Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[frangiuliano115]

ONE SHEEP

Just read that patheos article.

First of all, who the heck is Cynthia Stewart? Is she, like, executive assistant to Scott Hahn, maybe? No? Then why would her opinion be any better than mine???

Yes. We’ve reached this far. I’m a very proud person with no KNOWLEDGE of meekness at all. I guess God will forgive me since no sin has been commited.

Stewart says that when grace is accepted, the brokenness of man is overcome. This is so reassuring. That means that once one is saved, he’ll NEVER commit one more sin! How happy to hear it.

Know what’s funny? Everything she said is true! Too bad that it’s taken wrongly because it’s not said in a clear way. We catholics are very good at this. I think I mentioned a couple of reasons why this might be so way back up there in the first pages.

I’m beginning to think that maybe our seminarians should spend a year or so in a protestant university. Maybe they could learn how to SPEAK CLEARLY. Don’t think I haven’t complained about this. We’re always beating around the bush - hence all these differing opinions.

Now on to Pope Francis. If I could get to the link that is.

Fran
p.s. Jesus did repair the brokenness of man. He also overcame death. Does that mean none of us are going to die anymore? Same thing.

 

[frangiuliano115]

ONE SHEEP

Oh my gosh. Your link was to twitter! I think I need to go to confession!
I hate twitter and don’t like facebook much either, although I could stomach that.

Anyway, didn’t really get more than what you quoted:

“God is always waiting for us. He always understands us. He always forgives us.”

TRUE
TRUE
TRUE

Questions:

If God is always waiting for us, WHERE are we??
If He understands us, are we thinking something wrong?
If He forgives us, did we sin?

I know you hate to answer questions, but think about it.

Fran
BTW, I may be fiery but am I Italian? Not sure. Well maybe a little. I think I’m American.
Maybe I’m a blessing in disguise. Maybe not.

 

[Vico]

Good morning Vico!

As I explained before, Vico, this thread is not about sin, it is about forgiveness, specifically using the gift of understanding to address actions we resent.

In order for a person to know the “moral character of the act” they must know the impact of their actions. If a person is destroying something that they see as worthless, but the item indeed has great value, then the person does not know the moral character of the act. This is especially the case when that “item of great value” is the well-being of another person.

I don’t remember your answer to this, Vico: Did the crowd who hung Jesus knowingly and willingly reject God? If not, what did they not know?

thanks I appreciate your participation because you know so much of the catechism.

It may not be about sin specifically, however, you opened the door when you stated “it was the irrationality part that already showed that he was not in the knowing”.

Now we use the Catechism teaching to show what knowing is from the definition used for mortal sin and that therefore irrationality does not exclude knowing.

Judas certainly did. Jesus said that the Scribes and Pharisees were destined for Gehenna (this would exclude St. Paul, however, because he was regenerated).

 

[Estel]

I believe no one has or ever will knowingly and willingly reject God. God’s ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. Therefore to reject God knowingly is to reject the unknown which is an impossibility. Sure we know He is Father Son and Holy Spirit and His nature is love and mercy, and many more truths about him. Who though knows Him, the infinite? Only Himself, the infinite Trinity. Therefore, to reject Him with full knowledge is impossible. However, the true answer to this question in human terms, like most of the questions here, is I don’t know. Because I don’t know, however, I would lean towards the impossibility of knowingly rejecting God.

 

[OneSheep]

One Sheep:

Just one quick question/clarifier here:

If a person cannot knowingly and willingly reject God, why was it necessary for Christ to die for us?

If we can’t knowingly and willingly reject God, we can’t sin mortally (because sin by definition is a rejection of God, either venial–a rejection that is only partial; or mortal–complete rejection).

Since venial sin does not kill our relationship with God and is not a full rejection, it would not be necessary for Christ to die for our sins/rejection of God, since we never ‘completely’ or ‘willingly’ reject Him in the first place, n’est-ce pas?

Hi!

You want a quick-clarifier on that question, from me?

Whew, I don’t think that there is a quick answer, but I can provide two alternatives, both acceptable, IMO. I have decided, (tentatively) to name the first view the “organic” view. This is the view that man is depraved or somewhat depraved, that God is/was angry at us and we did not deserve anything but the worst, or certainly not a good life or an afterlife. This theology I am coining “organic” because it is very human to feel guilt, very natural, and we are all a bit superstitious in terms of acts of nature (storms, earthquakes, etc.) it makes some sense to conclude that God, in His anger, is out to punish us. In this alternative, Jesus comes to save us, to free us from what we deserve by “taking the hit” from the cross; like a sacrificial lamb offered to appease God, a “debt was paid”. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change God’s view toward man.

In the alternative view, which I am for now coining the “supernatural” view, God forgives us “before always”, even before He hit the “create” button. Christ did not come to erase sin, but instead Christ’s incarnation was totally independent of man’s sin, that the incarnation was not dependent on man sinning. In this view, Christ’s coming served more to show man that He (as seen as the Father) does not hold anything against us, indeed forgives unconditionally, as proven from the Cross. For what could be a worse death that torture, and yet from this position He forgives, showing us, by His observation/assertion, that we do not know what we are doing, and He did so without any sign of repentance from the crowd. He showed us something humanly possible, a perfection found in the Father, an unconditional love. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change man’s view toward God. (But also, in my mind, serves to change man’s view toward man.)

Rejection of God happens every day, every minute. What I am looking for in this thread are examples of people knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Are you ready to work on an (not personal) example?

Thanks for the wonderful question. Please feel completely free to disagree with my analysis!

BTW: The two “views” I gave above are very, very simplified and it would be totally ignorant to say that even most Catholics fall into one camp or the other. There are a number of variations on the two alternatives. Indeed, the “alternatives” I presented are better described as variations of other alternatives. It is the last sentence in each paragraph above that is most distinctive, I think.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh,

I just got back from that meeting in church. Pretty interesting stuff. Now, I’m not in the U.S. but it would be interesting to know if it’s the same over there. Quick: Christianity is not a “religion” but a way of life; we have to start reading the bible more - get away from the other writings. Oh my. I’ve been saying this for 40 yrs!

And you know how you like the CCC? Well, I have to teach and also use that. I don’t like it, if I may say. See what happens in these threads? Two people read the same pp and come up with two different ideas. But let’s get back to the topic.

I agree with you. One Sheep is going to end up saying that we are projecting our feelings onto God OR that we expect Him to behave as we behave. That would mean that we invented God - which is what a lot of atheists say. Is One Sheep an atheist??? Is he catholic? He sure doesn’t agree with catholic doctrine. Is he protestant? He would not fit into any mainline protestant denomination.

He is rather puzzling.

Now I do disagree with you on one thing you say:

“I don’t see any problem with that huge variation.”

Now, if we’re speaking amongst ourselves and wish to voice an independent opinion, that is okay. But we have to state it is an independent opinion. Otherwise, we DO have to go with what the church teaches. That’s how I’ve been trained. Otherwise, we’d all be inventing our own little religion.

And how do you feel about all these posts quoting Acquinas and Augustine and others? I can hardly stand it anymore. What say you? Don’t you think we should stick to the bible and at the least, the CCC?

It was nice of you to answer my post. Yes. We’re very busy with our families.

Fran

Your reasoning is correct about disagreeing with my statement “I don’t see any problem with that huge variation.” Your response is the way it should be. My reasoning assumes that the huge variation will always exist in some manner. I was thinking about a poster who argues that these old variations become legitimate views in the Catholic Church. Some maybe. Certainly not all. It does get confusing. Which is why I wanted to ask – What exactly is the problem with a huge variation? We already have definitive doctrines.

The works of both Aquinas and Augustine have contributed to the formulation of Catholic doctrines in Major Ecumenical Councils. Refer to the Index of Citations, starting on page 689 in the CCC. If their quotes are pertinent to the subject, they do not bother me.

Regarding your meeting at Church. For me, it depends on what readings are being referred.

This thread has become difficult because it seems like something is going down the drain.

I am glad that a lot of post 264 is not Catholic teachings.

 

[OneSheep]

No, this thread is about sin, specifically mortal sin which involves a rejection of God, knowingly and willingly.
It could be about forgiveness, if one finds it difficult if not impossible to forgive someone in the knowledge that they willfully and knowingly did something to harm oneself.
But, that would not be forgiveness, as it is not loving a person to deny who they are and what they do.

Hi Aloysium,

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful post. To me, “denial” does not fall into a loving vs unloving category. People deny because they are unwilling to face the truth. The truth is that we are all completely responsible for all of our acts, whether we are ignorant or not.

You wanted an example regarding the OP, I gave you the example of myself, albeit without the details.
You recast the truth into an apology for sin, explaining it away as blindness.
I repeat, this is sheer nonsense.
Having confessed my sins, asked for His mercy and having been reconciled with God, I am free again.
I would not be had I engaged in the convoluted thinking that claims my sins are merely blindness.

Sin is not “merely” anything. Sin is to be taken seriously. It is our natural inclination to develop a conscience and avoid sin, in my view. That said, knowing one’s blindness does not excuse sin. We are to remain dedicated, here, to not withhold any consequence just because we understand. At the same time, in this thread I have been constantly pointing out that we are not called to refrain from understanding people’s behaviors out of fear that sin will be excused.

You did ask for an example, and since you do not accept myself, I give you, you yourself.
You are clearly not blind to your rejection of Catholic teaching regarding the fallen nature of man.
You have chosen to deny it, advocating instead for your fairyland of dumb unicorns and rainbows.
This stuff is all belief. You do not know your stuff to be true any more than you do not know that the teachings of the church are true.
But, you are choosing, and you know it, and no one is forcing you.

Did I say that I did not accept your personal example? I do remember asserting the opposite of your conclusion, but I do not intend my assertion to stand on its own. In order to assertain whether you K&WRG, we must go into what was going on in your mind at the time. What I did say was “you know better now”. And since that “knowing better” indicates a lesser awareness at the time of your rejection, if my observations are correct you have a greater awareness today. Relatively speaking, your “knowing” has increased, stopping you from rejection, indicating that your “knowing” at the time was inadequate and contributed to your error. This is all very hypothetical, and is certainly begging for correction on your part. This is me projecting.

And how did you know I have a unicorn, and that all rainbows end at my house? Really, though, the proof all lies in the observations, and we can observe together if you come up with a non-personal example. Self-observation is really hard. We can start over with the crowd who hung Jesus, but Jesus already observed/asserted that they did not know what they were doing.

Of course those who crucified Jesus knew what they were doing to another human being.
They sinned and that is why Jesus asks the Father to be merciful to them.
What they did not realize was that this naked man, humiliated and robbed of everything including His life, was the incarnation of Love Itself.

We all have Love within us, right? It is part of our humanity. They wouldn’t have had to miss seeing that He was God to be blind. They missed seeing Him as human, just as the Nazis missed seeing the Jews as human. Do you disagree? If so, let us look deeper, start with questions. Please let me know if you would like to investigate this example further.

Thanks for your response!

 

[oldcelt]

Many people, knowingly and willingly reject a particular version of God. I am personal proof of that. After nearly 50 years as a Catholic/Christian, I came to realize that I did not believe in that God, but that I still believed in a creator. Some take another path and reject any vision of a god.

John

 

[OneSheep]

[/INDENT]I don’t see any problem with that huge variation. I almost asked OneSheep – ‘What exactly is your problem?’ But that might have sounded rude. The simple answer is that people have different opinions, so what is the big deal with that?

Granny!!

Yes, there is no problem with that! It is so amazing when we agree on something.

I just stated that Aquinas did not address it. If he did address it, here is what I think he would observe:

Humans have perceptions of evil. Yes, we can see the child as good, but as soon as he does something bad, our perception of his character changes. However, has the child himself changed? Not genetically, which is the modern use of “nature”. Has his mind changed? Well, not really because his mind was already capable of doing something bad, before he made the bad choice, and that has not changed.

A famous psychologist wrote a book about how people “became evil” in the famous Stanford prison experiment. Did the participants actually “become”, though? No, their character remain unchanged, they simply made bad choices when their own perceptions of “evil” in their fellow participants escalated. As soon as the inmate-actors ticked off the guard-actors, the resentment, and the perceptions, began to build.

I am looking for enlightenment on this projection thing. I hate to think this out loud. But I have this crazy feeling that this projection thing determines how God should act as if God did not have a say regarding Mortal Sin.

Okay, I have to admit that I never looked up projection myself. So I just did. Unfortunately, I have been using an alternative definition of “projection” in which it is observed that people have a “broad tendency to believe that others are similar to themselves” and that “This applies to good traits as well as bad traits and is not a defense mechanism for denying the existence of the trait within the self.” This definition was put forth by critics of Freud and others. I have not been using the standard definition! Wow, I was using the definition of Freud’s critics. Well, no worries. Freud was wrong about a lot of things, IMO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

How God “should” act? How about how God does act. Unlimited mercy. Always forgives. Always understands… Sounds like Jesus, right?

Thanks Granny!

 

[OneSheep]

ONE SHEEP

Oh my gosh. Your link was to twitter! I think I need to go to confession!
I hate twitter and don’t like facebook much either, although I could stomach that.

fiery… You are a blessing because you are a joy, Fran. Come and have a beer with my wife and I. It’d be entertaining.

Anyway, didn’t really get more than what you quoted:

“God is always waiting for us. He always understands us. He always forgives us.”

TRUE
TRUE
TRUE

Questions:

If God is always waiting for us, WHERE are we??

Very often lost, like the prodigal son. I think that was who Pope Francis was thinking about.

If He understands us, are we thinking something wrong?

Well, maybe, or maybe not. He understands us. He does not condemn us.

If He forgives us, did we sin?

Great question! Even better question: If he forgave us, does that mean He previously held something against us? Like, did He feel resentment or wrath?

I cannot close my mind to this seeming anthropomorphism. However, since God is omniscient, and He knew all of the bad stuff we were going to do before he hit the “create” button, He seemed to take full ownership of the consequences of His actions. He saw things were going to get ugly, but did it anyway. The way I look at it, when I resent, and then subsequently understand, all of the resentment goes away. Since God is all-knowing, He never has to go through the development-of-understanding process. He sees all immediately, before immediately. Therefore, how could he ever resent in the first place?

Now, I would really, really like it if you were to address post 247.

Please?

Thanks, you are a really fun person.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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!

I would say yes. As an example, I would use my own sins, which I occasionally commit even while consciously saying (in words in my head) to myself “this is not good, I should not do this.” Often that knowledge stops the sin before it happens, and often it stops it quickly if not, but also rather more often than I’d care to admit, I sin knowing that I’m sinning.

“I do not understand what I do. For the good I want to do I do not do, but the evil I hate I do. (Rom 7:15)”

Original sin is annoying.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I would say yes. As an example, I would use my own sins, which I occasionally commit even while consciously saying (in words in my head) to myself “this is not good, I should not do this.” Often that knowledge stops the sin before it happens, and often it stops it quickly if not, but also rather more often than I’d care to admit, I sin knowing that I’m sinning.

“I do not understand what I do. For the good I want to do I do not do, but the evil I hate I do. (Rom 7:15)”

Original sin is annoying.

Wow. Someone who has actually read the book of Romans! I’m not alone after all.

Now if only we could get One Sheep to read it!

Oh. And understand it. But then this thread would end…

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

Your reasoning is correct about disagreeing with my statement “I don’t see any problem with that huge variation.” Your response is the way it should be. My reasoning assumes that the huge variation will always exist in some manner. I was thinking about a poster who argues that these old variations become legitimate views in the Catholic Church. Some maybe. Certainly not all. It does get confusing. Which is why I wanted to ask – What exactly is the problem with a huge variation? We already have definitive doctrines.

The works of both Aquinas and Augustine have contributed to the formulation of Catholic doctrines in Major Ecumenical Councils. Refer to the Index of Citations, starting on page 689 in the CCC. If their quotes are pertinent to the subject, they do not bother me.

Regarding your meeting at Church. For me, it depends on what readings are being referred.

This thread has become difficult because it seems like something is going down the drain.

I am glad that a lot of post 264 is not Catholic teachings.

Good morning grannymh,

Odd thing is that there are elements of Catholic/Christian teaching in all of post 264. Thing is that One Sheep has it all jumbled up in an odd sort of way. Maybe clear speaking by the church would help?

Now, I like Aquinas and Augustine. But didn’t Augustine change his mind about where evil originate just before leaving this world? I think so. God, on the other hand, never changes His mind. Another problem One Sheep might have as evidenced by post no. 264.

Last evening was not a Mass, but the reading was: Mark 7:31-37

Wish One Sheep would read it! Mark 7:31-35 seems to have been written for him. God has strange timing!

Last evening we (instructors) were told how we - all of us - have to change. Get back to the bible which we abandoned after the protestant reformation. (we used it before that??? - see what I mean about speaking clearly). Understand that catholicism is not religion, but christianity. Wow. Protestants have known that forever. Maybe we’re becoming protestant? Maybe it’s not such a bad thing; they have such a way of speaking CLEARLY aabout everything.

And our doctrines. Yes. This is what I have to say. Too bad more Mass-attending catholics don’t even know what they are and can make up their own rules and regulations.

I have a friend that hates the catholic church but refuses to leave it. (THIS I don’t mean for you One Sheep). Strange stuff.

Okay. Have a good day grannymh. And rest up before that grandchild gets here!

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

I believe no one has or ever will knowingly and willingly reject God. God’s ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. Therefore to reject God knowingly is to reject the unknown which is an impossibility. Sure we know He is Father Son and Holy Spirit and His nature is love and mercy, and many more truths about him. Who though knows Him, the infinite? Only Himself, the infinite Trinity. Therefore, to reject Him with full knowledge is impossible. However, the true answer to this question in human terms, like most of the questions here, is I don’t know. Because I don’t know, however, I would lean towards the impossibility of knowingly rejecting God.

You can know God Estel.

That’s why He sent His only Son down here amongst us wretched mortals - so we could finally get to know Him after He tried so hard during the entire Old Testament.

You’re right that we can’t know Him to the infinite. But can we know anyone that well even here on earth?

Don’t be afraid to say you know God. Jesus made us know all we need to know about Him.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Many people, knowingly and willingly reject a particular version of God. I am personal proof of that. After nearly 50 years as a Catholic/Christian, I came to realize that I did not believe in that God, but that I still believed in a creator. Some take another path and reject any vision of a god.

John

There’s too much going on here; but which God did you reject?

Did the creator make himself known to you as a different God?

I’m sincere.

God bless you.

 

[frangiuliano115]

fiery… You are a blessing because you are a joy, Fran. Come and have a beer with my wife and I. It’d be entertaining.

Hmm. That would be a really expensive beer!

Very often lost, like the prodigal son. I think that was who Pope Francis was thinking about.

Okay!

Well, maybe, or maybe not. He understands us. He does not condemn us.

He always understands us, but does He like it when we sin? Then why did He have to die on the cross? This has already been asked, BTW by another poster.

Great question! Even better question: If he forgave us, does that mean He previously held something against us? Like, did He feel resentment or wrath?

The answer is yes. What He holds against us is that we do not accept Him. (those who don’t)

I cannot close my mind to this seeming anthropomorphism. However, since God is omniscient, and He knew all of the bad stuff we were going to do before he hit the “create” button, He seemed to take full ownership of the consequences of His actions. He saw things were going to get ugly, but did it anyway. The way I look at it, when I resent, and then subsequently understand, all of the resentment goes away. Since God is all-knowing, He never has to go through the development-of-understanding process. He sees all immediately, before immediately. Therefore, how could he ever resent in the first place?

You know One Sheep. You do bring up a problem in christianity. It’s not the one of onmiscience, it’s the one of omnipotence. Of course He knew everything in advance. So why did He create us? Does He enjoy watching all this misery? Is He really powerful? Why doesn’t He just stop all this? Maybe He’s not really a good God.

These questions are not rhetorical, like many of mine are. I’m serious. I see how you’re thinking and it will bring you to the above. Have you already visited there and come up with your own and satisfying answer?

Now, I would really, really like it if you were to address post 247.

Will check it out.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

ONE SHEEP

Read 247. Are you serious? After all the discussing we’ve had you don’t know how I would answer??

The woman sounds depressed. Do you think God is not just? I really don’t care to discuss her case anymore. God sees each act on an individual basis. I mean, are maybe YOU doing some projecting here?

The correct meaning of projecting. How can I ever trust you again?? Just kidding. I misspeak many times. You should also go back and find out what empathy really is too. I mean REALLY is. But that’s a differnt thread.

Now why have you given Tantum Ergo at no. 264 the explanation I’ve been asking for since the git go? I’m glad you put that last pp in there. I do believe you have visited that place I was speaking of in the post just above this one. “God took full ownership of the consequences of pushing that button - our actions”. Paraphrased. Okay. But do we have no resposibility at all? What is choice all about?

You tell Aloysium in post no. 266 that we fear sin being excused. If I understood. Do you think we here on this thread FEAR sin being excused?? It’s excused millions of times a day.

I think you’re experiencing the same problem as simpleas, in a way. He can’t seem to understand that man is not good but is inherently bad. We could discuss this on a theological level, but it’s okay. One day he’ll come around and understand better. The CCC causes problems, as I’ve said many times.

And you. Maybe you belong in a grace movement church? No, seriously. It’s the closest thing you’re going to get with your idea. They don’t like thinking about sin either and are getting pretty close to saying that you don’t even have to ask for forgiveness. In fact, some denominations (independent) are already teaching this.

You’re a fun person too One Sheep.
No, really. I’ll be sorry when this thread ends.

Fran

 

[grannymh]

Granny!!

Yes, there is no problem with that! It is so amazing when we agree on something.

That means that you now recognize that the reason there is no problem with huge variations is that the true Catholic Church has defined the specific truth. Those huge variations have no power to change Catholic doctrines. So why should I be concerned about them?

Only the Catholic Church as the power to proclaim Divine Revelation. Other variations are discarded.

Historical note: Not all variations presented by great saints become Catholic doctrines. This is because the promised Holy Spirit has the final say as He guides the major ecumenical councils. His wisdom was promised by the truly Divine Jesus. Refer to chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Of course, because of free speech, you can continue to avoid Catholic doctrines and promote your own variation.

 

[OneSheep]

It may not be about sin specifically, however, you opened the door when you stated “it was the irrationality part that already showed that he was not in the knowing”.

Now we use the Catechism teaching to show what knowing is from the definition used for mortal sin and that therefore irrationality does not exclude knowing.

Judas certainly did. Jesus said that the Scribes and Pharisees were destined for Gehenna (this would exclude St. Paul, however, because he was regenerated).

Good Morning, Vico.

So, why did Judas turn Jesus over to the authorities?

This should help either make my point, or make a case for K&WRG.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

I believe no one has or ever will knowingly and willingly reject God. God’s ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. Therefore to reject God knowingly is to reject the unknown which is an impossibility. Sure we know He is Father Son and Holy Spirit and His nature is love and mercy, and many more truths about him. Who though knows Him, the infinite? Only Himself, the infinite Trinity. Therefore, to reject Him with full knowledge is impossible. However, the true answer to this question in human terms, like most of the questions here, is I don’t know. Because I don’t know, however, I would lean towards the impossibility of knowingly rejecting God.

Good Morning, Estel, and welcome!

Yes, one way of looking at it is that we don’t know much of anything. Yes, I do believe this, because I have had encounters of truth so profound (leading to change of mind) that I was left completely humbled. “Given this new information, how can I have ever claimed to know anything?”

On the other hand, I can see in my own past misdeeds and those of others that there was something that they could have known or that they knew, but were somehow blinded that without such lack of knowledge the misdeed would not have happened. This, of course, is the case for the crowd who hung Jesus. If they had understood Him, seen his humanity (and divinity), they would not have killed him.

Do you see what I mean?

Thanks for responding!