Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[frangiuliano115]

Not if proof text is defined as this:
The context as well as number of other features must be taken into account to get an accurate interpretation of the Bible.

davidv,

You’re right! When someone refers to a text, you should always read it and make sure it is correct to the question at hand. I was just saying that you yourself use proof texting when you quote from that biblegateway site. So aren’t YOU doing the same thing? Don’t you see that it’s okay to do??

Why do think I’m afraid?

I don’t think you’re afraid of anything. I meant that you seem to be afraid of using proof exting but then you go ahead and do it yourself. As in my answer above. Maybe I shouldn’t call it proof texting with you.

have two paper book Bibles, RSV-CE, and New American,

Hope you read them! I think you might. I checked out that site and it seems, to me, like it’s easier to get the context from a proof text, or bible passage, from the actual book bible since it’s right in front of you and with biblegateway you have to go back and forth. Whatever. Whatever bible you use is great.

Do you know about a bible called The Message? It’s cool. I guess soemthing like this was needed. If you know about it, I’d be interested in hearing your opinion of it.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran!

To be charitable, the priest meant “Christian” faith, but the Church is not closed minded about the salvific effects of other faiths.

Did he mean christian faith? I’d have to go back and read it but can’t. I’ll take your word for it and will prceed along that line.

This is getting tooooo complicated. I’m becoming concerned about the church’s belief in the salvific effects of other faiths. Are muslims saved? Do we, as christians, believe that Jesus saves or NOT?? Now I do believe that doctrine does not save and I think I’ve said this. So Jehovah Witnesses, even though NOT christian, could be saved because they are seeking to please God. Are muslims seeking to please God? I don’t think the violent ones are; and maybe not even the other ones. Who could know the state of the heart?

I can’t make my position any clearer. If one does not know about God, and is trying to sincerely serve Him, even unknowingly, I believe he is saved.
If one KNOWS about God and REJECTS Him, he cannot be saved. Muslims ae following Muhammad, not Jesus. They are not christian and I deny that we are the 3 big religions. I’ve come to believe that they serve a different montheistic God, not ours.

Where does the CCC say that only good works could bring salvation?

Did I say that? This is what I mean about misspeaking! Me? Miss Grace. Miss Keep the law away from me, please. Miss Jesus will cover your sins?

I meant that good works CAN bring to salvation because the person doing the good works must be of a character that is good and is serving God even unknowingly and maybe one day they’ll come to know God. You know, the hard heart and all that; their heart would be “soft”.

I certainly did NOT mean that works bring to salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9.

We are created for good works - that comes after salvation. James, too.

Must go. To be cont’d.

Fran

 

[grannymh]

From a homily at St.Peter’s Basilica, by Fr. Raniero Cantalmessa:

Yet God’s measure of justice is different from ours and if he sees good faith or blameless ignorance he saves even those who had been anxious to fight him in their lives. We believers should prepare ourselves for surprises in this regard.

vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/documents/holy-week_homily-fr-cantalamessa_20090410_en.html

However, has any person been “anxious to fight him” knowingly and willingly? I am looking for an example of this. Ignorance is a huge, if not essential, part of human sin. Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?

Note: I am using “knowingly and willingly” in the broadest sense, i.e. those who crucified Jesus did not do so knowingly and willingly. They “willed” it in terms of choice, but their choice was in ignorance (and in this case, the ignorance was held blameless).

Feel free to make an assertion in your answer, but please provide an example.

Thanks!

Obviously, the answer is the first human Adam. Obviously, Adam was anxious to fight God knowingly and willingly according to Genesis 3: 6.

If someone does not have a bible, here is a Catholic one on line.

usccb.org/bible/index.cfm

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

 

[frangiuliano115]

OneSheep:
Remembered I won’t be around till Tuesday. Let’s see how far I can get with this.

Try this clarification: “anxious to fight who they think is God in their lives.”. Is that better? In my observations, those who wish to fight God do not know God.

We were discussing blamesless ignorance. Here’s what blameless ignorance is to me:

1. The person does not know of God’s existence but falls under that faith category up above and they are saved.
2. The person does know about God and accepts Him and is saved but does not know that what they are doing is a sin or even just distasteful to God - it may not even be a sin.

You can’t say who they THINK God is. How many interpretations are there?? If I know YOU, I know One Sheep. There’s only one One Sheep. I mean, are we talking about someone living the the civil world or NOT? This is where you always confuse me. If the person is living in the U.S. they must know who God is. They might have some slight misconception, but they will know that He is a just God and that he doesn not accept sin.
If the sin is not known to them, He will forgive them. He is not a vengeful God.

Gosh, even the Grace movement says you can’t sin!

Now, I agree with you that if someone REALLY UNDERSTOOD God, and what God did for them, they would not fight Him. So, it must mean that they DO NOT understand God. A person living in the U.S. knows about God, so it must mean that they have REJECTED God and the concept of God. They are lost if this is the case.

Okay. Can you be specific about what the “being saved or not” has to do with considering the woman aborting? I think you may have something there, but I would only be guessing.

Easy.

1. She knows God exists but rejects Him. She’s lost,whether or not she ever has an abortion.
2. She has the abortion but is a new christian, doesn’t watch the news or read anything, and is not aware that this is a sin. Blameless Ignorance. God will forgive her. Jesus will cover that sin.
3. She is a christian that knows about abortion. She aborts. She has commited a sin knowingly. She must ask for forgiveness.

Here are no.'s 7 & 8:

1. She is a christian
2. She is familiar with christian ideals

People can reject God, but do they do so Knowingly and Willingly? That is the question here. Expecting a baby is never sinful, but having sex outside of marriage is sinful, is that what you meant to say?

Let me add the others here that are pertinent. I eliminated #! because it is more objectionable if she had decided not to have the baby, and we are working from the objectionable. The others I left out were side- issues.

1. She has fear and resentment.
2. The fear and resentment is causing blindness.

So, she is Christian, but she has fear and resentment that is causing blindness. So, is she knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

Yes. In christianity sex outside marriage is sinful. But I’m not a legalist and would like to stay away from that, please. Will leave that to God and the person involved.

She could have fear and resentment. The fear could be very great and lead to the sin, but she still should know that abortion is wrong. She is knowingly and willingly rejecting God and His laws.

But you know what, He will forgive her! if asked. But my simple answer is YES.

I am not a psychologist. Everything I know about projection I learned in a Bible study.

I like the Free Dictionary definition best:

em·pa·thy (ĕm′pə-thē)
n.

1. The ability to identify with or understand another’s situation or feelings: Empathy is a distinctly human capability.

One human identifies with or understands another’s situation or feelings. Projection is part of that identification process. When we express it to the person we are identifying with, you are right, that is not the empathy, the empathy is in the identification, and projection is a big part of that. It’s all good.

The only people who have a great deal of difficulty empathizing are sociopaths and psychopaths. They truly have a deficit.

Trust me I don’t need a definition for empathy, but it could always be useful for our readers. I can’t agree with you on this. Empathy is not in the identification, but in the shared FEELING. Many people do not have empathy, (although they could understand the person is feeling emotional pain) not only sociopaths and psychopaths. I agree that it is a human capability. My parrot was sorry his companion died, but maybe just for selfish reasons??

Let’s leave this alone.

I have more of your replies to address, but I am starting with this one, and it is the most pertinent to this thread. If she is blind, is she knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

I’m afraid we’re going to end up not agreeing. HOW could she be blind if she’s living in the U.S. in the year 2015?? I refer to my other reply above numbered 1,2 and 3.

ONE

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO OF TWO

Thank you Fran!

Now, let’s look at that projection business again, shall we?

Do you love only the people that accept you?`

Now there’s a loaded question! So let me ask you:

What kind of love do you mean?? For the sake of time, I’ll answer.

Yes. I “love” only the people that accept me.
Now getting a bit deeper: I love everyone. I love humanity in general. You know the many quotes of space travellers seeing the earth from up there. One big planet, one big family. That’s where I’m at. I love all races. I see people more on the basis of whether or not they have some kind of divinity in them. I’m white. I’d rather be with a black woman who loves the Lord, than with a white woman who won’t acknowledge Him.

Now isn’t that generous of me?? Sorry I had to use that example.

So, although I love everyone, I don’t LIKE people whom I deem not to be nice, or who do not treat me well. Whether they accept me or not is a bit off topic. Who cares if not everyone accepts me. I could still like them.

Now this kind of goes back to God loving everyone, doesn’t it? Think of this. HIS righteousness is greater than mine! He judges on a smaller scale! Jesus said if you hate your brother you have already killed him. He’s more demanding! So, yeah, though He loves everyone, He does have His conditions, IF we are to go and be with Him.

I’m not projecting here, One Sheep. I know my theology.

I think David said it, but God wants to save everyone, in all the uses of the word “save”. Remember, Fran, we have the freedom to say “no” to God, and that is why we neither say that “all go to heaven” even if God would rather it be that way nor do we say “God sends someone to hell” because God sends no one there, it is their choice.

So, there are no conditions on God’s love, as David said. Salvation, whether it means salvation from slavery in this life or from alienation in the next, requires choice on the part of the individual. As Granny says, we have free will. What I am observing, though, is that people never knowingly and willingly make bad choices. All bad choices have lack of awareness and/or blindness as a crucial factor.

Do you mean King David or davidv? Just kidding.

Of course God wants to save everyone. But does everyone want to be saved?
If we are to choose, we are choosing a condition. Please study up on this. I teach bible study and there’s a fundamental misunderstanding here. The rest of your comments are too basic and rudementary and I feel like we’re trying to get beyond that.

I would like to say that, yes, people do make bad choices knowingly:

A pack of cigarettes:

SMOKING CAN CAUSE DEATH
(or something like that, I don’t smoke)

Is smoking anyway not an informed decision to smoke and take the chance of getting sick?? I mean, do we have no will at all?

What about if the child tortures his father and hangs him on a cross? Yet, there was not disowning; there was forgiveness.

It’s the other way around One Sheep. The Father put the Son on the cross. Or, He did it to Himself if you believe in the Holy Trinity. God Hmself redeemed us from sin and sins.

“Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

WHAT didn’t they know? WHO was He speaking of?

Hey, I can’t answer ALL the questions! I don’t mind working, but you’re going to have to pitch in too! And, I’ll bet you know the answers.

Off to Lucca. Take care of yourself.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

One Sheep,

Did I say 2 of 2? I think there are 3, but not sure and can’t check.

Ciao.

 

[simpleas]

You know, sometimes in these posts it’s difficult to tell if someone is really asking for clarification of a comment. I hope this is the case here and the question is not just rethorical. I do this too sometimes to make a point. Anyway:

Man couldn’t understand what God wanted from him. God wants man to love Him, to be in union with Him, to obey Him. We’d have to ask ourselves why God made man to begin with. Maybe it was for companionship? So He loves us and wants us to love Him back.

But do we? No. We didn’t and we still don’t. He gave the 10 commandments to Moses so that man would know what sin was and that he was sinning. Yes. You’ll be told that they were rules to live by. But they were also to make us understand that we were sinning. A yeardstick, if you will. How do you know you’re sinning if no rules have been set?

We disobeyed in the garden and paid a price. The relationship was broken. How to get back? The sacrificial sysem kicks in. God made A and E coverings from animal skin when he banished them from the garden. The first sacrifice. You should study this system; it’s at the core of christianity. Here’s something from the web, look this up on any search engine:

That the result of disobedience (sin) is death: the death of each animal being a dramatic reminder of that fact.
That the process of purging sin is a costly and bloody affair.
That access to Yahweh’s presence without first being purged from sin is totally impossible: for only the purified believer could stand before a righteous God! All others must keep at a distance or risk being consumed by His holiness and glory.
That God Himself would - at the appointed time - PAY the enormous price of salvation by shedding His own life blood in the person of His only begotten Son.
And that a repentant sinner would be forgiven his sin, if he had faith in the Most High and presented the prescribed offering.

So we kept sinning and couldn’t understand that God is a righteous God. The story of Moses in the Sinai Desert is also important.

The only way God could make us understand was to send Jesus - become one of us so He could tell us directly. Kind of like us becoming an a mouse to explain to them how not to fall off the cliff by following the crowd and die.

You have to love God first, and then yourself, and then other people. You can’t do the last two without doing the first. But yes, you have to love your fellow man. Did you ever hear: Hate the sin, Love the sinner? Man sins because he is fragile. God knows this and we should know it too.

Yes, they couldn’t understand God’s love or accept it. If they did, Jesus would not have had to die because they would have been able to live in God’s grace.

You should study the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. I apologize if you already know them. There are more, but these are the ones that will most help you to know your faith.

Hope I haven’t said more than you wanted. There’s much more, it really can’t be done here.

God bless you

Thanks.
I find the O.T really hard to follow, and I’ve never study the two covenants.

I find the stories in the O.T shows God as an angry God in parts, not really loving all his people, but only the ones who follow a set of rules, and any people who don’t are not welcome, but most all the N.T shows God’s love and compassion for his creation, Jesus eating and drinking with sinners, showing that everyone is important to God so to speak.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Tantum ergo, and welcome!

So many posts. . .and still so much confusion.

Are people really so incredibly smart and good that they simply cannot 'knowingly and willingly reject God?" Really? I know I’m not that smart and I’m not that good.

So, right off the bat I am a bit confused. No, we are not that smart. We are that stupid!

I know that in spite of all my attempts to either rationalize my own mortal sins (too many of them and I’m not proud of that), or to try to forget them since ‘society’ kept telling me how ‘normal’ they were. . . I still KNEW I was doing grave, wicked wrongs, that yes it was against God, that I was rejecting His truths, rejecting His love. And no matter how much I tried to excuse myself --passion, a little too much to drink, societal expectations, ‘everybody’s doing it’, “I’ll lose him if we don’t have sex”, “Well we ARE going to get married”, “We can’t afford a baby right now”, etc. etc. I still knew what I was doing wrong, and did it freely anyway.

So yes, here’s one human who sadly did exactly what the OP wondered if a person COULD do.

Knowingly and willingly rejected God.

And how sorry I am just can’t be said. All these years later, the regrets are still fresh. Why didn’t I listen to Him? Why didn’t I trust HIM instead of those whom I knew were wrong? Why did I think my ‘needs’ just were more important than obedience to show my faith, hope, and love?

And you know, every single time there was a point (even in my ‘I was too drunk to consent’ situations) where I knew (obviously before I allowed myself to take the drink that tipped me into ‘too drunk’) , “if I don’t stop this RIGHT NOW I’m going to do something wicked and wrong”. . .and I HAD the chance to stop but I just said, “I WANT this”. . .and that was that.

It gets to be a little too personal to address our own cases on this thread. For starters, though, it sounds like through the experience of suffering you came to a better discipline, a better way of thinking about things. What you did not know was what you finally realized after all of the suffering, which is the same thing that happened in the story of the prodigal son. The prodigal son did not know how bad he would end up feeling until he experienced his downward spiral, and it sounds like you had the same experience.

If we were to enter into one of your specific experiences, we would probably find that your intent (willingness) was not to reject God, but to serve your nature in some way. We all desire sex, status, material wealth, etc. These desires blind us. “I WANT THIS” blinds us. It is an automatic, human thing that happens in the mind.

That said, it may be very difficult to accept your own blindness and therefore deny it. (i.e. “that is just making excuses”) We cling to the self-condemnation, and that self-condemnation has its place. For example, if you forgive and understand yourself, letting all of the negativity pass away, will you go back to the bad behavior? If you love yourself enough, you will not. If instead you think you still “deserve” the worst, then you may return to the bad behavior, and in that case it may be better to hang onto the grudge against yourself.

At some point, it is time to let go of the self-condemnation. Are you ready yet?

I’m not proud of this. It’s not pretty and I’d give anything to have NOT sinned then. . .but I did it and I can’t undo it, I can only beg forgiveness, confess, and try not to sin again, and hope for God’s mercy.

God forgave you long ago. God’s mercy is infinite.

God bless you, thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

It is logical as stated in the Catechism, since sin is contrary to reason yet mortal sin is a possibility, it follows that mortal sin is possible by acts contrary to reason. Also knowingly means in the face of either conscience or knowledge of the moral character of the act as informed by the Church.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom …

1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

Hi Vico,

I think that “wounds man’s nature” would need some clarifying. Our nature is a gift from God, it is our genetics, our innate compulsions. These are not subject to human behavior, not in the scientific sense. We would have to enter into the specifics of how such “wounding” would occur. What is wounded is our holiness, our wholeness. PTSD is a good example of this.

The person who you had described, who sincerely knew and loved God but had an affair (if I remember right) was acting irrationally. You said that his greatest priority was to obey God the whole time. This does not indicate “knowingly” to me, because his behavior was irrational, and it does not indicate “willingly”, because he did not intend to reject God. That was not the intent of his action.

Keep in mind, brother, that the intent of this thread is not to absolve people of consequence. The intent is to give people the means of understanding the worst of human behaviors. Yes, we all think that people “should know better”. The fact is that blindness happens in the much less intense situations. Remember the study of the people counting basketball bounces but did not see the Gorilla walking through the court?

The man you described was blinded by desire. This is what happens. It is not an “excuse”; it is an explanation.

Thanks again for your participation.

 

[OneSheep]

For sure. Is there anyone who can answer the age old “problem of evil”? My point was that to believe in something, for which not only there is no evidence, and moreover, if the evidence points to the contrary, is called “blind” faith, irrational and unreasonable.

As I said before, to believe in a creator is not unreasonable in and of itself. There is no evidence for it, but there is no evidence against it. But to believe in a benevolent creator is different ballgame.

Hi Pallas Athene,

I suggested a way of looking at it in my post 119. Is it more fun to address the opinions that run much more contrary to your own?

I suppose it is. Me too.

Well, give 119 a shot, even though it may seem that my opinion is not so contrary.

Perhaps I could reword this thread to make it more pertinent to you. Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly hurt anyone?

Thanks for your participation!

 

[grannymh]

In the Catholic Church, our “wounded nature” refers to effects of Original Sin committed by the real first human Adam who is the best example of a human who, knowingly and willingly, rejected God, his Creator. See details in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Our human nature is unique, being both spiritual and material, rational soul and decomposing anatomy. Because of our uniqueness, Genesis 1: 26-27, God calls us to share in His own life aka State of Sanctifying Grace. Because we are created with freedom, we can either accept God’s invitation or we can reject God by choosing the State of Mortal Sin. That is life.

 

[OneSheep]

1. She is a christian that knows about abortion. She aborts. She has commited a sin knowingly. She must ask for forgiveness.
2. The fear and resentment is causing blindness.(this from another post)

She could have fear and resentment. The fear could be very great and lead to the sin, but she still should know that abortion is wrong. She is knowingly and willingly rejecting God and His laws.

But you know what, He will forgive her! if asked. But my simple answer is YES.

Hi Fran, good morning!

I’m sorry, I hope it is okay that I am paring things down a bit. Are you a chatterbox in person too?

It sounds like you are saying that a person could be blind, but still be “knowingly” doing something. It may be that we are working from different definitions. To me, a blind person (in this very important way, blind to the humanity of her own child) does not know what she is doing.

I think what you are saying is that she is blind but should not be. I agree, that is the ideal, but blind she is. Again, this is not an excuse, but an explanation for her behavior.

A way to resolve this is to enter into her mind. This is a made-up scenario, so we would be working solely from projection. We could go with your projections, my projections, or both of ours. What do you think, are you ready to look a little closer? It can wait until Tuesday.

Thanks

 

[grannymh]

With Adam as the best example of a human who knowingly and willingly rejected God, we should move on to Peter. He is the one who said to Jesus: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16: 13-17) Peter certainly knew Who Jesus was. Recall what happens later. Peter was certainly willing to reject God and so he did.
“A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away.” At that he began to curse and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately a cock crowed. (Matthew 26: 69-75)”

Interestingly, there is not much talk about what follows rejection of God by a knowingly and willingly human.

Last line of Matthew 26: 75, describes Peter. “He went out and began to weep.” With his tears, Peter acknowledged his sin and was seeking, from his heart, forgiveness. In the Catholic Church, there is the Sacrament of Confession, Forgiveness and Reconciliation with God.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Interestingly, there is not much talk about what follows rejection of God by a knowingly and willingly human. Last line of Matthew 26: 75, describes Peter. “He went out and began to weep.” With his tears, Peter acknowledged his sin and was seeking, from his heart, forgiveness. In the Catholic Church, there is the Sacrament of Confession, Forgiveness and Reconciliation with God.

Those who avoid guilt proclaiming their ignorance will never know those bitter tears, which turn to joy in reconciling with our God who is Love.

 

[OneSheep]

Those who avoid guilt proclaiming their ignorance will never know those bitter tears, which turn to joy in reconciling with our God who is Love.

No worries, Aloysium!

A person cannot avoid the feeling of guilt by proclaiming their ignorance. There is a sequence of events.

1. Bystanders approached Peter with accusation.
2. Peter becomes fearful, and says something without considering the violation of his conscience. The fear is forefront.
3. Peter’s conscience kicks in, he feels guilty, he self-condemns.

Both the fear and the self-condemnation are automatic reactions in the human, they are much, much faster than careful understanding and consideration, the process of forgiveness that can occur later.

I am convinced that understanding can never bypass guilt. There is a time for guilt, and there is a time for reconciliation. This thread is about the time for reconciliation, which involves understanding, it is about getting over condemnation, whether directed inward or outward. It is not about bypassing guilt.

That said, there may be a time for hanging onto the feeling of guilt, as I explained in post 207. What about you, do you hang onto guilt, or do you let it go? Have you found useful the gift of understanding in the letting-go process?

Thanks for your comments on this, it is good to address all of the anxieties concerning the endeavor of understanding human behavior.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t think that they are lacking awareness, in cases where a couple are married and already have a family, abortion takes place because of many reasons. They cherish the family they have no doubt, yet can still make the decision not to proceed with the pregnancy.

Let me try to explain a “lack of awareness” aspect here.

The child in the womb and the children already born are all part of the family. That is the truth. The difference between them is that the parents are more familiar with the children who are already born, and certainly the parents would be horrified at the thought of losing one of them.

So, is familiarity the criterion of value? To dispose of the unborn child, the parents would have to perceive the child as having no value. In fact, they have no idea, no awareness of the value of their child.

Their child may be the next Prime Minister.
Their child may be the next Mother Theresa.
Their child may be the one who is in the house and realizes that there is a fire before everyone is consumed.
And last, but not least: Their child in the womb is of infinite value, a value that no one can measure by word or deed.

It is understandable that people see no value where they do not see the future of an unborn child, and it is the human condition that we have not such omniscience.

In conclusion, a decision “not to proceed with a pregnancy” is a decision to end a life, a life they are completely unaware of in terms of value. Just as those who hung Jesus did not see His value, parents who destroy their unborn child do not see value. In both cases, they see more harm in allowing the life to continue. This is blindness, it is a thinking based on fear, condemnation or desire; not Truth, not from knowing the beauty of humanity.

Readers:
I don’t want this thread to be about abortion. The topic has to do with understanding why people do awful things, to investigate whether people ever knowingly and willingly reject God. This couple that Simpleas describes, in my view, do not.

thanks, Simpleas.

 

[grannymh]

1. Bystanders approached Peter with accusation.
2. Peter becomes fearful, and says something without considering the violation of his conscience. The fear is forefront.
3. Peter’s conscience kicks in, he feels guilty, he self-condemns.

I prefer the Catholic approach. Clear precise truth about rejecting God by committing mortal sin. Clear precise truth about the need for sorrow and the need to seek forgiveness.

None of this dancing around responsibility and whitewashing rejection of God. Face up to Peter’s human nature. He did what he did. He does not need whitewashing. Peter is not a wimp hiding behind some conscience speculation.

And look Jesus Christ in the face. I mean truthfully looking God in the face. None of these stealth comments about Peter. Jesus is not blind to what is happening within people’s souls. Both He and Peter are not afraid of truth. John 21: 15-19.

:newidea: I bet you were talking about a Peter you personally know. Please, Please accept my apology for being truthful about St. Peter. Somehow, I thought you were referring to St. Peter.

.

 

[Aloysium]

No worries, Aloysium!

A person cannot avoid the feeling of guilt by proclaiming their ignorance. There is a sequence of events.

1. Bystanders approached Peter with accusation.
2. Peter becomes fearful, and says something without considering the violation of his conscience. The fear is forefront.
3. Peter’s conscience kicks in, he feels guilty, he self-condemns.

Both the fear and the self-condemnation are automatic reactions in the human, they are much, much faster than careful understanding and consideration, the process of forgiveness that can occur later.

I am convinced that understanding can never bypass guilt. There is a time for guilt, and there is a time for reconciliation. This thread is about the time for reconciliation, which involves understanding, it is about getting over condemnation, whether directed inward or outward. It is not about bypassing guilt.

That said, there may be a time for hanging onto the feeling of guilt, as I explained in post 207. What about you, do you hang onto guilt, or do you let it go? Have you found useful the gift of understanding in the letting-go process?

Thanks for your comments on this, it is good to address all of the anxieties concerning the endeavor of understanding human behavior.

I am not talking about mere feelings of guilt. Psychopaths are said to be guilt-free. It is being who one is in the eyes of God who sees us as we are. This is no game; the stakes are high - life eternal. It is not up to us to judge ourselves or others, only to do God’s will, which is to love and known through an informed conscience. One had better know what one is doing.

 

[OneSheep]

I am not talking about mere feelings of guilt. Psychopaths are said to be guilt-free. It is being who one is in the eyes of God who sees us as we are. This is no game; the stakes are high - life eternal. It is not up to us to judge ourselves or others, only to do God’s will, which is to love and known through an informed conscience. One had better know what one is doing.

Yes, one had better know. But when we sin, we do not. Psychopaths have a disabled ability to empathize. Their “knowing” is greatly compromised.

Absolutely, the ideal is that we are all-seeing and all-knowing, never subject to blindness. My observation is that without the problem of ignorance and blindness people would never reject God. They would always do God’s will.

Can you come up with a counterexample?

And yes, this is not a game. This is understanding. This is the path to reconciliation, an outer reconciliation, an inner reconciliation.

Thanks.

 

[Aloysium]

:tiphat: . . . puts on Dr Phil hat.

Thinking about guilt as an emotion leads me to wonder what happens when someone lies to oneself about the wrongfulness of an act as it is revealed by one’s conscience.
Telling ourselves that we are not guilty, perhaps as an attempt to avoid the negative feelings that are evoked, would bring conscience into the realm of the irrational.
To deny a truth turns the reality into an illusion.
How then could someone differentiate irrational guilt, caused by damage to the self by faulty relationships, from true guilt.
I would hazard a guess that lying to oneself about one’s culpability would likely lead to all sorts of anxieties, depressions and obsessions since confession/reconciliation is no longer sought for healing the true wound; or conversely it might lead to psychopathy.