Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[simpleas]

I like the pennies, thanks.

Understanding takes some prayer, Simpleas. It takes some reflection.

For example, I think you are saying that a when a person does things which he knows are not right (against his conscience), but still goes ahead with may be K&WRG.

What happens in the mind is that the person’s conscience is compromised at the moment of the deciding to do wrong. After the wrong has occurred, the person sees the harm he has done and his conscience has “snapped back” to normal. He feels guilt.

So you see, if the person had the foresight to experience seeing the harm done before and during the decision to do wrong, then the wrong choice would not be made. The harm of his action is not in his mind, the person has been blinded by desire, resentment, fear, or what have you. This lack of awareness of the harm, at the moment, is a lack of knowing. The person who does wrong in this instance is not behaving “knowingly”.

Can you give an example where the above is not accurate, given the scenario you presented? Here are some “everyday wrongs”: A woman on a diet eats a donut (against the diet, of course). A man fails to tip someone that his conscience ordinarily says he should.

Can we all be correct? Well, maybe. A lot of this boils down to definitions. I think it is fair to say that our beliefs all line up with our experiences, which in that sense makes everyone “correct”. However, a person can learn from the experiences of someone else, and so their own version of “correct” may shift a little. Somewhere beneath there is a truth to be determined, I think, which is an ultimate “correct”.

Do you want to investigate one of these cases, or is there something else?

Thanks for your participation.

Understanding takes some prayer, Simpleas. It takes some reflection.

Indeed You always have to get your preachy statements in, don’t ya!

Can you give an example where the above is not accurate, given the scenario you presented? Here are some “everyday wrongs”: A woman on a diet eats a donut (against the diet, of course). A man fails to tip someone that his conscience ordinarily says he should.

But these aren’t a rejection of God?

To me, possibly K&WRG is in harming other people, and creation.

I know that I could commit some act, say damage property, a car or business, something like that. I know my action would cause harm to another persons lively hood. My conscience could kick in and stop me, but it might not, yet I’m still aware of the consquences for the victim. Yes anger maybe the blind spot that “overrides” my conscience and I commit the act, yet my awareness is still there.
That’s why we’re held responsible for our actions and can be punished for them.

I can’t think of any other cases, unless it is about a person who is not addicted to something, because they are imo “blind” by said addiction.

I have never experienced anyone purposely K&WRG as in some sort of evil acts against nature, (like satan worship or something similar) yet I see acts that are evil committed against nature for the purpose of someones idea, greed, control etc. They can not not know before they commit these acts that they are wrong, just like I can know that the act (above) would be wrong.
Do you see what I mean?

I see what you mean, but do you see what I mean?

And thanks for the thread, I find it very interesting.

 

[StevenFrancis]

It would seem to me that strongly planted, intelligent and well read atheists, of which there are a goodly number these days, are actively, knowingly, and willfully against God. They go so far as to claim that God doesn’t exist, (but this they’ve come to supposedly by reason), and they go on to act as if He does as they attribute all manner of evil to Him. So fellows like Dawkins and others would appear to either have willfully and knowingly sought to find that there isn’t a God, and then willfully and knowingly said that if He does exist, He’s a monster. This is the most blatant example I can think of. But if there are fully repentant saints in Heaven, then surely there are also un-repentant sinners, who don’t love God, or refuse to accept God’s love by an act of will. I probably should have read the rest of the thread before posting, but I shall go back and work my way through now, and see how wrong I am.

 

[pocaracas]

It would seem to me that strongly planted, intelligent and well read atheists, of which there are a goodly number these days, are actively, knowingly, and willfully against God. They go so far as to claim that God doesn’t exist, (but this they’ve come to supposedly by reason), and they go on to act as if He does as they attribute all manner of evil to Him. So fellows like Dawkins and others would appear to either have willfully and knowingly sought to find that there isn’t a God, and then willfully and knowingly said that if He does exist, He’s a monster. This is the most blatant example I can think of. But if there are fully repentant saints in Heaven, then surely there are also un-repentant sinners, who don’t love God, or refuse to accept God’s love by an act of will. I probably should have read the rest of the thread before posting, but I shall go back and work my way through now, and see how wrong I am.

Talk about misrepresenting atheists…

OneSheep, should I go a bit off-topic and explain how that’s a misrepresentation, or just let it be?

Just one thing that I can’t resist: Most of us don’t make the claim that god doesn’t exist. Only that there’s no reason to think that it does exist. Like pixies, fairies, leprechauns and other mythological or fictional beings. We look at God, Allah, Thor, Venus or Quetzalcoatl as products of man’s vivid imagination. That doesn’t mean that they may not exist…
The word ‘atom’ was coined by ancient Greek philosophers, coming to it by philosophy… it would take thousands of years to find that they were kind of right when they invented that concept. It’s possible that any particular god does exist… there’s just nothing solid on any of the gods ever worshiped by man… and what is, is equally immaterial for all gods… indistinguishable from equally made up for all. Hence, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves, we reserve judgement on the subject… in the mean time, we act as if there’s no god at all - seems to work well enough.

Dammit, went all off-topicky… sorry!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Whatever the case may be, disrespecting me is not your aim, you did not want or intend to show disrespect toward a person you greatly value. The disrespect happened while trying to achieve something else. . . .

The capacity to do evil is a key aspect of who and what we are as beings capable of entering into holy union with God, who is Love.
It is most definitely not on the surface as you suggest.
We must choose to love to attain our ultimate Goal.
When we sin, the good that we seek is not a greater good, but one directed to gaining something for ourselves at the expense of others and God; it is a trespass.

I am not sure you are purposely blinding yourself to God’s revealed truth.

I cannot provide the scenario you request because the truth of sin lies within yourself as a human being whose ultimate struggle is to be in right relation to God.

As to making what you consider an unsupported assertion, which is that your views are distortions of man’s moral nature as understood by the Church, I stand firm.
It is my observation; do with it, what you will. The ignore feature is always there.
It is not a condemnation but a statement of how I view your explanations.
If you started going on about hearing voices and such, I would feel it my duty to do likewise.

Maybe it is your feel-good theology that sees confrontation as a bad thing.
I don’t know; my intent is not to speak disrespectfully but to give you the head’s up.
You do understand that you’re going to get a Catholic opinion on a Catholic site

My comments are not intended to do you harm. Quite the opposite.
That said, I would agree with the assertion, “God save us from well-intentioned people.”
I am not lacking in awareness that you might feel offended, but you sir, are potentially leading others, not only yourself astray.
So, it is worth being thought badly of to puruse my course in this matter.
On the other hand, I do not know you. From your posts, you do not appear to suffer from a mental illness; it is not my intent to put anyone over the edge. I am operating on the belief that your psyche can take my opinions.

 

[OneSheep]

I still think you get OUR forgiving people with GOD forgiving people mixed up. You do seem to mix up the two by your quote above in blue.

WE are to forgive. At our last bible study a girl (45 but we’re still girls) was wondering how many times she has to forgive her husband who cheats on her. 70X7 or 77 depending on which gospel you wish to quote. Our not forgiving others hinders God in some way that really cannot be understood. People here are amazed at how the christians down south (can’t remember the state) forgave that gunman this summer that shot people during a church service. They’re not so christian here as might be thought.

Then you talk about God forgiving. That’s a whole different story. Do you think God’s justice is like our justice? Do you think God could be in the presence of sin like we could?

Just please explain to me how you get our forgiving mixed up with God’s forgiving. You do seem to scamble it up.

Hi Fran!

I don’t see the “scramble”, Fran. We are to “be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect”. God forgives unconditionally, and we are called to do the same. The quote from Fr. Hurd is mixed up?

Regarding Jesus dying to pay a debt. That could be seen in different ways. I can’t talk on this because it would take too long and, quite frankly Scarlet…

The important thing is that man is a sinner and in need of redemption - however one wants to understand that is fine with me.

I’m on a different thread where some are telling me anyone outside the church is lost and others are saying this is not true.

Jesus always gets lost in these discussions.

IF WE COULD JUST AGREE ON SOMETHING!!

Fran

Sure! We could agree on the creed! That is a great place to start. We agree that Jesus is our center. We can agree that we are to love God with everything we’ve got, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We can agree on the sanctity of life, and the importance of social justice. There is much more that we agree on than disagree, right?

 

[OneSheep]

Indeed You always have to get your preachy statements in, don’t ya!

But these aren’t a rejection of God? To me, possibly K&WRG is in harming other people, and creation.

I was giving examples of people going against their conscience, as you mentined.

These are “everyday” kind of acts against the conscience, though. And I agree with you, it would be a stretch to even consider the possibility of someone thinking that they are going against God - because it isn’t “serious enough”. Well, that is very, very common, people do not think they are doing anything serious. If they don’t think it is serious, they certainly do not think it is rejection of God (if they believe in God).

I know that I could commit some act, say damage property, a car or business, something like that. I know my action would cause harm to another persons lively hood. My conscience could kick in and stop me, but it might not, yet I’m still aware of the coo nsquences for the victim. Yes anger maybe the blind spot that “overrides” my conscience and I commit the act, yet my awareness is still there.

Waaaait a minute. I see a contradiction. How could you be blind, yet aware?

That’s why we’re held responsible for our actions and can be punished for them.

Well, we are held responsible for our actions because we need to learn from them. If we are not put to task, having to answer for our actions, then we may not take ownership.

I can’t think of any other cases, unless it is about a person who is not addicted to something, because they are imo “blind” by said addiction.

I have never experienced anyone purposely K&WRG as in some sort of evil acts against nature, (like satan worship or something similar) yet I see acts that are evil committed against nature for the purpose of someones idea, greed, control etc. They can not not know before they commit these acts that they are wrong, just like I can know that the act (above) would be wrong.
Do you see what I mean?

I see what you mean, but do you see what I mean?

I think I see what you mean. Well, a person could also “know” that it is wrong to commit an evil against nature, but has become blinded by greed, so they no longer see the wrongness. Somewhere inside the person, the rule may still be there, but it has been pushed aside and covered by blindness, an automatic blindness that is triggered by the desire.

Does that jibe with what you mean?

And thanks for the thread, I find it very interesting.

Thank you, Simpleas! Sorry about the momentary preachiness. I did not mean to lecture, I was only pointing out that even for the “everyday stuff”, it takes some effort to work through the examples.

 

[OneSheep]

It would seem to me that strongly planted, intelligent and well read atheists, of which there are a goodly number these days, are actively, knowingly, and willfully against God. They go so far as to claim that God doesn’t exist, (but this they’ve come to supposedly by reason), and they go on to act as if He does as they attribute all manner of evil to Him. So fellows like Dawkins and others would appear to either have willfully and knowingly sought to find that there isn’t a God, and then willfully and knowingly said that if He does exist, He’s a monster. This is the most blatant example I can think of. But if there are fully repentant saints in Heaven, then surely there are also un-repentant sinners, who don’t love God, or refuse to accept God’s love by an act of will. I probably should have read the rest of the thread before posting, but I shall go back and work my way through now, and see how wrong I am.

Hello StevenFrancis,

I love your “and see how wrong I am” humility. There hasn’t been enough of that!

I have stated that I am have made conclusions based on my observations, and that I am open-minded about examples that I have not considered.

My observation of the case you have brought forth is that atheists are not rejecting God, because they do not believe in God in the first place. They are rejecting belief in God, and as pocaracas-the-zealous-portagee will contest, they do not know God from an inner experience as Christians do.

Did I miss something on that example?

Thanks, StevenFrancis.

Dammit, went all off-topicky… sorry!

Oh you wascally wabbit.

I learned something from you post, though, and I think your comments are still close enough to be considered on-topicky.

 

[pocaracas]

Oh you wascally wabbit.

I learned something from you post, though, and I think your comments are still close enough to be considered on-topicky.

Always glad to be of service, doc! http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww4/noisyheaven/Emoticon pangya/carrot.png

 

[simpleas]

These are “everyday” kind of acts against the conscience, though. And I agree with you, it would be a stretch to even consider the possibility of someone thinking that they are going against God - because it isn’t “serious enough”. Well, that is very, very common, people do not think they are doing anything serious. If they don’t think it is serious, they certainly do not think it is rejection of God (if they believe in God).

Waaaait a minute. I see a contradiction. How could you be blind, yet aware?

Well, we are held responsible for our actions because we need to learn from them. If we are not put to task, having to answer for our actions, then we may not take ownership.

I think I see what you mean. Well, a person could also “know” that it is wrong to commit an evil against nature, but has become blinded by greed, so they no longer see the wrongness. Somewhere inside the person, the rule may still be there, but it has been pushed aside and covered by blindness, an automatic blindness that is triggered by the desire.

Does that jibe with what you mean?

Thank you, Simpleas! Sorry about the momentary preachiness. I did not mean to lecture, I was only pointing out that even for the “everyday stuff”, it takes some effort to work through the examples.

Hello.

Did you answer me this from post #788?

How can you be sure that they do not know what they are doing?

Well, we are held responsible for our actions because we need to learn from them. If we are not put to task, having to answer for our actions, then we may not take ownership.

Taking ownership for our actions never guarantees that a person would never commit a certain action again. So when we do re-offend are we then not in some way aware of our knowledge and willingness to do it?

Somewhere inside the person, the rule may still be there, but it has been pushed aside and covered by blindness, an automatic blindness that is triggered by the desire.

If the rule is still in there, it would mean that the person is aware I think. It’s like having a second chance or third if your a nice person, the first time a wrong is committed it can be due to a weakness/failure and so we would be inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt and give a second chance, possibly a third chance, depending on how you deal with “offences” against one another.
I sometimes think, because God is not a human, he is able to give many chances, even to those who never change, because it’s God we are talking about, us humans have our limits, I know I have mine

I did not think you had lectured, I just thought by being in this sort of discussion it was evident that I was engaging in understanding and reflection. Contemplation is a form of prayer, is this what you mean when you say we need to pray about understanding peoples actions?

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

The capacity to do evil is a key aspect of who and what we are as beings capable of entering into holy union with God, who is Love.
It is most definitely not on the surface as you suggest.

Hi Aloysium,

So, I will frame my answers in terms of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine does not specify whether the evil expressed is on the surface or not. So, this is not a contradiction of doctrine.

We must choose to love to attain our ultimate Goal.
When we sin, the good that we seek is not a greater good, but one directed to gaining something for ourselves at the expense of others and God; it is a trespass.

I agree, and I never stated otherwise. What I did say was that people while doing what they perceive as a “greater good” may be blind and ignorant, and willing to put up with doing something hurtful, as long as the “net effect” is some “greater good.”

For example, a runaway train is on a track, and it is headed straight for five people on a bridge, the people have no escape. Except that you have access to a switching device that makes the train take a different track, where a person is standing, also unable to escape if the train heads for him. Most people will pull the switch.

This, however does not present a scenario where the person is blinded by desire, which is much more common in “net good” scenarios. The blinded mind’s conscience is compromised, and he perceives something better that is not better, i.e. the addict who steals from his family.

I am not sure you are purposely blinding yourself to God’s revealed truth.

I don’t think a person could purposefully blind themselves, I cannot think of how it could happen. Can you? The blindness I talk about happens without the person knowing. This is not against Catholic doctrine.

I cannot provide the scenario you request because the truth of sin lies within yourself as a human being whose ultimate struggle is to be in right relation to God.

Yes, we all have the struggle, but it does not stop us from understanding other people, or ourselves. Again, this is not against Catholic doctrine.

As to making what you consider an unsupported assertion, which is that your views are distortions of man’s moral nature as understood by the Church, I stand firm.
It is my observation; do with it, what you will. The ignore feature is always there.
It is not a condemnation but a statement of how I view your explanations.
If you started going on about hearing voices and such, I would feel it my duty to do likewise.

I repeat: it is uncharitable to call a person’s views a “distortion of Catholic teaching” without having any evidence of such. Since you have provided no evidence, you are simply stating a criticism with no basis. Aloysium, how do you like this?

Someone says, “Aloysium has a distorted view of Catholicism.” You ask the person for evidence of this, and they provide nothing, only more assertions. Are you familiar with “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”?

Maybe it is your feel-good theology that sees confrontation as a bad thing.
I don’t know; my intent is not to speak disrespectfully but to give you the head’s up.
You do understand that you’re going to get a Catholic opinion on a Catholic site

A “Catholic opinion” would be presented charitably. If one has not love, one is a noisy gong, remember?

How does one address an assertion after an assertion? Have you ever heard two children saying “yes” and “no” to each other without end? If you have something to say, support your argument, stop just saying “no”!

My comments are not intended to do you harm. Quite the opposite.
That said, I would agree with the assertion, “God save us from well-intentioned people.”
I am not lacking in awareness that you might feel offended, but you sir, are potentially leading others, not only yourself astray.
So, it is worth being thought badly of to puruse my course in this matter.
On the other hand, I do not know you. From your posts, you do not appear to suffer from a mental illness; it is not my intent to put anyone over the edge. I am operating on the belief that your psyche can take my opinions.

If you do not intend to do harm, which I believe, let me make a little suggestion. Instead of saying without any basis “you sir, are potentially leading others, not only yourself astray” simply bring forward the words or concepts I have stated that you think are leading people astray, and try to understand them. At the very least, say “this statement is against Catholic doctrine, and here is why.” Otherwise, your criticisms are not productive, they are only insults. Insults, by the way, are not respectful.

Please, Aloysium, before you decide to post any of your well-meaning criticisms of me again, show a fellow Catholic beforehand what you are writing, that way your “Catholic voice” will be more pure and productive. I do not think badly of you, Aloysium, you are doing what you think is right. Keep trying, you’ll get it right next time, I pray!

 

[OneSheep]

Hello.

Did you answer me this from post #788?

How can you be sure that they do not know what they are doing?

Simpleas, what a wonderful question. How did I miss it?

Ultimately, we cannot be 100% sure about anything. It comes down to those “how do you know that anything exists?” kind of questions. All I can do is analyze all of the possible scenarios as to why anyone does anything, and when I cannot come up with a person K&WRG in any scenario, I am as certain as I can be.

This is what is so fun about this exercise. I could be wrong, but no one has come up with a scenario that proves that I am wrong. Have you heard of the story of Socrates wandering the streets, looking for a pious man? No one could prove their piety. I find myself in Socrates shoes in a way, looking for a person who has K&WRG. No one has proven that it happens.

Taking ownership for our actions never guarantees that a person would never commit a certain action again. So when we do re-offend are we then not in some way aware of our knowledge and willingness to do it?

The most aware person in the world could still be blinded by anger, resentment, desire, fear, or any of the “strong emotions”. Awareness helps a lot, but the blindness is still triggered. There is some skill development in recognizing that the blindness has happened, though. For example, when I think someone is a “jerk” or any other negative, I know I am blind. Time to understand and forgive!

If the rule is still in there, it would mean that the person is aware I think. It’s like having a second chance or third if your a nice person, the first time a wrong is committed it can be due to a weakness/failure and so we would be inclined to give the person the benefit of the doubt and give a second chance, possibly a third chance, depending on how you deal with “offences” against one another.

The rule remains, but it gets pushed aside or diminished with blindness. “Oh, this is supposedly bad, but its no big deal” “That person deserved to get punched anyway.” “my little investment in this company that support injustice is no big deal”. These are all rationalizations, which were preceded by blindness, which is preceded by desire.

I sometimes think, because God is not a human, he is able to give many chances, even to those who never change, because it’s God we are talking about, us humans have our limits, I know I have mine

I have my limit to some degree. Haven’t found it yet. Of course, understanding and forgiving is not the same as trusting. After a couple of times disappointed, I know who I shouldn’t trust. Lack of trust for someone does not rule out love for the person, though, right? I can still love and forgive those I don’t trust.

I did not think you had lectured, I just thought by being in this sort of discussion it was evident that I was engaging in understanding and reflection. Contemplation is a form of prayer, is this what you mean when you say we need to pray about understanding peoples actions?

I have no excuse, simpleas. I did not see your engagement, and I biffed my communication. I did not intend to imply that you personally were not engaged, it was meant as a general statement. People generally think that little “daily offenses” are not worth trying to understand, but actually they are. My writing lumped you with “most people”, which you are not. Again, I apologize.

Contemplation, thinking about life and trying to understand, the “seeking” that Jesus talks about, asking God for understanding, praying for those we resent, these are all prayer, right?

How can you be sure that a person knows what they are doing? Is it because you have cases you can think of where you knew what you were doing as you were choosing to do wrong? Remember, “knowing” includes all relevant information.

God bless your Friday!

 

[simpleas]

Simpleas, what a wonderful question. How did I miss it?

Ultimately, we cannot be 100% sure about anything. It comes down to those “how do you know that anything exists?” kind of questions. All I can do is analyze all of the possible scenarios as to why anyone does anything, and when I cannot come up with a person K&WRG in any scenario, I am as certain as I can be.

This is what is so fun about this exercise. I could be wrong, but no one has come up with a scenario that proves that I am wrong. Have you heard of the story of Socrates wandering the streets, looking for a pious man? No one could prove their piety. I find myself in Socrates shoes in a way, looking for a person who has K&WRG. No one has proven that it happens.

The most aware person in the world could still be blinded by anger, resentment, desire, fear, or any of the “strong emotions”. Awareness helps a lot, but the blindness is still triggered. There is some skill development in recognizing that the blindness has happened, though. For example, when I think someone is a “jerk” or any other negative, I know I am blind. Time to understand and forgive!

The rule remains, but it gets pushed aside or diminished with blindness. “Oh, this is supposedly bad, but its no big deal” “That person deserved to get punched anyway.” “my little investment in this company that support injustice is no big deal”. These are all rationalizations, which were preceded by blindness, which is preceded by desire.

I have my limit to some degree. Haven’t found it yet. Of course, understanding and forgiving is not the same as trusting. After a couple of times disappointed, I know who I shouldn’t trust. Lack of trust for someone does not rule out love for the person, though, right? I can still love and forgive those I don’t trust.

I have no excuse, simpleas. I did not see your engagement, and I biffed my communication. I did not intend to imply that you personally were not engaged, it was meant as a general statement. People generally think that little “daily offenses” are not worth trying to understand, but actually they are. My writing lumped you with “most people”, which you are not. Again, I apologize.

Contemplation, thinking about life and trying to understand, the “seeking” that Jesus talks about, asking God for understanding, praying for those we resent, these are all prayer, right?

How can you be sure that a person knows what they are doing? Is it because you have cases you can think of where you knew what you were doing as you were choosing to do wrong? Remember, “knowing” includes all relevant information.

God bless your Friday!

I don’t know how you missed it (thought you were trying to avoid answering! LOL)

Ultimately, we cannot be 100% sure about anything. It comes down to those “how do you know that anything exists?” kind of questions. All I can do is analyze all of the possible scenarios as to why anyone does anything, and when I cannot come up with a person K&WRG in any scenario, I am as certain as I can be.

So you know that you can not 100% know that a person does not K&WRG. But what I read from this statement is that you take the time to think about whatever the case maybe, try to understand rather than just condemn, and in doing so you are free from resentment towards people who do not act/do as you. That’s what I get from this…

The most aware person in the world could still be blinded by anger, resentment, desire, fear, or any of the “strong emotions”. Awareness helps a lot, but the blindness is still triggered. There is some skill development in recognizing that the blindness has happened, though. For example, when I think someone is a “jerk” or any other negative, I know I am blind. Time to understand and forgive!

Yes, we all can do this. When you explain it this way, I wonder how blind I might be on a daily bases! Ha, like I usually think, say for example, driving, people breaking the rules, which they have learnt, passed a test for, but then break them when it suits their needs, cutting others up, just to get a few mintues faster up the road. How blind are they, and how blind am I for thinking they must be blind, when we both know the rules of the road

I have my limit to some degree. Haven’t found it yet. Of course, understanding and forgiving is not the same as trusting. After a couple of times disappointed, I know who I shouldn’t trust. Lack of trust for someone does not rule out love for the person, though, right? I can still love and forgive those I don’t trust.

True, we may not be able to trust someone, but we shouldn’t leave them by the roadside when they need help.

No need to apologize my friend, what I thought was obvious from my side, wasn’t obvious to you.

How can you be sure that a person knows what they are doing? Is it because you have cases you can think of where you knew what you were doing as you were choosing to do wrong? Remember, “knowing” includes all relevant information.

Yes. I remember our conversation on conscience, where some peoples kicks in quicker than others, and so usually stops us from committing the same offence again and again.
I get the anger examples, having so much anger inside can stop a person from letting go of an issue, but we all have this little awareness inside us, if we didn’t, we would find it very very difficult to change.

Anyway I’ll stop rambling now.

Have a good day.

 

[OneSheep]

So you know that you can not 100% know that a person does not K&WRG. But what I read from this statement is that you take the time to think about whatever the case maybe, try to understand rather than just condemn, and in doing so you are free from resentment towards people who do not act/do as you. That’s what I get from this…

Good Morning, simpleas!

I got started writing below, and decided to lay it all out, it is nothing you have not heard before, but this morning I wanted to show the whole picture.

Yes, we are free of the resentment when we understand and forgive. I think that you would agree that when we are children, forgiveness is more of “okay, I won’t hate/be mad at that person any more” and the anger sort of “goes away”. At that time, though, the resentment, anger, and hurt are helping build our conscience. For adults who have developed consciences, we have rulebooks and consequences built in, and we automatically react to rule violations with degrees of anger and resentment. We don’t think, “I am going to get angry about that now”, anger/resentment just happens, it is triggered. We are robotic in our responses, essentially enslaved by our nature. It follows from our conscience that we see two sources of power within ourselves, a “good power” and a “bad power”, the “bad power” is the part of ourselves that motivates us to do things we later feel guilty about. Thus, the thinking of OS as a bad part of ourselves, motivating us to do wrong. The dualism, the rulebook, the guilt, the condemnation of others, the triggered resentment, all of these both motivate the human with a conscience to behave and motivate him to make sure everyone else behaves too. In addition, the conscience also motivates us to do good by giving us a feeling of righteousness when we behave well. Again this is part of our nature.

So, all of the automaticity has a purpose, but as empathy is developed, it is empathy itself that guides our behaviors. In addition, as we focus on loving others as Jesus call to do, such love usurps the need for the carrot-and-stick conscience. Indeed, because part of the functioning of the conscience is resentment, hate, anger, compulsion to punish, etc., the activity of the conscience itself can impede our ability to love others! Therefore, when one considers the Lord’s prayer, He does not mention his commandment to love others, what he mentions is the commandment to forgive! Loving others comes naturally when we have forgiven! We cannot and should not “dump the conscience” it is always our back up, our default, and it still keeps our behaviors in check when our discipline to love and our empathy fail us. And then, with blindness even our conscience cannot stop us from making hurtful choices.

Forgiveness frees us from the enslavement to our resentment, which is the most enslaving aspect of our conscience. Forgiveness is what allows us to love without any encumbrance, and forgiveness for adults, mature forgiveness involves understanding.

Yes, we all can do this. When you explain it this way, I wonder how blind I might be on a daily bases! Ha, like I usually think, say for example, driving, people breaking the rules, which they have learnt, passed a test for, but then break them when it suits their needs, cutting others up, just to get a few mintues faster up the road. How blind are they, and how blind am I for thinking they must be blind, when we both know the rules of the road

You are not blind when thinking that they are blind unless the your use of the word “blind” carries some resentment. When I use the word “blind”, do you hear resentment in my voice? There should not be. Blindness is natural and has its place. We should address it when we become aware of it, but seeing another’s blindness is a means of understanding “he is blind now, like I can be blind sometimes”.

When you use the word “blind”, are you thinking negatively of the person? If so, understanding and forgiveness may involve using a different vocabulary set. No one purposefully blinds themselves. Many people simply don’t think traffic laws are important, this is not blindness, but ignorance. Many people are inconsiderate of the feelings of other when they are in a hurry. That lack of consideraton is caused by blindness.

True, we may not be able to trust someone, but we shouldn’t leave them by the roadside when they need help.

No need to apologize my friend, what I thought was obvious from my side, wasn’t obvious to you.

Yes. I remember our conversation on conscience, where some peoples kicks in quicker than others, and so usually stops us from committing the same offence again and again.
I get the anger examples, having so much anger inside can stop a person from letting go of an issue, but we all have this little awareness inside us, if we didn’t, we would find it very very difficult to change.

Anyway I’ll stop rambling now.

What is better, the rambling, or an essay? I had to stop too.

Yes, the conscience should stop us from doing wrong, but it has its limits, as I have stated. It can be automatically blinded. It is possible that the conscience drives us to actually hang onto resentment, I think. It may serve a purpose in rule-integration, but I haven’t looked into any studies to back up that statement. It is a theory I am looking into.

Thanks for listening.

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning, simpleas!

I got started writing below, and decided to lay it all out, it is nothing you have not heard before, but this morning I wanted to show the whole picture.

Yes, we are free of the resentment when we understand and forgive. I think that you would agree that when we are children, forgiveness is more of “okay, I won’t hate/be mad at that person any more” and the anger sort of “goes away”. At that time, though, the resentment, anger, and hurt are helping build our conscience. For adults who have developed consciences, we have rulebooks and consequences built in, and we automatically react to rule violations with degrees of anger and resentment. We don’t think, “I am going to get angry about that now”, anger/resentment just happens, it is triggered. We are robotic in our responses, essentially enslaved by our nature. It follows from our conscience that we see two sources of power within ourselves, a “good power” and a “bad power”, the “bad power” is the part of ourselves that motivates us to do things we later feel guilty about. Thus, the thinking of OS as a bad part of ourselves, motivating us to do wrong. The dualism, the rulebook, the guilt, the condemnation of others, the triggered resentment, all of these both motivate the human with a conscience to behave and motivate him to make sure everyone else behaves too. In addition, the conscience also motivates us to do good by giving us a feeling of righteousness when we behave well. Again this is part of our nature.

So, all of the automaticity has a purpose, but as empathy is developed, it is empathy itself that guides our behaviors. In addition, as we focus on loving others as Jesus call to do, such love usurps the need for the carrot-and-stick conscience. Indeed, because part of the functioning of the conscience is resentment, hate, anger, compulsion to punish, etc., the activity of the conscience itself can impede our ability to love others! Therefore, when one considers the Lord’s prayer, He does not mention his commandment to love others, what he mentions is the commandment to forgive! Loving others comes naturally when we have forgiven! We cannot and should not “dump the conscience” it is always our back up, our default, and it still keeps our behaviors in check when our discipline to love and our empathy fail us. And then, with blindness even our conscience cannot stop us from making hurtful choices.

Forgiveness frees us from the enslavement to our resentment, which is the most enslaving aspect of our conscience. Forgiveness is what allows us to love without any encumbrance, and forgiveness for adults, mature forgiveness involves understanding.

You are not blind when thinking that they are blind unless the your use of the word “blind” carries some resentment. When I use the word “blind”, do you hear resentment in my voice? There should not be. Blindness is natural and has its place. We should address it when we become aware of it, but seeing another’s blindness is a means of understanding “he is blind now, like I can be blind sometimes”.

When you use the word “blind”, are you thinking negatively of the person? If so, understanding and forgiveness may involve using a different vocabulary set. No one purposefully blinds themselves. Many people simply don’t think traffic laws are important, this is not blindness, but ignorance. Many people are inconsiderate of the feelings of other when they are in a hurry. That lack of consideraton is caused by blindness.

What is better, the rambling, or an essay? I had to stop too.

Yes, the conscience should stop us from doing wrong, but it has its limits, as I have stated. It can be automatically blinded. It is possible that the conscience drives us to actually hang onto resentment, I think. It may serve a purpose in rule-integration, but I haven’t looked into any studies to back up that statement. It is a theory I am looking into.

Thanks for listening.

You are not blind when thinking that they are blind unless the your use of the word “blind” carries some resentment. When I use the word “blind”, do you hear resentment in my voice? There should not be. Blindness is natural and has its place. We should address it when we become aware of it, but seeing another’s blindness is a means of understanding “he is blind now, like I can be blind sometimes”.

When you use the word “blind”, are you thinking negatively of the person? If so, understanding and forgiveness may involve using a different vocabulary set. No one purposefully blinds themselves. Many people simply don’t think traffic laws are important, this is not blindness, but ignorance. Many people are inconsiderate of the feelings of other when they are in a hurry. That lack of consideraton is caused by blindness.

No I don’t hear resentment in your voice.

As for the everyday little situations we come across, like you say people can be ignorant, but I think some are willfully ignorant because they are aware of certain rules. Mistakes happen all the time, this isn’t willful, but when choosing to act a certain way which goes against a rule for the safety of others isn’t ignorance of rules but willful action on said persons part.

thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

No I don’t hear resentment in your voice.

As for the everyday little situations we come across, like you say people can be ignorant, but I think some are willfully ignorant because they are aware of certain rules. Mistakes happen all the time, this isn’t willful, but when choosing to act a certain way which goes against a rule for the safety of others isn’t ignorance of rules but willful action on said persons part.

thanks.

Good Morning, Simpleas!

Can you see that this is a different case, one that has not been brought up on this thread?

Let’s start with this line:

“Mistakes happen all the time, this isn’t willful, but when choosing to act a certain way which goes against a rule for the safety of others isn’t ignorance of rules but willful action on said persons part.”

When I read that sentence, starting with “all the time”, there is a tone of understanding. When I get to the word “but”, the end of the sentence connotes to me a change, a contrast. So, “willful action on said person’s part” has a hint of resentment to it. Do you see that? It leaves the reader hanging a little.

So, how do you feel toward the person who willfully chooses to act against the rule established for the safety of others? What is your initial gut reaction?

Thanks, and have a great Sunday!

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning, Simpleas!

Can you see that this is a different case, one that has not been brought up on this thread?

Let’s start with this line:

“Mistakes happen all the time, this isn’t willful, but when choosing to act a certain way which goes against a rule for the safety of others isn’t ignorance of rules but willful action on said persons part.”

When I read that sentence, starting with “all the time”, there is a tone of understanding. When I get to the word “but”, the end of the sentence connotes to me a change, a contrast. So, “willful action on said person’s part” has a hint of resentment to it. Do you see that? It leaves the reader hanging a little.

So, how do you feel toward the person who willfully chooses to act against the rule established for the safety of others? What is your initial gut reaction?

Thanks, and have a great Sunday!

Hope your Sunday is going well.

Ok so you may have thought I resent when I wrote the line “willful action on said person’s part”
I was thinking it more of a factual statement. Knowing full well that I can do the same as what the other has. Of course, I have grown in some areas, others I’m still working on.

But also, I think it is very much part of human nature to feel some resentment if you feel you have be treated unfairly by another. What I think is, it’s ok for this to happen, but to hold onto it isn’t.

Taking the driving example, my initial thought about the act depending on the seriousness, is sort of thinking that the person is an idiot, or Jerk as you might say. (not saying you call anyone anything!)
Mostly certain unpleasant interactions with another human being that I might come across from time to time, I don’t think on it to much, it is what it is, how I handle it is what will either make my day or upset my day.

Hope that answers your question, you know I have a hard time explaining my thinking on screen.

 

[OneSheep]

Hope your Sunday is going well.

Ok so you may have thought I resent when I wrote the line “willful action on said person’s part”
I was thinking it more of a factual statement. Knowing full well that I can do the same as what the other has. Of course, I have grown in some areas, others I’m still working on.

Me too, on the growing part.

It is natural that we compare the motives of others to our own, we speculate that others have the same motives that we ascribe (and blame) in our own actions. So, when we proceed with the gift of understanding, the lifting of negativity towards ourselves and those we condemn is simultaneous.

But also, I think it is very much part of human nature to feel some resentment if you feel you have be treated unfairly by another.

Yes! Your self-acceptance of resentment is why I am optimistic that you would not shy away from admitting your own resentment when it is present. I think resentment plays a vital role in conscience formation. It’s like, all of my talk about forgiveness, well, why do we resent in the first place, and why do we hang on to it? I still think that such"hanging on" is part of conscience formation. The “letting go” part is not such a compelling part of our nature. Does that make sense? It’s just a theory.

What I think is, it’s ok for this to happen, but to hold onto it isn’t.

I think that it is “okay” in terms of that it is natural and understandable. We are compelled by our conscience hang onto our resentment so that we do not do the same evil as the other did. That is my (tentative) theory, not that it is all that earth-shaking a theory. It is rather intuitive, is it not? It is okay to hold on until we have incorporated a rule associated with the evil committed. After that, it tears us down.

Taking the driving example, my initial thought about the act depending on the seriousness, is sort of thinking that the person is an idiot, or Jerk as you might say. (not saying you call anyone anything!)

Oh yeah I say it - ask my passengers!
Depending on my state of mind, and the seriousness of the threat that the other’s driving is to my life, I react, I react to my reaction. Then, I try to understand the other’s persepective and forgive. If I am not in a hurry at all, doing my best to be considerate, my resentment is only seldom triggered. I am pretty blind when I drive hurriedly.

Mostly certain unpleasant interactions with another human being that I might come across from time to time, I don’t think on it to much, it is what it is, how I handle it is what will either make my day or upset my day.

Hope that answers your question, you know I have a hard time explaining my thinking on screen.

So, I don’t know if I asked you this before: Have you ever started trying to understand someone who you thought was quite evil, but you read and meditated on his actions enough that you came to understand him, and grqdually all of the negative about him sort of disappeared? Has this happened to you?

 

[BeautyFromAshes]

Yes. There are people who knowingly and willingly reject God and even accept that Hell will be their fate when they die. They belong to a sect of Satanism. They have all taken a horrible oath completely disrespecting and denouncing each member of the Trinity.

 

[simpleas]

Me too, on the growing part.

It is natural that we compare the motives of others to our own, we speculate that others have the same motives that we ascribe (and blame) in our own actions. So, when we proceed with the gift of understanding, the lifting of negativity towards ourselves and those we condemn is simultaneous.

Yes! Your self-acceptance of resentment is why I am optimistic that you would not shy away from admitting your own resentment when it is present. I think resentment plays a vital role in conscience formation. It’s like, all of my talk about forgiveness, well, why do we resent in the first place, and why do we hang on to it? I still think that such"hanging on" is part of conscience formation. The “letting go” part is not such a compelling part of our nature. Does that make sense? It’s just a theory.

I think that it is “okay” in terms of that it is natural and understandable. We are compelled by our conscience hang onto our resentment so that we do not do the same evil as the other did. That is my (tentative) theory, not that it is all that earth-shaking a theory. It is rather intuitive, is it not? It is okay to hold on until we have incorporated a rule associated with the evil committed. After that, it tears us down.

Oh yeah I say it - ask my passengers!
Depending on my state of mind, and the seriousness of the threat that the other’s driving is to my life, I react, I react to my reaction. Then, I try to understand the other’s persepective and forgive. If I am not in a hurry at all, doing my best to be considerate, my resentment is only seldom triggered. I am pretty blind when I drive hurriedly.

So, I don’t know if I asked you this before: Have you ever started trying to understand someone who you thought was quite evil, but you read and meditated on his actions enough that you came to understand him, and grqdually all of the negative about him sort of disappeared? Has this happened to you?

It’s like, all of my talk about forgiveness, well, why do we resent in the first place, and why do we hang on to it? I still think that such"hanging on" is part of conscience formation. The “letting go” part is not such a compelling part of our nature. Does that make sense? It’s just a theory.

Yes it makes sense, life is always about renewal I think. Also I see some people are easier at “letting go” of something negative than others. Some of us need to contemplate much harder/more as it doesn’t come naturally or easily. I think we hang on to resentment through fear, letting go is very scary, in my own experience.

I think that it is “okay” in terms of that it is natural and understandable. We are compelled by our conscience hang onto our resentment so that we do not do the same evil as the other did. That is my (tentative) theory, not that it is all that earth-shaking a theory. It is rather intuitive, is it not? It is okay to hold on until we have incorporated a rule associated with the evil committed. After that, it tears us down.

Don’t know about that, something’s we just know are evil I think, but maybe being taught to resent an evil helps keep us from committing said evil, is that what you mean?

So, I don’t know if I asked you this before: Have you ever started trying to understand someone who you thought was quite evil, but you read and meditated on his actions enough that you came to understand him, and grqdually all of the negative about him sort of disappeared? Has this happened to you?

When I have read about someone who has committed an evil act, saw into their situation, I have felt different about them, I have pitied them, because they had suffered to some degree which lead to their actions.
I can not read the human mind, I can not know what some peoples real motives are for their choice to do evil. But I do agree that understanding them can help in healing. It’s like families who want to speak with the murderer of a loved one, they know they must serve time for taking a life, but in order to start to move on they have needed to speak with the murderer.

I see that resentment big or small can destroy the light within.

So when we resent, do we K&WRG?

 

[OneSheep]

Yes. There are people who knowingly and willingly reject God and even accept that Hell will be their fate when they die. They belong to a sect of Satanism. They have all taken a horrible oath completely disrespecting and denouncing each member of the Trinity.

Welcome BeautyFromAshes!

Okay, you have put forth an excellent example to investigate! First of all, it is very common, even somewhat expected, for us Catholics to resent and even demonize satanists, right? On the surface, they must stand for everything we find abhorrent and contrary to the Gospel. It is clear, in our minds, (and in their minds!) that they K&WRG.

So, the test of our initial conclusion is to apply one of the Gifts of the Spirit, Understanding, and see if the conclusion continues to hold true. It is the same gift that we use when we are forgiving people in a mature way.

Jesus calls us to “seek”, and this is the manner which I find guides the use of the Gift, along with prayer, of course. The hard part is to find the right questions, which does involve a bit of reflection (sometimes a Lot of reflection!).

The first question, in my mind, is “Why does a person choose to become a satanist?”

On the other hand, most people on this thread so far have hesitated, even argued against, the use of Understanding to investigate people we resent. If you share this hesitation, feel free to remain with your assertion that satanists K&WRG, and I can understand your viewpoint. What I am looking for on this thread, though, are examples that can be supported when scrutinized.

So, scrutinize, or not? Your choice.

Thanks, and by the way I like your name!