Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

God is love. Every time one acts in an unloving manner, and we all know, even five-year-olds, when that is, we reject God. One need not be an omniscient theologian to have the capacity to sin.

Good point, but remember this thread is about whether anyone knowingly and willingly rejects God. So, a five-year-old may “know” he has rejected God because it is what his parents told him, but he still does it unknowingly, because his decision to hurt another at the time was done in ignorance and blindness. His reflection on his “knowing” may have been “I should have known better” but he was blinded.

For a five-year-old, their empathy is in infancy, so they are quite lacking in awareness. Do five year olds really know the value of what it means to be human? I asked my wife right now, who teaches kindergarten. She says, “no”.

Were you going to respond to my post addressing Paul Lazarro?

Thanks.

 

[Adonia]

Yes. Go to just about any liberal website and you will find people there who knowingly and willingly reject God. In fact some of what they say is so bad I would never post such things here.

 

[frangiuliano115]

ONE SHEEP SAYS:

But there remains that reality, that if a person is believing the voice of their own anger as “truth”, well they are believing an untruth. This is not knowing what they are doing.

The way I look at it, the human is still subject to “strong desire” and blindness even after we know more of God (No one completely knows God, nor probably even most of who He is, we know of His love because of Christ). It is our nature that we have blindness in the cases of desire and resentment, and our knowing God does not change our nature, but gives us the tools to transcend, be free of, our nature. / QUOTE]

=========================================================

FRAN SAYS:

If I follow my strong desire and blindness, you’re totally leaving out God’s new nature in me. Behold, Old things have passed away, All things are new (or something like that, have no time to look it up, but that’s the concept). Also, Put on your new nature… etc. The bible is full of this idea.

Also, you’re hindering my free will, I’d have to say. If my “desire” is that strong, what free will do I have??

I agree that freedom comes from God. There’s a double idea here and I don’t have the time to get into it. Yes. We transcend our nature but we also become new creatures.

The best I can do in the case of anger is to realize that I am angry, and then take the steps to forgive. Paul L. did not value, or did not think to forgive, the dog.

Can someone be condemned? Does God condemn anyone? Wait a minute, remember Pope Francis? “God is always waiting for us. God always understands us. God always forgives us.”

**Why do you realize you’re angry? Why didn’t Paul L.? Herein lies the answer to who’s in hell.
**

Luke 16:19? a rich man dressed in purple?

Yes, good question, who is in hell? The Church has never said any specific person is there, nor claims to know for certain that it is populated at all.

Maybe the church doesn’t care to pass judgement, but I sure see a few people sitting in pews at Mass because they’re not allowed to receive communion. This could open up a whole new thread, but let me just ask: If you can’t receive communion, does the church think you’re going to heaven?? The answer is a lot of mumbo jumbo, but you’re intelligent enough on your own two feet O.S. Contemplate the answer…

You never answered my question as to who those people are in the lower depths of Luke 16. And when you get back, read about the Wedding Banquet and let us know if everyone got to eat. Mathew 22:1-14
Pay special attention to 14.

Regarding the purple. What is your idea? It’s the color of royalty; it’s the color of mourning, which is why it’s used at Eastertime in vestments (priestly). Jesus is the King, Jesus will die soon.

No more time.

Fran

 

[OneSheep]

If we are inventing the mind set how can we decide if anyone k&w rejects God or anything for that matter?

What I meant was that we can invent the person’s motives and what they knew. Then we test such motives and what they knew against the action and what it means to be human.

What we will find (in my experience, of course) is that the human is inclined to to good and to love, unless something is awry. That “something” always has to do with an awareness gap of some sort.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes. Go to just about any liberal website and you will find people there who knowingly and willingly reject God. In fact some of what they say is so bad I would never post such things here.

Hello, Adonia, and welcome!

Please provide an example of such rejection and then we can try to determine why they are writing what they have written. Next, we can determine if they are knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

Let’s investigate! We know that something is not true simply “because I say so”, right?

Thanks.

P.S.: I won’t be able to respond until late Wednesday, but I welcome your contribution.

 

[OneSheep]

ONE SHEEP SAYS:

But there remains that reality, that if a person is believing the voice of their own anger as “truth”, well they are believing an untruth. This is not knowing what they are doing.

Yes, we are called to be a “new person”, “reborn”! Can the perfect human be so self-aware, disciplined, and sensitive enough that when his or her anger is triggered, he or she can quickly forgive and put it all away in a microsecond? Possibly! Yet still, because of our nature, the anger will be triggered because the conscience never goes away. Anger is triggered by the conscience. Anger is also triggered by perceived threat, but again, the same amount of awareness and discipline applies.

For example, a person who holds dear that the human is bad, and such a view is the crux of their faith, then then the opposite idea, that the human is beautiful inside and out, is a threat to their faith. That person may have their anger triggered. The triggering is not chosen. We do not have enough “free will”, in my observations, to overcome the triggers. We may have enough self-awareness, sensitivity, discipline, and skill to quickly return to a state of holiness (wholeness), though.

B]Why do you realize you’re angry? Why didn’t Paul L.? Herein lies the answer to who’s in hell.

You always have such great questions, Fran! In observing myself, I realize I am angry when I sense that something is awry within. It takes some sensitivity, because if I am used to being angry all of the time I am not going to notice. So, forgiveness is very important because forgiveness clears out everything I feel anger/resentment toward. It could be that Paul L carried around a lot of resentment, a lot of grudges and so one more grudge was not on the radar. It could also be that Paul L. does not realize that he is a slave to his anger, he has not suffered his slavery long enough to realize that he is not free, he is an anger robot. Do you know any anger robots?

Maybe the church doesn’t care to pass judgement, but I sure see a few people sitting in pews at Mass because they’re not allowed to receive communion. This could open up a whole new thread, but let me just ask: If you can’t receive communion, does the church think you’re going to heaven?? The answer is a lot of mumbo jumbo, but you’re intelligent enough on your own two feet O.S. Contemplate the answer…

Oh, but I contemplate quickly! Need I bring back Pope Francis’ May 19 tweet? The Church (and I am part of it) knows that people who are not receiving communion want to be part of communion, otherwise they would not be there. As you may know, I think everyone is going to choose heaven when the time comes. I am more focused on the choices people make here on Earth, such as the choices to love, serve, forgive, etc. Are you worried about those H-tickets Fran?

Are you worried?

You never answered my question as to who those people are in the lower depths of Luke 16. And when you get back, read about the Wedding Banquet and let us know if everyone got to eat. Mathew 22:1-14
Pay special attention to 14.

Regarding the purple. What is your idea? It’s the color of royalty; it’s the color of mourning, which is why it’s used at Eastertime in vestments (priestly). Jesus is the King, Jesus will die soon.

The passage you quoted was about someone wearing purple, that was it. Were you addressing the story of the rich man and Lazarus?

Concerning Matthew 22:1-14, my Catholic Pastoral Edition commentary says that v. 14 is not likely part of the parable because there is a contradiction.

Concerning the whole parable, the commentary says this:

“It is better not to associate the saying (v 14) too much with the parable of the banquet, because we find it also in other places in the Gospel. Here Jesus advises us (as in 7:13) that only a few discover through the Gospel true freedom and new life. Then, are they saved? Yes and no - because salvation, for Jesus, does not mean to escape from the punishment of hell, but to reach perfection.”

It’s not about the H - ticket, Fran. Are you worried about the H - ticket? Such worry is intrinsic when we are operating from alternative 1 on post 264.

Love and Peace

“One Sheep”

 

[pocaracas]

Hello OneSheep,

That is not true, so you are “unknowing”. Actually, I even used your term as “relevant knowledge” rather than my term of “pertinent knowledge” (not that that makes a tremendous difference.)

Ah… you’re right… sorry… I’d forgotten about that re-tuning of the concept…

Note that the “standard definition” said “that the proposition is true”. One person may say that the human is beautiful and valuable, and another may say that the human is worthless, and both may see their propositions as sincerely true.

One of them, however, is thinking that an untruth is true. This is not “knowingly”, and it is not knowledge at a non-human level. tão lá! (hope that is not insulting in your language)

Perhaps both are right…
What do we call it when someone is convinced that something wrong is true?

(“tão lá” is not an expression that we use, so it’s neither insulting nor anything else… I’m guessing you meant “so there”, I don’t think we have a common expression for that… perhaps “lá está”…)

Correction: “Rejection of God” might include rejecting what God has to offer, but rejection also means purposely saying no to God’s love. It means saying no to Love, which includes the example of Paul Lazarro, Paul of Tarsus, the crowd who hung Jesus, Judas, etc. It also means something like saying or believing “there is no value here”.

What if that love of God is not perceptible to someone and that someone simply dismisses what others perceive as God’s love to be some inner mental construct os generic warm fuzzy feelings towards mankind?

Yes, as Christians we believe that we know God by knowing Christ.

God is love, and we can know love, so in some sense we can know God. It is a bit vague though… it is harder for Western philosophical minds to comprehend.
To me, it is not that we cannot knowingly reject God because we can’t know God. Love is knowable as a guide for our lives. To me, it is that because of our nature, our desire to love and do what is beneficial, we *never * knowingly and willingly reject God. We “cannot” because our nature goes against such knowing rejection.

I am talking anthropology, remember? The human is beautiful, wonderful, and yes, stupid, but smart enough to eventually know Love. (until we are blinded in some way)
Hope that clarifies my position.
Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

This always baffles me… “god is love”… then love is God, too.
Is that what God is? A simple human emotion? (not so simple, we know… but compared to what a creator of the cosmos could be, a human emotion seems much simpler, to me.)

 

[frangiuliano115]

Yes, we are called to be a “new person”, “reborn”! Can the perfect human be so self-aware, disciplined, and sensitive enough that when his or her anger is triggered, he or she can quickly forgive and put it all away in a microsecond? Possibly! Yet still, because of our nature, the anger will be triggered because the conscience never goes away. Anger is triggered by the conscience. Anger is also triggered by perceived threat, but again, the same amount of awareness and discipline applies.

For example, a person who holds dear that the human is bad, and such a view is the crux of their faith, then then the opposite idea, that the human is beautiful inside and out, is a threat to their faith. That person may have their anger triggered. The triggering is not chosen. We do not have enough “free will”, in my observations, to overcome the triggers. We may have enough self-awareness, sensitivity, discipline, and skill to quickly return to a state of holiness (wholeness), though.

You always have such great questions, Fran! In observing myself, I realize I am angry when I sense that something is awry within. It takes some sensitivity, because if I am used to being angry all of the time I am not going to notice. So, forgiveness is very important because forgiveness clears out everything I feel anger/resentment toward. It could be that Paul L carried around a lot of resentment, a lot of grudges and so one more grudge was not on the radar. It could also be that Paul L. does not realize that he is a slave to his anger, he has not suffered his slavery long enough to realize that he is not free, he is an anger robot. Do you know any anger robots?

Oh, but I contemplate quickly! Need I bring back Pope Francis’ May 19 tweet? The Church (and I am part of it) knows that people who are not receiving communion want to be part of communion, otherwise they would not be there. As you may know, I think everyone is going to choose heaven when the time comes. I am more focused on the choices people make here on Earth, such as the choices to love, serve, forgive, etc. Are you worried about those H-tickets Fran?

Are you worried?

The passage you quoted was about someone wearing purple, that was it. Were you addressing the story of the rich man and Lazarus?

Concerning Matthew 22:1-14, my Catholic Pastoral Edition commentary says that v. 14 is not likely part of the parable because there is a contradiction.

Concerning the whole parable, the commentary says this:

“It is better not to associate the saying (v 14) too much with the parable of the banquet, because we find it also in other places in the Gospel. Here Jesus advises us (as in 7:13) that only a few discover through the Gospel true freedom and new life. Then, are they saved? Yes and no - because salvation, for Jesus, does not mean to escape from the punishment of hell, but to reach perfection.”

It’s not about the H - ticket, Fran. Are you worried about the H - ticket? Such worry is intrinsic when we are operating from alternative 1 on post 264.

Love and Peace

“One Sheep”

I’m not worried about the heaven ticket or the hell ticket.

But your post brings up some really important questions for me regarding your Catholic Pastoral Edition commentary for Mathew 22:14 and for ideas in general. It reminds me of the Monarch Notes we kids used to read in high school when we didn’t feel like reading the whole book. (not me, I like reading).

They were written by secular people who didn’t believe. Your pastoral edition sounds a bit like this. I’m serious. And if it’s right…

Maybe the problem is that I’m not catholic.

Will get back to you when I know more.

Fran

 

[Aloysium]

. . . This always baffles me… “god is love”… then love is God, too.
Is that what God is? A simple human emotion? (not so simple, we know… but compared to what a creator of the cosmos could be, a human emotion seems much simpler, to me.)

If you are interested in the types of love, it’s easily Googled.
You seem to be talking about eros, an emotional taking sort of love.
There’s much written about God being Love.
The way I see it is that it is a transcendent act.
What that means is that it includes everything that is and is beyond, because it brings it all into being.
Existing as you yourself, you can choose who to become:

• you can work, not work, have kids or not, use your money to make more money or to buy stuff, give a try at being famous, etc.
  We create ourselves in a finite way.
  Finite because we do not bring the circumstances around us into existence, nor ourselves.
  This comes about right here and now, through an act of love.
  Mankind made a very bad choice at the beginning, to go it alone,
  so we have frayed the connection with the Foundation of our being.
  That Foundation is God, who is perfect in Himself as the Trinity.
  God gives all He is to the Son, who returns that love in filial obedience;
  Their being is like a breath, a Holy Spirit who passes from One to the Other.
  We were created to return to the Source of our being,
  to become Christ-like in our relationship with the Father through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
  When we love in this respect, we give ourselves totally to the other and in doing so, become one with them
• one humanity, one Church in communion with God.
  Hopefully this makes some sense.

 

[pocaracas]

If you are interested in the types of love, it’s easily Googled.
You seem to be talking about eros, an emotional taking sort of love.
There’s much written about God being Love.
The way I see it is that it is a transcendent act.
What that means is that it includes everything that is and is beyond, because it brings it all into being.
Existing as you yourself, you can choose who to become:

• you can work, not work, have kids or not, use your money to make more money or to buy stuff, give a try at being famous, etc.
  We create ourselves in a finite way.
  Finite because we do not bring the circumstances around us into existence, nor ourselves.
  This comes about right here and now, through an act of love.
  Mankind made a very bad choice at the beginning, to go it alone,
  so we have frayed the connection with the Foundation of our being.
  That Foundation is God, who is perfect in Himself as the Trinity.
  God gives all He is to the Son, who returns that love in filial obedience;
  Their being is like a breath, a Holy Spirit who passes from One to the Other.
  We were created to return to the Source of our being,
  to become Christ-like in our relationship with the Father through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
  When we love in this respect, we give ourselves totally to the other and in doing so, become one with them
• one humanity, one Church in communion with God.
  Hopefully this makes some sense.

Didn’t make much sense…

You’re saying that there are several kinds of love… one particular kind is, for all intents and purposes, god.
So, saying god is love… this particular kind of love… is the same as saying “god is god”…
I got it all wrong, didn’t I?

 

[Aloysium]

Didn’t make much sense…

You’re saying that there are several kinds of love… one particular kind is, for all intents and purposes, god.
So, saying god is love… this particular kind of love… is the same as saying “god is god”…
I got it all wrong, didn’t I?

You got what you could or wanted to get of it.

It may be saying “God is God” but it is a way of getting to know who God is.
If you know what love is, you are getting an idea of who God is.
When you give of yourself to someone who is other, and in doing so you cammune with them, you know something about God.

Does that make sense?

 

[pocaracas]

You got what you could or wanted to get of it.

Let’s go with “could”… it’s nicer.

It may be saying “God is God” but it is a way of getting to know who God is.
If you know what love is, you are getting an idea of who God is.
When you give of yourself to someone who is other, and in doing so you cammune with them, you know something about God.

Does that make sense?

It seems like a very indirect way to know anything about God, doesn’t it?

 

[Wezzyfish]

The short answer is yes, because God gave us all free will and we can exercise that will as we choose. So does anyone willingly reject God? Sure.

Does God ever willingly reject anyone? I don’t think so, for that would be a rejection of himself. I feel that God is omnipresent, meaning he lives within all things and in each of us. Even those who “reject God” are merely facets of Himself, living out the human condition and exercising their right to free will.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It seems like a very indirect way to know anything about God, doesn’t it?

It didn’t use to be that way; not at the beginning at least.
Seems we like to focus on ourselves - “What’s in it for me?”, so to speak.

Looking up is a bit difficult; better what’s below, what can be controlled.
If you want to know Who it is that is creating you, you have to let go.
You are already known through and through,
so why not give yourself over to the infinite sea that is His compassion.

Easily said but I was thinking how hard this is to do.
We surrender and immediately want to possess it.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Does God ever willingly reject anyone? I don’t think so, for that would be a rejection of himself. I feel that God is omnipresent, meaning he lives within all things and in each of us. Even those who “reject God” are merely facets of Himself, living out the human condition and exercising their right to free will.

:twocents:

While recognizing a holiness that comes with being human,
this view does not take into account the relational nature of mankind and God, Himself.

Each one of us is an individual, unique and irreplaceable soul.
More than pieces of a fractured mirror of being, we are whole in ourselves,
relating to the Source, which is Beauty, Truth, Love and Life, and to each other.

Life as we witness on earth is brutal and indifferent to not only the individual,
but to entire species, and even itself within the totality of the universe,
in spite of its demand that we clutch on to it.

Life as the ground of being becomes like “the Force” with a dark and a light side,
the light being superior perhaps,
but having no ultimate meaning other than as part of the drama found in playing out of events.
Really, love would be no better than sin, because it is all a part of life.
Suffering would hold no purpose other than the price to be paid to remain in existence.
And, the cure to what ails us, is to get out of the game.

This is not the Christian view of God who is other to all of creation,
although within it as its Father and through the incarnation of the Word,
brought into communion by the Holy Spirit.

I think you may be on to something that requires more working out.

 

[pocaracas]

It didn’t use to be that way; not at the beginning at least.

At the beginning?
How would you… or anyone… know how it was in the beginning? Define “beginning”…

Seems we like to focus on ourselves - “What’s in it for me?”, so to speak.

Looking up is a bit difficult; better what’s below, what can be controlled.
If you want to know Who it is that is creating you, you have to let go.
You are already known through and through,
so why not give yourself over to the infinite sea that is His compassion.

Easily said but I was thinking how hard this is to do.
We surrender and immediately want to possess it.

You see… how can I go looking for such a “person” that’s above, if I don’t even know that such a “person” exists in the first place?
I’m assuming, it’s a person, because you used “who” and “his”…

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Regarding the topic " Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?"
1.)

LogisticsBranch;13324582:

OneSheep;13321595:

This is the way our conscience operates. When we do good, we get a shot of “happy” neurotransmission, there is a bit of elation. When we do bad, we get a shot of the opposite (we feel guilt). It is hard-wired. So, naturally the human is going to perceive an eternal punishment or eternal reward if they believe in some sort of afterlife.

A person doesn’t look at life that way as far as I am concerned, considering I’ve lived over 60 years and know myself and friends and family. OneSheep, the way you think is not the same way I think. I may at times have a bad hair day. I don’t equate doing a bad thing when I eat a extra slice of my favorite piece of cake nor do I feel quilt for doing so. I just exercise a bit more the next day. Makes me feel great. And I must say I don’t spend much time on the “internet” because I’m enjoying running around doing my own thing(s) outside of the internet.

You take care Dearie. Remember life is worth living!
Well, I get the “life is worth living” part. What I stated in my post were scientific facts. People get a rush of “happy” neurotransmission when they do good, and get a shot of guilt when they do bad. Of course, this is depending on the formation of the conscience. If you eat the extra piece of cake, first your brain says, “yum!” and you get the very same happy high that you do from doing good. After the effects have worn off, if your conscience dictates, you will get a shot of guilt. Consciences are formed; every one is a little bit different.
Do you see what I am saying?

2.)

The short answer is yes, because God gave us all free will and we can exercise that will as we choose. So does anyone willingly reject God? Sure.

Does God ever willingly reject anyone? I don’t think so, for that would be a rejection of himself. I feel that God is omnipresent, meaning he lives within all things and in each of us. Even those who “reject God” are merely facets of Himself, living out the human condition and exercising their right to free will.

Apparently, you both have never confronted “a” serial killer(s). Thank God we have the FBI to track 'em down. There is NO God present in a serial killer. A serial killer is a “happy” killer.

 

[simpleas]

Regarding the topic " Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?"
1.)

2.)

Apparently, you both have never confronted “a” serial killer(s). Thank God we have the FBI to track 'em down. There is NO God present in a serial killer. A serial killer is a “happy” killer.

I wonder about serial killers though, are they classed as sane in the sense compared to “normal” people, IE people who do not want to kill for whatever reason the serial killer may give or not. It’s like they have a piece missing from their soul, they don’t see what a non serial killer sees, but is this complete willingness on their part or part of their “make up”.
Not making excuses for murders etc, but something isn’t right if the majority of the human race doesn’t kill for pleasure.

 

[OneSheep]

Howdy

Hey, before I get started on this one, did you miss my post 572 on this thread?

My quote:

What if that love of God is not perceptible to someone and that someone simply dismisses what others perceive as God’s love to be some inner mental construct os generic warm fuzzy feelings towards mankind?

This is not saying “no” to love, it is saying “no” to a vocabulary. It does show perhaps an unappreciation for a universal generic warm fuzzy. If so, that is a “rejection”, but it is not a rejection that I would hold against someone, and neither does the God I know. It is an unwitting rejection from my POV, if it can be classified as a “rejection”.

This always baffles me… “god is love”… then love is God, too.
Is that what God is? A simple human emotion? (not so simple, we know… but compared to what a creator of the cosmos could be, a human emotion seems much simpler, to me.)

Well, “love” is more than an emotion, in the Christian sense. Love includes a will to love, a commitment. Love is an inclusion rather than an exclusion, so it has a subtle universal dimension there - it involves what draws us together. When I love someone, I am including them in my “self”, they are part of me. It is an appreciation and connection at the deepest of levels. It is a complete tying together of my own good and that of another.

So, if someone does not see this tie to the other (especially to someone they have hurt), do they know what they are doing? Nope.

Can you see the relevance of such a tie? Yet, I stand to testify that experiencing such a tie is in the realm of human possibility. The “tie” is our oneness.

I read on the other thread that you were a physicist. All those weird particles, coming from nowhere and having all of those bizarre characteristics, by faith in science we sense that we will come to an answer, but will we ever answer the simple “why?” through science? The lack of story in science, addressing the “why?” is for me supplied by a Christian story.

So, what are your thoughts on post 572?

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not worried about the heaven ticket or the hell ticket.

But your post brings up some really important questions for me regarding your Catholic Pastoral Edition commentary for Mathew 22:14 and for ideas in general. It reminds me of the Monarch Notes we kids used to read in high school when we didn’t feel like reading the whole book. (not me, I like reading).

They were written by secular people who didn’t believe. Your pastoral edition sounds a bit like this. I’m serious. And if it’s right…

Maybe the problem is that I’m not catholic.

Will get back to you when I know more.

Fran

Hi Fran,

You’re not catholic?

Well, like it or not, you are still in my idea of “Church”, so don’t go away mad. Oh, and come and have dinner with us, don’t be a stranger.

Seriously, though, many, many sincere, faithful, beautiful Catholics have beliefs very similar to yours, and much less like mine. What can I say? When I held similar beliefs to what you are expressing, I was certainly no less “Catholic”, no way. It’s okay.

So please, do not take my explanation of a different way of looking at revelation as and either/or thing. It is a both/and thing. There is a place for many different-looking approaches, even though I think they all boil down to the two I presented earlier. (which are both acceptable approaches.)

You have a gift, Fran, and I thank you for using it. You have the gift of faith. May it continue to grow in both of us. Amen.