Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[davidv]

What does than “people” mean?

I’m sure you realise that even the most devote Catholic can commit a “mortal” sin?

No matter how well a person follows the church teaching they will do what they believe is right for them at some point in their life.

This last statement seems to me to be a rather bold statement the human motivations. To commit a serious sin at same time as believing it is right for them is contradictory. How can this be true? One would have to consciously ignor Church teaching or be deliberately ignorant of them.

 

[simpleas]

This last statement seems to me to be a rather bold statement the human motivations. To commit a serious sin at same time as believing it is right for them is contradictory. How can this be true? One would have to consciously ignor Church teaching or be deliberately ignorant of them.

Because they don’t believe what they do to be a serious sin, serious in the sense that they have cut themselves off from Gods love.

 

[davidv]

Because they don’t believe what they do to be a serious sin, serious in the sense that they have cut themselves off from Gods love.

How can this be, unless they consciencely reject Church teaching? To believe some personal idea in contrast to Church teaching is equivalent making themselves a god, and declaring the Church to be in error.

 

[chefmomster2]

What does than “people” mean?

OneSheep wrote this in post #217:

What you are saying is “we ought separate people from their acts.” This is very, very difficult for people. The observer holds the adulterer in contempt. It is normal, and natural. Forgiveness is called for.

When I indicate that we “As Christians we are called to a higher standard than ‘people’.”, I am referring to OneSheep’s use of the term here.

Perhaps someone, perhaps even most people, would have contempt for the sinner. Christ taught us that this is simply not good enough. We are called to better things.

NABRE
Matthew 5:43-48
Love of Enemies.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Romans12:2
Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.

John 13:34-35
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

I’m sure you realize that even the most devote Catholic can commit a “mortal” sin? No matter how well a person follows the church teaching they will do what they believe is right for them at some point in their life.

Certainly I know that all people are capable of mortal sin. I believe some persons will even go to Hell for their mortal sins. Could you put your question in context? How is mortal sin relevant to what I said about hating the sin and loving the sinner? I don’t understand what you are getting at. What does your final sentence mean?

 

[simpleas]

OneSheep wrote this in post #217:

When I indicate that we “As Christians we are called to a higher standard than ‘people’.”, I am referring to OneSheep’s use of the term here.

Perhaps someone, perhaps even most people, would have contempt for the sinner. Christ taught us that this is simply not good enough. We are called to better things.

NABRE
Matthew 5:43-48
Love of Enemies.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Romans12:2
Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.

John 13:34-35
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Certainly I know that all people are capable of mortal sin. I believe some persons will even go to Hell for their mortal sins. Could you put your question in context? How is mortal sin relevant to what I said about hating the sin and loving the sinner? I don’t understand what you are getting at. What does your final sentence mean?

Thanks.

When you wrote “As Christians we are called to a higher standard than ‘people’.” I needed to understand what you meant because I thought you were meaning as christians we are better than “people”. So thanks for clearing that up.

All people and catholic people are capable of mortal sin. I was asking from some of the posts up have put up. It seemed to me you were thinking catholics that attend mass and follow the teachings wouldn’t commit mortal sin, because they know the consequences. But I think some, not all depending on their situation, state of mind etc can and do choose to go against a certain teaching, not to offend God, but to seek what they feel is important. This may turn out to be a good decision or a bad one. No one needs to be burdened with a threat that they will, after struggle, pain and upset in this life, be sent to a burning hell for all eternity.

There are many definitions of what is a mortal sin. The ten commandments and Christs last two were enough to teach us what is right and wrong and how to live with each other.

Being told to submit and obey the church can be a hurled for many people, I heard some even refer to the fact that they were baptised into a church they didn’t consent to…

But in all of this, I’d say some people struggle more than others over teachings they don’t fully understand. What works for one, doesn’t work for the other, but both are welcome in our church, and both to me, love and serve God as best they can.

 

[chefmomster2]

But I think some, not all depending on their situation, state of mind etc can and do choose to go against a certain teaching, not to offend God, but to seek what they feel is important. This may turn out to be a good decision or a bad one. No one needs to be burdened with a threat that they will, after struggle, pain and upset in this life, be sent to a burning hell for all eternity.

People who are “good Catholics” can and do commit mortal sin. Actually that is what I have been saying. We can’t refuse to follow the Church’s teachings and think that God would not provide a consequence. We can die with one unforgiven mortal sin and lose heaven.

When we choose what we feel is important instead of following God’s teaching why isn’t that a rejection of God?

Even if we don’t intend to offend Him, He tells us that sinning DOES offend Him. Why shouldn’t we believe that God is offended by our sins even if we don’t mean to offend Him?

Is it morally acceptable to decide that what we think is important is superior to what God says is important?

There are many definitions of what is a mortal sin. The ten commandments and Christs last two were enough to teach us what is right and wrong and how to live with each other.

I am only aware of the Church’s definition of mortal sin. What other definitions are there?

Why would we follow another definition if we are Catholic?

I totally agree that the bible snd the Holy Spirit have revealed everything we need to know about right and wrong.

Being told to submit and obey the church can be a hurled for many people, I heard some even refer to the fact that they were baptised into a church they didn’t consent to…

Jesus asks us to submit and obey. Is it too much to ask that we follow His teaching?

Those people who don’t wish to follow Church have the freedom to leave the faith. That is what free will is about.

Were these people confirmed?
Did they ever attend Easter services?
If so, they have recited those same baptismal promises at an age where they could and did consent. Why shouldn’t this count?

Why would someone follow a faith if they don’t believe in what the faith teaches and don’t believe they should live by what it teaches?

But in all of this, I’d say some people struggle more than others over teachings they don’t fully understand. What works for one, doesn’t work for the other, but both are welcome in our church, and both to me, love and serve God as best they can.

I agree that it is very difficult to be a Christian and to be a Catholic. Lots of things are very hard to understand. People do struggle differently and God does know that. We can’t say we don’t understand and think we’re excused. The solution is to learn what the Church does teach and why.

All ARE welcome in the Church! God redeemed every single last person on the earth for all ages. All are eligible to enter heaven, but not all will make it. Our faith must be evident in our charity and our choices.

 

[OneSheep]

How can this be, unless they consciencely reject Church teaching? To believe some personal idea in contrast to Church teaching is equivalent making themselves a god, and declaring the Church to be in error.

Yes, I can judge another person saying “that person is making themselves a god”, but that would be my own opinion or assertion. Is the person actually intending to make themselves God? Again, I could quote some section of the CCC saying that if a person chooses their own way over the CCC or other dogma then they are making themselves a god. However, this again would be my own judgment, my own opinion. Is the person I am judging actually intending to make himself a god?

Now, I could dig a little deeper into the CCC and find the section that says, in a nutshell, “even if you do not intend to act against God, you are breaking a relationship with God.”

The problem with this is that somewhere along the way the idea of an unconditionally loving God has disappeared. Even in typical human relationships, people break things off when one person has violated the other in some way. However, when it is revealed that there was no intent to violate the other, the act is forgiven and all is reconciled. How are we to get the image of a loving, forgiving God if God is less forgiving than the typical man on the street?

Based my own prayer life, it is my view that we never break our relationship with God. When we sin, we do so without knowing what we are doing. We do, indeed, violate our God-given consciences, and our consciences can angrily react to our behaviors as well as the behaviors of others. Do we ever knowingly and willingly reject God? Not in my observation.

Me: When you did that, you rejected God, it says so in this book.

Other: I don’t care what your book says, I did not reject God, that was not my intent. I don’t reject God.
or
Other: I don’t believe in God, so go away.
or
Other: I did reject God, and I don’t care. I deserve the worst anyway. There is no hope for me. No matter what you say, it does no good for me to repent or whatever. I am going to hell and that is that.

None of these rejected God. The last person has a very limited understanding of God, and rejected an essentially false image.

Do you see what I am saying? Am I missing something?

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep: Man, why are you doing this even though you know you are hurting people?

Man (by chefmom):

Because I am weak. Because I neglected a very important part of the equation.
When I first met the woman, I was warned by my conscience. I saw immediately that I was attracted to her. I had a duty to step away right then. Ultimately my sin became mortal at that point. I knew that my feelings could result in a sinful relationship. I knew that if it would, it would destroy my marriage, my wife, and my life. I knew that committing mortal sin would cause me to lose my relationship with God. I also knew that it would become harder and harder to resist her.

Despite all of this reflection, I thought I was “immune” from temptation since I am a “good” Catholic. When I decided to stay in a situation of serious temptation, I became responsible for the outcome.

OneSheep:

So, you neglected an important part of the equation. I am wondering, (1)which part of the equation did you neglect?. (2) How do you explain this neglect, how did it happen? (3) You thought you were immune from temptation? Where did you get that idea?

You chose to have an affair, the affair did not force you to join it. What was going on in your mind, why did you make this choice?

Man: (?)
(I know, chefmom, this is not a real conversation. The man would be saying something a bit demeaning at this point, probably, like “Duh!”. So please, make the man one who answers earnestly, as you have been doing.)

I apologize if my questions seemed to imply that I question your faith. There has never been a doubt in my mind that your belief is sincere, deep, and loving.

Thank you. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt too, as a priest once told me, and I am certain this has affected my outlook. I have no doubts about your belief either.

Normal, yes, but not the way Od Christianity. We are called to “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

Was “Od” a typo?

I have heard this, “hate the sin, but love the sinner”. Hatred is not the emotion I feel when I think of sin and I have already forgiven. When I see sin, I experience anger, hate and/or resentment. When I forgive, which includes understanding the sin to the point that I can say “I could do that, given this ignorance and blindness” then the hatred, anger, resentment goes away. I look on the sin with sadness and pain, but not hatred.

I prefer, “reject the sin, forgive the sinner” or “understand the sin, love the sinner” or something like those.

 

[davidv]

Yes, I can judge another person saying “that person is making themselves a god”, but that would be my own opinion or assertion. Is the person actually intending to make themselves God? Again, I could quote some section of the CCC saying that if a person chooses their own way over the CCC or other dogma then they are making themselves a god. However, this again would be my own judgment, my own opinion. Is the person I am judging actually intending to make himself a god?

Now, I could dig a little deeper into the CCC and find the section that says, in a nutshell, “even if you do not intend to act against God, you are breaking a relationship with God.”

The problem with this is that somewhere along the way the idea of an unconditionally loving God has disappeared. Even in typical human relationships, people break things off when one person has violated the other in some way. However, when it is revealed that there was no intent to violate the other, the act is forgiven and all is reconciled. How are we to get the image of a loving, forgiving God if God is less forgiving than the typical man on the street?

Based my own prayer life, it is my view that we never break our relationship with God. When we sin, we do so without knowing what we are doing. We do, indeed, violate our God-given consciences, and our consciences can angrily react to our behaviors as well as the behaviors of others. Do we ever knowingly and willingly reject God? Not in my observation.

Me: When you did that, you rejected God, it says so in this book.

Other: I don’t care what your book says, I did not reject God, that was not my intent. I don’t reject God.
or
Other: I don’t believe in God, so go away.
or
Other: I did reject God, and I don’t care. I deserve the worst anyway. There is no hope for me. No matter what you say, it does no good for me to repent or whatever. I am going to hell and that is that.

None of these rejected God. The last person has a very limited understanding of God, and rejected an essentially false image.

Do you see what I am saying? Am I missing something?

Only partially.

It seems to admit that moral relativism is true. St. Pope John Paul II said we will be tyranized by this relativism

 

[OneSheep]

Only partially.

It seems to admit that moral relativism is true. St. Pope John Paul II said we will be tyranized by this relativism

Moral relativism is “If I (we) think its right, its right.”

What I am saying is that people who sin usually think “something is right” out of ignorance. This is a matter of observing human behavior, not excusing their behavior. Morality is not relative. Perception is very, very relative. All perception, in a moral sense, is a matter of experience and exposure to teachings. The way that people experience, what they experience, and what teachings they are exposed to is unique to the individual. This is a fact, we all experience life a bit differently, do we not? Does anyone have a “perfect” conscience? No, formation is a life-long endeavor. If we all had the exact same upbringings and experiences, we would all, in theory, have the same informed consciences. It’s like, the information is in there, but we have to experience and listen in order to really incorporate it into our discipline and thought.

Abortion is a perfect example. Many think that abortion is right. They are not aware. They either have not been exposed to the truth, or they are finding a different “truth” more compelling. This is blindness, or ignorance, or both. They are not knowingly rejecting God.

 

[davidv]

Moral relativism is “If I (we) think its right, its right.”

What I am saying is that people who sin usually think “something is right” out of ignorance.

My observations and study indicate that this is not case. The more usual case is that sin occurs when then the sinner decides that their way is preferrable to God’s way. In the case that there is true ignorance, there is no sin.

This is a matter of observing human behavior, not excusing their behavior. Morality is not relative. Perception is very, very relative. All perception, in a moral sense, is a matter of experience and exposure to teachings. The way that people experience, what they experience, and what teachings they are exposed to is unique to the individual. This is a fact, we all experience life a bit differently, do we not? Does anyone have a “perfect” conscience? No, formation is a life-long endeavor. If we all had the exact same upbringings and experiences, we would all, in theory, have the same informed consciences. It’s like, the information is in there, but we have to experience and listen in order to really incorporate it into our discipline and thought.

Abortion is a perfect example. Many think that abortion is right. They are not aware. They either have not been exposed to the truth, or they are finding a different “truth” more compelling. This is blindness, or ignorance, or both.

 

[chefmomster2]

You chose to have an affair, the affair did not force you to join it. What was going on in your mind, why did you make this choice?

It was pride, pure and simple. I became self-satisfied and thought that I could be in temptation and not succumb to it. I was a fool. I am responsible for my sin because I recognized the danger and I did nothing to remove myself from it. It was the beginning of my sin. Instead of relying on what I had been taught, I thought I knew it all.

Was “Od” a typo?

Yep. It should have been “of”.

 

[chefmomster2]

Is the person I am judging actually intending to make himself a god?

(Remember that we would not presume to judge another in actuality. We are doing it in a hypothetical.) You give one’s intentions far too much weight. The first and most important consideration is the act itself. Is the act sinful? If it is not, then no problem. If it is an evil act, our intention in doing the act would either be with good or bad. If it is bad, then it is obvious that it is sinful. If our intention is good, it does NOT relieve us of responsibility. The ends do not justify the means.

The problem with this is that somewhere along the way the idea of an unconditionally loving God has disappeared.

This is not true in the least. The Catholic God is known as love itself. No Catholic can claim ignorance on that account.

Even in typical human relationships, people break things off when one person has violated the other in some way. However, when it is revealed that there was no intent to violate the other, the act is forgiven and all is reconciled.

If the act is serious, intent will not overcome the hurt and betrayal that was caused even if it is forgiven. Consider adultery. I can forgive, with great effort, but the relationship is most often irrevocably broken.

How are we to get the image of a loving, forgiving God if God is less forgiving than the typical man on the street?

God is far better at this than we are! He will absolutely reestablish the relationship through true repentance in the sacrament of reconciliation. He will put it right back to the state it was before it happened. The one who forgives adultery and sincerely tries to reconcile will most certainly not be able to go back to the way it was. There will be suspicion and distrust for some period of time due to the great harm that was done.

Based my own prayer life, it is my view that we never break our relationship with God.

Your relationship may appear to you to be unchanged. You can still pray. You can still go to Mass. You may consider yourself in full communion with the Church and continue to receive the sacraments. But if, despite your feelings to the contrary, God has judged you guilty of rejection, the relationship is closed off on God’s side. He has ceased supplying you with the sanctifying grace required for salvation. You are the vine that He prunes, that dies and withers, that is thrown into the fire.

Picture it this way: Sometimes we all have our phone calls dropped by the cell provider. More times than I like to admit, I have gone blissfully on talking and it is only a minute later that I notice that there was no one receiving. I felt I was still communicating, but despite that, I was not. They did not hear me. They did not and could not respond to me.

Me: When you did that, you rejected God, it says so in this book.

“This book” is the Bible! This is one doctrine that comes straight from the mouth of Christ.

NABRE John 15
2 He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes so that it bears more fruit…
4 Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.
5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
6 Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.
7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.

Am I missing something?

“If you love me you will follow my commandments.” The converse is also true- if you do not follow my commandments, you do not love me. We will be judged by our actions, not by our intent.

 

[simpleas]

People who are “good Catholics” can and do commit mortal sin. Actually that is what I have been saying. We can’t refuse to follow the Church’s teachings and think that God would not provide a consequence. We can die with one unforgiven mortal sin and lose heaven.

When we choose what we feel is important instead of following God’s teaching why isn’t that a rejection of God?

Even if we don’t intend to offend Him, He tells us that sinning DOES offend Him. Why shouldn’t we believe that God is offended by our sins even if we don’t mean to offend Him?

Is it morally acceptable to decide that what we think is important is superior to what God says is important?

I am only aware of the Church’s definition of mortal sin. What other definitions are there?

Why would we follow another definition if we are Catholic?

I totally agree that the bible snd the Holy Spirit have revealed everything we need to know about right and wrong.

Jesus asks us to submit and obey. Is it too much to ask that we follow His teaching?

Those people who don’t wish to follow Church have the freedom to leave the faith. That is what free will is about.

Were these people confirmed?
Did they ever attend Easter services?
If so, they have recited those same baptismal promises at an age where they could and did consent. Why shouldn’t this count?

Why would someone follow a faith if they don’t believe in what the faith teaches and don’t believe they should live by what it teaches?

I agree that it is very difficult to be a Christian and to be a Catholic. Lots of things are very hard to understand. People do struggle differently and God does know that. We can’t say we don’t understand and think we’re excused. The solution is to learn what the Church does teach and why.

All ARE welcome in the Church! God redeemed every single last person on the earth for all ages. All are eligible to enter heaven, but not all will make it. Our faith must be evident in our charity and our choices.

We can die with one unforgiven mortal sin and lose heaven.

Not sure we can ever say this, it doesn’t ring true in my ears that my relationship with Christ or anyone else’s that is sincere, can lose eternal life for one of the many mortal sins taught by our church.

I don’t think we can ever be superior to God, the creator of all the universe. We are only human after all.

What I’m saying is we make mistakes in life regardless of what our church teaches, it doesn’t mean the people involved are knowingly and willingly rejecting God. They are using their freewill to decide. Yes some people reject the faith and go do whatever they wish, this doesn’t mean they don’t have God with them. Some people and I think most, try to follow Christ, fail alot, but keep coming to church in order to find the answers to their problems, it doesn’t mean that they keep every rule of the church in regard to mortal sins, and that is most likely why they are at church. I don’t think many of us can say we follow EVERY teaching.

Never have been very sure how God can be offended by his creation, he foreseen all the bad that man could do, but he allowed us to continue to exist.

Yes these people were confirmed, but once they reached the age were they could use their freewill, they chose to leave the faith behind.
Maybe being confirmed at ages 10,11 or 12 years is still a young age to understand that they have promised to submit and obey the church.

I don’t think people follow a faith they don’t believe in, I think they could follow in a state of fear, but I’m unsure about that. I think some people follow faith because they have found a relationship with Christ, not because of following all teaching, but from experience of life. People could attend Mass and never really be spiritual, they think because they have done that then all is fine, but never really experience a spiritual relationship with God or other people.

All of the above is just my thinking, I’m not saying I’m right, I just see things from the reality of the world I live in.

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks for your reply!

We can die with one unforgiven mortal sin and lose heaven.

I wish I could sugarcoat this since it is an extremely difficult teaching. It is, however, the teaching of the Church. Many people, myself included, do sincerely believe it! It is the reason why understanding mortal sin is a life and death matter.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

An essential thing to remember is that we can commit mortal sin numerous times and we can receive forgiveness and enter heaven. But we must seek God’s forgiveness within the sacrament of reconciliation. We can go to hell for one mortal sin, but we need not. God wants us in heaven. He is ready at all times to resume a relationship with us, but we must repent and go to confession for this to happen.

I don’t think we can ever be superior to God, the creator of all the universe. We are only human after all.

I agree, but isn’t the person who you describe below saying that what he thinks is more important than what God wants? After all that’s what he does.simpleas: But I think some…choose to go against a certain teaching, not to offend God, but to seek what they feel is important.

What I’m saying is we make mistakes in life regardless of what our church teaches, it doesn’t mean the people involved are knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

The Church says we must have full knowledge and consent** to commit sin.** We do not have to have full knowledge and consent to reject God. When we sin we have AUTOMATICALLY rejected God. That is what sin is! If we really desire to love God, then we follow the teachings as best we can, praying we won’t sin because THAT would be rejecting God.

Most…try to follow Christ, fail alot, but keep coming to church…

I agree. No one will follow all of the rules all of the time. In fact, none of us can! That is why Jesus criticized the Pharisees for thinking that following the Law could earn us heaven. Nothing will “earn” us as great a thing as heaven!

Church is not enough. We must live out our faith between Sundays. Even though we will fail at keeping all the rules we must still do our best. That is how we tell God that we love Him. We follow His laws. Those laws are taught by the Church, so we must follow Church doctrine. We will fail. That’s what confession is for!

Never have been very sure how God can be offended

We aren’t talking about the feeling of being offended. We have committed an offense- broken a law of God. Does that make sense?Being told to submit and obey…can be a hurdle for many people.

Yes these people were confirmed, but they chose to leave the faith.

The people who are told to submit or obey are the people who are practicing Catholics. They are supposed to know that God gave us the Church to guide us to heaven. We are wise if we listen!

 

[OneSheep]

Lots to address again, chefmomster. I hope you are enjoying our conversation as much as I am.

(Remember that we would not presume to judge another in actuality. We are doing it in a hypothetical.) You give one’s intentions far too much weight. The first and most important consideration is the act itself. Is the act sinful? If it is not, then no problem. If it is an evil act, our intention in doing the act would either be with good or bad. If it is bad, then it is obvious that it is sinful. If our intention is good, it does NOT relieve us of responsibility. The ends do not justify the means.

In my observation, there is no such thing as bad intent. We can assert that the ends do not justify the means, but many, many actions we do involve some type of tradeoff. Intent is in the mind of the sinner. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions on “Why men sin”?

This is not true in the least. The Catholic God is known as love itself. No Catholic can claim ignorance on that account.

Ignorance is not the issue, here, the issue is that doctrine on sin can compromise the image of an unconditionally loving God regardless the assertions.

If the act is serious, intent will not overcome the hurt and betrayal that was caused even if it is forgiven. Consider adultery. I can forgive, with great effort, but the relationship is most often irrevocably broken. God is far better at this than we are! He will absolutely reestablish the relationship through true repentance in the sacrament of reconciliation. He will put it right back to the state it was before it happened. The one who forgives adultery and sincerely tries to reconcile will most certainly not be able to go back to the way it was. There will be suspicion and distrust for some period of time due to the great harm that was done.
Your relationship may appear to you to be unchanged. You can still pray. You can still go to Mass. You may consider yourself in full communion with the Church and continue to receive the sacraments. But if, despite your feelings to the contrary, God has judged you guilty of rejection, the relationship is closed off on God’s side. He has ceased supplying you with the sanctifying grace required for salvation. You are the vine that He prunes, that dies and withers, that is thrown into the fire.

Here is a quote from Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

“It is not man who comes to God with a compensatory gift, it is God who comes to man in order to give to him. He restores disturbed right on the initiative of his own power to love, by making the unjust man just again, through his own creative mercy…”

“God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes in to meet them and reconciles them. Here we can see the true direction of the Incarnation, of the Cross.” (bold is mine)

Picture it this way: Sometimes we all have our phone calls dropped by the cell provider. More times than I like to admit, I have gone blissfully on talking and it is only a minute later that I notice that there was no one receiving. I felt I was still communicating, but despite that, I was not. They did not hear me. They did not and could not respond to me. “This book” is the Bible! This is one doctrine that comes straight from the mouth of Christ.
“If you love me you will follow my commandments.” The converse is also true- if you do not follow my commandments, you do not love me. We will be judged by our actions, not by our intent.

The converse is not the Gospel. I do not read that verse as a matter of judgment, but spirituality. People who follow Jesus’ commandments to love one another and God will abide in God’s love. People love God to the degree they know God, my observation. Some people don’t think they know God (i.e. atheists), but they do, and some people think they know God, but they do not. Again, my observation, people do not knowingly reject God.

I don’t read the “vine and branches” as judgment either. We have been endowed gifts, talents, by God. This is a matter of “use it or lose it”. We lose the talents we do not use, that is a statement of observation, and a statement of motivation. Direction, chefmom, direction of the Cross.

Judgment is a different topic. I’m sure we would have fun with that one too!

 

[OneSheep]

(Man): It was pride, pure and simple. I became self-satisfied and thought that I could be in temptation and not succumb to it.

Onesheep: Why did you think you could not succumb to it?

All of us have pride, chefmom. “Pride” may explain a motive, but does not explain a reason. There is more discovery in our process. We need to get out our microscope and see what was going on in the man’s mind.

(Man): I was a fool. I am responsible for my sin because I recognized the danger and I did nothing to remove myself from it. It was the beginning of my sin. Instead of relying on what I had been taught, I thought I knew it all.

OneSheep:

Yes, you did something foolish and you are responsible. We all do foolish things that we are responsible for, you are not alone. You thought you knew it all, but you did not, like many of us. It sounds like you are regretting your act. Perhaps you know something now that you did not know then.

Could you answer these questions, sir?

(1)which part of the equation did you neglect?.

(2) How do you explain this neglect, how did it happen?

(3) You thought you were immune from temptation? Where did you get that idea?

Man: (?)

Let’s see how self-aware this man is, chefmomster. If the answer to all is “pride”, have the man explain how “pride” affected his thinking and his decision. Like I said, let’s grab the microscope.

People use “pride” as a word of self-condemnation, not explanation. (Well, they think they are explaining, but they are only condemning. They are using words that express the conscience’s negativity toward some aspect of the self.)

 

[OneSheep]

My observations and study indicate that this is not case. The more usual case is that sin occurs when then the sinner decides that their way is preferrable to God’s way. In the case that there is true ignorance, there is no sin.

Well, we can investigate, as I am investigating with Chefmomster.

If it is the case that you describe, why does the individual think that their way is preferrable to God’s way?

I think that what you are describing is rare, most people that sin are blinded to God’s way, ignorant of God’s way, or are a bit confused or are doubting God’s way. However, we can address this rarity and see where it goes.

 

[OneSheep]

We can die with one unforgiven mortal sin and lose heaven.

Not sure we can ever say this, it doesn’t ring true in my ears that my relationship with Christ or anyone else’s that is sincere, can lose eternal life for one of the many mortal sins taught by our church.

Well, this is the definition though, Simpleas. The definition itself implies that there are conditions by which God would no longer love us and cast us away.

This is a false implication. The doctrine of mortal sin does assert that man has the freedom to walk away from God, and this aspect is valuable in that it reflects God’s respect for our autonomy. However, it is my observation that such walking away, if it is possible (I have not seen it) is only done in ignorance. It is an unwitting “walk away” if anything.

When I look on my own past, every time I turned away from God, God was there where I turned. “Turning” falls short as a description. I can try to shut out God, but God is still within. Fact is, I am nothing without God. I guess I would have to non-exist, but then there would be no “I”. Do you see how all of those illustrations fall short for me?

Ooo. To be talking Spirituality in the Philosophy forum. Sounds like trouble.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep: Lots to address again, chefmomster. I hope you are enjoying our conversation as much as I am.

Absolutely!

In my observation, there is no such thing as bad intent. We can assert that the ends do not justify the means, but many, many actions we do involve some type of tradeoff. Intent is in the mind of the sinner. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions on “Why men sin”?

Take the example of shoplifting. This can be done with either selfish (evil) or unselfish (good) intent. Stealing is an objectively grave sin. The teenage girl who steals for stealing’s sake is acting with a bad intent. That is seen most simply by comparing that intention with the intent of the mom who, due to poverty, is stealing formula with the good intent of feeding her hungry baby. The teenager’s intent: getting a thrill is in stark contrast to the poor mom’s intent to feed her child. (The mom’s mortal sin would still be sinful but it is likely that she would be held to a much lesser consequence than the self-absorbed thrill-seeker.)

A very difficult example of Christian teaching on this topic is the teaching on abortion. (I don’t want to discuss abortion. I use it only as an example.) Sometimes a doctor may advise the mother-to-be that her life is in imminent danger if she delivers her infant. He may recommend abortion to save the life of the mother. The Catholic Church holds that abortion, even with the true and good intent of saving the life of the mother, cannot justify the taking of the baby’s life.

Chef: “This is not true in the least. The Catholic God is known as love itself. No Catholic can claim ignorance on that account.”

Ignorance is not the issue, here, the issue is that doctrine on sin can compromise the image of an unconditionally loving God regardless the assertions.

I was responding to your assertion:

“The problem with this is that somewhere along the way the idea of an unconditionally loving God has disappeared.”

This idea has not disappeared. It is held by MANY millions of Catholics.

It only “seems” inconsistent with the Church teachings. God is infinitely loving AND he is infinitely just.
God’s love is expressed as mercy through:

• His constant willingness to forgive
• His willingness to forgive even the most heinous of sins
• His constant outpouring of sanctifying grace
• His gift of His Spirit to guide us
• His gift of His Son and His Son’s sacrifice
• His gift of salvation which we could never merit

God’s love is expressed as justice through:

• His final judgment
• Purgatory in which we will atone for our sins
• His acceptance of our freely willed choice to love or reject Him

The final judgment would be meaningless if there was only one possible outcome. Justice from God is not negative, a taking away of something, but rather a positive of giving each person his due.

If I live my life in accord with His will and I die in a state of grace, I am due salvation as a promise of God. He will give me an eternity in His presence since my actions give witness to this being my desire.

If I rejected God through sinning and demonstrated through my actions that I did not desire to follow His will, justice demands that He give me my due: total separation from Him who I don’t love.

There is no lack of love here. God justly respects our choices and their ultimate consequences. Ultimately, Christ does not judge us- we commit ourselves to heaven or hell in our own lifetime.

I’ll be a bit slow for a few days. We have a guest visiting.