Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

Hi Vico

The use of “unforgiveable sin” is very controversial. In my own catechesis, it has to do with being completely closed-minded about forgiving others and closed to the love of God. It is essentially refusal to choose eternal life, refusal to choose love.

Does any person knowingly and willingly refuse to choose love? Can you think of an example? I have tried, but I cannot.

Again, we are going to have different approaches to “irrational”. The irrationality is key to the person’s behavior, and irrationality does not indicate a “knowing” or “willing”.
No person “knowingly” wants to be irrational, when a person is irrational, something is not right in their mind.

Thanks.

Yes I have.

Yes people do knowingly (without quotes-- I don’t know what with quotes means, but I think is means - not really what the word is defined as but an analogy) want to be irrational. This is because of pride, the pleasure of doing one’s own will not that of another, and that other may be God. Lucifer is one example of that, Adam another.

Sin is irrational. There are two kinds of irrational appetites:

• concupiscible appetite – which accounts for our desires for various physical pleasures
• irascible appetite – which accounts for emotions such as anger and fear.

Because they are found in non-human animals, the appetites are irrational. See, e.g., Summa Theologica I, qq. 79-82; I-II q. 56, a. 4.

On the other hand,for a person to actually do something well, the moving virtue must either be in the will itself or in some power as moved by the will.

 

[grannymh]

Does any person knowingly and willingly refuse to choose love? Can you think of an example? I have tried, but I cannot.

I have an example. The person who wanted to surmount the insurmountable limits of being a creature. The problem was that there cannot be two infinite omnipotent Gods at the same time especially if one of them is a creature. I do not believe you know this person, but he exists without your blessings.

 

[Aloysium]

Hi Vico . . . Does any person knowingly and willingly refuse to choose love? Can you think of an example? I have tried, but I cannot. . .

I would remind you of the example I gave - myself, although not providing the details. So you must consider me a liar, in which case I would be knowingly and willingly committing a sin. Otherwise you should consider me of unsound mind and I can assure you that I am sane.

Let’s take for example, when I am polite or forgiving; in these cases, I am trying to counter the will to hurt. At some point I decided to not to act in a manner that was previously natural to me. Where at an earlier time, I would have hurt and wished ill for others in full consciousness, I later chose a different approach.

I can’t understand where you are coming from. If it is what you hear me saying, I’m not actually calling you and humanity worthless trash to say we are sinners. We just are able to and have done very terrible things. We can’t just dismiss it saying we did not know what we were doing.

 

[simpleas]

Example :

Saul see’s Stephen stoned to death, he believes that it was justified because no man could claim to be God, and he decides to set out and kill any follower of this man Jesus.
He has his conversion on the road to damascus, God shows him what he was unable to see.

In a sense he was K&W doing what he thought was right by his God, but he won’t have thought he was rejecting God, he thought he was honoring, protecting his God and faith by destroying Christians.

Christians ended up doing the same thing for centuries after St Paul showed how he was wrong.
Thankfully we don’t kill in the name of God anymore.

So I don’t see Saul K&WRG, I see he did what he thought was right, most solutions to our problems are to just get rid of the problem, but as we know it never works…

 

[grannymh]

Example :

Saul see’s Stephen stoned to death, he believes that it was justified because no man could claim to be God, and he decides to set out and kill any follower of this man Jesus.
He has his conversion on the road to damascus, God shows him what he was unable to see.

In a sense he was K&W doing what he thought was right by his God, but he won’t have thought he was rejecting God, he thought he was honoring, protecting his God and faith by destroying Christians.

Christians ended up doing the same thing for centuries after St Paul showed how he was wrong.
Thankfully we don’t kill in the name of God anymore.

So I don’t see Saul K&WRG, I see he did what he thought was right, most solutions to our problems are to just get rid of the problem, but as we know it never works…

The act of murder is wrong in itself. Check out the 10 Commandments. One can not consider Stephen’s murder as a picnic on a Sunday.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes I have.

Yes people do knowingly (without quotes-- I don’t know what with quotes means, but I think is means - not really what the word is defined as but an analogy) want to be irrational.

Good Morning, brother

I put “knowingly” in quotes because I am defining it in the broadest sense, including all knowledge pertinent to the decision made. I can “know” I did wrong, without doing it “knowingly”. Again, the root of the word “know” in my usage comes from Jesus’ statement from the cross.

Irrational: Not logical or unreasonable.

No, people do not want to be irrational, in my observation. What they want (sex, power, status, wealth, love, etc.) is understandable because such desires are part of our nature. These wants are “logical” in terms that they are understandable. When the wants conflict with good morals, the individual can become blinded of the morals. The person wants to do good, but the desire is causing a blindness. The desire becomes the more “logical or reasonable” good in their eyes.

This is because of pride, the pleasure of doing one’s own will not that of another, and that other may be God. Lucifer is one example of that, Adam another.

This thread is about humans, and Lucifer has never been described as such. Adam is essentially defined by most as omniscient, so he does not fit the “human” mold either.

If “pride” is wanting to do one’s will without limit, then a person is reasoning that his own will takes precedent, even over God. This is not the truth, so if sees that his own will takes precedent, he is adhereing to an untruth. He does not, in the moment, know/believe the truth. He is not “knowingly” rejecting God, because his mind is compromised. What he wants is power and status, for understandable reasons, but his desire causes blindness.

Sin is irrational. There are two kinds of irrational appetites:

• concupiscible appetite – which accounts for our desires for various physical pleasures
• irascible appetite – which accounts for emotions such as anger and fear.

Because they are found in non-human animals, the appetites are irrational. See, e.g., Summa Theologica I, qq. 79-82; I-II q. 56, a. 4.

On the other hand,for a person to actually do something well, the moving virtue must either be in the will itself or in some power as moved by the will.

Yes, for a person to do something well, they must not have their mind hijacked by desire. Their knowing must be unclouded by appetites. Appetites blind us. Appetites, however, are God-given.

Thanks for the post.

 

[OneSheep]

Be very careful in reading this presentation from OneSheep, post 264, page 18.
Approximately 97% of it is not Catholic teaching.
“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.)”

The first sentence denies some of the Catholic teachings on the two-way relationship between a separate Divinity and a separate humanity. That could be due to the influence of panentheism, that is, God is not transcendent.

God is transcendent, Granny, that is my definition of Panentheism.

The second sentence denies the fundamental reason for the Incarnation.

Look at the comments I made about CCC399 on the Adam and Logic thread. Perhaps you will understand.

The third sentence misrepresents the positions of God and man.

Here is the third sentence:

" 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."

Please explain how this misrepresents the positions of God and man.

The fourth sentence is correct regarding torture and death; however, the rest has a stealth attack on the meaning of full divinity which could be due to modern Arianism.

Here is the fouth sentence:

“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.”

Please explain how this attacks the meaning of full divinity.

The fifth sentence has the implication that a divine perfection in God can be humanly possible. Divine and human are separate. The influence of panentheism could be present.

Matthew 5:48
New International Version
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I agree, Granny, Jesus asks a lot of us. But some degree of perfection must be possible, otherwise He would not have said this.

The sixth sentence speaks about man’s view of God. There can be a thousand legitimate views of God. But not all legitimate views have been formally defined as Catholic doctrines. And some of the legitimate views are downright ugly.

I’m not sure what your “red flag” is about here.

It is a beautiful morning. It reminds me of Genesis 1: 26-27. Consequently, I will give the sixth sentence the benefit of the doubt. Someone can figure out the change in percentage.

Perhaps you should start from the position “I don’t understand what OneSheep is saying.” That would be a more charitable approach Granny. Instead of blatantly condemning, ask questions. I have addressed all of your fears but two, and when you explain them, I will address them also. None of it is “anti-Catholic”.

Thanks, Granny, your challenges help me clarify the positions.

 

[grannymh]

Here is the third sentence:

" 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."

Please explain how this misrepresents the positions of God and man.

By having God forgive unconditionally that removes the requirements for a relationship between God, in His position as Divine, and the creature who is not Divine.

Man can only live in friendship with a Being, Who is in a higher position, by living in free submission (obedience). It so happens that man has an intellective soul and freedom of choice. This means that man can choose or reject God.

When man commits a mortal sin, he, being human, has to approach God seeking forgiveness. The position of God is that reconciliation is possible provided that man, because of his lower position, seeks forgiveness which is a declaration of his desire to be obedient.

Again obedience is key in maintaining the relationship.

I do understand that the above is very difficult to follow. One of the difficulties is due to the idea that a person cannot ever knowingly and willing reject God.

 

[simpleas]

The act of murder is wrong in itself. Check out the 10 Commandments. One can not consider Stephen’s murder as a picnic on a Sunday.

No picnic indeed…

I’m assuming Saul was very devote to the Jewish faith :

Leviticus 24:16

*16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
*

And thankyou, I am aware of the Ten commandments.

 

[grannymh]

And thankyou, I am aware of the Ten commandments.

I knew you did.

However, there are some people who can’t remember where they are.
These are the people I reminded. :tsktsk:

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, brother

I put “knowingly” in quotes because I am defining it in the broadest sense, including all knowledge pertinent to the decision made. I can “know” I did wrong, without doing it “knowingly”. Again, the root of the word “know” in my usage comes from Jesus’ statement from the cross.

Irrational: Not logical or unreasonable.

No, people do not want to be irrational, in my observation. What they want (sex, power, status, wealth, love, etc.) is understandable because such desires are part of our nature. These wants are “logical” in terms that they are understandable. When the wants conflict with good morals, the individual can become blinded of the morals. The person wants to do good, but the desire is causing a blindness. The desire becomes the more “logical or reasonable” good in their eyes.

This thread is about humans, and Lucifer has never been described as such. Adam is essentially defined by most as omniscient, so he does not fit the “human” mold either.

If “pride” is wanting to do one’s will without limit, then a person is reasoning that his own will takes precedent, even over God. This is not the truth, so if sees that his own will takes precedent, he is adhereing to an untruth. He does not, in the moment, know/believe the truth. He is not “knowingly” rejecting God, because his mind is compromised. What he wants is power and status, for understandable reasons, but his desire causes blindness.

Yes, for a person to do something well, they must not have their mind hijacked by desire. Their knowing must be unclouded by appetites. Appetites blind us. Appetites, however, are God-given.

Thanks for the post.

Others than Lucifer and Adam have fallen to pride. Pride fall is irascible appetite. God gives us sufficient grace to overcome this. When we choose not to cooperate, then that grace is not efficacious.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico

The use of “unforgiveable sin” is very controversial. In my own catechesis, it has to do with being completely closed-minded about forgiving others and closed to the love of God. It is essentially refusal to choose eternal life, refusal to choose love…

1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
Romans 2 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 3
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

 

[OneSheep]

I would remind you of the example I gave - myself, although not providing the details. So you must consider me a liar, in which case I would be knowingly and willingly committing a sin. Otherwise you should consider me of unsound mind and I can assure you that I am sane.

Dear Aloysium,

Since I never said you were a liar, I want you to consider something. How would you feel if I said you considered me a liar if that was never a thought that crossed your mind?

So, what does that mean to you in terms of “do unto others?”. Would you think twice and give a person the benefit of the doubt, like “I wonder if he thinks I haven’t considered another way of looking at this?” rather than thinking “he must consider me a liar?”

So, in this case a choice to love is one where the person considers the good intent of the other, and gives the benefit of the doubt. If a person chooses not to give the benefit of the doubt, is he knowingly and willingly rejecting God (or choosing against love)?

No, people who do not give the benefit of the doubt (here are 4 possibles):

1. Do not know the possibilities for the “benefit”. They may have only one idea in their scope. “He must think I am a liar.”
   This is not “knowingly and willingly choosing against love”.
2. Do not care whether the accusation of such liar-perception is hurtful or not. “This guy is not worth my care.”
   Since such individual does not know the value of the person being hurt, he is not “knowingly and willingly choosing against love”.
3. Are desensitized to the hurt that comes from assuming the worst about the receiver of a criticism. “No big deal if I say he is calling me a liar, people accuse others of stuff like that all the time.”
   In this case, the person’s empathy is dormant on the issue. The “empathy” part of “knowing” is compromised.
4. Are set on on punishing the receiver of the criticism. Like I mentioned before, when we are in punishment mode, we are blind to people’s humanity, as those people were who hung Jesus.
   Blindness due to the compulsion to punish is not “knowingly”. If the blindness was not there, the bad behavior would not occur.

Let’s take for example, when I am polite or forgiving; in these cases, I am trying to counter the will to hurt. At some point I decided to not to act in a manner that was previously natural to me. Where at an earlier time, I would have hurt and wished ill for others in full consciousness, I later chose a different approach.

This is a much better example to work from, Alysium! Yes, the “will to hurt” is “natural” in certain circumstances. However, is it K&WRG? Is it K&W choosing against love?

The key part is to enter into “At some point I decided to not act in a (hurtful) manner…” What happened? How did you come to decide this?

I can’t understand where you are coming from. If it is what you hear me saying, I’m not actually calling you and humanity worthless trash to say we are sinners. We just are able to and have done very terrible things. We can’t just dismiss it saying we did not know what we were doing.

That’s a very good point Aloysium. Dismissal does not lead to self-awareness or understanding. Instead, it behooves all of us to pray and use the gift of understanding to work through everything, but never simply dismiss. That is why I am going through all of this tedious process, to avoid dismissal.

After all, what is the typical dismissal? Here it is: “He did a bad thing, so he is a bad person.” This is what the mind does. People do bad things, and our mind says "oh, he is just another terrorist, bad guy, jerk, AH, control freak, ego-maniac, idiot, relativist, arianist, tree-hugger, religious nut, fundamentalist, etc. etc. etc. These are all dismissals, all bypass the humanity of the individual. In order to avoid dismissal, we really have to get into details.

Thanks for your response!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear Tantum,

I am hearing some anger, as you are writing in red to me, which is very hard on my eyes. It is so often that we criticize in others exactly what we ourselves are doing in the very moment. I am sorry that red is hard on your eyes but it is not ‘anger’. Perhaps you are too young to remember your teachers correcting or commenting on your work using a ‘red pencil’ or a ‘red pen’. It is natural for me to ‘comment’ in this way.

Christ’s coming certainly addressed sin. He gave us the means to overcome it, and He forgave us. He also taught us how to forgive. So in this sense, “erasing” sin was part of the reason for the incarnation. What I was relaying was that “salvation” has more to do with “straightening us”, putting us on the right path, rather than any sort of displaced punishment. I do not believe that I was objecting to the sense of humanity being put on the right path. I also do not believe that I was claiming the Cross as 'displaced punishment.

However, Tantum ergo, you must admit that many people do believe in a wrathful God, right? We were not addressing what ‘other/many people’ MIGHT believe in. This is what I am saying that I am not quick to dismiss as “un-Catholic”, indeed, I think the view is understandable and acceptable.

For example, I am gathering that you are feeling a bit wrathful towards me, at least that is the impression I am getting from your last post. Does it make sense to you, then, that God is also feeling angry at me? I think you’re a little quick to project here, perhaps? You ‘assume’ I felt anger based on the color I chose (a color most people would easily recognize as the ‘teacher’s color’ with regard to commenting on work, at least in my generation.) So your question is moot.

I did not intend to dismiss. I am sorry if you got that impression. It is very hard to work on personal examples, and I wanted to give you something to consider. Your first post communicated to me that you still have some self-resentment, and I tried to address it directly. Well, my dear sir, you were incorrect in your assumption.

Do you still have some self-resentment? . . . No.

I must admit, I am a bit confused by the “prayer warrior” designation. This is not the first time that the emphasis appears to be more on the “warrior” than the “prayer”. Pray for me, Tantum ergo, forgive me. Try to understand where I am coming from, if it helps. Prayer warriors, in this forum, are members who volunteer their prayers for the many who seek them.

Before you write back, forgive me, please. You could indicate such forgiveness by not writing in red.

God Bless your day. May He bless your family, your loved ones, your Church, all that supports you. May He guide you and I both, and shine the light of love upon us.

Enlighten us, dear Father, bring your Spirit and show us your way. Give us all the gift of understanding that we may forgive all, that none of us hold anything against the other.

Amen.

 

[OneSheep]

Example :

Saul see’s Stephen stoned to death, he believes that it was justified because no man could claim to be God, and he decides to set out and kill any follower of this man Jesus.
He has his conversion on the road to damascus, God shows him what he was unable to see.

In a sense he was K&W doing what he thought was right by his God, but he won’t have thought he was rejecting God, he thought he was honoring, protecting his God and faith by destroying Christians.

Christians ended up doing the same thing for centuries after St Paul showed how he was wrong.
Thankfully we don’t kill in the name of God anymore.

So I don’t see Saul K&WRG, I see he did what he thought was right, most solutions to our problems are to just get rid of the problem, but as we know it never works…

Yes, Simpleas,

This is a great example of a person not K&WRG, because like those for those who crucified Jesus, it is scriptural that the ignorance was acknowledged and forgiven.

Some ignorance, though, is very difficult for people to understand and forgive. “They should have known!” “They chose to ignore!” (with voices full of condemnation. However, ignorance is only chosen when people are already ignorant or blind.

Have I ever told you about an idea I had concerning why God may have given us the automatic-blindness-mechanism?

Thanks. If you think of an example of someone K&WRG, let me know. What is a challenging example to you, where it is hard to see that someone is blind or ignorant? Everyone has their biggest stumbling blocks.

 

[OneSheep]

Others than Lucifer and Adam have fallen to pride. Pride fall is irascible appetite. God gives us sufficient grace to overcome this. When we choose not to cooperate, then that grace is not efficacious.

Hi Vico,

I am trying to make this bit of information as pertinent as possible to this thread. First of all, when we refuse to cooperate with any aspect of the discipline that Jesus calls us to, grace is not fully efficacious. The alcoholic who otherwise follows all of the commandments and does great service to others is not going to experience a “freedom” (eternal life) here on earth that the non-alcoholic does, given all other factors the same.

“Pride” can be a condemnation-packed word.

Pride: An inordinate esteem of oneself.

In my observation, the roots of such pride include (mostly): desire for status, desire for power, desire to dominate, and desire for wealth. All of these desires are God-given, they are part of our nature, but since the human is mostly ignorant and capable of blindness, he may exhibit such inordinate esteem. Inordinate esteem, in my observation, is never a matter of K&WRG.

People who exhibit the better-than- thou attitude have got a bit more suffering to do.

And some people, being so insecure, may never learn in this life. God is merciful, of course, with these so long enslaved. Is that your observation too, Vico, that people who are always trying to make themselves look better than everyone are sufffering an insecurity? And of course, I speak from personal experience. All of us have tried to attain status one way or another - when feeling a bit insecure.

 

[OneSheep]

Do you still have some self-resentment? . . . No.

Thanks for the calm tone of your response, T.E. You might want to check out this thread and granny’s “adam and logic” thread where I have addressed all (I hope) the objections.

The Catholic Church is a BIG Church. Plenty of room for lots of approaches.

Oh, and if you think of a non-personal example of someone K&WRG, please let me know.

 

[OneSheep]

1864 "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
Romans 2 5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works: 3
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

Wow, Vico,

Like I said, you are such a resourceful person. These are among the more difficult and contradictory verses in the NT. For example, Romans 2 starts out thusly:

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
Romans 2:1-3 NIV

Here, Paul comes from observation. When we condemn others, we condemn ourselves. This is the way the conscience operates. We condemn in others exactly what we are condemning in our own behavior, yet often we deny that we also exhibit these exact same behaviors that we condemn. Hypocrisy, in my own experience, is the rule rather than the exception. Indeed, when I point my finger, I have learned that there is undoubtedly something I am condemning in myself.

So, if we love conditionally, then such love will also apply to ourselves. In addition, Paul clearly illustrates here the “God is equal to our conscience” approach, a conditionally-loving God, which is different than the view we get from the Cross, where God forgives without any condition whatsoever.

As I presented earlier on this thread, the two approaches exist side by side in the NT and definitely in the CCC. One approach depicts God as loving as our conscience does, conditionally. The other approach depicts God as loving us without condition, such as what occurred from the cross. How can we possibly throw out one of these approaches as unorthodox when they both prevail? Indeed, there is a place for both in the human spiritual journey.

Oh, and “blasphemy of the Spirit” in my catechesis, was a matter of refusal to open one’s mind to love and forgiveness. However, people don’t do this, in my observation, unless that they do so in blindness and ignorance, which God forgives.

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny, looks like we are about done with this.

Here is what I said:

Here is the third sentence:

" 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."

Please explain how this misrepresents the positions of God and man.

By having God forgive unconditionally that removes the requirements for a relationship between God, in His position as Divine, and the creature who is not Divine.

So, are you saying that a God who forgives without condition is not divine? These do not follow Granny, I don’t know how you make that conclusion. God’s love and mercy are unlimited, Granny. Forgiveness is an act of love. Just because requirements are removed for God to love man, does not mean that requirements are removed for man to love God. If man sees God as wrathful, it is going to be much harder to love Him in a sincere way.

In addition, this does not elevate man to the status of God in any way. It doesn’t add up here. Maybe you have to draw a picture?

Man can only live in friendship with a Being, Who is in a higher position, by living in free submission (obedience). It so happens that man has an intellective soul and freedom of choice. This means that man can choose or reject God.

Yes, man can choose or reject God, but he only rejects God when the crucial elements of ignorance or blindness are present, in my observation. You have yet to come up with a counterexample.

When man commits a mortal sin, he, being human, has to approach God seeking forgiveness. The position of God is that reconciliation is possible provided that man, because of his lower position, seeks forgiveness which is a declaration of his desire to be obedient.

Again obedience is key in maintaining the relationship.

Obedience is important in maintaining man’s side. God always loves, God always forgives. Remember what Pope Francis said?

If a person disobeys, he will be in slavery to his appetites and passions, it is a natural consequence, not an imposed one. If I don’t lick an ice cream cone, I won’t taste it. Its a “requirement”. If a person does not seek forgiveness when they have done wrong, they have a lack of some aspect of conscience. This, again, is not K&WRG.

I do understand that the above is very difficult to follow. One of the difficulties is due to the idea that a person cannot ever knowingly and willing reject God.

When you find an example of a person K&WRG, let me know! You have yet to present a human example. When you do, you can fix my “difficulty”

Thanks, Granny, that should about cover it. Thanks for dropping the flags.

 

[Vico]

Wow, Vico,

Like I said, you are such a resourceful person. These are among the more difficult and contradictory verses in the NT. For example, Romans 2 starts out thusly:

1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
Romans 2:1-3 NIV

Here, Paul comes from observation. When we condemn others, we condemn ourselves. This is the way the conscience operates. We condemn in others exactly what we are condemning in our own behavior, yet often we deny that we also exhibit these exact same behaviors that we condemn. Hypocrisy, in my own experience, is the rule rather than the exception. Indeed, when I point my finger, I have learned that there is undoubtedly something I am condemning in myself.

So, if we love conditionally, then such love will also apply to ourselves. In addition, Paul clearly illustrates here the “God is equal to our conscience” approach, a conditionally-loving God, which is different than the view we get from the Cross, where God forgives without any condition whatsoever.

As I presented earlier on this thread, the two approaches exist side by side in the NT and definitely in the CCC. One approach depicts God as loving as our conscience does, conditionally. The other approach depicts God as loving us without condition, such as what occurred from the cross. How can we possibly throw out one of these approaches as unorthodox when they both prevail? Indeed, there is a place for both in the human spiritual journey.

Oh, and “blasphemy of the Spirit” in my catechesis, was a matter of refusal to open one’s mind to love and forgiveness. However, people don’t do this, in my observation, unless that they do so in blindness and ignorance, which God forgives.

Thanks

Jesus make it very clear, as testified to by St. John, John 8, Jesus at Mt. Olivet, that those there would die in their sins (verse 24) and gives the reason.12Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying:

I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
13The Pharisees therefore said to him: Thou givest testimony of thyself: thy testimony is not true. 14Jesus answered, and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but you know not whence I come, or whither I go. 15You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man. 16And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17And in your law it is written, that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am one that give testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me giveth testimony of me.
19They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered:
Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also. 20These words Jesus spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.
21Again therefore Jesus said to them: I go, and you shall seek me, and you shall die in your sin. Whither I go, you cannot come.
22The Jews therefore said: Will he kill himself, because he said: Whither I go, you cannot come? 23And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. 24Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin.
25They said therefore to him: Who art thou? Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you. 26Many things I have to speak and to judge of you. But he that sent me, is true: and the things I have heard of him, these same I speak in the world.
27And they understood not, that he called God his Father. 28Jesus therefore said to them: When you shall have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know, that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak: 29And he that sent me, is with me, and he hath not left me alone: for I do always the things that please him
. 30When he spoke these things, many believed in him.
​