Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[frangiuliano115]

Had to? Who “forced” God to choose?

I keep reading that God “wants” everyone to be saved. (“Saved” from what? His own wrath?) If he “wants” it, he does not “want” it very much. If he really wanted it, he would made sure that everyone has a clear picture of what the choices are, and what the requirements are. Everyone, personally (if necessary) would have their own revelation. Why should we rely on a make-believe story written by unknown people thousands of years ago? Why is the story loaded with scientific and historical nonsense and inconsistencies?

If you would want your child to succeed in life, the bare minimum would be that you provide all the necessary assistance for him to succeed. Information, first of all. Physical assistance, if necessary. Not solve his problems for him, but provide what is needed for him to solve his problems. That is what a “loving” and “caring” father would do.

I read once that the worst enemy of Christianity is the Christians themselves… Whoever came up with it, had a valid point… in my opinion, of course

Had to. * Forced.* How to have a conversation with you? You hang on to every word! One has to be soooo careful. Isn’t it the concept that counts? You sure do make it difficult.

I do believe that the choices a person has are crystal clear. We don’t like them too much do we? It would require living life as we see fit and not as God sees fit. That might hinder us somewhat - wouldn’t be able to do whatever we wanted to. Can’t have that can we?

What would He want to save us from? I’ll bet you know the answer to that. I’ll be you’ve spoken to many christians who have told you but you like it to be confirmed every now and then so you could remember how stupid it all is.

See there you go again. We christians are our own worst enemy. Maybe we are because we’re not perfect, but, you know what, we’re headed for heaven!

There I go again, being silly.

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR PALLAS ATHENE

Could you please explain to me how belief is inferior to knowing?

Your post to grannmh:

Lots of things are “greater” than us. And none of them are “super-natural”. Moreover we do not need to “believe” that those greater things exist, we KNOW that they do. “**Belief” is always inferior to “knowing”. **This is why the often used biblical quote: “blessed are the ones who have not see and yet they believe” sounds like the ultimate cop-out.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God became one of us; we have families and societies. God is rational.

He could have sent “emissaries” to every nation, tribe and village. Where is the difficulty?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I like to stick to the bible.

Fine by me. In that case God’s love is not unconditional. That is what I pointed out.

Re love. Please stop putting our human attributes onto God. I think He’s slightly above that - having created the whole universe.

If human words cannot be used to describe God, then the conversation must stop. We only have human concepts and words.

Many hungry children have been fed by God. I mean, do you want Him to personally come down here and spoon feed a child in Africa?

If everything else fails, then YES.

How silly of you. Did you know that Catholic and chistian organizations do more THAN ANY OTHER CHARITY to alleviate suffering in the world? No.

Yes, and all those are people and the organizations are HUMAN made. The fact that they like to give credit to God is meaningless. Maybe you are unaware that there are non-Christian people and organizations why also try to alleviate the misery of the world.

You’re waiting for God to personally do this.

As I said, when everything else fails… a VERY important point. Miners trapped underground, dying slowly, their relatives are denied even to bury their dead. No matter how hard we try, we do not have the ways and means to help. God could, and he does not. Of course there is the incredible abyss between you and me. As far as I am concerned there is NO difference between a human and God, when they could help and refuse to do so. Neither one merits “praise”. Neither one should be called “good”.

Do you know the joke about the flooded town and the guy waiting to be rescued on his roof? Find out about it. This will answer your question.

Of course I know the JOKE. As a joke it is funny, as reality it would be very sad.

Just to clarify. Do you know the meaning of supernatural? You KNOW that these supernatural things exist. What the heck are they?

No, I don’t know about anything “supernatural”.

How do you know God doesn’t manifest Himself today? Maybe He does but you just don’t see it. I have. You must believe to see.

That is what all the proponents of the paranormal say. You are one of those “MAYBE” people, who have no argument and try to substitute this lack of argument with a “MAYBE”. Sorry, that does not work. If you say that God manifests himself TODAY, show us the example. But don’t try to bring up the Eucharist, because that is not an argument.

By the way, I could simply write the next posts for you. There is nothing in your posts I have not seen hundreds of times.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Maybe we are because we’re not perfect, but, you know what, we’re headed for heaven!

I remember the bumper sticker (here in the Deep South): “Christians are not perfect, but they are FORGIVEN!”. What a haughty, arrogant, contemptuous. fastuous phrase. Just oozes “humility”… NOT!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fine by me. In that case God’s love is not unconditional. That is what I pointed out.

If human words cannot be used to describe God, then the conversation must stop. We only have human concepts and words.

If everything else fails, then YES.

Yes, and all those are people and the organizations are HUMAN made. The fact that they like to give credit to God is meaningless. Maybe you are unaware that there are non-Christian people and organizations why also try to alleviate the misery of the world.

As I said, when everything else fails… a VERY important point. Miners trapped underground, dying slowly, their relatives are denied even to bury their dead. No matter how hard we try, we do not have the ways and means to help. God could, and he does not. Of course there is the incredible abyss between you and me. As far as I am concerned there is NO difference between a human and God, when they could help and refuse to do so. Neither one merits “praise”. Neither one should be called “good”.

Of course I know the JOKE. As a joke it is funny, as reality it would be very sad.

No, I don’t know about anything “supernatural”.

That is what all the proponents of the paranormal say. You are one of those “MAYBE” people, who have no argument and try to substitute this lack of argument with a “MAYBE”. Sorry, that does not work. If you say that God manifests himself TODAY, show us the example. But don’t try to bring up the Eucharist, because that is not an argument.

By the way, I could simply write the next posts for you. There is nothing in your posts I have not seen hundreds of times.

God’s love is conditional. It’s conditional based on your desire to choose Him. You, for instance, do not choose Him, so you cannot enjoy His love. Although His grace also falls on you - if not, no one would come to know Him. So, you’re right there. Some people say things that sound nice but are not biblical.

I didn’t mean that you can’t use the word “love” with God. I meant that our concept of love is different from God’s concept of love. And I’m not falling into the word trap. God is God. He is unfathomable. We have limited understanding of Him. Do you think that ants can understand us? It’s the same idea.

Yeah. Well, don’t hold your breath. The next time God comes down to earth it’ll be to celebrate the end. Another silly idea.

I know there are non-christian people trying to alleviate suffering. I said MOST. Give me some credit…

Yes Pallas Athene. There is a great abyss between us. And these posts will do no good to reduce that abyss.

Why would the joke be very sad as reality? The guy had two chances to be saved and didn’t take them. THAT is the sad part.

I don’t know why anybody would talk about the eucharist to show that God manifests Himself. I think that’s rather catholic of them, don’t you think? I mean, they believe He manifests Himself that way and He does. I’m talking about REALLY mainifesting Himself. I’d give you some examples too, but I don’t think you’re sincere.

If there’s nothing in my posts you haven’t seen hundreds of times, why are you here?

If I remember correctly, I told YOU we weren’t going to say anything new.

ah hum.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I remember the bumper sticker (here in the Deep South): “Christians are not perfect, but they are FORGIVEN!”. What a haughty, arrogant, contemptuous. fastuous phrase. Just oozes “humility”… NOT!

Yes. I do remember that bumper sticker. But up North where liberalism reigns supreme and where you would be more comfortable. Too many christians around you down there. It must be nervewrecking having them around you all the time. They’re so haughty, arrogant, contemptuous and righteous (not the right kind) must make you so

ANGRY.

They’re just trying to acknowledge that they’re going to make mistakes so you shouldn’t judge all of christianity based on their mistakes. But your so ANGRY that you’re not open to any concept of theirs.

BTW, Why are you so angry??

 

[OneSheep]

I have offered examples in prior threads on this subject that were rejected as valid. I won’t repeat them here.

Any act of willful disobedience of moral law is a direct rejection of God. What knowledge or act of the will is missing in these cases?

Hi David,

I looked at the last thread I participated in with you on the topic, and here was one of the last posts I sent you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12358927&highlight=david#post12358927

Hope that link works.

If I remember right, you were saying that all disobedience is a matter of knowingly and willingly rejecting God. However, you did not reply with a specific example for investigation. I brought up the fact that a person can disobey a traffic law, for example, but that does not mean that they intend to reject their nation.

Perhaps we could further investigate such an example, or another example of a disobedience that involves knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

Thanks for your patience

 

[OneSheep]

Wonderful, wonderful quote.
YES to these blue words "it is the knowledge that we are loved unconditionally by God which gives meaning to our lives.” True, true.

Now we need a complete explanation for those blue words “false treasures.” And another complete explanation for those blue words “or they can simply slumber, becoming lazy and lethargic.”

Red flag alert.

Whose “hearts can be attached to true or false treasures?” How does Pope Francis answer that important question? He says “Our hearts."

Oh.

Hi Granny,

I’m still not following you. I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. False treasures are material wealth, status, power, etc.

Yes, people can become lazy and lethargic, but do we use those words with the tone of condemnation or the tone of observation (non-negative emotion)? Are you reading the words as having condemning tones? Is that what you are trying to point out?

There comes a time to embrace our laziness and lethargy, Granny, it has its place. Compulsions can generally be so tiring, a compulsion to let go and rest can be life-giving. However, like all compulsions, we can be slaves to them…

Let me know where you are going with this, especially how it relates to this thread.

thanks

 

[OneSheep]

Likethe stadium example. Very good. I’m human and project. I don’t think I’ve ever projected my feelings on to God. 99% sure. Ah. I see. Maybe. God is infinetely loving and merciful - even though we think He might be mad at us, He’s not. Right! Christian teaching: You don’t go by your feeling but by what you KNOW.

I find it difficult to use the word sin other than to mean sin. Doing something hurtful can be a sin and it cannot be a sin. Depends on different factors.

But your question is about willfully rejecting God. Rejecting God and sinning is different!

Hi fran!

Been away a bit, will be tomorrow too. It is our wedding anniversary, 33 years and going strong!

There is a slight connection between the definition of sin and the investigation of this thread, but there is absolutely no intent to contradict the CCC. The intent, as I have stated, is to help people understand why people do what they do, which enhances forgiveness. Here is the CCC:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

I really don’t want to dwell on the CCC definition, because that is not what I was hoping this thread to address, like I said.

Here were my obeservations on the woman who has the “convenience” abortion.

There are two options, in my observation:

1. She is really, truly unknowing of the value of the child. She is ignorant.
2. She is blind. Desire, resentment, and fear blind us.

Your response:

Are you saying she is not sinning in either case?

No, she is doing something very hurtful and shows an alienation between herself and her love of life and justice.

But to me, because of ignorance, or the blindness, or both, she is not knowingly rejecting. There may be something I/we are not considering, but that is the observation I am making so far.

Well, it’s like you have to BELIEVE in order to SEE. You can’t see with all these feelings getting in the way. These feelings can be reduced though by understanding how fragile man is and how lost.

What an upside down, topsy-turvy unscientific statement. I love it, yes, we have to believe in order to see. Fran, I when I get time I am going to read more of your posts.

Okay. So now the child is unwanted. Fine. Agree on the counceling technique.

You’re not giving me the information I need, so I’ll put forth my own scenario:

Has The Woman Knowingly and Willingly Rejected God?

1. She is going to have an unwanted child.
2. She has fear and resentment.
3. We won’t even dicuss what brought her to this situation!
4. The fear and resentment is causing blindness.
5. We want to address and calm her fears.
6. We want to save the baby’s life.
7. She is a christian
8. She is familiar with christian ideals

If the baby is not saved she has rejected God.
If the baby is saved she has rejected God.

I’m a little confused. I did not intend to change the scenario, but we can add to it. In what way has she rejected God in either case?

How is projection a part of empathy?

Projection: I project my feelings onto another person…
Empathy: The other person’s feelings are being projected on to me. Almost literally.

In the case of empathy, before expression of empathy we first sort of “guess” at the other person’s feelings and we reflect back those feelings. Let’s say a person has a particular facial expression such as looking downward and slightly downturned mouth. Something in our mind identifies the face as “upset”. This is projection. We do not know exactly how the person is feeling, but the mind kind of guesses, and usually we project fairly accurately, but we don’t really know.

Next, we may say something like, “You are feeling a little down?” That is empathy.

The projection is largely unconscious. Sometimes we do project incorrectly, do we not?

Thanks again. It is great to be in conversation with you Fran.

 

[OneSheep]

Very strange. Am I the only one who sees the precondition in John 3:16

Why can’t everyone have an “everlasting” life without believing in God? Why can’t they have this everlasting life according to their own preferences? And what about that “perish” thingie? The opposite of heaven is not supposed to be a simple “perishing”, rather everlasting “life” with everlasting “torture”. Sorry, but I simply don’t get it.

Hi Pallas,

This is a side note, not really part of this thread, but let me try to explain from the world according to OneSheep.

So, what is taught in our Church is that “salvation” is not a person going to heaven. Jesus was concerned about the “Kingdom” on Earth, showing people that the Kingdom is on Earth as it is in Heaven. So, an “eternal life” begins today, not after we are 6 feet under. Jesus was concerned about saving the world, saving people, saving societies, not just individuals on their quest for a life after death.

That said, Jesus also came to “set the captives free”. Free from what? Free from the trappings of our own wonderful, God-given nature. When we are striving for wealth, status, or power, when we are caught up in grudge-holding, sickening ourselves with envy, or stuffing ourselves silly with donuts we are not free, we are slaves. When we are burdened with guilt and depression, stifled and overcome with fear, we are slaves. All of these capacities and compulsions are natural and beautiful, we can see innate corollaries in other species, but they easily distract us from something More.

John 16 “For God so loved the world,* that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.*

We “perish” in this life in our addictions, our mechanical slavery to our innate compulsions. Freedom means transcending our nature, to be “born again”, looking at our nature with loving eyes without being a slave to it. Without following and believing, we are slaves. That said, some would say that the verse is meant to be exclusive. However, our Church, “Catholic” (look up the root) is not to be exclusive, and we do not condemn other ways, we are to understand them. We are not to judge (condemn) other means of how people find themselves “born again” in some way, even if we really see the value of the “Jesus way”.

To quench our thirst, we have to get a drink. Is that a pre-condition? I suppose it can be seen that way. Regardless, God’s love and forgiveness are not conditional. God’s love and forgiveness are unconditional. No hoop to jump through. Yes, a person has to acknowledge the love and forgiveness in order for it to be meaningful to him. And, a person has to transcend his nature in order to make it all real. Otherwise, its just a lot of words - and continued slavery.

Does that make sense?

 

[davidv]

Hi David,

I looked at the last thread I participated in with you on the topic, and here was one of the last posts I sent you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12358927&highlight=david#post12358927

Hope that link works.

If I remember right, you were saying that all disobedience is a matter of knowingly and willingly rejecting God. However, you did not reply with a specific example for investigation. I brought up the fact that a person can disobey a traffic law, for example, but that does not mean that they intend to reject their nation.

Perhaps we could further investigate such an example, or another example of a disobedience that involves knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

Thanks for your patience

I think we are using very different definitions of rejecting. What is yours? Until this is resolved, further discussion will not be fruitful.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Pallas,

This is a side note, not really part of this thread, but let me try to explain from the world according to OneSheep.

So, what is taught in our Church is that “salvation” is not a person going to heaven.

In the Catholic Church, the emphasis is on each person going to heaven.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God’s love is conditional. It’s conditional based on your desire to choose Him.

I am unable to choose him, since he is so reclusive. I would be delighted to have a nice conversation with him, if only he would not be so gun-shy.

If there’s nothing in my posts you haven’t seen hundreds of times, why are you here?

Because I am an incurable optimist. We shall see how long my patience will last.

Yes. I do remember that bumper sticker. But up North where liberalism reigns supreme and where you would be more comfortable. Too many christians around you down there. It must be nervewrecking having them around you all the time.

You are mistaken. The overwhelming majority of the Christians are nice, unobtrusive people. Nothing irritating about them. The few, who know about my atheism were genuinely “shocked” by this revelation, because generally I am not different from them. The only difference is that they go to church and I don’t.

There is only a miniscule minority which are arrogant and self-righteous, and I do not socialize with them. Those who have that bumper sticker are not the kind I would wish to get close to.

By the way, I had a co-worker, a VERY nice and deeply religious person, who had a cutesy slogan displayed in his house (actually, kitchen). It said: “In this house we serve God”. The temptation was almost overwhelming, but I kept my mouth shut. The question, which I did not ask would have been: “How do you serve God”? Broiled, baked, sautéed?" Of course I would not have wanted to hurt his sensibilities. But I had a good chuckle - inside.

BTW, Why are you so angry??

Why on Earth would I be angry? Is there anything to be angry ABOUT? Since you seem to know so much about me (much more than I know about myself), maybe you could enlighten me about this “anger” I am supposed to have. Go ahead, make my day. At last I will learn something new. Which words conveyed this nonexistent “anger” to you?

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by frangiuliano115 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
God’s love is conditional. It’s conditional based on your desire to choose Him.

I am unable to choose him, since he is so reclusive. I would be delighted to have a nice conversation with him, if only he would not be so gun-shy.

I am so tired …
However, this line is so misleading, that I have to post a sentence or two. Here is the doubtful line which is not proper Catholic teaching.

God’s love is conditional. It’s conditional based on your desire to choose Him.

The Catholic Church teaches that God loves each person unconditionally. The Catholic Church teaches that each person can maintain her or his relationship with the Creator. That should be common sense considering the Catholic teachings on human nature.

When a person breaks or rejects this relationship with God by freely committing a true mortal sin, it is that person’s free choice to seek reconciliation. The condition, if you want to use the term, does not belong to God because He loves sinners unconditionally. The condition of seeking reconciliation belongs to the human.

God’s love is not always reclusive. Tonight, I saw God’s love in the green trees against an evening blue sky as I went for a very quick walk. God’s love is not reclusive because everyday Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, is present in the Eucharist.

Sometimes the only thing I can say to God is “Here I am.” That will be my prayer when I literally fall into bed.

Unfortunately, there are a few people who ignore the responsibilities of a two way relationship with God.

Even if a person does not choose God, she or he can still enjoy God’s love. All that a person has to do is to find some tall green trees touching a perfect blue sky.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

When a person breaks or rejects this relationship with God by freely committing a true mortal sin, it is that person’s free choice to seek reconciliation. The condition, if you want to use the term, does not belong to God because He loves sinners unconditionally. The condition of seeking reconciliation belongs to the human.

I will not argue with this. The question is the nature of “sin”. The definition of mortal sin is threefold, and there is no need to repeat them. We are all familiar with the definition. The question is: “what does constitute full knowledge”? I have been told innumerable times that physical love of my spouse is intrinsically disordered (read: evil) if it does not include the possibility of conception. I cannot accept this. If God wishes to enforce this “teaching”, he is welcome to approach us in PERSON, and tell us. But until that happens, it is nothing but a human concoction.

God’s love is not always reclusive. Tonight, I saw God’s love in the green trees against an evening blue sky as I went for a very quick walk.

Very nice and poetic. I love to sit on our back porch in the hammock and enjoy the fall of the night. However that is only one side of the picture. I can see that someone looks at the evening sky and enjoys the stillness as the birds return to their nest and attributes all that beauty to God… but then she forgets the screams of the ones in mortal pain, the lack of comfort of the parents whose child has been abducted, raped and tortured by some psychopath.

If you wish to attribute the undeniable beauty of NATURE to God… that is fine. But you should not stop halfway. When you see the uncaring side of nature, the microbes that cause HIV, leprosy and other diseases, then you MUST blame God for allowing all the negative aspects of “nature”. You cannot “blame” Satan for the evil, because Satan (if exists) can only operate with the explicit or tacit approval of God. Cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[OneSheep]

In the Catholic Church, the emphasis is on each person going to heaven.

Hi Granny,

I suggest reading Introduction to Christianity by Cardinal Ratzinger. I could get several good quotes out of my copy for you, but it is a diversion on this thread.

Thanks for your reply, but are you ever actually going to address the OP?

 

[OneSheep]

I think we are using very different definitions of rejecting. What is yours? Until this is resolved, further discussion will not be fruitful.

Wow, David, thanks for adding a real philosophical voice to this thread. I’ll look up a defn. on the web:

Merriam-Webster:

Rejection: to refuse to believe, accept, or consider (something)

Does that work for you? Here are some other very important definitions, at least this is my use:

Knowingly: Having full knowledge of all the circumstances, values, options, consequences, and any other bit of information pertinent to a decision. “Knowledge” must be accessible, not blocked out by emotional triggers, nor compromised by irrationality. Irrationality is not evidence of “knowingly”, quite the opposite.

Willingly: Having the intent. In this case, having the intent to reject the true God. Plenty of people probably knowingly and willingly reject false gods, though it might be possible to argue that we don’t “knowingly” do anything under my strict definition.

Thanks, great idea!!

 

[OneSheep]

Very nice and poetic. I love to sit on our back porch in the hammock and enjoy the fall of the night. However that is only one side of the picture. I can see that someone looks at the evening sky and enjoys the stillness as the birds return to their nest and attributes all that beauty to God… but then she forgets the screams of the ones in mortal pain, the lack of comfort of the parents whose child has been abducted, raped and tortured by some psychopath.

If you wish to attribute the undeniable beauty of NATURE to God… that is fine. But you should not stop halfway. When you see the uncaring side of nature, the microbes that cause HIV, leprosy and other diseases, then you MUST blame God for allowing all the negative aspects of “nature”. You cannot “blame” Satan for the evil, because Satan (if exists) can only operate with the explicit or tacit approval of God. Cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Here I go breaking my rule again, but I cannot resist this one.

Those microbes are all part of the creation of man. Microbial DNA is a big part of all the extra “unused” stuff in the nuclei of cells. It may eventually have a function. No one knows how many phenotypic changes inthe human are due to some of that “stuff” finally being triggered to create.

Got any other natural occurrences difficult to incorporate under a beneficent God? Well, I can think of many. The process of creation is violent, and a lot of it does not make sense if there is a beneficent God.

So, if the violence does not make sense to you, you are not alone.

Darwin was an optimist, I think. And Christian.

 

[Vico]

From a homily at St.Peter’s Basilica, by Fr. Raniero Cantalmessa:

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

vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/documents/holy-week_homily-fr-cantalamessa_20090410_en.html

However, has any person been “anxious to fight him” knowingly and willingly? I am looking for an example of this. Ignorance is a huge, if not essential, part of human sin. Can such ignorance be understood and forgiven, or are there instances when a person can indeed be condemned?

Note: I am using “knowingly and willingly” in the broadest sense, i.e. those who crucified Jesus did not do so knowingly and willingly. They “willed” it in terms of choice, but their choice was in ignorance (and in this case, the ignorance was held blameless).

Feel free to make an assertion in your answer, but please provide an example.

Thanks!

The Catholic Church teaches, in the Catechism, that it is possible:1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Matthew 23:
13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter. **14 **Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

Matthew 26
**20 **But when it was evening, he sat down with his twelve disciples. 21 And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. 22 And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord? 23 But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. 24 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. 25 And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.

John 8
42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not. 46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? 47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.

Matthew 7
13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.
14 How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!