God and sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I know I have been wondering this for a couple of days. God cannot be in the presence of sin of course. And if one commits a serious sin like…masturbation for example. God will leave and your must receive absolution. but what about when you don’t know it’s a sin? The same act is committed but God stays. Anyone understand this?
 
billcu1 said:
I know I have been wondering this for a couple of days. God cannot be in the presence of sin of course. And if one commits a serious sin like…masturbation for example. God will leave and your must receive absolution. but what about when you don’t know it’s a sin? The same act is committed but God stays. Anyone understand this?
Click to expand...
I’m no theologian but why would you think God stays if the same sin is committed?
 
Isn’t that where God needs to be? With the sinner to change his/her attitude. That has always been a question for me.
 
Atheling2 said:
I don’t agree with moral relativism, which is what you’re espousing.
Click to expand...
Ok. The church teaches that you must have “full knowledge”. That’s well known. If not there’s no mortal sin. Person X knows masturbation is sin it’s a sin. Person Y doesn’t realize that, to my knowledge there’s nothing to confess. Until he learns it’s a sin and does it again. If sins are against God. Why does God stay for one and leave for the one in full knowledge and consent to sin.

Bill
 
billcu1 said:
Ok. The church teaches that you must have “full knowledge”. That’s well known. If not there’s no mortal sin. Person X knows masturbation is sin it’s a sin. Person Y doesn’t realize that, to my knowledge there’s nothing to confess. Until he learns it’s a sin and does it again. If sins are against God. Why does God stay for one and leave for the one in full knowledge and consent to sin.

Bill
Click to expand...
If I really wanted to know, I would ask a Catholic priest/theologian instead of using this particular board.
 
Atheling2 said:
If I really wanted to know, I would ask a Catholic priest/theologian instead of using this particular board.
Click to expand...
I kind of wondered whether or not this was the right place to post. It seemed like a philosophical question to me. Maybe I am not understanding what sin is.
 
billcu1 said:
Ok. The church teaches that you must have “full knowledge”. That’s well known. If not there’s no mortal sin. Person X knows masturbation is sin it’s a sin. Person Y doesn’t realize that, to my knowledge there’s nothing to confess. Until he learns it’s a sin and does it again. If sins are against God. Why does God stay for one and leave for the one in full knowledge and consent to sin.

Bill
Click to expand...
I think the issue you are having is that you are thinking about this backwards. It’s not that God decides to leave a sinner for committing a mortal sin. Rather, the sinner in effect leaves God by committing such a sin. The positive action is on the part of the sinner, not God, since God is unchanging and impassible.

Using your example of masturbation, the relevant difference between the sinner who knows masturbation is wrong and performs it anyway and the sinner who ignorantly performs masturbation without really knowing it is a sin is the intentional state. The reason why humans are capable of sin is because we have intellects and free will. We can know how things are in their essential nature (e.g. in this case that sexual acts are by their nature ordered towards procreation, our intellect allows us to really know what sex really is, that masturbation directly contradicts that end, etc.) and are moved by a desire for goodness itself (i.e. free will, since we desire universal goodness we are not necessarily drawn towards any particular good).

In the mortal sin case, the sinner knows the essential nature of sex, knows that masturbation contradicts that nature, and freely wills against goodness in preference of some lesser good, i.e. pleasure in this case. There is an intentional willing of evil there which is what shuts God out and leaves the sinner in a state of mortal sin. God’s charity cannot be present in a soul that intends and wills such things. Penance is necessary in this case because the sinner has to deliberately and intentionally repent in order to allow God’s grace back into their soul. In the venial sin case, there is not necessarily an intentional will to do evil, since the intentional state could not be present due to ignorance. Hence the action did not contradict divine charity and the sinner is only guilty of venial and not mortal sin. This is called “invincible ignorance” since the ignorance, I suppose, rendered you “unconquerable” by this particular sin.

The issue is that oftentimes ignorance itself is intentionally willed, such as when someone suspects there may be something morally wrong with the intended action, but deliberately refuses to consider the matter further for fear that they may become actively conscious of a reason to not perform the action. That would be vincible ignorance and you would be mortally culpable for the action since the intention is that “well, even if I ought to prefer a greater good to this action, I don’t care because I want this possibly lesser good regardless.” That is a sufficient intention to do evil.
 
“Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.”

It seems that even “ignorance” of sin is not excusable, as the above states that the moral law is engraved in the conscience of every man. It makes sense, as how can even a pagan dismiss the murder of an innocent, or the theft of another’s property?

Good information, thanks.
 
billcu1 said:
Maybe I am not understanding what sin is.
Click to expand...
I think you are maybe failing to recognize the distinction between venial and mortal sin. In your example, person X and Y have both sinned, but person X is most likely in mortal sin and it is debatable whether person Y is also in mortal sin, depending on other factors.

Since this is the philosophy forum, here is Aquinas’ discussion of the difference for interested parties: Question 88: Venial and Mortal Sin
 
billcu1 said:
So a sin is against God. But one requirement is knowledge. So Adam’s sin was committed in full knowledge then. So then part of sin is knowledge. I am deducing.

Bill
Click to expand...
More explicitly, knowledge of the sinful nature of the act is required for the act to be sin. Also a deliberate choice (an act of the will) to act anyway is also required.
 
No one can fool God Almighty on anything. He sees ALL and knows ALL.

You can try to run from God and justify your conscience in an effort to help you feel not so guilty for your bad choices but you won’t be doing yourself any favors. You can not hide from God. I know some people don’t have a conscience so they feel no remorse or they don’t feel bad or feel guilty in their heart for actions but that is why we pray that everyone chooses good over evil.
 
I apologize for coming across so strong in what I stated in what I posted earlier in this thread. I understand these forums are for those who are asking genuine questions to get honest and genuine answers. I am sorry for saying you can run from God but you can’t hide. It is true but I think that kind of response may be kind of harsh and I do not want to come across as a Catholic with a callous heart. Please pardon me and I really appreciate it.

God Bless you all.
 
We are rational animals, and our “natural” (correct) activities are rationally chosen; we can reason whether to eat a meal or not, whether to eat everything in sight or not, etc.

Everyone knows that something like masturbation is not in accordance with reason (meaning that reason looks at the body’s construction, looks at the difference between male and female, looks at the result of copulation [pregnancy, birth, rearing of a child], and from reasoning about this reason concludes as natural law that the reasonable purpose of sex is for the continuation of the species, with pleasurable aspects of sex assisting humans in desiring to engage in the long-term requirements of its practice). Therefore, a rational person (one acting from reason rather than animalistically from appetite) knows a natural law that sexual activity is for species continuation.
And since we are a species living in community, we develop communal laws about how we as a society will use this activity so as to support the community growth rather than exploit one another, and we have human laws about sex.
And finally for the rational Christian, we have a revealed law from God that wants us to not only have rational outer activity but also have it in the heart, in the will, in the understanding; God’s Law.

Everyone knows it is a sin, that is why we do not drive down the street and see people paused along the sidewalk masturbating. Everyone who does it, does it in secret, hiding.
They are “turning away” from conscience, from reason, from natural law, and from God. I will wager that they are not saying the Our Father or any other real prayer while masturbating, and are pretending that God is not there with them, right in front of them, looking squarely at them as they do it. No, everyone knows it is a sin, not moral, and they pretend it never happened when they come out of hiding and again begin talking with others in their community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top