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

[simpleas]

Ha, that was fun, I counted only 12 passes, saw the gorilla (just) and didn’t see the curtain change color or a player in black leaving!

Yes I think I know what you say, being focused on one thing, we can miss so much happening around us (other peoples needs, feelings etc)
I suppose we do this in big and little situations at most times in our lives, unless we tap in and are open to grow/change we’ll continue to ‘harm’ others.
And as we don’t have perfect conscience, we are bound to fail somewhere, unless we live as a hermit away from the world around us.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes I think I know what you say, being focused on one thing, we can miss so much happening around us (other peoples needs, feelings etc)

Exactly! So how do we go about getting person A to focus on the feelings of person B when person A is angry at him? Person A may know that it is wrong to hold a grudge, but his emotions are pointing his whole mind at the injustice he has suffered from person B.

There is a training of the mind, a prudence (mindfulness) that involves being so in tune with what is going on in one’s mind that one can simply watch the emotions and triggered drives pop up as they come. This takes really being in tune, big time. I can do this when I am really paying attention, ready for some negative emotion to pop up, but not always, no way!

You see, it is prudent to watch the conscience itself. Our mind says “No!”, “Bad” when viewing sin, and we can react with anger. To me, this is not a problem with the consience, though, the person’s conscience is healthy in discriminating the behaviors of the self or others. The prudent person is ultimately the one who will not overreact with their conscience.

 

[simpleas]

Exactly! So how do we go about getting person A to focus on the feelings of person B when person A is angry at him? Person A may know that it is wrong to hold a grudge, but his emotions are pointing his whole mind at the injustice he has suffered from person B.

There is a training of the mind, a prudence (mindfulness) that involves being so in tune with what is going on in one’s mind that one can simply watch the emotions and triggered drives pop up as they come. This takes really being in tune, big time. I can do this when I am really paying attention, ready for some negative emotion to pop up, but not always, no way!

You see, it is prudent to watch the conscience itself. Our mind says “No!”, “Bad” when viewing sin, and we can react with anger. To me, this is not a problem with the consience, though, the person’s conscience is healthy in discriminating the behaviors of the self or others. The prudent person is ultimately the one who will not overreact with their conscience.

Yes, but they aren’t perfect, less likely to sin, but still a sinner.

Like you said this is heady stuff, and I don’t really know what I’d talking about, but I understand how my own conscience works.

I think talking to people who hold grudges in a calm, peaceful way would help them eventually see what holding a grudge could be doing to themself, and their family and friends.
I have been surprised that some people hold grudges for years over what I would say is a stupid selfish reason, slighty pathetic, yet it meant a great deal to them, but grudges held against people for real evil situations I can very much understand.

I think I’m going off topic now!

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, but they aren’t perfect, less likely to sin, but still a sinner.

Have you read much of Julian of Norwich?

Here is a recent analysis:

Sin, says Julian, turns out to be “no thing.” This has been a controversial passage in Julian’s work. But she is quite clear: “Nowhere in all that was revealed to me did I see a trace of sin,” she writes. “And so I stopped looking for it and moved on, placing myself in God’s hand, allowing him to show me what he wanted me to see.” In Julian’s exceedingly practical view, “sin has no substance, not a particle of being, and can only be detected by the pain it causes.”

http://mirabaistarr.com/all-will-be-well-the-radical-optimism-of-julian-of-norwich/

I think you would like this book, btw, I’m going to order it.

And it makes sense when taking understanding to its endpoint. Of course God already knows we will sin and knows why we will sin, knows before He creates, but chooses to create; He sees where our free will takes us through the highs and lows of ignorance and awareness, blindness and sightedness. And with a God who loves unconditionally, as Julian shows, like a Mother who loves us very tenderly, the sin is overlooked, there is not inhibition of such tenderness.

We are all children like this, we do not know what we are doing when we sin. Even when we self-punish harshly, making ourselves miserable with guilt to the point of counterproductivity, God reaches to us, holds us, comforts us, with the tenderness of a mother.

 

[simpleas]

I’ve read Revelations of Divine love.

 

[simpleas]

Julian of Norwich definitely was optimistic, shame she isn’t quoted more often.

 

[OneSheep]

Julian of Norwich definitely was optimistic, shame she isn’t quoted more often.

I love the quote where she says that God is “incapable of wrath”.

But see, that is what this thread is about in part. When we can see peoples’ lack of awareness or blindness when they sin, all blame goes away, we can forgive.

Forgiveness can happen without understanding, but it certainly helps in forgiving at a deeper level.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Can this be applied universally? It seems to be so…

Be careful of taking a particular Scripture verse used in a particular situation and trying to apply it universally. For example, some people try to use the thief on the cross being forgiven and going to paradise to say that baptism isn’t required without taking other verses into account.

It would be an extreme to say that everyone has full knowledge of what they are doing is sinful and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Yet, it would equally be an extreme on the other end to say that no one has knowledge that what they are doing is sinful and therefore should not be punished for their sin.

To say that we could never be informed enough for it to be a mortal sin would not right. For instance, I heard from Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN say that murder is always a mortal sin. Murder, the unjust killing of an innocent life, is something that intrinsically goes against our God given conscience. So our conscience informs us that it is a grave sin. And, if we deliberately go against our conscience here then it is a mortal sin.

The catechism teaches that there are 3 elements required for a sin that is considered grave matter to become mortal:

"Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral.

Full Knowledge: The person must know that what they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral.

Deliberate Consent: The person must freely choose to commit the act or plan to do it." reference

For Jesus to say that those crucifying didn’t know what they were doing was in fact accurate. St. Paul says:

“Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor 2:6-8)

St. Paul describes these rulers as being ignorant of the wisdom of God. Yet, St. Paul does not excuse them but says they are doomed to pass away in verse 6. Doomed to pass away assuming they do not come to a repentance.

I can’t imagine a worse sin than murdering the Son of God. The soldiers were perhaps the most innocent if they were simply following orders to crucify a criminal without any knowledge of who this person was or that he was being innocently condemned. The rulers St. Paul mentions could be talking about the religious leaders who plotted to kill Jesus. Nonetheless, Jesus is concerned for their salvation more than he is of taking any sort of revenge for the wrongs done to him. This shows God’s desire to be merciful and just. If only the seriousness of the offense were taken into consideration they would have no chance of salvation.

Note that Jesus said that for our benefit, not his. St. Stephen follows in his footsteps by praying for his persecutors as they stone him in Acts 7.

 

[OneSheep]

Be careful of taking a particular Scripture verse used in a particular situation and trying to apply it universally. For example, some people try to use the thief on the cross being forgiven and going to paradise to say that baptism isn’t required without taking other verses into account.

I see your point, but does God not forgive the unbaptised?

Yet, it would equally be an extreme on the other end to say that no one has knowledge that what they are doing is sinful and therefore should not be punished for their sin.

Well, you’re addressing a different set of extremes, I think. What you are talking about is punishment, and what I am talking about is understanding and forgiveness. The opposite of what I am saying would be “everyone knows everything relevant about what they are doing when they sin”

Murder, the unjust killing of an innocent life, is something that intrinsically goes against our God given conscience. So our conscience informs us that it is a grave sin. And, if we deliberately go against our conscience here then it is a mortal sin.

All murder is sin, we can definitely agree on that. Whether it is “mortal” or not is a different topic.

Applying the topic of the thread to murder, one must ask “why did the murderer choose his act? What was going on in his mind?” Let’s say the person’s conscience is well-formed, and it says “do not commit murder” (such is not the case for all people, btw). What could be happening in his mind such that he commits murder anyway?

Doomed to pass away assuming they do not come to a repentance.

Not sure what “doomed to pass away” meant. All human rulers are doomed to pass away.

I can’t imagine a worse sin than murdering the Son of God. The soldiers were perhaps the most innocent if they were simply following orders to crucify a criminal without any knowledge of who this person was or that he was being innocently condemned. The rulers St. Paul mentions could be talking about the religious leaders who plotted to kill Jesus. Nonetheless, Jesus is concerned for their salvation more than he is of taking any sort of revenge for the wrongs done to him. This shows God’s desire to be merciful and just. If only the seriousness of the offense were taken into consideration they would have no chance of salvation.

These are all good points. For the last line, are you saying that God would not go after these lost sheep?

Note that Jesus said that for our benefit, not his. St. Stephen follows in his footsteps by praying for his persecutors as they stone him in the book of Acts.

You know, I think you are quite right about “for our benefit”. This is what I am saying, that Jesus by his words is giving us the means to forgive at a deeper level, through understanding, specifically through seeing people’s lack of awareness and blindness.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I see your point, but does God not forgive the unbaptised?

Baptism is for the remission of sins as the book of Acts states. For someone to knowingly refuse baptism means they are choosing to disobey God. How can such a person be forgiven? Nevertheless, God can forgive someone outside of baptism like on the thief on the Cross. But, the thief on the Cross had no opportunity to be baptized. Whereas, most people do have the opportunity.

Well, you’re addressing a different set of extremes, I think. …

No. I was saying that, that would be an extreme assumption that no one knows what they are doing. And, I am saying that is just as extreme as saying everyone knows what they are doing. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

All murder is sin, we can definitely agree on that. Whether it is “mortal” or not is a different topic…

I think the reason Fr. Mitch Pacwa says all murder is a mortal sin because you have to look at what murder is. It is the deliberate killing of an innocent human person. If someone kills out of self defense or as part of a sanctioned capital punishment for a capital offense it is not mortal or even a sin. However, the taking of an innocent human life naturally goes against our ingrained conscience giving us sufficient knowledge to know that it is intrinsically evil. So a person whose conscience is not fully formed enough to include murder as being evil I think would not exist in someone who has a normal mental capacity, but only someone who has some mental incapacity. Even people who practiced cannibalism thought it was wrong for someone to kill their own daughters. So the recognition that it was intrinsically wrong to kill innocents is there, but their consciences have been seared by choosing evil continually overtime.

These are all good points. For the last line, are you saying that God would not go after these lost sheep?

Of course he would. I don’t see why you would ask this question. Jesus is praying for their salvation.

You know, I think you are quite right about “for our benefit”. This is what I am saying, that Jesus by his words is giving us the means to forgive at a deeper level, through understanding, specifically through seeing people’s lack of awareness and blindness.

Right. We can not see other people’s hearts. Thus, when people hurt us we have a tendency to condemn them based on the seriousness of the offense to us only. But, if we follow Jesus’ example we should show them mercy. Perhaps, they do not really know how they treated us affected us.

You are right that we can’t possibly know every little detail. Since we are not God. Therefore, we can not fairly judge others culpability. This doesn’t mean that we can never not know enough to merit punishment or even eternal separation from God. Since in the Bible this is a real possibility. If it wasn’t a real possibility then Jesus would never have mentioned it.

 

[OneSheep]

No. You are making an extreme assumption that no one knows what they are doing. And, I am saying that is just as extreme as saying everyone knows what they are doing.

Okay, thn can you come up with a scenario by which a person knows everything relevant about what they are doing when they sin?

However, the taking of an innocent human life naturally goes against our ingrained conscience…

The CCC confirms that conscience formation is a life-long process. While it is possible that a person has not “it is wrong to kill” in their awareness, it would have to be very rare. The "not knowing what we are doing, then, has to do with a lack of prudence, a blindness.

So in applying the topic of the thread to murder, one must ask “why did the murderer choose his act? What was going on in his mind?” Let’s say the person’s conscience is well-formed, and it says “do not commit murder”. What could be happening in his mind such that he commits murder anyway?

Does the murderer value the life of his victim? Does he see the life as precious, precious as that of his own mother or child?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Okay, thn can you come up with a scenario by which a person knows everything relevant about what they are doing when they sin?

Murder. What you are basically saying then is that no one can possibly commit a mortal sin because no one can know enough to do so. But, as I said before that murder is wrong, is ingrained on the conscience. Even, if I could not come up with an example, that would certainly not prove your point. Can you prove that no one has not had all of the relevant knowledge for something to be a sin? Could you even prove to your own parents when you did something wrong that you didn’t have adequate knowledge or should not be punished for your actions?

The CCC confirms that conscience formation is a life-long process. While it is possible that a person has not “it is wrong to kill” in their awareness, it would have to be very rare. The "not knowing what we are doing, then, has to do with a lack of prudence, a blindness.

So in applying the topic of the thread to murder, one must ask “why did the murderer choose his act? What was going on in his mind?” Let’s say the person’s conscience is well-formed, and it says “do not commit murder”. What could be happening in his mind such that he commits murder anyway?

Does the murderer value the life of his victim? Does he see the life as precious, precious as that of his own mother or child?

There are certain things that I can know, given a rationally functioning mind, without needing further development from an outside source. For instance, I can know murder is wrong just by using my gift of reason. I don’t need any church or government to tell me it is wrong to kill an innocent human being. I can know it is wrong. It goes against my conscience and against reason. However, there are other sins that are wrong that I may be less certain about. I may need the church to tell me that say fornication or masturbation is a sin, because it might not be so obvious. This is where conscience formation is necessary. This is where our conscience must be conformed to a greater standard outside of just ourselves.

One doesn’t have to know everything about an act to know that it is gravely wrong and to be culpable for it. That people do not know everything is not disputed. It is rather that they have sufficient knowledge to be culpable for their actions. If they have a knowledge that it is evil yet choose to do it anyway then that makes them culpable. And, in fact they can not know everything about it if they are choosing evil. They are ignorant of what is better. Nonetheless, they can still be culpable for choosing evil. It may only be after choosing good for awhile that their minds become illuminated about the good and the evil. As often happens when we become closer to the Lord. We start to see just how evil our actions were and how much better it is do do good. It is then though that our culpability has then now increased should we choose the evil at this point since we have come to a greater knowledge.

 

[anon65111186]

I can’t think of a case where people actually know what they are doing when they sin,

When a person reads the Bible and knows that “thou shalt not steal”, and knows stealing is wrong. Then they go into JCPenney’s and steal baby clothes.

This is a situation in which they know its wrong and does what is wrong. Typically classified as a mortal sin.

 

[OneSheep]

What you are basically saying then is that no one can possibly commit a mortal sin because no one can know enough to do so.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to construct a scenario by which a person knows what he is doing when he sins. Try it, you will see.

murder is wrong, is ingrained on the conscience.

…

If the conscience has not been malformed. Not to belabor the point, because you are generally correct.

Can you prove that no one has not had all of the relevant knowledge for something to be a sin?

What I can prove is that it is impossible for a human to know what he is doing when he sins. There is always a gap in awareness, or he simply doesn’t sin. You get to a point where all you can say is “it doesn’t make any sense that he does that”, and it is completely irrational. But this is nothing new, sin is irrational. Does an irrational person know what he is doing? Is he fully aware of the value of the person he is hurting, and it is forefront in his mind? It can’t happen.

Remeber, the aim of this is to understand and forgive, not to make excuses for people so that they can avoid some kind of consequence.

know that it is gravely wrong and to be culpable for it.

When you use this word, do you mean “blameable” or do you mean “imputable”?

 

[OnyinyeFrances]

Someone can’t say he or she does not know what sin is
Obviously even if it is the slightest hint. When u do commit a sin u know that yes it is a sin but it will get to an extent you will see it as a normal routine. At that point u don’t even know if what you are doing can be classified as ‘sin’ anymore .
But just know that at the first instance u know that u have committed a sin

 

[OneSheep]

But just know that at the first instance u know that u have committed a sin

Well, let’s assume that a person does know that something he is doing is a sin. The question is, though, does he know everything relevant to the sin?

Does he know all the consequences?
Does he know the value of the people he is hurting, such that they have the value of his own mother or child?
Are these things actually forefront in his mind?

If the answer to these is yes, then why does he choose to sin, what is going on in his mind?

You see, this is an exercise in understanding people. It is my observation that people who are rational and know all the consequences simply do not sin. These are people not blinded by desire.

Jesus saw that the people hanging Him did not know what they were doing. The people were blinded by desire for justice.

 

[fisherman_carl]

What I am saying is that it is impossible to construct a scenario by which a person knows what he is doing when he sins. Try it, you will see

A person’s conscience informs him that it is wrong and he feels guilty. Little children can not lie to their parents for very long because unlike adults they can not take for very long the negative emotions from guilt. They must reconcile. It is only adults who hang onto these negative emotions.

People can and do know what they are doing is wrong and often see the harmful effects it causes others. But they feel powerless to stop. For instance, an alcoholic. You seem to be saying that only if he had enough knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol he would quit. But, It’s not enough to have knowledge about all the harmful effects of alcohol for them to stop doing it. They need help from outside themselves, even divine help to overcome these sorts of addictions.

Think also about smoking. You would have to be born under a rock to not know that smoking is bad for you and even others from second hand smoke. Yet, I see people smoking all the time. Do these people just not have enough knowledge about the dangers of smoking?

What about people who overeat and grow so obese that there is a significant health risk? Do they just have enough knowledge about the dangers of obesity? Or is there something more going on here like an eating addiction combined with physiology?

 

[Linhares]

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.

 

[Athanasiy]

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.

 

[OneSheep]

A person’s conscience informs him that it is wrong and he feels guilty. Little children can not lie to their parents for very long because unlike adults they can not take for very long the negative emotions from guilt. They must reconcile. It is only adults who hang onto these negative emotions.

Yes, a person’s conscience informs. Have you had instances that your conscience informs you one way but you act the other? We all have, right? So what is lacking, why has the person not followed his conscience? Why did you not, when it happened to you?

People can and do know what they are doing is wrong and often see the harmful effects it causes others. But they feel powerless to stop. For instance, an alcoholic. You seem to be saying that only if he had enough knowledge about the harmful effects of alcohol he would quit. But, It’s not enough to have knowledge about all the harmful effects of alcohol for them to stop doing it. They need help from outside themselves, even divine help to overcome these sorts of addictions.

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?

And if they cannot see their own value, it is because of despair. When we are in despair are we really mindful of our own value? Are we thinking rationally?

Yes, they need divine help, but they have to want the help, and they have to know how to receive the help. There are many possibilities for what they don’t know.

Think also about smoking. You would have to be born under a rock to not know that smoking is bad for you and even others from second hand smoke. Yet, I see people smoking all the time. Do these people just not have enough knowledge about the dangers of smoking?

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

1. Why does the smoker begin smoking?
2. 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?”.

That reminds me, I need to lose some weight…