criteria for morality, rather, it is the means to internalizing morality. Do you agree?

Thank you for the civility of your response to my post. You are a good person, Amandil, and your views are Catholic. I am exposing you to some views that are also Catholic, and I ask for your continued civility and charity. May God bless you, Amandil. Please do not question my sincerity in that prayer. We can all be one happy family here at the CAF!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “how can I forgive the psychopath?”. My forgiveness involves understanding the individual in the context of prayer. “Why would I have done that?” . . .

Forgiveness, I do not believe is aided by understanding.
Understanding helps when one takes things personally or when ignorance is the cause of some hurt rather than willfull intention.
In these situations, one does not actually forgive; one just sees things as they are and this diminishes one’s anger, resentment and hate.

This is graphic but such things have happened to people I care about. And conversely, I know people who do such things.
A psychopath may hurt you because he likes it. It may turn him on to see you squirm and beg. He may feel powerful or may be giving back some of what was done to him. To see another crawl through the mud, just as he had to, can give the morally corrupt a sense of justice. Being sodomized and having one’s skin burned by cigarettes for the simple reason that it hurts, is beyond comprehension in that it is no more than exactly what it is. As one breathes one’s last, before one’s throat is slahed, all this will make no sense. I do believe that here one will forgive the attacker in the knowledge that it is God, whom one is about to meet, who sits in judgement. One never really did forgive as He does - it was all about learning how to love. And, becoming a more loving person does not involve distorting reality to the point that sin no longer exists, but seeing it for what it truly is - an affront to God, to Love. Why would I have done that? I wouldn’t, but some people do because that is what we as human beings, do. Heaven help us all.

 

[Bradski]

They are worthy of respect regardless of time and space but are they are based on opinion or fact? You can’t have it both ways…

It’s your opinion that you regard them worthy. As it is mine. And as it has been of a lot of people in a lot of what I’ve read, including scripture. The fact that we agree that they are worthy of respect is sufficient.

And there is the fact of the matter.

 

[Amandil]

Well, they may have had the information, true, that He was innocent. They also had the information that He was guilty, and the authorities supported the latter. What this aspect boils down to is “Why did the crowd crucify Jesus?” and, since we only have our own experiences and knowledge to draw from (we have little to infer based on the Gospel about what was going on in their minds) the question quickly becomes “Why would I have crucified Jesus?” Indeed, we have an opportunity every year to be the crowd during the mass before Easter.

So, IOW, you’re going to dodge the issue.

Why would you have crucified Jesus, Amandil? I know my answer, but my answer is based on my outlook. What about you?

I’ll entertain your question to make a point.

Answer: you seem rather sure that I would have “crucified” Jesus. How do you know? Can you read my mind?

How do you know that I wouldn’t have been Thomas, or John, or Peter?

Instead you seem quite certain that I would be some Pharisee or one of the Sanhedrin or one of the mob calling for His death. That says a lot in itself.

It depends on the use of “sufficient”, I think. If we are trying to be in control of society by use of applied consequence, then we must say that knowledge of the law is sufficient to know that a bad act is wrong, and that even ignorance of the law is not a means to withholding punitive action.

The “use” of sufficient? Sufficient doesn’t have a subjective “use” but has an objective definition and meaning.

Sufficient (adj), enough to meet a need or purpose.

In the sense, though that an act is “sinful”, to me this involves a gradient, as I have opined earlier in this thread. Once a person knows enough about the sinfulness of an act, the person will not commit the act. This is a matter of human nature. There are exceptions, of course, having to do with the occurrence of blindness. However, a person can learn how to know when blindness has been triggered. It takes some practice, in my experience.

The natural law is in fact a law. Violation of the natural law is by definition a sin.

Gossiping is objectively sinful. You cannot tell me that people don’t know, either explicitly or implicitly that either lying about someone, or committing detraction against someone, without their knowledge in order to defame their character and reputation requires a “gradient” before it is a sin.

Gluttony of delicacy is in fact sinful. And I’m not even talking about gluttony of excess, I’m talking about the sin that I now see so often that its a real concern but no one talks about it. How often do we see people who are so dominated by their stomach and their palate that they go into a rage against counterpersons, hosts/hostesses, and waiters/waitresses because instead of accepting the food which they are given with gratitude to God they go into a rage because they didn’t get precisely what they ordered.

I could multiply examples. The bottom line is that people do know, even implicitly if not explicitly, that something is sinful, AND they do it anyway.

So your assumptions simply don’t follow.

I think the gradient applies here again. The person who has no regard for the life of a human is not going to be as aware of the gravity of the sinfulness. “Gravity” is used in the CCC. “Gravity” is not an on/off switch, to me it refers to the development of a conscience.

I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning seems to be at the least contrived so as to fit your theory.

Sin fundamentally has a four-fold effect, and this applies to either either original or personal sin: hardening of the heart, darkening of the intellect, weakening of the will, and concupiscence of the passions.

It is precisely because of sin that the person “has no regard for the life of a human.”

So therefore your argument cannot be an argument against the objective fact of sin, much less an appeal to “gravity”

“Gravity” in the Catechism is used to distinguish one mortal sin from another, not to distinguish what is a mortal sin from what is not. Murder is more of a grave sin(i.e. carries more gravity) than theft.

More to the point, the Catechism is quite clear: "Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin."

There is a reason why things are obvious to babes and children which are otherwise muddled and confusing to adults: they have not had the time to stifle their consciences with the base rationalizations that adults make.

Children and clear-headed adults know the value of human life. Adults who have inundated themselves with habitual sin are the ones who do not.

 

[Amandil]

What this boils down to is i.e. “how can I forgive the psychopath?”. My forgiveness involves understanding the individual in the context of prayer. “Why would I have done that?”

1)Understanding is not necessary for forgiveness.

1. We are all spiritual lunatics because we are all sinners. Each and every one of us, in every sin we commit, chooses un-reality over reality.

If sin was not a reality in all of our lives, we would not need a Savior.

Empathy played a huge role in the development of my conscience. Did it yours too? My catechism put a lot of emphasis on a developmental approach. The child learns right from wrong, “take our word for it”. As the child develops, he learns why some acts are right, and some acts are wrong, and he internalizes the law. Empathy plays a huge role in this. Is that your experience too?

No. Truth plays a role in the development of my conscience. A love of the truth, which is a love of Christ who is the truth.

Christ did not say that He came so that we will “know empathy, and empathy will set you free.”

Christ said that He came so that we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

As I said above, children know right from wrong by nature, they do not “develop” this knowledge so much as it is affirmed by the teachings of the parents and by experience.

So, empathy is not part of the criteria for morality, rather, it is the means to internalizing morality. Do you agree?

No I do not. Faith is the criteria for morality, not empathy. Paul didn’t preach to bring about the obedience of empathy. He preached to bring about the obedience of faith; the obedience of faith is no different that saying the “the loving obedience of God through faith.”

Empathy is not necessary to obey God in love.

 

[WilT]

Simply because we prefer evil over God. The sin that Adam and Eve committed was of self interest, pride, and rebellion. They ‘knowingly and willingly rejected God’.

 

[simpleas]

Simply because we prefer evil over God. The sin that Adam and Eve committed was of self interest, pride, and rebellion. They ‘knowingly and willingly rejected God’.

How could A&E K&W reject God when they haven’t experienced what evil was until they had committed the evil?

 

[davidv]

How could A&E K&W reject God when they haven’t experienced what evil was until they had committed the evil?

Because they didn’t need to know. This knowledge was not required for them to know they were committing a serious sin.

 

[Amandil]

Because they didn’t need to know. This knowledge was not required for them to know they were committing a serious sin.

Adam knew that to eat of the fruit of the tree was forbidden.

Adam also knew that his job was to protect the garden from intruders.

There have been many speculations put forth as to the psychological motivations for why Adam ate after Eve.

Some have suggested that he believed the serpent as Eve did, although its not in the text.

Some have suggested that Adam balked at defending the garden from the serpent, that he believed that the serpent would most definitely kill him and that Adam was afraid to die as well as call to God for aid. This is entirely possible.

Milton surmised(and I think that this is closer to the mark), that Adam, who was still possessed of original justice and fully aware of the implications and consequences of Eve’s sin, yet was fearful of losing this woman who was singularly like him and who belonged to him. He loved her and was afraid that he was going to lose her forever. So instead of enduring the justice that he, as God’s “son” must do upon her for transgressing the law of God, or instead must watch as God enacts justice upon her for her sin, Adam eats of the fruit so that he would be with her even under God’s wrath.

There is something of this which makes some sense, although not explicit. Yet Adam’s 180 degree shift in the following verses shows that Adam instantly blames Eve for eating the fruit and blames God for Eve, while Eve tells the truth. In any case Adam does receive the punishment that Eve did: exile from the garden. But instead of the total unity and peace of soul which they enjoyed in paradise, there is now tension, mistrust, and tendency towards domination.

Take from this what you will. But all in all there’s no doubt that people sin even in the face of knowing that something is sinful. The episode in the garden, as well as proof from everyday life, demonstrates this.

 

[OneSheep]

Forgiveness, I do not believe is aided by understanding.
Understanding helps when one takes things personally or when ignorance is the cause of some hurt rather than willfull intention.
In these situations, one does not actually forgive; one just sees things as they are and this diminishes one’s anger, resentment and hate.

The diminishment of anger, resentment, and hate is a big part of what forgiveness is. Understanding is not “necessary” in terms of the simplest form of forgiveness, I agree. However, I have not forgiven completely until I have understood why I would do what the violator had done, and I no longer have any desire to punish, nor have anger, resentment or hate. If I remember right, this jibes with Aquinas and Agustine’s definitions of forgiveness.

It is a very personal thing, I think. There is plenty of room for both of our outlooks.

This is graphic but such things have happened to people I care about. And conversely, I know people who do such things.
A psychopath may hurt you because he likes it. It may turn him on to see you squirm and beg. He may feel powerful or may be giving back some of what was done to him. To see another crawl through the mud, just as he had to, can give the morally corrupt a sense of justice. Being sodomized and having one’s skin burned by cigarettes for the simple reason that it hurts, is beyond comprehension in that it is no more than exactly what it is. As one breathes one’s last, before one’s throat is slahed, all this will make no sense. I do believe that here one will forgive the attacker in the knowledge that it is God, whom one is about to meet, who sits in judgement. One never really did forgive as He does - it was all about learning how to love. And, becoming a more loving person does not involve distorting reality to the point that sin no longer exists, but seeing it for what it truly is - an affront to God, to Love. Why would I have done that? I wouldn’t, but some people do because that is what we as human beings, do. Heaven help us all.

Well, I could have done that. It takes a bit of humility to admit this, but I could, given the psychopath’s mindset. If I had no ability to empathize, placed no value on other humans, then I could treat another human as I would a pesky mosquito or an object simply fun to destroy. I could get a sense of pleasure from the feeling of domination, control, and power of destruction. Of course, that sounds very sick. But psychopathy is a sickness, it is an inability to empathize, and thus to find any value in the other. Destruction of another human is simply a sport, something to be done for fun. Of course, the psychopath still has the will to live, so he avoids getting caught as much as possible.

I can forgive the psychopath. He has no idea what he is doing. Of course, he must be stopped and put away somewhere that he will not harm others.

 

[OneSheep]

So, IOW, you’re going to dodge the issue.

Did I not address something you wanted me to address? Please let me know what you would like me to specifically address.

Answer: you seem rather sure that I would have “crucified” Jesus. How do you know? Can you read my mind?

How do you know that I wouldn’t have been Thomas, or John, or Peter?

Instead you seem quite certain that I would be some Pharisee or one of the Sanhedrin or one of the mob calling for His death. That says a lot in itself.

Are you thinking that when I ask the question “why would I have crucified Jesus”, that I am saying you would? This is not the case. I am saying that to understand what people do, I put myself in their shoes. You do not have to do this. I think it is a valuable endeavor, but perhaps you do not want to do it. That’s okay.

The “use” of sufficient? Sufficient doesn’t have a subjective “use” but has an objective definition and meaning.

Sufficient (adj), enough to meet a need or purpose.

Fair enough. What we are working on is what is “enough” and what is the “purpose”?

The natural law is in fact a law. Violation of the natural law is by definition a sin.

Gossiping is objectively sinful. You cannot tell me that people don’t know, either explicitly or implicitly that either lying about someone, or committing detraction against someone, without their knowledge in order to defame their character and reputation requires a “gradient” before it is a sin.

Gluttony of delicacy is in fact sinful. And I’m not even talking about gluttony of excess, I’m talking about the sin that I now see so often that its a real concern but no one talks about it. How often do we see people who are so dominated by their stomach and their palate that they go into a rage against counterpersons, hosts/hostesses, and waiters/waitresses because instead of accepting the food which they are given with gratitude to God they go into a rage because they didn’t get precisely what they ordered.

I could multiply examples. The bottom line is that people do know, even implicitly if not explicitly, that something is sinful, AND they do it anyway.

Perhaps this is true, but not always. Some people do not even know the word “sin”. And this “knowing” is going to depend on experience. Have you ever worked with children? It is not unusual for them to have such rage. With experience, they learn, their consciences develop. Conscience formation takes a lifetime.

We could start with the question, “why does the person who knows of such sinfulness fly into a rage in this situation?” Then, we could see if the individual is K&W rejecting God.

I’m sorry, but this line of reasoning seems to be at the least contrived so as to fit your theory.

Apology accepted. Do you resent my different outlook? If so, have you forgiven me? I am wondering because it is hard to distinguish your tone.

Sin fundamentally has a four-fold effect, and this applies to either either original or personal sin: hardening of the heart, darkening of the intellect, weakening of the will, and concupiscence of the passions.

It is precisely because of sin that the person “has no regard for the life of a human.”

So therefore your argument cannot be an argument against the objective fact of sin, much less an appeal to “gravity”

“Gravity” in the Catechism is used to distinguish one mortal sin from another, not to distinguish what is a mortal sin from what is not. Murder is more of a grave sin(i.e. carries more gravity) than theft.

More to the point, the Catechism is quite clear: "Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin."

There is a reason why things are obvious to babes and children which are otherwise muddled and confusing to adults: they have not had the time to stifle their consciences with the base rationalizations that adults make.

Children and clear-headed adults know the value of human life. Adults who have inundated themselves with habitual sin are the ones who do not.

You have a different experience of children. My wife is a kindergarten teacher, and is exposed every day to many children who do not have well-informed consciences.

You are correct about the use of “gravity” in the definition, I was mistaken. I am referring to the aspect of “full knowledge”. If you would like, read through my posts 479 and 480 to chefmomster2, and evaluate the discussion and answer for the man, come up with a different alternative if you like. I would be happy to address the question in that context!

Or, we could address the rage-in-the-restaurant scenario.

As far as sin being the “cause” of “no regard for the life of the human”, I find that a bit confusing. Let us take, for example, Osama bin Laden or Hitler. Did you have any regard for their lives? If yes, explain why. If not, was it because of sin?

Now, I must admit that I perhaps did not answer your post to your expectations. Please, forgive me for doing so and then feel free to ask for specific items to address.

I read an interesting article in my Rotarian Magazine. “On the Internet, does anonymity invite incivility?” The University of Houston did a study, and found that anonymity increases incivility by 83%. Interesting, no?

 

[OneSheep]

1)Understanding is not necessary for forgiveness.

1. We are all spiritual lunatics because we are all sinners. Each and every one of us, in every sin we commit, chooses un-reality over reality.

If sin was not a reality in all of our lives, we would not need a Savior.

I agree. Understanding helps, though.

My question:

Empathy played a huge role in the development of my conscience. Did it yours too? My catechism put a lot of emphasis on a developmental approach. The child learns right from wrong, “take our word for it”. As the child develops, he learns why some acts are right, and some acts are wrong, and he internalizes the law. Empathy plays a huge role in this. Is that your experience too?

Your answer:

No. Truth plays a role in the development of my conscience. A love of the truth, which is a love of Christ who is the truth.

You have a different experience of conscience development. Mine involves both empathy and “truth”, and yours involves “love of truth”. Can you see how these different experiences can lead to different ways of looking at spiritual development?

Christ did not say that He came so that we will “know empathy, and empathy will set you free.”

True, but empathy is an important aspect of learning to know the feelings and needs of others, which develops the conscience in decision-making. For example, a person who has experienced what it is like to be ridiculed is less likely to ridicule someone else. I haven’t seen anything in the CCC about ridiculing others, but a person of informed conscience is going to avoid ridiculing others, right? The well-informed person is going to see the face of the person being ridiculed and say “what is happening now is not right”. You may see this differently, I think.

Christ said that He came so that we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free.

And His greatest commandments were to love God and to love one another. Through empathy, we learn more about how to love one another. Do you have a resistance to empathy?

As I said above, children know right from wrong by nature, they do not “develop” this knowledge so much as it is affirmed by the teachings of the parents and by experience.

No I do not. Faith is the criteria for morality, not empathy. Paul didn’t preach to bring about the obedience of empathy. He preached to bring about the obedience of faith; the obedience of faith is no different that saying the “the loving obedience of God through faith.”

Empathy is not necessary to obey God in love.

As I mentioned once before, a priest once told us to “always give people the benefit of the doubt.” Is this a “truth”? I think so. The question is, who is going to have a greater knowledge of this truth? One who has had their good intentions accused, or one who has not? It will be the one who has experienced such accusation that will have the greater knowledge of this truth. Empathy plays a huge role in this “greater knowledge”, for when the person considers an accusation, he may remember what it feels like to not be given the benefit of the doubt. He will empathize with the feeling of hurt or anger.

All of this plays a role in the making of the Kingdom, does it not? The teachings we present to our children, as well as the “knowing” of how a person experiences hurt or anger, both lead to making our world a better place, agreed?

 

[Amandil]

OneSheep:

Perhaps this is true, but not always. Some people do not even know the word “sin”. And this “knowing” is going to depend on experience.

Romans 2:
[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Scripture disagrees with you.

All men know the truth yet suppress it because they want to do evil.

OneSheep:

Have you ever worked with children? It is not unusual for them to have such rage. With experience, they learn, their consciences develop. Conscience formation takes a lifetime.

We could start with the question, “why does the person who knows of such sinfulness fly into a rage in this situation?” Then, we could see if the individual is K&W rejecting God.

I have daughters. They rage when they are not getting their way. That is not conscience, that is self-will. Conscience is the interior judge that tells them after they have raged that they ought not to have raged. They know that they ought not to rage, like when they’re told to clean their room or take the dogs out, but their anger comes from the belief that their time is their own, that they own every minute of a 24 hour day, and that when I ask them to take the 5 minutes to take out the dogs or the half hour to clean their room that their time for their own leisure is being “stolen” from them.

Which has been my point, the conscience knows, but the will overrules. Why? Because the will is not dominated by the conscience or reason but by the passions, by base feelings and by sensual appetites.

OneSheep:

My wife is a kindergarten teacher, and is exposed every day to many children who do not have well-informed consciences.

Not only is this begging the question, but you committing the came confusion as above. Their apparent penchant for misbehavior is not due to uninformed conscience, but to self-will. They know that they ought not misbehave. And this is easily discovered when you ask the child, “don’t you know that you shouldn’t have taken that toy?” Their answer is never “no” but “yes”.

OneSheep:

As far as sin being the “cause” of “no regard for the life of the human”, I find that a bit confusing. Let us take, for example, Osama bin Laden or Hitler. Did you have any regard for their lives? If yes, explain why.

Did I have any regard for the lives of bin Laden or Hitler?

Why don’t you reflect a bit on the nature of this question and what it may suggest in regards to whom you are directing it towards.

IOW, how would you respond if I asked you if you have any regard for the lives of bin Laden or Hitler?
One Sheep:

If not, was it because of sin?

Of course it would be because of sin. If all men are created in the image and likeness of God, then “all men” includes bin Laden and Hitler.

 

[tonyrey]

They are worthy of respect regardless of time and space but are they are based on opinion or fact? You can’t have it both ways…

With respect, Brad, that is an argumentum ad populum which is unworthy of respect!

 

[Amandil]

One Sheep:

True, but empathy is an important aspect of learning to know the feelings and needs of others, which develops the conscience in decision-making. For example, a person who has experienced what it is like to be ridiculed is less likely to ridicule someone else.

Or he may in fact be more likely to pay back in kind, ridicule for ridicule.

Or he may be so detached from his egotism that someone else’s ridicule simply has no effect on him.

In both cases, both the first(which is sinful), and the second(which is in fact holy and upright), neither response requires any explicit empathy for the person ridiculing them. No understanding of their feelings or what compels them to ridicule others.
One Sheep:

I haven’t seen anything in the CCC about ridiculing others, but a person of informed conscience is going to avoid ridiculing others, right?

Of course. But that is not the issue.
One Sheep:

And His greatest commandments were to love God and to love one another. Through empathy, we learn more about how to love one another. Do you have a resistance to empathy?

Empathy is not required for “agape” love, the love which God commands us to do.

Nor is empathy required to learn how to love others since love is directly related to the higher ontological good of the person themselves and not merely to the secondary aspects of love such as good feelings or “warm fuzzies”.

I don’t have a “resistance to empathy”, I simply know its proper place.
One Sheep:

The question is, who is going to have a greater knowledge of this truth? One who has had their good intentions accused, or one who has not?

The argument from sincerity again?

Psychological motives do not negate the objectively sinful nature of an act. Go back to the example of giving the starving man a huge meal because you feel sorry that he is hungry and he dies. Your empathy and compassion became an occasion of pride because instead of turning him over to someone who would have been more competent to treat him correctly you thought that nothing would due except that you treat him yourself.

Thus you would be culpable for his death, regardless of your good intentions. There are times that intentions need to be accused, because many times, especially in regards to sin, intentions are wrong.

OneSheep:

Empathy plays a huge role in this “greater knowledge”, for when the person considers an accusation, he may remember what it feels like to not be given the benefit of the doubt. He will empathize with the feeling of hurt or anger.

Empathy can also play a role in greater sin, especially when it violates right reason.

People claim to be empathetic with regards to euthanasia, abortion, or drug and alcohol abuse.

The feeling of empathy cannot be superior to objective truth.

 

[Bradski]

With respect, Brad, that is an argumentum ad populum which is unworthy of respect!

You’ve pointed out that the concepts of liberty, freedom and fraternity are ‘worthy of respect regardless of time and space’. I concur with you. I’ve pointed out that a lot of other people concur with you. I’ve pointed out that even scripture would concur with you. And now you want to argue with the proposition?

Only you, Tony. Only you could manage that.