Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[simpleas]

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

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.

So we are not at fault for having a sin nature, it’s just part of us, as God wanted in the end, or the beginning (Adam and Eve)

We are good, we aren’t perfect, but focusing on the sin nature can be quite negative, sort of doom and gloom of the human nature.

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

True, if people took time to understand why someone would sin against them, put them self in that persons shoes, we may be able to find reconciliation much easier. Just saying it’s because they have a sin nature doesn’t quite answer it though.

Thanks, this is very interesting to me

 

[OneSheep]

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

Hi T.e.!

I think post 264 was the response to the question you asked. No need to revisit it. I hear a hesitation about sharing your own view of why Jesus died on the cross. I’m not going to push it, I’ll let it go.

It sounds like you really, really want to discuss Adam. If you could line out, exactly the difference between a “prenatural nature” and “regular human nature” and explain exactly the content of the “infused knowledge” he had, then I am up for it. You might want to use my last post to David as a guide.

So, the ball is in your court. Explicitly describe Adam’s humanity, and we can start!

I know you mean well on wanting to talk about Adam, but maybe it would be easier just to talk about a normal human defying his elders or something like that. Why the fixation on Adam? The story comes from Persia, and it says in the CCC that it is to be taken figuratively. An analysis of Adam’s thinking misses the point of the story, which for the most part is: “be obedient”.

This thread is about understanding people, T.E., I have been explaining that all along. When we understand, it is easier to forgive. And a big part of understanding people is seeing their blindness and lack of awareness. If you ever resented Adam, did you forgive him? If so, explain how you forgave. That would still be in keeping with this thread.

May God graciously bless your day.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good Morning, Fran!

I am looking for an example of a person Knowingly and Willingly Rejecting God because I have not observed such example. I think “mainline Christianity” firmly believes that there are such examples, not the other way around. One of us is confused here.

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.

The view of “buying us back” is an example of the “first alternative” I presented on post 264. If the “buy back” is from the devil, then that is supposedly an Augustinian approach, later refuted by Anselm, who said the payment was made to God, but that was refuted by many others, including Cardinal Ratzinger. If you are only using scripture as your guide, most theologians say not to take the idea of “payment” too far, like a debt was owed.

But yes, we have to want to stop being slaves in order to be free. Some people have to suffer awhile.

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?

Such refusal has to remain a possibility because humans have free will. I cannot see it in human nature to do such refusal, though, and that is partly what this thread is about, understanding the beauty of human nature.

But as far as God and sin: I will stick to what Pope Francis says, “God always forgives”. The point of “unforgiveable sin” is not that God doesn’t forgive, the scripture scholar told us, the point is that the person remains stubbornly closed-minded to the Word, sealing himself off, “kicking and screaming against God the whole way”. I just don’t see people doing this, though, unless they are blind or ignorant, and I think that God ulitmately has the power to reach these people, to show them the way.

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.

Yes, but again Jesus’ words of “salvation” had to do with being freed from slavery here on Earth. As far as forgiveness of sins go, He spoke from the cross, remember?

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.

You are doing a lot of writing there, Fran. I consider promoting forgiveness and understanding part of my ministry, and my wife understands. I think that one of the main issues of confusion is the use of the word “salvation”. Pope Francis says that all are redeemed:

en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445

But yes, salvation in this life on Earth is going to be “conditioned” on our own acceptance. It is not anything to do with God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, for God always forgives; it is more like “a condition of life is that you have to eat”. If we want salvation from the slavery of desire for power, status, wealth, etc, we have to eat of the Word, of the Eucharist and everything it symbolizes. This is not to exclude atheists in any way, see the article in the link. Atheists who do good also participate, as Pope Francis indicates.

Hope that helps.

 

[davidv]

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.

I have concluded that you cannot or will not answer my question. It also appears that you are calling Adam non-human. If so this would nullify some of Christ’s and Paul teachings.

Other examples, including personal testimony, have been provided and rejected, so no others will be forthcoming. If the OP cannot be addressed using Adam, all other examples will fail.

 

[OneSheep]

I have concluded that you cannot or will not answer my question. It also appears that you are calling Adam non-human. If so this would nullify some of Christ’s and Paul teachings.

Other examples, including personal testimony, have been provided and rejected, so no others will be forthcoming. If the OP cannot be addressed using Adam, all other examples will fail.

I think you misunderstood my post, David. Feel free to address my words in parts, and that would indicate that you are not simply trying to reject everything I say because you are tired of writing or something like that.

So, are you saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia nullified some of Christ’s and Paul’s teachings with their use of “prenatural”?

And, on what basis can you say, “If the OP cannot be addressed using Adam, all other examples will fail”? By assertion? Because you say so?

I already explained why it is very difficult to address personal testimony, David. It is because it is very hard to see/admit our own blindness and we have to get very personal in terms of why people made certain choices. I did not “reject” personal examples. I am still open to them, but they will be difficult to investigate. We can come up with other examples as description of the personal ones, and that will suffice.

So please, David, take a closer look at the post and answer the parts. Please do not simply make assumptions about what I cannot or will not do. Err toward charity, please. I mean, I did answer your question, did I not?

Try Again!

P.S.: You might want to check my conversation with Fran on post 432. The conversation about Judas and Peter does not depend on Adam at all.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well, here’s what I think.

I think that we, all of us here on this thread, are of an age where we’ve come to believe what we believe.

Either because we’ve made it up ourselves, reading from different people, books, whatever; or because we just like the idea better because it suits us.

So Simpleas is going to have to find out for herself why there are hurricanes. No amount of what I write will convince her of the sin nature and how it doesn’t mean we’re evil.

One Sheep has his own opinion of what God wants from him. Pope Francis said we’re all saved. Good. That sounds just great to me.

But Jesus did say that in the end times false prophets would abound.

All I know is: I’m not one of them.

Fran

 

[simpleas]

Well, here’s what I think.

I think that we, all of us here on this thread, are of an age where we’ve come to believe what we believe.

Either because we’ve made it up ourselves, reading from different people, books, whatever; or because we just like the idea better because it suits us.

So Simpleas is going to have to find out for herself why there are hurricanes. No amount of what I write will convince her of the sin nature and how it doesn’t mean we’re evil.

One Sheep has his own opinion of what God wants from him. Pope Francis said we’re all saved. Good. That sounds just great to me.

But Jesus did say that in the end times false prophets would abound.

All I know is: I’m not one of them.

Fran

From post 276 you said this :

man is not good but is inherently bad.

And that is why I questioned what you meant, I think that you don’t mean that man is evil, but saying man is inherently bad, leaves out inherently good, if you catch my drift?

If we inherit an human nature from two complete humans, we inherit both Good and Bad, not just bad…
We know some people can do bad things, but also good things, and that’s a balance.

BTW you mention hurricanes, and asked where evil came from

I know nothing, I enjoy some conversation on how to understand…life…

Thanks for your replies.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, here’s what I think.

I think that we, all of us here on this thread, are of an age where we’ve come to believe what we believe.

Either because we’ve made it up ourselves, reading from different people, books, whatever; or because we just like the idea better because it suits us.

So Simpleas is going to have to find out for herself why there are hurricanes. No amount of what I write will convince her of the sin nature and how it doesn’t mean we’re evil.

One Sheep has his own opinion of what God wants from him. Pope Francis said we’re all saved. Good. That sounds just great to me.

But Jesus did say that in the end times false prophets would abound.

All I know is: I’m not one of them.

Fran

Hold it…

Before you start thinking that the Pope is being presumptive, remember that “salvation” still depends on the person’s choice. It is all very complicated. You are right, each of us has our own relationship with God.

The pope’s reference to redemption is this: Because of the incarnation, we all have the opportunity to be made new, to see God, life, humanity, creation, love, everything in a new and joyous light! Good News!: the Creator of the universe loves us unconditionally! He cares deeply about all of us! We have no need to fear!

This is redemption for all, is it not? Fran, you are really, really caught up in the “going to heaven” aspect. Break out of the box a little! There is so, so, so, much more to life than what happens after we die. Jesus said “Live life to its fullest!” or something like that, right? And following Him is how we do so.

Can you address my question about Judas on post 432? Let’s try to focus a little, okay?

God Bless you, Fran.

 

[davidv]

I think you misunderstood my post, David. Feel free to address my words in parts, and that would indicate that you are not simply trying to reject everything I say because you are tired of writing or something like that.

So, are you saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia nullified some of Christ’s and Paul’s teachings with their use of “prenatural”?

Where does it say this condition is substantially different than our nature today?

And, on what basis can you say, “If the OP cannot be addressed using Adam, all other examples will fail”? By assertion? Because you say so?

Whatever difficultly exist for Adam, exist for all other examples.

I already explained why it is very difficult to address personal testimony, David. It is because it is very hard to see/admit our own blindness and we have to get very personal in terms of why people made certain choices. I did not “reject” personal examples. I am still open to them, but they will be difficult to investigate. We can come up with other examples as description of the personal ones, and that will suffice.

So please, David, take a closer look at the post and answer the parts. Please do not simply make assumptions about what I cannot or will not do. Err toward charity, please. I mean, I did answer your question, did I not?

Try Again!

P.S.: You might want to check my conversation with Fran on post 432. The conversation about Judas and Peter does not depend on Adam at all.

No you did not answer my question. Nor do the comments about Judas and Peter. The question was “What knowledge did Adam not have that prevented him from knowingly and willing rejecting God?”

 

[OneSheep]

Okay, Readers,

Like Tantum ergo said, this thread has gotten to be a bit scattered. Please, anyone, jump in and give an example of how a person can knowingly and willingly reject God.

Then, we will subject the example to some investigation. Are we sure? What did she know or not know? Was she temporarily blind about something? We can investigate all of these aspects.

Fran has brought up Judas, and we are investigating what could have been going on in his mind. I invite anyone else to jump in!

Thanks!

OneSheep

 

[OneSheep]

Where does it say this condition is substantially different than our nature today?

newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm

Whatever difficultly exist for Adam, exist for all other examples.

This is another assertion without any explanation.

No you did not answer my question. Nor do the comments about Judas and Peter. The question was “What knowledge did Adam not have that prevented him from knowingly and willing rejecting God?”

If Adam was indeed of our same human nature, I gave some examples in post 435:

"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."

Did you read this, David? If so, please comment.

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

newadvent.org/cathen/14519a.htm

This is another assertion without any explanation.

If Adam was indeed of our same human nature, I gave some examples in post 435:

"For example, when a human desires something, he commonly is blinded in many ways.

Asserted without evidence.

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."

Did you read this, David? If so, please comment.

Thanks.

Adam was clearly instructed, by God, not to eat of the tree. What more did he need to know? Was he blind to what God instructed?

Was he forced to eat the fruit of the tree? No. How is this not willful rejection?

 

[OneSheep]

Asserted without evidence.

In the most extreme examples, addicts will steal from people they love in order to get their fix, they are blind to the value they have of their well-being. In a less extreme example, a buyer of a stock hears that the company mistreats employees. The mind says, “hey, at least they have jobs, that is better than no jobs at all”. This is blindness to the importance of the mistreatment. The desire for the stock makes “this stock is good” a “greater truth”, it is supplanting the importance of the truth of the mistreatment. There is my explanation, my evidence of “blindness due to desire”.

Adam was clearly instructed, by God, not to eat of the tree. What more did he need to know? Was he blind to what God instructed?

Was he forced to eat the fruit of the tree? No. How is this not willful rejection?

It was possible that the truth of “This fruit is good to eat” became superior to “God does not want me to do this” in his mind. He was believing an untruth. This is not “knowingly”, this is blindness.

Yes, the rejection was willful, in that he made his own choice. Was it his will that he harm a relationship? Did he “knowingly” make the decision in terms of knowing and considering everything pertinent? Please address everything, David. Here is is again:

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."

Give it some effort, please. This takes some thought! There was 10 minutes between our posts!

Thanks

 

[davidv]

In the most extreme examples, addicts will steal from people they love in order to get their fix, they are blind to the value they have of their well-being. In a less extreme example, a buyer of a stock hears that the company mistreats employees. The mind says, “hey, at least they have jobs, that is better than no jobs at all”. This is blindness to the importance of the mistreatment. The desire for the stock makes “this stock is good” a “greater truth”, it is supplanting the importance of the truth of the mistreatment. There is my explanation, my evidence of “blindness due to desire”.

Was Adam an addict? What was his addiction?

It was possible that the truth of “This fruit is good to eat” became superior to “God does not want me to do this” in his mind. He was believing an untruth. This is not “knowingly”, this is blindness.

Yes, the rejection was willful, in that he made his own choice. Was it his will that he harm a relationship? Did he “knowingly” make the decision in terms of knowing and considering everything pertinent? Please address everything, David. Here is is again:

He may be

But, was he? I don’t believe there is any evidence that he was.

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."

Give it some effort, please. This takes some thought! There was 10 minutes between our posts!

Thanks

I don’t give distractions much thought.

 

[frangiuliano115]

From post 276 you said this :

And that is why I questioned what you meant, I think that you don’t mean that man is evil, but saying man is inherently bad, leaves out inherently good, if you catch my drift?

If we inherit an human nature from two complete humans, we inherit both Good and Bad, not just bad…
We know some people can do bad things, but also good things, and that’s a balance.

BTW you mention hurricanes, and asked where evil came from

I know nothing, I enjoy some conversation on how to understand…life…

Thanks for your replies.

Yes simpleas, if man is inherently bad, he can’t be inherently good. Yes. I didn’t say man is evil. But there are evil men, check out 2 Timothy 3:13. Timothy, one of the apostles is saying it, I’m just repeating it.

Nature has also inhereted the sin nature. That’s why there are hurricanes. Even nature is awaiting the return of Christ, Check out Romans 8:18-25. Even nature is graoaning and waiting to be liberated from its bondage to decay - read Romans chapter 8.

You say you know nothing, but you’re not willing to really study and learn because you just keep going back to your idea that man is good. I’ve given you a few paths to take. Want to know what you should really do?

Take my posts to a priest of your choosing and ask him if they’re correct. Print them out and let him read them. Sometimes priests like to sugarcoat things, just tell him you want the truth.

Buy a concordance and a commentary and read the bible and use the commentary. When you have time, look up the word “evil” just for fun.

As far as evil goes: Evil is both a verb and a noun. And no matter what anybody tells you - nobody knows where evil comes from. Ask your priest about this too. If he says it comes from satan, ask him where satan got it. You’ll find that eventually he’ll have no answer for you. If he mentions Augustine, remind him that when Augustine died he stated that he really didn’t know where evil comes from.

It’s complicated simpleas. I’m limited here and it seems like you’re not open and why should you be? You don’t know me and you shouldn’t trust just anybody. Read the bible so you know when someone is telling you something wrong.

Let’s take One Sheep as an example. He has his mind so made up that he doesn’t even LISTEN to what people are saying. He thinks I brought up Judas and what was in his mind when what I said is that we don’t know what was in his mind; except that he felt pretty horrible about betraying Jesus.

First he says that Pope Francis said everyone is saved and now he’s rethinking his position and saying that it depends on our choice.

So yes, keep reading and studying. You could even read 2 Timothy chapters 3 and 4. It’s a start. And always remember God treasures you whether you know little or whether you know a lot, as long as you love His son Jesus.

I pray God blesses you abundantly
Fran

 

[OneSheep]

Was Adam an addict? What was his addiction?

David, David

You must be just rushing around I guess. Did you read the whole paragraph? Here it is again. Please don’t just take a cursory look at everything:

"In the most extreme examples, addicts will steal from people they love in order to get their fix, they are blind to the value they have of their well-being. In a less extreme example, a buyer of a stock hears that the company mistreats employees. The mind says, “hey, at least they have jobs, that is better than no jobs at all”. This is blindness to the importance of the mistreatment. The desire for the stock makes “this stock is good” a “greater truth”, it is supplanting the importance of the truth of the mistreatment. There is my explanation, my evidence of “blindness due to desire”.

So, no, we have no evidence that Adam fits the extreme example, his blindness would be closer to the stock buyer example. His blindness would be more subtle, like the thinking that a fellow CAF poster’s writing is not worth a deeper look. This may occur because the fellow poster’s message is resented by responder. I wonder if you are going to read far enough into my post to read this? Resentment also causes blindness.

But, was he? I don’t believe there is any evidence that he was.

No evidence of what, David? Please, don’t respond again until you have time to actually read my responses. I can’t tell what you are responding to. Please, take a little more time.

Here is what I have posted, now the fourth time:

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."

And your response was this:

I don’t give distractions much thought.

David, charity begins with caring about what people say here. I have addressed everything you have written. I write nothing off as a distraction. Everything I wrote above directly addresses your question: the possibility of not knowing the human consequences of his actions, the possibility of blindness. Yes, I put it into the context of “prenatural” because that was the condition lined out by the Catholic Encyclopedia. That does not mean that my words are not worth responding to.

At this point, David, if you think my words are not worth responding to, please, don’t respond. In addition, find another thread where you can find more value in your fellow posters, so that you can be more charitable.

I have one last question, though, if you have already written off everything else I’ve said:

Do you hold anything against Adam? If not, is it because you forgave him?

God Bless you, David.

 

[davidv]

David, David

You must be just rushing around I guess. Did you read the whole paragraph? Here it is again. Please don’t just take a cursory look at everything:

"In the most extreme examples, addicts will steal from people they love in order to get their fix, they are blind to the value they have of their well-being. In a less extreme example, a buyer of a stock hears that the company mistreats employees. The mind says, “hey, at least they have jobs, that is better than no jobs at all”. This is blindness to the importance of the mistreatment. The desire for the stock makes “this stock is good” a “greater truth”, it is supplanting the importance of the truth of the mistreatment. There is my explanation, my evidence of “blindness due to desire”.

So, no, we have no evidence that Adam fits the extreme example, his blindness would be closer to the stock buyer example. His blindness would be more subtle, like the thinking that a fellow CAF poster’s writing is not worth a deeper look. This may occur because the fellow poster’s message is resented by responder. I wonder if you are going to read far enough into my post to read this? Resentment also causes blindness.

No evidence of what, David? Please, don’t respond again until you have time to actually read my responses. I can’t tell what you are responding to. Please, take a little more time.

Here is what I have posted, now the fourth time:

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."

And your response was this:

David, charity begins with caring about what people say here. I have addressed everything you have written. I write nothing off as a distraction. Everything I wrote above directly addresses your question: the possibility of not knowing the human consequences of his actions, the possibility of blindness. Yes, I put it into the context of “prenatural” because that was the condition lined out by the Catholic Encyclopedia. That does not mean that my words are not worth responding to.

At this point, David, if you think my words are not worth responding to, please, don’t respond. In addition, find another thread where you can find more value in your fellow posters, so that you can be more charitable.

I have one last question, though, if you have already written off everything else I’ve said:

Do you hold anything against Adam? If not, is it because you forgave him?

God Bless you, David.

I have not written off what you wrote, it just seems that way to you because I concluded that it didn’t address my question.

This last question is the only thing I will address because it appears to be pertinent to the OP.

If Adam did not sin (knowingly and willingly rejected God), what is there to hold against him? If he did sin, on what basis can I hold it against him? If no sin, what is there to forgive? If he did sin, was his sin against me? Not in my mind, therefore there is nothing for me to forgive.

 

[OneSheep]

Let’s take One Sheep as an example. He has his mind so made up that he doesn’t even LISTEN to what people are saying. He thinks I brought up Judas and what was in his mind when what I said is that we don’t know what was in his mind; except that he felt pretty horrible about betraying Jesus.

FRAN!

When did I not listen to you! If I gave that impression, I apologize.

First he says that Pope Francis said everyone is saved and now he’s rethinking his position and saying that it depends on our choice.

The Pope is rethinking his position? Did you read the article? I am rethinking my position? So far, my position remains unchanged. God loves and forgives everyone, unconditionally. And yes, freedom from slavery is going to involve choice.

Fran, did you read what I said about “salvation”? Salvation is not all about getting the H-ticket. Salvation has a world aspect, bringing people out of poverty is salvation. Ending disease is salvation. Stopping environmental destruction is salvation. Ending war by promoting reconciliation is salvation. Pope Benedict adamantly emphasized the importance of seeing salvation as a global issue, a societal issue, not the comparatively selfish emphasis on a single person and their H-ticket! It’s like “stop worrying about the blasted H-tickets and see the plight of the poor!” Make sure you imagine me making lots of hand motions as I said that, that way you can understand me better. See, I know a bit of Italian…

Branch out a little, let’s make the Kingdom happen!

Now, on a note more pertinent to this thread, I guess you don’t want to respond about Judas, is that right? Here was the question:

Why would Judas still proceed to commit suicide even though he knew that God loved and forgave him?

Answer: This is why I would, if I were Judas. This is assuming that he knew that God loved and forgave him.

“I, OneSheep-as-Judas, understand that God forgives me. However, what I have done is a terrible thing, and I deserve no forgiveness. He forgives me, so what? It does not erase what I did. I am evil. I am worthless. There is no reason to live, in fact, I would do everyone a favor by ending my life. It is what the apostles probably want, and it is what I deserve. I have always been a bad person, and this seals it.”

Now, Fran, feel free to modify this fictional confession or tell me what you think. Does he know what he is doing, or is his “knowing” effected by something?

Have a great day, Fran.

 

[OneSheep]

I have not written off what you wrote, it just seems that way to you because I concluded that it didn’t address my question.

This last question is the only thing I will address because it appears to be pertinent to the OP.

If Adam did not sin (knowingly and willingly rejected God), what is there to hold against him? If he did sin, on what basis can I hold it against him? If no sin, what is there to forgive? If he did sin, was his sin against me? Not in my mind, therefore there is nothing for me to forgive.

Yet, you seem to be saying that Adam sinned against God, but was that Adam’s intent? What did Adam want?

And, while I am at it, did Adam know that he would have billions of offspring?

Did he know the value of those offspring?

Did he know that they would die because of his actions?

Did he know that women would suffer more in childbirth because of his actions?

Here is something directly from the OP:

“Note: I am using “knowingly and willingly” in the broadest sense, i.e. those who crucified Jesus did not do so knowingly and willingly. They “willed” it in terms of choice, but their choice was in ignorance (and in this case, the ignorance was held blameless).”

Give those questions a shot. I forgive you for ignoring everything else I wrote. I am thinking that you are perhaps seeing me as having little value, a blindness due to a bit of resentment. Its understandable. You wouldn’t do it to your friends. Or the Papa.

 

[davidv]

Yet, you seem to be saying that Adam sinned against God, but was that Adam’s intent? What did Adam want?

I think Gen 3:5-6 gives a very clear explanation of his intent and want. Highlighting mine.

I see no evidence of blindness here.

For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6] So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.