And on Earth peace to people of good will

[Darran]

Okay, I’ll say it. “People who ‘sin’ do not know what they are doing.” I repeat myself to say “People who do hurtful things to others do not know what they are doing.” Please, can you come up with a counterexample? Please don’t take this as a competition though, on who is “dominant” in this discussion. It is a matter of arm-chair inquiry. You may have a really plausible example, something that I did not consider.

OneSheep, if you don’t understand what I have said so far ask me to explain better, otherwise I can’t say anything else. If I understand correctly you are you asking me to contrast with a logical fallacy. To say again, if someone has no possible way of knowing, then they can’t sin. If anyone who sins only does so because they do not know that it is wrong, then there is no such thing as sin.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sin is always sin, and sin always acts against our conscience.

Sin is always sin, but an act of grave matter is not. Who, except God, knows which it is: sin, or “just” an act of grave matter – even to the person doing the act?

Actually, we are dead from sin just by knowing what sin is, so it acts against our conscience before we even do anything. (Rom 7)

Alan

 

[OneSheep]

Luke 17:3

) condemnation of sin is extremely important. He wants us to be like Him and not to be hypocritical in asking for mercy when we don’t allow it to others. Even when other people sin against us it’s God who is chiefly offended - He isn’t ruled under the same laws that He gives us.

Adam and Eve were perfect humans, like the angels were perfect. When they sinned it was more direct and intentional than sins that we are far more often capable of, (think of a dive from Mt Everest as opposed to a fall from a curb) because they did not have a fallen nature. It was from them that every other man inherited that.

As for their forgiveness, it isn’t something we can really know. I wonder if it also constitutes judging, but I don’t know.

I repeat myself to say “People who do hurtful things to others do not know what they are doing.” Please, can you come up with a counterexample?

Forgiveness is not always conditional, that is a matter of choice. If one of my children hurts me, I forgive. I do not need to hear them tell me that they have repented. If my enemy bombs some people I love, I forgive, I do not need to hear his remorse. It is a matter of deciding whether to carry around resentment for the rest of my life.

Have you forgiven yourself and everyone else, or are you waiting for others’ remorse and repentance? Why carry around the resentment, why not simply forgive? If someone is someone is not sorry, it is another opportunity for forgiveness: to forgive the sin, and then to forgive the lack of remorse.

Please, take the time to answer my questions.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Forgiveness is always conditional. God wont forgive anyone who isn’t sorry, precisely because he is Just. Injustice isn’t just punishing someone too much, it is also punishing too little or none at all.

… Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses because we forgive those who trespass against us in only those cases and only those cases in which the guilty parties provide certified evidence of past or future repentance and completion of punishment …

God is capable of forgiving someone before they repent on occasion, but it is precisely because He is omnipotent and knows that you will repent of it, but also that can’t be relied on.

So we cannot rely on God to make a correct judgment?

Or because of our free will we can fool God into thinking we’re going to do something we’re not going to do?

 

[OneSheep]

… Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses because we forgive those who trespass against us in only those cases and only those cases in which the guilty parties provide certified evidence of past or future repentance and completion of punishment …

Alan, I think actually Darran actually brings up an important implied contradiction in the Gospel. Jesus does say in the Luke verse he referred to that we are to forgive every time someone asks for forgiveness. Everywhere else that I recall, the condition is not there. It is my understanding that such conditional forgiveness is consistent with Judaism, so Jesus’ quote is perfectly understandable. Is the aspect of forgiving enemies, turning the other cheek, and forgiving an infinite number of times, also in Jesus’ words, a push beyond the standard Jewish “forgive if they repent”? I think so.

We have a Muslim exchange student living with us at the moment, and he says that Islam does not call for conditions of forgiveness either.

I think that the main appeal for “forgive only if they repent” is that it is more difficult to forgive when the situation is not in control. A statement by the perpetrator saying that the offense will not be repeated helps satisfy that need for control, and it is then easier for the offended to forgive. I think the human desire for dominance is also a factor, because sinful behavior itself creates a dominance on the part of the perpetrator. “I am sorry” is also a statement saying “I am not better than you, even though my action said otherwise”; it is a retreat, a bow. Along that same line, “I forgive you” is a statement that equalizes. Among other more significant things, it also says “I no longer hold you lower than me for your actions.”, a statement of equal status.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I apologize for the tone of my last post. The part I thought was a serious issue was the part about being always conditional.

We are to love our enemies, right? If they repented they wouldn’t be enemies? Or do we love them but not forgive them? This doesn’t make sense to me.

Many times the person who needs to be forgiven cannot be accessed. They may never see us again – they may even be dead. And of course a great many times the damage cannot be undone so making amends is physically impossible.

Plus, I see no challenge at all, especially a challenge worth Christ leveling, at forgiving someone who comes with remorse, fixes what they did, etc. I forgive people who aren’t sorry for what they did all the time. Jesus wants us to let go of that baggage.

Alan

 

[OneSheep]

I apologize for the tone of my last post. The part I thought was a serious issue was the part about being always conditional.

We are to love our enemies, right? If they repented they wouldn’t be enemies? Or do we love them but not forgive them? This doesn’t make sense to me.

Many times the person who needs to be forgiven cannot be accessed. They may never see us again – they may even be dead. And of course a great many times the damage cannot be undone so making amends is physically impossible.

Plus, I see no challenge at all, especially a challenge worth Christ leveling, at forgiving someone who comes with remorse, fixes what they did, etc. I forgive people who aren’t sorry for what they did all the time. Jesus wants us to let go of that baggage.

Alan

Wow, Alan, great point about repentant enemies. Also about the dead perpetrator. I would imagine, though, that it is also easier for people to forgive a dead person because the situation would be more in control, the death may replace the need for a statement of repentance. I agree completely with your last paragraph too.

As for sarcasm, I must say I did snicker a little about the Lord’s prayer revision. I hope Darran sees the humor.

 

[Darran]

I repeat myself to say “People who do hurtful things to others do not know what they are doing.” Please, can you come up with a counterexample?

Forgiveness is not always conditional, that is a matter of choice. If one of my children hurts me, I forgive. I do not need to hear them tell me that they have repented. If my enemy bombs some people I love, I forgive, I do not need to hear his remorse. It is a matter of deciding whether to carry around resentment for the rest of my life.

Please, take the time to answer my questions.

I’m beginning to lose my patience.

Believe if you want that God doesn’t require forgiveness in order to forgive. I suppose we’ll be seeing satan in heaven in that case. Believe if you want that God is simply a bigger version of ourselves and that sin doesn’t exist. Our forgiveness is commanded to be unconditional, God’s isn’t as He isn’t ruled by the laws that He gives us.

I don’t understand why you don’t think that I am answering your question, just because I’m not answering in the way you want to hear. The very requirements of mortal sin are a grave matter, full consent and knowledge. To quote the Catechism:

"1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.“131”

Full knowledge means that we know something is wrong, that does not mean we need to be omnipotent to sin. Disbelieve in the infaliability of the Catechism, of the scriptures and any developed or baseline theology, reason and/or logic if you want. That isn’t exactly a disagreement of opinion that you’re having with me, it’s a denial of the teachings of God’s Church.

So we cannot rely on God to make a correct judgment?

No. We cannot rely on ourselves to be sure that our contrition was perfect. I don’t understand how or why you would pull a different meaning from what I write.

 

[Darran]

Suggested reading:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)

 

[Darran]

Alan, I think actually Darran actually brings up an important implied contradiction in the Gospel. Jesus does say in the Luke verse he referred to that we are to forgive every time someone asks for forgiveness. Everywhere else that I recall, the condition is not there.

biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/forgiveness-bible-verses/

For a man to forgive another man without repentance can be an act of Mercy - but this is not the same as with God, as we are not on the same level as Him.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Believe if you want that God doesn’t require forgiveness in order to forgive. I suppose we’ll be seeing satan in heaven in that case.

Now we’re getting somewhere. :knight2:

A long time ago it occurred to me that when Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies, to ponder how big of a challenge could that possibly be? Do I have to forgive that annoying kid that stomps my rose garden? The person who leads our country into a war we don’t consider just? A person who orchestrates 9/11 events? What about the big one? Watch out now … can we figure out how to forgive satan himself? If not, then where is the dividing line? If we are to love only our “petty” enemies, how do we know whom to forgive and whom we should not? It’s back to using our human judgment. If we say, for example, “OK satan and anyone who’s professed within the past month to follow him is excluded,” then we are arbitrarily putting limits on Jesus’s commands for us.

The whole thing about being repentant simply doesn’t wash, so that can’t be the dividing line.

I see God as one of quality, rather than quantity. In order to even ponder the concept of quantity, we need a bounded space/time in which to measure – boundaries God never felt except through the Word made flesh. I doubt we are supposed to forgive exactly 70 * 7 times, and then with the next one … “whoops, you’re OUT! Forgiveness is all used up!” He was tossing out a number that the people would understand to be unfathomably huge. Today maybe He’d say, “not 7 times, but 7 google-plex times 7 times.” That would even impress astronomers.

Look at it another way. With Jesus as Defender in a heavenly court, would He be able to earn an acquittal for satan? Or is the Word Himself unable to pronounce the words, “forgive him for he knows not what he does,” in respect to one or more particular enemies? (Careful, I’m not saying it’s true that satan doesn’t know what he does – just asking whether God is capable of forgiving/acquitting a fallen creature He created in the first place.)

I’m not saying this is all theologically correct. I’m saying let’s quit thinking like “mere mortals” and try putting on our best “God’s thinking cap” when trying to see just how far His Word can take us. We can discuss a subset of an absolute reality, as long as we recognize that it’s a subset and preferably if we agree on the boundaries of that subset.

Believe if you want that God is simply a bigger version of ourselves and that sin doesn’t exist. Our forgiveness is commanded to be unconditional, God’s isn’t as He isn’t ruled by the laws that He gives us.

OK, that helps me. I understood you were saying that our forgiveness was always conditional; I can accept that God has license to change the rules He has made for us. Or were you saying ***the temptation ***is always to make it conditional? If so I think I can accept that, too.

The very requirements of mortal sin are a grave matter, full consent and knowledge. To quote the Catechism:

"1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.“131”

Full knowledge means that we know something is wrong, that does not mean we need to be omnipotent to sin.

I’m not clear how this information relates to the topic of conditional forgiveness. Conditional mortal sin based on an act of grave matter, maybe? Or did I miss something and need to scroll up better?

Disbelieve in the infaliability of the Catechism, of the scriptures and any developed or baseline theology, reason and/or logic if you want. That isn’t exactly a disagreement of opinion that you’re having with me, it’s a denial of the teachings of God’s Church.

Please don’t give up on me yet. I’m still trying to understand what you’re stating here, even as I offer “counterpoint.” :slapfight:

For a man to forgive another man without repentance can be an act of Mercy - but this is not the same as with God, as we are not on the same level as Him.

Now that is something I can wholeheartedly endorse!

A quote just came to mind: “You can tell you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
(Disclaimer: I’m not trying to apply the quote here, it just came into my mind. )

Alan

 

[Darran]

Now we’re getting somewhere. :knight2:

A long time ago it occurred to me that when Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies, to ponder how big of a challenge could that possibly be? Do I have to forgive that annoying kid that stomps my rose garden? The person who leads our country into a war we don’t consider just? A person who orchestrates 9/11 events? What about the big one? Watch out now … can we figure out how to forgive satan himself? If not, then where is the dividing line? If we are to love only our “petty” enemies, how do we know whom to forgive and whom we should not? It’s back to using our human judgment. If we say, for example, “OK satan and anyone who’s professed within the past month to follow him is excluded,” then we are arbitrarily putting limits on Jesus’s commands for us.

The whole thing about being repentant simply doesn’t wash, so that can’t be the dividing line.

I see God as one of quality, rather than quantity. In order to even ponder the concept of quantity, we need a bounded space/time in which to measure – boundaries God never felt except through the Word made flesh. I doubt we are supposed to forgive exactly 70 * 7 times, and then with the next one … “whoops, you’re OUT! Forgiveness is all used up!” He was tossing out a number that the people would understand to be unfathomably huge. Today maybe He’d say, “not 7 times, but 7 google-plex times 7 times.” That would even impress astronomers.

Look at it another way. With Jesus as Defender in a heavenly court, would He be able to earn an acquittal for satan? Or is the Word Himself unable to pronounce the words, “forgive him for he knows not what he does,” in respect to one or more particular enemies? (Careful, I’m not saying it’s true that satan doesn’t know what he does – just asking whether God is capable of forgiving/acquitting a fallen creature He created in the first place.)

I’m not saying this is all theologically correct. I’m saying let’s quit thinking like “mere mortals” and try putting on our best “God’s thinking cap” when trying to see just how far His Word can take us. We can discuss a subset of an absolute reality, as long as we recognize that it’s a subset and preferably if we agree on the boundaries of that subset.

OK, that helps me. I understood you were saying that our forgiveness was always conditional; I can accept that God has license to change the rules He has made for us. Or were you saying ***the temptation ***is always to make it conditional? If so I think I can accept that, too.

I’m not clear how this information relates to the topic of conditional forgiveness. Conditional mortal sin based on an act of grave matter, maybe? Or did I miss something and need to scroll up better?

Please don’t give up on me yet. I’m still trying to understand what you’re stating here, even as I offer “counterpoint.” :slapfight:

Now that is something I can wholeheartedly endorse!

A quote just came to mind: “You can tell you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
(Disclaimer: I’m not trying to apply the quote here, it just came into my mind. )

Alan

Haha, that is quite a good quote actually. I think one of the problems we are having here is caused by simply too many simultaneous questions. What I have been trying to say is that God’s forgiveness is always conditional on repentance, precisely because of His Justice. The only sin that is unforgiveable is what tends to be referred to as sins against the Holy Spirit. That is, a sin of not wanting forgiveness. Satan for instance won’t ever change.

That is maybe going into it a bit, but the forgiveness that God practises is greater than what we can, and really shouldn’t be confused (perhaps we should give God’s forgiveness a capital F in future to distinguish?). As a baseline, we have to forgive others who repent to us, no matter how many times. But it is entirely possible to add mercy to our forgiveness, and forgive others even if they aren’t repentant. We can do that, because when we do we are effectively letting go of the debt that somebody owes to us, and trusting them to God instead (who is chiefly offended in all sin). That doesn’t mean that we aren’t to reproach anybody, just that we ought to be sure to pray for them when we do. Difficult virtues, but great.

The other topic that we were discussing at the same time was OneSheep’s thought of:

“People who sin, do so because they do not know what they are doing.”

Which refutes a possibility of anyone being truely guilty of sin, that is where denial of catechism, scripture and logic came in. The Catechism quote on mortal sin was my counter example, that can’t be faliable. My apologies if I’m so far out of tune that I’m not understanding this conversation properly and becomming frustrated for no reason, you’ll need to bear with me if that’s the case.

 

[Darran]

Relating to the last subject, I notice someone just so happens to have posted this on facebook:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[OneSheep]

Haha, that is quite a good quote actually. I think one of the problems we are having here is caused by simply too many simultaneous questions. What I have been trying to say is that God’s forgiveness is always conditional on repentance, precisely because of His Justice. The only sin that is unforgiveable is what tends to be referred to as sins against the Holy Spirit. That is, a sin of not wanting forgiveness. Satan for instance won’t ever change.

It seems saying that God’s forgiveness is conditional is putting a limit on God. I place no conditions on forgiveness, so does that make me more forgiving than God? Doesn’t make sense.

The other topic that we were discussing at the same time was OneSheep’s thought of:

“People who sin, do so because they do not know what they are doing.”

Which refutes a possibility of anyone being truely guilty of sin, that is where denial of catechism, scripture and logic came in. The Catechism quote on mortal sin was my counter example, that can’t be faliable. My apologies if I’m so far out of tune that I’m not understanding this conversation properly and becomming frustrated for no reason, you’ll need to bear with me if that’s the case.

Sheesh. We really did not connect on the meaning of “counterexample”. Let me demonstrate: If you were to say “mammals always have hair”, and I were to say “not always”, I would have to come up with a counterexample to make my point. A counterexample might be some kind of dolphin or other creature. For me to simply quote a book saying where mammals have hair is not a counterexample. What I am saying is that with the definition of “mortal sin” as described in the catechism, there are no examples of mortal sin taking place, people do not know what they are doing. So, what I am waiting for is for you to come up with a specific example of a human hurting someone (for the moment leaving all the “sin” definition out of it) with the full knowledge of what they are doing.

The reason why this discussion is an important part of this thread is because “good will” will become part of the analysis. This is also a historically important line of analysis; for St Augustine attempted the same in his Confessions, but was never able to complete the project, he ended up running into his own self-condemnation and stopped. The reason why forgiveness is part of the analysis is because understanding plays a huge role in our forgiveness of others, and the analysis of “good will” will lead to nothing but understanding.

We can use one of your earlier examples, if you like, that a robber steals something from a store. Does the robber know what he is doing? I said no, and I gave the reasons why I said no. I will copy them here:

Robbers (to generalize) have their own active morality in the moment “they have the stuff that I want” and often (if not always) “they deserve to get robbed because they did not protect themselves.” The “good” they seek is their own material wealth, and they are not cognizant of the humanity of their victims, the victim is just some other dude of no significance. Indeed, if the robber sees himself as a person of no significance, or has been hardened to the point where he ignores his own pain, he won’t be able to empathize with the pain of others. The robber is not likely to steal from his own loved ones, but it happens. In those cases, we are usually talking about stealing to buy drugs, and that is when desperation becomes part of the equation.

So, in the analysis I gave above, can you see that the robber truly did not know what he is doing? Or did I miss something? It starts with asking the question “why?” about a person’s motives. I am not saying that the Catechism is wrong. I just see that people are simply blind, and that mortal sin doesn’t happen, as defined, because people don’t know what they are doing. Do you want to work on the robber example, or do you want to work on St. Augustine’s stumbling block, the time that he wasted a bunch of pears with his friends? Or do you want to come up with a different human example?

 

[Darran]

It seems saying that God’s forgiveness is conditional is putting a limit on God. I place no conditions on forgiveness, so does that make me more forgiving than God? Doesn’t make sense.

No it doesn’t. The limit is on the sinner. Why can’t you see the irrationality of your own argument?

Sheesh. We really did not connect on the meaning of “counterexample”. Let me demonstrate: If you were to say “mammals always have hair”, and I were to say “not always”, I would have to come up with a counterexample to make my point. A counterexample might be some kind of dolphin or other creature. For me to simply quote a book saying where mammals have hair is not a counterexample. What I am saying is that with the definition of “mortal sin” as described in the catechism, there are no examples of mortal sin taking place, people do not know what they are doing. So, what I am waiting for is for you to come up with a specific example of a human hurting someone (for the moment leaving all the “sin” definition out of it) with the full knowledge of what they are doing.

Come on mate, Adam isn’t an example? He knew what he was doing was wrong and he did it. All of the sins I have ever done, I have known, either fully or deep down, that they were wrong, I did them. That is sin. If you don’t understand what you are doing is wrong then there is NO sin.

Both the Catechism and scripture are infaliable, why can’t you understand that by being opinionated you’re essentially jeopardizing your faith?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

“and on Earth peace to people of good will”

Of all the new translated parts of the mass, this line is the one that gives me the biggest stumble. Why would I change my prayer from “and peace to His (God’s) people on Earth” to only the people of “good will”? There are two issues here:

1. Would I not wish peace to people of “bad will”? If someone wills to do something bad, maybe a little peace from God would fix his/her eyes and their will would change.
2. A question is begged in the first place. Who are the people of “bad will”? This is a matter of perspective. It is reasonable to say that all people have “good will” within the limits of their own awareness or lack of awareness. The racist is not aware of the humanity of those he/she resents. The typical robber is not aware of the value of his victims, and probably not aware of his/her own value in God’s eyes. Is the issue one of will or blindness?

My husband picked up on that specific change and said, “Why did they broaden it to ‘people of good will?’ Does that mean everyone, not just the Chuch?” I wasn’t sure, so I had no response for him. It does seem a lot more general to me, rather than “His people on earth,” which does seem to suggest “just us” Catholics. I mean I know we are ALL His people on earth, just as everyone of good will on earth deserves to be wished peace.

 

[Darran]

We can use one of your earlier examples, if you like, that a robber steals something from a store. Does the robber know what he is doing? I said no, and I gave the reasons why I said no. I will copy them here:

Robbers (to generalize) have their own active morality in the moment “they have the stuff that I want” and often (if not always) “they deserve to get robbed because they did not protect themselves.” The “good” they seek is their own material wealth, and they are not cognizant of the humanity of their victims, the victim is just some other dude of no significance. Indeed, if the robber sees himself as a person of no significance, or has been hardened to the point where he ignores his own pain, he won’t be able to empathize with the pain of others. The robber is not likely to steal from his own loved ones, but it happens. In those cases, we are usually talking about stealing to buy drugs, and that is when desperation becomes part of the equation.

So, in the analysis I gave above, can you see that the robber truly did not know what he is doing? Or did I miss something? It starts with asking the question “why?” about a person’s motives. I am not saying that the Catechism is wrong. I just see that people are simply blind, and that mortal sin doesn’t happen, as defined, because people don’t know what they are doing. Do you want to work on the robber example, or do you want to work on St. Augustine’s stumbling block, the time that he wasted a bunch of pears with his friends? Or do you want to come up with a different human example?

My apologies, I couldn’t read this part of your comment before my last answer. Yes, the robbers culpability of the sin might be lowered, but he can’t be used as a rule, there are people who genuinely know what they do is wrong and still do it.

 

[Darran]

My husband picked up on that specific change and said, “Why did they broaden it to ‘people of good will?’ Does that mean everyone, not just the Chuch?” I wasn’t sure, so I had no response for him. It does seem a lot more general to me, rather than “His people on earth,” which does seem to suggest “just us” Catholics. I mean I know we are ALL His people on earth, just as everyone of good will on earth deserves to be wished peace.

Well, technically anyone who is good in will is acting as a Catholic in a sense. Makes it fair for people who are good but have little or no understanding of God.

 

[OneSheep]

No it doesn’t. The limit is on the sinner. Why can’t you see the irrationality of your own argument?

If I say “God only forgives if…” I put a limit on God’s mercy. Nothing irrational there. If I say " I forgive unconditionally, but God does not." I am more forgiving than God. That is simply untrue, but not irrational. God’s love is infinite. He loves us more than a mother her child. Do you know what that means? Do you have any children? God would withhold mercy for the sake of “justice”? That is not “forgiving our enemies”.

That is sin

. If you don’t understand what you are doing is wrong then there is NO sin.

Okay, okay, we can work on Adam. Limited information, but we can project some details. Let us start with the “why”. Why did Adam eat the fruit of the tree?

So you have sinned, like all of us, and you knew that it was “wrong” from a morality standpoint. This ownership of moral codes is vital and commendable, but there is a time and place to forgive our past behaviors, to stop condemning ourselves for breaking the codes. In this way, we find our own good will, in all circumstances, and where blindness affected our choices. Let’s give the Adam example a shot.

 

[Darran]

If I say “God only forgives if…” I put a limit on God’s mercy. Nothing irrational there. If I say " I forgive unconditionally, but God does not." I am more forgiving than God.

I have explained. If you cannot understand, then read untill you do. Without repentance, there is no Forgiveness.

Okay, okay, we can work on Adam. Limited information, but we can project some details. Let us start with the “why”. Why did Adam eat the fruit of the tree?

So you have sinned, like all of us, and you knew that it was “wrong” from a morality standpoint. This ownership of moral codes is vital and commendable, but there is a time and place to forgive our past behaviors, to stop condemning ourselves for breaking the codes. In this way, we find our own good will, in all circumstances, and where blindness affected our choices. Let’s give the Adam example a shot.

Onesheep you are approaching these questions in an incredibly unorthodox way. I don’t have the slightest idea why you would say the things you are saying, there must surely be a misunderstanding of terms between us. Fix this first. Use me instead of Adam as an example if you need to, I know myself better.

So what you are claiming, is precisely that no man is guilty because he doesn’t know what he is doing when he sins?