Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[tonyrey]

It is the hardness of heart as God hardened the heart of pharaoh.

We get what we deserve!

 

[marylauravicuna]

Here is another example. I was an atheist back when I attended Catholic high school. There were a couple points on retreats where I felt drawn to return to the Catholic Church, but chose to suppress those thoughts because I was known as being an atheist and it would have involved substantial changes to my way of life and my friends’ perceptions of me.

I did not know atheism to be false then. I continued to believe that I had good reasons for holding it. But because of some of the benefits it afforded me and some of the practical difficulties in returning to the Church, I did not look into Catholicism again even when I got the sense that I might not have given it a full evaluation (as most people who become atheists in middle school have not).

Thanks for posting this! I was familiar with “faith of the fatherless: the psychology of atheism” but not familiar with reasons for rejecting God that are due to free will.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t believe in an interactive personal god. I accept the possibility of a creator or creative force.

I do reject the god commonly understood by Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I cannot accept the bible as an accurate revelation of this creators “goodness” or “love” or “mercy”. In fact, to my mind, one must completely twist the meaning of those words beyond recognition to make them apply to the Christian god.

I do however admit that I may be wrong.

In that case, if god were to appear and verify that the bible is an accurate history of ancient times and of his revelations to man, I’m afraid I would still reject him. I don’t believe that being all powerful is an automatic right to be loved and worshiped. I think that even god beings should be judged and held to the standard they themselves teach. Obviously, I’m not on board with “who are we to judge god?” or “how can you judge until you know everything he knows?”

Anyway that’s how I knowingly and willing reject god.

Anyone who doesn’t appreciate the immense value of life is guilty of filial ingratitude.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think there is a simple reason for this. Ultimately it is the result of the sin of pride.

• They don’t feel they did anything wrong. (Their understanding is superior to God’s)
• They believe there’s “plenty of time for that”. (Their timing is superior to God’s)
• I’m basically good. (Their definition of a good life is superior to God’s)
• God knows I’m sorry. (Their idea of reconciliation is superior to God’s)
• Why? I’ll just sin again. (Their understanding of our state of sinfulness is superior to God’s)

I’m sure there are many more. But they all involve man declaring that there is some reason why he is above God’s plan.

Why would a person not feel guilty? (Assuming they ARE guilty…)

• Self-justification.
• Self-satisfaction.
• Insufficient empathy.
• Arrogant denial of guilt.
• Unwillingness to submit to God.

I believe that these are all a denial of responsibility. There could be many other reasons.

In the remaining sections: A=Abuser V=Victim

Resentment triggers bad feelings, not “blindness”.

Not necessarily. If I resent that you have something that I don’t have, that could urge me to get a better job, save for those items, etc.

This is “blaming the victim” mentality. The stealing is not an attempt to punish the victim. It is about coveting your neighbor’s goods. The covetousness itself is sinful. Stealing is a consummation of this sinfulness and is thus even more seriously sinful.

A feels no guilt because he doesn’t feel the has to respect V?

True, he can. But he is deluding himself.

So, let me summarize:
The A sees that the innocent V has something he likes.
He resents that the V has it and he doesn’t.
His unjustified resentment is the sin of covetousness.
A compounds his sinful covetousness by stealing, an even greater sin.
A allows this sinful state to persist and he decides that the V “deserves the worst”, a sin of hatred- 5th Commandment.
A determines, in his separated state from God, that V didn’t deserve to be valued as a person- 5th commandment
So, V deserved what he got and A is, in his own seriously sinful mind, guiltless?

There is just no room in your scenario to argue that his self-induced blindness, if it existed at all, would somehow relieve him of responsibility of mortal sin. His sin of covetousness was concomitant with his resentment. He was not blinded by a normal passion of man. He was blinded by his own sinfulness! His covetousness led him ever more deeply into sin…stealing, disrespect for others, devaluing another, and, arguably setting his own selfish needs before his God, creating an idol of what he had to possess. Mortal sin is the only result of such sinful thoughts and acts.

My brain is fried! :whacky: LOL I’ll answer this one later.

:clapping: A fascinating series of posts…

 

[OneSheep]

This is the Church’s understanding of it, from the catechism:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

Thanks for bringing this in fhansen. I see this as a great clarification of the issue of “God hardening the heart” of the pharaoh. To me, the pharoah’s hardening of heart was a triggered reaction. This capacity to have triggered reactions, like all of the capacities of our nature, come from God. So, on the one hand, we have free will. On the other hand, everything about our nature comes from God, so no reaction we have, no choice we make, can be carried out without having the gift of life itself.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for bringing this in fhansen. I see this as a great clarification of the issue of “God hardening the heart” of the pharaoh. To me, the pharoah’s hardening of heart was a triggered reaction. This capacity to have triggered reactions, like all of the capacities of our nature, come from God. So, on the one hand, we have free will. On the other hand, everything about our nature comes from God, so no reaction we have, no choice we make, can be carried out without having the gift of life itself.

Well, yes, the gifts of existence, sentience, reason, and free will all combine to result in creatures who make *choices-*some good some bad. Our choices are our own in any case, but with varying degrees of culpability or responsibility depending on circumstances, such as differing levels of knowledge/ignorance, mental capacity, deliberateness of intent, the environment in which we were raised, etc. God takes it all into account either way, judging by the heart as it were.

 

[chefmomster2]

So much for free will.

You may be misreading this verse. This is a quote from Trent Horn on CA (August 21, 2013).

Trent Horn: As a consequence of Pharaoh’s own actions, God allowed Pharaoh’s heart to reach its maximum level of stubbornness, and Israel’s freedom was purchased at a heavy price for the Egyptians. This mirrors other times when God punishes sinners not through external punishment but by letting the awful consequences of their own bad lifestyles show them the error of their ways. God even did this with Israel after the Exodus. In Psalm 81:11-14 the author describes God saying, “How my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would have none of me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels. O that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways! I would soon subdue their enemies, and turn my hand against their foes.”

Note the bits I have emboldened. God allowed Pharaoh’s heart to reach its own natural level of stubborness. In other words, since Pharaoh, through his free choices, decided to reject God’s words delivered through Moses, He respected this rejection and withdrew His grace. He accepts the choice resulting from free will. In addition, Pharaoh had full knowledge of what would happen if he rejected God. The evil that occured was the result of Pharoah’s choice.

The same occurs in the dessert. The Chosen of Israel rejected God, so He withdrew. But. notice, He does not go far! He is still prepared to help them if they accept Him. He will not force His way with them. That would be opposite their free choice. But He is willing to allow them to be stricken with the natural consequences of that choice.

 

[OneSheep]

Whew! I thought I gave you a bit too much to work on, well, what goes around…

Since it is Mother’s Day, I am going to spend the rest of my day doting, and save a full response for later.

Yes! They do it all the time! I love my husband completely, fully and unconditionally. I try to please him, comfort him, and support him. But there are times I drive him crazy! I can be impatient, sarcastic, selfish,…He forgives me every time! But, sometimes…he is stubborn, selfish, thoughtless… and I forgive him. We’ve been doing it for 32 years now!

So, let’s slow it all down a little.

Husband: “I don’t want to take out the garbage now.”

Wife has rule no. 68 violated: “Husband must always be willing to take out the garbage.” The rule is subconscious. With the rule violation, there comes a bit of resentment, it is a triggered response. Husband’s image is immediately in the part of the brain that contains Objects of Resentment.

Wife: “You never want to take out the garbage.”

Husband has rule no, 85 violated: “Saying I never do something when I do is disrespectful.” Wife’s image is now in the O.R. section. All of this happened without any awareness that it has happened.

Husband: “If you want it taken out, do it yourself.”

This was a further violation of rule no.68. His response was not helpful. It would take some breathing and reflection on the wife’s part to overcome the temporary blindness. She may have considered (in reaction) throwing the garbage at the husband, then reacted internally because such throwing violated another internal rule, so she is conflicted, and the internal conflict leads to enough hesitation for her to pause and observe her reactions. Once 90 seconds has passed, the anger has to be renewed by thought in order to continue. In the mean time, there is a temporary blindness.

She is not, in the moment, thinking “this person is the most wonderful gift of my life”, and neither is he. Both are set on some sort of punishment.

Confirm this in your own reactions. When you are angry at him, are you simultaneously thinking of his great value? That would take a bit of reflection, hesitation, in the moment. It would mean pulling out of the automatic blindness that has already been triggered.

We love our spouses unconditionally by discipline. In reality, we aren’t “feeling the love” for our spouses when they violate our rules, right?

Happy Mother’s Day if you are a Mom!

 

[Pat_Albertson]

I skimmed the thread and also searched it for the word “theodicy”, but nothing came up. My take on this is that, at least for some people, they have a certain take on the way the world ought to be. When it isn’t the way they think it ought to be, when it is found to contain undue amounts of pain or misery, they get mad at God for having created such a world or for letting it remain that way, or at least that is what they commonly seem to express. Having become angry at God, they tend to say such things as “I would never worship a God that permits such and such” or “How can anybody believe in a God who would do this, that, or the other thing?”, whatever that thing might be.

Do they have an accurate understanding of God? That isn’t for me to say since I don’t have access to their subjective experience. And I’m not sure that even if I did have access to their subjective experience, that it would help me judge them (I’m not all that much against judging people because I do it all the time. I’m just saying this so that I don’t get lumped in with those people who go around saying “Don’t judge”. This issue, passing judgement on other people’s conception of the Almighty, seems to me to be a fairly murky one though, so I would prefer to maintain a bit of humility with respect to it.) since I’m not at all sure my own understanding of God is the right one either.

What should such a person do? I don’t have any answers other than the standard ones of pray, talk to a priest, try some of the common remedies for depression or anxiety, etc.

Anyway, that’s my take on the problem.

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks for bringing this in fhansen. I see this as a great clarification of the issue of “God hardening the heart” of the pharaoh. To me, the pharoah’s hardening of heart was a triggered reaction. This capacity to have triggered reactions, like all of the capacities of our nature, come from God. So, on the one hand, we have free will. On the other hand, everything about our nature comes from God, so no reaction we have, no choice we make, can be carried out without having the gift of life itself.

I don’t believe in your philosophy of “triggered reaction”, except in the case of psychiatric disturbances (PTSD) which again fall into the realm of competence.

Even in the case of PTSD, which I have, we can train ourselves to change our interpretations of stimuli. I no longer have a panic attack when I see a blue hairbrush, for instance. If I failed to do this retraining and I reacted in a violent way, this might be sinful in itself. We aren’t allowed to remain in this “reactive state” if we can help ourselves. We cannot claim our situation relieves our responsibility if the ignorance is our chouce.

Experiences that happen trigger responses IN THE BRAIN. Our minds quickly analyze the situation to establish meaning. We become angry, sad, frightened, excited or desperate depending upon our interpretation. (We can become angry when it is uncalled for based on our interpratation of the situation, for instance.) Then we ACT.

An act is willed. Unwilled actions are called reflexes and thise are shared by man. Our leg kicks when the doctor gently bangs our knee. This is a purely physiological reaction in which our judgment plays no part. Or, your eyes shut when you sneeze. Try to will them NOT to shut!

So, since our passions rise up without our consent, they are neither god nor evil and create neither good nor evil. They are neutral. They exist. In RARE situations they cause “temporary insanity”, which leads back to the competence issue.

To become action there is ALWAYS choice. They are, outside of reflexes, always willed. It is these acts that are judged. If we commit evil (assuming full competence) we are held accountable. If we “commit” good, we receive grace. Those choices are our responsibility. Otherwise there is no sin at all!

 

[chefmomster2]

For OneSheep:

Some reject from arrogance/anger/hurt. They wish to define God as they would wish Him to be. To one degree or another they expect God to:

1. 
   *]Answer every prayer as they deem correct. (Why didn’t He save my sick nephew?)
   *]Prevent all evil. (Why did He allow that plane to crash?)
   *]Give us free will. And to be truly free, there must not be bad consequences. (See #2.)
   *]Prove His existence to a scientific certainty. (If I can’t prove it, it must not be so!)
   *]Commit no one to Hell. (No good God could allow eternal suffering!)
   Etc.
   
   (What is that blurb printed in books these days? Hmm…Any resemblance to actual posts is purely coincidental. No one is in my mind here.)
   
   There are answers to these doubts, but they persist is unbelief.
   

   NABRE Isaiah 55: 8-9
   8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD.
   9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

   The Gospels are FULL of people who reject Jesus for these same reasons. (So are our forums at CA, sadly.) Many of the Jews wanted a Messiah who was a military ruler. He came instead as suffering servent. They expected a “good” God who would not asdociate with sinners, work on the Sabbath, or change their definitions. They “knew” what God “should be”. He wasn’t, so they rejected Him.
   

   NABRE Romans 4:16-22
   For the law produces wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation.
   16 For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham, who is the father of all of us,
   17 as it is written, “I have made you father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does no exist.
   18 He believed, hoping against hope, that he would become “the father of many nations,” according to what was said, “Thus shall your descendants be.”
   19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body as [already] dead (for he was almost a hundred years old) and the dead womb of Sarah.
   20 He did not doubt God’s promise in unbelief; rather, he was empowered by faith and gave glory to God
   21 and was fully convinced that what he had promised he was also able to do.
   22 That is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”

 

[chefmomster2]

Whew! I thought I gave you a bit too much to work on, well, what goes around…

Since it is Mother’s Day, I am going to spend the rest of my day doting, and save a full response for later.

I hope the ones you dote upon have a very happy day today!

for the sake of full disclosure I must state that my hubby ALWAYS takes out the trash! Phew! (And brings me coffee, and does the laundry, and does the grocery shopping, and shares in the cooking and…I am one VERY lucky lady! )

She is not, in the moment, thinking “this person is the most wonderful gift of my life”, and neither is he. Both are set on some sort of punishment.

Some people may react this way, but that is not the way of love. I NEVER have any desire to punish my husband or see him in pain. (I do sin against him, but it is never my intention.) That is one reason we are still married after 32 years! The situation you describe creates a vicious (and sinful) cycle of persistent resentment which is in direct opposition to the vow to honor one another. This sort of resentment is sinful in itself. It cannot be both the sin and the “blindness”. Any act of punishment would be a willful act derived of this sin and would also be sinful.

Confirm this in your own reactions. When you are angry at him, are you simultaneously thinking of his great value? That would take a bit of reflection, hesitation, in the moment. It would mean pulling out of the automatic blindness that has already been triggered.

We are called to reflect! Yes, I think of my love for him. It is a practiced habit from years of union. Marriage and its love-bond are sacraments. In fact, we are not married fully by the Spirit until our marriage is consummated and we are joined in that special bond of unity where we become one. As we persist in that oneness devoutly and faithfully, we receive continued grace from the Spirit. As we do, our Love is perfected and we practice disciplining ourselves to love for the other’s sake. It is a process, but God is with us. We will sin against each other, but if we do not give up, we “keep the faith”, we begin to think not immediately of ourselves, but of our spouse.

We love our spouses unconditionally by discipline. In reality, we aren’t “feeling the love” for our spouses when they violate our rules, right?

We do love by discipline! The “feeling” of love is attraction and affection. The Love itself is a CHOICE and an ACT. It reminds us in a very real way of the Love we are asked to have for God. We express our love through the loving choices we make and the loving acts we perform. It happens, if we are employing the full grace of the sacrament, whether we are angry, resentful, neutral, or delighted! Since we are ONE, we do not punish our spouse. We do not resent our Spouse. Because of our sacramental union we would be resenting and punishing our very selves!

Happy Mother’s Day if you are a Mom!

I am! Thank you! And thank you for our ongoing discussion, especially this particular post. It is a great one to meditate upon on this day. Our children are the visible result of our union of Love through the grace of the Spirit. ( Aw! Now you’ve got me feeling all mushy! )

 

[oldcelt]

The greatest danger of believing God never intervenes is rejecting God for once and for all. A Creator who is helpless is worthless…

Why is He useless? He got the whole ball rolling and it’s up to us to manage our own lives as best we can. I don’t see God as a micromanager for some while ignoring others. He is the great creative force, and that is plenty for me to respect Him.

 

[tonyrey]

The greatest danger of believing God never

Why do you complain then about all the (apparently) unnecessary suffering in the world for which He is ultimately responsible? If we do nothing to alleviate the suffering of others we are considered abominable yet you let God off the hook.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why is He useless? He got the whole ball rolling and it’s up to us to manage our own lives as best we can. I don’t see God as a micromanager for some while ignoring others. He is the great creative force, and that is plenty for me to respect Him.

I think maybe you just took a giant step?

God is not a mircomanager?

Then is he a manager who does not micromanage?

The manager of any corporation still manages and is concerned with the welfare of the corporation.

It’s only when the manager micromanages that he need be taken to task.

God does not micromanage in the sense that he abrogates our free will and forces us to choose good over evil.

Yet God manages by setting up the universe so that we have to choose good or evil … and he is available with the rule book to show us how to do one and avoid the other.

 

[oldcelt]

I think maybe you just took a giant step?

God is not a mircomanager?

Then is he a manager who does not micromanage?

The manager of any corporation still manages and is concerned with the welfare of the corporation.

It’s only when the manager micromanages that he need be taken to task.

God does not micromanage in the sense that he abrogates our free will and forces us to choose good over evil.

Yet God manages by setting up the universe so that we have to choose good or evil … and he is available with the rule book to show us how to do one and avoid the other.

Please don’t read too much into a simple statement. The rest of your post relates to your beliefs, not mine…and I observed (Deist) more evidence this evening.

 

[Counterpoint]

*]Give us free will. And to be truly free, there must not be bad consequences. (See #2.)

There are only two types of free will - compatibilist and libertarian. And regardless of which one you subscribe to, the implications are exactly the same. I thoroughly explain this in my thread entitled “Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation.”

*]Commit no one to Hell. (No good God could allow eternal suffering!)

Agreed. No good God could allow eternal suffering.

 

[chefmomster2]

There are only two types of free will - compatibilist and libertarian. And regardless of which one you subscribe to, the implications are exactly the same. I thoroughly explain this in my thread entitled “Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation.”

Agreed. No good God could allow eternal suffering.

Actually I believe in neither of those points. They are viewpoints that I found are held by some who reject God, which I do not. All this portion of my argument was intended to do was to list some of the attitudes and opinions I have heard expressed.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, again, Chefmonster, I hope you had a nice weekend!

First of all, given the amount of energy you are putting into this, for which I am grateful, I feel a bit guilty about responding only to a small part of your posts at this point. There are a few key points to focus, I think. In the mean time, I have a couple of confessions to make.

Many of the points you have presented so far are about what the human “ought” to do, as a matter of discipline. Humans, however, often disagree on the “ought”, for example when choosing between a bad act and a worse one, or in many other conflicted dilemmas.

This thread, as I am understanding it, is not about what people ought to do, but what people do. And what I am saying is that people do not knowingly reject God, nor do they knowingly commit serious sin. Actually, though, as I just wrote that sentence, I am thinking about Oliver North, who may very well have seen his action of selling arms to Iran as a serious sin, but saw not funding the “Contras” as a* more* serious sin. There are some of these very hard choices to make that I assume we are not talking about, right?

I grabbed this comment from an earlier post:

Mankind is “human” to the extent that he can use his reason to moderate his actions. Hasn’t our evolution as human beings been one primarily of intellect and reason? We are able to make clear choices.

Have you ever been strongly affected by emotions? Did you choose to murder, rape, steal?

Are we able to make clear choices? Yes. Do we? No. We do not, because our resentment and appetites override, or greatly influence, our decisions. Is it less than human to have emotions and appetites affect our decisions? Well, God made us that way, and I think He did a fantastic job. All of the perceived “inhuman” aspects serve a purpose.

I have not chosen to murder, but here is my first confession: when I was young and zealous, I once heard that a doctor who did abortions was seriously injured in a bombing of a clinic. I thought to myself, “his death would not be such a bad thing”. Upon reflection, and prayer, especially reflecting on the words of a wonderful priest, I was able to forgive such doctors, and the resentment and blindness disappeared. I posted a thread about the topic if you are interested.

I don’t believe in your philosophy of “triggered reaction”, except in the case of psychiatric disturbances (PTSD) which again fall into the realm of competence.

This, I think is the crux of the whole issue. It is not a matter of belief, I think, it is a matter of observation. Does anyone choose resentment? Have you ever thought to yourself, “I am going to get really angry about that” or “I am going to feel really sad about that” or “I am going to feel really frustrated about that” and then chose to make yourself feel the emotion? Actors do this in order to give convincing performances, but to do so they stimulate their triggers, they think of situations that trigger the emotions. On the other hand, I think you agree with the observation of triggered emotional reactions, which you address as reactions “without consent”, so no need to to address the questions here.

If your observation is that people actually choose blindness and/or ignorance, or in awareness choose to sustain it, then I accept your observation, and your assertions make sense in that context. My observations are different.

Oh yeah, here is my second confession. I am not a philosopher, and I think philosophy is mostly a waste of time, which irks my son, who is getting a PhD in it. He loves the stuff.

(continued)
.

 

[OneSheep]

chefmonster2:

Even in the case of PTSD, which I have, we can train ourselves to change our interpretations of stimuli. I no longer have a panic attack when I see a blue hairbrush, for instance. If I failed to do this retraining and I reacted in a violent way, this might be sinful in itself. We aren’t allowed to remain in this “reactive state” if we can help ourselves. We cannot claim our situation relieves our responsibility if the ignorance is our chouce.

Experiences that happen trigger responses IN THE BRAIN. Our minds quickly analyze the situation to establish meaning. We become angry, sad, frightened, excited or desperate depending upon our interpretation. (We can become angry when it is uncalled for based on our interpratation of the situation, for instance.) Then we ACT.

…

To become action there is ALWAYS choice. They are, outside of reflexes, always willed. It is these acts that are judged. If we commit evil (assuming full competence) we are held accountable. If we “commit” good, we receive grace. Those choices are our responsibility. Otherwise there is no sin at all!

This section indicates to me that you do see that there are triggered reactions. Emotions and passions rise up “without our consent”. We can go with your terminology.

So, let’s take it a step further. People are born ignorant of the value of themselves and others; we are naturally protective of the self, but understanding value takes life experience and awareness, does it not? Ignorance is not a matter of “consent”, and psycho/sociopaths, because of compromised ability to empathize, remain ignorant; I think we agree on that one.

Does blindness occur “without our consent”? In my observation, most of the time, yes. I already addressed “willful blindness” in an earlier post, of which it is my observation that such blindness is chosen in blindness. In the description of how to deal with our spouses, you are describing an “ought”, and I agree with the “oughts” presented. However, we do what we “ought” only when we are not blinded. I am not simultaneously thinking of the value of my wife as I am snapping at her. If I could observe my blindness, “Oh, I am blinded right now” then such an observation would most likely occur after the anger has subsided. When I am angry at my wife, I am not thinking of how wonderful she is. I am temporarily blinded. Now, you are possibly thinking “we can then rationalize all our behaviors as acceptable because of claimed blindness”, but this is not what I am saying. I am talking about understanding behaviors, not approving them.

As far as action-and-choice go, that is another topic, but I agree with you, all of us have control over our choices. This thread, as I take it, is about the “knowing” that affects the choices, not the fact that all of our choices belong to us. When Jesus said, “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”, he was specifically addressing blindness. All sin, in my observation, has the necessary component of ignorance, blindness, or both

I am not blinded. My Catholic faith tells me it is wrong. But, I’m bored. I want your money. I don’t know you. I don’t need the money. I want to show I can do it. It’s fun. It’s a challenge.

This was your reaction when I said you would have to be blind to do such a thing as the hypothetical stealing from me. I stand corrected. You could possibly not have been blind, but could be simply ignorant as to value of the human in general ('I don’t know you"),- that such action is hurtful and “hurtful” has great importance. Catholic faith develops compassion, and such an act is not compassionate. Compassion is developed. Compassion comes from love, not from discipline (though, arguably, discipline can lead to love).

The person who rapes is not only blinded by desire, but probably has this general ignorance about the value of the human. Does a rapist do so against his own mother? Not likely, he sees great value in his mother, probably. Well, if he is not seeing that other women have the same value, then he is ignorant. If the rapist is seeing that his own mother does not have great value, then this may be part of the reason why he has an issue with women. In all cases, though, he is not acting out of compassion, and compassion is developed through awareness and experience. The rapist is ignorant.

Do you see what I am saying?

I pray for victims of rape, and of PTSD.