Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[simpleas]

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.

Can I ask, do you personally know these people? I have heard there are people who do this, and I would be afraid/uncomfortable around them. I’ve been around people who practise some sort of black magic, and I wasn’t very comfortable to say the least…

 

[pocaracas]

There seem to be several types of “satanists”…
Currently, the seemingly most common are the LaVeyan Satanists:
"
LaVeyan Satanism (referred to as Satanism by adherents) is a religious philosophy founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey, codified in The Satanic Bible and overseen by the Church of Satan.[1][2][3][4] Its core philosophies are based on individualism, egoism, epicureanism, self-deification and self-preservation, and propagates a worldview of realism, natural law, materialism, Lex Talionis, and mankind as animals in an amoral universe.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Adherents to the philosophy have described Satanism as a non-spiritual religion of the flesh, or “…the world’s first carnal religion”.[12][13][14]

Contrary to popular belief, LaVeyan Satanism does not involve “devil worship” or worship of any deities. It is an atheistic philosophy that asserts that “each individual is his or her own god [and that] there is no room for any other god”.
…]
Satan (Hebrew: שָּׂטָן satan, meaning “adversary”) is seen as a symbol of defiance to the conservatism of mainstream philosophical and religious currents, mainly the Abrahamic religions, that see this character as their antithesis.
"

So… basically… atheists with a bone to pick with the Abrahamic religions.

Not exactly what I thought, when I first heard of “satanism”…

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Good morning-afternoon Simpleas,

I think that once we understand a person, it is very easy to let go of the negativity. Indeed to hang onto the negativity, once we understand, is practically impossible. The negativity, in my experience, simply goes away.

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?

Isn’t it normal and natural to resent murder, theft, all the acts that hurt people, even when the harm done is subtle? This is part of the function of the negative emotions, right? We react negatively, and we are compelled to correct ourselves and others (depending on who the perpetrator is). Yes, life “teaches” us what to resent.

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.

The question then is, did the person know what they were doing in terms of knowing all of the relevant information? If for example, the careless driver knew that by a particular action he was endangering the life of the Queen Mum (whom he loves), would he have driven the same way? Probably not. Yet, the aware mind is one that loves and values everyone.

And then, once you understand them, does all of the negativity gradually just fall away, is that your experience?

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.

Yes, there is a healing through understanding and forgiveness. As far as “knowing what some people’s real motives are for their choices”, that is what this thread is about! Investigating ALL of the “real motives” that people have. They are limited in number. We can understand all of them.

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

Well, think about it though. Our capacity for resentment, like our capacity for anger, is God-given, it is “natural”, as you said. So, why would God give us something that destroys our light?

But isn’t that the pattern of what happens in nature, that there is always something being destroyed so that something new can be created from the ashes? Indeed, the conscience is a beautiful thing, and a bit of destruction is necessary for its development. The destruction is only temporary, the product is beautiful.

So when we resent, do we K&WRG?

I think you know my answer to that. The capacity to resent is itself is a gift from God. When we are caught up in resentment, the light does not shine from us, and we are automatically blinded at the time. When we are blinded, we are not “knowingly” rejecting, right? Like the crowd who hung Jesus, we do not know what we are doing.

Thanks, Simpleas!

 

[OneSheep]

So… basically… atheists with a bone to pick with the Abrahamic religions.

Not exactly what I thought, when I first heard of “satanism”…

Yes, that is what I have read about that group. They hold some resentment toward religions, and they are offering something that is more “free” and less authoritarian.

One difficulty lies in the raising of children. Chances are, if I am motivated by resentment, then to get buy-in from the kids I will be pushing the resentment, which is hardly a means of promoting harmonious living in society (i.e. we can see examples in the Middle East of parents pushing resentment). In addition, children need guidance from adults, and they will be looking for such guidance. If the adult practices such guidance, then he stands as an authority whether he likes it or not. If he refuses to guide, then heaven help him when the kids are teenagers!

There are other types of “satanism” too.

Have a great day, poca.

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, that is what I have read about that group. They hold some resentment toward religions, and they are offering something that is more “free” and less authoritarian.

One difficulty lies in the raising of children. Chances are, if I am motivated by resentment, then to get buy-in from the kids I will be pushing the resentment, which is hardly a means of promoting harmonious living in society (i.e. we can see examples in the Middle East of parents pushing resentment). In addition, children need guidance from adults, and they will be looking for such guidance. If the adult practices such guidance, then he stands as an authority whether he likes it or not. If he refuses to guide, then heaven help him when the kids are teenagers!

There are other types of “satanism” too.

Have a great day, poca.

Hi OneSheep! g’day to you too, mate! (that’s me with an Australian accent)

I think that resentment is mostly present in the name of the “religion”… not sure those people would push it onto their kids… but what do I know? I’m just a vanilla atheist.

Yes, there are other groups who call themselves satanists - devil worshipers and stuff like that… the ones we see in movies with the pentagram and all…
“Theistic Satanism (also known as traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism or Devil worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship.”
If they think that Satan is the one god to worship, then (under the assumption that the Christian God is the one single real deity) they are mistaken… which sort of goes against that “knowingly” detail, doesn’t it?

 

[OneSheep]

Hi OneSheep! g’day to you too, mate! (that’s me with an Australian accent)

I think that resentment is mostly present in the name of the “religion”… not sure those people would push it onto their kids… but what do I know? I’m just a vanilla atheist.

Yes, there are other groups who call themselves satanists - devil worshipers and stuff like that… the ones we see in movies with the pentagram and all…
“Theistic Satanism (also known as traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism or Devil worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship.”
If they think that Satan is the one god to worship, then (under the assumption that the Christian God is the one single real deity) they are mistaken… which sort of goes against that “knowingly” detail, doesn’t it?

How you goin’?

Nah, Aussie doesn’t work for me either Best not try.

Yes, if a person is seeing satan as a deity, then they are not “knowingly” rejecting, they are missing out on a key element. Mostly I think the satanist sees God as rigidly authoritarian and demands that we be enslaved and subjugated by authority, Church authority, of course. They do not see that God calls us to freedom in a deeper way, and that the controlling aspects of religion are human in origin. Indeed, it is likely that they are seeing more of Love in a figure opposed to such perceived coercion.

A Portagee doing Aussie? Cara podre!

BTW, got that from this site:

matadornetwork.com/notebook/20-funniest-portuguese-expressions-use/?single=1

I loved “Ir com os porcos”.

 

[pocaracas]

How you goin’?

Nah, Aussie doesn’t work for me either Best not try.

Yes, if a person is seeing satan as a deity, then they are not “knowingly” rejecting, they are missing out on a key element. Mostly I think the satanist sees God as rigidly authoritarian and demands that we be enslaved and subjugated by authority, Church authority, of course. They do not see that God calls us to freedom in a deeper way, and that the controlling aspects of religion are human in origin. Indeed, it is likely that they are seeing more of Love in a figure opposed to such perceived coercion.

As expected!

A Portagee doing Aussie? Cara podre!

BTW, got that from this site:

matadornetwork.com/notebook/20-funniest-portuguese-expressions-use/?single=1

I loved “Ir com os porcos”.

Oh man… Estou feito ao bife!

“ir com os porcos” doesn’t just mean “to die”, like they say in that article… it also applies to just going away or when something gets broken… Can also be applied to participants in a championship who lose, like a team in the world cup… think Brazil in 2014…
Past tense: you “foste com os porcos”; he “foi com os porcos”, we “fomos com os porcos”, they “foram com os porcos”… just applying the verb “ir” (to go) - as one of the most used verbs, it’s an irregular one.

 

[simpleas]

Good morning-afternoon Simpleas,

I think that once we understand a person, it is very easy to let go of the negativity. Indeed to hang onto the negativity, once we understand, is practically impossible. The negativity, in my experience, simply goes away.

Isn’t it normal and natural to resent murder, theft, all the acts that hurt people, even when the harm done is subtle? This is part of the function of the negative emotions, right? We react negatively, and we are compelled to correct ourselves and others (depending on who the perpetrator is). Yes, life “teaches” us what to resent.

The question then is, did the person know what they were doing in terms of knowing all of the relevant information? If for example, the careless driver knew that by a particular action he was endangering the life of the Queen Mum (whom he loves), would he have driven the same way? Probably not. Yet, the aware mind is one that loves and values everyone.

And then, once you understand them, does all of the negativity gradually just fall away, is that your experience?

Yes, there is a healing through understanding and forgiveness. As far as “knowing what some people’s real motives are for their choices”, that is what this thread is about! Investigating ALL of the “real motives” that people have. They are limited in number. We can understand all of them.

Well, think about it though. Our capacity for resentment, like our capacity for anger, is God-given, it is “natural”, as you said. So, why would God give us something that destroys our light?

But isn’t that the pattern of what happens in nature, that there is always something being destroyed so that something new can be created from the ashes? Indeed, the conscience is a beautiful thing, and a bit of destruction is necessary for its development. The destruction is only temporary, the product is beautiful.

I think you know my answer to that. The capacity to resent is itself is a gift from God. When we are caught up in resentment, the light does not shine from us, and we are automatically blinded at the time. When we are blinded, we are not “knowingly” rejecting, right? Like the crowd who hung Jesus, we do not know what we are doing.

Thanks, Simpleas!

And then, once you understand them, does all of the negativity gradually just fall away, is that your experience?

Pretty much. Although this doesn’t happen over night. I’m still working through life, especially humans and what they do! (including myself)

So, why would God give us something that destroys our light?

To teach us about ourselves, the light and dark in all of us. Overcoming the darkness and walking in the light must be the greatest way to live as a human.
If we didn’t need to learn anything, our lives might be pretty boring!
Although in saying this, I don’t mean to imply that murder etc is a good thing and is there to teach us, but then again, it does teach us…(oh here is that moment when I can’t explain myself clearly!!)
Yep I resent myself for that… Well I get annoyed…

 

[OneSheep]

Pretty much. Although this doesn’t happen over night. I’m still working through life, especially humans and what they do! (including myself)

To teach us about ourselves, the light and dark in all of us. Overcoming the darkness and walking in the light must be the greatest way to live as a human.
If we didn’t need to learn anything, our lives might be pretty boring!
Although in saying this, I don’t mean to imply that murder etc is a good thing and is there to teach us, but then again, it does teach us…(oh here is that moment when I can’t explain myself clearly!!)
Yep I resent myself for that… Well I get annoyed…

Yes, we learn from our errors. Of course you are not saying the errors are good, but that we learn from them. We suffer the sins of the community and we suffer our own sins, and we learn from the suffering.

And hopefully part of that learning is that we must discipline ourselves to understand ourselves and one another, which is a big step toward forgiveness and reconciliation.

And a big step in such understanding is to discover that when we are harming ourselves and others we do not know what we are doing…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . .And a big step in such understanding is to discover that when we are harming ourselves and others we do not know what we are doing…

Utter nonsense! You know exactly what you are doing when you sin.
Sin is not okay; it is not ignorance.
God is merciful. He sees as as we are, deserving of death, and yet He came that we might live eternally with Him…
You keep going on like this, refusing the truth as taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

Sin is not okay;
God is merciful.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Folks,

So far, there have been many examples put forth of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, but none of them hold up when scrutinized. Note: some examples were put forth where the contributor was not interested in investigating the case.

Given the lack of such example, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that humans do not knowingly and willingly reject God. People lack awareness or are blinded by their resentment or desire, then behave in ways that are hurtful to themselves and/or others.

Actually, I was looking forward to someone coming up with a solid counterexample.

Anyone else want to give it a try?

Thanks for reading!

 

[davidv]

Hi Folks,

So far, there have been many examples put forth of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, but none of them hold up when scrutinized. Note: some examples were put forth where the contributor was not interested in investigating the case.

Given the lack of such example, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that humans do not knowingly and willingly reject God. People lack awareness or are blinded by their resentment or desire, then behave in ways that are hurtful to themselves and/or others.

Actually, I was looking forward to someone coming up with a solid counterexample.

Anyone else want to give it a try?

Thanks for reading!

The only scrutiny the examples have failed is yours. It has also been shown that this scrutiny is based on false assumptions.

 

[OneSheep]

The only scrutiny the examples have failed is yours. It has also been shown that this scrutiny is based on false assumptions.

Well, David, I do rely on others to point out when I am making a false assumption. So, if you can think of one that I have made, I’m all ears!

The conclusion I have made, and continues to be supported, is that no human ever knowingly and willingly rejects God. To determine if the conclusion is valid or not, my inquiry was meant to entice thoughtful responses from people willing to support their own conclusions. After all, we almost all have some conclusion on the topic.

The assumptions made are many, but my conclusion is not an assumption because my conclusion is precisely what I am trying to have tested. (And hopefully you remember my underlying motive about Understanding.)

David, yes, I have been the one who guides the “scrutiny”, and I am also very open-minded as far as your own mode of scrutiny. For example, you never answered my post 745, for some reason you did not want to answer the questions. Was it because we did not agree on how to scrutinize? Jesus said, “seek, and you will find”. If you can think of some better questions to ask, please do!

With no test of scrutiny, then all we can do is make assertions, like I told someone else it is like two children, one saying “yes!” the other saying “no!” without going into any depth or explanation.

God Bless

And if anyone out there would like to take a stab at the questions on post 745, please do!

 

[simpleas]

Well, David, I do rely on others to point out when I am making a false assumption. So, if you can think of one that I have made, I’m all ears!

The conclusion I have made, and continues to be supported, is that no human ever knowingly and willingly rejects God. To determine if the conclusion is valid or not, my inquiry was meant to entice thoughtful responses from people willing to support their own conclusions. After all, we almost all have some conclusion on the topic.

The assumptions made are many, but my conclusion is not an assumption because my conclusion is precisely what I am trying to have tested. (And hopefully you remember my underlying motive about Understanding.)

David, yes, I have been the one who guides the “scrutiny”, and I am also very open-minded as far as your own mode of scrutiny. For example, you never answered my post 745, for some reason you did not want to answer the questions. Was it because we did not agree on how to scrutinize? Jesus said, “seek, and you will find”. If you can think of some better questions to ask, please do!

With no test of scrutiny, then all we can do is make assertions, like I told someone else it is like two children, one saying “yes!” the other saying “no!” without going into any depth or explanation.

God Bless

And if anyone out there would like to take a stab at the questions on post 745, please do!

From your post # 745 you made this statement :

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.

I am thinking of Adam and Eve, the rule not to eat a certain tree. If they were 100% wanting to reject God why were they not more like Satan after they sinned. We don’t read of how they go on to hate God in Genesis, they are aware I think that they sinned against God through one of his rules, because they are cast from the garden and the tree of life.

They start to try and repair that relationship they once had, but if they wanted to reject God in the first place, become like him as some say, why would they bother trying to please God? They could’ve just sided with satan and continued trying to be gods.

It seems they realised they needed God only after they tried it their own way, as the story suggests, it’s a lesson humans need to learn because they are not pure spiritual beings like angels. We have to grow in order to become more aware, why would it be any different for A&E? Why would God give them the gifts before they were able to fully understand them? Maybe they were in the process of being taught when they fell, that wouldn’t be 100% rejection of God, that would be “I know God said not to, but…” Which seems more realistic than saying, they had full knowledge of world wide sin, but thought “so what, I want to be a god/God so to heck with my offspring!”

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

From your post # 745 you made this statement :

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.

I am thinking of Adam and Eve, the rule not to eat a certain tree. If they were 100% wanting to reject God why were they not more like Satan after they sinned. We don’t read of how they go on to hate God in Genesis, they are aware I think that they sinned against God through one of his rules, because they are cast from the garden and the tree of life.

They start to try and repair that relationship they once had, but if they wanted to reject God in the first place, become like him as some say, why would they bother trying to please God? They could’ve just sided with satan and continued trying to be gods.

It seems they realised they needed God only after they tried it their own way, as the story suggests, it’s a lesson humans need to learn because they are not pure spiritual beings like angels. We have to grow in order to become more aware, why would it be any different for A&E? Why would God give them the gifts before they were able to fully understand them? Maybe they were in the process of being taught when they fell, that wouldn’t be 100% rejection of God, that would be “I know God said not to, but…” Which seems more realistic than saying, they had full knowledge of world wide sin, but thought “so what, I want to be a god/God so to heck with my offspring!”

Thanks

I agree, and I have been thinking about this a bit lately. What does it mean to love God with all ones’ heart, soul, and mind?

Does not Love call us to give people the benefit of the doubt?

Then, what do we do when we have the choice of who to give the benefit of the doubt, God as we know and experience as unlimited love, forgiveness, mercy, or the ancient author of a story (Adam and Eve) that was not set out to describe God at all, but was an attempt to explain human grievances as our own fault? (with several other themes) Actually, I think we can give all of them the benefit of the doubt if we describe the “Fall” more in terms of CCC399, that “man came to have a distorted view of God”. Yes, as soon as humans realized a God, a creator, there were sure to be distorted views. The part about things having been so rosy “Garden of Eden” before is meant to make us feel guilty about disobeying leadership, which was extremely important in tribal times. (Not that it has no place today)

Those “distorted views” were evolving views, like all concepts they start from nothing and then grow to clarification, just like law and science.

Does the Genesis story give God the benefit of the doubt? Would a loving god give and then take away, based on criteria that he knew man would fail? What would be the purpose of that? Is that a god that entices people to turn to him?

It is almost like the story of the Tree of Knowledge (under many explanations) as well as the doctrine of OS are an unwitting and unintended accusation against God Himself, when interpreted in its strictest sense. “We accuse you, God, of not forgiving Adam and Eve, and punishing them and all of their offspring.”

We can all agree that this subtle accusation has no compliance with Jesus’ call to love God with all we have. Accusation is not intended, the intent of the author of Genesis was not to discredit a loving God, but we turned an innocent myth about the creation of the world into an actual portrayal of God (even when the story itself refers to “gods”!). With the doctrine of original sin, we have God also displayed as loving only conditionally. Yet, the portrayal of God as loving conditionally has its place in Spirituality itself, in spiritual development. It takes time and experience to learn what it means to love unconditionally.

I spent an hour or so this morning reading about the people backing the Islamic State, trying to more thoroughly understand the mentality behind the horrors in Paris. Yes, the Koran had some really awful things written in it, and the vast majority of Muslim people simply say that those particular writings do not apply today, that Islam has evolved (thank God!). Christianity, too, has evolved, it evolves as “revelation unfolds”.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments simpleas!

 

[simpleas]

I agree, and I have been thinking about this a bit lately. What does it mean to love God with all ones’ heart, soul, and mind?

Does not Love call us to give people the benefit of the doubt?

Then, what do we do when we have the choice of who to give the benefit of the doubt, God as we know and experience as unlimited love, forgiveness, mercy, or the ancient author of a story (Adam and Eve) that was not set out to describe God at all, but was an attempt to explain human grievances as our own fault? (with several other themes) Actually, I think we can give all of them the benefit of the doubt if we describe the “Fall” more in terms of CCC399, that “man came to have a distorted view of God”. Yes, as soon as humans realized a God, a creator, there were sure to be distorted views. The part about things having been so rosy “Garden of Eden” before is meant to make us feel guilty about disobeying leadership, which was extremely important in tribal times. (Not that it has no place today)

Those “distorted views” were evolving views, like all concepts they start from nothing and then grow to clarification, just like law and science.

Does the Genesis story give God the benefit of the doubt? Would a loving god give and then take away, based on criteria that he knew man would fail? What would be the purpose of that? Is that a god that entices people to turn to him?

It is almost like the story of the Tree of Knowledge (under many explanations) as well as the doctrine of OS are an unwitting and unintended accusation against God Himself, when interpreted in its strictest sense. “We accuse you, God, of not forgiving Adam and Eve, and punishing them and all of their offspring.”

We can all agree that this subtle accusation has no compliance with Jesus’ call to love God with all we have. Accusation is not intended, the intent of the author of Genesis was not to discredit a loving God, but we turned an innocent myth about the creation of the world into an actual portrayal of God (even when the story itself refers to “gods”!). With the doctrine of original sin, we have God also displayed as loving only conditionally. Yet, the portrayal of God as loving conditionally has its place in Spirituality itself, in spiritual development. It takes time and experience to learn what it means to love unconditionally.

I spent an hour or so this morning reading about the people backing the Islamic State, trying to more thoroughly understand the mentality behind the horrors in Paris. Yes, the Koran had some really awful things written in it, and the vast majority of Muslim people simply say that those particular writings do not apply today, that Islam has evolved (thank God!). Christianity, too, has evolved, it evolves as “revelation unfolds”.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments simpleas!

Does the Genesis story give God the benefit of the doubt? Would a loving god give and then take away, based on criteria that he knew man would fail? What would be the purpose of that? Is that a god that entices people to turn to him?

I haven’t read all of Genesis tbh, but with regards to cain killing his brother because he was jealous? that God seemed to show interest in Abels offering and none or not much in cains, when cain does kill his brother, God shows him mercy by protecting him.

I spent an hour or so this morning reading about the people backing the Islamic State, trying to more thoroughly understand the mentality behind the horrors in Paris. Yes, the Koran had some really awful things written in it, and the vast majority of Muslim people simply say that those particular writings do not apply today, that Islam has evolved (thank God!). Christianity, too, has evolved, it evolves as “revelation unfolds”.

I must get around to reading the Koran! I know some things I’ve read in our Holy Book, seem so far in the past of a certain way to think and what to do about certain situations, and then I’ve read parts that I can relate to in the 21st century thinking. I’ll take a guess that both books have a similar set of stories about what should be done which doesn’t happen now, and some beautiful stories of human love.
It’s such a shame that some people have used and continue to use both books to justify killings or persecution of people who do not think alike.

 

[OneSheep]

I haven’t read all of Genesis tbh, but with regards to cain killing his brother because he was jealous? that God seemed to show interest in Abels offering and none or not much in cains, when cain does kill his brother, God shows him mercy by protecting him.

Hi Simpleas,

The story of Cain and Abel is supposedly symbolic of the transition of life from nomadic herders to farmers Note that the whole idea of “burnt offerings”, found in many religions, is probably one of appeasement.

I must get around to reading the Koran! I know some things I’ve read in our Holy Book, seem so far in the past of a certain way to think and what to do about certain situations, and then I’ve read parts that I can relate to in the 21st century thinking. I’ll take a guess that both books have a similar set of stories about what should be done which doesn’t happen now, and some beautiful stories of human love.

Well, reading the Koran is worthwhile in understanding how some radicals justify their actions. It does allow for killing non-believers when taken literally, but this is supposedly only for justice and revenge (not that it makes the killing any more justified in a Christian sense). Reading all of Genesis is worthwhile. Have you read the whole NT?

It’s such a shame that some people have used and continue to use both books to justify killings or persecution of people who do not think alike.

It is very human for young people to want to belong to a “tribe”, and understandably idealistic for the whole world to belong to the same tribe. There would be one rule of the land, justice, peace and harmony would prevail, etc. Add to this the dimension of natural ingroup-outgroup thinking, and that “sets the stage” for what makes the situation turn ugly.

ISIS is seeking justice. They consist of people who are angry at having been treated unfairly, some of it by real persecution, some of it by mere neglect from their governments. They have experienced injustices, and now they want justice.

They are not K&WRG, for they do not see that God is in those that they intend to victimize. The are blinded by desire for justice and revenge. These people have a very limited knowledge of Love.

Simpleas, I want to ask what you think of this, now that we have seen this thread go awhile. I have a theory as to why people cannot come up with answers as to why people do evil when they say people K&WRG. We come up with the answers to questions about why people do things from our own self-reflection!

If a person reflects on an evil he has done with “why did I do that evil?”. His mind is already naturally in a place of self-condemnation, and his answer is quick, “I did that because I am evil or partly evil”. Case closed. End of reflection. But the thinking is circular:

Why did I do evil?
Because I am evil.
Why am I evil?
Because I do evil.
(back to top)

Original Sin adds a new loop:

Why did I do evil?
Because of original sin, I am part evil.
Why do we have original sin?
Because A&E did evil.
Why did A&E do evil?
Because they disobeyed.

added loop:

Why did they want to disobey?
Because satan tricked them.
Why were they receptive to the deception?
Because they wanted to be like gods.
Why did they want to be like gods?
Because of “pride”.
Why did they have “pride”?
Because they wanted to be like gods. And in wanting to be like gods, they did evil, they disobeyed.
(back to top)

People just stop there, they do not see that the reasoning is circular, and they are satisfied with the reasoning because it upholds and protects the underlying self-condemnation.

The gift of understanding breaks us out of the circle. If we use Jesus’ command “do not judge” (meaning do not condemn) in the process, then we have to search for deeper answers. And when we search for deeper answers, we find an underlying innocence.

“Do not judge” may be the hardest part of the whole process! We cannot find underlying innocence unless we let go of self-condemnation, and we fear such letting go!

What do you think?

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Hi Simpleas,

The story of Cain and Abel is supposedly symbolic of the transition of life from nomadic herders to farmers Note that the whole idea of “burnt offerings”, found in many religions, is probably one of appeasement.

I thought that the verse :

*13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[a]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,** east of Eden.**

Was to do with God protecting Cain after he kills Abel…

Well, reading the Koran is worthwhile in understanding how some radicals justify their actions. It does allow for killing non-believers when taken literally, but this is supposedly only for justice and revenge (not that it makes the killing any more justified in a Christian sense). Reading all of Genesis is worthwhile. Have you read the whole NT?

I have read most of Genesis, but never in any great detail, I find the O.T difficult to interpret, I have read most all N.T too.

Onesheep, I thought I did alot of thinking, but you beat me!

Will have to reply to the rest of your post later tomorrow.

Thanks *

 

[simpleas]

Hi, sorry, just had a busy day, and I hope what I reply with makes some sense!

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Simpleas, I want to ask what you think of this, now that we have seen this thread go awhile. I have a theory as to why people cannot come up with answers as to why people do evil when they say people K&WRG. We come up with the answers to questions about why people do things from our own self-reflection!

If a person reflects on an evil he has done with “why did I do that evil?”. His mind is already naturally in a place of self-condemnation, and his answer is quick, “I did that because I am evil or partly evil”. Case closed. End of reflection. But the thinking is circular:

Why did I do evil?
Because I am evil.
Why am I evil?
Because I do evil.
(back to top)

Here as I read it, you start off speaking of people who say others K&WRG but can not answer why, and then you are speaking of an individual answering why they do evil.
No one thinks they are evil until someone says they are evil IMO.

Original Sin adds a new loop:

Why did I do evil?
Because of original sin, I am part evil.
Why do we have original sin?
Because A&E did evil.
Why did A&E do evil?
Because they disobeyed.

I have never heard O.S described as a person being part evil.

added loop:

Why did they want to disobey?
Because satan tricked them.
Why were they receptive to the deception?
Because they wanted to be like gods.
Why did they want to be like gods?
Because of “pride”.
Why did they have “pride”?
Because they wanted to be like gods. And in wanting to be like gods, they did evil, they disobeyed.
(back to top)

Apparently satan only tricked the woman, the man knew exactly what he did…
The whole prideful, god wanting example isn’t that easy to understand.

People just stop there, they do not see that the reasoning is circular, and they are satisfied with the reasoning because it upholds and protects the underlying self-condemnation.

The gift of understanding breaks us out of the circle. If we use Jesus’ command “do not judge” (meaning do not condemn) in the process, then we have to search for deeper answers. And when we search for deeper answers, we find an underlying innocence.

“Do not judge” may be the hardest part of the whole process! We cannot find underlying innocence unless we let go of self-condemnation, and we fear such letting go!

What do you think?

Yes I think you are right,people like to judge, we are al guilty of this, either directly or indirectly, it’s easier not to have to think to much about the who why and what situation, we could just think, certain people are K&WRG because they do not do as we do, they aren’t really part of the church or whatever religion.
We are all innocent to begin with, like no one is born a racist, they are taught to be one.

Maybe this wasn’t how you expected me to reply, but it’s some of what I think.

Thanks