Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[christofirst]

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 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.

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

And yet many icons which depict the events following the Resurrection of Our Lord show Him reaching out to Adam and Eve to bring them into Paradise. Not a few people besides myself clearly hold out hope for even poor old Adam and Eve, that at some point they made the right choice.

forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=22315&stc=1&d=1441985553

 

[simpleas]

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.

I don’t think that they are lacking awareness, in cases where a couple are married and already have a family, abortion takes place because of many reasons. They cherish the family they have no doubt, yet can still make the decision not to proceed with the pregnancy.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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?

BEAUTIFUL!

Now there’s a homily!

I’d just say that the only condition to God’s love is that we accept Him.

God bless you

 

[grannymh]

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.

I cannot imagine the words “intrinsically disordered” referring to normal physical love between married people. The comfort and support of physical love is a regular part of marriage. And I do think that “being open to conception” is the better terminology. There are lots of days when there is no possibility of conception. Still, a couple is open to conception. That is as far as I go with that conversation

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.

I am beginning to understand why my daughter, about to give birth to my first grandchild, named me granny after the granny in Beverly Hillbillies. I have my own ways of looking at what is going on in life. To me, it seems obvious that evil is a result of something. Sometimes that something is an action of an evil (as a descriptive adjective) human. Sometimes that something is nature, which at times, is beyond human admiration. To me, the nature of sin is that it is a result. I do not see sin as a result of God’s actions. I suppose one can wiggle that because God gave humans a rational intellect and the capability of choice, He somehow dismantles human nature per se. That does not make sense in my eyes.

I do not understand why God allows evil. To me, it is more important to accept God’s long range plan of bringing people to Himself after bodily death. My inherent sense of the super-natural is that because human nature is essentially good, even though it often chooses actions which results in evil, God, being super-natural, must be super-good. I am definitely a “granny.”

 

[davidv]

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!!

Thank you for defining what you mean.

Since these definitions are different from what I see in the way the Church defines sin, I don’t see the point of the OP topic question.

Why should these definitions apply in discussions of morality or Church teachings?

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Big flaw in your thinking. Paul didn’t know Jesus was God when he was persecuting the christians, or converted Jews. Thus he acted out of ignorance; he did not have the correct knowledge.

AFTER he was converted on his way to Damascus, he realized that he had been blind before. IF he had, after the conversion experience, rejected God, then he would have done it knowingly.

God bless

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you for defining what you mean.

Since these definitions are different from what I see in the way the Church defines sin, I don’t see the point of the OP topic question.

Why should these definitions apply in discussions of morality or Church teachings?

Hi David,

I guess the most applicable aspect of this thread to morality is the morality of forgiveness. Forgiveness from the heart (vs. out of fear or other) is greatly enhanced by the gift of understanding. One of the most difficult things to understand about the behavior of others, and especially ourselves, is the role that lack of awareness and blindness play in our immoral behaviors.

In other words, once I can see the blindness of my brother, and I take ownership of my own blindness, then I can find it easier to forgive. Mature forgiveness also involves a lot of prayer and getting beyond the feeling of lack of control; it cannot be forced, it can be inspired.

So, if there is any human behavior that you have a particularly difficult time forgiving (i.e. you continue to resent people who do this_____ or belong to this _______ group), this is a good place to bring forward an example, and we can go through the steps to understand, and ultimately forgive.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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!

I’m going back because I missed a lot but I already answered no. 110 which you’ve seen by now.

Love. Conditional. Unconditional. Yes. it deserves an explanation or I’ll be misunderstood.

Mathew 5:46 is speaking about US. We must love everyone, even our enemies. SO, are you saying that God loves his enemies too?

Okay. God loves everyone because He created everyone. A father loves all his children.In this way He loves everyone. Because God is love.

Now if His love were truly unconditional, He would save everyone, but Jesus said that there were conditions to be met. People were not in accord with God, they needed to change. If you need to change it means that there is a condition. The condition is faith.

This unconditional idea is often used by atheists to say that no matter what they believe they will be saved in the end because God loves everyone and will not send anyone to hell.

Now, of course, he loves us as a father would and His grace falls on all, or else no one would be able to come to saving knowledge.

I’d use the example of the father/child but you’re going to say I’m projecting! A father loves his child, but if that child keeps beating up the father eventually the father will not love him so much anymore and will eventually disown him, if he could. A human example, but it could work.

This is off the topic so I’d like to end, but I would like to just mention the Mosaic Covenant. “I will be your God and you will be my people.” It was a conditional covenant. The condition was that the people had to have faith. There were blessings and curses; see Deuteronomy 28.

As for your question:

"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? "

Each example is possible. We’re not God! He has different rules, as Fr. Cantalamessa testifies to.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Yeah.

Too many concepts
Not enough Jesus

Too bad about the Wedding Banquet. You might have liked the outcome.
It’s not in the CCC.

God bless

 

[HelenRose]

Try these statements out and see if they fit.

“I will be damned before I ask my brother-in-law’s forgiveness.”

“I will be damned before I will allow the Church, or any other (&^) person tell me what I can do.”

“I will be damned before I forgive that @#^%^&%$ brother of mine.”

“God doesn’t mean a damn to me.”

“I am master of my own fate. I don’t need God.”

“I did it my way. To hell with the @Q#%#! scriptures.”

Yes, people do, did and will, with full knowledge reject God and His Mercy. Satan did.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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

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.

One Sheep,

Have you not noticed that I know my theology?

I read the link, once. Nothing new there for me.

I MUST insist that God does condemn people for not meeting a certain criteria. BELIEF.

If God does not condemn then we are all going to heaven!

Do you believe this??

God bless
Fran

 

[grannymh]

For general information.

I now have a printed copy of the homily in post 1. I was having trouble highlighting the significant information on my screen. Yes, I know that is a “dumb blonde” joke.

The first thing I noticed is that the homily assumes that those in attendance know all the doctrines involving Original Sin and thus understand some brief statements. Sometimes, a clarifying word needs to be recognized. For example. In the opening of the homily, there is this familiar statement. “For us Christ became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” Once we think “human” before the word death, we can start to understand the physical suffering of Christ, True Man and True God.

The translated prayer at the end of the homily asks that “ all may recognize the signs of Your goodness”. CCC 1260 affirms that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Obviously, the homily assumes that the people in attendance were very familiar with the precise *CCC *1730-1732 which provides the balance to the presented truth.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

You think those who killed Christ thought that what they were doing was right? You think the pharisees and sadducees had his “trial” in the evening (which was prohibited) without waiting 24 hours (which was prohibited) and, really, without witnesses (which was prohibited) because they thought they were right? I’m afraid not. They wanted to keep their status quo and Jesus was a danger.

When were their eyes opened? I missed that part. A few of them did come to believe, maybe you mean them, like the Roman Centurian, or maybe you mean the jews who would convert. Not important. Certainly the eyes of the Ph and Sadu were not opened.

You don’t think anyone could reject God once they come to know him? I agree with you that it’s a pretty horrible state of affairs. But you must have heard of backsliding, or mortal sin in the catholic church, or here’s what Peter says: 2 Peter 20-22 (too long to type). Basically that anyone who knew God and abandons Him (return to the world) is like a dog returning to his vomit.

God desires all to be saved, but it’s our choice to accept. If I brought you a gift, would you accept it?

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean if you personally would accept the gift. I think you already have.

I shouldn’t be doing this in the late evening!

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

For general information.

I now have a printed copy of the homily in post 1. I was having trouble highlighting the significant information on my screen. Yes, I know that is a “dumb blonde” joke.

The first thing I noticed is that the homily assumes that those in attendance know all the doctrines involving Original Sin and thus understand some brief statements. Sometimes, a clarifying word needs to be recognized. For example. In the opening of the homily, there is this familiar statement. “For us Christ became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” Once we think “human” before the word death, we can start to understand the physical suffering of Christ, True Man and True God.

The translated prayer at the end of the homily asks that “ all may recognize the signs of Your goodness”. CCC 1260 affirms that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Obviously, the homily assumes that the people in attendance were very familiar with the precise *CCC *1730-1732 which provides the balance to the presented truth.

Well, grannymh.

I finally agree with you!

God bless

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I cannot imagine the words “intrinsically disordered” referring to normal physical love between married people.

I bet that the phrase “normal physical love” means something different for you and me… and I hope that I am wrong. In my world whatever the married couple does in their bedroom with mutual agreement - is normal. Yes, even if they invite some third or fourth person to share their intimacy, as long as all the parties agree, it is normal.

The comfort and support of physical love is a regular part of marriage. And I do think that “being open to conception” is the better terminology. There are lots of days when there is no possibility of conception. Still, a couple is open to conception.

Let’s use your terminology. Even if “knob A” is not inserted into “hole B”, they are “open” to conception. Maybe God will have to lend a minor “helping hand”, but if the woman had a hysterectomy and/or lost both of her ovaries due to some unfortunate tubal pregnancy, the same kind of “help” would be necessary on God’s part in order to achieve that conception. So what if the “knob A” is not inserted into “hole B”? Is that an obstacle to the omnipotent being? And yet, there is a condemnation to extra-vaginal intercourse… for no good reasons.

Not to mention that I have never seen a rational explanation for “why” should people ALWAYS be open to procreation. The average couple has about 2.2 children - which is already more than enough.

I do not understand why God allows evil.

And that is where I see the problem. If there is no rational argument for allowing that “evil”, then the acceptance of it amounts to “blind faith”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

The generally accepted definition of “knowledge” is justified true belief. From here you can work it out why a “justified” and “true” belief is superior to simple, unqualified belief. It is not a rocket science.

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?

A conversation without properly defined terms is useless.

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???

No, we cannot. There are “gnostic theists”, “agnostic theists”, “gnostic atheists” and “agnostic atheists”. Yes, I insist on using the proper terms. The words “theist” and “atheist” are metaphysical terms. The words “gnostic” and “agnostic” are epistemological terms. Very different subjects.

 

[davidv]

I’m going back because I missed a lot but I already answered no. 110 which you’ve seen by now.

Love. Conditional. Unconditional. Yes. it deserves an explanation or I’ll be misunderstood.

Mathew 5:46 is speaking about US. We must love everyone, even our enemies. SO, are you saying that God loves his enemies too?

Okay. God loves everyone because He created everyone. A father loves all his children.In this way He loves everyone. Because God is love.

Now if His love were truly unconditional, He would save everyone, but Jesus said that there were conditions to be met. People were not in accord with God, they needed to change. If you need to change it means that there is a condition. The condition is faith.

This unconditional idea is often used by atheists to say that no matter what they believe they will be saved in the end because God loves everyone and will not send anyone to hell.

Now, of course, he loves us as a father would and His grace falls on all, or else no one would be able to come to saving knowledge.

I’d use the example of the father/child but you’re going to say I’m projecting! A father loves his child, but if that child keeps beating up the father eventually the father will not love him so much anymore and will eventually disown him, if he could. A human example, but it could work.

This is off the topic so I’d like to end, but I would like to just mention the Mosaic Covenant. “I will be your God and you will be my people.” It was a conditional covenant. The condition was that the people had to have faith. There were blessings and curses; see Deuteronomy 28.

As for your question:

"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? "

Each example is possible. We’re not God! He has different rules, as Fr. Cantalamessa testifies to.

God bless

This may be way off topic, but have object to the bold. God loves us unconditionally. There is nothing we can do to prevent God from loving us. There are no conditions under which God would stop loving us. Jesus’ death on the cross is proof of this. A major feature of this love is to allow us the freedom to love. There are, however, many things we can do to prevent that love from having its desire effect.

1 John 4:19

We love because he first loved us.

 

[davidv]

One Sheep,

Have you not noticed that I know my theology?

I read the link, once. Nothing new there for me.

I MUST insist that God does condemn people for not meeting a certain criteria. BELIEF.

If God does not condemn then we are all going to heaven!

Do you believe this??

God bless
Fran

I don’t believe this. I believe it is we that condemn ourselves by our words and deeds.

Matthew 12:36-38New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

36 I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So many posts. . .and still so much confusion.

Are people really so incredibly smart and good that they simply cannot 'knowingly and willingly reject God?" Really? I know I’m not that smart and I’m not that good. I know that in spite of all my attempts to either rationalize my own mortal sins (too many of them and I’m not proud of that), or to try to forget them since ‘society’ kept telling me how ‘normal’ they were. . . I still KNEW I was doing grave, wicked wrongs, that yes it was against God, that I was rejecting His truths, rejecting His love. And no matter how much I tried to excuse myself --passion, a little too much to drink, societal expectations, ‘everybody’s doing it’, “I’ll lose him if we don’t have sex”, “Well we ARE going to get married”, “We can’t afford a baby right now”, etc. etc. I still knew what I was doing wrong, and did it freely anyway.

So yes, here’s one human who sadly did exactly what the OP wondered if a person COULD do.

Knowingly and willingly rejected God.

And how sorry I am just can’t be said. All these years later, the regrets are still fresh. Why didn’t I listen to Him? Why didn’t I trust HIM instead of those whom I knew were wrong? Why did I think my ‘needs’ just were more important than obedience to show my faith, hope, and love?

And you know, every single time there was a point (even in my ‘I was too drunk to consent’ situations) where I knew (obviously before I allowed myself to take the drink that tipped me into ‘too drunk’) , “if I don’t stop this RIGHT NOW I’m going to do something wicked and wrong”. . .and I HAD the chance to stop but I just said, “I WANT this”. . .and that was that.

(Rape, of course, is a different story. Any kind of forced evil action by its nature of being forced onto someone is not something freely and fully consented to. So any woman or man who is raped, even so-called ‘date rape’, doesn’t consent and isn’t guilty of mortal sin. The rapist is the guilty one.)

I’m not proud of this. It’s not pretty and I’d give anything to have NOT sinned then. . .but I did it and I can’t undo it, I can only beg forgiveness, confess, and try not to sin again, and hope for God’s mercy.