Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[frangiuliano115]

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 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.

Don’t be so tired grannymh. It’s fun talking about God. Can’t do this with too many people,now can we??

You see, I know I’m right that God loves us conditionally. Maybe you could stop reading the CCC and concentrate a bit more on the bible and on all the other teachings of our church that are not even found in the CCC.

God loves each one of us unconditionally but in a very general sense. If He loves everyone so much, why does He ALLOW them to go to hell? PLEASE don’t reply that He doesn’t send us and that it’s our choice. Then why create hell to begin with if He loves us so much?

You know, sometimes to make a point in these threads, I feel like I have to say things that are almost blaspehmous.

You make a fundamental mistake. You speak as though EVERYONE is christian. But they’re not.

God loves christians unconditionally.

FIRST you have to ACCEPT him to be loved. Is this not clear?

Who can commit a mortal sin? ONLY A CHRISTIAN.

How can a non-christian commit a mortal sin? They’re already lost by not accepting God. They’ve already commited the unpardonable sin - which I’m sure you’re familiar with.

An atheist back there, for goodness sake, gave you the scripture on this:

“for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”.

So those that don’t believe in Him are perishing. They don’t care about mortal sin!

Please study up on the Mosaic Covenant. I can’t do that here for you. Please respond to these questions:

Are covenants conditional or unconditional?
Okay. Now:
What was the condition for the Mosaic Covenant?

People who are always throwing the CCC in my face (and I know the CCC well having taught from it) are always so legalistic. I can hardly stand it anymore. Is God not more than that?

Oh. And by the way. I asked you a very specific question either on this thread or a different one, no time ot look it up. Wish I had more time for this… Anyway, it was about the Wedding Banquet. You never responded and I think the answer might help you along with your legalism problem. And I DO think legalism is a problem.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

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

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.

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?

I’m sorry Pallas Athene, can’t do that quote thing. It just takes too much time. Let’s go by pp, okay?

God is not reclusive. He is just invisible to the eye (but not to the senses) and is not a being like we are. You’re never going to “see” Him in that sense. You can see Him in other ways. I’ll bet you’ve read the book of Romans. You sound so well-versed. Good to know your opponent. Anyway, do you remember Romans 1:18.19?

He’s just “reclusive” in your understanding. I don’t think He is; He’s not hiding, He’s made Himself know to the world (see, we are speaking about Him) and I would also say He takes an active part in it. We christians believe He holds everything together. BTW, have you heard of the Higgs boson particle? Go figure. They’re nicknaming it The God Particle. It’s too good.

Um. Your patience. Usually people who have little or no patience are also a bit angry. They could be angry at different thing: The fact that they have to wait, the fact that the answer is not forthcoming, etc.

Plus, what should I say? That we should all be concerned with how long your patience will last? Kind of puts us on the spot to hurry up and give you all the proper clues.

Your next 3 pp are nice and spoken like a nice and reasonable person would speak. Even the last one which is really funny. I thought of the same thing myself when reading: In This House We Serve God. In fact, my brain works quick and I even though of something rather more gruesome, which we won’t get into. There was an episode of this on The Twilight Zone back in the dark ages.

Re your anger. I do apologize if I went overboard. But you do sound upset. As many atheists are and I’d really like to understand why but we could never get beyond the God Doesn’t Exist thing. Also, you kind of insulted me on a different thread and I kind of hold that against you since you also don’t know me.

But here you are. Trying to change the subject and get me to talk about your anger. No can do. How about this. How about answering a question I had:

Could you explain to me how belief is inferior to knowing. In post 100 you say:

** 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.
**

I really would like to know your thinking on this.

Oh. As I was checking back for your post, I came acroos the Love quote by Pope John Paul. He was speaking of Love in general and of course love IS unconditional or it wouldn’t be real love. But I can’t read all He said. I can’t believe He was speaking of christian theology. You could refer to my letter to grannymh.

And the emisseries God could have sent out into the world (your post to grannymh??): I think they’re called priests and pastors and ministers. And, BTW, many christian people who not only testify with words, but also quietly by their lives.

And your coal miner scenario. Yeah. I agree. I’d like that too. But He’s not of this world. It’s like if we became an ant to try and help them built their abodes. This is a big concept BTW. Wish you’d think about it. God is out of space and time and all that. But I know, that’s a cop out too. Why give it some serious thought. Or maybe you have and your final thought is that He really should make appearances all the time, at all moments of the day, in all places on earth. Gee, then why didn’t He just create a perfect environment and save Himself the trouble???

Since I’m here, could I also comment on your correction (to me) of the word agnostic being used alone. Grannymh might be willing to accept your definition, and it is correct, but gosh. There we go with the word thing again. Is not the conversation more important?
English: Theist. Atheist. Moral. Amoral. Social. Asocial. Okay. We get it.
Can we not just cut downto agnositc and not have to say agnostic atheist??? What’s the difference when the conversation is about God and not english???

Your soooo preeeeciiise! Please use Nicky Minaj accent when saying that.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR GRANNYMH

Came across my post re the Wedding Banquet. Check out no. 89.

I’d be interested in your reply, if you care to reply.

Fran

 

[grannymh]

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.

My life is back to normal… A “normal” in my life is rare.

As I started this reply, I realized that any kind of human sense about the supernatural has to be due to the Catholic teachings on Adam and Eve as the sole first parents of humankind. Adam began life in a real relationship with his Creator. Catholic teachings include the fact that Adam freely decided to break his relationship with God. Skipping to female fertility, succeeding generations became larger and larger and moved farther and farther away from Adam and Eve. And as we all know, not all children stay in line with their parent’s thinking. The story about Adam’s original relationship with God was adapted or lost to suit personal preferences of those who rebelled. That is still happening today.

In using the phrase, sense of the supernatural, I picture the first true humans knowing lots of things from their own natural experiences. “Knowing” came about because these things existed in space and time. Yet, being rational, humans, regardless of their place in history, are capable of self-reflective thinking. It is here where the some sense of the supernatural remains as one questions the purpose and goal of one’s own life.

When I look at the beginning of human history, it sounds like it is humans who created God.

Of course it does. Some kind of rituals were in use since the stone age - eons before the Christian God allegedly manifested himself.

It is strange that Yahweh only manifested himself to a small, insignificant tribe in the Middle East, and bypassed the huge and extremely developed Chinese empire. It is also strange that God never manifests himself in our day and age, when those manifestations could be widely recorded.

It is precisely those rituals which are evidence that God manifested Himself to Adam and Eve. The idea that there had been a relationship between a supreme Creator and His creature remained in human nature. That is my observation. What other reason could account for the rituals? Please keep in mind that the human sense of the super-natural does not always result in the good and beautiful.

One of the benefits of two sole first parents of humankind is that the unity of humankind is assured. Practically speaking, God manifested Himself to all future humans as if humanity per se was in Adam as one body of one man.

Fast forward to us. A simple sentence of Jesus is my favorite. John 14: 18. “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” Jesus, truly present in the Catholic Eucharist is the fulfillment of that sentence. Jesus is also present to us in the Gospel message. Jesus is present to us when care for the hungry, the homeless, and the hopeless.

Apparently, I have a different view of evil from everyone else. I see it as a result of freely chosen actions in human history, past and present.

"The obvious procedure was the human desire to explain their surroundings. Seeing all the “inexplicable” events (and pretty much everything was inexplicable in the beginning) they invented all sorts of “gods”. These gods were all pretty “malevolent”, so the primitive humans invented ways and means to placate and appease them. Sometimes it “worked”, most other times it did not. Typical human fashion, the positive outcomes were used as “reinforcement” of the beliefs, while the negative ones were swept under the rug, by saying that the shamans made a mistake in offering the sacrifice… or something equally inane. The same principle is still in use. Prayers allegedly are “answered”, and when they seem to be “answered” in a positive fashion, God is always praised for his benevolence… but when the “answer” is negative, then the supplicant made an incorrect request… nothing new under the Sun.

The first two-thirds of the “desire to explain their surroundings” is evidence of looking for something super-natural since real explanations were not being found in nature. Eventually science would make my favorite Greek and Roman gods disappear.

Pardon me. But the approach to prayer misses a lot of what prayer can really be. God’s “negative answers” is another way of avoiding evil as being the result of a human action. Ever since Genesis 3: 12, some, not all, humans want to ignore responsibility for their freely chosen actions. We see that in all kinds of discussions.

I hope you do not see this reply as something negative. I am simply adding to the explanations by giving a different view of them. And you may find that there are more explanations. My world has a lot of both-and in it.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

You are having your cake, eating it and asking for more! Yet you complain about the drawbacks of life as if you can have everything for nothing. Alas, that is a fool’s paradise because only a fool believes a perfect world is feasible. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage… unless you can produce an exception…

 

[grannymh]

FOR GRANNYMH

Came across my post re the Wedding Banquet. Check out no. 89.

I’d be interested in your reply, if you care to reply.

Fran

I did not have a reply.

I try to avoid scripture duels when possible. You referred to the state of mortal sin so that was sufficient. As for clothing – you would be referring to the power of God to touch a soul. If I am wrong about the clothing, I apologize. That concludes my end of the discussion.

This is a free speech public message board. Thus, it is not always necessary to respond to free speech questions. Nor is it always necessary to participate in every free speech discussion. As for unavoidable scripture duels, I strongly object to the hidden attacks against the divinity of Jesus which occasionally occur on a public message board. There are a number of other verses which lead to a variety of personal opinions.

I prefer the Catholic teachings found in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[simpleas]

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

How about no 3

She does not want a child…

I read recently that many women abort because they did not want the baby, or more children, and that they resent being labelled as blind or ignorant.

PS Happy Anniversary to you both

 

[OneSheep]

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.
…
​

Vico, my Brother!

I will always remember you fondly, Vico. Do you remember the other thread where we had this conversation?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=879640

You were one of the patient few willing to complete the investigation, and I thank you. You may have considered it a waste of time, but I learned a great deal. As often as I have heard the importance of defining ones’ terms, our investigation did not, and in the end we ended up both “right” based on our own use of the terms.

In the example you put forth, the sinner was irrational. He was behaving completely against his beliefs for a reason that was not his priority, yet he was completely clear-headed and not blind.

Arguably, the person was practically insane, which to me was not “knowingly”, but it was the irrationality part that already showed that he was not in the knowing. If he was not blind, something was misaligned in his mind.

You, on the other hand, included irrationality in the realm of “knowingly”, so in your view you had proven your case. All good!

Thanks again.

P.S. Did you want to further explore irrational behavior?​

 

[OneSheep]

How about no 3

She does not want a child…

I read recently that many women abort because they did not want the baby, or more children, and that they resent being labelled as blind or ignorant.

PS Happy Anniversary to you both

Hi Simpleas!

Great point! Absolutely No One likes to be labeled as blind or ignorant. I would put it more gently: they are lacking in awareness.

The fact is, if the mother cherished the life of her unwanted child she would take the child to term and put it up for adoption, right?

So, if a person does not “want” the child, that is one issue. If the person does not “want” the pregnancy, then the ending of that pregnancy involves destroying something infinitely precious. Do you see what I mean? That is where we run into the two cases I presented.

Thanks. My wife and I are very happy together, very much in love.

 

[OneSheep]

(to Granny)

You make a fundamental mistake. You speak as though EVERYONE is christian. But they’re not.

God loves christians unconditionally.

FIRST you have to ACCEPT him to be loved. Is this not clear?

Good Morning Fran!

It is very understandable to think that God only loves people who accept Him, it is very difficult for humans to project that God loves everyone unconditionally, because it is not part of our nature to love people who do not accept us, right?

However, you may recall that Jesus said:

Matthew 5:46-47English Standard Version (ESV)

46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[a] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Jesus calls us to “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. So if God’s “perfection” means to love unconditionally only those who accept Him, then we could use that as the model of our own perfection. However, not only does Jesus call us to love those who don’t accept us, he calls us to love our enemies.

The line from Fr. Cantalmessa in the OP is appropriate here. We are in for some surprises, because there are so many people we humans do not love and/or find obnoxious or worse, but they are loved and embraced by God anyway. Does it work in the other direction? Is it possible that I love and forgive someone that God does not? That is a topic for another thread.

In the mean time, I look forward to your reply to post 110. We had a great start, but we need to focus.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Hi fran!

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

May God bless you on your wedding anniversary.
And may you have another 33 years to enjoy your married lives.

 

[christofirst]

My vote goes to: No, we do not ever knowingly nor willingly reject God.

The reading today from St. Paul reinforces my belief:

"I was once a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief."

St. Paul certainly knew what he was doing before his conversion, a conversion which was a grace from God. God opened his eyes for him in such a way that the truth could not be denied, just as I pray He will do for all of us at some point in our lives.

 

[OneSheep]

May God bless you on your wedding anniversary.
And may you have another 33 years to enjoy your married lives.

Thank you Granny.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi fran!

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

CONGRATULATIONS! All good wishes to you and your wife. (I think you’re a boy). And many more to come.

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:

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.

Listen One Sheep. I’m going to answer you but we have to go thru the back gate because I fear I may not be a good candidate for your experiment. We have to address a problem I have with our church.

I read all of Fr. Cantalamessa’s (sing the Mass, it’s funny) homily. Now really good homilies bring tears to my eyes; this was a really good homily. 25 paragraphs I could not agree with more, but with hidden theological concepts which I WISH the church would just explain. But then, and here we go again, paragraph no. 21, which is your original quote on the first page.

What the heck does it mean? His homily is about not believing in God. Atheists. Where our world is headed; not only for matters such as abortion or SSM, but just for christianity. Will it still be here 50 yrs from now? Will we be a small and insignificant remnant like the Jews that were enslaved by Babylon or Assyria?

The church always falls short of proclaiming that not believing in God will make one be lost. I’d like to hear it in so many words; simple and easy. With no fear of hurting anyones feelings. No fear of ending up with an empty church. Maybe many will leave, but the ones who remain will be real christians.

ONE

 

[frangiuliano115]

TWO

Now here’s why I may not be of any help: For me it’s just too easy. Now I read his homily because I’ve come to believe you’re a very intelligent person and I’m a bit worried that I’m just not getting it and that there must be more to this. But I’m having difficulty thinking beyond the following:

YET GOD’S JUSTICE IS DIFFERENT FROM OURS AND IF HE SEES GOOD FAITH OR BLAMELESS IGNORANCE HE SAVES…

Good Faith: I could have all the good faith I want. Do I believe in God or not?? If not, the good faith will do me no good. I think he’s misspeaking or not clarifying. Romans states this clearly. The CCC states only that good works could bring to salvation. Falling short again.

Blameless Ignorance: If it’s true blameless ignorance the person is saved. God is a just God.

HE SAVES EVEN THOSE WHO HAD BEEN ANXIOUS TO FIGHT HIM IN THEIR LIVES.

Huh? He must mean something he didn’t express. If I’m fighting Him it means I know about Him and that I reject Him. That means I’m lost. It seems really cut and dry.

The line about the sheep outside and the wolves inside is good but it means something totally different. I could be a believer living outside the church. OR I could be living inside the church and not even be a believer.

Now catch the beginning of pp 22. So the persons above who were not saved have been turned into impassioned apostles. Okay. This is correct. IF they are turned into apostles before dying, they are saved. Why doesn’t he just say this?

So for me it’s all about being saved or not. Before I could consider the woman aborting, I need to have this information or I can’t continue. All my thinking hinges on this.

I say all this to find out if you even would agree with me. If not, there’s nowhere left to go because we have such a fundamental difference in condepts or theology I should say.

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?

My reply hinges on no’s 7 and 8. If they are correct the she has rejected God in either case. If she aborts, easy. If she doesn’t: Wouldn’t you say that the very fact that she is expecting a baby is sinful? Would that not be a rejection of God?

I hate to sound like a legalist - but you force me to! I’m living under Grace, thank God.

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.

I still don’t understand. Are you a psycologist? Unfortunately for me, I happen to be one of those persons that has empathy. The definition in our mind of how they’re feeling is different for me than projection. Also, empathy is not asking how they feel. I see that as concern. Empathy is almost FEELING what they’re feeling. But let’s leave it at that. I’m kinda worried you might send me a bill.

Yes. It’s great to have these conversations. Not too many christian people that would even understand - unfortunately.

God Bless
P.S. Never got back to you on John 13:5-8 Is it really about service? Yes. Well that too. How about the capability to accept love and forgiveness? Jesus wanted to wash Peter’s feet. He loved Peter. Peter said “never”. He couldn’t accept that love. Accepting love is not easy.

 

[OneSheep]

My vote goes to: No, we do not ever knowingly nor willingly reject God.

The reading today from St. Paul reinforces my belief:

"I was once a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief."

St. Paul certainly knew what he was doing before his conversion, a conversion which was a grace from God. God opened his eyes for him in such a way that the truth could not be denied, just as I pray He will do for all of us at some point in our lives.

Welcome, christofirst!

So, I am confused. Are you saying that Saul “knew what he was doing” in a more superficial sense? As you point out, he said that he was ignorant, which indicates congruity with your first statement, that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God.

Our “eye opening”, in my experience, takes some effort on our part. Our eyes are opened as we actively love, forgive, and serve one another.

I think Paul’s “eye opening” is more like that of Rev. Carlton Pearson, who sort of shocked himself when he realized that his thinking was condemning of certain people. It is a matter of suddenly seeing a deep humanity where we once did not. Yes, it is miraculous.

I pray with you for this miracle, this grace, christofirst. May those of ISIS suddenly see the humanity of those they find bad, evil, or worthless. May those of all tribes and affiliations see the humanity of their enemies. May they all learn how to forgive.

Amen.

 

[Aloysium]

My vote goes to: No, we do not ever knowingly nor willingly reject God. . . . "I was once a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief."

St. Paul certainly knew what he was doing before his conversion, a conversion which was a grace from God. God opened his eyes for him in such a way that the truth could not be denied, just as I pray He will do for all of us at some point in our lives.

The verse from St Paul does not justify your point of view that a mortal sin is not a rejection of God.
Someone who is a blasphemer, a persecutor of Christ’s church and an arrogant man is clearly rejecting God who is love.
He exhibits a clear abuse of our God-given freedom that allows us to love Him and one another.
You are treating this as merely an intellectual understanding/faith/knowledge. We know love as it is written in our hearts.
That God shows us infinite mercy does not take away from the seriousness of sin.
I pray that God open our hearts.

 

[OneSheep]

CONGRATULATIONS! All good wishes to you and your wife. (I think you’re a boy). And many more to come.

Thank you. A boy? Well, sometimes I feel like a kid!

The church always falls short of proclaiming that not believing in God will make one be lost. I’d like to hear it in so many words; simple and easy. With no fear of hurting anyones feelings. No fear of ending up with an empty church. Maybe many will leave, but the ones who remain will be real christians.

Okay, I will say it. Not believing in God made me lost.

If instead, I say to the atheist “If you do not believe in God, you are condemned!” then what am I saying about God? That God condemns people for not meeting a certain condition? (belief) This kind of goes with my last post to you.

Take a look at this from Pope Benedict, who was then Cardinal Ratzinger:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

It is a bit heavy, but not bad. It helps to read it several times, as it is packed with information. Let me know if you have trouble with parts, and let me know if you would like me to PM a summary.

Must get to work. I will answer your next post later, or tomorrow I hope.

God Bless your day.

 

[grannymh]

My vote goes to: No, we do not ever knowingly nor willingly reject God.

That is a beautiful description of humans. May we all live up to that. We have a choice.

However, that description does not apply to our original human parent, the first true human Adam according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am referring to the real teachings and not the substitute teachings which water down Christ’s divinity when He hung bleeding from a cross.

Here are the facts according to the Catholic Church, not some community tent .

The best reliable example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God – we have Divine Revelation as a source of evidence – is the first human Adam as described in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Adam can be described as having a material anatomy and spiritual soul united as one single nature. As you check the historical events in the first three chapters of Genesis, you should begin with the dramatic shift from Genesis 1:25 to Genesis 1: 26. All those animals can certainly be considered as historical. I also believe that God as Creator can be considered historical. Are there any doubts about an historical God?

On CAF, there are a lot of references regarding Adam’s human nature. Unlike some, not all, Catholics, I do not intend to describe Adam as a symbol or a figure of speech or as described by some as non-existent. I am not going to waste readers’ time discussing a human being who never existed according to some unnamed popular public authors and speakers who are influencing a lot of ordinary folk.

Therefore, my description is that Adam, the first real human being, is a normal human being, in the state of sanctifying grace, who was given extra gifts by his Creator. These extra gifts depended on Adam remaining in his relationship with his Creator. Simply put. Adam refused to recognize the limits of a normal human in a relationship with the Creator Who is divine. Adam freely shattered his relationship with God with his disobedience known as the Original Sin. This is the only sin which can be called original because there can only be one original human.

By definition and common sense, a shattered, broken, destroyed relationship means that one party Adam rejected the other party God.

 

[christofirst]

Welcome, christofirst!

So, I am confused. Are you saying that Saul “knew what he was doing” in a more superficial sense? As you point out, he said that he was ignorant, which indicates congruity with your first statement, that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God.

Our “eye opening”, in my experience, takes some effort on our part. Our eyes are opened as we actively love, forgive, and serve one another.

I think Paul’s “eye opening” is more like that of Rev. Carlton Pearson, who sort of shocked himself when he realized that his thinking was condemning of certain people. It is a matter of suddenly seeing a deep humanity where we once did not. Yes, it is miraculous.

I pray with you for this miracle, this grace, christofirst. May those of ISIS suddenly see the humanity of those they find bad, evil, or worthless. May those of all tribes and affiliations see the humanity of their enemies. May they all learn how to forgive.

Amen.

I’m saying that Paul, like those who killed Our Lord, thought that what they were doing was right, but they were wrong. They were blind to the truth, until, as in Paul’s case, God opened their eyes.

Anyone who appears to knowingly and willingly reject God does so out of ignorance, or any other number of possible reasons, such as pride, or stubbornness, or foolishness, and God can break through all of that (and since He desires that all be saved, I think He will, at least. I hope He will).

The possibility remains that someone could still reject God, as the Church teaches, but I cannot see how anyone ever would, once they come to truly know God’s love.

Anyway, I join my prayer with yours concerning those afflicted by, and also for those causing so much suffering today.