Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Um, no. How about you acknowledge that Adam is a human being like the rest of us.

Good morning, T.E.

Please remember that the goal of this thread is to use the gift of Understanding to help forgive people. Do you forgive Adam? If so, the goal does not really apply. No, I cannot acknowledge Adam is like the rest of us because no one else I know has “infused knowledge” or lack of concupiscence. Do you know anyone like this?

You have taken a phrase and tried to spin it into making Adam some kind of nonhuman whose ‘knowledge’ was so different that for all intents and purposes he wasn’t really human ‘like us’ at all.

Well, riddle me this. Adam and Eve were created without sin. Mary was conceived without sin.

Yet Mary, who could just as easily have sinned as Adam and Eve did --didn’t.

We all acknowledge that Mary was a human being like us. What makes her ‘human’ but not Adam? Surely Mary was ‘full of grace’ (unlike all the rest of us) from her conception. . .but that did not change her humanity. So why would Adam’s creation without sin change him so that you don’t accept him as human???

This thread was set up to ask if ANY human ever knowingly and willingly rejected God. Is Adam not human?

Mary was conceived without sin. We weren’t. Is Mary a normal human?

Yes, Mary is a normal human, and was born “full of grace”, which is arguably also “normal”. But let’s not get into a discussion of Mary, please, unless she is an example of a person K&WRG. I don’t see it with Mary, and neither do you.

Please keep in mind the goal of this thread, okay?

Thanks, and peace be with you.

 

[OneSheep]

Did any of these gifts prevent Adam from sinning? No.

So knowledge does not prevent sin. Your article proves that Adam, with full knowledge, willingly rejected God. Your request for other examples seem to be an attempt to distract from the truths available through the study of Adam.

Hi David,

I agree with you that knowledge does not prevent sin to some degree. However, Jesus looked upon the crowd and said “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We can surmise that if the crowd knew what they were doing, they would not take the action they did, and I agree with that opinion.

Let me turn it around. Are you using the study of Adam to distract from my goal, which is to foster understanding of the human through the use of the gift of the Spirit? What is your purpose, David? I already explained that we cannot address Adam because Adam had no “concupiscence” and had “infused knowledge”.

Since all ordinary humans have such concupiscence and do not have infused knowledge, and since both concupiscence and lack of knowledge are essential ingredients of hurtful action, which was demonstrated by the crowd at the crucifixion, then Adam simply does not apply to the discussion here.

If you want to talk about Adam, go see Granny. She loves to talk about him! This thread is about everyone else!

God Bless.

 

[OneSheep]

I’ll give a hypothetical example on the willing to reject part

Let’s say Bob were to be catholic and raised that way, he then becomes aithiest even though he was raised Catholic

Okay, great example to discuss!

So, let’s investigate. Why did he become atheist even though he was raised Catholic?

Feel free to create the scenario with made-up detail.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

“Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?”

Yes.

Who?
Me.

How it happened?
Fooling myself deliberately against all evidence that its only my subconscious answering me, especially by unwillingness to carefully think and analyze, which is normally my nature to do and which i know to be the right thing to do; hence, i rejected truth, hence, i rejected Him. And i cannot claim that i do not know that rejecting truth is wrong and amounts to rejecting Him.

Fortunately, He was patient and gave me a second chance, setting up everything nicely so my clever devised folly was crushed as if by a sledgehammer and i had nowhere left to hide myself.

(In my opinion it sums up to “knowingly and willingly” though it might lack a little bit from other people’s perspective.)

Good Morning, carn, and welcome!

I am a little bit confused by your explanation, but I will try to ask a pertinent question to help clarify.

Are you saying that you rejected truth because you refused to carefully think and analyze? Or, is there more to it?

Thanks!

 

[clem456]

Yes.
Human beings have free will. We sometimes make poor choices. I do it frequently. I prefer trash to God and do choose it. Fortunately he doesn’t reject me and calls me back. I respond and come walking back with my trash in tow.

 

[carn]

Are you saying that you rejected truth because you refused to carefully think and analyze?

Yes.
Refusal was based in laziness and preferring to feel good.

Or, is there more to it?

Its actually very complicated, but thats the core.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes.
Human beings have free will. We sometimes make poor choices. I do it frequently. I prefer trash to God and do choose it. Fortunately he doesn’t reject me and calls me back. I respond and come walking back with my trash in tow.

Hi Clem!

It’s been awhile since I’ve heard from you. Boy, looking at the amount of posts you’ve clocked up, you’ve been busy!

So, can we investigate your scenario? If you don’t want to post anything personal, we can take on something similar. Yes, we do make poor choices, but from my observations we do so without knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

It takes some scrutiny to determine this though. For example, let’s say Joe prefers “trash to God”. Can you give an example of the trash? Also, why does Joe prefer trash to God, that is, what does Joe want?

Thanks, Clem.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes.
Refusal was based in laziness and preferring to feel good.

Its actually very complicated, but thats the core.

Okay, let’s stop here for a moment. Doesn’t God give us the desire to feel good? Doesn’t God want us to feel good? So, I’m thinking that preferring to feel good is not the issue. What I am thinking is that you are saying that the problem was preferring to feel good rather than discipline yourself to avoid doing something harmful, right? If so, the problem was in the non-avoidance of doing harm, not the wanting to feel good, right?

Please let me know if I am way, way, off track. I’m trying to understand the situation. If it gets too personal, think of a similar situation and we can talk about a “John Doe” instead.

Oh, and why were you lazy?

These may seem like dumb questions, but in order to discern whether a person K&WRG, it takes some investigating. It is really, really hard to work on ourselves because we get caught up in self-blame about stuff, which colors our objectivity. We understandably want to hang onto the self-blame.

So, we can keep going on the personal example if you want, but it may be a lot easier to pick a “John Doe” scenario.

Thanks, carn!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Good morning, T.E.

Please remember that the goal of this thread is to use the gift of Understanding to help forgive people. Do you forgive Adam? If so, the goal does not really apply. No, I cannot acknowledge Adam is like the rest of us because no one else I know has “infused knowledge” or lack of concupiscence. Do you know anyone like this?

The goal of this thread is to ask the question, Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God, and then to explore the answers. YOUR goal might be what you mentioned above. If so, please start a thread to address it, and do not try to raise a ‘question’ which you have already predetermined you are not going to examine, since you have already decided what you ‘think’ and want only to use this forum as a bully pulpit to clothe your personal opinion in the robes of 'Catholic teaching".

Yes, Mary is a normal human, and was born “full of grace”, which is arguably also “normal”. But let’s not get into a discussion of Mary, please, unless she is an example of a person K&WRG. I don’t see it with Mary, and neither do you.

Please keep in mind the goal of this thread, okay?

Thanks, and peace be with you.

Please keep in mind that if you are changing the goal of this thread, you need to be honest with people. I’ve already suggested you start a new thread with, “The goal of this thread is to use the gift of understanding to forgive people” and link to this one, if you choose. But to ASK A QUESTION and then ignore answers that don’t fit your pet theory, which is what you really WANT to push onto your readers, and the heck with actually listening to others, is a ‘bait and switch’.

Look, OS: If YOU clicked on a thread which asked the question of, say, “Was forgiveness of sin the true message of Jesus Christ” and you, of course, answered yes and gave examples, and the original poster came on and (politely of course) told you that hey, the true message of Jesus Christ was about suffering on the cross, and please stick to the goal of the thread and not talk about forgiveness of sin because only God can forgive, etc. . . You’d get, I imagine, a little upset that your POV wasn’t even being considered, and that the OP had already decided that forgiveness of sin wasn’t the true message and wasn’t even INTERESTED in hearing your take on it.

Well, guess what? That’s the reaction of many of us who have answered your ‘question’ only to be told that what we said doesn’t ‘address’ your reinvented ‘goal’ of forgiveness of others.

You’re not being honest with us. Hey, we forgive you
but part of that means that you’re sorry and you try to make amends, ',k?

 

[OneSheep]

Please keep in mind that if you are changing the goal of this thread, you need to be honest with people. I’ve already suggested you start a new thread with, “The goal of this thread is to use the gift of understanding to forgive people” and link to this one, if you choose. But to ASK A QUESTION and then ignore answers that don’t fit your pet theory, which is what you really WANT to push onto your readers, and the heck with actually listening to others, is a ‘bait and switch’.

Good morning!

T.E., I understand your point of view, but there is nothing wrong with asking a question with the goal of promoting understanding. There is nothing against it in the CAF rules, and my intent is forthright and honest. I never changed my goal. You wanted to discuss yourself, and I said we could, but if I remember right you did not want to go into any depth, you simply stuck to your assertion without going into the details.

Then, you wanted to discuss Adam, and I explained why I do not want to discuss him. I made perfectly clear that humans are often blinded by concupiscence and born ignorant, and those are the two essential ingredients of people’s choice to reject God, and these are not K&W. Since Adam did not have these attributes, he is not a normal human example. There are literally an infinite number of examples of normal humans to investigate T.E.!

Let Adam have the normal human attributes, and we can discuss him!

You see, normal humans have finite knowledge and are subject to blindness from desire. So, if we discuss Adam and we get to a point of the necessary normal, human ingredient of blindness, you will simply say that he was not capable of blindness, and we would have to leave it at that. In addition, if we come to the point that in order for any normal human to have done what Adam did, they must have been ignorant, you will simply say that Adam had an infused knowledge. You will be able to make the case for such “infused knowledge” about every possible lack of knowledge! And you see, when you can make the case for such infinite infused knowledge, then you have presented an omniscient being.

Now, though I respond to all the posts here, that does not mean I can control who else posts! So, you have presented Adam as an example, and if someone else wants to discuss him, scrutinizing his thoughts, actions and motives, that is fine! .

Look, OS: If YOU clicked on a thread which asked the question of, say, “Was forgiveness of sin the true message of Jesus Christ” and you, of course, answered yes and gave examples, and the original poster came on and (politely of course) told you that hey, the true message of Jesus Christ was about suffering on the cross, and please stick to the goal of the thread and not talk about forgiveness of sin because only God can forgive, etc. . . You’d get, I imagine, a little upset that your POV wasn’t even being considered, and that the OP had already decided that forgiveness of sin wasn’t the true message and wasn’t even INTERESTED in hearing your take on it.

Oh, T.E., you misunderstand my previous messages. I have only said that **I **want to discuss normal people. I never said that you could not discuss Adam with someone else! So, you have presented your opinion: Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God. I have never intended to communicate disinterest of your valuable opinion.

The request that you “stick to normal human examples” was simply that, a request. It was not an order. If you do no want to comply with a request, that is your choice.

If the above happened to me, I would not get upset at all. The person would obviously be disagreeing with my POV, and that is fine. I would not continue to harass him about not talking about what I wanted to talk about.

Well, guess what? That’s the reaction of many of us who have answered your ‘question’ only to be told that what we said doesn’t ‘address’ your reinvented ‘goal’ of forgiveness of others.

Does the CAF state that a person has to put in the OP the goal of the thread? I never reinvented my goal. T.E., I am not stopping you from coming on here and saying all you want about Adam. I have absolutely no right to stop you from doing so. I also have the freedom to explain why I do not want to discuss his example, and I have the freedom to choose not to discuss him. Like I said, feel free to discuss Adam with someone else!

You’re not being honest with us. Hey, we forgive you
but part of that means that you’re sorry and you try to make amends, ',k?

Yes, I see, part of your forgiveness requires my making amends. I have not been dishonest in the least, T.E… Many posters have come on here and contributed examples. Did I hurt you in some way, T.E.? If so, I am sorry.

Now, T.E., be honest with me. What is the goal of your criticism?

You did not state the goal of your criticism, but that is not a matter of being dishonest with me, right? It is not required that you state your goal when you criticize a thread. It is, however, charitable to participate in a thread rather than criticize the intent of the OP.

If you want to discuss the charity of criticizing the intent of the OP, that is okay, but that too would be a great topic for a different thread. Have you been on the world forum, T.E.? Some people submit threads for the purpose of generating resentment toward certain groups of people, but their goal is not stated nor required. I do not question or criticize their goals, I simply try to present a different POV.

Do you see the importance of unconditional forgiveness? Does your forgiveness of me depend on my making amends? If that is the case, and I never make the amends that you want me to make (whatever they are), you will hang onto your resentment. Is that what the Gospel asks of us?

God Bless your Sunday.

 

[clem456]

Hi Clem!

It’s been awhile since I’ve heard from you. Boy, looking at the amount of posts you’ve clocked up, you’ve been busy!

So, can we investigate your scenario? If you don’t want to post anything personal, we can take on something similar. Yes, we do make poor choices, but from my observations we do so without knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

It takes some scrutiny to determine this though. For example, let’s say Joe prefers “trash to God”. Can you give an example of the trash? Also, why does Joe prefer trash to God, that is, what does Joe want?

Thanks, Clem.

Take the issue of pornography for example.
As a Christian who has heard the gospel I know that choosing lust is against God’s will. Yet there are times when the flesh is weak. So yes, knowingly and willing

 

[OneSheep]

Take the issue of pornography for example.
As a Christian who has heard the gospel I know that choosing lust is against God’s will. Yet there are times when the flesh is weak. So yes, knowingly and willing

Okay, this is a great example, Clem. There are a lot of issues to discuss with this, but first, let us look at the intent of John Doe (J.D.) of looking at porn.

J.D. wants to look at porn because he enjoys seeing or reading about nudity or sexual activity. Is his goal to reject God, or does he want something else, and the rejection of God’s will is a side-effect?

Does he will to reject God?

Thanks, Clem, and have a great Sunday.

P.S.: Please do not read my questions as condoning use of porn, we are trying to determine if the rejection was K&W.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re completely misunderstanding me, OS (as usual). You also don’t appear to remember much of what I actually said, and so you’re addressing what you think I said and meant — which is not very helpful.

The point is that you brought up a question and you refuse to examine Adam as an example on the grounds that to you, Adam isn’t a 'normal human". He is, and his fall has enormous repercussions. In fact, the fact that he K&W rejected God goes right to the heart of your well-intentioned but wrong views of humanity and your attempt to excuse sin by making it ‘impossible’ to commit.

But since you’re willing to envision Clem’s scenario, for the moment (for the moment) let’s look at that.

I notice that you intend apparently to turn this into an ‘either/or’ argument. . .the idea that somehow IF John Doe had anything else in mind along WITH choosing to reject God, you seem to imply that the rejection, being a ‘side effect’ to the ‘real desire’ of wanting to sexually arouse himself, doesn’t ‘count’. You have the very wrong idea that rejection of God is something independent from any wrong (sinful) action. It’s actually the core of the matter, and one need not have the theological credentials of an Aquinas or the intellectual capacities of an Einstein to realize when one is deliberately choosing to reject God THROUGH the means of doing something sinful.

It’s a ‘both-and’. John Doe is both choosing to gratify a desire he knows is wrong, and to reject God’s loving teaching by looking at porn. The one doesn’t ‘cancel out’ the other, or make it ‘less’.

Wanting gratification for a sinful action doesn’t make one’s rejection of God (who is the one ‘injured’ by said action) into a ‘side effect’. When God made men and women, and gave us free will, He gave us power to choose. . .and if one can never choose evil (or never choose good, for that matter), one isn’t really ‘free’, is one? If there is never a possibility to freely reject God, as well as freely choose to accept, then we’re nothing but robots.

Let’s turn it around. Tell me, does any human ever knowingly and willingly ACCEPT God?

Think about it. If you believe a human being has the capacity to ACCEPT God K&W, then you pretty much have to admit he/she can REJECT God K&W. . . because you can’t say that people can have the knowledge and ability only to ACCEPT, and not reject.

 

[carn]

Okay, let’s stop here for a moment. Doesn’t God give us the desire to feel good? Doesn’t God want us to feel good? So, I’m thinking that preferring to feel good is not the issue. What I am thinking is that you are saying that the problem was preferring to feel good rather than discipline yourself to avoid doing something harmful, right? If so, the problem was in the non-avoidance of doing harm, not the wanting to feel good, right?

No, feeling good by clinging to illusions was the issue.

Cause felling good by clinging to a lie, is wrong. And i knew that.

Oh, and why were you lazy?

Cause in my pride i did not consider the option that i am not clever enough to resolve the theodizee problem on my own. By falling to my pride in that respect, i did not draw the conclusion that if i got a glimpse at the solution, then that maybe was not my own idea/thought.

These may seem like dumb questions, but in order to discern whether a person K&WRG, it takes some investigating.

Yes, it takes investigating.

Been there, done it, it was K&W.

It is really, really hard to work on ourselves because we get caught up in self-blame about stuff, which colors our objectivity. We understandably want to hang onto the self-blame.

Stop trying to convince yourself, that you never knowingly and willingly rejected God; cause in all likeliness you did in your life and maybe even many, many times.

If even St. Peter, the rock upon which the Church is built, managed to reject God knowingly and willingly thrice, then how you dare to think, that you didn’t do it as well?

(No, Peter doesn’t get excuse for fear of his own life; he was literally told to follow the Lord and literally accepted his lead and literally promised not to abondon him; he knew what was in for him, when he agreed, and then knowingly chickend out, which was wrong and sinful.)

 

[OneSheep]

No, feeling good by clinging to illusions was the issue.

Cause felling good by clinging to a lie, is wrong. And i knew that.

Good Morning, Carn!

It is really hard to comment and go on here without going into a lot of detail, and in order to go into detail, we have to get into some things very personal, which I want to avoid as much as possible. Let’s try to keep going without getting too personal.

You “knew” that the lie was an untruth, yet you continued to do what you were doing because you felt good doing it. So there was the truth of “this feels good” and there was the truth of “this is bad”. So, is feeling good in itself a bad intent? Please be patient, I know this sounds tedious, but your answer to that question is important. This is not all about intent, but we should cover this part.

Also, what was the lie? Was the lie “God won’t mind”, or “this does no harm”, or both, or something else?

Cause in my pride i did not consider the option that i am not clever enough to resolve the theodizee problem on my own. By falling to my pride in that respect, i did not draw the conclusion that if i got a glimpse at the solution, then that maybe was not my own idea/thought.

I’m a little confused on this part. Are you saying that pride kept you from looking at the whole situation, and if you had looked at the whole situation, you would have seen that the lie did not come from your own mind?

Yes, it takes investigating.

Been there, done it, it was K&W.

Stop trying to convince yourself, that you never knowingly and willingly rejected God; cause in all likeliness you did in your life and maybe even many, many times.

We can work on my own examples, but we would have to do it all by PM. I don’t like splaying my life out in public. And I would not blame you in the least if you did not want to also, and would rather move from yourself onto Peter for privacy purposes. We could also address Peter at the same time, and try to continue your own example without revealing too much detail.

If even St. Peter, the rock upon which the Church is built, managed to reject God knowingly and willingly thrice, then how you dare to think, that you didn’t do it as well?

(No, Peter doesn’t get excuse for fear of his own life; he was literally told to follow the Lord and literally accepted his lead and literally promised not to abondon him; he knew what was in for him, when he agreed, and then knowingly chickend out, which was wrong and sinful.)

Carn, we are not looking for excuses, but explanations. The difference is that if we are looking for excuses, what we want is to somehow forego consequences. In this process, we must give ourselves the freedom of thought to drop the idea of either applying consequence or foregoing consequence. If we either are thinking “this person should be punished” or “this person should not be punished” then such thinking will bias an objective investigation. All hurtful behaviors have their own inherent consequences, and they cannot be avoided. If I touch a hot stove, my finger is going to hurt. If it helps, just decide that there is going to be consequence regardless of the explanation, and try to put away the whole aspect of “excuses”.

Let’s see what happened with Peter. Jesus was not only his Lord, but his friend! Peter was fearful and he denied knowing Jesus. Yet later in his life, Peter subjected himself to a brutal execution because of his faith. What was the difference, why did he deny in the first case and subject himself in the second?

BTW, we did earlier in the thread discuss Paul. He knew that God forgave him because he had been ignorant when persecuting Christians. He knew that he was not K&WRG. We do not know what Peter surmised in his own mind, but we can try to take an objective look at his actions.

Thank you so much for your response!

 

[clem456]

Okay, this is a great example, Clem. There are a lot of issues to discuss with this, but first, let us look at the intent of John Doe (J.D.) of looking at porn.

J.D. wants to look at porn because he enjoys seeing or reading about nudity or sexual activity. Is his goal to reject God, or does he want something else, and the rejection of God’s will is a side-effect?

Does he will to reject God?

Thanks, Clem, and have a great Sunday.

P.S.: Please do not read my questions as condoning use of porn, we are trying to determine if the rejection was K&W.

Yes he does, knowingly and willingly.
I know who God is and what he asks of me. I reject him of my free will in choosing a disordered action.
I know, and I choose of my own free will.

This happens all the time in many different venues.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . This happens all the time in many different venues.

It is a basic truth of human nature and clearly recognized in our ongoing relationship with God.

However, some people believe they are god. That is why they think they cannot sin, being god, ignorant of his true nature, which is not a Christian belief.

 

[clem456]

It is a basic truth of human nature and clearly recognized in our ongoing relationship with God.

However, some people believe they are god. That is why they think they cannot sin, being god, ignorant of his true nature, which is not a Christian belief.

Yes.
Hopefully we come to an intimate knowledge of God. In coming to this knowledge we must honestly accept who we are, and who God is. If we can’t honestly accept this relationship we cannot move forward.

I sometimes choose sin. Period. The cares and allurements of this world tempt me to reject God. I have knowledge of what I am doing and I choose it freely. If I can’t accept this, I can’t move forward. Moving forward means conforming my will to God’s.
It can be hard work for sure.

God has such love for us. He knows we reject him but in his perfect love, he allows our rejection, and he dies to redeem it. He doesn’t just tolerate us, he loves us to the death despite our rejection.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes he does, knowingly and willingly.
I know who God is and what he asks of me. I reject him of my free will in choosing a disordered action.
I know, and I choose of my own free will.

This happens all the time in many different venues.

Good Morning, Clem,

Yes, you have free will, but your free will is acted on in within the confines of what you know. For example, St. Paul “freely” persecuted Christians, but he did not know what he was doing. He did not persecute Christians once he knew that he was destroying something of value.

So, let me get this part clear. J.D. wills to reject God. Are you saying that his will to reject God is independent of his desire to satisfy his sexual urges? That regardless of his sexual urges, he wills to reject God? Independent of his urges, what is his will concerning God? Does the man want, for example, satisfaction of his urges, and to be in God’s graces? (have his cake and eat it too, so to speak)

In addition, let us look at the depth of his intent. If I drive over the speed limit on the freeway, I do not will to reject my government. I will to go faster, and I reject the law as either inconsequential or worth the risk, right? Is there an option I did not consider in evaluating this aspect?

Oh, and can we both try to be as open-minded as possible? I want to make sure that I am open to considering my own conclusion as incorrect. Can you do the same? You don’t have to, it would just make it less of a competition and more of an investigation. Competitions have a lot of bias involved.

Thanks again for your patience, Clem, this may take awhile. We are not going to get repetitive, I promise. We are going to go deeper into J.D.'s thinking and scope. * I am going to rely on you to point out anything I am not considering. *

God Bless.

 

[OneSheep]

It is a basic truth of human nature and clearly recognized in our ongoing relationship with God.

However, some people believe they are god. That is why they think they cannot sin, being god, ignorant of his true nature, which is not a Christian belief.

Hooray, Aloysium!

You have brought forth an example to investigate! First of all, can you think of a person who thinks he is a god? If not, we can make up a fictional scenario.

Would you say that the person who thinks he is God K&WRG?

Thanks.