Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

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

Adam is indeed a ‘real human’.

Hi Tantum ergo,

I am definitely with you on this one! So, I have a question for you: If Adam was indeed human, and humans are born ignorant, what did Adam still not know? You can stick to the most pertinent information.

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.’

Please don’t substitute “prefer” for “require”. We could work on Peter, Paul, Judas, or other Biblical figures as long as we allow for the possibity that they are not omniscient, just like the rest of us. The reason I would rather not work on the personal is because people can insist that they knew everything about something because the mind protects self-condemnation. (for good reason) We can work on real, live, named people, but someone might get offended , is all. If we start with some disclaimers, it should not be a problem. We can work on questions like “Did Osama Bin Laden K&WRG?” and that should not be too big of a deal, as long as we say we are speculating.

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.

You never asked me for Catholic teaching. You asked me why Jesus died on the cross, and I gave you two answers that are “acceptable” by Catholics. They were summaries.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that Jesus died on the cross? Once you tell me, I can show you which of the “alternatives” might be more in line with your thinking. That way, I can shed more light on the “baloney”

In the mean time, we can discuss anyone you want (please, not yourself) as long as we say ahead of time that they are not omniscient. Fran and I discussed a woman-wanting-an-abortion scenario, and that was better than naming names, but I am actually pretty flexible.

I mean, we can even dsiscuss Tantum ergo if you are open-minded about the possibility that you did not behave badly from a position of “knowingly and willingly”. Are you open to that? I would feel a little uncomfortable asking you to reveal your life story here. We would have to get into details of why you made certain choices. Do you see the problems?

BTW: I never said that Pope Benedict endorsed my position. I only said that his position is closer to one of the alternatives I suggested than the other. And if I remember right, it was the one you did not like.

Thanks for your response.

 

[davidv]

Hi Tantum ergo,

I am definitely with you on this one! So, I have a question for you: If Adam was indeed human, and humans are born ignorant, what did Adam still not know? You can stick to the most pertinent information.

Please don’t substitute “prefer” for “require”. We could work on Peter, Paul, Judas, or other Biblical figures as long as we allow for the possibity that they are not omniscient, just like the rest of us. The reason I would rather not work on the personal is because people can insist that they knew everything about something because the mind protects self-condemnation. (for good reason) We can work on real, live, named people, but someone might get offended , is all. If we start with some disclaimers, it should not be a problem. We can work on questions like “Did Osama Bin Laden K&WRG?” and that should not be too big of a deal, as long as we say we are speculating.

You never asked me for Catholic teaching. You asked me why Jesus died on the cross, and I gave you two answers that are “acceptable” by Catholics. They were summaries.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that Jesus died on the cross? Once you tell me, I can show you which of the “alternatives” might be more in line with your thinking. That way, I can shed more light on the “baloney”

In the mean time, we can discuss anyone you want (please, not yourself) as long as we say ahead of time that they are not omniscient. Fran and I discussed a woman-wanting-an-abortion scenario, and that was better than naming names, but I am actually pretty flexible.

I mean, we can even dsiscuss Tantum ergo if you are open-minded about the possibility that you did not behave badly from a position of “knowingly and willingly”. Are you open to that? I would feel a little uncomfortable asking you to reveal your life story here. We would have to get into details of why you made certain choices. Do you see the problems?

BTW: I never said that Pope Benedict endorsed my position. I only said that his position is closer to one of the alternatives I suggested than the other. And if I remember right, it was the one you did not like.

Thanks for your response.

It seems this response misses the key point of the Tantum ego’s post. Namely, the rejection of Adam as an example of a human person who knowingly and willing rejected God.
Do you assume that omniscience is required for someone to knowingly and willing rejected God?

 

[OneSheep]

It seems this response misses the key point of the Tantum ego’s post. Namely, the rejection of Adam as an example of a human person who knowingly and willing rejected God.
Do you assume that omniscience is required for someone to knowingly and willing rejected God?

Omniscience would be a ridiculous requirement, David. Going back to the cross, Jesus said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” There was something that they didn’t know, that if they did know, they wouldn’t be doing the bad behavior. So it is not a matter of lack of omniscience, it is a matter of lack of knowing something very pertinent. Blindness happens too, blocking out pertinent information. As what happened on this thread, people perhaps got into “Protect the Doctrine!” emotional mode, and forgiveness was not on the radar. The crowd was in the “kill the blasphemer!” mode, they did not consider forgiving Jesus.

So, if/when we discuss Adam and Eve, the discussion would have to delve into whether they knew all of the pertinent information, and whether or not they were blinded in some way.

Thanks for the question, that was important to clarify.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Omniscience would be a ridiculous requirement, David. Going back to the cross, Jesus said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” There was something that they didn’t know, that if they did know, they wouldn’t be doing the bad behavior. So it is not a matter of lack of omniscience, it is a matter of lack of knowing something very pertinent. Blindness happens too, blocking out pertinent information. As what happened on this thread, people perhaps got into “Protect the Doctrine!” emotional mode, and forgiveness was not on the radar. The crowd was in the “kill the blasphemer!” mode, they did not consider forgiving Jesus.

So, if/when we discuss Adam and Eve, the discussion would have to delve into whether they knew all of the pertinent information, and whether or not they were blinded in some way.

Thanks for the question, that was important to clarify.

One Sheep, you are dancing around trying to avoid the fact that people have given you examples. You don’t WANT to address them because the examples given prove that your assumption is wrong.

Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God. That is original sin.

Adam knew God. Adam knew what God wanted. Adam knew that disobeying God would lead to death. Adam freely and knowingly chose to disobey God.

He was not ’ insufficiently aware’ of ‘all the pertinent information’. He was not ‘blinded’. He was, in effect, not some robot or irrational animal whose passions/desires ruled him and thus 'could not be responsible when acting upon them."

Humans may be born ‘ignorant’ (though anyone who has studied child development knows how much and how quickly humans learn). . . but Adam didn’t sin when he was ‘just born’, did he? What are you trying to argue? That because a human being is born ‘ignorant’ that Adam in heaven had the ignorance of a newborn human? That seems rather a strange idea!!

It seems to me that you are now just wildly kicking about, trying to either turn the conversation into another direction when somebody asks a question you don’t want to address, or somehow misunderstanding what was asked and trying to answer that instead. Perhaps you need to slow down a bit, go back to your original post, and try to rephrase once you have fully grasped WHAT you want to have us discuss. . .

Right now you are just twisting in the wind, and that isn’t comfortable for you or for those of us who are trying to engage you in a real debate.

 

[davidv]

Omniscience would be a ridiculous requirement, David. Going back to the cross, Jesus said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” There was something that they didn’t know, that if they did know, they wouldn’t be doing the bad behavior. So it is not a matter of lack of omniscience, it is a matter of lack of knowing something very pertinent. Blindness happens too, blocking out pertinent information. As what happened on this thread, people perhaps got into “Protect the Doctrine!” emotional mode, and forgiveness was not on the radar. The crowd was in the “kill the blasphemer!” mode, they did not consider forgiving Jesus.

So, if/when we discuss Adam and Eve, the discussion would have to delve into whether they knew all of the pertinent information, and whether or not they were blinded in some way.

Thanks for the question, that was important to clarify.

Very well.

What pertinent information was missing when Adam chose to disobey? And why was this information critical in knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

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.

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

Same God, seen with different eyes. New eyes.

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.

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?

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.

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!

Hi One Sheep,

Crack open that beer! I’m callin’ Delta!

You know what a chatterbox I am, and there’s too much here to go through. But, let’s try.

A mainline christian: Someone who understands the bible as mainline christians do. Some do not understand the bible in this way. For instance, Calvin had his own ideas. John Smith had his own ideas. The Word of Faith Movement, The Grace Movement, etc.
But they are not mainline ideas.

You can also have your own system of belief, but you cannot pass it off as catholic. And I’m not even sure that’s what you’re trying to do! Maybe you’re just trying to teach us something. I sure hope it’s important. : )

The Organic View: Too extreme

However there is truth in this view. Jesus did come to save us from slavery, as you say at some point, and also from hell. More on that later.

The Supernatural View: There is truth here too: God can forgive us unconditionally as proven from The Cross. More on this later. He showed us that we do not know what we are doing. Am currently doing the beatitudes in bible study. This is how we SHOULD be living our lives. Not easy to do though. Does He still forgive us? Yes.

Christ’s incarnation does not so much change our view towards God as it allows us to know god. He was much misunderstood in the O.T. because the revelation was not compoete; not because He’s a mean God. God doesn’t change. But many times He just gave up and left the to their own means. Not going to look up scripture, I think you know it well enough that you could take my word for it - too time consuming. This doesn’t mean so much that He didn’t care for them anymore, but it was like saying - If that’s how you want it, then take the consequences. The Israelites wandering thru the desert, for instance.

They just couldn’t understand. So many years in Egypt, 400 to be exact. He tried so many way to speak to us and finally sent Jesus.

ONE

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

Father forgive them for they know not what they do. They didn’t know what they were doing. They were killing the Christ but didn’t know it. So you’re saying that none of us really knows what we’re doing when we sin and that He said these words in a general sense to forgive everyone for all time. Oddly enough, you’re right again. God knew it wouldn’t work when He pushed that button you spoke of, but He’s God and had a plan.
A plan for redemption. So we’re redeemed, all of us and forever. But is it all of us??

So, getting back to my statements above: There is a hell. Or don’t you think so?

Check out Luke 16: 19 - Jesus is telling a parable. But is it a parable? He doesn’t name names when He’s speaking parabolically. He’s stating names here. Is it not a description of hell and of Abraham’s bossom? I think so. Both catholics and christians believe this to be true. I guess I should say protestants.

2 Peter 3:9 - God is patient with us, not wanting any to perish.

John 5:24 - 29ish Jesus clearly states that there are two judgements.

And what about the narrow gate leading to life and few there be that find it and the wide gate leading to destruction and many there are that find it.

He spoke many times of Gehenna and other names used for hell. Please don’t let me do a bible study, I have enough work with Mathew right now.

Now funny, just before Mathew 7:13 re the gates, Jesus speaks of judging others and how we will be judged. 7:1 -

And here is one of your points. But, my dear One Sheep, although you are so correct in all you say about how we should be understanding and if we really knew God how could we reject Him and all that, you keep missing my point that we are us and He is God.

But not too many of us learn to really forgive, do we? Then let’s speak about that. But that may not be your whole point.

Now, the other point. Jesus forgiving everyone from the cross. Why couldn’t we just get to this instead of going thru Judas. BTW, you never did answer my question of why Judas commited suicide and Peter did not and they both rejected Jesus. Your answer would have been important.

The reason is that Judas could not accept Jesus’ love and forgiveness and Peter could. I’ll bet you like that. Get another beer.

Now, I do see a big problem with your thinking. It’s what granny is always trying to get at. Me too - except I like the book of Romans. Why?

Because it explains WHY we’re the way we are. You must accept, One Sheep, that there is a problem with the human race. Now, are you saying that Jesus came to fix this? Well, he can’t! The problem remains. We do not do what we want to do and we do what we do not want to do. You told a poster that this is the acting of a mad man. But that means you think that Paul is a madman; since it’s Paul who said it.

So it is important to understand the nature of man. Please don’t get into depravity. I think we’ve been thru that. Once you understand the nature of man, it IS easier to forgive him and understand why he does things.

Simpleas believes man in inherently good. Sets us up for a lot of disappointment, doesn’t it? If I understand that you have a sin nature, it’s much easier for me to forgive you.

So if God understands that we have a sin nature - since He practically caused it by creating us in the first place - just think how quickly He must forgive us totally. And, we are responsible for our acts, as you’ve stated, but so what, He’s going to forgive everything.

And - God is asking us to forgive those who we hold anything against, but is He not doing the same Himself? your words. Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. So, if He’s perfect He won’t hold anything against us or He’d be contradicting Himself.

Can we skip Fr. Anthony DeMello and Acquians and Augustine and the CCC and just stick to God’s word. In fact, I’m thinking of becoming protestant. Solo scriptura is starting to sound good to me. I mean, everyone has their own idea - it’s getting silly.

You repeat again and again that man is good and what a beautiful thing that is and that the church teaches that he’s been “stained” which is a mixed message. Proof once again that you really don’t grasp the sin nature OR you don’t want to. It’s NOT right to think of men as wicked or evil; although one of the beblical writers did say “evil” but I’d have to look into the greek word and all that and don’t have the time. He may just have meant that some men are wicked or evil - which is true.

TWO

 

[frangiuliano115]

THREE

Now, according to you, where would these evil and wicked men go? I guess it would be mean of me to think that they’re not going where I’m going. Maybe we’re all going to the same place; they’ll just spend a bit more time in purgatory and get purified and then end up in heaven.

After all Jesus forgave everybody from the cross that day from the beginning of time till the end of time. But that hell place He spoke about will be so empty. Maybe it’s just for satan and his cohorts and Jesus didn’t really know what He was talking about OR maybe we just misunderstood Him??

So, you could keep looking for this example you keep asking for but you won’t find it. Know why? It doesn’t exist. And you don’t accept the mainline christian explanation for why it doesn’t exist.

You are absolutely right that the New Covenant is an unconditional covenant. There are no conditions attached. Jesus’ love is open to all. Grace is open to all.

Well, there is one little condition. YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT JESUS’ LOVE AND SALVATION. He’s offering you a gift, you have to take it and open it and wear it.

Then, you can’t just do whatever you want to. He is a just God after all, remember, from the O.T.? He sent Jesus to redeem us. Buy us back. But we have to want to be bought back. Or we could just sit on that pawn shop shelf forever.

So, the unforgiveable sin, as you call it, or the unpardonable sin is not controversial as you say. It’s right. If you REJECT the Holy Spirit, you have rejected God. And you don’t think anyone can reject God which is why you have a problem with the unpardonable sin.
Think about this One Sheep. It’s important.

It is being closed to the love of God and a refusal to choose eternal life. Your words. So I guess you DO believe in the ability to refuse eternal life?

In a nutshell. If you’re presented with Jesus and you refuse Him, you’re knowingly and willingly rejecting God. We know He’s God now, not like when He was on the cross.

If you accept Him you’re saved. But you still can’t sin. Do you apologize to you wife when you hurt her feelings? Gosh. I feel like I’m talking to an atheist again, not that I’m saying you are one.

Okay. One Sheep. I’m sorry this was so long but it may be my last post (maybe not) and I’d like to get to the bottom of this before Christmas rolls around.

I apologize if my thoughts are a bit jumbled, and maybe even have some incorrect words in there. I’m the wife of a house and my husband is threatening divorce if I don’t get off this computer.

Fran

 

[OneSheep]

One Sheep, you are dancing around trying to avoid the fact that people have given you examples. You don’t WANT to address them because the examples given prove that your assumption is wrong.

Hi TE,

First of all, it is not an assumption, it is an observation. Secondly, if we make conclusions without examining what a person did or did not know, then we are making assumptions! And please, be charitable, do not put words in my mouth or read my mind. I am trying to address human examples.

If a person is going to come on here and say “they knowingly and willingly rejected God because I said so!” Then what kind of investigation is that? Those are just assumptions. Imagine a court room like that, without any trial or witness, “guilty because I said so!”

Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God. That is original sin.

Adam knew God. Adam knew what God wanted. Adam knew that disobeying God would lead to death. Adam freely and knowingly chose to disobey God.

Are you open-minded to the possibility that there is something he did not know? Otherwise, an investigation would be a waste of time. If you are open- minded, I have some questions for you.

He was not ’ insufficiently aware’ of ‘all the pertinent information’. He was not ‘blinded’. He was, in effect, not some robot or irrational animal whose passions/desires ruled him and thus 'could not be responsible when acting upon them."

Well, we could investigate, if you are open minded. There are some things you are not considering. Oh - an edit note: Everyone should be able to respond (response-ible) for what they do! I can respond for everything I have ever done. It is an important standard. We are always in control of every decision we make, however ignorant.

Humans may be born ‘ignorant’ (though anyone who has studied child development knows how much and how quickly humans learn). . . but Adam didn’t sin when he was ‘just born’, did he? What are you trying to argue? That because a human being is born ‘ignorant’ that Adam in heaven had the ignorance of a newborn human? That seems rather a strange idea!!

Adam was in heaven? The Encyclopedia is incoclusive, but I did glean this:

they were endowed with many prerogatives which, while pertaining to the natural order, were not due to human nature as such–hence they are sometimes termed preternatural. Principal among these were a high degree of infused knowledge, bodily immortality and freedom from pain, and immunity from evil impulses or inclinations

Which again underscores why Adam and Eve are not pertinent to this thread. Since we have no idea of the “infused knowledge”, we are going to end up speculating about stuff way beyond our grasp. Also, “prenatural” indicates a different nature, which again makes them somewhat different than humans we know. T.E., we only have access to the human mind, not some “prenatural” mind.

newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm

Good article though, orthodoxy coming from a different culture, very interesting indeed. Sorry T.E., if Adam is “prenatural” , we are going to have to drop him as an example. There are billions of other examples to investigate.

It seems to me that you are now just wildly kicking about, trying to either turn the conversation into another direction when somebody asks a question you don’t want to address, or somehow misunderstanding what was asked and trying to answer that instead. Perhaps you need to slow down a bit, go back to your original post, and try to rephrase once you have fully grasped WHAT you want to have us discuss. . .

Right now you are just twisting in the wind, and that isn’t comfortable for you or for those of us who are trying to engage you in a real debate.

Twisting in the wind! Wildly kicking about! You are projecting maybe? I do try to go with issues somewhat pertinent, but then we get off track. Vico, Fran, and Iron Donkey have made some great starts, but I think you are perhaps not in the mindset to investigate, only to make assertions.

But yes, thank you, I was going to give it another day and then make a general note. I am looking for examples to investigate with open minds. I said in the beginning that I am open-minded, and I still am.

God Bless.

And if you want to tell me in your own words why Jesus died on the cross, I am still all ears!

 

[simpleas]

Hi One Sheep,

Crack open that beer! I’m callin’ Delta!

You know what a chatterbox I am, and there’s too much here to go through. But, let’s try.

A mainline christian: Someone who understands the bible as mainline christians do. Some do not understand the bible in this way. For instance, Calvin had his own ideas. John Smith had his own ideas. The Word of Faith Movement, The Grace Movement, etc.
But they are not mainline ideas.

You can also have your own system of belief, but you cannot pass it off as catholic. And I’m not even sure that’s what you’re trying to do! Maybe you’re just trying to teach us something. I sure hope it’s important. : )

The Organic View: Too extreme

However there is truth in this view. Jesus did come to save us from slavery, as you say at some point, and also from hell. More on that later.

The Supernatural View: There is truth here too: God can forgive us unconditionally as proven from The Cross. More on this later. He showed us that we do not know what we are doing. Am currently doing the beatitudes in bible study. This is how we SHOULD be living our lives. Not easy to do though. Does He still forgive us? Yes.

Christ’s incarnation does not so much change our view towards God as it allows us to know god. He was much misunderstood in the O.T. because the revelation was not compoete; not because He’s a mean God. God doesn’t change. But many times He just gave up and left the to their own means. Not going to look up scripture, I think you know it well enough that you could take my word for it - too time consuming. This doesn’t mean so much that He didn’t care for them anymore, but it was like saying - If that’s how you want it, then take the consequences. The Israelites wandering thru the desert, for instance.

They just couldn’t understand. So many years in Egypt, 400 to be exact. He tried so many way to speak to us and finally sent Jesus.

ONE

Christ’s incarnation does not so much change our view towards God as it allows us to know god. He was much misunderstood in the O.T. because the revelation was not compoete; not because He’s a mean God. God doesn’t change. But many times He just gave up and left the to their own means. Not going to look up scripture, I think you know it well enough that you could take my word for it - too time consuming. This doesn’t mean so much that He didn’t care for them anymore, but it was like saying - If that’s how you want it, then take the consequences. The Israelites wandering thru the desert, for instance.

This to me sounds very much like God thinks like humans? Of course it was humans who wrote the scriptures, humans who interpret the scriptures, but it all came from God’s words?
God gave up and left them to suffer the consequences?

 

[simpleas]

TWO

Father forgive them for they know not what they do. They didn’t know what they were doing. They were killing the Christ but didn’t know it. So you’re saying that none of us really knows what we’re doing when we sin and that He said these words in a general sense to forgive everyone for all time. Oddly enough, you’re right again. God knew it wouldn’t work when He pushed that button you spoke of, but He’s God and had a plan.
A plan for redemption. So we’re redeemed, all of us and forever. But is it all of us??

So, getting back to my statements above: There is a hell. Or don’t you think so?

Check out Luke 16: 19 - Jesus is telling a parable. But is it a parable? He doesn’t name names when He’s speaking parabolically. He’s stating names here. Is it not a description of hell and of Abraham’s bossom? I think so. Both catholics and christians believe this to be true. I guess I should say protestants.

2 Peter 3:9 - God is patient with us, not wanting any to perish.

John 5:24 - 29ish Jesus clearly states that there are two judgements.

And what about the narrow gate leading to life and few there be that find it and the wide gate leading to destruction and many there are that find it.

He spoke many times of Gehenna and other names used for hell. Please don’t let me do a bible study, I have enough work with Mathew right now.

Now funny, just before Mathew 7:13 re the gates, Jesus speaks of judging others and how we will be judged. 7:1 -

And here is one of your points. But, my dear One Sheep, although you are so correct in all you say about how we should be understanding and if we really knew God how could we reject Him and all that, you keep missing my point that we are us and He is God.

But not too many of us learn to really forgive, do we? Then let’s speak about that. But that may not be your whole point.

Now, the other point. Jesus forgiving everyone from the cross. Why couldn’t we just get to this instead of going thru Judas. BTW, you never did answer my question of why Judas commited suicide and Peter did not and they both rejected Jesus. Your answer would have been important.

The reason is that Judas could not accept Jesus’ love and forgiveness and Peter could. I’ll bet you like that. Get another beer.

Now, I do see a big problem with your thinking. It’s what granny is always trying to get at. Me too - except I like the book of Romans. Why?

Because it explains WHY we’re the way we are. You must accept, One Sheep, that there is a problem with the human race. Now, are you saying that Jesus came to fix this? Well, he can’t! The problem remains. We do not do what we want to do and we do what we do not want to do. You told a poster that this is the acting of a mad man. But that means you think that Paul is a madman; since it’s Paul who said it.

So it is important to understand the nature of man. Please don’t get into depravity. I think we’ve been thru that. Once you understand the nature of man, it IS easier to forgive him and understand why he does things.

Simpleas believes man in inherently good. Sets us up for a lot of disappointment, doesn’t it? If I understand that you have a sin nature, it’s much easier for me to forgive you.

So if God understands that we have a sin nature - since He practically caused it by creating us in the first place - just think how quickly He must forgive us totally. And, we are responsible for our acts, as you’ve stated, but so what, He’s going to forgive everything.

And - God is asking us to forgive those who we hold anything against, but is He not doing the same Himself? your words. Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. So, if He’s perfect He won’t hold anything against us or He’d be contradicting Himself.

Can we skip Fr. Anthony DeMello and Acquians and Augustine and the CCC and just stick to God’s word. In fact, I’m thinking of becoming protestant. Solo scriptura is starting to sound good to me. I mean, everyone has their own idea - it’s getting silly.

You repeat again and again that man is good and what a beautiful thing that is and that the church teaches that he’s been “stained” which is a mixed message. Proof once again that you really don’t grasp the sin nature OR you don’t want to. It’s NOT right to think of men as wicked or evil; although one of the beblical writers did say “evil” but I’d have to look into the greek word and all that and don’t have the time. He may just have meant that some men are wicked or evil - which is true.

TWO

Simpleas believes man in inherently good. Sets us up for a lot of disappointment, doesn’t it? If I understand that you have a sin nature, it’s much easier for me to forgive you.

What is wrong with believing man is good? Isn’t the point of being christian, a follower of Christ to bring people out of that darkness that holds them back, that may keep them from being Good?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One Sheep:

You request that I be ‘open minded’ yet you yourself will not be open minded to the possibility that **you **might be wrong. I find this one-sided request of yours disingenuous.

I prefer G.K. Chesterton --I choose not to be so open-minded that my brains fall out.

I repeat: Adam was a human being. He sinned, knowingly and willingly --exactly what you ‘questioned’ whether a human being could do.

No matter how you try to claim that Adam was something more, or different, from humanity, and claim that this removes him from the equation --this is your opinion. Please try to be open minded enough to consider that Adam is exactly what Christians teach he is --the first human. No more human, no less human.

After all, he experienced life in ‘The garden of Eden’ which no other human has done. Well, there is a very small class of human beings who have set foot on another planet. Do you claim that these people are MORE than other humans due to their having had an extraterrestrial experience? That their humanity is somehow changed by this experience? If a group of humans traveled to Mars and lived and worked there for years, and children were born there, never having personally experienced life on earth, would you consider them less human because they did not have the experience of walking on this planet?

Adam walked and talked with God. Few of us if any would claim this. Yet you and I, in receiving the Eucharist, receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Adam never did that.

Does Adam know God LESS because he never received the Eucharist? Do we know God LESS because we never walked in the Garden of Eden?

And of course, primitive man lacked a lot of ‘knowledge’ that you and I have in AD2015 in the Western World. And, God willing, in AD2615 there will be many humans who have a lot MORE knowledge than you and I have now. Does that mean that we are ‘more human’ than those who lived in 2015BC? Or that people in AD2615 will be more human than we?

And I’m still waiting for you to tell US why Jesus died on the Cross. And lest you jump to the conclusion that I am promoting a ‘wrathful God’ or that this was all ‘punishment’, I’m not. But again, I’ll wait to hear why you think Jesus died for us --especially if 'no human being could EVER 'knowingly and willingly reject Him."

 

[OneSheep]

One Sheep:

You request that I be ‘open minded’ yet you yourself will not be open minded to the possibility that **you **might be wrong. I find this one-sided request of yours disingenuous.

I prefer G.K. Chesterton --I choose not to be so open-minded that my brains fall out.

I repeat: Adam was a human being. He sinned, knowingly and willingly --exactly what you ‘questioned’ whether a human being could do.

No matter how you try to claim that Adam was something more, or different, from humanity, and claim that this removes him from the equation --this is your opinion. Please try to be open minded enough to consider that Adam is exactly what Christians teach he is --the first human. No more human, no less human.

Dear, well-meaning, dedicated T.E.,

I said I was open-minded right there, on my last post. Please have the charity to believe me. However, this thread is about normal humans. Of all the billions of examples, you can only come up with Adam? Adam, according to the encyclopedia, had an “infused knowledge” directly from God. Do you know any humans like that? Adam’s nature was described as “prenatural”; how are we supposed to access that nature? So many questions, yet no answers. With humans, however, there are answers, because we know human nature, do we not? I know nothing of the “prenatural”, do you?

So this is what will happen: I will ask “did Adam know this?”. Since God specially infused knowledge into this “prenatural” Adam, it would be very easy to assume that God infused everything pertinent, because it would support the argument in favor of his K&WRG. We would not know, but it would be a very easy assumption to make. As long as God is infusing, why would He stop at anything? Please, pick a different example. If Adam is the only example you can think of, that makes for a strong point in my favor.

After all, he experienced life in ‘The garden of Eden’ which no other human has done. Well, there is a very small class of human beings who have set foot on another planet. Do you claim that these people are MORE than other humans due to their having had an extraterrestrial experience? That their humanity is somehow changed by this experience? If a group of humans traveled to Mars and lived and worked there for years, and children were born there, never having personally experienced life on earth, would you consider them less human because they did not have the experience of walking on this planet?

No, they are still normal humans. They did not have an “infused knowledge” and their nature was not “prenatural”. These two characteristics make it as hard to discuss Adam as it is to discuss angels and so forth.

Look, the idea of this thread is about helping people forgive and understand humans. People do not interact with angels and “prenaturals infused with knowledge”. Please, let’s be practical.

And I’m still waiting for you to tell US why Jesus died on the Cross. And lest you jump to the conclusion that I am promoting a ‘wrathful God’ or that this was all ‘punishment’, I’m not. But again, I’ll wait to hear why you think Jesus died for us --especially if 'no human being could EVER 'knowingly and willingly reject Him."

I already did, remember? Your turn! Now, why would you withold the Good News if I asked for it? Practice on me. What is the Good News?

 

[Vico]

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
…

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.

The question is, does this ever happen? …

Yes it happens.

The destruction of charity in the heart is by preferring an inferior good to God; one turns away from God, in a grave violation of God’s law.

To the contrary of what you posted on Pope Francis, Pope Francis gave the following - so in keeping with the dogma on salvation (Homily December 16, 2014) - he speaks of those who “do not accept correction, they do not trust in the Lord.”:“These people cannot receive Salvation. They are closed to Salvation. ‘I will leave within you the meek and humble; they will trust in the name of the Lord’ throughout their lives. And that is still Valid today, isn’t it? When we look at the holy people of God that is humble, that has its riches in its faith in the Lord, in its trust in the Lord - the humble, poor people that trust in the Lord: these are the ones who are saved and this is the way of the Church, isn’t it? This is the path I must follow, not the path in which I do not listen to His voice, do not accept correction and do not trust in the Lord.”
“If your heart is not a repentant heart, if you do not listen to the Lord, if you don’t accept correction and you do not trust in Him, your heart is unrepentant. These hypocrites who were scandalized by what Jesus said about the tax collectors and the prostitutes, but then secretly approached them to vent their passion or to do business - but all in secrecy - were pure! The Lord does not want them.”
**“He listened to the Lord, he always followed His will, he gave to the Lord, and the Lord said to him: 'there is still one thing you have not given me’. And the poor man who was good said: 'But, Lord, what is it that I have not given you? I have given you my life, I work for the poor, I work for catechesis, I work here, I work there … ‘ ‘But there is something you have not given me yet’ .- ‘What is it Lord? ‘Your sins’. When we will be able to say to the Lord: ‘Lord, these are my sins – they are not his or hers, they are mine… They are mine. Take them and I will be saved’- when we will be able to do this we will be that people, ‘that meek and humble people’, that trusts in the Lord’s name. May the Lord grant us this grace.”

"*romereports.com/2014/12/16/pope-francis-explains-how-to-achieve-true-repentance

*Dogmas Of Faith:

• The principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the reconciliation of the sinner with God.
• The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.
• The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation.
• Extra-sacramental justification is effected by perfect sorrow only when it is associated with the desire for the Sacrament (votum sacramenti).
• Absolution, in association with the acts of the penitent, effects the forgiveness of sins.
• The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell.
• The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory.
• The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Fran!

I’m going to pick and choose, because most of this is still a bit off-topic, but you are so fun to interact with. You remind me so much of my sister-in-law, she is so Italian, and so vibrant, energetic, and religious- has the 10 commandments on her driveway. What can I say about her? She’s a pain sometimes. She is awesome.

TWO
Father forgive them for they know not what they do. They didn’t know what they were doing. They were killing the Christ but didn’t know it. So you’re saying that none of us really knows what we’re doing when we sin and that He said these words in a general sense to forgive everyone for all time. Oddly enough, you’re right again. God knew it wouldn’t work when He pushed that button you spoke of, but He’s God and had a plan.
A plan for redemption. So we’re redeemed, all of us and forever. But is it all of us??

So, getting back to my statements above: There is a hell. Or don’t you think so?

Well, an alcoholic struggling with addiction is not “redeemed” until he is on the wagon, so no, we’re not all redeemed - yet. Hell is a different topic. The Church does not confirm that anyone is there. Yet, people live in a “hell” here on earth, do they not?

Why would a person choose K&W choose to be away from God? Do you remember what I said about the priest’s opinion? “If anyone goes to hell, they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” To me, I think it is in God’s power to show everyone who He is. And then, they won’t be screaming and kicking against Him, they will be following Him home. People are like that.

And here is one of your points. But, my dear One Sheep, although you are so correct in all you say about how we should be understanding and if we really knew God how could we reject Him and all that, you keep missing my point that we are us and He is God.

:ehh: I’m still trying to figure out what I am saying that gives you that impression. God is God, He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He created all that is. Humans have none of these characteristics. I’ve never said anything contrary to this. It’s a head-scratcher.

But not too many of us learn to really forgive, do we? Then let’s speak about that. But that may not be your whole point.

Now, the other point. Jesus forgiving everyone from the cross. Why couldn’t we just get to this instead of going thru Judas. BTW, you never did answer my question of why Judas commited suicide and Peter did not and they both rejected Jesus. Your answer would have been important.

Forgiveness through the use of the gift of understanding is exactly my point, remember? I did not see the Judas question! What a great question!

The reason is that Judas could not accept Jesus’ love and forgiveness and Peter could. I’ll bet you like that. Get another beer.

I have very expensive tastes. Everyone around me drinks all of those fancy ales and local stuff. Me, I always ask for their best Coors light. The waterier the better.

Do you want my answer? It would be based on “Why I would do what they did if I were in their shoes.” (that is projection, remember?)

First of all, both men obviously did something that (eventually came the dawn) violated their consciences. Peter, as I think I mentioned before, denied Christ because he was in survival mode - he feared for his life. Fear blinds us, blocking empathy and blocking access to the conscience, unless we are aware it is happening. I ike your answer about Peter, he accepted Jesus forgiveness and he forgave himself. Like Paul, he probably realized that he was not right in his mind.

Judas, of course, is a different story, and let us go with your idea first. First of all, your version begins with the assumption that Judas knew that Jesus loved and forgave him. We don’t have evidence for that, but that is okay! Let’s keep going.

Why would Judas still proceed to commit suicide even though he knew that God loved and forgave him? I look forward to your answer on this. Please include this question with your answer, so I don’t miss it!

Cont’d

 

[OneSheep]

frangiuliano:

Now, I do see a big problem with your thinking. It’s what granny is always trying to get at. Me too - except I like the book of Romans. Why?

Because it explains WHY we’re the way we are. You must accept, One Sheep, that there is a problem with the human race. Now, are you saying that Jesus came to fix this? Well, he can’t! The problem remains. We do not do what we want to do and we do what we do not want to do. You told a poster that this is the acting of a mad man. But that means you think that Paul is a madman; since it’s Paul who said it.

Can you give me the verses in Romans that are most significant?

So it is important to understand the nature of man. Please don’t get into depravity. I think we’ve been thru that. Once you understand the nature of man, it IS easier to forgive him and understand why he does things.

Simpleas believes man in inherently good. Sets us up for a lot of disappointment, doesn’t it? If I understand that you have a sin nature, it’s much easier for me to forgive you.

So if God understands that we have a sin nature - since He practically caused it by creating us in the first place - just think how quickly He must forgive us totally. And, we are responsible for our acts, as you’ve stated, but so what, He’s going to forgive everything.

Fran, there is obviously something within you that is loving and accepting, and if you are saying we have a “bad” nature, yet it helps you forgive, then your use of “bad” does not carry with it the resentment that it does for most people. Your use of “sin nature” has an underlying love and acceptance. This is a difference in vocabulary. You and Simpleas are saying the same thing with completely different words. Isn’t that amazing?

Being responsible for our acts, though, and I think you would agree, is not a “so what” in terms of the acts that are hurtful, are to be taken very seriously, and are to be repented.

And - God is asking us to forgive those who we hold anything against, but is He not doing the same Himself? your words. Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect. So, if He’s perfect He won’t hold anything against us or He’d be contradicting Himself.

Can we skip Fr. Anthony DeMello and Acquians and Augustine and the CCC and just stick to God’s word. In fact, I’m thinking of becoming protestant. Solo scriptura is starting to sound good to me. I mean, everyone has their own idea - it’s getting silly.

The CCC contains Church tradition, though, and tradition is very important too. But I appreciate that you feel more confident discussing scripture. The Good News does not need to be complicated. A big, big reason that has always kept me firmly Catholic is what I was told as a youth on retreats (and I repeated to others many times):

“If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

I have always been a “part of the solution” person, and that is my family around the Eucharistic table. I have no hesitation about including “protestant” brothers and sisters though. I am a “big tent” person. There are positives and shortcomings in all Churches and all faiths.

You repeat again and again that man is good and what a beautiful thing that is and that the church teaches that he’s been “stained” which is a mixed message. Proof once again that you really don’t grasp the sin nature OR you don’t want to. It’s NOT right to think of men as wicked or evil; although one of the beblical writers did say “evil” but I’d have to look into the greek word and all that and don’t have the time. He may just have meant that some men are wicked or evil - which is true.

Something tells me that your use of “wicked” there does not carry any resentment. Now, allow me to let you in on a little something. You noticed, of course, how Jesus went to great lengths not to inspire sin. Well, since most people’s use of “wicked” carries with it some resentment, when we write “wicked men” such writing inspires people to resent or hate the people you are referring to. Since we want to inspire forgiveness, understanding, and love, the use of “wicked men” is counterproductive. Even if we have no resentment, we are inspiring others to resent. Do you see what I mean? If I say, “that guy is such a jerk” and you value my opinion, you are going to join my resentment. This does not inspire forgiveness and reconciliation.

And when we look a little deeper we can forgive our nature. All of it. Every bit of it is a gift from God.

And yes, the Church says that we are basically good, and that we are “stained”, that we have become a bit “bad”. I agree completely that there is a contradiction, because if man is “stained”, he participated in his own creation, and that goes against our teaching too.

However, and I proposed on a different thread, both of the views are perfectly understandable, acceptable, and, I sincerely add, very pertinent. It is the reason why I present two alternatives. They seem to contradict, but there is an underlying truth. That makes both anthropologies, though seemingly contradictory, actually complementary.

I hope to get to the rest tomorrow.

Thanks for all of your kind words. You are a fun person to talk to, even when we disagree! It’s a sign of an inner peace on your part, I think.

 

[frangiuliano115]

What is wrong with believing man is good? Isn’t the point of being christian, a follower of Christ to bring people out of that darkness that holds them back, that may keep them from being Good?

Hi Simpleas,

It’s that darkness that can be called the sin nature. We catholics call it concupiscense.

But that darkness always hold us back. In the book of Romans, Pauls says that he does what he does not want to do and he does not do what he wants to do. It’s that darkness, as you call it, that holds him back.

Read Romans 7: 14-23

We catholics call it concupescense. Or the sin nature. It’s all the same thing.

Now go to Genesis 4:6-7

God is telling Cain (after he killed his brother) that his countenance has fallen (his face is downward). He tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for him, but that Cain must master it. What sin is this? The sin of his parents, Adam and Eve. Not just ONE sin, but SIN. There is a difference.

Sins are the sins we commit every day. SIN refers to the damaged nature man acquired after the fall of Adam and Eve. Also called Sin Nature, Concupescense or the darkness, as you said. it IS a darkness in man’s soul.

The word “inherently” means what we inherit. Would you say that we inherit this sin nature? Of course. Only Jesus was born without it, and God allowed Mary to be immaculately conceived since she had to bear the Son of God. Everyone else is born with the sin nature, concupescense or this darkness.

So, one sheep keeps saying we’re good and so do you. I wish sometime priests would be more available to explain these things. If we’re so good, what makes us do bad?

Okay. So we could say we’re good, but you yourself said that we’re good but with the capability to do bad. It’s the sin nature that makes us do the bad.

That’s all it means Simpleas. It doesn’t mean every man is bad in the sense that you may understand it, or that every man is evil. See? It’s just the way things are.

As you say, our chrisitanity helps us to fight the sin nature. Keep reading on in Romans chapter 8. The grace of God helps us to overcome sins but the nature remains. But it’s okay. It’s just a part of us.

This is why the New Covenant works so well. In the Old Covenant, or The Law (of Moses - the 10 commandments) we were obliged to follow the Law. There was nothing else but the commandments God gave.

Now under the New Covenant we WANT to follow the law because of the love we have for Jesus for having sacrificed Himself for us. So before we were slaves and now we are friends.

Do you do something more happily because you’re a slave or because you’re a friend?

It shouldn’t disturb you that we have a sin nature. It’s just how it is. But for those who love the Lord, the sin nature has little effect on us because our desire to serve God is greater than our desire to sin.

I do hope this has helped. It’s also easier to understand people in general if you can grasp the above concept. If a person is good and hurts you in some way, it becomes difficult to understand how they could do such a thing to you. But if you understand that the bad they do is coming from that nature, then it’s easy to understand why they do bad and also to understand them and to forgive them.

Your other post is going to have to wait till later or even tomorrow. Have much to do today and we have a big time difference between you and me.

God bless
Fran

 

[OneSheep]

Very well.

What pertinent information was missing when Adam chose to disobey? And why was this information critical in knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

Hi David,

Based on a Catholic Encyclopedia article that I earlier quoted to Tantum ergo, I have decided that it would just be too hard to work on Adam and Eve again, we will hit the same roadblocks that I have with others in the past. The article said that the pair had an “infused knowledge” and that their nature was “prenatural”, but it is not explicit as to how their nature was different.

For example, when a human desires something, he commonly is blinded in many ways. He may be blinded to his morals, empathy, and other important information. All of those things are motivated to be dropped in importance and/or simply drop off the radar. Did Adam an Eve experience this blindness when they wanted the fruit? There is evidence for this, because they agreed with the snake that it “looked good to eat” and (paraphrased) “God was joshing us, we won’t die”.

If they were real human, we could use those words of desire and supplanted truth to demonstrate how blindness works. However, a “prenatural” human could have had some other unknown things going on in their minds, not subject to blindness. I lack imagination here, what do you think could have been going on in their minds, David? It is truly beyond my human scope to fathom what is going on in the mind of something with a different nature. Blindness I know, so blindness I suspect.

Another glaring item is whether or not Adam had empathy. It is a pretty good guess that he did, but if he did, did he consider that his actions would effect the lives of billions of people, in fact all of humanity? Because he had “infused knowledge” a person could assert, “yes, he did” and we have no way of really knowing. If he did not know about this impact, and he had not appreciated the value of all those lives of his future children (also a “knowing” aspect), then he did not do what he did “knowingly” in that he did not know some extremely pertinent information.

In Jesus’ case, the death penalty for blasphemy, in my understanding, was not unheard of. The crowd was not being disobedient, they simply did not know Jesus’ value. If the crowd, and a human Adam had considered the value of those being effected, then they would not have done the actions they did.

Do you see what I mean? So, please bring up a different example than Adam for this thread. His nature is “prenatural”, therefore inaccessible.

Thanks for your response.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear, well-meaning, dedicated T.E.,

I said I was open-minded right there, on my last post. Please have the charity to believe me. However, this thread is about normal humans. Of all the billions of examples, you can only come up with Adam? Adam, according to the encyclopedia, had an “infused knowledge” directly from God. Do you know any humans like that? Adam’s nature was described as “prenatural”; how are we supposed to access that nature? So many questions, yet no answers. With humans, however, there are answers, because we know human nature, do we not? I know nothing of the “prenatural”, do you?

Please stop cherry picking the encyclopedia and trying to twist Adam into something ‘beyond humanity’ so that his is a case for special pleading. Are you saying Adam is not human?

So this is what will happen: I will ask “did Adam know this?”. Since God specially infused knowledge into this “prenatural” Adam, it would be very easy to assume that God infused everything pertinent, because it would support the argument in favor of his K&WRG. We would not know, but it would be a very easy assumption to make. As long as God is infusing, why would He stop at anything? Please, pick a different example. If Adam is the only example you can think of, that makes for a strong point in my favor.

No, it is not a ‘strong point in your favor’. Again, you’re trying to change horses in the middle of the stream as my nearly 86-year old mother would say. Please stick to the topic at hand.

No, they are still normal humans. They did not have an “infused knowledge” and their nature was not “prenatural”. These two characteristics make it as hard to discuss Adam as it is to discuss angels and so forth. Adam is not an angel. Angels are pure spirit. Adam is a man. The first man. The first human.

Look, the idea of this thread is about helping people forgive and understand humans. Really? According to your original post, the idea of this thread is to discuss whether any human ever knowingly and willingly rejects God. Again, please stick to the topic.People do not interact with angels and “prenaturals infused with knowledge”. Please, let’s be practical. Please, let’s stick to the topic that YOU gave us at the start. If you wish to discuss helping people forgive and understanding ‘humans’ even if you won’t permit Adam in the club, start another thread. This one you started is about whether any human could knowingly and willingly reject God.

I already did, remember? Your turn! Now, why would you withold the Good News if I asked for it? Practice on me. What is the Good News?

Actually with all the posts I don’t remember. Refresh my memory.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes it happens.

The destruction of charity in the heart is by preferring an inferior good to God; one turns away from God, in a grave violation of God’s law.

Good morning, Vico!

When one “prefers an inferior good” they are seeing the inferior good as a superior good. This is ignorance/blindness, so it is not an example of K&WRG.

To the contrary of what you posted on Pope Francis, Pope Francis gave the following - so in keeping with the dogma on salvation (Homily December 16, 2014) - he speaks of those who “do not accept correction, they do not trust in the Lord.”:"These people cannot receive Salvation. They are closed to Salvation.

It would be interesting to know here what aspect of “salvation” Pope Francis was talking about. In Jesus’ ordinary use o the word, he was talking about freedom from the slavery of our nature. Those who do not accept correction, for example, from slavery to their desire to accumulate wealth will remain slaves to the desire.

‘I will leave within you the meek and humble; they will trust in the name of the Lord’ throughout their lives. And that is still Valid today, isn’t it? When we look at the holy people of God that is humble, that has its riches in its faith in the Lord, in its trust in the Lord - the humble, poor people that trust in the Lord: these are the ones who are saved and this is the way of the Church, isn’t it? This is the path I must follow, not the path in which I do not listen to His voice, do not accept correction and do not trust in the Lord."

Here his use of “throughout their lives” indicates he was using “salvation” the way Jesus did.

“If your heart is not a repentant heart, if you do not listen to the Lord, if you don’t accept correction and you do not trust in Him, your heart is unrepentant. These hypocrites who were scandalized by what Jesus said about the tax collectors and the prostitutes, but then secretly approached them to vent their passion or to do business - but all in secrecy - were pure! The Lord does not want them.”
​

The hypocrites were pure? I am a bit confused on that one. When Pope Francis said “the Lord did not want them”, was he referring to not wanting them in his group of followers, versus the tax collectors and prostitutes who were repentant? I think this is the case. The Lord, as Pope Francis says, “always understands, always forgives”. Pope Francis was not saying that those people were not loved and forgiven. After all, Jesus forgave the unrepentant from the cross, Vico.

Jesus wanted his followers to be exactly as Pope Francis described, “accepting correction” and “trusting in the Lord”. Pope Francis is addressing those who cling to money, status, and power and are enslaved by it, imploring the faithful to take on a different attitude, an openness.

Addressing the rest of the post goes too far beyond the scope of this thread, Vico. Please bring forward an example of a person K&WRG, or we can continue to discuss the example you presented in the other thread.

Of course, you could put a different meaning on Pope Francis’ words there, or you may come up with something else he said that appears to indicate non-forgiveness from God. Please do!

Thanks.​