Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[pocaracas]

Good Morning, OneSheep,

I am starting with this here, because it is significant. As I explained, from the perspective of a scientist, an observer of humanity, I see human life as having an infinite value, it is a beautiful thing, humanity. This is going to be the most basic difference between our perspectives. Perception of value comes from observation of the beauty, in my experience. It is not a “reasoned” thing. There is a resentment-based argument for disvalue, put forth by the “fire and brimstone” camp. Hopefully you have not been subtly influenced by them.

Lol
I personally see human life as valuable, too.
But I can imagine a cosmic-wide scenario where the whole of humanity is but a tiny blip… and a single human is next to nothing.

I agree, greed also triggers a blindness. Blindness does not indicate a “knowingly” in my book.

ok, makes sense.

But do you agree that we are a bit blinded when we are compelled to punish? It is a human thing. And again, blindness does not indicate a “knowingly”. I don’t think it is a stretch because without triggered blindness, humans do not do violence to one another. It is a matter of understanding why people do what they do.

Punishment is a form of conditioning future behavior, based on failure to comply with a desired behavior.
On a few occasions, harmful punishment is the only way to get a particular person to do our bidding, specially when we are fully aware that this bidding is for that person’s own future good.
I’d rather slap a kid’s hand, than let him pick up a scalding hot pot, knowing the kid wouldn’t comply with any verbal warning.

Maybe not all punishments fall into your category of blindness…

Yes, if they do not value the human, it is my perspective that they are coming from a position of lack of awareness. They do not value what they do not know. Studies with infants show that perception of value is related to familiarity.

Are we “right” with this value? Well, as soon as we use the word “right”, we are in the “conscience” mode, or perhaps we are suggesting that there is an absolute truth. I am in the “absolute truth” camp, but I do not defend it zealously, like I said. My sense of value comes from familiarity and appreciation of the functionality of the human. I also see that all of the world problems with human-on-human violence begin with blindness and a lack of awareness of human value.

Not all problems, but many… perhaps most.

It stems from the ancient us-vs-them paradigm which evolved with us as we developed in the tribal group.
Living in large cities, patriotism and global awareness are new features in the human psyche and that tribal instinct to distinguish the in-group from the rest is still strong in many.

You make a good point, though, even though I may know a particular virus quite well, does it have value in terms of “do I wish to protect it”? Not if it is a threat, no.

Many people perceive others to be threats…
Just look at how many in the US and Europe are now under the impression that all muslims are terrorists… that recently made headlines as a kid was arrested for building a clock and wanting to show it to his teacher.

Perhaps the perception of threat is a form of blindness… but it is one that is rooted in our instinct to stay alive, so we depend on it.

I do rely on a bit of blindness in order to remain omnivorous.

[Homer Simpson] hmmmmmm, bacon!

So, this thread was meant to encourage understanding, and hopefully forgiveness.

There are many examples of “religious people” doing evil. Given the definition I presented of “knowingly” (hopefully you can buy-in to the justification for the “stretch”), can you see that those who did/do harm also acted from lack of awareness or blindness?

Yes, I can see… lack of global awareness.
I wonder what this global awareness will lead us, mankind, to…?

Thanks for your response! When I was looking up your handle, I saw the name as a moderator on a different forum. Is that you?

Yes… well… depends on the forum, but I hope no one is mimicking my nick, so that I can register anywhere with it… so the one you saw must have been me. Same avatar and calm conversation style, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Lol
I personally see human life as valuable, too.
But I can imagine a cosmic-wide scenario where the whole of humanity is but a tiny blip… and a single human is next to nothing.

A statement from a position of great humility, but does not diminish the value of the observer. I like that a lot.

Maybe not all punishments fall into your category of blindness…

I’m not saying that the punishment itself is blindness, I am saying that punishment is a human compulsion, a triggered response. The triggered response depends on temporary blindness to value in order to be carried out.

It stems from the ancient us-vs-them paradigm which evolved with us as we developed in the tribal group.
Living in large cities, patriotism and global awareness are new features in the human psyche and that tribal instinct to distinguish the in-group from the rest is still strong in many.

Did you see the Harvard (?) study on ingroup-outgroup thinking? It was done on infants, it is an innate mechanism believed to enhance survival based on the fact that people who like the same things are more trustworthy, and since “like” is based on familiarity, there is good evidence that the mechanism is useful. We can transcend it though. Jesus used the Samaritan as the example of “loving” behavior. Samaritans were considered worthless by Jesus’ audience.

Many people perceive others to be threats…
Just look at how many in the US and Europe are now under the impression that all muslims are terrorists… that recently made headlines as a kid was arrested for building a clock and wanting to show it to his teacher.

Yes, in situations where the threat is not immediate, people can learn to understand and forgive. I have posted several threads about how to forgive “terrorists”. As far as the kid goes, I heard the report. As a former schoolteacher, though I think the treatment of the kid was extreme, I understand the perspective that rules are rules. Even though this kid was known for his love of robots we can’t bend the rules for one, or chaos follows. I can see everyone along the way following protocol and not wanting to err in protecting people.

Perhaps the perception of threat is a form of blindness… but it is one that is rooted in our instinct to stay alive, so we depend on it.

I don’t think that perception of threat is a form of blindness. I think the blindness comes into play at the perceived negative value of the person(s) who threaten. This also happens between groups, “liberals threaten national security!” “conservatives threaten the environment!”. Plenty of animosity ensues.

[Homer Simpson] hmmmmmm, bacon!

If God meant us to be vegetarian, why did he make animals out of meat? That is my latest line. Isn’t it delightfully stupid? (My son is a strict “dumbitarian”, he does not eat anything possibly sentient.)

Yes, I can see… lack of global awareness.
I wonder what this global awareness will lead us, mankind, to…?

Have you heard of the “new paradigm”? In my perspective, the new paradigm acknowledges that there is no such thing as a “bad” person or a “bad” part of ourselves. All can be understood, forgiven, and seen as beautiful. This leads mankind to what we Christians call “The Kingdom”. A time without violence, inner reconciliation leading to outer reconciliation. Love is made manifest.

Hmmm. “Global” awareness? I like what I have heard from Pope Francis’ encyclical. It’s a new awareness for many.

Yes… well… depends on the forum, but I hope no one is mimicking my nick, so that I can register anywhere with it… so the one you saw must have been me. Same avatar and calm conversation style, right?

Missed the avatar. Yeah, you have a very calm style, thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh
OneSheep has done his part in presenting information about human nature. What is needed is information about the Divinity of God to clear up any misunderstanding.

Okay, Granny, where did I say that God isn’t divine? (And isn’t God, by definition, divine?) At this point, Granny, your insinuations are becoming uncharitable again. We are called by our Church, and this forum, to be charitable and give people the benefit of the doubt.

Why are you doing this?

Answer. To obtain additional information about the Divinity of God in your thread title.

You certainly are free to read post 334. Recall that there is no reference to any person saying that God isn’t divine. In fact, OneSheep is mentioned for *his part in presenting information about human nature. *The request for *information about the Divinity of God to clear up any misunderstanding *is not anyone’s personal denial of God. All of us will benefit from additional information about the Divinity of God.

Actually, I consider my outlook Panentheistic. That is, the view that God is in everything. This view acknowledges God’s autonomy and our own, not simply saying “God is everything.” Panentheism is the typical Catholic view.

“Panentheism is the typical Catholic view.” – is a flat out error. You may quote me six ways to Sunday.

I just googled “panentheism, U.S. Bishops vs. Elizabeth Johnson” Or one can google the book, “Quest for the Living God”. I have the actual book because it was being discussed on CAF. On the cover, I wrote in big black letters “Anti-Catholic.”

Those who are interested in the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops can check out this webpage. http://www.usccb.org/search.cfm?sit...ewusccb_frontend&q=Elizabeth+Johnson&lang=eng

It may be a long time before I can find my copy of the U.S. Bishops rejection of panentheism and some other issues. Those documents should be on this website.
http://www.usccb.org/

I just discovered this bit from one of the Bishops reports. Panentheism opposition to Catholic doctrine should be obvious in the last line. http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine...ement-quest-for-the-living-god-2011-03-24.pdf
“Later in her book, Sr. Johnson advocates an understanding of God that implies that the finite order is ontologically constitutive of God’s being. It is this view of God, which she identifies as "panentheism,” that allows her to predicate suffering to God as such. It is only because God partakes of the finite order that the suffering within the finite order redounds to him. However, such an understanding undermines God’s transcendence in that God’s manner of existence, as Creator, would no longer differ in kind, but only in degree, from that of all else that exists"
This ends my post because it is not my intention to derail the thread. However, when there is a flat out error, I need to speak. If anyone has concerns, please PM me.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Hi Iron D:

I really want to work on an example, and get into some depth, but this is really hard with personal applications. I think we may be able to work on another.

Fair enough. I used myself as an example for two reasons: I know how my mind works (at least reasonably well), and I don’t want to accuse any other particular person of anything specific. However, I suspect my experience is very far from unique, since it appears to line up well with what is described by St. Paul in Romans (and I don’t suspect that most of the population is more holy than Paul).

In any case, the example of my own actions certainly demonstrates that a human does in fact occasionally knowingly and willingly reject God. I’ve done it. St. Paul has done it. St. Peter did it at least three times. I suspect one or two other people might have as well.

So, when we ignore the effects we are putting it out of our mind. If something is out of our mind, it is not “knowingly”.

Not true. When I ignore something, I willingly and knowingly refuse to take it into account even though I know it is there. When my phone rings and I don’t have time to talk right now, I ignore the rings. But they’re still there and I still know that.

We would have to enter into the moment in order to discern whether he is K&WRG though.

Yes, there is an answer, Iron Donkey! You gave the answer, there was a desire for a fleeting pleasure. The intent was to experience the pleasure, was it not? People choose what they see as the greatest good at the moment. Is it a willing rejection of God? Is that the intent? Or is the rejection a rejection of a rule, with no intent to reject God. For example, a person who is speeding is not willingly rejecting his nation, he is, for some reason, merely rejecting a rule.

I think you are missing the distinction I am making here. I have a motivation for my actions, but that motivation is illogical. There is a reason why I have that motivation, and there is a reason why I have an inclination to act on it (original sin in both cases), but there is no reason whatsoever that I actually do other than that I decided to. I did it because I wanted to, and for no other reason, and I have no valid reason for wanting to, or for acting on that want despite knowing that it is wrong.

Concerning “justifying”: You were not here in the beginning of the thread, but of importance in this investigation is to not allow fear of injustice to be a roadblock to understanding. We can remain committed to justice even if we understand everything. We are not looking for excuses, but reasons. The difference is that regardless of the answer we find, we are committed to upholding appropriate consequence.

Which is why it is important to understand that there is no reason for sin, only (attempts at) excuses.

Here, let me come up with an example. Joe walks into a store, sees an item he wants, and pockets it. He knows that stealing is wrong, but something happened in his mind. The first question is this:

What was going on in Joe’s mind when he took the item? Here are some options, feel free to choose one, or make an alternate suggestion:

1. “I want that item, and nobody is going to miss it.”
2. “The store owner is rich, he will not go broke if I take this one little thing.”
3. “I want this item, I deserve it because I don’t make enough to pay for it. I am underpaid.”
4. " Oboy! I’ve always wanted one of these!
5. “I want to reject God. I know that it is wrong to steal, and I want to reject God by stealing.”
6. “I really want that item. Stealing is wrong, but this is really no big deal. God will forgive me.”

What do you think?

Any or all of the above, along with also counter arguments to any collection of them, possibly together with the knowledge of which ones are true.

For example, he may say in his mind both “no one will miss this” and ALSO “I know that’s not true, someone will miss it, and even if they wouldn’t, it doesn’t matter, it’s still stealing, which is wrong.”

Likewise, he very well could say both “I know this is wrong, this is against the will of God,” and also “it’s not that bad really,” but know that the first is true and the second is a lie, and yet still steal it.

The thing is, it doesn’t matter what mental noise he makes. He can tell himself all kinds of lies that he doesn’t believe, but which are “noisy” enough to cover up the voice of reason (which he knows is still there, and which he knows is correct) long enough to go through with the action.

A rather dark example: imagine someone trying to work up the nerve to step out in front of a train. They might close their eyes and cover their ears so that the fact that it’s coming is easier to ignore before they take the step, but they still know it’s coming, and if they step out in front of it, they will still get hit. They block out as much of the more obvious signs of the truth, not because doing so makes it go away or actually makes them think it went away, but because it makes it easier to act against it, knowing that it is there.

Further, in reference to your number 5, it is not necessary to explicitly say “I want to reject God” in order to be rejecting God. You don’t have to consciously be telling your friend “I betray you” in order for the act of throwing him under the bus at work to get a promotion to be a betrayal - it is a betrayal precisely because it uses unjustly harming him as a method to gain things for yourself, and any person with a reasonable grasp of morality knows this.

Likewise, you don’t have to say “I betray you, Jesus” in order to knowingly betray Him.

 

[OneSheep]

“Panentheism is the typical Catholic view.” – is a flat out error. You may quote me six ways to Sunday.

Panentheism as I described it, Granny, is the typical Catholic view. It describes God’s presence in all that exists. This is an Augustinian approach.

Yes, Beth Johnson got into some trouble with here book, but I actually read it (before she got in trouble) and found the idea of God suffering with us of comfort, perhaps to some. Her book came out when some people in the hierarchy were on a bit of a rampage, I think, and that is not the climate today, thank God.

Now, the idea that God’s existence is dependent on the existence of creation? I find no use for that idea. If that is what all the fuss is about, let the philosophers argue about it.

God is in everyone and everything. Without God, we are nothing. It is a very simple approach. All the rest is arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Do you not see God in all that exists? No need to answer. I think you do.

Now, as far as derailing goes, can you quit picking on me and stick to the topic? Charity, Granny. If you looked up “Panentheism” you would know that there is a huge scope of definition. Then, give me the benefit of the doubt.

What you could of done, instead of what you wrote was, “Are you saying that God’s existence depends on creation?” Do you remember the rules of charity? Do not assume, Granny, ask questions. And if the questions are off-topic, PM me.

 

[Aloysium]

Thanks for clarifying Granny.

:twocents:

God is complete in the Triune Godhead, which is Love and the Source of all being. God is other to all there is as its Father. At the same time, in Jesus Christ, He is one with all creation, through the power of the Holy Spirit, bringing us into communion within the Trinity.

While we see in the wonders of creation the beauty, the power, and the truth that is God, He is transcendent. He is not His creation.

Panenthesism does not address our relational nature, our being made in the image of God who is Love, perfect relationality.
It does not acknowledge our relationship with God, which is at the foundation of our being, where we exist within the infinite sea of His compassion, which is everywhere and in every time.

If and when we fall into the illusion that God is our innermost self, at that point we cease to relate to Him.
The joy and sense of being known, cared for and important in being ourselves, is reduced to a feeling.
This feeling will quickly dissipate because it is detached from its Source, our relationship with God.
One is left to generate feel-good relations with others, with the view that it is oneself who is the source.
Fact is that feelings are psychophysiological events; when detached from their spiritual grounding, they become sensations.
As such, rooted in the physical, they are no different from those produced by psychoactive substances.

It should be remembered that while God loves us, nature cares nothing of our existence. We come and go, with no interest shown and no memory but what we can intellectually piece together from dried out remains. As wondrous, as beautiful, as it is in itself, nature gives nothing; it offers no consolation, no hope, and no meaning.

To hold that we are ultimately One in being, is to deny the clear reality that we each are unique, irreplaceable persons, whole within ourselves.
It is not ignorance that separates a supreme identity that includes all of us.
We are each created by God, expressions of humanity, manifestations of Adam who at the same time are centred on the one true Vine that is Christ.
We come together as one body solely through love, and not each of us within the solitude of our individuality.

 

[pocaracas]

A statement from a position of great humility, but does not diminish the value of the observer. I like that a lot.

Comes in line with Carl Sagan’s famous “pale blue dot” reflection: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot
It starts beautifully:
"
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it’s different. Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
"
But this little bit is my favorite:
"
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
"
I always imagine a mighty warlord standing in a tiny tiny tiny dot, claiming ownership.

I’m not saying that the punishment itself is blindness, I am saying that punishment is a human compulsion, a triggered response. The triggered response depends on temporary blindness to value in order to be carried out.

Can I say that I was thinking along those lines, too… but skipping a step in verbalizing it?

Did you see the Harvard (?) study on ingroup-outgroup thinking? It was done on infants, it is an innate mechanism believed to enhance survival based on the fact that people who like the same things are more trustworthy, and since “like” is based on familiarity, there is good evidence that the mechanism is useful. We can transcend it though. Jesus used the Samaritan as the example of “loving” behavior. Samaritans were considered worthless by Jesus’ audience.

Was that study the one they mention here psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowds ?

We can transcend it, yes… but it becomes difficult if the person has been continuously fed hatred for the out-group during his childhood and onwards… like we see in some corners of the world…

Yes, in situations where the threat is not immediate, people can learn to understand and forgive. I have posted several threads about how to forgive “terrorists”. As far as the kid goes, I heard the report. As a former schoolteacher, though I think the treatment of the kid was extreme, I understand the perspective that rules are rules. Even though this kid was known for his love of robots we can’t bend the rules for one, or chaos follows. I can see everyone along the way following protocol and not wanting to err in protecting people.

Former schoolteacher?.. are you on the granny camp, too?

I think the big question in the US is more “would this have happened if it was a blue eyed blond kid bringing a home-made contraption to school?”
Are some ethnicities suffering the weight of prejudice?

But then you may suffer from awareness of prejudice, leading to lack of action when required…
It’s a mess.

I don’t think that perception of threat is a form of blindness. I think the blindness comes into play at the perceived negative value of the person(s) who threaten. This also happens between groups, “liberals threaten national security!” “conservatives threaten the environment!”. Plenty of animosity ensues.

Yes, the out-group is always less valuable.

If God meant us to be vegetarian, why did he make animals out of meat? That is my latest line. Isn’t it delightfully stupid? (My son is a strict “dumbitarian”, he does not eat anything possibly sentient.)

Ok, that is a bit funny.
Your son may want to reconsider that…
The protein in meat is more readily used by our bodies.

Have you heard of the “new paradigm”? In my perspective, the new paradigm acknowledges that there is no such thing as a “bad” person or a “bad” part of ourselves. All can be understood, forgiven, and seen as beautiful. This leads mankind to what we Christians call “The Kingdom”. A time without violence, inner reconciliation leading to outer reconciliation. Love is made manifest.

We’ll need to figure out how to solve some roots of “bad” behavior, first… hunger, wealth…

Hmmm. “Global” awareness? I like what I have heard from Pope Francis’ encyclical. It’s a new awareness for many.

You have a link to that encyclical?

Missed the avatar. Yeah, you have a very calm style, thanks.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Good Morning

Let me start with what I wrote in post 264:

I can provide two alternatives, both acceptable, IMO. I 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 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.)

So, I am taking it that you want me to elaborate? Please ask a more specific question. I am not trying to dodge anything here, but I’m not sure what you want. In the alternative I prefer, Christ suffered and died to show us that God loves without condition. The suffering and dying was not a “payment” of any sort, it was the arrangement necessary to get the point across. In addition, it was necessary that Jesus had to become unpopular, so that He shed that aspect of “riches”. Also, He meant to show us that we are to have a life after death. There is so much meaning in the cross. He gave us the means to forgive in a mature way, to truly see that those who do evil do not know what they are doing.

Love and Peace,

Po’ widdo OneSheep

"The alternative “I” prefer’. .

That kind of sums it right up there.

Your personal opinion you want to present as authentic Catholic Christian teaching, because you **prefer it. **You don’t say, “Hey Christians, you’ve been listening to a wrong interpretation, this is what God MEANT you to believe” even though that is the thrust of all your posts, because most people would have caught you right from the start.
The thing is, it is very, very, VERY disingenuous to come onto a forum with your self-identify proclaimed as “Catholic” and to present your ideas as being compatible with Church teaching (they aren’t) and what other Catholics and nonCatholics should accept as being **authentic teaching based on how reasonable your explanation is **(they aren’t).

It is one thing to ask a question and to say, “As a Catholic, I’ve wondered if any human can knowingly and willingly reject God. I believe that they really can’t, because in all my personal experience and study, I can’t quite accept that they really understood what they were doing. What do others think?”

THAT is the way people should seek information --clearly stating what they wonder, why they wonder, and then asking others to give THEIR insights.

THEN the idea is that you **listen to the other person and explore his/her views, not try to ignore them when they don’t agree with your views, not try to twist the views, not keep 'la la la but I say they don’t really understand, don’t give me personal examples, keep giving me ones that I can keep on bleating 'but they didn’t REALLY understand".

**Because what you have been doing, albeit with a modicum of lip service politeness with ‘please, thank you’, etc., is **using this thread as a bully pulpit to keep on proclaiming, not that there is a QUESTION of humans knowingly, willingly rejecting God, which is what you ‘proposed’, but rather, that according to YOU, they COULD NOT DO SO and therefore all teachings of Christianity which refer to things like sacrifice, original sin, in a word, the entire core of Christianity and the Truth which is Christ, are all LIES and the truth is that we’ve been running around teaching lies for 2000 years.

Buried in your posts now and again, you touch briefly on things like ‘what I prefer’, what I think", but more often than not, you present your beliefs as ‘truths’ and try to bend Scripture and Sacred Tradition to those truths. . .a very dangerous proposition indeed.
**

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico!

I will comply with your desire to take me on the tangent of acknowledging the teaching. I acknowledge the teaching you presented, though it is essentially irrelevant to this thread. I repeat, this thread is not about sin, it is about understanding and forgiveness.

So, the process of understanding Judas is exactly the sort of activity this thread is meant to address. It is not a tangent!

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

If you do not want to participate, no problem brother. Perhaps you have said what you want to say, and now you have it covered. Thanks, I know you are well intended.

Peace and Good Will

About forgiveness of what then if not sin? You began with sin (those who had been anxious to fight him) and the title "Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God? "

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.

 

[OneSheep]

according to YOU, they COULD NOT DO SO and therefore all teachings of Christianity which refer to things like sacrifice, original sin, in a word, the entire core of Christianity and the Truth which is Christ, are all LIES and the truth is that we’ve been running around teaching lies for 2000 years.

Buried in your posts now and again, you touch briefly on things like ‘what I prefer’, what I think", but more often than not, you present your beliefs as ‘truths’ and try to bend Scripture and Sacred Tradition to those truths. . .a very dangerous proposition indeed.

Goodness, Tantum ergo,

You asked me why Jesus died on the cross, and though it is not part of this thread, I told you what I think. If you were familiar with the writings of John Duns Scotus and other Franciscan theologians, then you would not have such a reaction.

Did you read Cardinal Ratzinger’s words on the link I put in the post? The second alternative I wrote was essentially his view. The first view I wrote was Anselmian, a view that the Cardinal criticized, but I think is still acceptable. Is your view closer to the Anselmian version, or Cardinal Ratzinger’s? I suggest that you read the link (it takes a few times to understand it well), and then revisit your criticism.

I am not deaf to what people are saying, but I am not here to entertain assertions as proof! If a person thinks they know an example of a person K&WRG, then they need to get-down-to-the-nitty-gritty-what-is-going-on-in-their-mind.

Really, people K&WRG “because they say so?”. Well, guess what? Jesus looked at a rowdy group killing Him, who probably were convinced they knew what they were doing, and saw that they hadn’t a clue.

Lies? What are you saying I am indicating is a lie? Is it the same as Cardinal Ratzinger? Please, try to be charitable. Read the link, and then explain why the alternative I prefer is not compatible with Church teaching.

And in the mean time, if you would like to present an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, feel free to do so, and we can investigate. Are you refusing to investigate? You and I have not gotten a single investigation off the ground because you wanted to know my opinions on other things first.

God Be With you, and may your soul rest in Him!

 

[grannymh]

Hey everyone!

I have the perfect example of a human knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

His name is Adam and he lived in a lovely productive garden. He was known for his expertise in the science of agriculture. He also knew the difference between brute animals and his rational self. Adam was smart enough to know what exactly he needed to do to reject God.

Can anyone tell me why this perfect example is not acceptable? Why does OneSheep keep asking for an example when there is one?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Goodness, Tantum ergo,

You asked me why Jesus died on the cross, and though it is not part of this thread, I told you what I think. If you were familiar with the writings of John Duns Scotus and other Franciscan theologians, then you would not have such a reaction.

Did you read Cardinal Ratzinger’s words on the link I put in the post? The second alternative I wrote was essentially his view. The first view I wrote was Anselmian, a view that the Cardinal criticized, but I think is still acceptable. Is your view closer to the Anselmian version, or Cardinal Ratzinger’s? I suggest that you read the link (it takes a few times to understand it well), and then revisit your criticism.

I am not deaf to what people are saying, but I am not here to entertain assertions as proof! If a person thinks they know an example of a person K&WRG, then they need to get-down-to-the-nitty-gritty-what-is-going-on-in-their-mind.

Really, people K&WRG “because they say so?”. Well, guess what? Jesus looked at a rowdy group killing Him, who probably were convinced they knew what they were doing, and saw that they hadn’t a clue.

Lies? What are you saying I am indicating is a lie? Is it the same as Cardinal Ratzinger? Please, try to be charitable. Read the link, and then explain why the alternative I prefer is not compatible with Church teaching.

And in the mean time, if you would like to present an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, feel free to do so, and we can investigate. Are you refusing to investigate? You and I have not gotten a single investigation off the ground because you wanted to know my opinions on other things first.

God Be With you, and may your soul rest in Him!

 

[OneSheep]

About forgiveness of what then if not sin? You began with sin (those who had been anxious to fight him) and the title "Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

Forgiveness of people. When we understand why people do what they do that we resent or that we think God resents, it is easier to forgive. We have evidence on this thread that Paul saw his own ignorance, so that he knew God forgave. Realizing the gap in our thinking, realizing the gap in the thinking of others, all of this enhances our understanding and ability to forgive from the heart.

For example, I remember the example you gave, the man who had an affair but was the entire time fully wanting to make God the most important part of his life.

We had a stalemate in that you were saying that irrational behavior is “knowingly” , and I said that irrationality is not “knowingly”. I think the guy needed to be put into an institution. His behavior was opposite of what he wanted in the moment. He wanted to follow God more than he wanted the woman, but he did the opposite of his priorities.

I thought of another question on that case the other day. Let’s say that you were a side-victim of the affair, like the man was your father or the woman your mother. Would you be able to understand and forgive that man?

Thanks, and have a good evening.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Goodness, Tantum ergo,

You asked me why Jesus died on the cross, and though it is not part of this thread, I told you what I think. If you were familiar with the writings of John Duns Scotus and other Franciscan theologians, then you would not have such a reaction.

Excuse me, but I AM familiar with Duns Scotus (whom I do not think a ‘dunce’) and ‘other theologians’. Implying that I am ignorant and that THEIR views ‘mirror’ yours is eerily similar to someone trying one of those tiresome logical fallacies of trying to make the ‘opponent’ appear ignorant and then argue that obviously one cannot accept an argument from such a person --while not addressing the actual argument itself.

Did you read Cardinal Ratzinger’s words on the link I put in the post? The second alternative I wrote was essentially his view. The first view I wrote was Anselmian, a view that the Cardinal criticized, but I think is still acceptable. Is your view closer to the Anselmian version, or Cardinal Ratzinger’s? I suggest that you read the link (it takes a few times to understand it well), and then revisit your criticism.

Ah, again you ‘assume’ I didn’t read a link. Not only that, you make sure to note how it ‘takes a few times to understand it well’. Same tactic as above. I happen to adore Cardinal Ratzinger and in fact own several of his books including Truth and Tolerance as well as the entire Jesus of Nazareth series. . .and what he said in THAT series does not jibe with what you presented as your ‘second alternative’. Perhaps he saw things differently (doctrinal development) and your example was from an earlier time, or perhaps the fact that the Jesus of Nazareth series was much longer and addressed things in context made his view more clear? Because the Cardinal never said that humanity didn’t need forgiveness because there was never any sin to forgive, or that Christ’s death on the cross was independent of man’s sinning. . .

I am not deaf to what people are saying, but I am not here to entertain assertions as proof! If a person thinks they know an example of a person K&WRG, then they need to get-down-to-the-nitty-gritty-what-is-going-on-in-their-mind.

Sir, YOU are the one who presumes to offer YOUR assertions as proof. I specifically gave my own example way back when because since I am the person in question, I DO happen to know what is going on/did go on in my mind. I know it’s uncomfortable to think that people just might be capable of freely choosing evil, knowing it’s evil. It’s SO much easier to think that any old talk of the devil, hell, etc is all fantasy based on ‘primitive’ religions and such that we enlightened people have grown beyond. Because then we don’t have to worry, right? God just made a bunch of toys, none of which could really get ‘broken’ because yay, He made them with an endless ‘reset’ button back to factory mode. Universal salvation is such a happy concept. Hakuna matata and all that.

Really, people K&WRG “because they say so?”. Well, guess what? Jesus looked at a rowdy group killing Him, who probably were convinced they knew what they were doing, and saw that they hadn’t a clue. And He was standing right there telling you this, so you’d be sure to let people know that even those who were participating in one of the most objectively evil acts that there could possibly be ‘never had a clue’ and therefore nobody really COULD have a clue that evil was knowingly and willfully rejecting God. Another logical fallacy --taking one example, making an assertion that X is true in THIS case (which you don’t even prove, it’s your assertion) and then using that to argue X is true in all cases. Logical fail.

Lies? What are you saying I am indicating is a lie? Is it the same as Cardinal Ratzinger? Please, try to be charitable. Read the link, and then explain why the alternative I prefer is not compatible with Church teaching.

Ah yes, the 'please try to be charitable. . .because it’s all about the perception of the person’s ‘motive’, and not the argument itself.

And in the mean time, if you would like to present an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, feel free to do so, and we can investigate.

I have done this over and over again. You simply won’t accept that I did exactly that. Why are you refusing to investigate that by dismissing it from the start???

Are you refusing to investigate? You and I have not gotten a single investigation off the ground because you wanted to know my opinions on other things first.

God Be With you, and may your soul rest in Him!

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I don’t agree with everything that some people have said on this topic. However, I do wholeheartedly agree with the following:

POPE FRANCIS

Prayer for peace*

Lord God of peace, hear our prayer!

We have tried so many times and over so many years to resolve our conflicts by our own powers and by the force of our arms. How many moments of hostility and darkness have we experienced; how much blood has been shed; how many lives have been shattered; how many hopes have been buried… But our efforts have been in vain.

Now, Lord, come to our aid! Grant us peace, teach us peace; guide our steps in the way of peace. Open our eyes and our hearts, and give us the courage to say: “Never again war!”; “With war everything is lost”. Instil in our hearts the courage to take concrete steps to achieve peace.

Lord, God of Abraham, God of the Prophets, God of Love, you created us and you call us to live as brothers and sisters. Give us the strength daily to be instruments of peace; enable us to see everyone who crosses our path as our brother or sister. Make us sensitive to the plea of our citizens who entreat us to turn our weapons of war into implements of peace, our trepidation into confident trust, and our quarreling into forgiveness.

Keep alive within us the flame of hope, so that with patience and perseverance we may opt for dialogue and reconciliation. In this way may peace triumph at last, and may the words “division”, “hatred” and “war” be banished from the heart of every man and woman. Lord, defuse the violence of our tongues and our hands. Renew our hearts and minds, so that the word which always brings us together will be “brother”, and our way of life will always be that of: Shalom, Peace, Salaam!

Amen.

*Invocation for peace (8 June 2014)
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/prayers/documents/papa-francesco_preghiere_20140608_invocazione-pace.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hey everyone!

I have the perfect example of a human knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

His name is Adam and he lived in a lovely productive garden. He was known for his expertise in the science of agriculture. He also knew the difference between brute animals and his rational self. Adam was smart enough to know what exactly he needed to do to reject God.

Can anyone tell me why this perfect example is not acceptable? Why does OneSheep keep asking for an example when there is one?

What a good question.

I mean, if Adam did NOT knowingly and willingly reject God, why were he and Eve sent away from the Garden?

Thing is, if we dismiss people from Scripture because "they were not literal, but figurative’ or “we don’t have firsthand testimony from the person himself or herself’ or “they were a product of their times and the times taught a punitive God”. . .and we dismiss any people who are not now living because 'we don’t have exact knowledge of what they thought”, and we dismiss any people who ARE living because, “they are the product of their times and were taught a punitive God/sacrificial redemption and so lacked the ‘complete’ knowledge of God’s being total love and Christ’s sacrifice unnecessary from the point of view of atonement as asserted by the OP”, we wind up with no possible examples that ‘meet the criteria’ demanded by the OP of 'knowingly and willingly rejecting God;, that is, according to HIS understanding and definition.

He always comes up with the same statement and the same charge that we didn’t address his question.

So all that’s left to do is, respectfully, to keep presenting the answers and hope that he’ll come around to understanding, or alternatively, that we’ll reach the maximum number of posts and the thread will close. Personally, I’m ready to keep on (although I would like some time to eat, work, sleep, play with the grandsons etc) as long as necessary in the hope that like water dripping on stone, the Truth will ‘sink in’, in time.

 

[Vico]

Forgiveness of people. When we understand why people do what they do that we resent or that we think God resents, it is easier to forgive. We have evidence on this thread that Paul saw his own ignorance, so that he knew God forgave. Realizing the gap in our thinking, realizing the gap in the thinking of others, all of this enhances our understanding and ability to forgive from the heart.

For example, I remember the example you gave, the man who had an affair but was the entire time fully wanting to make God the most important part of his life.

We had a stalemate in that you were saying that irrational behavior is “knowingly” , and I said that irrationality is not “knowingly”. I think the guy needed to be put into an institution. His behavior was opposite of what he wanted in the moment. He wanted to follow God more than he wanted the woman, but he did the opposite of his priorities.

I thought of another question on that case the other day. Let’s say that you were a side-victim of the affair, like the man was your father or the woman your mother. Would you be able to understand and forgive that man?

Thanks, and have a good evening.

There are three sources of acts that may be forgiven: ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice. Certainly we understand that fear, violence, heredity, temperament, and pathological states are motivation for some acts that we may forgive through compassion. We may also forgive malice even if we do not comprehend that motivation, through striving for charity.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Buon Giorno One Sheep,

Funny. When I opened up this thread it went to my post no. 16. It must be a message from God. I really have nothing further to add to that post!

Plus, I see that Tantum Ergo can pretty much take over for me. I’m going to the big city again and won’t be back till Sunday and it’s getting pretty difficult to keep up with this. Leave on post 220 and when I check in again it’s at 300! Must be something you’re doing right, or must be that it’s an important thread.

Would like to make two comments before I go.

We’ve kind of deviated to Judas and the pharisees. I thought YOU brought it up. And why did we deviate? Not sure. I’m never sure of anything with you One Sheep. Just quick:

Judas: Who can really know why he betrayed Jesus??? Maybe he thought he was doing what Jesus wanted him to do; maybe he was upset that Jesus wasn’t handling things the way he was supposed to. You know, Jesus could have just knocked those Romans out of the ballpark! Maybe he finally decided Jesus was wrong and they should join with the phar/and saddc. ? Who can know for sure. It’s all conjecture really.

Sanhedrin: Why did they break so many of their own rules to convict? That one might be a tad bit easier. Let’s just say that we do hate change, don’t we? We like to keep sitting on that throne, don’t we? And who does that newcomer think he is, trying to tell us our business? Let’s get rid of him before he stirs up more trouble, and, who knows, maybe too many will start agreeing with him and where would that leave us?

BTW. Do you think Judas was saved in the end? Which piece of information was he missing? Maybe that small piece of information that made him know that JESUS WAS GOD and so he might not have had to kill himself. Didn’t Peter also betray Jesus? Why was HE able to FORGIVE HIMSELF??

Yes, so many questions.

Now we have a poster here who feels that something should be said about the divinity of our Lord and Savior.

Now, I ask myself. WHY would that be necessary? Is it not plain that JESUS IS LORD AND SAVIOR?

If he weren’t, why would he be LORD of my life? Hmmm. Maybe my husband could be lord of my life?

Why would He be a SAVIOR? Did God invent the sacrificial system just to pass His time of day? What exactly do I need saving from?? Could YOU, One Sheep, save me?

I’m starting to think you’re like those guys on some station on TV. They’re German. They believe in Jesus too. Just not like christians do. They think he was some kind of divine person that really understood God and came to be an example for us.

That’s pretty darn interesting stuff. Know why? Here’s what I think, and you might have heard this before:

JESUS WAS GOD OR
JESUS WAS CRAZY

Now, you know How I like to talk, and sometimes, to pare things down, as you say, I have this way of writing in a kind of sarcastic and question-asking way. But I think you know me by now and must know that I’m really very serious about this whole matter.

Will be back on Sunday, but the posts will be up to 500 by then!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

So you are Italian, but you used to live in the US, cool. I started to read Romans last night, some verse obviously are familiar, others not so. Yes Adam is in there to explain why we all are sinners, and then we read about what we need to avoid in order to remain in grace etc.

Freewill : the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
I still have a slight problem with being told we have a freewill, we own our own freewill, yet we didn’t get to use this freewill as a gift from God.
But that’s probably for another thread.

Why do you ask about hurricanes?

I don’t know where evil comes from.

Hello Simpleas,

I was out all day yesterday and am now getting ready to go down to the big city till Sunday.

I will be answering you. Hope you keep reading Romans. Know why?

The church has based all of its doctrines and dogmas on the bible, The CCC is based on the bible. When the CCC quotes a saint, or doctor of the church, it’s because he agrees with the bible explanation of things. So that’s why I love the bible! It’s, like, the original source, if you will.

So we’ll be discussing hurricanes and where evil comes from on Monday.

You may already have your answer by then!

See Romans 5:12 and on
and Romans 8:19-27 or thereabouts

It’s good to be familiar with God’s word so that when someone makes a statement you can discern if it is correct.

God bless you and have a nice weekend
Fran

 

[tonyrey]

The answer is obvious if we take Jesus at His word:

Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me

Matthew 25:45

There is no excuse whatsoever for ignoring the plight of a person who is in urgent need of our help - like doing nothing when some one is in great danger of being tortured, enslaved or killed. Some of the worst sins are sins of omission:

20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who** does not love** his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

1 John 4

It is not what we claim to believe but how we live that reveals whether or not we accept or reject God knowingly and willingly.