Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Obviously, Catholics agree that the first real human, historically known as Adam, committed the first Original Sin; therefore, he is the designated human who knowingly and willingly rejected God.

Hi Granny,

Your statement above is the very reason why I do not want to address Adam on this thread. If we were to use the assertions about Adam, who in the Catholic Encyclopedia had a “prenatural” humanness, that is, a nature distinct from our own, then his case does not apply to this thread. In addition, the encyclopedia stated that he had an “infused knowledge” which implies that we do not have this same content. Normal humans do not.

That said, I am only agreeing to discuss Adam if those bringing him up are open-minded about the possiblility that Adam and Eve did not knowingly or willingly reject God, the same possibility that exists for all real people. This thread is about understanding and forgiving people, not an analysis of a story that the CCC describes as “figurative”.

So, I know you mean well. You want to make sure that we, unlike Adam, stay obedient, but that is not what this thread is about.

Ciao!

 

[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.

Another very important aspect: What did the person want? What was their intent?

Thanks!

OneSheep

 

[Aloysium]

Hi Aloysium . . . The person is not broken, he mind has experienced trauma. There is a difference, sometimes the difference is important. . . If they found their behavior justified, then they saw it as being in accord as they saw the situation. They very well could have worshiped God, but were simply blind or ignorant. They did not reject what they perceived as Love, they perceived Love incorrectly. If they did not worship God, then they knew even less about what they were doing. Do you understand the crowd’s thinking, Aloysium? Do you hold anything against them? . . . Mental “contortions”, eh? If they were contortions, they would only perpetuate or worsen the illusions that lead to blaming others and resistance to forgive. Do you hold anything against the crowd, Aloysium? I assume not. If not, why not?

Are you trying to make your posts look like poetry?

God Bless.

Hi

As persons, we are whole, acting in harmony within ourselves and in the world.
When one feels beset by an emotion which compels them to behave in a certain way, that person is broken, fragmented.
To regain one’s sense of unity, one must reconnect with these broken parts and not disown them.

We are in a state of ignorance as a consequence of original sin.
We use that ignorance to hide, not owning up to what we do.
When we sin, we should not blame it on the woman, nor the snake, nor God for having made us.
If we are to be healed, we must admit what we have done.
If we are to emerge from our state of sin, we can only do so by giving it to Christ.
In order to do that we must confess and repent.

I understand that you do not agree with what I am saying.
You are a humanist imho, although you keep saying you are Catholic.

I don’t hold anything against anyone . . . for the moment.
However, as I heard someone say about Mother Teresa, it’s easy being a Saint dealing with the dying; what is hard is having to do with the living. Yes, life is a challenge.

As to my writing style, sometimes it comes out poetic. I guess it can make me look pretentious. It’s actually the result of two deficiencies: 1. I have a visual impairment, and if I am writing something serious, I like to see it all in front of me. When I blow it up I can lose track of what I’m writing. I’m doing this now and it takes a lot of work to keep typo’s in check and the thoughts coherent. 2. I tend to put two or more thoughts in one sentence. If I write a sentence for each thought, it sounds condescending. It can get difficult to communicate some things, so I give each point its own line. I hope I am making sense? What I’ve done here is to compose a number of lines and then shoved them all together. I must say this is hard for me to read back to myself.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Hi

As persons, we are whole, acting in harmony within ourselves and in the world.
When one feels beset by an emotion which compels them to behave in a certain way, that person is broken, fragmented.
To regain one’s sense of unity, one must reconnect with these broken parts and not disown them.

We are in a state of ignorance as a consequence of original sin.
We use that ignorance to hide, not owning up to what we do.
When we sin, we should not blame it on the woman, nor the snake, nor God for having made us.
If we are to be healed, we must admit what we have done.
If we are to emerge from our state of sin, we can only do so by giving it to Christ.
In order to do that we must confess and repent.

I understand that you do not agree with what I am saying.
You are a humanist imho, although you keep saying you are Catholic.

I don’t hold anything against anyone . . . for the moment.
However, as I heard someone say about Mother Teresa, it’s easy being a Saint dealing with the dying; what is hard is having to do with the living. Yes, life is a challenge.

As to my writing style, sometimes it comes out poetic. I guess it can make me look pretentious. It’s actually the result of two deficiencies: 1. I have a visual impairment, and if I am writing something serious, I like to see it all in front of me. When I blow it up I can lose track of what I’m writing. I’m doing this now and it takes a lot of work to keep typo’s in check and the thoughts coherent. 2. I tend to put two or more thoughts in one sentence. If I write a sentence for each thought, it sounds condescending. It can get difficult to communicate some things, so I give each point its own line. I hope I am making sense? What I’ve done here is to compose a number of lines and then shoved them all together. I must say this is hard for me to read back to myself.

Thanks.

You do a great job . Thank you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

. . . Oh, you were serious. . .

That was my first impulse too.

I mean, seriously, OneSheep? human beings don’t do harm for the sake of harm?

Just recently we had a case in upstate NY where two prisoners broke out from Dannemora. One was there because, according to the Buffalo News:

Richard W. Matt was convicted of torturing to death and dismembering a North Tonawanda businessman in 1997.

But he 'didn’t do harm for the sake of harm?" REALLY??

 

[grannymh]

If I may …

Here is an easy definition regarding the original human Adam and the additional preternatural gifts given to him by God.
Definition of Preternatural Gifts
"Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall. "

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

The key to understanding preternatural gifts is to pay close attention to the words the nature that receives them. Common sense tells us that the “nature” as in Adam’s human nature existed intact as God granted these special gifts. The words** “perfect (as a verb) nature**” also describes that Adam’s nature was stable as created and that the Creator freely gave Adam gifts over and above human nature per se.

It is a misunderstanding that somehow Adam’s nature was not a real human nature, body and soul, like our human nature, body and soul. This misunderstanding is understandable when Adam is considered a mere allegory.

The bottom line is that the preternatural gifts did not change–they added to-- the real human nature, body and soul, of the first real human, body and soul, which is our human nature according to Genesis 1: 27–body and soul.

Since Catholic teachings cannot be excluded from CAF, I respectfully propose that Adam knowingly and willingly committed the real Original Sin; therefore, Adam is the first ever human who knowingly and willingly rejected God.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi Granny,

Your statement above is the very reason why I do not want to address Adam on this thread. If we were to use the assertions about Adam, who in the Catholic Encyclopedia had a “prenatural” humanness, that is, a nature distinct from our own, then his case does not apply to this thread. In addition, the encyclopedia stated that he had an “infused knowledge” which implies that we do not have this same content. Normal humans do not.

That said, I am only agreeing to discuss Adam if those bringing him up are open-minded about the possiblility that Adam and Eve did not knowingly or willingly reject God, the same possibility that exists for all real people. This thread is about understanding and forgiving people, not an analysis of a story that the CCC describes as “figurative”.

So, I know you mean well. You want to make sure that we, unlike Adam, stay obedient, but that is not what this thread is about.

Ciao!

You keep saying that “this thread is about understanding and forgiving people”. . .

And that is NOT what you originally stated when YOU started this thread.

You started this thread with the question, “Can any human being knowingly and willingly reject God?”

As I said before, if you want to start a new thread about “understanding and forgiving people” please do. You can link it to this one.

THIS thread is about whether a human being --and Adam is a human being, despite your fixation on ‘preturnatural’, and Adam is a perfect example–can knowingly and willingly reject God.

In fact Adam, who was created with all the ‘best and brightest’ of the gifts of humanity and with the free gift from God of being immortal and without concupiscence, was still free to sin, knowingly and willingly. The gifts given him as first human we have restored to us through Christ --we too will, at the Last Judgment, have our souls and bodies reunited and live as immortal human beings, body and soul, united to God, in eternal bliss (if we die in a state of grace). But just as Adam freely, knowingly and willingly rejected God, we can place ourselves in mortal sin and sever our relationship with God. If we die in this state, we will also at the Judgment have our souls and bodies reunited and live as immortal human beings, body and soul, eternally SEPARATED from God (through our own free choice).

Didn’t they ever teach you the Four Last Things?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If I may …

Here is an easy definition regarding the original human Adam and the additional preternatural gifts given to him by God.Definition of Preternatural Gifts
"Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall. "

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

The key to understanding preternatural gifts is to pay close attention to the words the nature that receives them. Common sense tells us that the “nature” as in Adam’s human nature existed intact as God granted these special gifts. The words** “perfect (as a verb) nature**” also describes that Adam’s nature was stable as created and that the Creator freely gave Adam gifts over and above human nature per se.

It is a misunderstanding that somehow Adam’s nature was not a real human nature, body and soul, like our human nature, body and soul. This misunderstanding is understandable when Adam is considered a mere allegory.

The bottom line is that the preternatural gifts did not change–they added to-- the real human nature, body and soul, of the first real human, body and soul, which is our human nature according to Genesis 1: 27–body and soul.

Since Catholic teachings cannot be excluded from CAF, I respectfully propose that Adam knowingly and willingly committed the real Original Sin; therefore, Adam is the first ever human who knowingly and willingly rejected God.

I concur.

If Adam did not ever knowingly and willingly reject God, he should never have been punished, right?

If Adam never really rejected God, then any human being who lived a ‘good life’ could and should have been able to enter heaven, without Jesus needing to come along to ‘save’ humanity.

Because heck, if he was a nice guy and ‘forgave’ everybody, that’s what it’s all about, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Evening, Brother

Hi

As persons, we are whole, acting in harmony within ourselves and in the world.
When one feels beset by an emotion which compels them to behave in a certain way, that person is broken, fragmented.
To regain one’s sense of unity, one must reconnect with these broken parts and not disown them.

My observation is that when the person is beset by an emotion, they can already experience a form of disconnectedness. For example, anger itself is alienating. Fragmented works, I like the word. “Broken” implies something wrong. Anger isn’t wrong, but it does lead to a fragmentation. I know, its a bit of wordsmith detail, but I’m not adamantly defending definitions. Once we are fragmented, alienated by anger, there is a time to be aware and then forgive.

Is a person even more fragmented (alienated) after they have hurt someone? Why yes, hopefully their conscience has triggered a shot of self-condemnation (guilt). Sociopaths do not get this shot, they have a disabled empathy, and as a result extremely underdeveloped consciences.

We are in a state of ignorance as a consequence of original sin.
We use that ignorance to hide, not owning up to what we do

.

This was not the case for St. Paul, brought up earlier. He treated his ignorance as an explanation, which it was. In addition, the crowd at the cross was blind/ignorant. There is also a hesitation for people to “own up” to their own ignorance. When we are in the mode of clinging to guilt and self condemnation, we don’t allow ourselves the explanations.

I will grant you that a person without adequate conscience might use “excuse me, for I was ignorant” in order to escape consequence. However, that person’s ignorance runs far deeper than the shallow effort he makes to avoid such consequence.

When we sin, we should not blame it on the woman, nor the snake, nor God for having made us.

YES! Let us “desculpar” as they say in Spanish, “disblame”! We are going to blame, that is the automatic reaction of the aware, functional conscience. The next step is to forgive, and understanding helps in such forgiveness.

If we are to be healed, we must admit what we have done.
If we are to emerge from our state of sin, we can only do so by giving it to Christ.
In order to do that we must confess and repent.

Yes!

I understand that you do not agree with what I am saying.
You are a humanist imho, although you keep saying you are Catholic.

Oops, I just got to this. Humanist? Humanists are okay, but are you sure they do not believe in God? Maybe most don’t, I don’t know. Secular humanists?

Still am a card-carrying Catholic. I do a great deal of work for the Church, so please - don’t be saying things you know nothing about. It’s not a “humble opinion” unless it is a compliment.

I don’t hold anything against anyone . . . for the moment.
However, as I heard someone say about Mother Teresa, it’s easy being a Saint dealing with the dying; what is hard is having to do with the living. Yes, life is a challenge.

Cool.

Thanks.

Thank you, have a great evening.

 

[OneSheep]

That was my first impulse too.

I mean, seriously, OneSheep? human beings don’t do harm for the sake of harm?

Just recently we had a case in upstate NY where two prisoners broke out from Dannemora. One was there because, according to the Buffalo News:

But he 'didn’t do harm for the sake of harm?" REALLY??

We would have to start with the question, “Why did he torture and dismember the man?”

Well, there was a reason. What did the criminal want? In the “best case” scenario, (for lack of better words) he had a “valid” dispute with the man that elevated into a fight. The man was resented, thus dehumanized in the criminal’s mind. Can you relate to such triggered blindness? I can. My mind goes first to ‘what a worthless being’ in hearing about this guy. Well, the same thing could have happened in the criminal’s mind. Next the torture: punishing the man for ‘misdeeds’ or ‘disrespect’, a contorted attempt at justice. We are talking about some serious blindness here. The dismemberment? Either unrelenting rage or trying to dispose of the body.

Worst case scenario: the criminal is a psychopath that gets the thrill of a feeling of dominance when he destroys. He has little capacity for empathy, a brain disability, and has not developed a sense of value for people. Even his own sense of value is non-existent, his is selfish out of instinct alone. He does not know love. This is still a reason, Tantum ergo. It is heart-wrenching, but it is not a call for sympathy, only understanding and forgiveness. This case, and the BCS above, both need to be kept in an institution in order to protect the general public.

You see, T.E.? We can understand and forgive without letting them off free because we pity them, etc. Well, maybe you don’t see. Maybe you are thinking “this guy is OneSheep is just so naive!” (or worse). So, if that is the case, set me straight!

 

[OneSheep]

If I may …

Here is an easy definition regarding the original human Adam and the additional preternatural gifts given to him by God.
Definition of Preternatural Gifts

"Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall. "

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
​

Hey Granny

So, for the reader, “concupiscence” is strong desire. Humans are chock-full of strong desires, they are part of our nature: We desire status, sex, “feel good”, power, dominance, control, wealth, territory, and a host of other common things, some which affect our minds, others not so much.

Was Adam and Eve’s wanting of wisdom and power not “concupiscence”? This is a contradiction of assertions. On the one hand, Adam was “human” which means he has strong desires, on the other hand he was “prenatural” which means he does not have strong desires. Evidence of strong desire to me is there because they badly wanted the wisdom and power, so they should be considered normal, concupiscence-laden humans, but Fr. Hardon disputes.

What does it mean “does not carry it beyond the limits of created nature?”. Human genetics codes for all of our desires. Without these strong desires, that would involve a severe alteration of our DNA.

Sorry, Granny, it doesn’t make sense. I don’t see how we can resolve the humanity of this Adam character from an ancient Persian story. And remember, the analysis misses the point anyway. The point was “be obedient”. Haven’t you noticed the world of fiction, Granny? Some of the characters should not be over-analyzed. They serve a purpose in the story, they are not supposed to make sense.

The point of this thread is to understand human behavior. Let’s stick with examples of real humans. I know, you are saying he is real, but there is too much contradiction and this is now just serving as a distraction from the point of this thread.

For the purposes of this thread, “human” includes “having concupiscence”.

Now, does anyone have an example to investigate of a real human (thread definition) who K&WR God?​

 

[ChibiViolet]

Ignorance or blindness of some kind is always a factor in the rejection of God; only those who enjoy the beatific vision are incapable of preferring a lesser good to the supreme. That said, ignorance does not always excuse; it can be more or less willful.

As to an example of “knowingly” rejecting God, how about a satanist? I say knowingly in quotes, because no one who rejects God fully knows what he is doing. But his knowledge is sufficient to condemn him (cf. Romans 1:20).

Yes, of course. When I was a primarily devotional independent Satanist (for a thankfully short-lived time in middle school,) I at first, was unaware that God even loved me at all. I had the misconception that He hated me for being so sinful and not going to Confession (I found it too difficult to confess my sins) and upon remembering that I had “sold my soul” years before (quite impulsively,) I thought I could never get to Heaven anyway and Satan had been tempting me so much to worship him, I figured, what was the point of resisting any longer? Upon learning about how God could forgive any sin, I argued with that in my head and asked God to hurt me to prove He hated me. He instead, told me in my heart, that He would ALWAYS love me and that I could come back to Him. I told Him “no,” since my loyalty was with Satan by then…Over time, God’s persistent love drew me back, thankfully.

 

[pocaracas]

Hi pocaracas,

What I liked most about your comments earlier was ““free will” remains a real perception”.

The illusions we have seem so very real! However, they are all we have in terms of ‘from what we operate’, and we don’t know that they are illusions until something takes us outside of the whole picture.

So, when I see someone as “evil”, for example, as the crowd saw Jesus, that characteristic is an illusion. This thread is here, among other things, to promote understanding, to promote forgiveness and take people out of the whole picture of seeing negative in others. The negativity is an illusion, as Fr. Anthony de Mello, a psychotherapist, said.

That said, the illusion itself is not negative in its presence in the human mind. The illusion does serve a function, as you may intuitively conclude. Or do you not?

Thanks.

Cheers OneSheep,

For millennia, mankind has seen the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.
Telescopes and ever accurate measurements of the sky gave us the notion that it is the Earth that spins… Astronauts saw the planet spinning.
It need not take an external view (the astronauts) to properly gauge our internal one… but it helps a lot!
Even now, knowing full well that the sun neither rises nor sets, our language still carries that ancient view. Our language, our point of view, didn’t change - it still serves a purpose - simplifying our reasoning within our world.
One could say “my zone is approaching the sun’s shadow”… but it’s easier to think in terms of the “setting sun”… also, more poetic.

Back on topic, what would be the purpose of the illusion of free will? perhaps easier neural pathway to the distinguishing of the self from the rest of the world, the rest of mankind, the rest of the tribe… It simplifies our interaction with the world…
Perhaps “free will” is simply our awareness that the choice exists, when, in fact, we choose a particular behavior/action/thought, regardless of the available options (but aware of [some of] them).

If free will is an illusion, how would anyone “knowingly and willingly reject God”? If it is an illusion, we are compelled to act out our lives from our own brain wiring and all the (name removed by moderator)ut from the rest of the world - of course, the threat of punishment (even if just in the form of sorrow for another) is an element in our brain’s decision making core.

A rejection of God, if it happens, is inevitable and based on all the knowledge or information available to that individual brain.
The willingness part gets discarded, under this scenario.

Do we have enough information to discard this scenario as nonsense?
Had we never developed telescopes, would we have enough information to discard the spinning Earth scenario?

 

[djames99]

" 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".

It is better explained if we do no seek an immediate end to a cause. Those who set the stage in Christ’s Crucifixion were morally forbidden to seek ill of anyone, both by desire or act. If the decision was demanded out of communitive justice and duty, then all the more important that he cautions his decision and do some research, such as determining if Christ was lieing or a real threat to anyone. The mindset of that time would have told him that the governing authority, Rome, had standards of justice that were questionable. He would know to consider the effects besides his immediate aim. The right decisions set the stage for future events, therefore those making the decisions now could prevent evil in the future.

The governing instrument is their conscience which comes from God so that every man can make good judgements. So we can see that the conscious needs to be honed so that it can be counted upon to function at the right time. Already available to the ignorant is conscience,the Torah,tradition,reasoning and the ability to seek truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Cheers OneSheep,
Back on topic, what would be the purpose of the illusion of free will? perhaps easier neural pathway to the distinguishing of the self from the rest of the world, the rest of mankind, the rest of the tribe… It simplifies our interaction with the world…
Perhaps “free will” is simply our awareness that the choice exists, when, in fact, we choose a particular behavior/action/thought, regardless of the available options (but aware of [some of] them).

If free will is an illusion, how would anyone “knowingly and willingly reject God”? If it is an illusion, we are compelled to act out our lives from our own brain wiring and all the (name removed by moderator)ut from the rest of the world - of course, the threat of punishment (even if just in the form of sorrow for another) is an element in our brain’s decision making core.

A rejection of God, if it happens, is inevitable and based on all the knowledge or information available to that individual brain.
The willingness part gets discarded, under this scenario.

Do we have enough information to discard this scenario as nonsense?
Had we never developed telescopes, would we have enough information to discard the spinning Earth scenario?

Good Morning,

The fact of the matter is, if you ask the question “How does one know if one knows all the options, and everything pertinient to a decision?” The answer is: One can not.

What can happen is that we have the experience of making a discovery that entirely “shakes our tree” or blows all other information completely out of the water. It is a humbling experience, one which leaves a person with the humility to admit he can be wrong again.

This was my experience of finding Unconditional Love. It was a discovery, a discovery that came about by forgiving everyone, including myself, including all the parts of myself that I resented, using the gift of understanding (a bit of psychology and behavior science helped a lot). It was a complete internal reconciliation. About this, can I be wrong? The possibility has to exist, but in the mean time the revelation to me about such love has been with me for better than 30 years, and it has remained a source of inner harmony that I never knew before. It sustains me.

I’m not sure which “scenario” you are referring to. As far as the “willingness” though, it is my observation that there is “good intent” behind every action, and this is not different from the conclusion of the likes of Augustine, Plato, and even Aquinas, if I remember right. Violence upon other happens when our minds become “disordered” by our emotions. We become blind to the humanity of the other.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[OneSheep]

" 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".

It is better explained if we do no seek an immediate end to a cause. Those who set the stage in Christ’s Crucifixion were morally forbidden to seek ill of anyone, both by desire or act. If the decision was demanded out of communitive justice and duty, then all the more important that he cautions his decision and do some research, such as determining if Christ was lieing or a real threat to anyone. The mindset of that time would have told him that the governing authority, Rome, had standards of justice that were questionable. He would know to consider the effects besides his immediate aim. The right decisions set the stage for future events, therefore those making the decisions now could prevent evil in the future.

The governing instrument is their conscience which comes from God so that every man can make good judgements. So we can see that the conscious needs to be honed so that it can be counted upon to function at the right time. Already available to the ignorant is conscience,the Torah,tradition,reasoning and the ability to seek truth.

Welcome, djames,

I’m more than a little confused by your first paragraph, I read it thrice yet I have trouble making out your point. The references to “he” are also confusing. Try neanderthal. My son, too, used to write things I couldn’t comprehend. Thank God, he has gotten much better.

The conscience has to be developed, and it happens mostly through experience and empathy. What happens in the human is that when we anger or resent, we become blind to people’s humanity. It happens even to the learned, the people of conscience. In fact, the resentment felt, in my observation, is part of the functioning of the conscience itself. So any objectivity (which I am gleaning from your first paragraph) is automatically deleted from access - until we forgive.

Did I respond to your post, or did I respond to something I though you said, but was far off from your point?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[rinnie]

Good Morning,

The fact of the matter is, if you ask the question “How does one know if one knows all the options, and everything pertinient to a decision?” The answer is: One can not.

What can happen is that we have the experience of making a discovery that entirely “shakes our tree” or blows all other information completely out of the water. It is a humbling experience, one which leaves a person with the humility to admit he can be wrong again.

This was my experience of finding Unconditional Love. It was a discovery, a discovery that came about by forgiving everyone, including myself, including all the parts of myself that I resented, using the gift of understanding (a bit of psychology and behavior science helped a lot). It was a complete internal reconciliation. About this, can I be wrong? The possibility has to exist, but in the mean time the revelation to me about such love has been with me for better than 30 years, and it has remained a source of inner harmony that I never knew before. It sustains me.

I’m not sure which “scenario” you are referring to. As far as the “willingness” though, it is my observation that there is “good intent” behind every action, and this is not different from the conclusion of the likes of Augustine, Plato, and even Aquinas, if I remember right. Violence upon other happens when our minds become “disordered” by our emotions. We become blind to the humanity of the other.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Okay let me ask you this, the devil wanted to be God. He wanted to be chief and master and rule the world. What is the good intent in that? Now remember you said there is a good intent in every action.

 

[simpleas]

Poor Onesheep, you have been accused of not being Catholic a few times in this thread, how sad.

We assume so much, yet know so little…

 

[davidv]

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?

What do any of these have to do with whether Adam is the example you have requested?

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.

I think you are using the phase in so broad a sense, that it becomes meaningless.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What do any of these have to do with whether Adam is the example you have requested?

I think you are using the phase in so broad a sense, that it becomes meaningless.

Bang, you’ve hit the nail on the head, David.

From what I read in the most recent posts, OneSheep experienced this ‘gift’ (now of some 30 years’ standing, he says) of unconditional love. What he believes this means is what he now wishes us to experience, and because he is apparently Catholic, he has attempted to fit his beliefs into a ‘Catholic slot’.

Since so many Catholic teachings do not ‘jibe’ with his interpretation of unconditional love (The Catholic teaching of God’s unconditional love is quite, quite different) his answer is to address this, by using, as you note, words in such a broad sense that they do in fact become meaningless. Since Catholics teach that God loves unconditionally, OneSheep uses the words “Unconditional Love” so that it seems as though what he claims is, in fact, a Catholic teaching. But the definition of HIS, is not Catholic.

In a couple of posts in this long ‘dialog’ he mentioned himself as being ‘pantheistic’. Again, this helps to explain a lot of what he believes.

As I mentioned also, like G.K. Chesterton, I am open-minded, but not so open minded my brains fall out. The kind of open-mindedness (purely one-sided, because One Sheep already feels himself to have a perfectly open mind) demanded of us is not that we consider a possibility, but rather, that we accept OneSheep’s 30-year ‘experience’ as Christian teaching and to apply it as an ‘explanation’.

OneSheep has said that he is open minded and that he could be ‘wrong’, but the way he expresses it in fact pretty much negates that possibility, thusly:

It was a complete internal reconciliation. About this, can I be wrong? The possibility has to exist, but in the mean time the revelation to me about such love has been with me for better than 30 years, and it has remained a source of inner harmony that I never knew before. It sustains me.

With such ‘kindness’ oozing from his soul, how COULD we be such churls to thus deny his rightness wherever else he speaks?