Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[tonyrey]

God has given sufficient grace to every human person to know Him. Yes, our concience testifies of Him from within us.

Many people do not associate their conscience with God…

 

[guanophore]

Yes, it would definitely be more ideal if people’s consciences were all well-formed, but it is still beautiful to me, in a beauty-of-function way. Some people have had experiences that have misprogrammed the conscience.

I don’t mean to discount this. God did fashion the human conscience to function according to his natural and revealed laws. You are right, some people’s experiences have contributed to a malformed conscience, but I believe that God still works through the conscience to reveal His will to people.

I would not say “God’s plan goes against what is natural for us.” I would say that God planned the natural, but calls us to the supernatural.

I agree with you that God did plan for our conscience to function as a channel through which He could work to guide us.

…6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Gen. 4:7

But since the Fall, our conscience does not function “naturally” as it ought. We are “bent” away from God and toward the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is this bent state that is opposite of what God has planned for us. He did not create the sin, or the bent state.

 Being in a "state of grace" involves participation of the individual, I agree.  We are going to disagree where that separation occurs, perhaps.

Remaining in a state of grace certainly involves spiritual disciplines and commitment. Infants who are baptized are in a state of grace but do not “participate” until they are older and begin choosing between right and wrong. Yes, I think we will disagree with the Church Teaching that sin separates us from God. We are in agreement that God never stops loving and forgiving, but people reject His love and forgiveness, and remain in their sins.

   Loving us as we walk "glibly" to me is the image of a God more indifferent than I know.  I know an in-your-face Father, remember?  Salvation, remember, I think of as beginning here on Earth.  When we are enslaved by our compulsions, we are far from living a life of freedom and joy.

Yes, salvation begins at baptism, and we work it out throughout our lives, and it is completed when our days on earth are ended. People do walk glibly, and sometimes downright defiantly through the gates of hell. I know you believe they don’t willingly and knowingly do this, but they do.

It is only subjective in the eyes of the observer. In the eyes of the individual, it is very objective.

No, OneSheep. Discerning sin is not only subjective in the eyes of the observer. Most dangerously, it is subjective in the eyes of the one discerning. The human being has an appaling ability to rationalize their choices. You may have a well formed conscience, so that you can rely upon yours to clearly and simply guide you in your daily moral decisions, ,but the person without a well formed conscience, without accountability, and left to their own devices easily strays from the steep and narrow path.

There are several uses of the words “eternal”, “salvation” “sin” and “separation” according to scripture scholars and theologians, in my reading.

Yes of course there are! But Catholics accept what the Church teaches on these matters, evenr if scholars and theologians think differently. Faithful Catholic scholars and theologians will yield there personal opinions to the Teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I think that we all agree that the individual can choose to separate himself in some way, and lead a life of slavery, a life far from the perfection that Jesus calls us to.   It is my observation, as you know, that when the individual chooses such separation, he does so in ignorance and/or blindness.

There must always be some degree of ignorance and blindness. Even when we admit that we have willfully and knowingly gone wrong, we are blind to the all of the consequences, since we are limited by our human perspective. Some consequences of wrong choices may not be clear to us until the end of this life, when all is laid bare.

What I am saying, and it would be difficult to dispute this, that a person who turns from addiction, for example, because he fears being thrown in hell is taking a step in the right direction, even though he has a misconception. I think such an occurrence is rare, though, and I would not recommend depicting this image of God. However, it is very, very common to equate God with conscience, as I have been saying, and his conscience may be screaming at him, which is good.

I would not dispute it. We begin at times in a very primitive state, and It is God’s desire that all of our choices be made in and through Love.

Yes, I agree that the heart and mind need to function together, but that might sometimes take discipline. Nothing separates us from the love of God, and God is within every human. The place of “separation”, to me, makes sense to occur between a person and his own love of God.

This seems like a very humanistic view that sets aside the existence of God outside of the human heart. Yes, sin does separate us from the image of God in which we are created and that resides in us, but it also separates us from our relationship with Him, and His One Body, the Church. This is why we have confession, because sin separates us from other members of His body as well as disorders ourselves and our relationship with Him. The conscience can become seared as with a hot iron.

I do not eliminate the possibility that a person can choose to go to hell screaming and kicking against God the whole way. I don’t see why a person would knowingly and willingly make such a choice, but it is theoretically possible. If you can think of how it could happen, please let me know! If you can thoroughly describe such a case, I promise to listen to your reasoning and carefully consider the evidence.

Thanks.

I am glad you are willing to admit it is at least theoretically potential, but I have relinquished the possibility of “letting you know”. There was plenty of evidence and reason on your thread that you were unable to integrate into your system. I realize from reading your posts that thinking this way is necessary to support your world view. It is not prudent to attack a persons’ supports when they have clearly improved their quality of life. I will restrain myself to pointing out that your position does not allow the fullness of the doctrines of the faith.

 

[tonyrey]

I would add that it is not only ignorance but blindness (which is always inadvertent) which also enables a person to do evil. For example, a person may know that embezzlement is wrong, but if he has a particularly nasty boss, and he is a desperate compulsive gambler, his want and his resentment will both create a blindness to the wrongness of the act. The person’s mind takes on a new position of “justice” i.e. “my boss deserves this” “I deserve better”. The word “deserve” represents a function of the conscience itself, and the resentment and want are causing a blindness. Deep down, the “true self” does not desire such enslavement (either to the want, the resentment, or the blindness).

Now, after embezzling, or after Judas turns in Jesus, the person may look back in horror and blame. Guilt may envelope him, as what happened to Judas. But the explanation (not an excuse) for the behavior is that blindness was triggered. Jesus likely said or did something that Judas found offensive or dangerous, and his conscience temporarily became a little warped. It is possible, too, that his want of the money also contributed to his blindness. Judas once knew Jesus as a person of great value and deserving of protection, but this was not his state of mind when he turned Him over to the authorities. There was likely some true ignorance involved too, but overall he appeared to not have a clue what he was doing.

This is my take on Judas; this is how I could have done what Judas did. Again, this is an explanation, not in itself intended to be an excuse relieving Judas from consequence. Indeed, the consequence happened, he was resentful that he was ever born. Blindness happens to all of us, and so it is good to keep each other “in check.”

I agree with you. If we take St John’s words into account the blindness of Judas was also caused by Satan who must have been intent on ending the ministry of Jesus after having tried at least twice already: once in the desert and then when Peter tried to dissuade His Master from being arrested and executed: “Get behind me, Satan!”

 

[guanophore]

I would add that it is not only ignorance but blindness (which is always inadvertent) which also enables a person to do evil.

Certainly ignorance and blindness are factors that may contribute to doing evil, but what enables a person to do evil is that we are created with free will. Just like the angels, who could choose to serve God, or not.

I am curious how you have concluded that blindness is “always inadvertant”. Given the castigation Jesus gave to the Jewish rulers about their blindness, it seems clear that some part of their obstinency was willful.

I agree that being blind (unconscious) is not always wilful, but sometimes it is.

1*Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them Wisdom 2:21

Wickedness is a choice, and repeated choices of that kind build blindness.

9Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41*Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. John 9:39–41

Jesus is clear that they have guilt because they say they are not blind. It is a choice that comes from pride. Instead of coming to Jesus and asking Him to help them see, they cling to the belief that they already see. It is deliberate rejection of Jesus, that results in their remaining in guilt.

11*But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:11

Hateful behavior and attitude is a choice. A person may be hurtful because they are “inadvertant” or inconsiderate, but hateful behavior involves ongoing choices to think, believe, and act cruelly. These choices draw a person further and further into darkness. Blindness occurs because they have chosen to shut out the light.

For example, a person may know that embezzlement is wrong, but if he has a particularly nasty boss, and he is a desperate compulsive gambler, his want and his resentment will both create a blindness to the wrongness of the act. The person’s mind takes on a new position of “justice” i.e. “my boss deserves this” “I deserve better”. The word “deserve” represents a function of the conscience itself, and the resentment and want are causing a blindness. Deep down, the “true self” does not desire such enslavement (either to the want, the resentment, or the blindness).

While I do agree that the human mind has an apperently limitless capacity for rationalizing misbehavior, this is onlly on aspect of such behavior. Some people know i t is wrong, and choose to do it anyway because they are angry and want revenge. This behavior is not “inadvertant”. It is deliberate, and rebellious.

 /Now, after embezzling, or after Judas turns in Jesus, the person may look back in horror and blame.  Guilt may envelope him, as what happened to Judas.  But the explanation (not an excuse) for the behavior is that blindness was triggered.

Blindness can be “triggered” but it is also clear from the Scriptures that blindness occurs as a result of willfully and knowingly making choices to be hateful or rebellious.

Jesus likely said or did something that Judas found offensive or dangerous, and his conscience temporarily became a little warped. It is possible, too, that his want of the money also contributed to his blindness.  Judas once *knew* Jesus as a person of great value and deserving of protection, but this was not his state of mind when he turned Him over to the authorities.  There was likely some true ignorance involved too, but overall he appeared to not have a clue what he was doing.

It is interesting to speculate about Judas. I wonder if Judas did not believe that it was time for Jesus to reveal the Kingdom. He might have thought he could force Jesus’ hand by expeiditing his arrest. Perhaps Judas believed that Jesus would never allow Himself to be harmed, and would assert Himself as King of Israel, and Judas would have a prime spot.

It seems clear that the result was opposite of what He intended. What if Judas “meant well”, and was only trying to put Jesus more quickly into a position to claim HI s kingship?

 Blindness happens to all of us, and so it is good to keep each other "in check."

You seem to be equating blindness with a lack of self awareness.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

You are right, some people’s experiences have contributed to a malformed conscience, but I believe that God still works through the conscience to reveal His will to people.

Yes, absolutely. You see, we agree on more things than we disagree.

I agree with you that God did plan for our conscience to function as a channel through which He could work to guide us.

…6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Gen. 4:7

And when we do not do well, our natural conscience is there to give us a kick! Very appropriate verse, guanophore.

But since the Fall, our conscience does not function “naturally” as it ought. We are “bent” away from God and toward the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is this bent state that is opposite of what God has planned for us. He did not create the sin, or the bent state.

Can you explain what this “bent state” is? Can you describe it?

Remaining in a state of grace certainly involves spiritual disciplines and commitment. Infants who are baptized are in a state of grace but do not “participate” until they are older and begin choosing between right and wrong. Yes, I think we will disagree with the Church Teaching that sin separates us from God. We are in agreement that God never stops loving and forgiving, but people reject His love and forgiveness, and remain in their sins.

Actually, I think you misread my post. I agree that there is a separation, but the difference lies in where that separation is. God is always within us. The separation occurs within myself, between “I” and my own love of God. Again, it is a finer point; and this wording makes more sense to me.

People do walk glibly, and sometimes downright defiantly through the gates of hell. I know you believe they don’t willingly and knowingly do this, but they do.

Yes, you believe they do.

No, OneSheep. Discerning sin is not only subjective in the eyes of the observer. Most dangerously, it is subjective in the eyes of the one discerning. The human being has an appaling ability to rationalize their choices. You may have a well formed conscience, so that you can rely upon yours to clearly and simply guide you in your daily moral decisions, ,but the person without a well formed conscience, without accountability, and left to their own devices easily strays from the steep and narrow path.

Here was my original statement:

“One way is to look at the conscience speaking for God. In that scenario, when we feel guilty (for good, natural reason), God is separated from us, and when we feel righteous (for good, natural reason), God is with us.”

The OT is chock full of examples of this, guanophore. The people sin, and they a certain God has abandoned them. He has not. They only perceive this to be true. They do not know, however, that this is only a perception. They equate ill fate to abandonment. This is not about people being “left to their own devices”. It is about how we see “separation”. God has never, ever, abandoned me. I know this. However, I have perceived such abandonment.

Yes of course there are! But Catholics accept what the Church teaches on these matters, evenr if scholars and theologians think differently. Faithful Catholic scholars and theologians will yield there personal opinions to the Teaching of the Church.

Exactly. I accept what the Church teaches. I have said so all along, but you don’t believe me.

“Yield” does not mean “deny”. And when personal opinions, such as some of those I have passed on from the priests I have known and books I have read (confirmed by the God I know in prayer) clarify the image of God in such a way that it shows Him to be more loving than I previous imagined, then that is an opinion for which I am very grateful. When people like myself discover a love beyond our imagination, we are compelled to tell everyone. I am sure you are not encouraging me to cover the light.

On to the next post… I am not used to having so many multi-responses to one person, but I’ll respond as they come.

 

[guanophore]

And when we do not do well, our natural conscience is there to give us a kick!

I wish this were always true. For far too many people, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron, it does not kick properly anymore.

Can you explain what this “bent state” is? Can you describe it?

Not so well as the Scriptures and the Catechism do. One of the best descriptions lies in the latter half of Romans 7.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2515.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1869.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1264.htm

Actually, I think you misread my post. I agree that there is a separation, but the difference lies in where that separation is. God is always within us. The separation occurs within myself, between “I” and my own love of God. Again, it is a finer point; and this wording makes more sense to me.

I did not. And while I agree with what you are saying here, it is only part of the picture. There is a God of Justice who resides outside of us as well as within. He has revealed Himself to us in ways that will not be tainted by our own “bent” thinking and feeling.

Yes, you believe they do.

I believe it because it is in the Scriptures, taught by Jesus, committed to the Church by the Aposltes and infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit for our instruction.

The OT is chock full of examples of this, guanophore. The people sin, and they a certain God has abandoned them. He has not. They only perceive this to be true. They do not know, however, that this is only a perception. They equate ill fate to abandonment. This is not about people being “left to their own devices”. It is about how we see “separation”. God has never, ever, abandoned me. I know this. However, I have perceived such abandonment.

I agree with you. I am just saying this is only part of the story. Sin does, in fact, separate us from God. It is not only a subjective perception.

Exactly. I accept what the Church teaches. I have said so all along, but you don’t believe me.

Perhaps I am constantly thrown off reading things in your posts that contradict what the Church teaches?

“Yield” does not mean “deny”. And when personal opinions, such as some of those I have passed on from the priests I have known and books I have read (confirmed by the God I know in prayer) clarify the image of God in such a way that it shows Him to be more loving than I previous imagined, then that is an opinion for which I am very grateful. When people like myself discover a love beyond our imagination, we are compelled to tell everyone. I am sure you are not encouraging me to cover the light.

The love of God which has been revealed to you OneSheep, is not an “opinion” but a reality. I thank God that you have discovered it, and you are not separated from Him.

 

[OneSheep]

There must always be some degree of ignorance and blindness. Even when we admit that we have willfully and knowingly gone wrong, we are blind to the all of the consequences, since we are limited by our human perspective. Some consequences of wrong choices may not be clear to us until the end of this life, when all is laid bare.

Yes, we are ignorant or can become blind to consequences, but that is only part of the picture. The main thing is that we become blind to value. Judas, because of want, resentment, or both became blind to value. Those who crucified Christ were blind to value. When I resent anyone, I am blind to their value. It happens automatically in the mind. I see someone as worthless, and it seems to be an objective truth. However, it is an illusion. People on death row have value, even though I am very saddened about their actions.

I would not dispute it. We begin at times in a very primitive state, and It is God’s desire that all of our choices be made in and through Love.

Exactly. And the addict who chooses out of fear is still making a step of self-preservation/love of self. He needs to get his habit in control, and the right step taken for a misguided reason is going to help him pull out, hopefully.

This seems like a very humanistic view that sets aside the existence of God outside of the human heart. Yes, sin does separate us from the image of God in which we are created and that resides in us, but it also separates us from our relationship with Him, and His One Body, the Church. This is why we have confession, because sin separates us from other members of His body as well as disorders ourselves and our relationship with Him. The conscience can become seared as with a hot iron.

Hmmm. In saying that God is within I did not say that there is not God without. God is within all of creation and transcends what He created. I like your wording “separates us from our relationship”. It makes more sense than “separates us from God”. We are both saying that God is always holding up His side, unconditionally. Like I said, to me the separation occurs between “I” and my own love of God.

I am glad you are willing to admit it is at least theoretically potential, but I have relinquished the possibility of “letting you know”. There was plenty of evidence and reason on your thread that you were unable to integrate into your system. I realize from reading your posts that thinking this way is necessary to support your world view. It is not prudent to attack a persons’ supports when they have clearly improved their quality of life. I will restrain myself to pointing out that your position does not allow the fullness of the doctrines of the faith.

Oh, guanophore, there you go saying stuff without supporting it. Please bring forth one bit of “evidence” that I was “unable to integrate into my system”. Assertions are not “evidence”, they are only assertions. When a person gives an opinion and says “It is so because I say it is so”, that is not “evidence”. I asked for examples of people knowingly and willingly rejecting God, and I got asserted responses. When I tried investigating those responses with people, they generally did not want to investigate. You see, the mind resists understanding people that we resent. The mind resists understanding our past sins. The conscience wants to cling to the resentment, using it as a guide, a remembrance tool. It’s all good, but there is something deeper to be found through understanding.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, we are ignorant or can become blind to consequences, but that is only part of the picture. The main thing is that we become blind to value. Judas, because of want, resentment, or both became blind to value. Those who crucified Christ were blind to value. When I resent anyone, I am blind to their value. It happens automatically in the mind. I see someone as worthless, and it seems to be an objective truth. However, it is an illusion. People on death row have value, even though I am very saddened about their actions.

It is interesting that you would pick this populatiom. To get on death row, they must have willingly and knowingly committed the capital crime. I don’t disagree with your position that our blindness results in a lack of ability to perceive value. But people who do see value will continue to willingly and knowingly commit sins. Your posts seem to indicate that you do not really believe there is such a thing as mortal sins.

Hmmm. In saying that God is within I did not say that there is not God without. God is within all of creation and transcends what He created. I like your wording “separates us from our relationship”. It makes more sense than “separates us from God”. We are both saying that God is always holding up His side, unconditionally. Like I said, to me the separation occurs between “I” and my own love of God.

This important distinction has enabled you to grow in your faith.

Oh, guanophore, there you go saying stuff without supporting it. Please bring forth one bit of “evidence” that I was “unable to integrate into my system”.

I think your conclusion speaks for itself. You believe that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God? This is a basic definition of mortal sin.

Assertions are not “evidence”, they are only assertions. When a person gives an opinion and says “It is so because I say it is so”, that is not “evidence”.

It is certainly evidence of what you believe! Above you have stated your belief that it is not reallyl sin that separates us from God, but our perception that He has abandoned us. It is so for you because you have said it is so (repeatedly).

 The mind resists understanding our past sins.  The conscience wants to cling to the resentment, using it as a guide, a remembrance tool.  It's all good, but there is something deeper to be found through understanding.

I don’t dispute that the human psychological structure does resist confronting our past sins. I don’t think it is not wanting to understand them, though, I think it is an unwillingness to take responsibility for them because the guilt and shame are so overwhelming. We see our example in Judas, whose goals were not achieved. Jesus was not revealed as King and did not restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time. He failed in his bid to press Jesus into the outcome he wanted. He was so filled with shame, guilt, and remorse that he despaired. I think it is the despair that the mind is resisting, not the understanding.

Clinging to resentment is not a function of the conscience, but of the will and emotions. Resentment is a natural human response to hurt or injustice, but clinging to it willingly and knowingly is a choice. I just spoke with someone yesterday about a resentment that she has been willingly and knowingly fostering, despite her acknowlegement of “value” int he other person.

People that cling to the guilt of their past sins do so for other reasons besides resentment. I thank God that understanding sin in this way has enabled you to relinquish resentment and find peace of mind, but not all sin is entirely emanating from ignorance and blindness. Some of the most serious sin occurs amonth those who say “we see”, and thus, their guilt remains.

 

[OneSheep]

Certainly ignorance and blindness are factors that may contribute to doing evil, but what enables a person to do evil is that we are created with free will. Just like the angels, who could choose to serve God, or not.

I am curious how you have concluded that blindness is “always inadvertant”. Given the castigation Jesus gave to the Jewish rulers about their blindness, it seems clear that some part of their obstinency was willful.

I agree that being blind (unconscious) is not always wilful, but sometimes it is.

Why does a person want to be blind? Wait, I think you answer below, it is because they are angry.

1*Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them Wisdom 2:21

Wickedness is a choice, and repeated choices of that kind build blindness.

9Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, “Are we also blind?” 41*Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains. John 9:39–41

Jesus is clear that they have guilt because they say they are not blind. It is a choice that comes from pride. Instead of coming to Jesus and asking Him to help them see, they cling to the belief that they already see. It is deliberate rejection of Jesus, that results in their remaining in guilt.

The most confusing part of that verse is “If you were blind, you would have no guilt” but then he observes that they say “we see” which is clearly false. They say that they are not blind, but they most certainly are. And if they are blind, then they have no guilt, but at the end He says “your guilt remains”. It is self-contradicting, and perhaps something is lost in the translation.

I think what Jesus is pointing out is that they remain in their blindness because they think that they are not blind. And in their thinking that they are not blind, they remain unrepentant from their own enslavement to power and status. I think Jesus forgave them, but he was pointing out their lack of repentance and why it was happening. I could say a lot more here, but I will wait for you to contest this.

11*But he who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 1 John 2:11

Hateful behavior and attitude is a choice. A person may be hurtful because they are “inadvertant” or inconsiderate, but hateful behavior involves ongoing choices to think, believe, and act cruelly. These choices draw a person further and further into darkness. Blindness occurs because they have chosen to shut out the light.

Blindness can be “triggered” but it is also clear from the Scriptures that blindness occurs as a result of willfully and knowingly making choices to be hateful or rebellious.

So, have you ever experienced someone randomly deciding, “I think I’m going to hate that person today.” ?

While I do agree that the human mind has an apperently limitless capacity for rationalizing misbehavior, this is onlly on aspect of such behavior. Some people know i t is wrong, and choose to do it anyway because they are angry and want revenge. This behavior is not “inadvertant”. It is deliberate, and rebellious.

Yes, they choose it because they are angry and want revenge. When a person is angry and wants revenge, what is the “knowing” they have of the value of the person who is the object of their anger?

It is interesting to speculate about Judas. I wonder if Judas did not believe that it was time for Jesus to reveal the Kingdom. He might have thought he could force Jesus’ hand by expeiditing his arrest. Perhaps Judas believed that Jesus would never allow Himself to be harmed, and would assert Himself as King of Israel, and Judas would have a prime spot.

It seems clear that the result was opposite of what He intended. What if Judas “meant well”, and was only trying to put Jesus more quickly into a position to claim HI s kingship?

This would be giving Judas a super benefit-of-the-doubt! I think that it is great to start by giving people such a benefit. When it seems unreal, though, I move toward also understanding the other alternatives as to motive and awareness.

You seem to be equating blindness with a lack of self awareness.

Thank you for “seem to be”. I’m not sure why it seems that way to you. We can keep each other “in check” on blindness. Because of self-resentment, a person may be blind to their own beauty, so that would be an occurrence where the two coincide. Such is not equating, though. Lack of self awareness is usually just plain ignorance (the “state” in which we are born).

 

[OneSheep]

I wish this were always true. For far too many people, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron, it does not kick properly anymore.

Seared, or malformed. We agree, I think.

Not so well as the Scriptures and the Catechism do. One of the best descriptions lies in the latter half of Romans 7.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2515.htm

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

“Concupiscence” and the reason for its existence is very poorly developed in the CCC. For example, we are all born with the capacity for strong desire, so strong that we become blinded. If concupiscence inclines a person to sin, why would God add it, in response to a person sinning? It doesn’t make sense for a loving God to see that his child has sinned, and respond by making it harder for him not to sin. This section of the CCC also does not explain in what way strong desire actually benefits the human. If a trait is a benefit, it is not in itself an indication of a “bent state”.

Bottom line: It is very human to resent (see as bent) our own capacity for a desire so strong that it alters our minds.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1869.htm

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

This section is more of an observation of people doing harm to one another and the results of such harm. It does not say we have a “bent” state, nor does it imply it.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1264.htm

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

Here we have an implied image of a God who has punished man by adding suffering, illness, death, weakness of character to man’s nature. This is obviously not an image I share, but such an image is acceptable and understandable.

Does ability to suffer make us “bent” in state? Does illness? Does death? Do weaknesses? Does concupiscence? I guess it depends on one’s definition of “bent”. We are inclined to survive, and we are inclined to love. We are inclined to want, and our minds automatically blind us when we are threatened or have great want. The result of these aspects of our nature is that we have the capacity to do great harm to others. Yes, we have illness and death, and they are terrible. These and concupiscence are not punishments, and though we would all rather do without them, they do not incline us to to harm, the harm is a side effect. The net effect is good, and I am saying that from a “whole picture” view.

To be more specific, by our nature when we want (strong desire, concupiscence) we can become blind. Yes, this does cause problems, but the benefits of such capacity for blindness outweigh the costs. I can explain this further, if you like.

I believe it because it is in the Scriptures, taught by Jesus, committed to the Church by the Aposltes and infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit for our instruction.

This was your statement:

People do walk glibly, and sometimes downright defiantly through the gates of hell. I know you believe they don’t willingly and knowingly do this, but they do.

Where do the Scriptures say this?

I agree with you. I am just saying this is only part of the story. Sin does, in fact, separate us from God. It is not only a subjective perception.

I think that we have covered this one enough, right?

Perhaps I am constantly thrown off reading things in your posts that contradict what the Church teaches?

Oops! You left out the words “seem to” between the words “that” and “contradict”.

The love of God which has been revealed to you OneSheep, is not an “opinion” but a reality. I thank God that you have discovered it, and you are not separated from Him.

I thank God that you have discovered it also!

 

[guanophore]

Why does a person want to be blind? Wait, I think you answer below, it is because they are angry.

I am not sure that people “want” to be blind. There is no doubt that anger can be blinding, but there are a lot of reasons people are “blind”. I spoke with a woman yesterday who does not remember some chunks of her life because the abuse was so bad she dissociated. Sometimes she has “come to herself” in another city. She is not angry, but terrified. She is blind to years of her past, and although she knows because she has been told that things happen, she does not remember them.

There are many reasons people fall into unconsciousness. Most of the time it is not wanting to face parts of ourselves. You have rightly discerned that it is easier to project those parts of ourselves on to others, and blame them, than it is to see our own dark side. This is why Jesus taught us to attend to the log in our own eye first.

The most confusing part of that verse is “If you were blind, you would have no guilt” but then he observes that they say “we see” which is clearly false. They say that they are not blind, but they most certainly are. And if they are blind, then they have no guilt, but at the end He says “your guilt remains”. It is self-contradicting, and perhaps something is lost in the translation.

Yes, it might be lost in the translation. I understand it to say “your guilt continues with you” (is not excused) since they claim to see. It comes from the Greek μένει the root of “remains” - a condition that persists into the future.

I think what Jesus is pointing out is that they remain in their blindness because they think that they are not blind. And in their thinking that they are not blind, they remain unrepentant from their own enslavement to power and status. I think Jesus forgave them, but he was pointing out their lack of repentance and why it was happening. I could say a lot more here, but I will wait for you to contest this.

I will not contest it. I will just note that they willingly and knowingly acted out of their pride an arrogance in being unrepentant and enslaved.

Jesus spoke to them:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41” John 5:40

God the Son testifies that they were “unwilling to come” to Him.

Whose “opinion” do you think I should espouse? Yours, which is that no on willingly rejects God, or that of Jesus? Or is this one of those cases where you think the Scripture is not really inspired and inerrant, but that the opinon of man crept forth and manifested itself?

So, have you ever experienced someone randomly deciding, “I think I’m going to hate that person today.” ?

On the contrary, I have experienced people willingly and knowingly engaging in hateful attitudes and actions.

Yes, they choose it because they are angry and want revenge. When a person is angry and wants revenge, what is the “knowing” they have of the value of the person who is the object of their anger?

As I have state above (though our posts may be crossing one another) anger does cause blindness. My point is that it is not the only source of blindness.

I don’t think Judas betrayed Jesus because he was angry with Him. He knew his blood was innocent the whole time. He wanted to force the politics, and failed. It was manipulative and self seeking, but not an act of hatred. More of hubris.

This would be giving Judas a super benefit-of-the-doubt! I think that it is great to start by giving people such a benefit. When it seems unreal, though, I move toward also understanding the other alternatives as to motive and awareness.

Without divine revelation, no human can completely know motive and awareness. We are created to have an unconscious side of ourselves to which we are blind. Only God can see into it, and we can see when it is revealed to us. I think you are using this to set aside the concept of mortal sin.

Thank you for "seem to be".  I'm not sure why it seems that way to you.   We can keep each other "in check" on blindness.  Because of self-resentment, a person may be blind to their own beauty, so that would be an occurrence where the two coincide.  Such is not equating, though.  Lack of self awareness is usually just plain ignorance (the "state" in which we are born).

Not just born, but persist throughout life. We are never free of the unconscious part of ourselves to which we are blind. I agree that the blindness can be as much to the positive as to the negative.

I think Judas was convinced that, if he forced the issue, Jesus would politically and temporally triumph, and he would get the credit for facilitating it. He did not want Jesus to hide in the garden and pray, he wanted Him to trample the Romans and Jewish leaders under his feet. He wanted the rule of the 12 to be made manifest.

 

[guanophore]

“Concupiscence” and the reason for its existence is very poorly developed in the CCC.

What an interesting statement. I wonder what standard you have used to measure this?

For example, we are all born with the capacity for strong desire, so strong that we become blinded.

Having strong desires does not equate to becoming blinded. Jesus had them too. Are you suggesting, because he was born with the capacity for strong desire, he became blinded?

If concupiscence inclines a person to sin, why would God add it, in response to a person sinning?

I am not sure what you mean by this. I think what you are saying is that sin leads to more sin? The more we fall into the concupiscense the more inclined we are toward becoming enslaved to it?

I don’t see this as “God adding to it” but the natural course of the condition. God provides sufficient grace to us that we do not need to continue sinning. Sin enslaves, by it’s nature. Are you saying that God “should” change the nature of sin so that it does not have the quality of enslavement?

It doesn't make sense for a loving God to see that his child has sinned, and respond by making it harder for him not to sin.

It does not make sense to blame God for the consequences of the gift of free choice He has created in us. We are free to choose. Our choices have consequences. If we choose what is right (sin is crouching at the door) then we can master it. If we choose evil, then it will master us. It is our choice, and the nature of sin that makes it harder.

This section of the CCC also does not explain in what way strong desire actually benefits the human. If a trait is a benefit, it is not in itself an indication of a “bent state”.

That is true, but for the sake of the discussion, since we are already way out at the edge of the thread topic, can we stipulate that strong desire, in itself, is a benefit?

Suppose Judas had a strong desire to see the Kingdom of God manifest itself on earth immediately. Would that be so bent? Did not the disciples "So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)

Bottom line: It is very human to resent (see as bent) our own capacity for a desire so strong that it alters our minds.

Yes, but why resent a desire that seems good?

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

This section is more of an observation of people doing harm to one another and the results of such harm. It does not say we have a “bent” state, nor does it imply it.

It is based on the Teaching that humans are “bent” and that falling into sin continually enslaves us to more sin.

 

[OneSheep]

It is interesting that you would pick this populatiom. To get on death row, they must have willingly and knowingly committed the capital crime. I don’t disagree with your position that our blindness results in a lack of ability to perceive value. But people who do see value will continue to willingly and knowingly commit sins. Your posts seem to indicate that you do not really believe there is such a thing as mortal sins.

So, murderers see the infinite value of the people they murder? Crucifiers see the infinite value of the people they crucify? Are you sure about that?

I think your conclusion speaks for itself. You believe that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God? This is a basic definition of mortal sin.

This was your response to my writing: “Please bring forth one bit of “evidence” that I was “unable to integrate into my system”.”

I am asking for “evidence” that you say I was “unable to intergrate”. Stating that the definition of mortal sin is such that it involves knowingly and willingly rejecting God does not provide evidence that people knowingly and willingly reject God. The statement is a definition, and definitions in themselves do not provide evidence of the occurrence. What evidence do you have that someone knowingly and willingly rejects God? Be ready to investigate that evidence.

I don’t dispute that the human psychological structure does resist confronting our past sins. I don’t think it is not wanting to understand them, though, I think it is an unwillingness to take responsibility for them because the guilt and shame are so overwhelming. We see our example in Judas, whose goals were not achieved. Jesus was not revealed as King and did not restore the Kingdom to Israel at that time. He failed in his bid to press Jesus into the outcome he wanted. He was so filled with shame, guilt, and remorse that he despaired. I think it is the despair that the mind is resisting, not the understanding.

What I was explaining was the resistance people have toward understanding their own behaviors, specifically those that hurt the self or others. I agree that people also have a lot of guilt and shame, and do not want to take responsibility. When we do not take responsibility, we blame, we deny. These are natural, self-protective responses.

Clinging to resentment is not a function of the conscience, but of the will and emotions. Resentment is a natural human response to hurt or injustice, but clinging to it willingly and knowingly is a choice. I just spoke with someone yesterday about a resentment that she has been willingly and knowingly fostering, despite her acknowlegement of “value” int he other person.

She would see more of the value if she fully understood why the person did what they did. It is very, very difficult to separate a person from their actions, so for me I have to fully understand the actions, to the point that I could say “I could have done that, I see the good intent and motive” before I can truly see the value of the other as at least equal to myself. I can always find good intent and motive. Yes, a person can, at a superficial level, willingly and knowingly cling to resentment. There is something deeper within her that wills to forgive and reconcile. You may be called to help her find that.

People that cling to the guilt of their past sins do so for other reasons besides resentment. I thank God that understanding sin in this way has enabled you to relinquish resentment and find peace of mind, but not all sin is entirely emanating from ignorance and blindness. Some of the most serious sin occurs amonth those who say “we see”, and thus, their guilt remains.

I think you’ve addressed this now. They say “we see”, but they are blind. And because they don’t believe that they are blind, they remain enslaved.

 

[guanophore]

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

Here we have an implied image of a God who has punished man by adding suffering, illness, death, weakness of character to man’s nature. This is obviously not an image I share, but such an image is acceptable and understandable.

It may seem that God has “punished man by adding…” but it has never been God’s intention for us to suffer these things. God is light, and in Him there is no darkness. These unwanted consequences are the necessary results of true freedom of choice. When God created the angels, He did not intend for them to abandon heaven, but they had a choice. I just realized that you might now claim that the angels did not willingly and knowingly rebel against God!

Concupiscense does no require us to fall into sin.

Does ability to suffer make us “bent” in state? Does illness? Does death? Do weaknesses? Does concupiscence?

No. Jesus proved this by becoming human, and suffering without being “bent”.

I guess it depends on one’s definition of “bent”. We are inclined to survive, and we are inclined to love. We are inclined to want, and our minds automatically blind us when we are threatened or have great want. The result of these aspects of our nature is that we have the capacity to do great harm to others. Yes, we have illness and death, and they are terrible. These and concupiscence are not punishments, and though we would all rather do without them, they do not incline us to to harm, the harm is a side effect. The net effect is good, and I am saying that from a “whole picture” view.

While we are all called to love, I am not sure that we are inclined that way in our natural state, which is basically selfish. In fact, the way Scripture defines love, it seems quite counter to our natural state.

The Church teaches that sin and concupiscence to incline us to harm - harm to ourselves, and harm to others. When we choose to yield to temptation, harm results.

This was your statement:

People do walk glibly, and sometimes downright defiantly through the gates of hell. I know you believe they don’t willingly and knowingly do this, but they do.

Where do the Scriptures say this?

You were provided many scriptures on your other thread. It is clear that you interpret them within your framework to support your foundational premise that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God. I was puzzled why some members seemed to be saying that the sacrament of reconciliation was made unnecessary by this, but I think I understand it now. If there is no real mortal sin, then there is no use for confession.

Oops! You left out the words “seem to” between the words “that” and “contradict”.

In the case of denying the existence of mortal sin, it is pretty blatant.

 

[guanophore]

So, murderers see the infinite value of the people they murder? Crucifiers see the infinite value of the people they crucify? Are you sure about that?

You seem to be saying that, since human beings are not omniscient, that means they are not morally culpable because they are ignorant and blind.

No, human beings cannot see the infinite. But that is not a requirement. We are only required to walk within the light that we have.

Judas could not have known what was going to happen. When he saw it, he regretted it, but unlike the other Apostles, he did not humbly ask for forgiveness. In his pride, he fell into despair and took his own life. He had the same choice as all the Apostles, who also abandoned Him in his hour of suffering. Peter even tried to go back to making his life as a fisherman. Jesus called him to repentance, and he humbled Himself before God. This is all that is required, not that we are able to “see infinite value” in every choice before us.

I am asking for “evidence” that you say I was “unable to intergrate”. Stating that the definition of mortal sin is such that it involves knowingly and willingly rejecting God does not provide evidence that people knowingly and willingly reject God. The statement is a definition, and definitions in themselves do not provide evidence of the occurrence. What evidence do you have that someone knowingly and willingly rejects God? Be ready to investigate that evidence.

It is off the thread topic, so it would not be appropriate to do here, but I think it will be a fruitless exercise anywhere. The Church does not define concepts that never needed to be defined. This definition was made because the Church teaches that mortal sin exists, and that it separates us from God, and our eternal souls are in peril. Your rejection of this does not change what the Church teaches for anyone but yourself.

The Church teaches that each person is given sufficient grace to overcome sin. That means that Judas had sufficient grace to act otherwise, and he chose not to do so.

What I was explaining was the resistance people have toward understanding their own behaviors, specifically those that hurt the self or others. I agree that people also have a lot of guilt and shame, and do not want to take responsibility. When we do not take responsibility, we blame, we deny. These are natural, self-protective responses.

I am glad we found another point of agreement.

She would see more of the value if she fully understood why the person did what they did. It is very, very difficult to separate a person from their actions, so for me I have to fully understand the actions, to the point that I could say “I could have done that, I see the good intent and motive” before I can truly see the value of the other as at least equal to myself. I can always find good intent and motive.

This is why I say that you seem to be looking at the world through rose colored glasses. I can find no good motive in a group of men getting drunk and gang raping a woman then leaving her bleeding in a field.

I am glad you are always willling to look for good intent and motive, but evil does exist, and it’s purpose is to destroy the soul of a person. Evil acts through human beings with no good intent and motive.

Satan is a murderer and a liar from the beginning - his cause is to destroy the good that God has created, to mar the souls He made for fellowship with Himself. When Satan works through people, there is no good intent or motive. The same is true with very mentally ill people who create hienous crimes.

Yes, a person can, at a superficial level, willingly and knowingly cling to resentment.  There is something deeper within her that wills to forgive and reconcile.  You may be called to help her find that.

There may not be. For a Christian, the Holy Spirit can help to transcent the resentment. For those who do not have any source of light, the will to forgive and reconcile may not be there. Or there might be so much resentment it completely overshadows it.

I think you’ve addressed this now. They say “we see”, but they are blind. And because they don’t believe that they are blind, they remain enslaved.

Like Judas, they were responsible to act within the degree of revelation they had received. They chose, like he, to act in pride and self interest. No, they did not have “infinite” understanding , but they had sufficient to make a choice for good, or evil.

 

[OneSheep]

Wow, we are covering a lot today!

I am not sure that people “want” to be blind. There is no doubt that anger can be blinding, but there are a lot of reasons people are “blind”. I spoke with a woman yesterday who does not remember some chunks of her life because the abuse was so bad she dissociated. Sometimes she has “come to herself” in another city. She is not angry, but terrified. She is blind to years of her past, and although she knows because she has been told that things happen, she does not remember them.

There are many reasons people fall into unconsciousness. Most of the time it is not wanting to face parts of ourselves. You have rightly discerned that it is easier to project those parts of ourselves on to others, and blame them, than it is to see our own dark side. This is why Jesus taught us to attend to the log in our own eye first.

Remember: when we shine the light, the darkness disappears. Yes, first we have to acknowledge that there is darkness (and when there is, it is “great”). Then we shine the light on it. The “darkness” is the parts of ourselves that we resent/condemn, i.e. it is very common to resent our desire to dominate. Once we own it, we can look at it. “From where comes this desire to dominate?”. One of the first places I look is at other species. i.e. Why do individual baboons want to dominate? St. Thomas Aquinas said that revelation comes from two sources, scripture and nature.

Yes, it might be lost in the translation. I understand it to say “your guilt continues with you” (is not excused) since they claim to see. It comes from the Greek μένει the root of “remains” - a condition that persists into the future.

Well, we don’t know whether the blindness was excused or not, but we can probably say that Jesus forgave them. We can also guess that their enslavement “remained” as long as they thought they weren’t blind.

I will not contest it. I will just note that they willingly and knowingly acted out of their pride an arrogance in being unrepentant and enslaved.

Well, they did not “know” that Jesus was correct when He pointed out their blindness. They said “we see” which was an untruth. Believing an untruth is not typically described as “knowingly”. Do you see what I mean?

Jesus spoke to them:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41” John 5:40

God the Son testifies that they were “unwilling to come” to Him.

Whose “opinion” do you think I should espouse? Yours, which is that no on willingly rejects God, or that of Jesus? Or is this one of those cases where you think the Scripture is not really inspired and inerrant, but that the opinon of man crept forth and manifested itself?

Yes, they were not willing to come to him, but notice that I use the words “knowingly and willingly.” If they knew the Truth, their wills would follow. Yes, we do not find eternal life in searching the Scripture, in words. We find it in relationship with Christ.

Also note: like the woman you encountered has a deeper will to reconcile, the pharisees and scribes have a deeper will to forgive and reconcile. It is their resentment of Jesus that blocks this knowing, and this will. Think of the time you were most angry and condemning, were you not out of touch with your deeper will?

On the contrary, I have experienced people willingly and knowingly engaging in hateful attitudes and actions.

Again this is a superficial “will”, and the attitudes are triggered, not chosen randomly. They are automatic, triggered attitudes. Yes, they may know “that” something is wrong or hateful, but such is a “propositional knowing”. When Jesus said “they do not know what they are doing”, he was speaking of an affective knowing, a knowing of value, as well as other “knowing”. People do not display hateful actions toward those they see having infinite value. Do you see the way I define “knowingly”? Jesus did not use the word “that” or other proposition in Luke 23:34.

As I have state above (though our posts may be crossing one another) anger does cause blindness. My point is that it is not the only source of blindness.

Yes, and I have brought forth other ways that blindness can be triggered. Want (strong desire) also triggers blindness. Do you know of another source?

I don’t think Judas betrayed Jesus because he was angry with Him. He knew his blood was innocent the whole time. He wanted to force the politics, and failed. It was manipulative and self seeking, but not an act of hatred. More of hubris.

I think Judas was convinced that, if he forced the issue, Jesus would politically and temporally triumph, and he would get the credit for facilitating it. He did not want Jesus to hide in the garden and pray, he wanted Him to trample the Romans and Jewish leaders under his feet. He wanted the rule of the 12 to be made manifest

Though anger was a possibility, I agree that Judas may have wanted to force the politics. For example, Judas may have had his hopes set on overthrow of a corrupt leadership. In this case, it would be hard to say that such was completely “self seeking”, unless his “self” extended to love of the oppressed, which is possible. And yes, Judas may have wanted to end up in a high position, wanting power. Wanting, strong desire, causes a blindness. I, too, am very capable of this wanting and accompanying blindness. I am also capable of setting hopes on overthrow of a corrupt government.

 

[OneSheep]

quanophore:

Without divine revelation, no human can completely know motive and awareness. We are created to have an unconscious side of ourselves to which we are blind. Only God can see into it, and we can see when it is revealed to us. I think you are using this to set aside the concept of mortal sin.

Yes, we cannot completely know motive and awareness of someone else, but we can certainly know our own motives, and look back and see where we were lacking in awareness even though no one can really claim “complete” self-awareness. (Not anyone I know). However, I testify that we can enter the subconscious side of ourselves and specifically address, and reconcile with, all of our motives and capacities. It was a priest that taught me how, and St. Augustine seems to have taken up the same endeavor, at least part way.

Not just born, but persist throughout life. We are never free of the unconscious part of ourselves to which we are blind. I agree that the blindness can be as much to the positive as to the negative.

I agree that we cannot be completely “free” of our subconscious activity. We have triggered reactions in the mind that happen so fast that they are really beyond our control. However, that does not mean that we cannot reconcile with our mechanical triggers in the aftermath. “Oh, I see why I got angry, his action triggered a violation in my rulebook”. This is not an excuse for the anger, but an explanation.

Back to work! I hope to return to this later.

 

[guanophore]

St. Thomas Aquinas said that revelation comes from two sources, scripture and nature.

This is a bit too limiting of St. Thomas. Scripture participates in this pattern of the incarnation, by which God reveals the truth about himself and makes a way to himself. Yet so also does doctrine. Hence, scriptural revelation cannot be broken away or separated from the later articulations of revelation in doctrine. To do so would be tantamount to separating Christ’s presence in human history in his life and death from his ongoing presence to the Church in his resurrection. As Thomas says in the introduction to his Compendium Theologiae (in reference to the creed), “that which he handed down clearly and expansively in the various volumes of sacred Scripture for those eager to learn, for those with little leisure he included the teaching concerning the salvation of humanity in a summary form.” 3 In other words, the content of that “summary form”—sacred doctrine—is identical to the content of the more “expansive” teaching found in Scripture.

The Church is the community in which fellowship is designed to occur, so that we can come to know ourselves as others’ see us. The Church is the custodian of the revelation by God of Himself. It is her duty to protect and promulgate the Once For All divine deposit of faith. One cannot, therefore, set aside the doctrines of the faith, and be confident that insight will be complete.

Well, they did not “know” that Jesus was correct when He pointed out their blindness. They said “we see” which was an untruth. Believing an untruth is not typically described as “knowingly”. Do you see what I mean?

I see that you will go to any lengths to try to remove culpability from the sinner. The Pharisees, like Judas, had sufficient knowledge, revelation, and freedom to choose Christ. We do not need to know everything to make such choices.

Yes, they were not willing to come to him, but notice that I use the words “knowingly and willingly.” If they knew the Truth, their wills would follow.

This conclusion contradicts the Teachings of the Church, which include the fact that God grants every soul sufficient knowlege to choose Him, or reject Him. Not all those who know the Truth choose with the will to follow. The angels who chose to reject God “knew the Truth” even more clearly than those of us on earth. Yet they chose to abandon their dwelling with Him.

Also note: like the woman you encountered has a deeper will to reconcile, the pharisees and scribes have a deeper will to forgive and reconcile. It is their resentment of Jesus that blocks this knowing, and this will.

Can you produce any evidence from Scripture that this is the case? I think this might be a case of eisogesis.

Again this is a superficial “will”, and the attitudes are triggered, not chosen randomly. They are automatic, triggered attitudes.

No, OS, they are neither triggered or chosen randomly. These people sit around and plan specific “missions” that involve injuring other people. Yes, they may know “that” something is wrong or hateful, but such is a “propositional knowing”. When Jesus said “they do not know what they are doing”, he was speaking of an affective knowing, a knowing of value, as well as other “knowing”.

On what basis do you make these conjectures about what Jesus meant? From what source are you drawing your definitions?

People do not display hateful actions toward those they see having infinite value. Do you see the way I define “knowingly”?

I do. I see that you have created a definition that rules out any existence of mortal sin. You have required that human beings posess omniscience in order to commit a mortal sin. It is a very dangerous approach.

Yes, and I have brought forth other ways that blindness can be triggered. Want (strong desire) also triggers blindness. Do you know of another source?

It seems that the need to be able to forgive others may trigger blindness about the nature the human person and the doctrine of mortal sin.

Wanting, strong desire, causes a blindness. I, too, am very capable of this wanting and accompanying blindness. I am also capable of setting hopes on overthrow of a corrupt government.

Hopefully your strong desire to avoid holding resentments against others will eventually give way to the light so that you can accept that people do willingly and knowingly reject God.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, we cannot completely know motive and awareness of someone else, but we can certainly know our own motives...

If this were true, we would not need the sacrament of reconciliation. As it is, we cannot know at any point if our motives are 100% pure, because humans almost always have mixed motives, and we are blind to our own selfishness.

However, I testify that we can enter the subconscious side of ourselves and specifically address, and reconcile with, all of our motives and capacities. It was a priest that taught me how, and St. Augustine seems to have taken up the same endeavor, at least part way.

Well, this is quite an achievement, one that has never been achieved by any of the saints who came before you. Since Scripture testifies that only God can search the heart and know this much about us, you have also achieved something that transcends the Scriptures.