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

[OneSheep]

What Adam and Eve, and the angels knew, was sufficient for mortal sin.

Hi Vico,

Your later posts prompted me to go back to my first response, because it centers our discussion back onto the topic of this thread. I’m not talking about who is blaming whom, I am saying that we can understand people’s sin in the context of their awareness and lack of awareness, for the objective of forgiveness, and eventually reconciliation.

Your response above did not directly address my questions, so I will post them again here:

Eve saw that “it was good to eat”. In the long run, was it?

Adam and Eve had regret. Did they know more when they were feeling the regret, or did they know more when they were making the bad choice?

Eve saw that it was “good to eat”. Was it?
Did they know more when they were making the bad choice, or when they had regret?

Please try to answer without bringing this back to the topic of “mortal sin”, Vico. God’s judgment is not the topic of this thread.

Thanks, Hope you have a wonderful Christmas!

 

[Vico]

Vico:

What Adam and Eve, and the angels knew, was sufficient for mortal sin.

Hi Vico,

Your later posts prompted me to go back to my first response, because it centers our discussion back onto the topic of this thread. I’m not talking about who is blaming whom, I am saying that we can understand people’s sin in the context of their awareness and lack of awareness, for the objective of forgiveness, and eventually reconciliation.

Your response above did not directly address my questions, so I will post them again here:

Eve saw that “it was good to eat”. In the long run, was it?

Adam and Eve had regret. Did they know more when they were feeling the regret, or did they know more when they were making the bad choice?

Eve saw that it was “good to eat”. Was it?
Did they know more when they were making the bad choice, or when they had regret?

Please try to answer without bringing this back to the topic of “mortal sin”, Vico. God’s judgment is not the topic of this thread.

Thanks, Hope you have a wonderful Christmas!

I’m not talking about who is blaming whom, either. If it is sin, and you have said it is, then it is a moral matter, and we know it is grave matter, so it pertains to mortal sin.

• Yes, it was good to eat in the long run, for what was intended, and through punishment they came to regret. God makes good to come even from malice. (Oh happy fault!)
• With regard to moral command, no, they did not know more when they had regret, compared to before, for they did not learn a new command.
• Yes, objectively, they did know more when they had regret, compared to before, for they came to know good and evil. (… the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.) It was confirmed that God speaks truth and satan opposed that.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico!

Yes, it was good to eat in the long run, for what was intended, and through punishment they came to regret. God makes good to come even from malice. (Oh happy fault!)

I am confused by “for what was intended”. Yes, they intended to have something good, but was it good, ultimately?
Yes, through consequence they came to regret. Did they fully comprehend, know of the consequence when they ate of the fruit?

With regard to moral command, no, they did not know more when they had regret, compared to before, for they did not learn a new command.

This is true, except that “knowing a moral command” falls far short of knowing the importance and reason for a moral command. There is a huge gap in our understanding of morality if we do not know the reasons behind moral commands. Indeed, the informing of the conscience itself very much involves knowing the reasons.

Yes, objectively, they did know more when they had regret, compared to before, for they came to know good and evil. (… the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.) It was confirmed that God speaks truth and satan opposed that.

And since the knowing of good and evil would have been quite relevant to the choice they had made, they truly did not know what they were doing when they sinned. They knew more when they had the regret, and the knowledge they gained would guide them to a wiser choice in the future.

This is what I am observing, Vico. We can relate to all characters in world and history by discovering where their knowledge gap was or is. This understanding aids us in forgiving, just as Jesus indicated from the cross. All of us have a lack of understanding, especially when we sin.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico!

Vico:

Yes, it was good to eat in the long run, for what was intended, and through punishment they came to regret. God makes good to come even from malice. (Oh happy fault!)

I am confused by “for what was intended”. Yes, they intended to have something good, but was it good, ultimately?
Yes, through consequence they came to regret. Did they fully comprehend, know of the consequence when they ate of the fruit?

With regard to moral command, no, they did not know more when they had regret, compared to before, for they did not learn a new command.

This is true, except that “knowing a moral command” falls far short of knowing the importance and reason for a moral command. There is a huge gap in our understanding of morality if we do not know the reasons behind moral commands. Indeed, the informing of the conscience itself very much involves knowing the reasons.

Yes, objectively, they did know more when they had regret, compared to before, for they came to know good and evil. (… the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.) It was confirmed that God speaks truth and satan opposed that.

And since the knowing of good and evil would have been quite relevant to the choice they had made, they truly did not know what they were doing when they sinned. They knew more when they had the regret, and the knowledge they gained would guide them to a wiser choice in the future.

This is what I am observing, Vico. We can relate to all characters in world and history by discovering where their knowledge gap was or is. This understanding aids us in forgiving, just as Jesus indicated from the cross. All of us have a lack of understanding, especially when we sin.

Even with a lack understanding we have sufficient knowledge for mortal sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Even with a lack understanding we have sufficient knowledge for mortal sin.

Well, we really can’t know this, can we? After all, Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” So we have a very important example where people were definitely sinning, yet their knowledge was insufficient to actually know what they were doing, and He forgave.

Jesus in using the word “for” showed us how to forgive people in even the most difficult of situations. We can forgive through understanding people’s ignorance.

And then, when we see that no one ever knows what they are doing when they sin, (that is, they are missing something relevant such that if they did know, they would not sin) our own forgiveness of others, when the will is there, will naturally follow.

Does God understand a person’s lack of awareness _less_than an ordinary human? That does not make sense. Does God forgive _less_than an ordinary human? That too, goes against what we know about the love of God, right?

 

[OneSheep]

The observation remains that people do not know what they are doing when they sin, Vico. The example you brought up long ago about the person who completely knew the ramifications and consequences of the sin, knew completely his own dignity and the dignity of his fellow sinner, yet sinned anyway, was a man who does not exist. In the moment, something in his mind said “this is good”, and that something buried everything else he knew. The proof of this was the sinful behavior.

And we can see that the CCC agrees:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.

You see, the “perverse attachment” takes precedent in the person’s mind over reason, truth, and right conscience.

 

[Vico]

Well, we really can’t know this, can we?

There is a difference between knowing with certainty if one has committed a mortal sin and one actually committing a mortal sin. Yes, a person can commit a mortal sin without being certain of it, when the three elements are present, grave matter and: Catechism

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. …

 

[OneSheep]

There is a difference between knowing with certainty if one has committed a mortal sin and one actually committing a mortal sin. Yes, a person can commit a mortal sin without being certain of it, when the three elements are present, grave matter and: Catechism

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. …

Yes, the part that people do not know is the “sinful character of the act” when they are carrying out the act, Vico.

For example, “mortal” sin means death, correct? Would any rational human commit a sin if he clearly saw that he would die immediately afterward? Of course not. Yet, people do sin, because sin itself is irrational.

How exactly do “perverse attachments” effect the mind? Perverse attachments cloud and temporarily alter our consciences and block empathy for self and others. People caught up in desire believe untruths, just as Eve did in “seeing it was good to eat”, which was simply false. She did not know what she was doing.

But let’s get away from “mortal sin”, shall we? This thread is about why people sin, for the purpose of understanding others. Since none of us is omniscient, we cannot 100% eliminate the possibility that someone could actually choose against God, even with God doing everything possible to convince a person to stay with Him.

 

[OneSheep]

Is it possible that too much focus on mortal sin steers our minds away from understanding and forgiving, and instead ties us up in judging ourselves and others?

Matthew 7:1-2New International Version (NIV)
Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Is it possible, Vico, that when we look upon the sins of others with the attitude, “They should have known better, and God finds their sin mortal”, we are truly judging? In charity, we can give all people the benefit of the doubt, correct?

And seeing people’s blindness and lack of awareness goes further, not just “giving”, but actually discovering where people lack, right? It eliminates the “guesswork” and goes straight to observing what is happening.

 

[Vico]

…
Yes, the part that people do not know is the “sinful character of the act” when they are carrying out the act, Vico. …
For example, “mortal” sin means death, correct? …

Mortal sin does not mean death of the body for us. If a person does not know the sinful character of the act then that is called either invincible ignorance, or it could be willful negligence. It is sufficient to know that the Church teaches that an act is sinful, or from the conscience, for it to be an actual sin.

 

[Vico]

Is it possible that too much focus on mortal sin steers our minds away from understanding and forgiving, and instead ties us up in judging ourselves and others?

Matthew 7:1-2New International Version (NIV)
Judging Others

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

No. That scripture means not to usurp the place of God in judgement. However, we are called to identify material sin. This is certain:

Matthew 18:15-17

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

1 John 5:16-17

16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. 17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

 

[OneSheep]

However, we are called to identify material sin.

When does such identification actually become judging?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

However, we are called to identify material sin.

When does such identification actually become judging?

Identifying material sin (just judgment) is not the same as condemnation, for condemnation is to impose a penalty on, especially to sentence to death.

John 7

24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.

Matthew 7

5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Condemned to death for Adultery:

John 8:4-5,11 -

4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. … 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? 11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

 

[OneSheep]

Identifying material sin (just judgment) is not the same as condemnation, for condemnation is to impose a penalty on, especially to sentence to death.

I remember my Catholic bible notes explaining that when Jesus says the word “judging” he is talking about condemnation. Condemnation means to “strongly disapprove”, it part of emotional resentment, right?

Are you saying that when Jesus calls us not to judge, He was saying that such resentment is fine, but imposing a penalty is not?

We are talking Spirituality here, Vico. A person who feels resentment is naturally going to want to punish someone in some way, correct?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Identifying material sin (just judgment) is not the same as condemnation, for condemnation is to impose a penalty on, especially to sentence to death.

I remember my Catholic bible notes explaining that when Jesus says the word “judging” he is talking about condemnation. Condemnation means to “strongly disapprove”, it part of emotional resentment, right?

Are you saying that when Jesus calls us not to judge, He was saying that such resentment is fine, but imposing a penalty is not?

We are talking Spirituality here, Vico. A person who feels resentment is naturally going to want to punish someone in some way, correct?

We must use or discrimination to make determinations, and this should be done justly.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.

I am using condemnation with the scriptural example for punishment, like stoning to death. You are using a different sense of the word that I am not.

There are temptations (such as a resentment) to do what is morally wrong (you are calling this natural), but then we have been given supernatural grace with which we cooperate with to go against the morally wrong choice.

 

[OneSheep]

.

There are temptations (such as a resentment) to do what is morally wrong

Resentment isn’t a temptation, it is an emotion. We are speaking from different vocabularies and concepts, Vico. You are talking about judging, I am talking about understanding.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

.

There are temptations (such as a resentment) to do what is morally wrong

Resentment isn’t a temptation, it is an emotion. We are speaking from different vocabularies and concepts, Vico. You are talking about judging, I am talking about understanding.

Resentment is (Merriam-Webster):

a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury.

Therefore it is a either a temptation to sin or a sin (ill will).

 

[OneSheep]

Therefore it is a either a temptation to sin or a sin (ill will).

So is it a sin when a person feels “ill will” toward someone who abuses women, i.e. wants them to be brought to justice/punished?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Therefore it is a either a temptation to sin or a sin (ill will).

So is it a sin when a person feels “ill will” toward someone who abuses women, i.e. wants them to be brought to justice/punished?

The feeling is a temptation to do malice. The action of seeking justice would not be sin, but malice would be.

 

[OneSheep]

The feeling is a temptation to do malice. The action of seeking justice would not be sin, but malice would be.

The feeling is not necessarily a temptation to do malice, it drives the human to seek justice. For example, the people who hung Jesus were driven by resentment, and they saw Him as a blasphemer, guilty of blasphemy, which was punishable by death.

Was the hanging of Jesus “malice” or was it “seeking justice”?

Second question: Was the crucifixion of the other two “malice” or “seeking justice”?