Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Tantum_ergo]

It boggle my mind, Simpleas, that I was pushed so hard by others to discuss the example of Adam, and where are they now? Did they give up trying to answer my questions? Gee, I’m sorry. I’ve had the flu since Sunday, I work Tuesday-Saturday and am the full-time caregiver outside of work to my 3 and 4 year old grandsons. My computer time is limited at the best of times, and I won’t be on long because the boys will be coming back from visiting their mother shortly. I will try to address your post if I’m feeling better tomorrow, or soon thereafter.
And here you have stepped in; I hope that they are still reading!

Yes, a normal person could even be so blind as to not have their own children in the forefront of their mind when desire has so enslaved them. (Actually, that would only be the desperate blindness of an addict, right? That’s pretty severe blindness.)

So, yes, if Adam and Eve had an “infused knowledge”, that included knowing that their actions would adversely effect the well-being of their billions of wonderful children, then why would they choose to give into their desire?

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

Hi David,

There could have been many things that A&E did not know, any and every one of these could have changed their decision:

How could any of these deficiencies of knowledge prevent Adam from understanding that if he disobeyed God and ate from the tree that he was rejecting God? Note that your response only addressed the first half of my question.

1. Knowing that they would have billions of children that they would love immensely and wish to protect from any harm whatsoever.
2. Knowing that their action would cause them (the children) harm.
3. Knowing the exact consequences of that harm.
4. Knowing that the tree of knowledge did not give them personally a net benefit.
5. Knowing that the knowledge would not make them “like the gods” in any beneficial way.
6. Knowing that their own desire for knowledge was compromising their rational thinking.
7. Knowing that their desire for autonomy (resistance to authority) could have compromised their rational thinking.
8. Knowing that God was present at the moment of their doubt about the consequences they heard of eating of the fruit, ready to answer and wanting them to ask if what He meant by “truly die”, and if He was serious.

Eight is enough for now; I can come up with more if you like, once we address these. Knowledge of each and every one of these would influence their decision. Numbers 5-8 would involve blindness.

When the choices that we know are limited, or we have limited knowledge about the choices we know, then our freedom is also limited. An ignorant person who thinks he has no choice but to fight when someone disrespects him is not free, he is encumbered by his own lack of knowledge even though he is “free” to also refrain from fighting. Given those two choices alone, fighting might seem to be the best choice. However, if he knew the benefits of forgiveness and reconciling differences in a different way, he would be a freer person.

In addition, our appetites have a way of commandeering our will. When rational, we will to follow God, but our desires can affect our will in such a way that the object of our desire become more important (see no. 6 above).

Now, I was compliant enough to answer your question even though you did not answer mine. Could you be so kind to answer mine now?

Here they are again:

Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey? Please explain: for instance, what did they want?

Thanks for your response.

Would you kindly address the knowing part first? This might avoid some confusion.

 

[OneSheep]

How could any of these deficiencies of knowledge prevent Adam from understanding that if he disobeyed God and ate from the tree that he was rejecting God? Note that your response only addressed the first half of my question.

Would you kindly address the knowing part first? This might avoid some confusion.

Hi David,

So if we look at what happened at the crucifixion, did they know they were killing someone? Yes, they knew. Other than that, they did not know what they were doing:

1. They did not see Jesus’ humanity, they were thinking negatively about Him.
2. They did not see Jesus’ divinity.
3. They did not understand that Jesus was not blaspheming, they did not understand His teachings.
4. They were blinded by anger and resentment.
5. They did not know that they were defiling the very source of their existence.

These are five I can think of at the moment. So yes, they knew they were killing someone, but they did not have all of the relevant information to say they were doing so “knowingly”. They did not know the consequences of their actions, they did not know that what they were doing was actually abominable.

So, using this definition of “knowing”, that is “knowing” in the broadest sense, as I mentioned in the OP, “knowingly” means having all of the information relevant to the choice in their mind. For example, in Adam’s case one scenario could be that the information “this is rejecting God, and rejecting God is important” was placed below the importance of “the fruit looks good to eat, and I desire it”. If Adam and Eve’s desire placed the goodness of the fruit over the importance of the rejection, then they did not know what they were doing. This is what blindness does in the mind. When we believe an untruth, and the truth is relevant to the choice, we do not know what we are doing, just as the crowd who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing.

“Knowingly” means having all of the relevant information and no blindness is involved.

So… (not to be a nag)

Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey? Please explain: for instance, what did they want?

Thanks!

 

[simpleas]

It boggle my mind, Simpleas, that I was pushed so hard by others to discuss the example of Adam, and where are they now? Did they give up trying to answer my questions?

And here you have stepped in; I hope that they are still reading!

Yes, a normal person could even be so blind as to not have their own children in the forefront of their mind when desire has so enslaved them. (Actually, that would only be the desperate blindness of an addict, right? That’s pretty severe blindness.)

So, yes, if Adam and Eve had an “infused knowledge”, that included knowing that their actions would adversely effect the well-being of their billions of wonderful children, then why would they choose to give into their desire?

Thanks.

And A&E could not be addicts of any kind, not in the sense we understand sin and addiction.

why would they choose to give into their desire?

Because they could (freewill). Because they were not Divine, they like us were only human. They had the same senses we have, yet had full control over the senses, but still this does not stop them from sinning

 

[davidv]

Hi David,

So if we look at what happened at the crucifixion, did they know they were killing someone? Yes, they knew. Other than that, they did not know what they were doing:

1. They did not see Jesus’ humanity, they were thinking negatively about Him.
2. They did not see Jesus’ divinity.
3. They did not understand that Jesus was not blaspheming, they did not understand His teachings.
4. They were blinded by anger and resentment.
5. They did not know that they were defiling the very source of their existence.

These are five I can think of at the moment. So yes, they knew they were killing someone, but they did not have all of the relevant information to say they were doing so “knowingly”. They did not know the consequences of their actions, they did not know that what they were doing was actually abominable.

So, using this definition of “knowing”, that is “knowing” in the broadest sense, as I mentioned in the OP, “knowingly” means having all of the information relevant to the choice in their mind. For example, in Adam’s case one scenario could be that the information “this is rejecting God, and rejecting God is important” was placed below the importance of “the fruit looks good to eat, and I desire it”. If Adam and Eve’s desire placed the goodness of the fruit over the importance of the rejection, then they did not know what they were doing. This is what blindness does in the mind. When we believe an untruth, and the truth is relevant to the choice, we do not know what we are doing, just as the crowd who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing.

Why the diversion? This does not begin to address “How could any of these deficiencies of knowledge prevent Adam from understanding that if he disobeyed God and ate from the tree that he was rejecting God?”

“Knowingly” means having all of the relevant information and no blindness is involved.

So… (not to be a nag)

Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey? Please explain: for instance, what did they want?

Thanks!

Nag away. Let’s deal rationally with Adam’s knowledgeable rejection first.

 

[OneSheep]

Why the diversion? This does not begin to address “How could any of these deficiencies of knowledge prevent Adam from understanding that if he disobeyed God and ate from the tree that he was rejecting God?”

Nag away. Let’s deal rationally with Adam’s knowledgeable rejection first.

Good Morning David,

Cool! I like your wanting to rationally deal with Adam’s unknowledgeable rejection.

So, are you saying that Adam’s purpose in eating the fruit was to reject God? If not, what was his purpose?

Are you saying that disobeying a traffic law is the same as rejecting our U.S. government?

Sometimes people see a “net greater good” in their actions. For example, a person may sell something that he treasures in order to acquire something he sees as having more value. A person may violate some traffic laws in order to hurry to an important meeting. Was Adam possibly seeing a “greater good”?

What was the level of importance of the rejection in his mind at the time he decided to eat the fruit?

Bottom line: What was Adam’s intent? Do you want me to answer that for you, bro?

I did not “divert” by the way. I answered your questions using the definition of “knowingly” from which I am operating, which is based on the way Jesus used it at the crucifixion.

Have a good one.

 

[OneSheep]

And A&E could not be addicts of any kind, not in the sense we understand sin and addiction.

Not if we believe that A&E did not have “concupiscence”. However, if A&E had “concupiscence” as all normal humans do, they could have at least been blinded to the importance of a rule in order to get something they wanted a lot.

Because they could (freewill). Because they were not Divine, they like us were only human. They had the same senses we have, yet had full control over the senses, but still this does not stop them from sinning

Except in cases of some kind of pathology, it would be unhuman for A&E to break a rule knowing that such an action would adversely effect the lives of all future children. In fact, it goes against the nature of every created species to do something that would make life more difficult for their offspring, right?

So, does one continue to hold onto a belief that doesn’t make sense? For example, if it does not make sense that A&E “had full control over the senses”, why hang onto that belief?

Now, don’t see that last question as a challenge or rhetorical. There may very well be a reason for hanging onto that belief, and we could/should investigate that.

There is the possibility that knowing that their acts would effect their children’s well-being was not in the content of the “infused knowledge” A&E received from God. However, then we are up against trying to figure out what knowledge God “infused” and what He did not “infuse”. If God infused the effect-the-children part, then A&E’s acts were unhuman. If God did not infuse the effect-the-children part, then God played a very cruel trick on Adam and Eve, which is extremely contrary to his benevolence.

Thanks, Simpleas!

 

[davidv]

Good Morning David,

Cool! I like your wanting to rationally deal with Adam’s unknowledgeable rejection.

So, are you saying that Adam’s purpose in eating the fruit was to reject God?

Why would I say that?

If not, what was his purpose?

Why does his purpose matter?

Are you saying that disobeying a traffic law is the same as rejecting our U.S. government?

No, most traffic laws are local laws, therefore disobeying them is a rejection of local government.

Sometimes people see a “net greater good” in their actions. For example, a person may sell something that he treasures in order to acquire something he sees as having more value. A person may violate some traffic laws in order to hurry to an important meeting. Was Adam possibly seeing a “greater good”?

I don’t know. However in morality, as Catholics ought to understand, the ends do not justify the means. So seeing a greater good does not justify disobedience.

What was the level of importance of the rejection in his mind at the time he decided to eat the fruit?

I don’t know. Why does it matter?

Bottom line: What was Adam’s intent? Do you want me to answer that for you, bro?

I did not “divert” by the way.

I still don’t know why any of the missing knowledge, listed by you in a prior post, inhibited Adam from knowingly rejecting God.

I answered your questions using the definition of “knowingly” from which I am operating, which is based on the way Jesus used it at the crucifixion.

Have a good one.

 

[simpleas]

Not if we believe that A&E did not have “concupiscence”. However, if A&E had “concupiscence” as all normal humans do, they could have at least been blinded to the importance of a rule in order to get something they wanted a lot.

Except in cases of some kind of pathology, it would be unhuman for A&E to break a rule knowing that such an action would adversely effect the lives of all future children. In fact, it goes against the nature of every created species to do something that would make life more difficult for their offspring, right?

So, does one continue to hold onto a belief that doesn’t make sense? For example, if it does not make sense that A&E “had full control over the senses”, why hang onto that belief?

Now, don’t see that last question as a challenge or rhetorical. There may very well be a reason for hanging onto that belief, and we could/should investigate that.

There is the possibility that knowing that their acts would effect their children’s well-being was not in the content of the “infused knowledge” A&E received from God. However, then we are up against trying to figure out what knowledge God “infused” and what He did not “infuse”. If God infused the effect-the-children part, then A&E’s acts were unhuman. If God did not infuse the effect-the-children part, then God played a very cruel trick on Adam and Eve, which is extremely contrary to his benevolence.

Thanks, Simpleas!

Having full control over the senses was because of Grace, they were in friendship with God, what doesn’t make complete sense, is why they would want to break that friendship, knowing what damage that would inflict upon not just them, but the whole human race and the earth.
I think the church holds Adam, more than Eve responsible for Original sin, in fact we recite the belief that Jesus paid the debt that was owed. Where Adam disobeyed the father, Jesus obeyed the father. And through Jesus’ body and blood, we receive the grace that was lost in the garden.
So the church would say Adam knew what he was doing, but (I think) wouldn’t hold it against him.

Your thread is going to turn into yet another A&E thread

Have a good day Onesheep.

 

[OneSheep]

Having full control over the senses was because of Grace, they were in friendship with God,

But simpleas, ordinary humans can be in friendship with God, but still not have full control of their senses, right? Again, if we are saying that A&E have some supernatural control of their senses, then they are not humans as we know them.

what doesn’t make complete sense, is why they would want to break that friendship, knowing what damage that would inflict upon not just them, but the whole human race and the earth.

Yes, exactly. Again, the behavior is not human, it makes no sense.

I think the church holds Adam, more than Eve responsible for Original sin, in fact we recite the belief that Jesus paid the debt that was owed. Where Adam disobeyed the father, Jesus obeyed the father. And through Jesus’ body and blood, we receive the grace that was lost in the garden.
So the church would say Adam knew what he was doing, but (I think) wouldn’t hold it against him.

If I were to say that someone is “out of my grace”, then I am holding something against them. Is this the same for you? So, I would not hold anything against Adam or say he is “out of my grace” because I understand and forgive Adam, which is exactly what the God we know would do, right? So from where comes the idea that we ever fell out of God’s grace if it did not come from the idea that God did not forgive Adam?

God’s grace is given freely, there are no strings attached, there is no “falling out of grace” unless a person is not forgiven. But God always forgives!

Whatever the case may be, if Adam was human, and he had “control of his senses”, then his behavior was completely irrational to the point of being crazy, which contradicts the “control of his senses”. Irrational behavior, believing one thing with clarity but behaving in a way that is completely opposite such beliefs, would you describe such a person as behaving “knowingly”?

Your thread is going to turn into yet another A&E thread

Have a good day Onesheep.

Ooof. I hope this doesn’t turn into another A&E thread. I think we may be ready to put this particular case to rest if we are done with it. Are you thinking that Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God? If so, please explain. We may not have covered something, or you may want to counter my conclusion.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

But simpleas, ordinary humans can be in friendship with God, but still not have full control of their senses, right? Again, if we are saying that A&E have some supernatural control of their senses, then they are not humans as we know them.

Yes, exactly. Again, the behavior is not human, it makes no sense.

If I were to say that someone is “out of my grace”, then I am holding something against them. Is this the same for you? So, I would not hold anything against Adam or say he is “out of my grace” because I understand and forgive Adam, which is exactly what the God we know would do, right? So from where comes the idea that we ever fell out of God’s grace if it did not come from the idea that God did not forgive Adam?

God’s grace is given freely, there are no strings attached, there is no “falling out of grace” unless a person is not forgiven. But God always forgives!

Whatever the case may be, if Adam was human, and he had “control of his senses”, then his behavior was completely irrational to the point of being crazy, which contradicts the “control of his senses”. Irrational behavior, believing one thing with clarity but behaving in a way that is completely opposite such beliefs, would you describe such a person as behaving “knowingly”?

Ooof. I hope this doesn’t turn into another A&E thread. I think we may be ready to put this particular case to rest if we are done with it. Are you thinking that Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God? If so, please explain. We may not have covered something, or you may want to counter my conclusion.

Thanks.

I do not know Onesheep, I wouldn’t throw out the idea that they could have had supernatural control over their sense, but still only be human. Wasn’t that the gift from God that they in freedom rejected?

No offence but you are not God, so no one could be in your grace

Maybe being thrown from the garden, the man working harder on the earth and the woman receiving pain in child birth and having the man lord over her seems to suggest God was angry, unforgiving…not sure.

Yes don’t need another A&E thread just now, although they are the prime example of rejecting God, even if one believes they had supernatural grace or not.

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, David!

Why would I say that?

Why does his purpose matter?

Well, you would say that the sole purpose of Adam eating the fruit is to reject God if you believed it, but you have not said one way or the other. That is why I asked.

The purpose matters because of the question on this thread. We are determining Adam’s will, what he wanted.

No, most traffic laws are local laws, therefore disobeying them is a rejection of local government.

So, when you disobey a minor traffic law you are rejecting your local government? Interesting. I disobey plenty of traffic laws, I reject their pertinence in certain situations such as stopping at a four-way stop when no other cars are in sight. I safely coast through those stop signs. Do I reject the city council of our great city when I take such action? Heck no! I am good friends with the city council members, the police chief, and the city manager, and have great love and respect for all of them. Can you relate to what I am saying?

I don’t know. However in morality, as Catholics ought to understand, the ends do not justify the means. So seeing a greater good does not justify disobedience.

The ends-and-means argument is not so black-and-white and simple. Also, when we use the word “justify” we put the discussion into morality, and when we are talking about “justification” we are talking about whether consequence should be applied or not. This discussion, however, is not about consequence. We are trying to determine K&W rejection of God.

Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey? Was rejecting God Himself their intention?

I don’t know. Why does it matter?

I still don’t know why any of the missing knowledge, listed by you in a prior post, inhibited Adam from knowingly rejecting God.

The level of importance of the rejection in the minds of Adam and Eve is extremely relevant. Did A&E see the action of eating the fruit as “no big deal”? If so, they were ignorant, right?

This time, please, instead of simply challenging my questions, can you please answer them? I am putting forth two issues here: 1. Rejection of God vs rejection of a rule. 2. Rejection of an important rule vs. rejection of an unimportant rule. Please, David, address those issues.

Thanks, and have a great day!

 

[OneSheep]

I do not know Onesheep, I wouldn’t throw out the idea that they could have had supernatural control over their sense, but still only be human. Wasn’t that the gift from God that they in freedom rejected?

But simpleas, if they had supernatural control, then why would they disobey? It does not make sense, but you stay with the assertion of supernatural control. That’s okay, but it is illogical.

No offence but you are not God, so no one could be in your grace

Oh, but have you not heard someone say “He does this with the manager’s grace”? It means “with his blessings”, and implies that the manager values the employee. Would God, who is infinitely understanding and forgiving, not extend his grace where a mere human would? That does not make sense.

Maybe being thrown from the garden, the man working harder on the earth and the woman receiving pain in child birth and having the man lord over her seems to suggest God was angry, unforgiving…not sure.

Yes, it does suggest that.

Yes don’t need another A&E thread just now, although they are the prime example of rejecting God, even if one believes they had supernatural grace or not.

Thanks

Yes, (sigh) they are people’s favorite examples of rejection of God. However, the question is did they actually intend to reject God, or merely reject what they say as an impertinent rule? Did they reject God knowing that their actions would adversely affect the lives of their loved ones? The answer to these questions lies in an understanding of human nature.

Your own sense of the beauty of God’s creatures is so obvious, simpleas. Why would you doubt the goodness of these two creatures, Adam and Eve? They were innocent, well-intended, and naive. They meant no harm whatsoever. Can we all not “forgive them, for they know not what they do?”. Such forgiveness involves understanding, and this thread is about such understanding. If Adam and Eve had “supernatural control of their senses” then there was a glitch in the supernaturalness. I am not saying that you don’t forgive them, but let’s give A&E the benefit of the doubt.

Indeed, the benefit of the doubt makes sense. The other view does not, as you point out.

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

Good Morning, David!

Well, you would say that the sole purpose of Adam eating the fruit is to reject God if you believed it, but you have not said one way or the other. That is why I asked.

The purpose matters because of the question on this thread. We are determining Adam’s will, what he wanted.

So, when you disobey a minor traffic law you are rejecting your local government? Interesting. I disobey plenty of traffic laws, I reject their pertinence in certain situations such as stopping at a four-way stop when no other cars are in sight. I safely coast through those stop signs. Do I reject the city council of our great city when I take such action? Heck no! I am good friends with the city council members, the police chief, and the city manager, and have great love and respect for all of them. Can you relate to what I am saying?

The ends-and-means argument is not so black-and-white and simple. Also, when we use the word “justify” we put the discussion into morality, and when we are talking about “justification” we are talking about whether consequence should be applied or not. This discussion, however, is not about consequence. We are trying to determine K&W rejection of God.

Why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey? Was rejecting God Himself their intention?

The level of importance of the rejection in the minds of Adam and Eve is extremely relevant. Did A&E see the action of eating the fruit as “no big deal”? If so, they were ignorant, right?

This time, please, instead of simply challenging my questions, can you please answer them? I am putting forth two issues here: 1. Rejection of God vs rejection of a rule. 2. Rejection of an important rule vs. rejection of an unimportant rule. Please, David, address those issues.

Thanks, and have a great day!

At this point, I have no desire to continue. There has been very little logic demonstrated in your replies. Word meanings are changed to suit the conclusion and straw men are erected.
To reiterate. 1. Disobedience of God’s commands are a rejection of God. 2. All God’s commands (rules) are important. 3. Adam disobeyed God’s command of which he was fully knowledgeable and he did so without coercion. 4. Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God. QED

 

[OneSheep]

At this point, I have no desire to continue. There has been very little logic demonstrated in your replies. Word meanings are changed to suit the conclusion and straw men are erected.

The logic is all there, David. It is just that you are unwilling to answer the questions. You seem to not want to do a “rational investigation”, but instead want to make assertions. Words are not changed, straw men are not erected. You show no evidence of such.

To reiterate. 1. Disobedience of God’s commands are a rejection of God.

This is an assertion, but as I showed, disobedience of a rule does not mean rejection of the rule-maker. It can mean that, if that is what the rule-breaker intends, but you are unwilling to investigate Adam’s intention. A person doing what they do not intend to do is not an example of “willingly”.

1. All God’s commands (rules) are important.

Of course they are. However, sometimes people think that they are not important, which is a sign of ignorance. We could determine if Adam thought the rule was important, but you are unwilling to answer the question about whether or not Adam thought the rule was important. People acting in ignorance are not examples of “knowingly”.

1. Adam disobeyed God’s command of which he was fully knowledgeable and he did so without coercion.

“Coercion” is a relative thing, David. If Adam was human, he was heavily influenced by desire for the fruit. Desire compromises our minds. It is not outright coercion in the strictest sense, but it is compromising. We could determine if Adam’s mind may have been compromised by desire, but again, you have refused to answer the question as to why Adam chose to disobey the rule.

1. Adam knowingly and willingly rejected God. QED

Yes, this is your unsupported assertion.

I’m sorry you are giving up, David. If you had answered the questions, we could have gone on a bit longer. I am pretty sure that you looked at the answers to the questions and realized that your assertions are unsupported, though, and you want to stay with your assertions. I accept that. You mean well, you do not intend to disseminate an untruth.

Thanks, and God Bless.

Would anyone else like to take over where David has left?

 

[simpleas]

But simpleas, if they had supernatural control, then why would they disobey? It does not make sense, but you stay with the assertion of supernatural control. That’s okay, but it is illogical.

Oh, but have you not heard someone say “He does this with the manager’s grace”? It means “with his blessings”, and implies that the manager values the employee. Would God, who is infinitely understanding and forgiving, not extend his grace where a mere human would? That does not make sense.

Yes, it does suggest that.

Yes, (sigh) they are people’s favorite examples of rejection of God. However, the question is did they actually intend to reject God, or merely reject what they say as an impertinent rule? Did they reject God knowing that their actions would adversely affect the lives of their loved ones? The answer to these questions lies in an understanding of human nature.

Your own sense of the beauty of God’s creatures is so obvious, simpleas. Why would you doubt the goodness of these two creatures, Adam and Eve? They were innocent, well-intended, and naive. They meant no harm whatsoever. Can we all not “forgive them, for they know not what they do?”. Such forgiveness involves understanding, and this thread is about such understanding. If Adam and Eve had “supernatural control of their senses” then there was a glitch in the supernaturalness. I am not saying that you don’t forgive them, but let’s give A&E the benefit of the doubt.

Indeed, the benefit of the doubt makes sense. The other view does not, as you point out.

Thanks.

But simpleas, if they had supernatural control, then why would they disobey? It does not make sense, but you stay with the assertion of supernatural control. That’s okay, but it is illogical.

Well thinking of it this way, we receive supernatural grace when we receive the Eucharist, yet we need to maintain this grace by not sinning, pretty difficult at times…eh?
Possibly the same for A&E? If not then that is where I can not connect the dots with A&E.

“He does this with the manager’s grace”?

Nope never heard that saying, but now I understand what you meant by blessings.

Your own sense of the beauty of God’s creatures is so obvious, simpleas. Why would you doubt the goodness of these two creatures, Adam and Eve? They were innocent, well-intended, and naive. They meant no harm whatsoever. Can we all not “forgive them, for they know not what they do?”. Such forgiveness involves understanding, and this thread is about such understanding. If Adam and Eve had “supernatural control of their senses” then there was a glitch in the supernaturalness. I am not saying that you don’t forgive them, but let’s give A&E the benefit of the doubt.

Did I imply I doubted the goodness of A&E? I didn’t intend my opinion/questions to imply that. I repeat what I have learnt the church teaches about A&E having supernatural control over the senses, can’t say I fully understand that teaching, but I am investigating here and on other threads.
It’s such an easy story to tell a child, they get it pretty quick, but looking into it as an adult, it doesn’t seem all that straight forward.
Of course we can forgive A&E, but then we would have no explaination for why humans can not be “perfect”, God would never have made humans to be so wayward, we must have “had it all” from the beginning and then got greedy for more. Maybe we are a work in progress.

My motto would be giving people the benefit of the doubt, I always think this before I accuse someone of something, even when others think I’m silly to do so.

 

[OneSheep]

Well thinking of it this way, we receive supernatural grace when we receive the Eucharist, yet we need to maintain this grace by not sinning, pretty difficult at times…eh?
Possibly the same for A&E? If not then that is where I can not connect the dots with A&E.

Connect the dots? Yes, that way the dots connect. Otherwise, like I said, either God is cruel for not telling Adam all he needed to know or Adam is inhuman for doing something that adversely effects his own children.

Yes, if Adam was perfect, he would not have doubted God.

Did I imply I doubted the goodness of A&E? I didn’t intend my opinion/questions to imply that.

The whole concept of original sin is based on the idea that we are in a bad way and it is all our fault (represented by A&E). It’s like we were barely created, and as a species we are compelled to feel guilty about being human for all history. This is not what God had in mind, not even in the period B.C.

I repeat what I have learnt the church teaches about A&E having supernatural control over the senses, can’t say I fully understand that teaching, but I am investigating here and on other threads.
It’s such an easy story to tell a child, they get it pretty quick, but looking into it as an adult, it doesn’t seem all that straight forward.

When you can make sense out of A&E having such supernatural control but still defying God and ruining things for their children, please let me know. Have you given yourself a time limit? It is simply illogical.

Of course we can forgive A&E, but then we would have no explaination for why humans can not be “perfect”, God would never have made humans to be so wayward, we must have “had it all” from the beginning and then got greedy for more. Maybe we are a work in progress.

Humans can be perfect, simpleas! We don’t need to have an Adam and Eve messing everything up for humanity. We are not so “wayward”! We are a work-in-progress, and that progress now comes in the form of self-awareness. God didn’t make junk when he made A&E, and He still doesn’t make junk. Can you see what I am saying with this thread? When we understand the human, we can see his/her beauty. That’s right. Humanity, as is, is beautiful. Can you see?

My motto would be giving people the benefit of the doubt, I always think this before I accuse someone of something, even when others think I’m silly to do so.

So, then, give God the benefit of the doubt! He made a wonderful creature, and is still making us. He did not create with the intent to immediately take away life and grace. That makes no sense, and come to think of it, the suggestion that He did is an accusation, right? It’s amazing to put things into perspective.

Thanks, simpleas. Like I said, if you can make sense of it, let me know. What makes sense as children falls apart as we become more knowledgeable about what love is, and what it is not.

God Bless.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I have been avoiding “entering the fray” regarding this question, because I’m not convinced it can be answered to Onesheep’s satisfaction. I think it is possible that we are unable to know whether anyone at all, ourselves included, has ever knowingly and willingly rejected God. Maybe we don’t have enough information, even about our own minds, to make that judgment. This supports a skepticism about judgment. We can never know whether we or anyone else has knowingly and willingly rejected God, but this does not mean we should assume no one ever has or ever will. We simply just don’t have enough information to make a certain judgment.

That said, is it appropriate to try to come up with hypothetical examples for the sake of discussion? People have offered Adam and Satan as examples. Of course this makes sense, given Catholic notions about both creatures. If we substitute an alternative understanding of Adam or Satan, then neither example is sufficient of course! I think it is quite easy to dismantle any kind of example by insisting that the person in question’s intellect or will was deficient in some way, but that creates another problem.

Does anyone knowingly and willingly accept God? Is there such a thing as faith? Couldn’t faith and the good works that proceed from it merely be the product of deficient intellect or will? How could we ever know? Can you think of an example of someone knowingly and willingly accepting God that I can’t dismantle in exactly the same way? I’m not sure…

 

[OneSheep]

I have been avoiding “entering the fray” regarding this question, because I’m not convinced it can be answered to Onesheep’s satisfaction. I think it is possible that we are unable to know whether anyone at all, ourselves included, has ever knowingly and willingly rejected God. Maybe we don’t have enough information, even about our own minds, to make that judgment. This supports a skepticism about judgment. We can never know whether we or anyone else has knowingly and willingly rejected God, but this does not mean we should assume no one ever has or ever will. We simply just don’t have enough information to make a certain judgment.

Hi P.C.

We seem to be having some conversation on two different threads this morning.

You missed some of the beginning stuff. First of all, my main goal in this thread is to present an Anthropology, that the human being is such that once we understand why he does what he does, we can see his beauty and goodness. This thread is here to investigate what goes on within the human when it seems as if he is intending something bad.

Absolute statements such as “people never K&WRG” are hardly scientific. What I say is that my observations are that people never K&WRG, and that is an observation based on exhausting all of the possible scenarios. I have a conclusion based on my observations.

So, I think that you can see that people have not really even attempted to support assertions of the opposite. Would you like to give it a try?

That said, is it appropriate to try to come up with hypothetical examples for the sake of discussion? People have offered Adam and Satan as examples. Of course this makes sense, given Catholic notions about both creatures. If we substitute an alternative understanding of Adam or Satan, then neither example is sufficient of course! I think it is quite easy to dismantle any kind of example by insisting that the person in question’s intellect or will was deficient in some way, but that creates another problem.

Does anyone knowingly and willingly accept God? Is there such a thing as faith? Couldn’t faith and the good works that proceed from it merely be the product of deficient intellect or will? How could we ever know? Can you think of an example of someone knowingly and willingly accepting God that I can’t dismantle in exactly the same way? I’m not sure…

Since Adam’s nature is described as “preternatural” (lacking concupiscence and having an “infused knowledge”) he is hardly a human we can relate to, he was not a normal human. Satan, of course, has never been depicted as a human. There are billions of other examples we can address. Give it a shot!

We can frame the question for atheists, too. Does any human ever knowingly and willingly hurt a person? The “knowingly” means “having all relevant information”.

Thanks.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hi P.C.

We seem to be having some conversation on two different threads this morning.

You missed some of the beginning stuff. First of all, my main goal in this thread is to present an Anthropology, that the human being is such that once we understand why he does what he does, we can see his beauty and goodness. This thread is here to investigate what goes on within the human when it seems as if he is intending something bad.

Absolute statements such as “people never K&WRG” are hardly scientific. What I say is that my observations are that people never K&WRG, and that is an observation based on exhausting all of the possible scenarios. I have a conclusion based on my observations.

So, I think that you can see that people have not really even attempted to support assertions of the opposite. Would you like to give it a try?

Since Adam’s nature is described as “preternatural” (lacking concupiscence and having an “infused knowledge”) he is hardly a human we can relate to, he was not a normal human. Satan, of course, has never been depicted as a human. There are billions of other examples we can address. Give it a shot!

We can frame the question for atheists, too. Does any human ever knowingly and willingly hurt a person? The “knowingly” means “having all relevant information”.

Thanks.

Morning! I have to attend to my duties soon. But, sure, I’m ready to concede that it is impossible for me to give you an example of someone “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” that you can’t dismantle with your skepticism of judgment. That’s OK.

I would like to turn this around though. Can you offer an example of someone knowingly and willingly accepting God that I can’t dismantle with the same skepticism of judgment? If not, I guess we have no way of knowing if anyone has faith or not. Is that right?

But then…how can anyone be canonized, if we don’t have good enough evidence to know whether they knowingly and willingly accepted God?