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

[OneSheep]

My focus is on reality not exceptions which one might deem for them self, which may or may not be reality for them…

Agreed. The sections you quoted have to do with reconciliation and the sacrament of reconciliation, which involves the person making some steps and having contrition.

Cutting to the chase, you’ve been arguing that hell is empty. Everyone is forgiven. Everyone is saved. No one is held responsible for anything they’ve done. No one is lost…

This would be an assumption. Like I said, reconciliation involves two. If a person refuses God, they are choosing hell. It would take an uncaring God to trap a person who has inadvertently chosen hell, and it would take a very stubbornly unaware person to choose hell, but it is possible, in theory, as people ultimately have a choice.

Have I been saying hell is empty? No, this thread is about understanding people

Everyone is forgiven? By God, yes, and by me all people I ever held anything against, yes.

Everyone is saved? That involves choice on the part of the person. Salvation involves contrition, humility, letting go of anger, etc.

No one is responsible for anything they have done? You have brought this up many times and I have answered the same way every time. Have you read my posts? We are all responsible. In fact, the more aware a person is, the less he is caught up in self-condemnation, the more able he is to respond for his sin, take ownership of his shortcomings.

No one is lost? Is this another reference to salvation?

Going to give Judas a try?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

My focus is on reality not exceptions which one might deem for them self, which may or may not be reality for them…

Agreed. The sections you quoted have to do with reconciliation and the sacrament of reconciliation, which involves the person making some steps and having contrition.

Cutting to the chase, you’ve been arguing that hell is empty. Everyone is forgiven. Everyone is saved. No one is held responsible for anything they’ve done. No one is lost…

This would be an assumption. Like I said, reconciliation involves two. If a person refuses God, they are choosing hell. It would take an uncaring God to trap a person who has inadvertently chosen hell, and it would take a very stubbornly unaware person to choose hell, but it is possible, in theory, as people ultimately have a choice.

Have I been saying hell is empty? No, this thread is about understanding people

Everyone is forgiven? By God, yes, and by me all people I ever held anything against, yes.

Everyone is saved? That involves choice on the part of the person. Salvation involves contrition, humility, letting go of anger, etc.

No one is responsible for anything they have done? You have brought this up many times and I have answered the same way every time. Have you read my posts? We are all responsible. In fact, the more aware a person is, the less he is caught up in self-condemnation, the more able he is to respond for his sin, take ownership of his shortcomings.

No one is lost? Is this another reference to salvation?

Going to give Judas a try?

Isn’t it really always about salvation? Your argument is, no one knows what they are doing when they sin.

BTW I think you missed this one Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin? - #102 by steve-b

 

[OneSheep]

Isn’t it really always about salvation? Your argument is, no one knows what they are doing when they sin.

Well, I suppose it is about salvation, in a global sense, and a personal sense. It is about salvation in a global sense, because the more people can understand each other, the more forgiveness will happen, and violence can end (creating the Kingdom).

On a personal level, use of the gift of Understanding enhances forgiveness, which leads to reconciliation within and without; this is a salvation.

The point being made, you were no longer giving just an observation you were making your argument, selling your opinion,

Well, it works this way. If I see that all people like cheesecake, then I could chalk that up to observation, and say “all people like cheesecake”. It is established as a fact in my mind. Now, let’s say I get on here and press the observation. What would be the purpose? It would be a very superficial purpose. Instead, I press the observation of this thread to get people to pick up the Gift of Understanding and use it, for the benefit of everyone involved. It is more than simply an opinion, it is an observation that when revealed has a purpose, and the purpose was initiated in me through the Gospel, specifically Jesus’ understanding and forgiveness from the cross.

Opinions are philosophical stuff, they belong there. This is about spirituality.

Fast forward your argument to its conclusion, then no one is guilty of anything they do because they didn’t know what they were doing when they sin.

When you are using the word “guilty”, you mean “blame”, right? So do you mean that the conclusion is that everyone is forgiven, which is expressed in the quote (Pope Francis) I have in my profile?

That question suggests that no one ever knows what they are doing when they sin.

In extension,

.if no one knows what they are doing when they sin, then no one can be guilty of sin.

Well, we do keep going around about this, don’t we? If “guilty” means “imputed to”, then my observation has absolutely no effect on guilt. Just because a person does not know what they are doing when they make a choice, it is still their choice. No one made them make the choice. If “guilty” means “to be blamed, to have something held against, to be resented” then yes, no one is held to blame, because they have been forgiven by God. However, we cannot know such forgiveness until we ourselves forgive in an unconditional way, which is what Jesus showed us from the cross.

Please respond to the above paragraph, friend! Steve, you are continuing to put forth really important points to consider.

 

[OneSheep]

.if no one is guilty of sin, Jesus actions were a waste

Well, you are coming from a position of a classic infralapsarian Christology, and there is certainly a place for this. Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, St. Bonaventure, Jon duns Scotus, and others point more in the direction of what is called a Supralapsarian Christology.

It is very natural, pervasive in humanity, to hang onto self-blame (it helps form the conscience). For that reason, people by nature will project that God blames us. It could be observed, even, that a negative view of human worth is an innate state, because such a negative view is the by-product of the workings of the conscience itself. So while there are a few examples of the OT showing us a God who cherishes His people, the general impression is that we messed up, and God holds it against us. An infralapsarian view is that God needed payment for all the crap we do, so Jesus paid the price.

To me, Jesus’ actions were by no means a waste. In a supralapsarian view, (though certainly there are several versions of it, as there are infralapsarian views) God always forgives us, forgave us before He created us. Therefore Jesus comes not to appease God, but to save man from his own nature, to invite us to see our Father as a loving “Abba” who holds nothing against us. In following Christ, in loving God with all we have and loving our neighbor as ourselves, we move toward the perfection that Christ calls us to, a loving perfection, a love that hesitates at nothing to love (note:forgiveness is an act of love), not even the human compulsion for justice. Indeed, in a Supralapasarian view, Jesus calls us to transcend the conscience itself. Note: this does not eliminate the need for punishment as a corrective measure.

 

[OneSheep]

In this case, they deliberately refuse to educate them self.

I just gave the example previously. One choosing not to know, chooses to be ignorant.

So, here is the question: Why is he choosing not to educate himself? What is he thinking?

Here are some examples:

A. “I don’t care about the Church, I am not Christian. Jesus is a myth”
B. “This guy talking to me is a religious fanatic. Religious fanatics are crazy and cause extremism. Whatever he says is to be avoided.”
C. “I don’t have time for this. All this talk about heaven, and I’m just trying to find my next source of alcohol.”

Feel free to pick one, or find another alternative. Then, we can discover why the person wants to remain ignorant, and analyze whether his reasons come from a position of awareness.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Isn’t it really always about salvation? Your argument is, no one knows what they are doing when they sin.

It is about salvation in a global sense, because the more people can understand each other, the more forgiveness will happen, and violence can end (creating the Kingdom).

That is NOT salvation I’m talking bout.

OneSheep:

On a personal level, use of the gift of Understanding enhances forgiveness, which leads to reconciliation within and without; this is a salvation.

That is NOT salvation I’m talking about

OneSheep:

Opinions are philosophical stuff, they belong there. This is about spirituality.

The topic

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

That suggests no one knows what they are doing when they sin. THAT by definition excuses everyone of sin since it is necessary for one to know wrong to be guilty of doing wrong. To not understand what is wrong and bad, is to also not understand what is good and right as well.

OneSheep:

When you are using the word “guilty”, you mean “blame”, right? So do you mean that the conclusion is that everyone is forgiven, which is expressed in the quote (Pope Francis) I have in my profile?

steve-b:

your point suggests that no one ever knows what they are doing is wrong, so there is no sin.

OneSheep:

Well, we do keep going around about this, don’t we? If “guilty” means “imputed to”, then my observation has absolutely no effect on guilt. Just because a person does not know what they are doing when they make a choice, it is still their choice.

steve-b:

Choice in the way we are hopefully using the term, (scripturally) presumes an understanding of good and bad that goes with choice…

OneSheep:

No one made them make the choice. If “guilty” means “to be blamed, to have something held against, to be resented” then yes, no one is held to blame, because they have been forgiven by God.

steve-b:

you seem to have issues with blame and guilt. If nothing is held against anyone, carrying your point forward,

Hell is empty. No need for hell because everyone is forgiven… period dot end of sentence.

That’s universalism, which is a heresy.

OneSheep:

However, we cannot know such forgiveness until we ourselves forgive in an unconditional way, which is what Jesus showed us from the cross.

Please respond to the above paragraph, friend! Steve, you are continuing to put forth really important points to consider.

steve-b:

Looking ahead to the end

Jesus said on the last day “many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’” (Matt. 7:22-23). How many times does He have to say that before people take Him seriously and stop their games?.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

In this case, they deliberately refuse to educate them self.

I just gave the example previously. One choosing not to know, chooses to be ignorant.

So, here is the question: Why is he choosing not to educate himself? What is he thinking?

Here are some examples:

A. “I don’t care about the Church, I am not Christian. Jesus is a myth”
B. “This guy talking to me is a religious fanatic. Religious fanatics are crazy and cause extremism. Whatever he says is to be avoided.”
C. “I don’t have time for this. All this talk about heaven, and I’m just trying to find my next source of alcohol.”

Feel free to pick one, or find another alternative. Then, we can discover why the person wants to remain ignorant, and analyze whether his reasons come from a position of awareness.

We are ALL made to the image and likeness of God. No one is left out of that description. Therefore, God is working with everyone on this side of eternity to get them to respond via grace. Everybody benefits from grace except those who refuse grace. There are going to be consequences to that, and they will see their errors at the end of their life. See the quote at the end of my last post. And THOSE are ones who even call Him Lord…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

.if no one is guilty of sin, Jesus actions were a waste

Well, you are coming from a position of a classic infralapsarian Christology, and there is certainly a place for this. Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, St. Bonaventure, Jon duns Scotus, and others point more in the direction of what is called a Supralapsarian Christology.

It is very natural, pervasive in humanity, to hang onto self-blame (it helps form the conscience). For that reason, people by nature will project that God blames us. It could be observed, even, that a negative view of human worth is an innate state, because such a negative view is the by-product of the workings of the conscience itself. So while there are a few examples of the OT showing us a God who cherishes His people, the general impression is that we messed up, and God holds it against us. An infralapsarian view is that God needed payment for all the crap we do, so Jesus paid the price.

To me, Jesus’ actions were by no means a waste. In a supralapsarian view, (though certainly there are several versions of it, as there are infralapsarian views) God always forgives us, forgave us before He created us. Therefore Jesus comes not to appease God, but to save man from his own nature, to invite us to see our Father as a loving “Abba” who holds nothing against us. In following Christ, in loving God with all we have and loving our neighbor as ourselves, we move toward the perfection that Christ calls us to, a loving perfection, a love that hesitates at nothing to love (note:forgiveness is an act of love), not even the human compulsion for justice. Indeed, in a Supralapasarian view, Jesus calls us to transcend the conscience itself. Note: this does not eliminate the need for punishment as a corrective measure.

Now I know where you’re coming from. You’re looking at this whole subject through Calvinist lenses.

Infralapsarians | Catholic Answers & Arminianism | Catholic Answers

 

[OneSheep]

Now I know where you’re coming from. You’re looking at this whole subject through Calvinist lenses.

Actually, no, the terms were taught to me by a Catholic theologian. However, I had no idea how the terms were so much a part of Calvinist discussion, and that there were specific Calvinistic theologies attached. What I was taught about the terms is more of their literal meaning, “supralapsarian” meaning “above dependence on the fall” vs “infralapsarian” meaning “dependence on the fall”.

All I can figure is that the terms were borrowed from Calvinism because they are also literally accurate in describing the two Catholic approaches. All the concepts having to do with predestination are contrary to Catholic theology.

 

[OneSheep]

We are ALL made to the image and likeness of God. No one is left out of that description. Therefore, God is working with everyone on this side of eternity to get them to respond via grace. Everybody benefits from grace except those who refuse grace. There are going to be consequences to that, and they will see their errors at the end of their life. See the quote at the end of my last post. And THOSE are ones who even call Him Lord…

All valid points, but you did not answer my question, nor does any of the above negate the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.

OTOH, part of what you said actually supports my point, “they will see their errors at the end of their life” which means they do not see their error now. As long as “seeing” is “knowing” and “knowing” is all-inclusive, then this agrees with my observation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Now I know where you’re coming from. You’re looking at this whole subject through Calvinist lenses.

Actually, no, the terms were taught to me by a Catholic theologian.

Then HE was seeing things through Calvinist lenses.

OneSheep:

However, I had no idea how the terms were so much a part of Calvinist discussion, and that there were specific Calvinistic theologies attached. What I was taught about the terms is more of their literal meaning, “supralapsarian” meaning “above dependence on the fall” vs “infralapsarian” meaning “dependence on the fall”.

All I can figure is that the terms were borrowed from Calvinism because they are also literally accurate in describing the two Catholic approaches. All the concepts having to do with predestination are contrary to Catholic theology.

It took a lot of posts between you and I, to finally see where your influence was coming from. I had a few guesses. They as it turns out, were wrong guesses. But just being transparent, I wouldn’t knowingly follow, nor be influenced by, any part of Calvinism no matter who was promoting it. But that’s me.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We are ALL made to the image and likeness of God. No one is left out of that description. Therefore, God is working with everyone on this side of eternity to get them to respond via grace. Everybody benefits from grace except those who refuse grace. There are going to be consequences to that, and they will see their errors at the end of their life. See the quote at the end of my last post. And THOSE are ones who even call Him Lord…

All valid points, but you did not answer my question, nor does any of the above negate the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.

OTOH, part of what you said actually supports my point, “they will see their errors at the end of their life” which means they do not see their error now. As long as “seeing” is “knowing” and “knowing” is all-inclusive, then this agrees with my observation.

By One who sees their error, it depends on when they see it after they are dead or before they are dead. They can’t escape judgement if it is mortal sin, and they die in that sin.

Re: the issues we’ve been talking about (this side of eternity)

"once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41).

Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom 2:14-16)

Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.

Taken From What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers

 

[daverod]

There are differences:

Leviticus 4:2
“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments…”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We are ALL made to the image and likeness of God. No one is left out of that description. Therefore, God is working with everyone on this side of eternity to get them to respond via grace. Everybody benefits from grace except those who refuse grace. There are going to be consequences to that, and they will see their errors at the end of their life. See the quote at the end of my last post. And THOSE are ones who even call Him Lord…

All valid points, but you did not answer my question, nor does any of the above negate the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.

OTOH, part of what you said actually supports my point, “they will see their errors at the end of their life” which means they do not see their error now. As long as “seeing” is “knowing” and “knowing” is all-inclusive, then this agrees with my observation.

A further point to my previous post and Calvinist influence anywhere in the thinking. In previous posts you have shown resistance to fear of any kind, thinking this is one’s own damage they do to themselves.

God's Resistible Grace | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[OneSheep]

Then HE was seeing things through Calvinist lenses.

Would you really jump so quickly to that accusation? He is a very well-known and popular Catholic theologian: https://danhoran.com/

It took a lot of posts between you and I, to finally see where your influence was coming from.

If you think the influence is Calvin, you are incorrect. Here is a sample of what has influenced my Christology:

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

Also, you could read up on the Christology of Jon duns Scotus.

A further point to my previous post and Calvinist influence anywhere in the thinking. In previous posts you have shown resistance to fear of any kind, thinking this is one’s own damage they do to themselves.

Well, I was taught by the Catholics that fear is the opposite of faith. Look, you can try to paint me as a Calvinist all you want, but that would only be a straw man. Jesus calls not to be afraid, and you are saying that we need to fear a wrathful god. Read the article referring to Pope Benedict’s book.

"once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41).

This passage has to be very carefully explained, as there are some problems.

In context:

39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

So if the Pharisees are the ones who previously “saw”, then they have become blind (by resentment). So they are “claiming” to see, but in actuality they are blind. On the other hand, Jesus said that if they were blind, they would not be guilty of sin, so they are not guilty of sin even though He says “your guilt remains”.

The literal passage, then, makes no sense. We have to look at the overall point, which is that the Pharisees are indeed blind or ignorant even though they say they are not, and their rejection is to their disadvantage.

Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.”

Paul is generally understanding, though, that people sin in ignorance. He knew that his own persecution of Christians was in ignorance. Paul probably did not play out all the scenarios in terms of the Pharisees.

Are you going to respond to my post 119? It is much closer to the topic. Is there a reason why you are avoiding speculation about what could have been going on in the mind of the person you described?

 

[OneSheep]

There are differences:

Leviticus 4:2

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments…”

Bolds mine. The translation I read says “unintentionally”. Here, they describe that a bull is to be sacrificed to “attone”, to appease God who they believed held something against them for their sin.

The passage does show that a sin done in ignorance is still a sin, and that we are to be held responsible for all sin regardless our state of awareness.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Then HE was seeing things through Calvinist lenses.

Would you really jump so quickly to that accusation? He is a very well-known and popular Catholic theologian: https://danhoran.com/

It took a lot of posts between you and I, to finally see where your influence was coming from.

If you think the influence is Calvin, you are incorrect. Here is a sample of what has influenced my Christology:

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

Also, you could read up on the Christology of Jon duns Scotus.

A further point to my previous post and Calvinist influence anywhere in the thinking. In previous posts you have shown resistance to fear of any kind, thinking this is one’s own damage they do to themselves.

Well, I was taught by the Catholics that fear is the opposite of faith. Look, you can try to paint me as a Calvinist all you want, but that would only be a straw man. Jesus calls not to be afraid, and you are saying that we need to fear a wrathful god. Read the article referring to Pope Benedict’s book.

"once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41).

This passage has to be very carefully explained, as there are some problems.

In context:

39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

So if the Pharisees are the ones who previously “saw”, then they have become blind (by resentment). So they are “claiming” to see, but in actuality they are blind. On the other hand, Jesus said that if they were blind, they would not be guilty of sin, so they are not guilty of sin even though He says “your guilt remains”.

The literal passage, then, makes no sense. We have to look at the overall point, which is that the Pharisees are indeed blind or ignorant even though they say they are not, and their rejection is to their disadvantage.

Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.”

Paul is generally understanding, though, that people sin in ignorance. He knew that his own persecution of Christians was in ignorance. Paul probably did not play out all the scenarios in terms of the Pharisees.

Re: fear,

.“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him”! Who is THAT speaking, and who are we then to fear?

Re: post #119, I’ll get to it later.

 

[steve-b]

Are you going to respond to my post 119? It is much closer to the topic. Is there a reason why you are avoiding speculation about what could have been going on in the mind of the person you described?

I looked it up.

I did answer you Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin? - #121 by steve-b

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Now I know where you’re coming from. You’re looking at this whole subject through Calvinist lenses.

Actually, no, the terms were taught to me by a Catholic theologian. However, I had no idea how the terms were so much a part of Calvinist discussion, and that there were specific Calvinistic theologies attached. What I was taught about the terms is more of their literal meaning, “supralapsarian” meaning “above dependence on the fall” vs “infralapsarian” meaning “dependence on the fall”.

All I can figure is that the terms were borrowed from Calvinism because they are also literally accurate in describing the two Catholic approaches. All the concepts having to do with predestination are contrary to Catholic theology.

And all I’m doing is giving information properly referenced. What anyone does with it is their business. As I showed you, those are Calvinist beliefs NOT Catholic.

Re: Dan Horan, your reference. I looked him up. I have to say, I don’t respect his position here, and this might be only the tip of the iceberg with him http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/24/brother-dan-doesnt-like-the-march-for-life/

as an aside

the national catholic reporter is a left wing Catholic Publisher. I’m not a fan of them either.

 

[OneSheep]

And all I’m doing is giving information properly referenced. What anyone does with it is their business. As I showed you, those are Calvinist beliefs NOT Catholic.

Yes, you showed that the words do have an association with Calvinism. However, a person can use a term based on its latin roots, and it doesn’t have to have the same attached theology. For example, while “arianism” is definitely associated with Arian, the word “lapsarian” does not have to be associated with a particular ideology, it simply means “having to do with the fall”. The prefixes “supra” and “infra” add additional meaning. Calvinism as a theology does not have a copyright on Latin or Greek.

All of the predestination stuff is Calvinist, and those aspects had nothing to do with the ways the words were explained to me in context.

I have to say, I don’t respect his position here

Well the way it was presented by that blogger, I wasn’t so happy about his position either. There is probably more to know. We are called to give people the benefit of the doubt, not calling something “the tip of an iceberg”, right?