Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[clem456]

Good Morning, Clem,

Yes, you have free will, but your free will is acted on in within the confines of what you know…

Right.
I have will.
I have knowledge.
I choose.
I affirm or reject what I know to be true. Or more accurately, I reject who I know to be true.


It seems to me you’re attempting to create a distinction without a difference based on the explicitness of the rejection.
Do we say when we sin “I reject you oh God in favor of my swill”? No, of course not, we obfuscate and make excuses based on half truths. Obfuscation and abdication of responsibility are the devil’s playground.

 

[OneSheep]

Right.
I have will.
I have knowledge.
I choose.
I affirm or reject what I know to be true. Or more accurately, I reject who I know to be true.


It seems to me you’re attempting to create a distinction without a difference based on the explicitness of the rejection.
Do we say when we sin “I reject you oh God in favor of my swill”? No, of course not, we obfuscate and make excuses based on half truths. Obfuscation and abdication of responsibility are the devil’s playground.

Hi Clem,

I hope you answer the rest of my questions on post 692. Please don’t just assume something about the questions and then just quit. I don’t want to log your example under “refused to continue”. If you don’t have the time and energy, though, I understand.

Yes, St. Paul and the crowd who hung Jesus rejected (destroyed) what they “knew” to be truly worth destroying. It was a matter of perception. I am very capable of such perception. Clem, are you immune from perceiving something to be true even though it is not?

Yes, people who know God to some degree do not say “I reject you, God, in favor of this swill”. They may find another “truth” in the moment that they perceive to be true, right? A half-truth is still, as a whole, an untruth. An irrational person would say “I do not reject you, God”, but then go ahead and reject God without finding some falsehood to rationalize his behavior. Can you put into words an example of such a “half-truth” or falsehood?

Here are the questions left unanswered from post 692:

"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."

Maybe it isn’t worth your time and trouble, Clem. I am not pushing you into this. I highly regard your perspective and would like you to carry this through with me. In my experience, there is always an end-point. It takes a bit of patience. I am going to learn something.

Thanks!

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

My son gave me this:

youtube.com/watch?v=-NMex7qk5GU

How to put yourself in the shoes of a murderer? By seeking to understand, as we have been doing on this thread. Finding acts and choices that seem unhuman, and working to discover their humanity. Good intent can be found in all action, even though that good intent can be greatly warped by misperception.

And what is the greatest of misperceptions? The view that a human has anything less than enormous, if not infinite, value is the greatest of misperceptions. When we see any person as a “monster” or “worthless”, etc, we share in the misperception.

So, do you want to tackle an example?

Thanks.

Thanks for sharing the video, I listened to all of it, Fr Barron describing God as other was very interesting, I will have to listen to it again as there was so much to take in.

 

[clem456]

Hi Clem,

I hope you answer the rest of my questions on post 692. Please don’t just assume something about the questions and then just quit. I don’t want to log your example under “refused to continue”. If you don’t have the time and energy, though, I understand.

Yes, St. Paul and the crowd who hung Jesus rejected (destroyed) what they “knew” to be truly worth destroying. It was a matter of perception. I am very capable of such perception. Clem, are you immune from perceiving something to be true even though it is not?

Yes, people who know God to some degree do not say “I reject you, God, in favor of this swill”. They may find another “truth” in the moment that they perceive to be true, right? A half-truth is still, as a whole, an untruth. An irrational person would say “I do not reject you, God”, but then go ahead and reject God without finding some falsehood to rationalize his behavior. Can you put into words an example of such a “half-truth” or falsehood?

Here are the questions left unanswered from post 692:

"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."

Maybe it isn’t worth your time and trouble, Clem. I am not pushing you into this. I highly regard your perspective and would like you to carry this through with me. In my experience, there is always an end-point. It takes a bit of patience. I am going to learn something.

Thanks!

We disagree on a basic premise.
You believe these questions of morality can be compartmentalized. I do not.

 

[Aloysium]

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.

Believe yourself to be god and you are less likely to love your neighbour or to love God, as you are not likely to repent, or to even recognize sin.
God is Love; we all know love and He speaks to us through our conscience, which we can inform or deny.

Matt 25:34-43 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

 

[OneSheep]

We disagree on a basic premise.
You believe these questions of morality can be compartmentalized. I do not.

Actually, I have no idea what you are saying, Clem!

What does it mean to compartmentalize morality?

The goal of this thread, my friend, is to encourage people to use the gift of Understanding in order to enhance forgiveness. As I put in the OP, Jesus forgave the crowd from the cross, “for they do not know what they do”. I am using the same principle and applying it to all people and situations where there is the appearance of K&WRG. Once one looks beneath the surface using the gift of the Spirit, we can share, to some degree, in Jesus’ understanding of those who put Him to death.

So, if we were to discern what it was that the people who hung Jesus did not know, is that “compartmentalizing”? If we are using the gift of the Spirit, understanding, in the endeavor, are you saying that such an endeavor is a negative? Clem, I don’t see where you are coming from on this, please clue me in!

What I am hearing from you is a strong aversion to such understanding of human behavior. Is that true? I don’t know if this is the case for you, but others who have a strong aversion fear a breakdown of the disciplinary structure utilized in avoidance of bad behaviors. In other words, it remains fear itself that keeps the individual from doing bad acts, so the fear itself is protected and kept from the light, for functional reason.

Thanks, Clem, for your participation. Someone is sure to be willing to investigate an example, it doesn’t have to be you.

In appreciation and God’s love, Bless you.

 

[OneSheep]

Believe yourself to be god and you are less likely to love your neighbour or to love God, as you are not likely to repent, or to even recognize sin.
God is Love; we all know love and He speaks to us through our conscience, which we can inform or deny.

Hi Aloysium,

Well, I don’t know anyone who thinks he is a god, so I don’t know. It is all speculative, but if the person believes he is a benevolent god, believes that doing all the things in Matthew 25 is a good thing, then the person might be decent enough. He may do some bizarre things though, like raising his hands all over the place and saying “let there be light!” with disappointing results. It would be a sad state, methinks.

I addressed Matthew 25:34-43 in my post 658, where I recommend a book, Good Goats: Healing our image of God
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13362008#post13362008

It’s a great book, Aloysium. I highly recommend it.

God Bless.

 

[carn]

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?

No.

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

That the moral values of modern “enlightened” society have foundation, especially that from a purely material perspective it is true, that killing innocent and defenceless humans is at least usually wrong.

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?

No, i would have seen, that the idea, that killing innocent and defenceless humans is at least usually wrong is not or at least not initially from my own mind.

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.

Sorry, you seem to change topic; you started with:
“Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?”
so were asking whether “this person should be punished” or “this person should not be punished”.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good Morning, T.E.,

I waited to answer you until the other example played out. I apologize for my lack of memory, it was a lot to look up, and its been awhile. Feel free to correct me. I understand your frustration, but no harm was intended.

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.

Here is my view:

Humans are beautiful and lovable, they are well-intended and have a lot of God-given “appetites” and strong desires. Humans are born ignorant, but have consciences once their consciences are informed by experience and nurture. Humans are capable of automatic-blindness when they have strong desires and/or are resentful. This blindness can temporarily compromise their individual mores and block empathy. Even the capacity for resentment and blindness are God-given parts of our nature. All of our nature is a gift from our benevolent, unconditionally loving God.

And there is much, much more that I can say about the wonder and awe of human nature.

So, feel free to point out what is wrong, and we can discuss it!

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.

So, you are saying that the intent is to reject God, and doing the sinful action is the means? Oh, and of course the rejection “counts” to the uncompromised observer like you and I.

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’.

I agree. One does not cancel out the other. But when we are talking about “canceling out”, we are talking about excusing behavior, which is not what this thread is about, remember? We are not looking for excuse from consequence, we are calling upon the Spirit for the gift of Understanding in order to see people for who they are.

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.

God is injured by someone looking at porn? Well, in a bit of a roundabout way, yes. God is within all of us, and what we do to others we do unto God. The victims of porn, in the sense of real injury, are the people making porn and those who are caught up in addiction at any level. I did a bit of reading on porn yesterday, and it is quite clear to me that any use of porn is supporting an industry that exploits people and encourages superficiality in our approach to humanity.

When we are blinded by resentment, we are essentially robots. When we are caught up in desire, we are essentially robots. In a sense, we have no more “free will” in those cases than an ordinary rabbit or hyena. Our “free will” is dead, we are slaves to our nature. Jesus calls us to transcend our nature by following Him. Following Him involves discipline concerning our desires and forgiving those we resent. Yes, we have the power to choose, but those choices are heavily influenced by our nature. Jesus shows us the Way out of slavery.

Nothing I am saying here on this post goes against Catholic doctrine. This is more than simply “defense of faith”, do you see? It is the Good News.

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.

It is our nature to be drawn to God and accept God once we know Him. The “will” is already there especially once we understand the Source of love, power, beauty, and existence itself. If we are talking about “relevant knowledge” which is the gauge by which I am defining “knowingly”, then yes, people have enough *relevant *knowledge to accept God. Knowing that God is love, God is “omni” benevolent, powerful, knowing, and present is “enough”.

On the other hand, people who reject God are missing something relevant.

Also, people accept a god who is not God, right? So it does get complicated. None of us completely knows God, no way; we seem to know what God “isn’t”.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

That the moral values of modern “enlightened” society have foundation, especially that from a purely material perspective it is true, that killing innocent and defenceless humans is at least usually wrong.

Good Morning, carn!

Ah, now we are focusing in a bit. Are you saying that the “lie” was in the word “usually” versus “always”? If not, I am confused.

No, i would have seen, that the idea, that killing innocent and defenceless humans is at least usually wrong is not or at least not initially from my own mind.

I apologize, please be patient with me because I am really confused. Are you saying that there was a problem in thinking that such killing was not from your own mind? I am looking for the ramifications for such thinking. I need to know a bit more of the story, I guess.

Sorry, you seem to change topic; you started with:
“Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?”
so were asking whether “this person should be punished” or “this person should not be punished”.

I had to take a hard look at my OP. I get it! You are using “condemn” as “punish”, which is perfectly understandable.

I was using “condemn” in the context of the homily, that God is going to forgive people that we may personally condemn, that there are going to be some surprises in that. I was using “condemn” as the opposite of “forgive”, not as whether or not a person should be punished. For example, a person can be forgiven but still be punished, right? Yet, the punished are forgiven, not “condemned” from the heart of our Lord.

In addition, I look at what we call punishment, which is mostly motivated by resentment, as much different from God’s view. First of all, God always forgives, so He has no resentment toward us. So, God does not “punish” in the human sense, it is more of a purification that is going to be very painful, I think.

Thanks, carn, for pointing that out so I could address it.

And thanks, also, for your response. I hope you take the time to clarify for me what you were saying about the “lie” and so forth, I am a bit lost.

God Bless your day.

 

[clem456]

Actually, I have no idea what you are saying, Clem!

What does it mean to compartmentalize morality?

For a person to be whole as a person, he needs to be in relationship with Jesus Christ. A relationship with Jesus is a relationship of love. God is love, God is relationship. As we come to know Christ, our wills become conformed and united to his. So when I examine my will, I do it in the context of Jesus Christ and what he wills. We come to unity hopefully, not division.
A classic definition of love is “to will the good of another, purely for the sake of the other.” So in this relationship with Christ we are called to be dis-interested in our selves. This is a messy thing encompassing various stages of development, knowledge, formation, sanctity, trust, faith. Etc…
But the point of faith is, this relationship calls for the complete surrender of our very being. Not 50-50, but 100%. God is 100%, and we are to become 100%. Complete unity in love.

If I am called to surrender my will to God in it’s entirety, yet claim some (any) aspect of it for myself, I am compartmentalizing my life. I am claiming faith in Christ, but holding out a piece of myself, for myself. This holding out is a rejection of God’s offer of complete unity in love.
There cannot be two compartments (rooms) in our hearts.
Morality points us to our own good, which is unification with God himself.

 

[OneSheep]

For a person to be whole as a person, he needs to be in relationship with Jesus Christ. A relationship with Jesus is a relationship of love. God is love, God is relationship. As we come to know Christ, our wills become conformed and united to his. So when I examine my will, I do it in the context of Jesus Christ and what he wills. We come to unity hopefully, not division.
A classic definition of love is “to will the good of another, purely for the sake of the other.” So in this relationship with Christ we are called to be dis-interested in our selves. This is a messy thing encompassing various stages of development, knowledge, formation, sanctity, trust, faith. Etc…
But the point of faith is, this relationship calls for the complete surrender of our very being. Not 50-50, but 100%. God is 100%, and we are to become 100%. Complete unity in love.

If I am called to surrender my will to God in it’s entirety, yet claim some (any) aspect of it for myself, I am compartmentalizing my life. I am claiming faith in Christ, but holding out a piece of myself, for myself. This holding out is a rejection of God’s offer of complete unity in love.
There cannot be two compartments (rooms) in our hearts.
Morality points us to our own good, which is unification with God himself.

Interesting, Clem.

There is a bit of a dilemma at hand, because God does call us to “care for the temple”, and a person who completely ignores his own well-being is not in a position to do much with “loving our neighbor as ourselves”. However, it lifts the conscience to be mindful of, and in servitude to, the needs of others.

There need not be a net-negative effect on the individual who serves, the service in itself is lifting to the soul. Service gives us a great feeling, does it not? It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate “100% surrender” from some kind of benefit to the self. Surrender feels good. Service feels good. We are all human, and our human consciences reward our good actions.

What I still fail to see is the connection between “compartmentalization” and calling forth the gift of Understanding toward the purpose of forgiving those we think are K&WRG. Perhaps you should draw me a picture? I am a rather dumb sheep. This thread is not about morality, Clem. We can all agree, generally speaking, about which behaviors are moral and which are not. Please do not contrue that my questions are about how to condone immoral behavior. My questions concern how to use the gift of the Spirit to Understand human choices and behaviors.

Are you understanding now, the purpose of this thread? It is not about condoning, it is not about excusing people from consequences. It is about understanding. Right now I am reading Fr. Scott Hurd’s Forgiveness: A Catholic Approach; he has a whole chapter (or two) about understanding why people sin. He ends one chapter:

That’s why Jesus invites us to make our own the words he cried from the cross: “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34)

So, to make those our words, we take the steps to understand people, Clem. Now, can we go back to the questions? Maybe it is just too much, too personal to face, so I don’t want to push the personal example. There were lots of questions on my post 695, and I have been studying some of the effects of porn, the victims of pornography. The CAF would be a great place for their voices to be heard, and this is definitely a great context for stories of their plight. Indeed, John Doe is a victim too.

Maybe you don’t have the time to do a lot of reading and writing? Your posts only address a small parts of what I write. Whatever the case may be, I wish you could participate because I think you have a lot to add to this thread, but I understand if you cannot.

Thanks again.

 

[clem456]

Interesting, Clem.

There is a bit of a dilemma at hand, because God does call us to “care for the temple”, and a person who completely ignores his own well-being is not in a position to do much with “loving our neighbor as ourselves”. However, it lifts the conscience to be mindful of, and in servitude to, the needs of others.

There need not be a net-negative effect on the individual who serves, the service in itself is lifting to the soul. Service gives us a great feeling, does it not? It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate “100% surrender” from some kind of benefit to the self. Surrender feels good. Service feels good. We are all human, and our human consciences reward our good actions.

What I still fail to see is the connection between “compartmentalization” and calling forth the gift of Understanding toward the purpose of forgiving those we think are K&WRG. Perhaps you should draw me a picture? I am a rather dumb sheep. This thread is not about morality, Clem. We can all agree, generally speaking, about which behaviors are moral and which are not. Please do not contrue that my questions are about how to condone immoral behavior. My questions concern how to use the gift of the Spirit to Understand human choices and behaviors.

Are you understanding now, the purpose of this thread? It is not about condoning, it is not about excusing people from consequences. It is about understanding. Right now I am reading Fr. Scott Hurd’s Forgiveness: A Catholic Approach; he has a whole chapter (or two) about understanding why people sin. He ends one chapter:

That’s why Jesus invites us to make our own the words he cried from the cross: “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34)

So, to make those our words, we take the steps to understand people, Clem. Now, can we go back to the questions? Maybe it is just too much, too personal to face, so I don’t want to push the personal example. There were lots of questions on my post 695, and I have been studying some of the effects of porn, the victims of pornography. The CAF would be a great place for their voices to be heard, and this is definitely a great context for stories of their plight. Indeed, John Doe is a victim too.

Maybe you don’t have the time to do a lot of reading and writing? Your posts only address a small parts of what I write. Whatever the case may be, I wish you could participate because I think you have a lot to add to this thread, but I understand if you cannot.

Thanks again.

I apologize, I can’t follow you. As with other posters it seems to me you are shifting the topic from one to another to prove a presupposed conclusion.
This is about morality BTW. The questions are moral in nature. Willing, knowing, choosing.
God bless.

 

[OneSheep]

I apologize, I can’t follow you. As with other posters it seems to me you are shifting the topic from one to another to prove a presupposed conclusion.
This is about morality BTW. The questions are moral in nature. Willing, knowing, choosing.
God bless.

Hmmm. As in one other poster, if I remember right.

Here is the beginning of the OP, by Fr. Cantalamessa:

“Yet God’s measure of justice is different from ours and if he sees good faith or blameless ignorance he saves even those who had been anxious to fight him in their lives. We believers should prepare ourselves for surprises in this regard.”

Yes, this thread presupposes that believers are more judgmental than God actually is, as Fr. C. explains in the homily. This thread is about lining up our own understanding of people more in sync with the way God sees people. A big part of the way God sees us, as Jesus said from the cross, is that we don’t know what we are doing, which is also in the OP.

That said, we can use the gift of understanding to mitigate our own judgment (condemnation) of other people, that is, we can forgive those that we condemn through the gift of understanding. Yes, the presupposed conclusion is that the behaviors of all people can be understood in this way. This thread exists to help people understand.

When I think of the topic of morality, I think of designation of which behaviors are right, and which are wrong. Moral questions are something like, “Is it right to do this?”. Those behaviors are all pretty well lined out. This thread is not about the discussion of what is a moral behavior, it is about understanding why people choose immoral behaviors, such as viewing porn or denying knowing a friend.

Sorry about the “shift”. It was not intended.

Thanks.

To all readers: for the record the question is “Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?” The question is not “Do people choose immoral behavior?” The answer to the second question is “Yes, absolutely!” The answer to the first question is the topic of this thread, and I have said from page 1 that I cannot find an answer “yes” to it that remains “yes” when scrutinized.

So, if your answer is “yes” to the question on this thread, please be willing to support your answer!

 

[davidv]

Hmmm. As in one other poster, if I remember right.

Here is the beginning of the OP, by Fr. Cantalamessa:

“Yet God’s measure of justice is different from ours and if he sees good faith or blameless ignorance he saves even those who had been anxious to fight him in their lives. We believers should prepare ourselves for surprises in this regard.”

Yes, this thread presupposes that believers are more judgmental than God actually is, as Fr. C. explains in the homily. This thread is about lining up our own understanding of people more in sync with the way God sees people. A big part of the way God sees us, as Jesus said from the cross, is that we don’t know what we are doing, which is also in the OP.

That said, we can use the gift of understanding to mitigate our own judgment (condemnation) of other people, that is, we can forgive those that we condemn through the gift of understanding. Yes, the presupposed conclusion is that the behaviors of all people can be understood in this way. This thread exists to help people understand.

When I think of the topic of morality, I think of designation of which behaviors are right, and which are wrong. Moral questions are something like, “Is it right to do this?”. Those behaviors are all pretty well lined out. This thread is not about the discussion of what is a moral behavior, it is about understanding why people choose immoral behaviors, such as viewing porn or denying knowing a friend.

Sorry about the “shift”. It was not intended.

Thanks.

To all readers: for the record the question is “Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?” The question is not “Do people choose immoral behavior?” The answer to the second question is “Yes, absolutely!” The answer to the first question is the topic of this thread, and I have said from page 1 that I cannot find an answer “yes” to it that remains “yes” when scrutinized.

So, if your answer is “yes” to the question on this thread, please be willing to support your answer!

Yes, and this is supported in posts 124, 139, 202, 210, 212, 222, 253, 350, 354, 406, 421, 454, 476, 483, 485, 651, 672 of this thread.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, and this is supported in posts 124, 139, 202, 210, 212, 222, 253, 350, 354, 406, 421, 454, 476, 483, 485, 651, 672 of this thread.

Good point, David, the “yes” was supported in those posts. However, understanding human behavior is not a superficial thing, understanding takes a deep look at what is behind human behavior, which no one on this thread has been able to do (for various reasons).

For example, one means of understanding human behavior is that humans have strong desires that compromise our “knowing and willing”. In addition, humans are born ignorant.and both desire and resentment blind us.

David, I am reading a great book by Fr. Scott Hurd on Forgiveness. Let me share something with you to put this thread into perspective:

People’s negative behavior often arises from pain, fear, or ignorance,and is frequently an inappropriate attempt to meet a legitimate need.

But regardless of whether a person has acted out of (these) when they’ve hurt us, we’re tempted to demonize them.

Yes, we do demonize them, David. We resent them and condemn them. Can you see how this applies to Fr. Cantalamessa’s quote in the OP? We condemn, but God does not. God sees these issues going on in the person and forgives, just as Jesus forgave from the cross, because we do not know what we are doing.

Just as Pope Francis says “God always understands”, there is always something to understand. And in my own observations, the common denominator in all inappropriate behaviors is that the person does not know what he or she is doing.

What is also interesting in Fr. Hurd’s book, which I can really relate to, is the huge resistance that people have toward understanding and forgiving.

Anyway, as of yet I am still looking for an example of a person K&WRG, where the example presented holds even when subjected to those deeper questions that aim toward exactly the types of conditions described by Fr. Hurd above. We can only apply this endeavor to Adam if he has all of the normal human shortcomings.

God Bless.

 

[davidv]

Good point, David, the “yes” was supported in those posts. However, understanding human behavior is not a superficial thing, understanding takes a deep look at what is behind human behavior, which no one on this thread has been able to do (for various reasons).

I don’t believe any of the explanations stated nor implied that understanding human behavior is superficial. How do does relate to K&W rejection of God or forgiveness. Are you saying that unless one advanced degrees in psychology and sociology, your OP question cannot be answered?

For example, one means of understanding human behavior is that humans have strong desires that compromise our “knowing and willing”. In addition, humans are born ignorant.and both desire and resentment blind us.

David, I am reading a great book by Fr. Scott Hurd on Forgiveness. Let me share something with you to put this thread into perspective:

People’s negative behavior often arises from pain, fear, or ignorance,and is frequently an inappropriate attempt to meet a legitimate need.

But regardless of whether a person has acted out of (these) when they’ve hurt us, we’re tempted to demonize them.

Yes, we do demonize them, David.

I don’t believe anyone responding to on this thread have done this. How is this relevant to the thread?

We resent them and condemn them. Can you see how this applies to Fr. Cantalamessa’s quote in the OP?

No. I see no connection whatsoever. Fr.’s comment is about God’s forgiveness. The quote above is not.

We condemn,

And do so wrongly.

but God does not. God sees these issues going on in the person and forgives, just as Jesus forgave from the cross, because we do not know what we are doing.

Just as Pope Francis says “God always understands”, there is always something to understand. And in my own observations, the common denominator in all inappropriate behaviors is that the person does not know what he or she is doing.

It would seem that this conclusion is based on a biased sample. Which appears that the reason that Adam is rejected as contrary example.

What is also interesting in Fr. Hurd’s book, which I can really relate to, is the huge resistance that people have toward understanding and forgiving.

Anyway, as of yet I am still looking for an example of a person K&WRG, where the example presented holds even when subjected to those deeper questions that aim toward exactly the types of conditions described by Fr. Hurd above. We can only apply this endeavor to Adam if he has all of the normal human shortcomings.

God Bless.

And I am still looking for a reasonable answer as to why Adam is not the example you are asking for.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . And I am still looking for a reasonable answer as to why Adam is not the example you are asking for.

You’ve got a long wait.
Some people do not believe in sin.
It is very difficult to love unconditionally.
It is easier to forgive believing that harm was done unintentionally.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t believe any of the explanations stated nor implied that understanding human behavior is superficial. How do does relate to K&W rejection of God or forgiveness. Are you saying that unless one advanced degrees in psychology and sociology, your OP question cannot be answered?

I don’t believe anyone responding to on this thread have done this. How is this relevant to the thread?

No. I see no connection whatsoever. Fr.’s comment is about God’s forgiveness. The quote above is not.

And do so wrongly.

It would seem that this conclusion is based on a biased sample. Which appears that the reason that Adam is rejected as contrary example.

And I am still looking for a reasonable answer as to why Adam is not the example you are asking for.

So am I.

Because if Adam was something more than human (with the ‘infused knowledge’ or whatever), such that he cannot be compared to an ‘ordinary’ human, then why did humanity need to be redeemed?

If humanity didn’t need to be redeemed, why did Jesus die for us? I don’t need ‘theories’. . .Jesus existed and left us the tools, written and oral, from His own eyewitnesses and followers as to why He was born, lived, died, and rose, so we KNOW why He came and what He did. I don’t need to be condescended to and told that no, I and others aren’t REALLY capable of knowing what we do when we are blinded or duped or hormonally unregulated and just could not reject GOD. I’m sorry to say it, but that kind of feel-good, people, you’re not bad, you’re just misunderstood, and you’ll all be in warm-and-fuzzy-land when you die claptrap is just that. . .claptrap, pop psychology.

And I’m not thus advocating a stern, judgmental, punitive view instead.

I’m actually the realist here. I can (having an open mind) realize that humanity in order to be capable of the good that it often shows, has to be equally capable of the bad. . .and to rationally ‘choose’ one or the other. . .not blindly but with knowledge and ‘consent’.

I’m not a Pollyanna or Pangloss who finds everything perfect and beautiful. . .and I’m not a rigid Calvinist wailing about the natural degradation of man. . .

I’m a rational Catholic who has benefited from the rich heritage of my faith and its teachings and teachers such that I can see clearly the incredible grace that God has given us, the gifts of free will, and while I can HOPE that ultimately all people will come to sufficient of that grace to be saved, I can neither PRESUME that all WILL do so, or DESPAIR that few to NONE will.

I’m not asking that people believe because say so. . .I’m asking people to calmly and rationally look at what GOD has said, through Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium. He is a lot more reliable than even psychology. . . sorry, Sigmund.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t believe any of the explanations stated nor implied that understanding human behavior is superficial. How do does relate to K&W rejection of God or forgiveness. Are you saying that unless one advanced degrees in psychology and sociology, your OP question cannot be answered?

Great question, David! Well, I don’t have an advanced degree in those fields, but I do know a bit about behavior, psychology, etc. now. But when I started praying for understanding, I did not. And I did come to understand without the degrees. Understanding boils down to the most oft-stated thing that Jesus said, “Seek and you shall find.” It takes some time and patience, and looking for the next question.

I don’t believe anyone responding to on this thread have done this. How is this relevant to the thread?