Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

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.

This is the pride I posted about: the pleasure in doing your own will, not a sensuous desire fulfilled. As posted, irascible appetite not concupiscible appetite. This is where malice certainly occurs.

 

[frangiuliano115]

"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.
**

Not to fret Tantum Ergo, I don’t think One Sheep’s strategy will work.

I’ve been begging him to state clearly where he’s headed with all these pages, but to no avail.

I was gone 2 days and come back to 4 more pages of posts. I find you and Iron Donkey and Granny to be really intelligent and able to hold up against all attacks!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

In the early Catholic Church it was not plain that Jesus is True God.

When you have a free moment, please look up the Arian Heresy. You will find this heresy as you scroll down this Catholic Answers tract.
catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Today, there are many people who consider Jesus as a prophet among [human] prophets. He is also known as an historical figure who preached peace and love and thus improved the morals of the world. John Dominic Crossan (Jesus Seminar) is known for his description of Jesus as an itinerant preacher. There are many Christian faiths which do not accept the full reality of chapter 6, Gospel of John. In other words, Jesus is not divine enough to do what He is describing.

There have been some interesting comments about God forgiving everyone involved in the crucifixion of Jesus because they did not know what they were doing. In other words, Jesus did not have full divine power to know the extent of their culpability. From there, the premise of this thread is that humans do not have the rational power to commit a mortal rejection of God. Even if they did, God has already forgiven everyone because Jesus, on His cross, is not divine enough to separate the sheep from the goats.

Hopefully, one will get a sense of a modern version of Arianism, that is, Jesus was a great itinerant preacher Who was an excellent faith healer at times and because of politics He died as a regular human. Currently, according to the premise of this thread, we need not be concerned about our spiritual state in relationship to God. Rejection of God is described as impossible. Consequently, human nature as taught by the Catholic Church is trashed.

The state of mortal sin is a fantasy in the same way that Original Sin is a fantasy.

This thread asks us to smile and say – look folks, what Jesus taught is not all that serious. (partial divinity) If there is something serious, don’t worry, it can be explained away because the presumption is that there is no human who can knowingly and willingly reject God.

A belief in Adam has to be destroyed because that first real human did knowingly and willingly reject his Creator.

Hello Grannymh,

I’m back but there’s too much to go through and I’m starting to wonder if it’s all going to be worth it.

I know what arianism is. There may have been some doubt as to exactly who Jesus was at some point after the 1st century. I’d say, however, that the apostles had no doubt.

They cowered in fear after the crucifixion. They hid out that entire night of the unlawful trial by the Sanhedrin, most probably in Matha and Mary’s home in Bethany. Only John stayed on in Jerusalem and was even at the cross.

What could have happened after a few days to make the apostles so courageous and confident of what they had seen? Namely, the dead Jesus alive again! They continued until death to live for Him and to proclaim that He was the much awaited Messiah.

Could I also say that Jesus forgave everyone at the crucifixtion because they did not know what they were doing. The Romans certainly did not know He was the Son of God. The people present at the crucifixion certainly did not understand this. But can we not say that they were acting out what God had planned anyway? Jesus had to die. It was planned from before the Garden of Eden.

But defininetly not because Jesus did not have divine power. Jesus left no wiggle room, as I’ve stated before. He was either God, or he was a crazy man who thought he was not only the Messiah (there had been others, after all) but thought that He was God.

Mathew 16:13-17

What more could be said?

We each must come to this realization on our own.

Fran

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Vico.

A person who dies alienated is not necessarily unforgiven. People are alienated because they are ignorant and blind. Do you forgive people who are ignorant and blind?

This is the pride I posted about: the pleasure in doing your own will, not a sensuous desire fulfilled. As posted, irascible appetite not concupiscible appetite. This is where malice certainly occurs.

Perhaps you could give a particular example of such malice, and we can address it without all the complicated vocabulary. Bottom line: Does God forgive all malice, behavior coming from appetites, or what have you? Yes, because we do not know what we are doing. We do not K&WRG. You may be thinking, “but God cannot possibly forgive under X circumstances.” Present the X, Vico, and I can try to explain how God, as I know Him, forgives.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Not to fret Tantum Ergo, I don’t think One Sheep’s strategy will work.

I’ve been begging him to state clearly where he’s headed with all these pages, but to no avail.

I was gone 2 days and come back to 4 more pages of posts. I find you and Iron Donkey and Granny to be really intelligent and able to hold up against all attacks!

Fran

Hi Fran, welcome back!

And hey, what is this “attack” talk. Did you see me attack someone? Where?

Iron Donkey dropped out for now, I hope he comes back.

And dear Fran, I have already told you many times “where I am headed with this”! Do you not believe me?

Here it is again, my explanation for the importance of this thread:

Humans find it easier to forgive with the utilization of the gift of understanding. Part of that understanding is to see as Jesus did from the cross, that people do not know what they are doing. Indeed, people think that Jesus’ words were limited to the crowd in front of Him. What I am saying with this thread is that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” is applicable to all acts we are called to forgive. I am asking for examples where this is not the case so that I can demonstrate and reveal that humans are truly understandable and forgivable, and demonstrate how we can forgive all those we “hold anything against”.

Is there something about the above paragraph that is unclear or seems shallow? Send me a question. If you are confused, perhaps someone else is too, which would make my effort rather counterproductive. And by the way, I think I have managed to address the fears of Granny and others, so we can get on with this.

In the mean time, do you see any example of a person K&WRG? If so, present it, and we can discuss it.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

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

why God may have given us the automatic-blindness-mechanism

Does that imply that we may have an “automatic-blindness-mechanism” or we may not have an "automatic-blindness-mechanism?

Just curious.** If** because of the **may have – **If God did not give us the automatic-blindness-mechanism, who did?

I am sorry about my confusion.

 

[grannymh]

Hello Grannymh,

I’m back but there’s too much to go through and I’m starting to wonder if it’s all going to be worth it.

I know what arianism is. There may have been some doubt as to exactly who Jesus was at some point after the 1st century. I’d say, however, that the apostles had no doubt.

Knowing what the Arianism Heresy was during the early centuries following Pentecost is a start. What I am referring to is modern Arianism.

I have a rather complicated response to OneSheep which needs posting. After that, I need a break.

 

[grannymh]

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

The reality of a public message board is that once something is posted, it lives forever. There is a notice about this somewhere in the guidelines of CAF. I am not sure about exceptions.

OneSheep, You may check this on CAF and see if you can remove post 264, page 18, from this thread.

The reality, so far, is that as long as post 264 exists, then the red flag exists.

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.

So far there is the position of God which is that He loves unconditionally. In post 264, there is a second position of God which is that He indeed forgives unconditionally.
The basic position of God is that He is a Divine being. When it comes to the original relationship between Adam and his Creator, we find that it is not a relationship between equal positions. Thus, we cannot misrepresent Adam by allowing him to have a position without conditions like the unconditional position of God.

The Catholic Church recognizes the conditional position of Adam. If you wish, you can check this further in CCC 301; *CCC *318; *CCC *320; CCC 396.
From CCC 396.
“God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.”

Please notice the words “in free submission to God.” When Adam freely disobeyed God, he was not living in free submission to God. He rejected God’s friendship. Adam did not have unconditional freedom. What he did was an abuse of his human freedom.

God loves unconditionally. Because God loves unconditionally, Adam’s rejection of God cannot change God’s love for him. What is “conditionally” is Adam’s side of the friendship relationship with God. Adam’s “condition” was to live in free submission (obedience) to God.

Now, we cannot misrepresent Adam’s true condition of necessary obedience by instituting our condition that God’s love must ignore Adam’s rejection. When we misrepresent the actual relationship between Adam and God by excluding the condition of obedience, we are saying that Divinity does not have the ultimate authority. That is a serious misrepresentation of God.

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?

Here is the picture. Here is God. Here is Man.

The true miracle is Genesis 1: 26-27. Please take the few minutes to read how it is possible for God to be in a true relationship with the first human Adam.
26
Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

27
God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female* he created them.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

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.

I have no problem accepting the **Catholic **teaching that Adam is the original first living true fully-complete genuine human who, with his spouse Eve, are the sole first true real founders of humankind.

Apparently, there are a few unnamed people who have a problem with the **Catholic **teachings about a real first human being biblically known as Adam along with the subsequent problems surrounding the Catholic teachings about Original Sin.

I recall an unnamed public writer referring to Original Sin as a fly in the ointment. We are entitled to free speech opinions, right or wrong, or maybe, since Original Sin was not specifically named in the fly comment.

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 respect your right to free speech references to Pope Francis.

I respect the intelligence of our gentle readers, OneSheep included.

I also respect the fact that post 264, page 18, is still present to readers.

The reality of a public message board is that once something is posted, it lives forever. There is a notice about this somewhere in the guidelines of CAF. I am not sure about exceptions.

OneSheep, You may check this on CAF and see if you can remove post 264, page 18, from this thread.

The reality, so far, is that as long as post 264 exists, then the red flag continues to exist as it is written.

 

[simpleas]

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.

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

I don’t recall…

 

[OneSheep]

why God may have given us the automatic-blindness-mechanism

Does that imply that we may have an “automatic-blindness-mechanism” or we may not have an "automatic-blindness-mechanism?

Just curious.** If** because of the **may have – **If God did not give us the automatic-blindness-mechanism, who did?

I am sorry about my confusion.

Hi Granny,

We only have one Creator. “may have” refers to a possible reason. I have no direct evidence of a reason, only a theory.

The reality of a public message board is that once something is posted, it lives forever. There is a notice about this somewhere in the guidelines of CAF. I am not sure about exceptions.

OneSheep, You may check this on CAF and see if you can remove post 264, page 18, from this thread.

The reality, so far, is that as long as post 264 exists, then the red flag exists.

True, but intelligent readers will read on and see that I showed how your “red flag” was unfounded, and that none of my words were against Catholic doctrine. I have no need to remove the post. I addressed you fears. Hmmm. unless you have more below…

So far there is the position of God which is that He loves unconditionally. In post 264, there is a second position of God which is that He indeed forgives unconditionally.
The basic position of God is that He is a Divine being. When it comes to the original relationship between Adam and his Creator, we find that it is not a relationship between equal positions. Thus, we cannot misrepresent Adam by allowing him to have a position without conditions like the unconditional position of God

The Catholic Church recognizes the conditional position of Adam. If you wish, you can check this further in CCC 301; *CCC *318; *CCC *320; CCC 396.
From CCC 396.
“God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.”

Please notice the words “in free submission to God.” When Adam freely disobeyed God, he was not living in free submission to God. He rejected God’s friendship. Adam did not have unconditional freedom. What he did was an abuse of his human freedom.

God loves unconditionally. Because God loves unconditionally, Adam’s rejection of God cannot change God’s love for him. What is “conditionally” is Adam’s side of the friendship relationship with God. Adam’s “condition” was to live in free submission (obedience) to God…

Yes, Granny, but none of this is contrary to the assertion that God loves us and forgives us unconditionally. Yes, man lives under certain conditions. If we do not eat, we die. I am addressing conditions by which God would not love us, embrace us, forgive us. There are none.

Now, we cannot misrepresent Adam’s true condition of necessary obedience by instituting our condition that God’s love must ignore Adam’s rejection. When we misrepresent the actual relationship between Adam and God by excluding the condition of obedience, we are saying that Divinity does not have the ultimate authority. That is a serious misrepresentation of God.

Well, Granny, I never said that God ignores Adam’s rejection. What I said was that God forgives all of us unconditionally. God always forgives. None of what I said has to do with saying that God does not have ulitimate authority. God has ultimate authority, and God loves and forgives unconditionally. This is not a contradiction. It is well within Catholicism, so your red flags are unfounded.

I omitted the rest here, because it does not address any of my statements. If you think it does, please explain.

The reality, so far, is that as long as post 264 exists, then the red flag exists

So, are you saying that if I say there is a “red flag” on your reference to “destroyed relationship”, which has no basis in the CCC, that such a reference would last forever and have meaning? No, Granny it would not have meaning, because you would explain what you meant by “destroyed”, and all would be well. I would not put a “red flag” on your words because such use would be uncharitable. Is it too much to ask, Granny, that you might consider incorporating a new item into your conscience concerning the lack of charity one has in pointing to words we do not understand and calling them “anti-Catholic”?

Likewise, I have explained post 264, following your red flag objection. It looks like you were still reading things into what I wrote, such as a divinity issue. I have answered all of your objections.

We all make errors, Granny, and you made an error in your “red flag”. Or, are there still some things about post 264 you do not understand or see as “anti-Catholic”?

And if you are finally understanding what I wrote, an apology would be quite welcome! “The reality here” is that your objections have all been swiftly addressed, all part of the “public record” here.

Thanks, Granny, I know you always mean well. You have no intention of K&W rejecting God’s presence within the least of His people. Such “least” for you, perhaps, would be me.

God Bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran, welcome back!

And hey, what is this “attack” talk. Did you see me attack someone? Where?

Iron Donkey dropped out for now, I hope he comes back.

And dear Fran, I have already told you many times “where I am headed with this”! Do you not believe me?

Here it is again, my explanation for the importance of this thread:

Humans find it easier to forgive with the utilization of the gift of understanding. Part of that understanding is to see as Jesus did from the cross, that people do not know what they are doing. Indeed, people think that Jesus’ words were limited to the crowd in front of Him. What I am saying with this thread is that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” is applicable to all acts we are called to forgive. I am asking for examples where this is not the case so that I can demonstrate and reveal that humans are truly understandable and forgivable, and demonstrate how we can forgive all those we “hold anything against”.

Is there something about the above paragraph that is unclear or seems shallow? Send me a question. If you are confused, perhaps someone else is too, which would make my effort rather counterproductive. And by the way, I think I have managed to address the fears of Granny and others, so we can get on with this.

In the mean time, do you see any example of a person K&WRG? If so, present it, and we can discuss it.

Thanks!

Attack. One could believe what one wishes but one cannot say that it’s a church teaching. This is kind of an attack, no? An attack on why Jesus died, an attack on God’s plan of salvation, an attack on christianity. Is that enough?

Luckily, we have Tantum Ergo, Vico, Granny and others doing a good job of protecting their faith. Because, in fact, they are presenting christianity as the bible/church does.

This is reminding me of debates with atheists. They come up with their own idealogy based on subjective beliefs and problems with authority. I’m trying to explain that beliefs are objective and there is only one authority.

I’ve already answered you that, in my humble opinion, which I believe is congruent with Paul’s, Peter’s, James’, John’s, etc. I believe that once you are presented with Christ, ALL sin is knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

But I do have a few questions for you:

1. Do you believe yourself to be a mainline christian?
2. Do you believe the God of the O.T. is different from the God of the N.T.?
3. Do you believe every human being is saved?

You keep saying this thread is about forgiveness. Our forgiving others OR God forgiving us? It is very unclear to me. You seem to keep projecting our feelings onto God. I’ve said this before.

1. Do you believe it’s one and the same thing?

I’m still reading the posts. Can’t even stop to eat!!

Fran
P.S. I like your organic view and supernatural view much better than the above pp re Jesus forgiving the crowd to get at the core of this. Am I wrong? In getting at the core of things, I mean. I retain the right to choose which pp I like better!

 

[OneSheep]

Well, folks it seems like examples of Knowingly and willingly rejecting God have dried up at the moment. It is extemely difficult to find a case, and I know this well because I have searched far and wide.

I invite any readers to put forward an example, bring up activities people do that really bother you; you are convinced they should know better.

I mean, after all, are you going to just sit there and let me think that my observations are correct? Well, maybe they are!

Jump right in! I won’t bite, even when I get bitten!

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico.

A person who dies alienated is not necessarily unforgiven. People are alienated because they are ignorant and blind. Do you forgive people who are ignorant and blind?

Perhaps you could give a particular example of such malice, and we can address it without all the complicated vocabulary. Bottom line: Does God forgive all malice, behavior coming from appetites, or what have you? Yes, because we do not know what we are doing. We do not K&WRG. You may be thinking, “but God cannot possibly forgive under X circumstances.” Present the X, Vico, and I can try to explain how God, as I know Him, forgives.

Thanks.

To the truly repentant God forgives sins. It could be either immediately through an act of perfect contrition or mediately through a sacrament. There are situations where a person is not culpable, so there is no serious sin to forgive, and by serious sin I mean those that destroy charity in the heart of man .

St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica

Question 78. That cause of sin which is malice
Article 1. Whether anyone sins through certain malice?

I answer that, Man like any other being has naturally an appetite for the good; and so if his appetite incline away to evil, this is due to corruption or disorder in some one of the principles of man: for it is thus that sin occurs in the actions of natural things. Now the principles of human acts are the intellect, and the appetite, both rational (i.e. the will) and sensitive. Therefore even as sin occurs in human acts, sometimes through a defect of the intellect, as when anyone sins through ignorance, and sometimes through a defect in the sensitive appetite, as when anyone sins through passion, so too does it occur through a defect consisting in a disorder of the will. Now the will is out of order when it loves more the lesser good. Again, the consequence of loving a thing less is that one chooses to suffer some hurt in its regard, in order to obtain a good that one loves more: as when a man, even knowingly, suffers the loss of a limb, that he may save his life which he loves more. Accordingly when an inordinate will loves some temporal good, e.g. riches or pleasure, more than the order of reason or Divine law, or Divine charity, or some such thing, it follows that it is willing to suffer the loss of some spiritual good, so that it may obtain possession of some temporal good. Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

Well, Granny did bring up Adam, and with all the responses going on, I didn’t see you address that.

After all, Adam knew God in a way far beyond ours. . .yet he still knowingly and willingly rejected Him.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And I see, OneSheep, that you posted this above:

Well, Granny, I never said that God ignores Adam’s rejection. What I said was that God forgives all of us unconditionally. God always forgives. None of what I said has to do with saying that God does not have ulitimate authority. God has ultimate authority, and God loves and forgives unconditionally. This is not a contradiction. It is well within Catholicism, so your red flags are unfounded.

So you acknowledge Adam rejected God, and you acknowledge that God forgives Adam.

SO. . .there was sin, yes?

Why would God need to forgive if Adam’s sin wasn’t a knowing and willing rejection?

 

[OneSheep]

Attack. One could believe what one wishes but one cannot say that it’s a church teaching. This is kind of an attack, no? An attack on why Jesus died, an attack on God’s plan of salvation, an attack on christianity. Is that enough?

Hi Fran,

Whew, really? An attack on Christianity? Not my intent, obviously. I think the “alternatives” lift Christianity, while allowing for a fresh approach, one that incorporates unlimited love and forgiveness, and a positive anthropology. The anthropology is the hardest part for people to swallow, especially if they are very resentful of the human. The poster asked what I thought, and I gave two alternatives “both acceptable in Catholicism” or something like that. I did not describe them as orthodoxy, they were paraphrases of the whole pictures.

I’ve already answered you that, in my humble opinion, which I believe is congruent with Paul’s, Peter’s, James’, John’s, etc. I believe that once you are presented with Christ, ALL sin is knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

Fran, this thread is not about opinion, though. It is about observations. First we observe, then we form opinions. We started together on one example, but we did not finish the observations. If we already have opinions, that is fine, but in order to test opinions we go back to observations. This thread involveds testing opinions by scrutinizing observation.

But I do have a few questions for you:

1. Do you believe yourself to be a mainline christian?

What does that mean? I am Catholic. I will answer these questions, Fran, but only because they involve some understanding, some awareness.

1. Do you believe the God of the O.T. is different from the God of the N.T.?

Same God, seen with different eyes. New eyes.

1. Do you believe every human being is saved?

It depends on your definition of salvation. Like I wrote earlier, my pastoral edition says that to Jesus, “salvation” was something that applies to life here on Earth, it is a freedom from slavery, from our fears, from our grudges, from slavery to our appetites. A life longing to serve. In that sense, very few are “saved” completely. If you are talking about life after death, which Jesus was not talking about in terms of salvation, then that is a different story.

You keep saying this thread is about forgiveness. Our forgiving others OR God forgiving us? It is very unclear to me. You seem to keep projecting our feelings onto God. I’ve said this before.

Well, we can relate more to God if we learn to forgive as He does, unconditionally. The main intent of this thread has to do with our forgiveness of others.

There is one element of this that has a side-benefit. As we learn to understand and forgive more people, we learn to see that God loves and forgives more people. No one believes that God is less forgiving than they are, right?

1. Do you believe it’s one and the same thing?

Interesting question. I truly believe you are not holding anything against me, but I get the impression that other posters do. Do they see that God forgives me, even though they do not? It’s not likely, but possible. Maybe they would not think of such forgiveness until the question lay before them. That is the way blindness works, Fran, we get caught up defending things and forgiveness isn’t even on the radar! And that is exactly the mode the crowd was in when they hung Jesus. They were all about defending the faith from blasphemy; forgiveness was not on the radar.

P.S. I like your organic view and supernatural view much better than the above pp re Jesus forgiving the crowd to get at the core of this. Am I wrong? In getting at the core of things, I mean. I retain the right to choose which pp I like better!

Of course! What I wrote is all mine, though, all from the same mindset. How do you describe the purpose of the crucifixion? Does it involve Christ’s unconditional forgiveness from the Cross?

Gratzie! Buona Notte!

 

[OneSheep]

To the truly repentant God forgives sins. It could be either immediately through an act of perfect contrition or mediately through a sacrament. There are situations where a person is not culpable, so there is no serious sin to forgive, and by serious sin I mean those that destroy charity in the heart of man .

Hi Vico!

This is what Pope Francis said:

Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex May 19

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.

This is what Pope Francis did not say, nor intended to say: “God only forgives us when we are truly repentant.” This, Vico, would be contrary to Jesus’ forgiveness from the cross.

Now, the Pope would never downplay the importance of repentance. Indeed, how does one live an eternal life, a good life, without the conscience guiding our way? And if one has a conscience, which nearly all of us do, then we must truly repent from our sins in order to experience salvation, an earthly freedom.

Is there ever something anyone does that destroys charity in his own heart? Please describe, specifically, the destruction of charity in a heart. I cannot make sense of it.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
Now evil is merely the privation of some good; and so a man wishes knowingly a spiritual evil, which is evil simply, whereby he is deprived of a spiritual good, in order to possess a temporal good: wherefore he is said to sin through certain malice or on purpose, because he chooses evil knowingly.

The question is, does this ever happen? When people are “wishing knowingly a spiritual evil” it is because they have been blinded of the spiritual good, and the “goodness” of the “spiritual evil” has supplanted the truth. The “spiritual evil” becomes the sole focus of action. So indeed he may have heard that something is of “spiritual evil”, but that is not the truth-in-the-moment he is acting upon. The “spiritual evil” temporarily has the illusion of being “spiritually good”. Later on, he does not remember this turn of events in his mind, as he regrets his actions with a clearer head.

Again, this boils down to examples. Aquinas was operating from the theoretical, I am operating from the practical. In practice, in my observation, people do not knowingly and willingly reject God. Your example, as you may recall, involved a person thinking “this is best” and doing the opposite in the moment. Sane minds do not operate this way.

Thanks again for your participation.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, Granny did bring up Adam, and with all the responses going on, I didn’t see you address that.

After all, Adam knew God in a way far beyond ours. . .yet he still knowingly and willingly rejected Him.

Hi! I hope we are starting with a new foot forward.

Yes, Adam was brought up in the “dark ages” of this thread. The problem is, whenever we start discussing the Adam example, he is depicted as being essentially omniscient, which makes him no longer human. So, I avoid the example. He is not human in a real sense of the word “human” because real humans are born ignorant and are capable of blindness.

And I see, OneSheep, that you posted this above:
So you acknowledge Adam rejected God, and you acknowledge that God forgives Adam.
SO. . .there was sin, yes?
Why would God need to forgive if Adam’s sin wasn’t a knowing and willing rejection?

Well, there certainly was rejection. Again, we cannot apply Adam to this thread any more than we can apply angels, etc. His omniscience is carefully drawn out.

And since sin applies to “knowingly and willingly”, and Adam is omniscient, then he knowingly and willingly rejected God. But then, if Adam is omniscient, he is much closer to being a god, so he does not apply to this thread. He might as well be an angel or some other kind of creature.

Can we stick to real humans? I prefer them to be fictional, but I want them to be human. Sorry for all the repetition. I am tired, and too beat to edit.

Thanks!

 

[frangiuliano115]

And I see, OneSheep, that you posted this above:

So you acknowledge Adam rejected God, and you acknowledge that God forgives Adam.

SO. . .there was sin, yes?

Why would God need to forgive if Adam’s sin wasn’t a knowing and willing rejection?

This isn’t about sin, Tantum ergo. I THINK it’s about forgiveness.

Put your thinking cap on.

Somehow it’s mixed up with our feelings towards others and how we don’t “see” properly.

I THINK.

I keep thinking he’s getting us mixed up with God.

We’ll get to the bottom of this eventually. I think.

Fran

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi! I hope we are starting with a new foot forward.

Yes, Adam was brought up in the “dark ages” of this thread. The problem is, whenever we start discussing the Adam example, he is depicted as being essentially omniscient, which makes him no longer human. So, I avoid the example. He is not human in a real sense of the word “human” because real humans are born ignorant and are capable of blindness.

Well, there certainly was rejection. Again, we cannot apply Adam to this thread any more than we can apply angels, etc. His omniscience is carefully drawn out.

And since sin applies to “knowingly and willingly”, and Adam is omniscient, then he knowingly and willingly rejected God. But then, if Adam is omniscient, he is much closer to being a god, so he does not apply to this thread. He might as well be an angel or some other kind of creature.

Can we stick to real humans? I prefer them to be fictional, but I want them to be human. Sorry for all the repetition. I am tired, and too beat to edit.

Thanks!

Adam was not omniscient. Where DO you find this teaching?

Adam is indeed a ‘real human’.

And you prefer 'fictional"? You’ve really got me shaking my head on this one. You seem to change your requirements on an hourly basis. First you don’t want ‘personal’ testimony. Then you don’t want historical because you ‘can’t know the person’s real thoughts’. Then you don’t want Scriptural because “Adam was omniscient (says you only) and doesn’t count”. Now you ‘prefer fictional.’

Well, I think you yourself have demonstrated that you are not actually asking a question --you have already determined that according to you, the ANSWER is "no human can ever knowingly and willingly reject God’ and you’re bound and determined to present that, not just as your opinion, but as Catholic teaching (and you’ll drag in Pope Benedict, of all people, as endorsing said opinion). . .

You certainly have a right to your opinion. What you do not have a right to, is presenting that opinion as Catholic teaching. It is not. No matter how you slice it, it’s still. . .well, baloney.