Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Charlemagne_III]

However, has any person been “anxious to fight him” knowingly and willingly? I am looking for an example of this. Ignorance is a huge, if not essential, part of human sin. Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?

Feel free to make an assertion in your answer, but please provide an example.

Adam and Eve the classic case of those who knowingly and willingly fight God’s will and are punished for their pride.

Moreover, God has endowed us with the natural law planted in our hearts.

Ignorance is no excuse for violating the law.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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:

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

Yes. You give a clear explanation.

It’s been apparent for some time that there’s a problem with One Sheep’s theology. Always knew it had something to do with forgiveness and/or our projecting our feelings onto God. God is separate from His creation and cannot be considered as One Sheep would like - in human terms. What does infinite mean, anyway?? Although we can only explain Him in our terms, He is not limited to them.

Can we stop for a moment to consider this unconditional love?

I love my husband unconditionally.
My love for him is not unconditional. (it is conditional - hate double negatives)

My love for him is unconditional. It will never change. I’ll continue to love him no matter what.

However, there are conditions to my love: He can’t beat me up every evening; he can’t have adulterous affairs; he can’t mistreat our children.

I’ll still love him, but our relationship will soon come to an end.

So O.S. will say this is projecting. I guess the bible is projecting!
The above concept is clear when reading from Genesis to Revelation.

God does have conditions. Even the New Covenant, which is an unconditional covenant, must be accepted for it to be valid (we must accept Jesus’ gift of salvation to be saved).

It would behoove all to understand this and proceed accordingly.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

While doing the dishes, a bible scripture came to me.

And my daughter wants me to buy a dishwasher!

Mathew 16:21-23

Jesus was telling the apostels that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things.
But Peter rebuked Him and Jesus replied “Get thee behind me satan!”. Pretty strong.
Peter was expressing man’s interests and not God’s. Jesus’ words - not mine.

So here we see that Peter might have been ignorant of Jesus’ mission (even having spent 3 years or so with Him). He is unknowingly rejecting Jesus’ mission. However, Jesus did not excuse him. He replied in that strong manner, even saying that Peter was a stumbling block.

I sometimes wonder if when we read the bible, we are actually paying attention to what it says, or if we suit what it says to our own beliefs.

Kind of what you said in your last post, Tantum Ergo.

Fran

 

[OneSheep]

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.

I’d be happy to tackle that question on a different thread, rinnie. The first step in reconciliation of all is reconciliation with other people. This thread is about understanding people’s choices and actions, so the focus is on humans.

Feel free to PM me, and I can provide my thoughts. Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

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’.

Hi T.E.

Please, T.E., if you would like to address my writing, address me directly. Isn’t there a rule on the CAF about discussing other posters? My own journey was under the guidance of three very different priests, so please do not make assumptions.

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.

Perhaps you could instead tell me what you are thinking is the Catholic definition of unconditional love and then tell me why what I have said is any different. Unconditional love is a very simply concept, it is love without condition. It is not complicated, T.E.

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.

Quite the opposite is true, I contrasted my belief with pantheism. Panentheism, though having many meanings, is to me the idea of “God in everything”. It is also a very simple concept.

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’.

Actually, when I wrote that, I was writing to pocaracas. I am not making any demands here, T.E. What I aim to do on this thread is help people with using the gift of Understanding in the process of forgiveness. Is there something you do not like about this goal?

I am trying to discern the feeling from your post. Is it disappointment? resentment? frustration? Let me know. Feel free to PM me.

Are you requesting that I see God the way that you do?

This is all way off-topic, but somehow it may add to the thread here. I know from all experience that you are well-intended. What is your request?

 

[OneSheep]

Adam and Eve the classic case of those who knowingly and willingly fight God’s will and are punished for their pride.

Moreover, God has endowed us with the natural law planted in our hearts.

Ignorance is no excuse for violating the law.

Hi Charlemagne, and welcome!

By “endowing us with natural law”, I think you mean the conscience. Yes, we have an “endowment”, but that “endowment” is informed by experience. The conscience develops.

My wife works with kindergartners, and part of her role is to help the children develop their consciences. When one child hits another, for example, she has the hurt child tell the offender how he feels, and makes sure that the offender understands. This does not replace other consequences, but it is one part of developing conscience.

Do you see what I mean? Yes, we all have great resistance to hearing people want to “make excuses”, to say things that attempt to convince others not to blame or apply consequences. However, one of the aims of this thread is to directly address that resistance and not let it prohibit us from application of the gift of understanding.

What a priest told me was, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”.

Thanks for you response.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hi Charlemagne, and welcome!

By “endowing us with natural law”, I think you mean the conscience. Yes, we have an “endowment”, but that “endowment” is informed by experience. The conscience develops.

Agreed. The conscience is what God gives us as a natural endowment … the natural recognition that we should do good and avoid evil.

Yes, the conscience must be trained in what is good and what is evil. That is what the Catechism and Catholic education are all about.

It is all to easy to have our natural sense of good and evil corrupted by outside influences, by lies others have told us in our youth or even by lies we have told ourselves. So Aquinas is right to insist on the natural law fortified by our understanding of virtue and vice.

 

[OneSheep]

Can we stop for a moment to consider this unconditional love?

I love my husband unconditionally.
My love for him is not unconditional. (it is conditional - hate double negatives)

My love for him is unconditional. It will never change. I’ll continue to love him no matter what.

However, there are conditions to my love: He can’t beat me up every evening; he can’t have adulterous affairs; he can’t mistreat our children.

I’ll still love him, but our relationship will soon come to an end.

Hi Fran,

It is exciting to me that our conversation has so quickly reached this level, going to the underlying experiences we have of Love itself. I am hearing two different opinions concerning unconditional love in the above, all very understandable. First you said you love him unconditionally, then not (for understandable reasons), then finally, yes.

If you were to still love him after he violated one of your conditions, then you love him unconditionally. You are saying the relationship would end, but if you were to still love him the relationship would not end, it would only take on a different nature, like your keeping yourself and the kids away from him until he repents. By your admission, you would still love him. We married folks have a different take on life!

I can very much relate to that, in fact it was marriage that was the start of my own experience and awakening to the meaning of unconditional love. So overwhelmingly in love I was after our sacrament that the seed of “unconditional love” (which I got from the Church) entered into a secret commitment I made to my wife. My commitment: that I would love her, care for her, and forgive her unconditionally. I went through every possible condition: defiance, deceit, violence, infidelity, every possible abuse, and decided that I would not allow any of those actions to undo my commitment. Once I made this commitment, everything else that happened, i.e. my learning how do love God unconditionally, learning how to love and forgive everyone else and myself unconditionally, and then seeing his unconditional love and forgiveness of everyone, precipitated from the original commitment.

Why do not all married couples make the same commitment? Well, fear. We fear that if we were to commit to such love, that the conditions we let drop are bound to occur. “If I tell him I love him no matter what, he will take advantage”. This is fear. We have our own consciences and rulebooks, after all. Love, however, drives out all fear, and once the fear is gone, there is an amazing freedom.

The commitment is possible!, …that is my witness: we can, as humans, love and forgive unconditionally. And the gift of understanding is a huge help in this, thus part of the motive for this thread. I really feel that God calls me to share this.

I am convinced that unconditional love can also be known from a parent to a child. Do you have children? Is there absolutely anything that would stop you from loving and forgiving them, anything? No, Fran, I know you. If you have children, you love and forgive them unconditionally, and forever. Yet isn’t it amazing to think that (psalm 49) God loves us even more? It puts Love into the realm of unimaginable, an infinite love, and infinity itself is beyond comprehension in our tiny, limited brains.

God does have conditions. Even the New Covenant, which is an unconditional covenant, must be accepted for it to be valid (we must accept Jesus’ gift of salvation to be saved).

It would behoove all to understand this and proceed accordingly.

Fran

Here, the use of “conditions” has a different meaning. The gift is there for the taking, no strings attached. If a person does not accept the gift, yes, the manifestations, the effects of receiving the gift are not realized. It would be no different if a person were totally unaware that the gift was there. The example we came up with in the Judas scenario is applicable. In the fictional scenario, he received the gift of “knowing” but the knowledge did not manifest in an ability to forgive and love himself, so the misery remained. Because Judas could not forgive himself, as Paul forgave himself, Judas ended his own life.

Thoughts?

God Bless.

 

[OneSheep]

Agreed. The conscience is what God gives us as a natural endowment … the natural recognition that we should do good and avoid evil.

Yes, the conscience must be trained in what is good and what is evil. That is what the Catechism and Catholic education are all about.

It is all to easy to have our natural sense of good and evil corrupted by outside influences, by lies others have told us in our youth or even by lies we have told ourselves. So Aquinas is right to insist on the natural law fortified by our understanding of virtue and vice.

I think you would agree that the catechism is about more than conscience formation, but such formation should be intergral to any catechetical program; it would be impossible to leave it out.

Thanks

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran,

It is exciting to me that our conversation has so quickly reached this level, going to the underlying experiences we have of Love itself. I am hearing two different opinions concerning unconditional love in the above, all very understandable. First you said you love him unconditionally, then not (for understandable reasons), then finally, yes.

If you were to still love him after he violated one of your conditions, then you love him unconditionally. You are saying the relationship would end, but if you were to still love him the relationship would not end, it would only take on a different nature, like your keeping yourself and the kids away from him until he repents. By your admission, you would still love him. We married folks have a different take on life!

I can very much relate to that, in fact it was marriage that was the start of my own experience and awakening to the meaning of unconditional love. So overwhelmingly in love I was after our sacrament that the seed of “unconditional love” (which I got from the Church) entered into a secret commitment I made to my wife. My commitment: that I would love her, care for her, and forgive her unconditionally. I went through every possible condition: defiance, deceit, violence, infidelity, every possible abuse, and decided that I would not allow any of those actions to undo my commitment. Once I made this commitment, everything else that happened, i.e. my learning how do love God unconditionally, learning how to love and forgive everyone else and myself unconditionally, and then seeing his unconditional love and forgiveness of everyone, precipitated from the original commitment.

Why do not all married couples make the same commitment? Well, fear. We fear that if we were to commit to such love, that the conditions we let drop are bound to occur. “If I tell him I love him no matter what, he will take advantage”. This is fear. We have our own consciences and rulebooks, after all. Love, however, drives out all fear, and once the fear is gone, there is an amazing freedom.

The commitment is possible!, …that is my witness: we can, as humans, love and forgive unconditionally. And the gift of understanding is a huge help in this, thus part of the motive for this thread. I really feel that God calls me to share this.

I am convinced that unconditional love can also be known from a parent to a child. Do you have children? Is there absolutely anything that would stop you from loving and forgiving them, anything? No, Fran, I know you. If you have children, you love and forgive them unconditionally, and forever. Yet isn’t it amazing to think that (psalm 49) God loves us even more? It puts Love into the realm of unimaginable, an infinite love, and infinity itself is beyond comprehension in our tiny, limited brains.

Here, the use of “conditions” has a different meaning. The gift is there for the taking, no strings attached. If a person does not accept the gift, yes, the manifestations, the effects of receiving the gift are not realized. It would be no different if a person were totally unaware that the gift was there. The example we came up with in the Judas scenario is applicable. In the fictional scenario, he received the gift of “knowing” but the knowledge did not manifest in an ability to forgive and love himself, so the misery remained. Because Judas could not forgive himself, as Paul forgave himself, Judas ended his own life.

Thoughts?

God Bless.

It’s Sunday morning here O.S. Tomorrow is my bible study. We’re up to Mathew 5, the beatitudes - go figure God’s timing! So have a lesson to prepare which is already in my head but must be put to paper.

Just quick: I know what you mean that if I have conditions, my love is not unconditional. I have thought about this and will try to explain better tomorrow evening. It has to do with the New Covenant.

Of course Judas killed himself because he couldn’t accept Jesus’ love. This is what the washing of the feet was all about to, not just service. I think we spoke of this. Also, Jesus did tell him that it would have been better had he (Judas of course) never been born - but that would bring us to deep into the discussion.

I still think YOU are projecting your human feelings onto God.

I still get the feeling we’re not reading the same bible. I asked you not to let me do a bible study on this but it looks like I may have to since I do have respect for you and maybe it really has to be gotten into a little deeper. I’ve been hesitating because you seem to know scripture, so shouldn’t we be in agreement on this? Salvation, I mean.

I still can’t get you to tell me exactly what you’re getting at in all this. ARE WE ALL SAVED?

In post no. 440 you state the pope said we are all redeemed, then you put up a link which I didn’t go to for reasons that would require another page of writing - then you go on to say that it is a choice - but only for this world.

Of course the kingdom starts here; but what about the next world? Please answer.

Oh. And you mention how the idea of being bought back from satan is Augustinian, but then this was refuted by Anselm. Still in 440, Ithink.

You know, sometimes I want to become protestant. At least they only have the bible to deal with. All these doctors of the church with their own opinions, the CCC which could be misunderstood, it’s all starting to make me a bit nutty. And to think I have to actually read this stuff sometimes!

So, yes, your unclear idea bothers me because I think we should all be of like mind.

See you tomorrow for the unconditonal explanation by using the New Covenant. Or New Testament: A clue for you.

A presto
Fran

 

[pocaracas]

Guys… lay off… if OneSheep claims to be catholic, then he is.
This business of all having exactly the same view on every single tiny subject of the theology is nonsense - Think back some 500 years: did the people in Lisbon (Portugal) have the same theology as the people in Constantinople (Turkey)? (the people, not the priests)… likely not.
Just like you guys will find slight differences among yourselves, no doubt.
I find it odd that some of would demand one to change his view, because it doesn’t exactly fit your own view…
Peace and love to all, right?

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.

Indeed, that’s why everyone is saying that you’re stretching the concept of “knowingly” far beyond its normal scope of “knowing the relevant and attainable options”.

This was my experience of finding Unconditional Love.

You know that, from my POV, this unconditional love you speak of is something within you, not something imparted upon you by some even greater spirit.
Given that, I can only refer you to the well know “confirmation bias fallacy”… or let you be in your peace of mind.

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.

I was merely saying that, if free will is, in fact, non-existent and we are just biological automatons, then the concept of “willingness” to do an action can be stretched so that it becomes impossible for anyone to will anything.
The question “does any human ever willingly do something?” becomes meaningless, given that the only option available is “no”.

This can be seen as a parallel to your stretching the concept of “knowing”

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Cheers!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think you would agree that the catechism is about more than conscience formation, but such formation should be intergral to any catechetical program; it would be impossible to leave it out.

Thanks

Yes, it is about more than conscience formation, but it is certainly a guide to the formation of conscience and the correction of the conscience that is poorly formed.

Any Catholic who does not follow the moral precepts of the Catechism is likely sooner or later to land IN HOT WATER.

 

[OneSheep]

This business of all having exactly the same view on every single tiny subject of the theology is nonsense - Think back some 500 years: did the people in Lisbon (Portugal) have the same theology as the people in Constantinople (Turkey)? (the people, not the priests)… likely not.
Just like you guys will find slight differences among yourselves, no doubt.
I find it odd that some of would demand one to change his view, because it doesn’t exactly fit your own view…
Peace and love to all, right?

Thank you, pocaracas, for being a voice of wisdom, forgiveness, and acceptance. How on Earth could any two people hold exactly the same view unless they both point to a book and say “this is what we think, and this is what everyone should think.”? And this, without getting into the details. Experience forms vocabulary, and none of our experiences of life are identical.

Here is a relevant quote:

Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it]

Pope Francis

Indeed, that’s why everyone is saying that you’re stretching the concept of “knowingly” far beyond its normal scope of “knowing the relevant and attainable options”.

Knowing the relevant options is what I mean by “pertinent”. Yes, relevant options. “Attainable” only comes into play if a person is condemning the actions of another because the other “should have known”. If you may have seen in my posts, the purpose of this thread is to develop people’s ability to forgive and reconcile through understanding the mindset of others. Amazing how much resistance there is to this, eh pocaracas?

You know that, from my POV, this unconditional love you speak of is something within you, not something imparted upon you by some even greater spirit.
Given that, I can only refer you to the well know “confirmation bias fallacy”… or let you be in your peace of mind.

Unconditional love is something within all of us, yet there are some access issues, understandably. And since life itself is a gift (POV), then such Love comes with the package. One has access to it through meditation, prayer, loving service, etc. Though you may have some hesitance to the idea of “gift”, this too is a mindset that does not depend on a particular a/theology.

A person who is feeling generally negative about the existence of humanity in the world is going to have a bias. A person who loves and values humanity a great deal is also going to have a bias. Which of these biases is going to have a more positive impact on peace and reconciliation? We cannot escape our biases, for we have only one reference point. If I look at something I conclude and say, “that was an unscientific conclusion” then it is still me saying it. Me, with all of my biases. Non-bias is an illusion. Then again, this whole paragraph was written from a bias, right? No escape.

The best one can do is “that flower is beautiful, is it not?” to another. And this is my question to you, to confirm a truth: The human is beautiful, well-intended, and yet, largely lacking awareness; do you agree, pocaracas?

I was merely saying that, if free will is, in fact, non-existent and we are just biological automatons, then the concept of “willingness” to do an action can be stretched so that it becomes impossible for anyone to will anything.
The question “does any human ever willingly do something?” becomes meaningless, given that the only option available is “no”.

This can be seen as a parallel to your stretching the concept of “knowing”

I agree, stretching the mechanical aspects of our nature too far makes autonomy itself meaningless. On the other hand, what do we see in so many fellow humans? People running around like so many squirrels, trying to meet their needs for wealth, power, status, sex, feeling good (addiction), and "keeping up with the Jones’ ". They may be totally engrossed in resentment, chasing after any sign of “evil”, be such evil “conservativism”, “liberalism”, “Islamism”, “settlerism”, “atheism”, “environmentalism”, “fundamentlsm”, “capitalism” and all the other labels that dehumanize the human, chasing with the armed club of conscience and ingroup thinking. It’s all part of the beauty of being human, but the human that does not transcend his/her nature is arguably very mechanical, and has an effected autonomy. The freedom Jesus talks about is freedom from this mechanical slavery. As you can imagine, the Jews were very caught up in their hatred of the Romans, and had all the same drives that we do.

We have the “most” autonomous will when we transcend this nature. In the mean time, we are just so many squirrels. Most of the people who write on Spirituality have a clear message: “Wake up!”

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

 

[OneSheep]

Just quick: I know what you mean that if I have conditions, my love is not unconditional.

Hi Fran,

You have, and you have not, as you admitted, conditions. You have no such conditions towards your daughter, right? Yet even if you did have such conditions, God does not: psalm 49.

So, projection of God being more loving than we are, more than we can imagine, is an accurate projection, though it is more of a belief than a projection.

I still think YOU are projecting your human feelings onto God.

True, using the word “projection” defined as “what I would do/feel/think/want in His position.” There is also the confirmation of such projection through prayer and meditation.

I am gathering that you are thinking it may be somewhat a problem to have the view that God loves and forgives unconditionally. Is that true? If so, what is the problem?

Of course the kingdom starts here; but what about the next world? Please answer.

I still can’t get you to tell me exactly what you’re getting at in all this. ARE WE ALL SAVED?

Fran, I already explained that so many in this life remain enslaved. I also explained that I see the human always choosing God when being fully aware. I also shared with you my agreement with the “screaming and kicking” quote from the priest. Does everyone, for sure, eventually choose heaven in the afterlife? I cannot know that. There are too many variables that I probably may not have access to. I am just a dumb sheep. Remember, the Church has never claimed any individual is in hell.

Here’s a question for you: Who is in your “ingroup”? Jesus calls us to stretch ourselves in this. He forgave His enemies and embraced so many “outgroups”, i.e. tax collectors, Samaritans, centurions, etc. Have you stretched your ingroup? How far? Are you inclusive of everyone? Can you see that even if you were to leave someone out, God would not?

Did I leave anything out this time Fran? I’m trying, honestly!

You know, sometimes I want to become protestant. At least they only have the bible to deal with. All these doctors of the church with their own opinions, the CCC which could be misunderstood, it’s all starting to make me a bit nutty. And to think I have to actually read this stuff sometimes!

Revelation continues to unfold. There are so many questions. Did you see the quote from Pope Francis in my last post to pocaracas? The truth is an encounter, words only describe or try to explain the encounter.

You do seem to have some “protestant” leanings sometimes. (Are you really protesting? And then, when you know protestantism, you will have a new set of writings to protest, as other Christian try to explain scriture too!)

You are part of a Catholic community, I assume. If you see a problem and run, you are not part of the solution. If you are doing Bible studies, then you are part of the solution.

If variations on the meaning of Salvation, the cross, etc. shake your faith, well, feel free to ignore them! Stick with what works for you. I’m not forcing anything on anyone.

So, yes, your unclear idea bothers me because I think we should all be of like mind.

If we both agree that God is Love and Christ is our savior, we are of the same mind. Total like-mindedness is very important when we are children, Fran, because we all want to be part of the exclusive group, exclusion of others gives us a sense of belonging and safety.

A presto
Fran

Molto bene.

 

[OneSheep]

Another call for examples!

Anyone wishing to put forth an example of a real human knowingly and willingly rejecting God, let us investigate!

And, as pocaracas pointed out, let’s stick with “knowingly” being “relevant information”. If it is not accessible, that is another issue, for we do not know all of the sources of information. This lack of access, however, only again limits our “knowingly”.

People always have good intent, in that their actions and/or beliefs serve a beneficial purpose, correct?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

People always have good intent, in that their actions and/or beliefs serve a beneficial purpose, correct?

In one sense that is true. They either good intent to benefit the purpose of another or their own purpose.

However, often enough the intent to benefit one’s own purpose can be destructive of the benefit of another person’s purpose, as in the case of a bank robber or a blackmailer or a thief. So people do not always have good intent, because benefitting one’s own self at the expense of others shows evil intent.

 

[pocaracas]

Thank you, pocaracas, for being a voice of wisdom, forgiveness, and acceptance. How on Earth could any two people hold exactly the same view unless they both point to a book and say “this is what we think, and this is what everyone should think.”? And this, without getting into the details. Experience forms vocabulary, and none of our experiences of life are identical.

Here is a relevant quote:

Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it]

Pope Francis

cheers!
I do my best…

But I can tell you that this constant notion of us attaining some special info “when we meet it”… that’s a bit disconcerting… how would anyone know about that, if no one ever got to that point and came back to tell the tale?

Knowing the relevant options is what I mean by “pertinent”. Yes, relevant options. “Attainable” only comes into play if a person is condemning the actions of another because the other “should have known”. If you may have seen in my posts, the purpose of this thread is to develop people’s ability to forgive and reconcile through understanding the mindset of others. Amazing how much resistance there is to this, eh pocaracas?

There will always be resistance to understanding the mindset of others… many out of sheer inability to do so… some out of stubbornness… some out of conviction that they’re in the right and no other mindset is worth considering.

Some humans, however, can accomplish this… how much better would the world be if politicians were like this…

Unconditional love is something within all of us, yet there are some access issues, understandably. And since life itself is a gift (POV), then such Love comes with the package. One has access to it through meditation, prayer, loving service, etc. Though you may have some hesitance to the idea of “gift”, this too is a mindset that does not depend on a particular a/theology.

About this gift… I once heard a sentence in a cartoon (of all places) that I really liked - it’s not 100% accurate, but it sounds good:
“yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.”
It seems this may have first been written by Alice Morse Earle, in the 19th century…

The curious thing is that it also works well in Portuguese - we have the same word for present (now) and present (gift) - presente.

A person who is feeling generally negative about the existence of humanity in the world is going to have a bias. A person who loves and values humanity a great deal is also going to have a bias. Which of these biases is going to have a more positive impact on peace and reconciliation? We cannot escape our biases, for we have only one reference point. If I look at something I conclude and say, “that was an unscientific conclusion” then it is still me saying it. Me, with all of my biases. Non-bias is an illusion. Then again, this whole paragraph was written from a bias, right? No escape.

The best one can do is “that flower is beautiful, is it not?” to another. And this is my question to you, to confirm a truth: The human is beautiful, well-intended, and yet, largely lacking awareness; do you agree, pocaracas?

The human is so self-centered… yes, most humans lack awareness… awareness of their place in the world… awareness of their place in the cosmos. There is something humbling about this image: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth’s_Location_in_the_Universe_SMALLER_%28JPEG%29.jpg.
But many will fail to grasp it.

But I was speaking of your bias towards interpreting that inner love as something from beyond yourself… beyond our world…

It’s all part of the beauty of being human, but the human that does not transcend his/her nature is arguably very mechanical, and has an effected autonomy. The freedom Jesus talks about is freedom from this mechanical slavery. As you can imagine, the Jews were very caught up in their hatred of the Romans, and had all the same drives that we do.

From what I understand, the jews and the romans got along fine for a while.

I was going to ask “What is a human that transcends his/her nature?” but then you answered:

We have the “most” autonomous will when we transcend this nature. In the mean time, we are just so many squirrels. Most of the people who write on Spirituality have a clear message: “Wake up!”

Yeah… wake up… but, as it is in the movie Inception, which of us is dreaming?

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

 

[OneSheep]

In one sense that is true. They either good intent to benefit the purpose of another or their own purpose.

However, often enough the intent to benefit one’s own purpose can be destructive of the benefit of another person’s purpose, as in the case of a bank robber or a blackmailer or a thief. So people do not always have good intent, because benefitting one’s own self at the expense of others shows evil intent.

So, the question is, “Why does the bank robber not consider the expense to others?” Then we can determine the intent.

 

[OneSheep]

cheers!
I do my best…

But I can tell you that this constant notion of us attaining some special info “when we meet it”… that’s a bit disconcerting… how would anyone know about that, if no one ever got to that point and came back to tell the tale?

Howdy.

I think the Pope was referring to experience of the divine in this world, through prayer, reflection, life experiences, nature, etc.

There will always be resistance to understanding the mindset of others… many out of sheer inability to do so… some out of stubbornness… some out of conviction that they’re in the right and no other mindset is worth considering.

Some humans, however, can accomplish this… how much better would the world be if politicians were like this…

The resistance, I think, is a resistance to forgive. It’s like “If I understand, I have to let go of my condemnation of the other.” People do not want to let go, for good reason. They may not be ready.

But I was speaking of your bias towards interpreting that inner love as something from beyond yourself… beyond our world…

Hmmm. Did I give the impression that unconditional love is something from beyond myself, beyond our world? There is a “oneness” a “wholeness” or “holiness” about it. It is not dualistic man v. divine. There is God within, transcending. It is a way of describing a phenomenon that you would not use, but perhaps you can relate anyway. There is something about me and you that is connected at a deeper level. … not to get all mushy about it…

From what I understand, the jews and the romans got along fine for a while.

A people “getting along” with their occupier? Absence of violence is not peace. The human is very territorial. In America, Conservatives and Liberals have enough trouble sharing territory. If some other nation came in to occupy, violently, I shudder to think…

It wouldn’t be pretty. Not ever. And imagine if some other nation invaded and occupied Brazil (is that where you are?). It would be nuts, like any other occupied area.

Yet, Jesus did not take up the sword. Instead, he said “love your enemies”. He was not into political status.

Have a good one.

 

[pocaracas]

I think the Pope was referring to experience of the divine in this world, through prayer, reflection, life experiences, nature, etc.

All of them… may not be what he thinks they are
And this is a form of confirmation bias by him.

The resistance, I think, is a resistance to forgive. It’s like “If I understand, I have to let go of my condemnation of the other.” People do not want to let go, for good reason. They may not be ready.

Straight out of the matrix, huh?

Hmmm. Did I give the impression that unconditional love is something from beyond myself, beyond our world?

hmmm… indeed you did not… explicitly.
I was maybe reading a bit too much into that “unconditional love”, based on what I’ve heard by others about it… was I?

There is a “oneness” a “wholeness” or “holiness” about it. It is not dualistic man v. divine. There is God within, transcending. It is a way of describing a phenomenon that you would not use, but perhaps you can relate anyway. There is something about me and you that is connected at a deeper level. … not to get all mushy about it…

Ah… so… there is a god within?
Isn’t that something that may be seen as beyond yourself?

You and me, connected?
There’s the sharing of genetic material…more than 99%, by some estimates, we’re connected online, sharing ideas… some of those ideas, we actually share our agreement on, so we behave similarly in a few similar situations… is this what you mean by “deeper level”?

A people “getting along” with their occupier? Absence of violence is not peace. The human is very territorial. In America, Conservatives and Liberals have enough trouble sharing territory. If some other nation came in to occupy, violently, I shudder to think…

It wouldn’t be pretty. Not ever. And imagine if some other nation invaded and occupied Brazil (is that where you are?). It would be nuts, like any other occupied area.

Yet, Jesus did not take up the sword. Instead, he said “love your enemies”. He was not into political status.

It’s not entirely fair to compare war and invasions/occupations nowadays with 2000 years ago.

Back then, an “invading” army would walk all over until they found the defender army. The goal of the invaders was only to topple the ruling aristocracy…
Specially the romans… they kept much of the empire as provinces - as in pay this little tribute and you may rule your land; don’t pay, and we’ll run you over like you know we easily can. If I’m not mistaken, Jerusalem was one such province.

Also, where did you get the idea that I’m from Brazil? was it my accent?
hehe, no, I’m from Europe, Portugal, the birthplace of the portuguese language, where, a long time ago (~800ce), muslims took over the land… then (~1050ce) catholics from France helped the last remaining christians in the peninsula to regain the land from the muslims.
Before the christians, the romans got to influence people around here.
Before the romans, there were the lusitanians, a celt-like pagan people (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanians)

Ah… who fought who?.. Should we now try to regain our luso identity (an expression still in use around here) and shove those invading christians/romans?

Have a good one.

Cheers! You too!