B
BT3241
Guest
I am a sinner - when I sin it is by my choice - I know what is right and wrong - if I say anything different I am a liar before God and have sinned again.
- Status
O
OneSheep
Guest
Me, too, for the most part, but I’m not really sure what that has to do with people not knowing what they are doing when they sin, when “knowing” is used in the sense that everything relevant is known.
Is there an example of sin that you can find where a sinner knew everything relevant to the sin, and was not blinded by wrath or desire?
B
BT3241
Guest
I can’t give an example but I definitely know what I am doing is wrong maybe not right away - instead of looking for something to blame I try to see where I am wrong because I know I cannot trust myself - if I let my ego take over it will always be the other persons fault - its hard to look inwards and I can’t always do it so I try to only judge myself and my actions in most scenarios - you have to humble yourself which is not easy to do in this “me first” world, I am sure I fail most of the time but I always need to look at my own actions and words first regardless of the situation and how I reacted and if I could of done things differently to cause a better out come. I am a sinner there is no doubt about that.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, we all are.
Well, there is a more to “knowing everything relevant” than knowing that someone (law or religion) says that something is wrong, correct? For example, a person running a stoplight is wrong, but if he actually hits and kills a person while doing so, he definitely did not know everything relevant when he made the bad choice.
Another example: a person shoplifting. Does the shoplifter value the well-being of the shop owner as much as he values his own mother or child? If not, he is not seeing the true value of the shop owner, he is missing something relevant.
B
BT3241
Guest
I disagree with your one example - we know there are rules on the road for ours and others safety and people break those rule to gain a second - its selfishness and a me first attitude - if you run a stop light there is a chance you might get in a collision and kill someone. So you are aware of the consequences of your actions because you have a “it won’t happen to me attitude” because I’m such a great drive is no excuse - its all ego and there is the sin.I challenge everyone here today to slow down stop and let others go first and smile - follow the rules of the road - don’t drive selfishly today you might kill of maim someone.
B
BT3241
Guest
If you don’t look at the motives behind your actions then you have missed what you should be looking at. Acknowledging the sin alone is not enough you must look at why you made the choice or you have learned nothing. How many of us go to confession for the same sins over and over again - I fail all the time at this to be clear and even when i see my motives - but i ( think) I am getting better - there goes my ego again - i think you can learn to overcome somethings by looking at why you sinned which is the real sin and cause of the action rather that the sin it self.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Exactly, it is no excuse at all. A person who has such thinking is believing an untruth, correct?
Again, this is important, I agree. Like many people including Saints have observed, what people want is something good, but their sight is perverted in some way, and they go about getting the “good” in bad ways. For example the bad driver wanted to get someplace on time (good) but was driving dangerously (bad), thinking “it will never happen to me”, which was an untruth.
The motive behind “it will never happen to me” is the desire to be in control (be on time) which blinds a person as to the importance of safety. Desire has perverted/compromised his rational thought. All sin is irrational.
Needless to say, the driver had no idea he would hit someone, and the “hitting someone” was very relevant to his decision to sin. This is not meant to excuse him, but understand his sin - and his motives.
Did Jesus mean to give everyone “excuses” when he observed that the crowd did not know what they were doing, or do you suppose that some justice was yet to be served even though they were forgiven?
B
BT3241
Guest
I like your comments
V
Vico
Guest
Malice or justice: there are many involved so there is not one answer for all.
Malice is a deliberate choice of evil and is grave sin.
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was not justice on the part of Pilate, who found him not guilty. Some of the Jews may have though it was justified. However Jesus said to the Pharisees (John 8):
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Remember that Jesus forgave them all, regardless of the gravity, and He forgave them through the path of understanding, “for they know not what they do”. So what Jesus saw was that every level of malice/seeking justice in the crowd was a “not knowing”.
Would you agree that when a person has even the smallest amount of resentment in his heart, his own ability to empathize is compromised, even “perverted”? Resentment blinds us, and when a person is compelled by his conscience to seek justice, there is quite naturally a bit of negative feeling toward the offender.
For example, if the human could rely completely on discipline, then Jesus simply saying “do not judge” would suffice for avoiding sin associated with desire for justice. But no, reality is that the compulsion to judge works much faster in the mind than rational thinking can divert it. Jesus’ call for people to forgive one another addresses this reality, Vico. The initial action in the mind of wanting justice involves some negative judgment toward a person, which was clearly demonstrated at the crucifixion. Can you admit this, Vico, that we all share this capacity for the blindness that comes with resentment, initiated by the desire for justice? Don’t all people have gut reactions to horrible deeds?
So then, how do we “seek justice” in a way that involves no sin? The only way is to first forgive the people we want brought to justice, a forgiveness from the heart, correct? And how do we do that, when we are also compelled to avoid forgiving people who are not repentant? Well, again, Jesus showed us from the cross, right Vico? We can forgive the unrepentant by seeing that they do not know what they are doing.
So, yes, malice is a deliberate choice and is a grave sin, but Jesus saw that no matter what went into their “deliberate choice”, they did not know what they were doing.
It was obviously the Jewish leadership that also wanted Him dead. However, Peter confirmed in Acts that they, too, did not know what they were doing. Do you have any doubt that Pharisees, if not part of the crowd, were certainly with the crowd in desire for Jesus’ death? Yet these, too, cannot be excluded from those forgiven with Jesus’ words from the cross. Do you have any doubt that Jesus forgave the Pharisees? They were totally blinded by fear and resentment; as He was a challenge to their instituted status of “holiness”.
G
guanophore
Guest
What an interesting proposition, OneSheep! No one is really responsible for their sins, because no one is omniscient!
This is handy, because it dismisses the need for any punishment. God’s love and forgiving mercy will pardon everyone for everything, and no sin has to be punished because the people commmiting it did not really know what they were doing (not omniscient).
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Guanophore! My heart leaps with joy!
You are back, as sarcastic as ever.You are thinking that if no one knows what they are doing, then they are not responsible. Okay.
Are you thinking, then, when Jesus said “forgive them, for they know not what they do” that He was proclaiming that they were not responsible?
I hear what you are saying, because you are thinking that if people do not know what they are doing, then they are not responsible, and not held responsible, for their sin.
So, bringing it back to Luke 23:34, are you thinking that Jesus was saying that no punishment was warranted for the crowd, for all the people He was referring to?
(Please remember that I am not talking about omniscience, only “relevant information”.)
Oh, and I had to look at your new profile. The Abbey of Our Lady, cool! Is the Abbey a welcoming place?
V
Vico
Guest
Q. Would you agree that when a person has even the smallest amount of resentment in his heart, his own ability to empathize is compromised, even “perverted”?
A. Not always. Grace makes it possible to do what would be considered a natural limit.
Q. Can you admit this, Vico, that we all share this capacity for the blindness that comes with resentment, initiated by the desire for justice?
A. It is possible to be blinded with passion and resentment could be that. In which case an reaction may be involuntary. But, no, resentment and desire for justice are not identical. Resentment is either a feeling or a sin: “a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury.”
Q. Don’t all people have gut reactions to horrible deeds?
A. Likely, except for some with psychological disorders.
Q. So then, how do we “seek justice” in a way that involves no sin?
A. There may be the feeling of displeasure (the resetment) but justice can be sought without ill will. The feeling can temp to wrong action but the will may override it. Grace makes it possible to do what would be considered a natural limit.
Q. The only way is to first forgive the people we want brought to justice, a forgiveness from the heart, correct?
A. To forgive means to not punish with malice (to cancel a debt, for example, or reduce it), and a person can seek justice even with a feeling of resentment. Justice may call for civil punishment.
Q. And how do we do that, when we are also compelled to avoid forgiving people who are not repentant?
A. No, we are not required to forgive people who are not repentant. Luke 17:3-4:
Q. Well, again, Jesus showed us from the cross, right Vico?
A. He asked his Father to forgive but it was not a declaration that they were actually forgiven.
Q. Do you have any doubt that Pharisees, if not part of the crowd, were certainly with the crowd in desire for Jesus’ death?
A. I think some were.
Q. Do you have any doubt that Jesus forgave the Pharisees?
A. I think some were. For example those with invincible ignorance.
Those that could be considered responsible for the murder of Jesus Christ are likely the subjects of the statement. In general, people can be forgiven for guilt and for temporal punishment, as they are in baptism. Now actual sin must be voluntary and may be venial due to invincible ignorance. That is not the same type of sin as malice. We do not know the immutability of those forgiven or specifically which ones they were in such a general statement.
Catechism
Last edited:
B
BT3241
Guest
I will also add that you have to be aware that
The heart is more devious than any other thing, perverse too - from Jeremiah
You may confess you sin but you must search you devious heart for why you have sinned.
The heart is more devious than any other thing, perverse too - from Jeremiah
You may confess you sin but you must search you devious heart for why you have sinned.
G
guanophore
Guest
God would not make people responsible for things they can’t know. In His mercy He will forgive everyone for everything, since no one can know what thev are doing.
Yes and know. As you have pointed out, it is still a sin, but God is merciful and will forgive them, since they knew not what they were doing. He did not wait until they recognized their wrong, or repent, or ask for forgiveness. He forgave them up front. Won’t He do the same for all of us?
Who can say what information is “relevant”? Only if we are omnicient can we be guaranteed to have all the relevant information.
If he has the gift of omniscience, of course he will!
I am not sure if omniciensce means that all the relevant information can be forefront in the mind, but I would speculate that it does, yes.
You have a singular life experience!
If he was a rational person, and understood the consequences of his sin, then the only think lacking would be that he was blinded by resentment. This blindness means that he did not really know what he was doing when he committed the sin. The not knowing, by definition, exempts the sin from being mortal, so committing the sin will not expunge the life of God within him. And, since God is merciful he will forgive the rational blind person even if he does not repent.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, Vico
Do you see what I mean? As long as the resentment is not addressed (through grace), the perversion is still possible, and probable. Are you following me in this?
continued…
I have to agree Vico, but you are talking about the supernatural, and I am talking about the natural. In my own experience, that grace comes through prayer, prayer in the form of reflection. When I reflect on my emotions and identify my resentment, the power of the emotion is dissipated to a large degree. But focusing on the person acting in grace, we are talking about someone in a state of “knowing”. Grace grounded in relationship involves knowing how to be in relationship and knowing how to pray in a way that enables the person to transcend his resentment.
Do you see what I mean? As long as the resentment is not addressed (through grace), the perversion is still possible, and probable. Are you following me in this?
I didn’t say it was identical though… Resentment is a natural, triggered emotion when we view injustice, and the description you gave is very accurate IMO.
Yes, I agree. It begins with the will to forgive. And how, from the cross, did Jesus show us how to forgive those who are difficult to forgive and unrepentant? We can see that all sinners do not know what they are doing.
continued…
O
OneSheep
Guest
Fascinating! We are speaking from definitions of forgiveness, Vico, which would help explain the gap in our thinking. I am talking about forgiveness from the heart, not a more legal address of debt, per se. I begin with the story of the prodigal son’s father, whose forgiveness involves no resentment after forgiveness. If I have resentment, I still “hold something against” someone, I have not forgiven. However, in your definition, that forgiveness from the heart is not as central.
This difference could make for a very interesting thread sometime.
Well, it depends on your definition of “required”, though. If a person holds something against someone for his whole life, he is not going to experience the Love of God, in a real way, that the person who forgives does. We cannot simultaneously hold grudges and know/experience God’s complete love for us. See Mark 11:25
So Jesus was not one with the Father in that instance? I have never heard this “non-declaration” stated before. Does the catechism say that Jesus did not forgive those whom He prayed the Father forgive?
OTOH, if you are saying that “forgiveness” is not forgiveness from the heart, that it is about cancelling punishment, then I can see that some “punishment”(i.e. natural consequences or purgatory) for members of the crowd might be helpful to them spiritually. So even though Jesus forgave from the heart, He did not relinquish them from a punishment that serves a purpose in helping the person, is mercifully prescribed. Does this state your position?
This conversation is getting very interesting, Vico!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Maybe we have a means of addressing our differences using the two definitions. If we are talking about forgiveness from the heart, then “forgive them, for they know not what they do” applies to everyone who was involved in the “doing”, including all the Pharisees who wanted Him dead. He forgave them all from His Loving Heart.
However, such forgiveness did not preclude individual sinners’ need for a merciful application of some kind of punishment or natural consequence. For example, there were certainly some bystanders whose “sin of omission” included not doing all they mercifully could to stop the crucifixion. Those bystanders suffered the consequence of guilt afterward, as Peter experienced.
O
OneSheep
Guest
This may be a position that is like the “depravity” model of some Protestant denominations though, it is not in the Catechism.
Some clarification would be helpful. What is an example of motive that people have that seems to demonstrate such deviance?
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think so, OS. Being in a state of grace improves our ability to know God, ourselves, and others, but it does not mean that we have all the “knowing” needed to have all the “relevant information” to avoid sin.
I think that this perspective functions to free you from the bondage of resentment. I find it peculiar, and impossible for me, but I am glad it works for you.
I think this is very true. Resentment is a prison we create for ourselves.
I think this is the case with the “good thief” who professed faith in Christ on the cross. Jesus could have taken him immediately, as He promised Him paradise, but Jesus left him on the cross to suffer, have his legs broken, etc. He allowed the forgiven thief to suffer the temporal consequences of his sins.
- Status