Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Ron_Conte]

[Matthew]
{21:33} Listen to another parable. There was a man, the father of a family, who planted a vineyard, and surrounded it with a hedge, and dug a press in it, and built a tower. And he loaned it out to farmers, and he set out to sojourn abroad.
{21:34} Then, when the time of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the farmers, so that they might receive its fruits.
{21:35} And the farmers apprehended his servants; they struck one, and killed another, and stoned yet another.
{21:36} Again, he sent other servants, more than
before; and they treated them similarly.
{21:37} Then, at the very end, he sent his son to them, saying: ‘They will revere my son.’
{21:38} But the farmers, seeing the son, said among themselves: ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and then we will have his inheritance.’
{21:39} And apprehending him, they cast him outside the vineyard, and they killed him.
{21:40} Therefore, when the lord of the vineyard arrives, what will he do to those farmers?"

I interpret this parable to mean that some of the Jewish leaders, who condemned Christ to death, realized that He was the Messiah. They say, in the parable: “This is the heir.” So Jesus is saying that some of the Jewish leaders recognized that He is the Messiah, but they killed him anyway.

Not all those who conspired in the death of Jesus were innocent by ignorance.

[John]
{9:40} And certain Pharisees, who were with him, heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?”
{9:41} Jesus said to them: “If you were blind, you would not have sin. Yet now you say, ‘We see.’ So your sin persists.”

It simply is not true that all who sin do so in ignorance. To whatever degree a person realizes that their own free choice is wrong, they sin. And every actual mortal sin is at least implicitly a rejection of God.

From the Cross, Jesus proclaimed that invincible ignorance is forgiven: “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34). But some ignorance is willful and culpable, and not everyone is ignorant of each requirement of the moral law.

We all are subject to natural law, to the ability of reason (even in fallen persons) to perceive moral truth and we are therefore accountable for actions that we knew were immoral.

 

[grannymh]

[Matthew]
{21:33} Listen to another parable. There was a man, the father of a family, who planted a vineyard, and surrounded it with a hedge, and dug a press in it, and built a tower. And he loaned it out to farmers, and he set out to sojourn abroad.
{21:34} Then, when the time of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the farmers, so that they might receive its fruits.
{21:35} And the farmers apprehended his servants; they struck one, and killed another, and stoned yet another.
{21:36} Again, he sent other servants, more than
before; and they treated them similarly.
{21:37} Then, at the very end, he sent his son to them, saying: ‘They will revere my son.’
{21:38} But the farmers, seeing the son, said among themselves: ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and then we will have his inheritance.’
{21:39} And apprehending him, they cast him outside the vineyard, and they killed him.
{21:40} Therefore, when the lord of the vineyard arrives, what will he do to those farmers?"

I interpret this parable to mean that some of the Jewish leaders, who condemned Christ to death, realized that He was the Messiah. They say, in the parable: “This is the heir.” So Jesus is saying that some of the Jewish leaders recognized that He is the Messiah, but they killed him anyway.

Not all those who conspired in the death of Jesus were innocent by ignorance.

[John]
{9:40} And certain Pharisees, who were with him, heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?”
{9:41} Jesus said to them: “If you were blind, you would not have sin. Yet now you say, ‘We see.’ So your sin persists.”

It simply is not true that all who sin do so in ignorance. To whatever degree a person realizes that their own free choice is wrong, they sin. And every actual mortal sin is at least implicitly a rejection of God.

From the Cross, Jesus proclaimed that invincible ignorance is forgiven: “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34). But some ignorance is willful and culpable, and not everyone is ignorant of each requirement of the moral law.

We all are subject to natural law, to the ability of reason (even in fallen persons) to perceive moral truth and we are therefore accountable for actions that we knew were immoral.

This is an excellent explanation.

May I add some interesting information to this point.

From the Cross, Jesus proclaimed that invincible ignorance is forgiven: “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34).

Jesus Christ, hanging bloody on His freely chosen mode of human death, is still the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Because He is Divine, He knows the state of individual souls. Thus, He proclaims forgiveness with the strict requirement of invincible ignorance. “For they know not what they do.” Jesus also knows which individuals in the crowd and which individuals raising Him above the earth are in the state of mortal sin.

Jesus often referred to mortal sin. For example, He referred to the state of mortal sin symbolically as being without a wedding garment. Without the state of the wedding garment, the man could not enter the feast. (Matthew 22:8-14)

As what often happens with public progressive Catholics, part of the story, (the divinity of Jesus) is conveniently left out.

In the story about the wedding garment, I hope our readers stopped at verse 12, "He said to him, “My friend…” God calls this sinner, “My friend” because God always loves and always invites sinners to seek mercy and forgiveness, not as an enemy, but as a friend needing reconciliation.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

… when a person is not blinded by the appetites or blinded by resentment, and they do have “sufficient” knowledge, they simply do not sin. …

There are sins of weakness and of malice. We might call that a kind of blindness, but then we equivocate, because it is not the same kind of blindness we call ignorance.

… Why does a person choose satanism? …

As you point out, the possible reasons are numerous. I think a better question is, “Do satanists hate God?” And I think the answer is yes, insofar as they reject him and prefer themselves, even if they are practical atheists.

… we resent “making excuses” … That’s a lot of words, but did I make sense?

Not sure I follow. Could you state it more succinctly?

 

[OneSheep]

There are sins of weakness and of malice. We might call that a kind of blindness, but then we equivocate, because it is not the same kind of blindness we call ignorance.

Good Afternoon

So, for the thread I hoped to focus on “knowingly and willingly”. A blind person does not, in a functional sense, know what they are doing.

As you point out, the possible reasons are numerous. I think a better question is, “Do satanists hate God?” And I think the answer is yes, insofar as they reject him and prefer themselves, even if they are practical atheists.

As far as I can tell, the professed satanists does not know God, so they are hating an unknown.

Let us look at part of the wikipedia definition:

…Satan, whom Satanists see as an inspiring and liberating figure…

So, if satan is truly an inspiring and liberating figure, then the satanist operates from a position of truth. I think that you and I can agree, however, that such premise is a falsehood. Satanists do not know what they are doing, they are seeking inspiration and liberation where there is none.

Not sure I follow. Could you state it more succinctly?

I’ve thought about my last post to you, and instead of all the analysis of “making excuses”, it would be simpler just to state thus: “Whatever the path we take to understand the sinner, we shall remain dedicated to assertion that sin has its consequences, and regardless of the innocence in intent, the sinner must pay the societal consequence for sin. Understanding a person is not the same as acquittal, we can and must understand and forgive the sinner even as we proceed meting conscequence.”

Is that better, or worse?

So, did we cover it with the satanist, or is there more to investigate? There surely must be more. If not, we can go on to some of your other examples.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Not all those who conspired in the death of Jesus were innocent by ignorance.

[John]
{9:40} And certain Pharisees, who were with him, heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?”
{9:41} Jesus said to them: “If you were blind, you would not have sin. Yet now you say, ‘We see.’ So your sin persists.”

Welcome, Ron Conte, and thank you for your reply.

I find these lines in John a bit confusing, and I have always wondered if there was something lost in translation. For example, is Jesus saying that because the Pharisees say that they can see, that such fact is established? Indeed, if a person knows that they are blind, then they know the truth, and if they were behaving contrary to the truth, then is that not sin?

v. 39 does help with some context:

39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

I think that Jesus is using “those who see” in terms of “those who consider themselves righteous”. So it would make sense for the translation to have Jesus saying: “if you realized you were blind, then you would be without sin, but because you still consider yourselves righteous, the sin remains.”

Do you see the issues with those verses? The Pharisees were blind, and their sin was in condemning Jesus as well as the person He healed.

It simply is not true that all who sin do so in ignorance. To whatever degree a person realizes that their own free choice is wrong, they sin. And every actual mortal sin is at least implicitly a rejection of God.

From the Cross, Jesus proclaimed that invincible ignorance is forgiven: “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34). But some ignorance is willful and culpable, and not everyone is ignorant of each requirement of the moral law.

So, this is exactly what I’m looking for, and I would like to see the presentation of a theoretical example (no names necessary, of course). Can you give an example of willful and culpable ignorance? Make up a scenario, and we can investigate.

We all are subject to natural law, to the ability of reason (even in fallen persons) to perceive moral truth and we are therefore accountable for actions that we knew were immoral.

So, while we are doing this, keep in mind that this exercise should have not effect on accountability. All of us are to be responsible for our actions, whether done in ignorance or not. In addition, consequences in the arena of society are not to be lessened according to how well we understand or forgive the sinner. Can we agree on that? An objective human judge does not let his emotions change his sentence decision.

Thanks, and God’s peace.

 

[OneSheep]

Let’s be precise: “only a believer can reject God”. Someone believes that God exists can truthfully say: “I don’t want to have anything with God”. Non-Christians are UNABLE to reject God.

Hi Pallas Athene

Your observations concerning atheists are similar to my own.

So, I have a little challenge for you. Can you give an example of a Christian knowingly and willingly rejecting God? Give a little scenario, no names necessary.

If you like, we can start with the what you already stated. For example, why would a believer say, “I don’t want to have anything with God.”?

Thanks for your contributions.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, I have a little challenge for you. Can you give an example of a Christian knowingly and willingly rejecting God? Give a little scenario, no names necessary.

No, I can’t - using my personal knowledge. Of course I never talk about religion outside the discussion boards. The subject simply never comes up. However, on the boards I have seen posts where the poster expressed “disappointment” with God’s actions or lack of actions and said that he or she will not wish to be associated with such a being. Whether they changed their mind later on, I have no idea.

But simple self-preservation would “nudge” people not to risk the wrath of God. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31 KJV translation).

 

[Bahman]

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

He is definitely wrong. God should be able to convince us about our errors hence God’s measure of justice cannot be different from us when it comes to judging individuals separately.

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?

In fact, the claim that God is absolute supreme could be wrong. So anyone can doubt it. This is a personal belief hence anyone could doubt it and try to fight God to become supreme. How God could possibly himself be sure that he is absolute supreme unless the opposite is not shown? Consider the case of Satan.

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).

You could not judge about the state of their minds. They could simply believe that Jesus is not God! Consider the case of Judea.

 

[OneSheep]

No, I can’t - using my personal knowledge. Of course I never talk about religion outside the discussion boards. The subject simply never comes up. However, on the boards I have seen posts where the poster expressed “disappointment” with God’s actions or lack of actions and said that he or she will not wish to be associated with such a being. Whether they changed their mind later on, I have no idea.

But simple self-preservation would “nudge” people not to risk the wrath of God. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31 KJV translation).

Hi

So, if the Christian is disappointed in action or lack of action, the “knowledge gap” would be that of the whole picture, for starters. God does seem to allow folks to make very hurtful choices. In humility, we have to admit that we have no idea how much or how little action is taken by the transcendent consciousness.

The person disappointed in God does not see the whole picture. For that matter, no human does.

So… What could be deduced is that an omniscient Father knew well ahead of time that “Joe” would be disappointed in Him, and knew why such disappointment would occur, yet still pushed the “create” button. I don’t know about you, but when I understand fully the position of the other, I neither feel wrath or, for that matter, disappointment. Do you share this observation? if omniscience precludes wrath in the God believed in, then the Christian is not worried about such wrath.

An omniscient God capable of either disappointment or wrath would have had ample time to experience these human emotions well before the decision to create. And then, one would think that such Father would take full ownership of his own decision to create a human fully capable of doing great evil. Indeed, are we not becoming more and more aware, as a species? Creation is still happening, in some sense.

It is by faith that we know that God loves and cares deeply for us, for our well-being. Faith is in itself is a “knowing”; it is not a left-brain scientific knowing: it is a right-brain creative knowing. My opinion, of course. I’m not seeing a “knowing and willing” rejection on Joe’s part, more of an assumption based on little evidence.

Feel free to point out a gap in my observation/thinking here.

thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

He is definitely wrong. God should be able to convince us about our errors hence God’s measure of justice cannot be different from us when it comes to judging individuals separately.

Hi Bahman,

God cannot measure justice differently than us? Whew, that’s a pretty stiff restriction. Was that God’s idea?

In fact, the claim that God is absolute supreme could be wrong. So anyone can doubt it. This is a personal belief hence anyone could doubt it and try to fight God to become supreme. How God could possibly himself be sure that he is absolute supreme unless the opposite is not shown? Consider the case of Satan.

You could not judge about the state of their minds. They could simply believe that Jesus is not God! Consider the case of Judea.

Well, supposedly satan was not human, so it doesn’t apply to this thread. I am thinking anthropology. Did you mean “Judas”?

Thanks for your response.

 

[Bahman]

God cannot measure justice differently than us?

Yes. Consider that you were ask to go to a court for a crime. Suppose that the Jude use a judgment system that you cannot understand at all. Is that reasonable that they force you to accept the charge when you are completely unaware of the situation.

Whew, that’s a pretty stiff restriction. Was that God’s idea?

Please read the previous comment.

Did you mean “Judas”?

Yes.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I find these lines in John a bit confusing, and I have always wondered if there was something lost in translation. For example, is Jesus saying that because the Pharisees say that they can see, that such fact is established? Indeed, if a person knows that they are blind, then they know the truth, and if they were behaving contrary to the truth, then is that not sin?

No, Jesus is saying that because they say, correctly, that they “see” in the sense of understanding religious and moral truth, they are guilty of sin.

v. 39 does help with some context:

39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

I think that Jesus is using “those who see” in terms of “those who consider themselves righteous”. So it would make sense for the translation to have Jesus saying: “if you realized you were blind, then you would be without sin, but because you still consider yourselves righteous, the sin remains.”

Do you see the issues with those verses? The Pharisees were blind, and their sin was in condemning Jesus as well as the person He healed.

No, it doesn’t mean those who consider themselves righteous. Those who see are the religious leaders, who have understood to some extent religious and moral truth. But when Jesus arrives, many of them reject Him and the fullness of truth that he brings, thereby becoming blind. Then those who previously had little understanding of religious and moral truth accept Christ and can then “see” because they obtain a much fuller understanding.

So, this is exactly what I’m looking for, and I would like to see the presentation of a theoretical example (no names necessary, of course). Can you give an example of willful and culpable ignorance? Make up a scenario, and we can investigate.

An atheist who rejects religion because he realizes that if he accepts that God exists, he will have to examine his life and give up his sins. The same situation for a non-Catholic Christian who refuses to consider that the Catholic Church might be the one true Church because he knows that if he does, he might have to change his life. This type of sin is interior.

All of us are to be responsible for our actions, whether done in ignorance or not.

The Church teaches that invincible ignorance reduces or remits culpability, even for grave sin. We are responsible before God and our consciences for those acts we knew to be immoral, and for willful ignorance.

 

[grannymh]

I wonder “did this person forgive?”. Like in this case, did Paul forgive the people he was criticizing? It’s hard to say. What I do know is that when I fail to forgive, it is automatic that I project that God does not forgive either. “A viewpoint is a view from a point.”

I put in bold what appears to be your [projected] view of God’s forgiveness from the point of your position as a human. If my understanding is in error, please correct.

In my humble opinion, it would be important to know what forgiveness entails from God’s viewpoint.
From post 16.
What I do know is that when I fail to forgive, it is automatic that I project that God does not forgive either. “A viewpoint is a view from a point.”

Would you kindly explain the Catholic teachings regarding God’s view about forgiveness from His divine position?

Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

I put in bold what appears to be your [projected] view of God’s forgiveness from the point of your position as a human. If my understanding is in error, please correct.

In my humble opinion, it would be important to know what forgiveness entails from God’s viewpoint.
From post 16.
What I do know is that when I fail to forgive, it is automatic that I project that God does not forgive either. “A viewpoint is a view from a point.”

Would you kindly explain the Catholic teachings regarding God’s view about forgiveness from His divine position?

Thank you.

Sure, Granny!

Mark 11:25

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Luke 23:34

New International Version
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Now, have you thought of an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes. Consider that you were ask to go to a court for a crime. Suppose that the Jude use a judgment system that you cannot understand at all. Is that reasonable that they force you to accept the charge when you are completely unaware of the situation.

Hi Bahman,

What an excellent point! Yes, that would be unreasonable, so I get what you are saying. Let’s put it this way then, and see if you agree… God’s measure of justice is at least as merciful as my own. It may be much, much more merciful. And understanding? Well, God is omniscient, so He has a much better understanding than any one of us could ever claim.

So, you are bringing forth Judas as an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Let’s investigate, shall we?

I think that you are referring specifically to Judas turning Jesus over to the authorities. So, remembering that we are not out to condone his action or avert any punishment, lets start with the question:

Why did Judas turn Jesus over to the authorities?

Then we can see whether he knowingly and willingly rejected God.

Thanks, Bahman, and have a great day. Great point made, too.

 

[OneSheep]

No, Jesus is saying that because they say, correctly, that they “see” in the sense of understanding religious and moral truth, they are guilty of sin.

Good Morning!

Okay, do the Pharisees understand religious and moral truth? If so, they are not blind, right? So the sin has nothing to do with them being blind, the sin in this case is that they know the truth of their harm but are behaving differently, condemning Jesus and the healed man.

So, this provides an example. Why did the Pharisees condemn Jesus? Wait a minute, you provide the answer just below.

No, it doesn’t mean those who consider themselves righteous. Those who see are the religious leaders, who have understood to some extent religious and moral truth. But when Jesus arrives, many of them reject Him and the fullness of truth that he brings, thereby becoming blind. Then those who previously had little understanding of religious and moral truth accept Christ and can then “see” because they obtain a much fuller understanding.

Do you see what I mean? The Pharisees became blind as they reject and resent Jesus.

An atheist who rejects religion because he realizes that if he accepts that God exists, he will have to examine his life and give up his sins. The same situation for a non-Catholic Christian who refuses to consider that the Catholic Church might be the one true Church because he knows that if he does, he might have to change his life. This type of sin is interior.

So, the next question for the atheist example is “Why does the atheist resist examining his life and giving up his sins?”

The next question for the non-Catholic Christian is “Why does he resist changing his life?”

The Church teaches that invincible ignorance reduces or remits culpability, even for grave sin. We are responsible before God and our consciences for those acts we knew to be immoral, and for willful ignorance.

Are the two examples above “willful ignorance”?

If so, let us continue with them. If not, you could come up with another example after we address these two.

Thanks for your response!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, if the Christian is disappointed in action or lack of action, the “knowledge gap” would be that of the whole picture, for starters. God does seem to allow folks to make very hurtful choices. In humility, we have to admit that we have no idea how much or how little action is taken by the transcendent consciousness.

We know that there are no VISIBLE interventions or actions.

The person disappointed in God does not see the whole picture. For that matter, no human does.

That is true, but our lack of full knowledge (or full picture) is not restricted to God. We NEVER have the full picture about anything, and yet that lack of full knowledge does not (and should not) prevent us from making reasonable judgment calls. As usual, the time honored concept is at play here: “the duck principle”.

We do not give an excuse to Hitler for his actions, saying that we don’t have the full picture, and MAYBE his actions carried some unknown benefits, which would exonerate him, if only we knew the missing pieces. The difference between us that I always apply the duck principle, and you don’t. You are willing to “assume” the goodness of God, even where are no visible signs, and I don’t. Just remember the statue of Justitia (the goddess of Justice). She wears a blindfold, indicating that only the acts (or lack of them) count, the person of perpetrator does not.

So… What could be deduced is that an omniscient Father knew well ahead of time that “Joe” would be disappointed in Him, and knew why such disappointment would occur, yet still pushed the “create” button. I don’t know about you, but when I understand fully the position of the other, I neither feel wrath or, for that matter, disappointment. Do you share this observation? if omniscience precludes wrath in the God believed in, then the Christian is not worried about such wrath.

Don’t underestimate the human propensity of fooling oneself. Christians fully believe that their loved ones will get to heaven when they pass away (though some might be worried about the “other” destination) and yet, instead of celebrating that their loved one is now enjoying eternal bliss, they are saddened by their departure. The good old “doublethink” is exhibited here.

It is by faith that we know that God loves and cares deeply for us, for our well-being. Faith is in itself is a “knowing”; it is not a left-brain scientific knowing: it is a right-brain creative knowing. My opinion, of course. I’m not seeing a “knowing and willing” rejection on Joe’s part, more of an assumption based on little evidence.

This is where I become really “confused”. Where are the signs (visible signs) of this “love” and “caring”? It is useless to refer to John 3:16, because that is just a few words… and NO actions. If someone keeps professing their love for one’s children and still neglects them, keeps them hungry and sick, when one could feed and heal them, then this someone is a world-class hypocrite, not worthy of praise, but only disdain. Acts speak much louder than words. And God never offers even “words”, much less “actions”. The “silentium Dei” is almost “deafening”.

I can understand the belief in some deistic god, some kind of a prime mover or first cause - even though there is no logical necessity for this belief. What baffles me is the assumption that this God is loving and caring, when there are absolutely no visible signs of this “love”. At best you could assume that God is indifferent. At worst you could argue that God is malevolent. But under no condition can you present actual, visible evidence that God is benevolent.

 

[OneSheep]

We know that there are no VISIBLE interventions or actions.

Good Morning!

Examples of visible intervention: Mother Theresa, Ghandi, my Dad. Whenever and wherever love is present. Yes, we have an autonomy, but we come from a single source. There is a divine connection within. It is very mysterious. Feel free to disagree.

That is true, but our lack of full knowledge (or full picture) is not restricted to God. We NEVER have the full picture about anything, and yet that lack of full knowledge does not (and should not) prevent us from making reasonable judgment calls. As usual, the time honored concept is at play here: “the duck principle”.

Our judgment calls are still limited by our awareness, right? Which duck are we referring to here…

We do not give an excuse to Hitler for his actions, saying that we don’t have the full picture, and MAYBE his actions carried some unknown benefits, which would exonerate him, if only we knew the missing pieces. The difference between us that I always apply the duck principle, and you don’t. You are willing to “assume” the goodness of God, even where are no visible signs, and I don’t. Just remember the statue of Justitia (the goddess of Justice). She wears a blindfold, indicating that only the acts (or lack of them) count, the person of perpetrator does not.

I don’t know if you read some of my other posts, but one of the biggest roadblocks to understanding people is that we resist “making excuses”, withholding consequence. We can understand and forgive Hitler, as Eva Kor did, while continuing to seek justice. Hitler was blind. Yes, meting justice should be blind to our emotions. We can shed our resentment through forgiveness.

Don’t underestimate the human propensity of fooling oneself. Christians fully believe that their loved ones will get to heaven when they pass away (though some might be worried about the “other” destination) and yet, instead of celebrating that their loved one is now enjoying eternal bliss, they are saddened by their departure. The good old “doublethink” is exhibited here.

So, “fooling oneself” may be an example of a person “knowingly and willingly”?

This is where I become really “confused”. Where are the signs (visible signs) of this “love” and “caring”? It is useless to refer to John 3:16, because that is just a few words… and NO actions. If someone keeps professing their love for one’s children and still neglects them, keeps them hungry and sick, when one could feed and heal them, then this someone is a world-class hypocrite, not worthy of praise, but only disdain. Acts speak much louder than words. And God never offers even “words”, much less “actions”. The “silentium Dei” is almost “deafening”.

I can understand the belief in some deistic god, some kind of a prime mover or first cause - even though there is no logical necessity for this belief. What baffles me is the assumption that this God is loving and caring, when there are absolutely no visible signs of this “love”. At best you could assume that God is indifferent. At worst you could argue that God is malevolent. But under no condition can you present actual, visible evidence that God is benevolent.

Well, there is a bit of mystery there. God has given us free will, according to our doctrine, and we may very well be the eyes, ears, and hands of God. Or, God is the “essence of creation itself” as my son says. My experience of the love has more to do with the sun blinking through the leaves of that sycamore or a child’s embrace of her favorite stuffed animal. Oh yes, or quantum entanglement. Something of those examples stirs something within me as “evidence”, even those these are all scientifically “explainable”. Have you read Life of Pi? For me, a big part of faith is a matter of choosing the best story.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

 

[grannymh]

Granny asked OneSheep

Would you kindly explain the Catholic teachings regarding God’s view about forgiveness from His divine position?

Thank you.

Sure, Granny!

Mark 11:25

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

This is Mark’s view from a human position. Would you kindly explain the Catholic teachings regarding God’s view about forgiveness from His divine position?

Of course, you may start with the Catholic position that a human is capable of Mortal Sin which destroys the State of Sanctifying Grace and thus rejects the relationship between God and herself or himself. Do you need more time to find the Catholic teachings about God?

Luke 23:34

New International Version
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Jesus did say those words. Now it is necessary to determine if Jesus Christ is Divine. Jesus being Divine is crucial knowledge because that is what gives Him the authority to forgive mortal sins. Declaring that Jesus is Divine should help you find the Catholic teachings about God as God the Creator, and the true possibility that a true human being can knowingly and willingly reject God–which, in the Catholic Church is the state of mortal sin.

In the Catholic Church, there is the teaching that Jesus Christ, hanging bloody on His freely chosen mode of human death, is still the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Because He is Divine, He knows the state of individual souls. Thus, He proclaims forgiveness with the strict requirement of invincible ignorance. “For they know not what they do.” (Luke 23: 33-43) An example of the Divine Jesus teaching about the state of mortal sin is Matthew 22: 8-14. Verse 12 needs to be read twice. That is real Catholicism.

Jesus also knows which individuals in the crowd and which individuals raising Him above the earth are in the state of mortal sin. Adultery was popular. What occasionally happens with individual interpretations of Luke 23: 33-43 is that the basic element (divinity of Jesus) is conveniently left out.

The next thing you need to find out, in addition to the Catholic teachings about God, Mark 11:25, above, are the Catholic teachings regarding the human side of Father, forgive them.

Now, have you thought of an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

Thanks.

Because I am not divine like Jesus, I neither have the authority nor power to give an exact example of a particular person knowingly and willingly rejecting God. However, when you look for the Catholic teachings on human nature, you will find that any human person has the potential of knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

 

[fred_conty]

Psalm 36

Sin speaks to the sinner
in the depths of his heart.
There is no fear of God
before his eyes.

He so flatters himself in his mind
that he knows not his guilt.

That says it best.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen restated Psalm 36 when he stated: “The worst thing in the world is not SIN, it is denying that we are SINNERS. SINNERS who deny there is SIN, deny thereby the remedy of SIN, and thus cut themselves off forever from HIM who came to REDEEM.”