What is exactly and precisely "invincible ignorance"?

[Nahar]

Still

To know one or both is not ignorance

The “or” gives the game away. I only know what you say ABOUT something. If you talk to me ABOUT the FSM, that does not mean that I know ABOUT the FSM. I only know that you talk about it. Is that not obvious? To know “something” should not be confused with knowing “ABOUT something”.

 

[steve-b]

And what Jesus said in that passage does not translate into a limited salvation.

When Jesus said, looking forward in history, few are saved means (the many, the rest) aren’t.

Maximus1:

More directly you suggest what Jesus said contradicts God’s will.

Jesus is God the Son. The Father gave all judgement to His Son.

Here’s a few key quotes from Jesus

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;*

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Jn 17: 20
even as you Father, art in me, and I in you,

Maximus1:

Why do you think he did that? That’s pretty radical just to achieve more people in hell

When Jesus said few are saved, who is really saying THATthrough Jesus? It’s the FATHER

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Still

To know one or both is not ignorance

The “or” gives the game away. I only know what you say ABOUT something. If you talk to me ABOUT the FSM, that does not mean that I know ABOUT the FSM. I only know that you talk about it. Is that not obvious? To know “something” should not be confused with knowing “ABOUT something”.

If I talk to you about a subject you ( know/knew) nothing about before we talked, then after we talk, you are no longer ignorant of that subject. As discussion continues, if interest is there, further details about the subject can be discussed,

AND

This seems to be drifting away from where we started HERE

 

[Nahar]

If I talk to you about a subject you ( know/knew) nothing about before we talked, then after we talk, you are no longer ignorant of that subject.

All I can know that the “question” exists, nothing more. Also I know what you might say about the subject. But I cannot know what you said about the subject is correct or not (unless you can substantiate it). I cannot be held responsible for what you said about the subject.

 

[steve-b]

Nahar:

All I can know that the “question” exists, nothing more. Also I know what you might say about the subject. But I cannot know what you said about the subject is correct or not (unless you can substantiate it). I cannot be held responsible for what you said about the subject.

Again, I think this is drifting off of where we started HERE

 

[Ammi]

steve-b:

If I talk to you about a subject you ( know/knew) nothing about before we talked, then after we talk, you are no longer ignorant of that subject.

All I can know that the “question” exists, nothing more. Also I know what you might say about the subject. But I cannot know what you said about the subject is correct or not (unless you can substantiate it). I cannot be held responsible for what you said about the subject.

It is a matter of the heart, and of faith.

Jesus has fashioned it this way. He showed miracles to some, but He also performed miracles to those who believed.

The Gospel is a message. It’s not something that can be exteriorly proven. It is known only through faith. Jesus recognizes those who hear His voice. Those who recognize, in their hearts, the message He brought.

It requires a conviction of the need and desire for Him. This conviction happens by the Holy Spirit. And those who are seeking God will be open to the Spirit.

Not that we found God, but that He came down and found us first. He initiates, works, and accomplishes the means of reconciling us to Himself. We see, by faith, and are convicted that He is God and has given Himself completely, in order to share His life with us.

 

[Nahar]

Again, I think this is drifting off of where we started

And now we are here. Let’s take a concrete example. According to the catholic teaching, sex outside marriage is a mortal sin (as long as all the requirements of mortal sin are met). I am aware that this is the teaching, and yet, I reject (or discard) it - and I have my reasons for it. I do not KNOW if it is a mortal sin, I only know that in the church’s teaching (opinion) it is. That is all.

 

[Ammi]

steve-b:

Again, I think this is drifting off of where we started

And now we are here. Let’s take a concrete example. According to the catholic teaching, sex outside marriage is a mortal sin (as long as all the requirements of mortal sin are met). I am aware that this is the teaching, and yet, I reject (or discard) it - and I have my reasons for it. I do not KNOW if it is a mortal sin, I only know that in the church’s teaching (opinion) it is. That is all.

You are already in need of Salvation. Why do you wonder about potential Mortal sin after you are Reconciled with God?

You see? If you reject Jesus as the Lord, why debate His Teachings?

 

[Nahar]

You are already in need of Salvation.

In your opinion.

You see? If you reject Jesus as the Lord, why debate His Teachings?

Curiosity. I am interested in your views. Since I am not a cat, it will not kill me.

 

[Ammi]

In your opinion.

Well, Its a matter of Apostolic Teaching, so I wouldnt say it is just my opinion.

Curiosity. I am interested in your views. Since I am not a cat, it will not kill me.

Well I’m glad for that. And am trying to focus on the most important thing. You will get bogged down if you try to analyze every Teaching if you dont have faith in the Gospel.

 

[Nahar]

Well, Its a matter of Apostolic Teaching, so I wouldnt say it is just my opinion.

I did not say that it is ONLY your opinion. It is shared by millions of people.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Again, I think this is drifting off of where we started

And now we are here.

Ok

Nahar:

Let’s take a concrete example. According to the catholic teaching, sex outside marriage is a mortal sin (as long as all the requirements of mortal sin are met). I am aware that this is the teaching, and yet, I reject (or discard) it - and I have my reasons for it. I do not KNOW if it is a mortal sin, I only know that in the church’s teaching (opinion) it is. That is all.

Condemnation, for fornication, comes from scripture.

So

I’m sure people didn’t/don’t like hearing THAT bit of news, from the beginning as well as to the end of time… What’s new…right?

Does that stop people from committing fornication? NOPE!

If people die in mortal sin, will they be condemned? YEP!

It’s important to note: That doesn’t come from me.

Ephesians 5:3-5 lists sins that keep one from heaven. English translations of scripture aren’t always giving the specific meaning of the word used. E.G,The first sin mentioned, Immorality in that passage, (the Greek word for that from the Greek study bible, = πορνεία = porneia = fornication, ) …

AND

Verse 5 says, “Be sure of this, that no fornicator(in the Greek) πόρνος or … has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

So

To anyone who respects what the bible teaches, Does that sound like an itty bitty sin or a whopping mortal sin that sends one to hell if one dies in that sin?

All I can say,

I’m not the savior of mankind.
I don’t make the rules.
I want to goto heaven, and avoid Hell at all cost when I die.
So I do all I can to keep from committing mortal sin.

But that’s me.

 

[Nahar]

Condemnation, for fornication, comes from scripture.

I am still not sure if we are on the same page. I accept everything that you said in your post - as being a correct representation of the catholic stance. I simply don’t accept it. So, I am not aware of fornication is being a mortal sin. I am aware that it is considered to be a mortal sin by the catholic church. Do you see the difference?

 

[EndTimes]

The title says it all. But a little enlightenment cannot hurt. If someone had heard the catechism, understands it, but does not accept its premises because she does not find them logical and rational… is that person still “invincibly ignorant”?

That’s not what invincible ignorance means…

Ref: CCC 1790 → 1794

What you’ve described would be someone who, expecially if having studied the CCC right up to the point of articles #1790 through #1794 - and beyond, simply Rejects the CCC, yes?

Reading, Knowing, Understanding - stand apart from Acceptance…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Condemnation, for fornication, comes from scripture.

I am still not sure if we are on the same page. I accept everything that you said in your post - as being a correct representation of the catholic stance. I simply don’t accept it. So, I am not aware of fornication is being a mortal sin. I am aware that it is considered to be a mortal sin by the catholic church. Do you see the difference?

There is a term that describes what you are saying

Incredulity = the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

IOW

Truth doesn’t depend on one accepting it or agreeing with it to be true. Truth is truth

BTW

As I showed, It’s not just the Catholic Church, it’s scripture as well, that teaches that about fornication.

AND

Mortal sin, is described in scripture, 1 jn 5:16-17 RSVCE - If any one sees his brother committing - Bible Gateway

 

[Nahar]

That’s not what invincible ignorance means…

Where is your text (CCC 1790-1794) in this collection?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Incredulity = the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

What does it have to do with ignorance? Invincible or not? Is that “truth” that can be PROVEN to be “truth”? Just cause someone declares that “proposition X” is the “truth”, it carries no weight. And it does not matter if that “someone” is person or the catholic church.

Maybe you mean that if there is something that is “declared” to be “revealed truth”, then it MUST be accepted by everyone, even nonbelievers? That would be a strange “assertion”.

 

[EndTimes]

I accept everything that you said in your post - as being a correct representation of the catholic stance. I simply don’t accept it. So, I am not aware of fornication is being a mortal sin. I am aware that it is considered to be a mortal sin by the catholic church. Do you see the difference?

You Reject it… Very Easy to see.,

And you’ve the God-Given Free Will Right to do so…

And you’re free to reject that last sentence of mine.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Incredulity = the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

What does it have to do with ignorance? Invincible or not? Is that “truth” that can be PROVEN to be “truth”? Just cause someone declares that “proposition X” is the “truth”, it carries no weight. And it does not matter if that “someone” is person or the catholic church.

Maybe you mean that if there is something that is “declared” to be “revealed truth”, then it MUST be accepted by everyone, even nonbelievers? That would be a strange “assertion”.

Allow an Example:

based on what we’ve been discussing

then

AFTER a person becomes

✓knowledgeable of the sinful character of the act,
✓of its opposition to God’s law AND the consequences for one’s soul if they die in that sin
✓It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

Then

One is presumed NOT ignorant of the matter

NOR does

Incredulity,

OR

Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart diminish the crime, but rather it increases, the voluntary character of a sin.

Said another way,

Scripture is saying (paraphrased), God is in charge, and It doesn’t matter that one disagrees with the rules set by God. Assuming one isn’t mentally challenged, (which amounts to a very small % of the population), then the consequences for violating the law(s) on the books, so to speak, one bears the consequences for the evil they do.

 

[Nahar]

AFTER a person becomes

✓knowledgeable of the sinful character of the act,

I wonder why is this so hard to understand:

I am NOT knowledgeable of this “sinful” nature. I am only knowledgeable that you (the church) consider it “sinful”. But that opinion has no bearing on the case. Even the concept of “sin” is unacceptable. “Crime”, yes, “sin”, no.

Scripture is saying (paraphrased), God is in charge, and It doesn’t matter that one disagrees with the rules set by God.

Again, the scripture is not accepted as an authority for non-Christians.

Assuming one isn’t mentally challenged, (which amounts to a very small % of the population), then the consequences for violating the law(s) on the books, so to speak, one bears the consequences for the evil they do.

But there is no such law on the “books”. There is no “book” either. Now, maybe you refer to that concept that “ignorance of the law excuses nothing”, but that is not correct. If there is no written law, which is easily available for everyone, or the law is intuitively obvious, then the ignorance of it leads to a “Get out of jail free” card. If you did not know and could not have known, then your ignorance is “invincible”.

And before you start again, the reference to the church, the bible, or even the pope (infallible in questions of faith and morals) are empty assertions. They are all meaningless for non-Catholics, or non-Christians.

Is there anything else?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

AFTER a person becomes

✓knowledgeable of the sinful character of the act,

I wonder why is this so hard to understand:

I am NOT knowledgeable of this “sinful” nature. I am only knowledgeable that you (the church) consider it “sinful”. But that opinion has no bearing on the case. Even the concept of “sin” is unacceptable. “Crime”, yes, “sin”, no.

You don’t identify in your Bio, what religion, if any, that you are.

Re: sin

sin = before all else, is an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. Like crime, it has a degree of lesser or greater offense.

Scripture is saying (paraphrased), God is in charge, and It doesn’t matter that one disagrees with the rules set by God.

Nahar:

Again, the scripture is not accepted as an authority for non-Christians.

OK, Then,

can one say in another sense, that science isn’t accepted as an authority for any non scientific people?

Assuming one isn’t mentally challenged, (which amounts to a very small % of the population), then the consequences for violating the law(s) on the books, so to speak, one bears the consequences for the evil they do.

Nahar:

But there is no such law on the “books”. There is no “book” either.

Do YOU not recognize any book of laws?

for example,
If you are a citizen of the U.S. we have books galore, on law. If you are a driver in the U.S., we have state driving laws. Break any one of the speed laws for example, and see what happens if a traffic cop sees you breaking one of them. You’ll get familiar with them real quick. And I’d say that would go as well for any country you are in.

Nahar:

Now, maybe you refer to that concept that “ignorance of the law excuses nothing”, but that is not correct. If there is no written law, which is easily available for everyone, or the law is intuitively obvious, then the ignorance of it leads to a “Get out of jail free” card. If you did not know and could not have known, then your ignorance is “invincible”.

Let’s put it this way,

If you are driving a car anywhere in the U.S. you are expected to be familiar with the driving laws. No excuses allowed. If one doesn’t know the laws, it is NOT a get outta jail free card if caught breaking them that have fines attached to them…

Nahar:

And before you start again, the reference to the church, the bible, or even the pope (infallible in questions of faith and morals) are empty assertions. They are all meaningless for non-Catholics, or non-Christians.

I’d just say, let’s not forget where we are. This is a Catholic forum.