Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin?

[OneSheep]

Yes. We may not always know the full consequences of our sins when we commit them, but we are always aware of what we are doing.

This depends on your definition of the word “know”. The crowd who hung Jesus did not know He was the Christ, they did not know that He was not blaspheming, they did not value His humanity in the moment (it was not on their minds) because they felt resentment towards him. These are all very relevant things to know, right?

OTOH, they knew they were crucifying someone they thought “deserved it”.

I say they were believing an untruth, and when we believe an untruth, we do not know what we are doing.

I remembered that in Shakespeare, one character saying something, wasn’t perhaps entirely sure of of his judgment/opinion, and added - “if my mind/brain is not clouded by sins” ,something like that.

Sometimes our mind can be intoxicated with sin and we don’t know that it reflects on our wrong opinion. Drugged by sin mind may be in people who have a callous conscience , people with pervert sexuality ,also who live in open sin.Sometimes we do or say something in haste and sometimes people being sinners, can neither give nor to do the correct action/judgment.

These are all important points, I think, when considering why people sin. Yes, our minds get clouded. Desire has a way of shutting off parts of our brains.

In terms of sexual sin, which we have heard a lot about lately (harassment), I think that many of these people think they are doing nothing wrong, which is a problem in conscience development. In addition, the person may be in denial, thinking that the victim wants to be harassed. Sometimes the harasser thinks that the person being harassed has no value, that the victim’s spiritual well being is not important.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Huh? You don’t know it is a sin to lie, to cheat, to swindle, to lust, to attack, to envy, to demean, to hate. I agree that the more one sins the harder one grows and that this even diminishes awareness, knowledge, disfigures conscience. But to say they don’t know is quite an insult to humanity. We sound lower than rats. Though on a dark day you can make a pretty good case for that, at least I can. When a rat puts 6 million fellow rats in gas ovens, let me know.

 

[OneSheep]

Huh? You don’t know it is a sin to lie, to cheat, to swindle, to lust, to attack, to envy, to demean, to hate. I agree that the more one sins the harder one grows and that this even diminishes awareness, knowledge, disfigures conscience. But to say they don’t know is quite an insult to humanity. We sound lower than rats. Though on a dark day you can make a pretty good case for that, at least I can. When a rat puts 6 million fellow rats in gas ovens, let me know.

If you could go back to the OP, you can see that I’m using “know” in an all-inclusive sense, knowing everything relevant to the sin.

If you use “know” in a more limited sense, which you did, then I agree with you.

Thanks for responding!

 

[FollowChrist34]

Oh… wow. So this is much deeper than I suspected. My apologies. I am multi posting here. Should probably move on to housework anyway. Let me think about that one and I’ll post the fruits of my reflection later. Short answer is we probably don’t want to know sin to the full extent right - the tree in the garden and all that. I mean the results of it in us and others suffices for me.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Yes, they feel powerless to stop, but that is exactly the gap in their knowing. They can stop, there are ways. The person does not want to stop, though, and part of that is because they may not have experience to enough extent the consequences of their choice to remain addicted. Sometimes people have to suffer a great deal before the truth becomes clear. An addicted person does not have a clear mind, they do not know what they are doing in terms of destroying something very valuable, right?

I think though we have to differentiate knowing with the intellect or knowledge from the will which is what moves us to act in certain ways. So someone could know for instance that eating too much chocolate is bad for them and even experience all the harmful effects of eating too much chocolate like getting a stomach ache but still give into temptation every time they see a box of chocolate ice cream. Is there something lacking in their knowledge? Not only do they know it is bad for them intellectually to eat too much but they also have experiential knowledge of the harmful effects, i.e., the stomach ache. Yet, they still could be lacking an essential element that would move them to not eat it and that is will power. They know that is better for them in the long run to eat more healthy, but they give into their passions in the moment. So it is not necessarily just knowledge that is lacking but a disorder of the intellect and will being able to control the passions, which is itself a consequence of original sin.

Aquinas describes the passions as kind of like horses under the control of a charioteer. The charioteer, the intellect and will, can control these passions. But if it doesn’t then the horses will run wild. And in our example eat too much ice cream.

Aquinas says the virtues which are good habits can be formed to keep the passions in control. Not that the passions are bad like stoics thought, but that they need to be kept under control. For instance the passions that are involved in eating too much which involves a desire for something perceived as good could be overcome by developing the virtue of temperance. So more is involved than just having knowledge. You are right that knowledge is needed, but we also need to form good habits that overcome harmful habits.

 

[Athanasiy]

I was referring for example the people as gays, transvestites, give even some remote thoughts/opinions about the religion-morality-spirituality, political and religious issues, even if they educated people, and they say smart things, their suggestions/opinions very often don’t have lights, because they are marred by sin.
And these people even despite their high academic level , level of eruditions not aware of their inferiority and mind- marred by sin.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No, there is more to it than that. Try these, Carl:

Why does the smoker begin smoking?
Once he starts smoking, why does he refuse to stop?

Try to address the next question also, “Why does the person refuse to stop overeating?”.

Yes, there is more to it than just knowledge. See my previous answer.

That reminds me, I need to lose some weight…

You and me both. But in the last year I have lost 30 pounds because I have been developing good habits of exercising and counting calories.

I should also add as a side note that I know a guy who got cancer of the throat and the doctors told him he has to have an operation and that if he wants any chance to live he has to stop smoking. Now, he knew he was not strong enough under his own power to stop smoking even faced with the knowledge of his death if he didn’t. So he had some people pray over him and he was not only cured of his addiction to cigarettes but that his throat cancer was healed. Now, he will tell you though that along this journey he met someone who was in the same situation as him and could not stop smoking even though she knew it would kill her and she died, God rest her soul.

What my friend needed was more than just intellectual knowledge to stop smoking but some serious divine intervention.

 

[Azaryahtt]

You know , I don’t know how much this has with your question, but i was thinking about something recently and would like to know your thoughts, I heard once this priest that when dealing with someone (either in confession or spiritual direction) told him that if did not do something about his sin , (meaning stop sinning)he wouldn’t want him to come back until they did ,
But I was wondering, hey so how does the priest know how much blame is to put on the sinner? And how much on the power of the temptations?

 

[OneSheep]

You know , I don’t know how much this has with your question, but i was thinking about something recently and would like to know your thoughts, I heard once this priest that when dealing with someone (either in confession or spiritual direction) told him that if did not do something about his sin , (meaning stop sinning)he wouldn’t want him to come back until they did ,

But I was wondering, hey so how does the priest know how much blame is to put on the sinner? And how much on the power of the temptations?

We all have the choice to avoid sin, correct?

Does it make sense, perhaps, that the priest meant, “You can’t simply keep sinning and confessing, without doing something to actually address the problem.”

What this thread addresses, though is understanding why people sin, as part of a means toward forgiveness.

 

[OneSheep]

I think though we have to differentiate knowing with the intellect or knowledge from the will which is what moves us to act in certain ways. So someone could know for instance that eating too much chocolate is bad for them and even experience all the harmful effects of eating too much chocolate like getting a stomach ache but still give into temptation every time they see a box of chocolate ice cream. Is there something lacking in their knowledge?

In an all-inclusive sense, yes, they are lacking in knowledge. For example, if eating the chocolate would truly lead to illness and death, would the person be willing to eat the chocolate if it was explained to be just as tasty but has a poison in it that would immediately kill him? If he chooses against such eating, then he is either not believing that ordinary chocolate will kill him (denial) or he doesn’t care about living a longer life (disvalue of the gift of life), both of which are gaps in awareness.

Think of it this way: What would convince him that his ways are wrong? Perhaps a more painful illness or the pain of those who love him, not wanting his loss? These experiences also add to knowledge base, but yes, they are not what we call “intellectual knowledge”.

Aquinas says the virtues which are good habits can be formed to keep the passions in control. Not that the passions are bad like stoics thought, but that they need to be kept under control. For instance the passions that are involved in eating too much which involves a desire for something perceived as good could be overcome by developing the virtue of temperance. So more is involved than just having knowledge. You are right that knowledge is needed, but we also need to form good habits that overcome harmful habits.

This is all great stuff, Carl, and though it is a bit off-topic, I thank you for this contribution. (Remember, the goal of this thread is to discover why people sin, towards the purpose of forgiveness)

Even formation of a habit involves some awareness. It takes some wisdom from others, and simple trial-and-error to develop good habits. The experiential knowledge one gains from trial and error, again, is not “intellectual knowledge”, but it does involve awareness. And yes, the will is involved, but the will is also very subject to what one knows from experience, right?

 

[fisherman_carl]

It seems as though you want to reduce everything to knowledge. While I don’t deny that knowledge is involved I think I satisfactorily showed that knowledge is not the only factor involved. For instance the woman who smoked herself to death knowing that it was killing her. No one is claiming she had perfect knowledge. But did she have sufficient knowledge to make her want to alter her behaviour? Yes, I think so but she could not overcome her addiction. She wants to stop but the bad habit she formed proved to be quite difficult to overcome despite the knowledge she needed to stop. The passions are also involved as well as our intellect and will in overcoming sin which I think is very relevant to our discussion. Remember, that your position is an extreme position that you claim that no one has sufficient knowledge when they sin. Thus the burden of proof is on you to prove that is the case. It is not enough to simply claim it and then expect others to prove the contrary. .

And, just what do you mean by sufficient knowledge? I think if someone has sufficient knowledge it means they are culpable for their actions. Are you saying no one is culpable? Because a lack of knowledge normally means a lack of culpability. For instance if someone walks on the grass unawares is less culpable then someone who walks on the grass after seeing the sign ‘keep of the grass’. Are you saying the person who saw the sign did not have enough knowledge to be culpable for walking on the grass?

If you are just saying they don’t have perfect knowledge then fine I don’t disagree with you. But then who has perfect knowledge other than God? Even people who choose not to sin don’t have perfect knowledge.

God bless.

 

[OnyinyeFrances]

Yeah I guess u are right one the desire for that sin clouds one’s mind the person automatically because conformed to that manner of living. The person becomes driven by him desire to commit that sin not actually minding the consequences of such an action anymore .
So I totally agree with you, the person becomes blinded with desire.

 

[OneSheep]

It seems as though you want to reduce everything to knowledge.

Good Morning Carl

I see where you might get the idea, but isn’t a matter of what I “want”. There was a point in my life in which I held a grudge against a group of people, and a priest told me “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”. He did not jump to telling me to forgive, he invited me to understand them. When I really made the effort to put myself in their shoes, I did understand them, and I not only forgave them in a way of committing myself not to resent, but resentment itself completely fell away. I could have been those people. With awareness, I came to see that if I had their knowing, if I saw the world they way they did, valued (disvalued) certain people the way they did, I could have done what they did. The result of the deeper understanding was to know holiness in a way I had never known, holiness as a wholeness, as an inclusion of everyone I ever held anything against.

If it were not for the focus on Jesus’ words “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, I don’t think I would have come to that place. Those words have long been established as fact now, I cannot find a counterexample; and the means of the deeper forgiveness remain sustained. In order to forgive at that deeper level, I work towards understanding how I could do what they did. With prayer and reflection, the question is always answered.

She wants to stop but the bad habit she formed proved to be quite difficult to overcome

Well, with God all things are possible. Did she know that? Did she know that in a way in which she was empowered? Did she have the skills to overcome her addiction? These are all part of our knowledge base, as experience itself adds to our knowledge base.

What was going on in her mind when she bought cigarettes? Feel free to choose from the following, or pick something else:

A. “I am just going to buy these, but I’m only going to smoke one a week.”
B. “I give up. I feel more sick when I don’t smoke. It’s not worth it.”
C. “I’m buying these so that I have something to flush down the toilet and make a final statement about my addiction.”

Are you saying no one is culpable?

My answer depends on your definition of “culpable”. Do you mean “blameable” or do you mean “imputable”?

 

[OneSheep]

If you are just saying they don’t have perfect knowledge then fine I don’t disagree with you. But then who has perfect knowledge other than God? Even people who choose not to sin don’t have perfect knowledge.

I don’t mean having “perfect knowledge”, but I’m not sure how such is defined. What I am saying is that people who know everything relevant, and their knowing is forefront, accessible, not blinded by desire, then they don’t sin. People who do sin are missing something in terms of the knowledge that comes from society, experience, knowing the joy of life, knowing people’s viewpoints, etc.

Yes, it is an extreme position, but look at the extremity of what Jesus said, and who was the subject of his statement. I have no doubt in my mind that Jesus knew every single position of the people who supported His crucifixion, and each of them had a unique configuration of mindset formed in part by a lack of information and blindness.

Try answering for the addicted woman. Maybe you could come up with something I hadn’t considered!

 

[fisherman_carl]

My answer depends on your definition of “culpable”. Do you mean “blameable” or do you mean “imputable”?

Culpable as in the Catholic definition.

"Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.) " Catholic Dictionary

Notice how the definition says you need not just enough knowledge, but also your will has to choose it or consent given. So the will is also involved. Not just knowledge.

I don’t mean having “perfect knowledge”, but I’m not sure how such is defined. What I am saying is that people who know everything relevant, and their knowing is forefront, accessible, not blinded by desire, then they don’t sin. People who do sin are missing something in terms of the knowledge that comes from society, experience, knowing the joy of life, knowing people’s viewpoints, etc.

But how are you defining everything relevant. Since this is ambiguous it could never be disproved. One without perfect knowledge could always be said to be lacking some relevant knowledge. Since no one except God has perfect knowledge therefore everyone is always lacking some relevant knowledge.

Do you think that some people just prefer evil over good? What about Satan. Did he choose evil from lack of knowledge? Or because he preferred it? Where does the will play into it? And would God be just punishing people for eternity for a lack of knowledge or because they chose evil over him?

Do people make bad choices because of bad knowledge? Of course. But at the same time there has to be a point where a person is going to have all the knowledge they are going to have on the subject and they make their choice with eternal consequences. Would God really be content sending someone to hell if all he needed was some more knowledge on the subject for him to come to repentance? The person’s will has to at some point play the bigger role in him choosing his fate rather than just his level of knowledge.

If knowledge was the only thing we needed in order to not sin then Jesus would never have had to die for us and we would not need God’s grace to save ourselves. We would just need a good teacher.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Carl,

Thank you for returning to the discussion. While the point of the thread is to begin with Luke 23:34 as a starting point to understand and forgive others, there are some doctrinal issues that appear to contradict the premise that people do not know what they are doing. I thank you for bringing these forth; I hope to sufficiently address them.

Culpable as in the Catholic definition.

"Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.) " Catholic Dictionary

Yes, the etymology is “blame”. If the word “culpable” involves blame, then culpability itself is a word describing that someone is holding something against someone else. When we blame, we are to forgive. Blame itself is a state of sin. So we have to go with “morally responsible”, which essentially means “imputable”.

Your original question was this:

Are you saying no one is culpable?

And my response is that everyone is culpable (imputable) for every single action they take regardless of how aware or willing they are. We are not puppets. An exception might be something like sneezing.

Notice how the definition says you need not just enough knowledge, but also your will has to choose it or consent given. So the will is also involved. Not just knowledge.

Yes, the will is involved in all our choices, and when people see that a person participated somewhat unwillingly in a sin, it is easier to forgive, and then they can project that God also finds it easy to forgive. One can see, though, that God has already seen that we do not know what we are doing, as Jesus stated from the cross. The crowd’s will was compromised by their lack of awareness. The will is intricately tied to awareness.

But how are you defining everything relevant. Since this is ambiguous it could never be disproved. One without perfect knowledge could always be said to be lacking some relevant knowledge.

It is easy to define “relevant knowledge”, Carl. Is there something that the sinner did not know, such that if they did know (and have access to, no blindness involved) they would not have sinned? If so, then that particular bit of information is relevant.

 

[OneSheep]

Would God really be content sending someone to hell…

The image of a God being content to send someone to hell is contrary to our theology, Carl. First of all, God does not send people to hell, people choose hell. Secondly, God is not content with anyone choosing hell. A priest once said to us, “In my opinion, if anyone chooses hell, they go there screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” The Father goes after the lost sheep, every single one.

I understand what you are saying, though. It seems that some people deserve hell, they deserve punishment. However, it is exactly when we are in this mindset of “they deserve” that it is time to take the steps to forgive. We are holding something against the person.

The person’s will has to at some point play the bigger role in him choosing his fate rather than just his level of knowledge.

Consider this: If your own child was about to make a very bad choice, you would seek to educate them, right? It is because the will follows awareness, we know that intuitively.

If knowledge was the only thing we needed in order to not sin then Jesus would never have had to die for us and we would not need God’s grace to save ourselves. We would just need a good teacher.

Are you saying that God needed a blood sacrifice, or He would continue an eternal grudge? Just checking.

We needed not just a “good teacher” but we needed Him as teacher, demonstrating with His life how He loves and forgives. This teaching is most certainly a grace, correct? Though grace is given freely, it has to be accepted.

I do hope you can choose (or create) what the mindset was of the addicted woman (post 262). This really goes toward proving or disproving the premise of this thread.

The implications are peripheral. The implications are why people hesitate to find that what I am saying here is true, that we do not know what we are doing. There is nothing to fear.

Thanks again, Carl! Great discussion points!

 

[fisherman_carl]

Your whole thinking here assumes that people are basically good such that as long as they have all the relevant information they will always choose the good. And they only choose the bad because they are misinformed. But, that does not take into account people’s free will to choose good or evil based on their preferences or desires. They may simply prefer their sins, or their addictions. They may know that it is wrong but do it anyway. And thus they are culpable for it as free moral agents in the world.

You acknowledge that people choose hell. Let me rephrase the question. Would God consider it fair or just to let a person go to hell simply because they had a lack of knowledge that would have led them to God? Wouldn’t it be fair only if they had all the relevant knowledge to make an informed decision yet chose hell anyways?

Of course the church teaches that one can be culpable for ignorance if they chose that ignorance. But they can also be invincibly ignorant. In such cases they did not have enough relevant knowledge to be culpable.

 

[OneSheep]

Your whole thinking here assumes that people are basically good

I think you mean “behave in a good way”. All people are good, as God created us good. People do not self-create. However, we do think of some people as “bad” when we do not understand and forgive them.

And they only choose the bad because they are misinformed. But, that does not take into account people’s free will to choose good or evil based on their preferences or desires. They may simply prefer their sins, or their addictions. They may know that it is wrong but do it anyway. And thus they are culpable for it as free moral agents in the world.

I hope you have come to see that I am saying “misinformed” is an understatement unless “information” includes knowing and having complete access to the value of other people, the experience of all consequence, as well as the simple knowing of what is right and wrong by social/religious mores. If “knowing” only includes the latter, many people know what they are doing when they sin.

If they are preferring their sins or addictions, then they don’t know what they are doing. If you think I am incorrect, please try to answer the question about what is going on in the mind of the addict when she chooses to buy cigarettes, and we can investigate the scope of her knowing. Try this with every sin you have ever committed, if you like. (Not here of course.) You can try to create a scenario based on your own experience, if that helps prove your point.

You acknowledge that people choose hell. Let me rephrase the question. Would God consider it fair or just to let a person go to hell simply because they had a lack of knowledge that would have led them to God? Wouldn’t it be fair only if they had all the relevant knowledge to make an informed decision yet chose hell anyways?

Yes, that would be “fair” for God to give all relevant knowledge; and not to contradict such fairness, the Gospel downplays fairness and emphasizes mercy, such as the story of the workers in the vineyard.

Of course the church teaches that one can be culpable for ignorance if they chose that ignorance. But they can also be invincibly ignorant.

Can you come up with a scenario where a person chooses ignorance and knows what he is doing in choosing such ignorance? If you have abandoned the addict scenario, we can take up this new one. What is going on in the mind of the person who makes such a choice? Would you like me to create the scenario?

Thanks again, Carl, all good discussion points! I hope you don’t mind that I skipped all reference to “culpable”, that you see that I am saying that all sin is imputable to the individual. It does no good to try to get out of real, natural consequences.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think you mean “behave in a good way”. All people are good, as God created us good. People do not self-create. However, we do think of some people as “bad” when we do not understand and forgive them.

People were originally created good before the fall. However, as a result of the fall, and until we are completely restored by God’s grace, we are deprived of certain gifts. And that includes the proper relationship between the intellect /will and the passions which leads us to sin.

I hope you have come to see that I am saying “misinformed” is an understatement unless “information” includes knowing and having complete access to the value of other people, the experience of all consequence, as well as the simple knowing of what is right and wrong by social/religious mores. If “knowing” only includes the latter, many people know what they are doing when they sin.

Well, one could say that because we don’t know the future then we don’t have all of the relevant information.

If they are preferring their sins or addictions, then they don’t know what they are doing

I would disagree here. There are many people who are addicted to things that want to quit because they can not. Its not just a simple matter of telling them how to quit. They have to want to quit and be willing to suffer. Be willing to suffer those withdrawl symptoms. It could be that sin is often caused by people who are not willing to suffer. Or not willing to die to themselves. It’s not always an easy thing to deny oneself. Just having knowledge doesn’t negate that.

Yes, that would be “fair” for God to give all relevant knowledge; and not to contradict such fairness, the Gospel downplays fairness and emphasizes mercy, such as the story of the workers in the vineyard.

I wouldn’t say that the Gospel downplays fairness. Mercy is not down playing fairness. It is in fact a component of fairness. We received mercy from God therefore it is only fair that we give mercy to others. The Gospel gives us mercy to change so that ultimately we will be saved. It is in fact Jesus dying on the Cross that is sufficient to merit that mercy for us. So it is not like justice was not satisfied by God being merciful to us.