Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Counterpoint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then it would appear that you disagree with Aquinas.

“God allows evil to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
There is no contradiction. Evil remains evil even when it is used for a good purpose. It is permitted because it would be a greater evil not to create beings with free will. A world with evil is a greater good than no world at all!
 
There is no contradiction. Evil remains evil even when it is used for a good purpose. It is permitted because it would be a greater evil not to create beings with free will. A world with evil is a greater good than no world at all!
I never argued that there was a contradiction. I simply stated that evil serves a greater good. So, evil is ultimately good. (IOW, evil is relative, not absolute.)
 
. . . evil is ultimately good. (IOW, evil is relative, not absolute.)
Signature:
“If sin is real, God must be at war with Himself. He must be split, and torn between good and evil; partly sane and partially insane.” - A Course In Miracles
There’s only so much nonsense and blasphemy that I can take. I wonder if there is any way one can block out specific posters. I’m going to look into this.
I really don’t know why you are on these forums. You have gained nothing from them and appear to be drifting ever deeper into ignorance.
When I deal with my anger, I will pray to St. Jude.
 
I brought helpful sections from the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on “Sin” and “Malice.” I thought they would help with the discussion. Note especially what I have in bold in the first section.

On the nature of sin…

In every sin a privation of due order or conformity to the moral law is found, but sin is not a pure, or entire privation of all moral good. There is a twofold privation; one entire which leaves nothing of its opposite, as for instance, darkness which leaves no light; another, not entire, which leaves something of the good to which it is opposed, as for instance, disease which does not entirely destroy the even balance of the bodily functions necessary for health. A pure or entire privation of good could occur in a moral act only on the supposition that the will could incline to evil as such for an object. This is impossible because evil as such is not contained within the scope of the adequate object of the will, which is good.

The sinner’s intention terminates at some object in which there is a participation of God’s goodness, and this object is directly intended by him. The privation of due order, or the deformity, is not directly intended, but is accepted in as much as the sinner’s desire tends to an object in which this want of conformity is involved, so that sin is not a pure privation, but a human act deprived of its due rectitude. From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that it is voluntary, its imputability.

Causes of sin…

The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not under the influence of ignorance or passion.​

Imputability of sin…

(*Note that two causes of sin, ignorance and passion, are said to decrease the umputability of sin. That is, ignorance and passion - which can lead to sin - decrease the moral culpability of the person doing the act.)

Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free. The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the disturbance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself. Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.
More on malice…

The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves.

When by any conceivable stretch of human wickedness God Himself is the object of hatred the guilt is appallingly special. If it be that kind of enmity which prompts the sinner to loathe God in Himself, to regret the Divine perfections precisely in so far as they belong to God, then the offence committed obtains the undisputed primacy in all the miserable hierarchy of sin. In fact, such an attitude of mind is fairly and adequately described as diabolical; the human will detaches itself immediately from God; in other sins it does so only mediately and by consequence, that is, because of its inordinate use of some creature it is averted from God. To be sure, according to the teaching of St. Thomas and the theologians, any mortal sin carries with it the loss of the habit of supernatural charity, and implies so to speak a sort of virtual and interpretive hatred of God, which, however, is not a separate specific malice to be referred to in confession, but only a circumstance predicable of every grievous sin​
 
“Goodness is that which all things desire.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If it is our nature to seek goodness and God is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject God (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?
So to answer based on the selections I provided, the answer would be that one may reject God through sin through ignorance, passion, and malice. But ignorance and passion diminish the morality and imputability of an act. These causes would not allow one to “knowingly and willingly” reject God in a fashion that would be defined as mortal sin.

When someone chooses an object, to act a certain way, that is against God, he/she does not choose evil itself as an object; it is only indirectly as what the sinner wants to do happens to involve something that is by its nature against God.

Malice suggests that an individual can choose to do something against God even when the individual knows it to be against God.

If someone were to object and say “but he could not in fact be choosing to something against God because of [whatever reason]…,” then one would need to examine that alleged reason and see if it in fact is ignorance or passion. Theology does in fact say these two causes of sin are capable of diminishes culpability.

Personally, I don’t think the argument is whether sin really exists or not. I think it is obvious that people knowingly do what they know they ought not to do. I think the real question is does anyone actually commit formal mortal sin (formal meaning that someone is actually culpable)? Some on here would point to the Bible - to judgment passages based on good vs. bad works - for example. Still, I think this is the harder “philosophical” question.
 
My definition of pride is not relevant. However, the Church’s definition is:

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia
Pride is the excessive love of one’s own excellence. It is ordinarily accounted one of the seven capital sins. St. Thomas, however, endorsing the appreciation of St. Gregory, considers it the queen of all vices, and puts vainglory in its place as one of the deadly sins. In giving it this pre-eminence he takes it in a most formal and complete signification. He understands it to be that frame of mind in which a man, through the love of his own worth, aims to withdraw himself from subjection to Almighty God, and sets at naught the commands of superiors. It is a species of contempt of God and of those who bear his commission

This expresses pride a much more than a desire. It is a deliberate act of the will.
“Excessive love” does not make sense. I have seen this before, but the definition falls short. When a person puts their own needs above others, he is ignorant of the need and value of others. I have yet to find a counterexample. It is not “excessive love”, it is exclusionary love. When we love our children, for example, we appreciate them and protect them more than we do our own bodies. Our children essentially become part of ourselves. This love can definitely exclude others.

However, this love can be extended to everyone. Everyone’s needs can become our own; other people essentially become part of ourselves. This is great love. What is “excessive love” when “love of self” includes every living person on the planet?

To me, the same can be applied to God. God is part of all of us. When we recognize God as part of ourselves, in the mystery of what it means to be “autonomous”, self-love includes loving God. Not recognizing that God is within? Again, a matter of ignorance.

When a person says “I am so much better or more important than everyone else” this again is a matter of ignorance, not “excessive love”. Do you see what I am saying?

Now, if we focus on “aims to withdraw himself from subjection to Almighty God”, we are talking about the desire for autonomy. Why do people wish to avoid subjection? When people avoid adherence, it is either that they do not know the value of adherence, or they are rejecting a god who seems to enslave. These are, again, matters of ignorance. The desire for autonomy, for freedom, comes from God. It is part of our nature, is it not?

“Deliberate acts of will” done in ignorance are not “knowingly and willingly rejecting God”.

I know, ignorance does not pass as an “excuse”. I’m talking about the “why”, not the “ought”.

Feel free to describe a more specific example of “excessive love” or “withdrawal from subjection” that involves knowingly rejecting God.
 
Evil serves a greater good. So, evil is ultimately good.

“God allows evil to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
Perhaps you could give an example of “evil serving a greater good”.

“Evil is ultimately good” is perhaps a bit rhetorical, and addresses the definitions in a different manner, no?
 
“Excessive love” does not make sense. . . God is part of all of us. When we recognize God as part of ourselves, in the mystery of what it means to be “autonomous”, self-love includes loving God. Not recognizing that God is within? . . . .
:twocents:

I am a creature, brought into existence by and owing every moment of my life to Him. I belong to Him.

My excellence is a gift from God.
If I love that excellence excessively, I not only am loving a lesser good, but appropriating something that belongs to God (both in terms of the love that must go to Him and the excellence which He creates).
I will ultimately suffer because that excellence that has been bestowed on me is temporary. The physical excellence I once had has long been lost. One stroke and all my intellectual abilities will suffer the same fate.
My pride is a rejection of God. Our purpose is to love God who is the source of all being, eternal beauty, truth and light.

God is within only to the degree that sin is not and that I am love: a very long way to go.
 
No one steals for “stealings sake”.
From Augustine’s Confessions

For what thief will abide a thief? not even a rich thief, one stealing through want. Yet I lusted to thieve, and did it, compelled by no hunger, nor poverty, but through a cloyedness of well-doing, and a pamperedness of iniquity. For I stole that, of which I had enough, and much better. Nor cared I to enjoy what I stole, but joyed in the theft and sin itself.

Behold my heart, O God, behold my heart, which Thou hadst pity upon in the bottom of the bottomless pit. Now, behold, let my heart tell Thee what it sought there, that I should be gratuitously evil, having no temptation to ill, but the ill itself. It was foul, and I loved it; I loved to perish, I loved mine own fault, not that for which I was faulty, but my fault itself. Foul soul, falling from Thy firmament to utter destruction; not seeking aught through the shame, but the shame itself!
 
simpleas: Thanks for your replies, I know you are pointing out all that the church teaches, and you very much believe in every word.
Thank you! I also accept fully your sincerity and faith.
I’ll assume, if I may, that you believe it because you have found it all to be true to your way of life, and not just because someone else has told you.
Hmmmm. Neither, actually. Let me explain.

Nearly all that I believe has been reaffirmed by my observations and experiences. But I say “reaffirmed” because I believed them due to Church teaching long before I had “proof”. This has helped to inform my conscience and knowing these things helps me to make choices that are (I sure hope!) pleasing to God.

There are things that I am unsure about. I am unsure about the Church’s stand on birth control, for instance. But my experiences have taught me something else. In every other unclear situation I have encountered, I have later discovered the truth of what the Church has taught me. (Much like a child believes their mother because she has shown herself to be loving and knowledgable.) I therefore don’t believe “because someone else told me”, but rather because my Church which I trust has told me. She is infallible in the case of faith and morals. So I trust her opinion more than my own.

Finally, we are supposed to follow our conscience in all we do, but that means our informed conscience. We have what the Church calls “a strict duty and obligation” to inform ourselves by learning what the Church teaches us. We have to make that teaching the most vital and important part of our decision process.

I hope that made sense!
We can not disown the spirit which was given to us.
Please explain? Spirit meaning what?
 
Personally, I don’t think the argument is whether sin really exists or not. …I think it is obvious that people knowingly do what they know they ought not to do
I disagree. If we hold that full knowledge and consent are impossible for mortal sin in all cases, how can we say that man can have full knowledge and consent in the commission of venial sins. Venial sins have the same requirements. The only difference is that they are not serious sins.On the other hand, if we hold that man can and does commit venial sins with full knowledge and consent, then wouldn’t this also apply to mortal sin?

I don’t say that there are necessarily any people who God has judged guilty of mortal sin. Perhaps he has not. Perhaps He never will. But, that does not mean that it is theoretically impossible for a person to be guilty.
 
OneSheep: 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.
Christ says, “I am the vine and YOU ARE THE BRANCHES.” Not, your gifts are the branches, your talents are the branches.
  1. CCC 787 From the beginning, Jesus associated his disciples with his own life, revealed the mystery of the Kingdom to them, and gave them a share in his mission, joy, and sufferings.215 **Jesus spoke of a still more intimate communion between him and those who would follow him: “Abide in me, and I in you… I am the vine, you are the branches.”**216 And he proclaimed a mysterious and real communion between his own body and ours: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”217 (755)
  2. Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the gospel of John (Lib. 10, 2: PG 74, 331-334) discusses the portion of the Lord’s last supper discourse where he says “I am the vine, you are the branches” (John 15 :5)
The Lord calls himself the vine and those united to him branches (John 15:5) in order to teach us how much we shall benefit from our union with him, and how important it is for us to remain in his love. By receiving the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of union between us and Christ our Savior, those who are joined to him, as branches are to a vine, share in his own nature.

…From Christ and in Christ, we have been reborn through the Spirit in order to bear the fruit of life; not the fruit of our old, sinful life but the fruit of a new life founded upon our faith in him and our love for him. Like branches growing from a vine, we now draw our life from Christ, and we cling to his holy commandment in order to preserve this life. Eager to safeguard the blessing of our noble birth, we are careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, and who makes us aware of God’s presence in us.

So I reiterate my example:
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.
 
Thank you! I also accept fully your sincerity and faith.

Hmmmm. Neither, actually. Let me explain.

Nearly all that I believe has been reaffirmed by my observations and experiences. But I say “reaffirmed” because I believed them due to Church teaching long before I had “proof”. This has helped to inform my conscience and knowing these things helps me to make choices that are (I sure hope!) pleasing to God.

There are things that I am unsure about. I am unsure about the Church’s stand on birth control, for instance. But my experiences have taught me something else. In every other unclear situation I have encountered, I have later discovered the truth of what the Church has taught me. (Much like a child believes their mother because she has shown herself to be loving and knowledgable.) I therefore don’t believe “because someone else told me”, but rather because my Church which I trust has told me. She is infallible in the case of faith and morals. So I trust her opinion more than my own.

Finally, we are supposed to follow our conscience in all we do, but that means our informed conscience. We have what the Church calls “a strict duty and obligation” to inform ourselves by learning what the Church teaches us. We have to make that teaching the most vital and important part of our decision process.

I hope that made sense!

Please explain? Spirit meaning what?
Thanks for explaining how you have come to trust the teachings. I can only see goodness in the teachings, just some can seem to put a burden on certain people, but if they except and trust the church then they will be fine…🙂

Maybe I should have said soul instead of spirit, we are made in Gods image, right, the soul we all receive when we are first formed is apart of us forever, so I’d say we can’t disown God fully, because if we did, how would people come to recognise they are in sin and have a change of heart if God isn’t working on them from deep inside their soul?

I came across this from alittle Catholic handbook which is indexed to the ccc :

The ultimate reality you seek - which is present in everything you reach out to - has also been called by many names. The most common name for this ultimate reality is God. You are so bound to God that without him you would not live move or have your being. You are so bound to God that if you did not sense his presence in some way, you would view life as pointless and cease to seek.

I would say this speaks for all people who believe in God, maybe even those who say they don’t believe in God, they well be seeking, but just don’t know it…

:blessyou: Right back at ya 😃
 
“Excessive love” does not make sense.
It does if the rest of the sentence is considered.
I have seen this before, but the definition falls short.
Fall short of what? It explains very well why pride is the root most sin.
When a person puts their own needs above others, he is ignorant of the need and value of others.
I don’t buy this. Is a rapist or murderer or sexual abuser ignorant of their victims’ needs and value. How could they not?
I have yet to find a counterexample. It is not “excessive love”, it is exclusionary love. When we love our children, for example, we appreciate them and protect them more than we do our own bodies. Our children essentially become part of ourselves. This love can definitely exclude others.
This is based on cherry picking one two word phase from the definition and changing the meaning.
However, this love can be extended to everyone. Everyone’s needs can become our own; other people essentially become part of ourselves. This is great love. What is “excessive love” when “love of self” includes every living person on the planet?
To me, the same can be applied to God. God is part of all of us. When we recognize God as part of ourselves, in the mystery of what it means to be “autonomous”, self-love includes loving God. Not recognizing that God is within? Again, a matter of ignorance.
Ignorance is not the main reason.
When a person says “I am so much better or more important than everyone else” this again is a matter of ignorance, not “excessive love”. Do you see what I am saying?
Yes I understand. I reject it because it isn’t an adequate answer to the question of from whence comes sin.
Now, if we focus on “aims to withdraw himself from subjection to Almighty God”, we are talking about the desire for autonomy. Why do people wish to avoid subjection? When people avoid adherence, it is either that they do not know the value of adherence, or they are rejecting a god who seems to enslave. These are, again, matters of ignorance. The desire for autonomy, for freedom, comes from God. It is part of our nature, is it not?
“Deliberate acts of will” done in ignorance are not “knowingly and willingly rejecting God”.
I know, ignorance does not pass as an “excuse”. I’m talking about the “why”, not the “ought”.
Feel free to describe a more specific example of “excessive love” or “withdrawal from subjection” that involves knowingly rejecting God.
See above. I have seen much human behavior that indicates that sin occurs despite knowledge.
 
I never argued that there was a contradiction. I simply stated that evil serves a greater good. So, evil is ultimately good. (IOW, evil is relative, not absolute.)
A specific example will demonstrate that evil is never good:

Jesus chose to allow Himself to be tortured and killed to liberate us from evil. His suffering and untimely death will always be evil even though He used them to express His love for us. Nothing can change the fact that it has been, is and always will be evil to torture and kill a person.
 
A specific example will demonstrate that evil is never good:

Jesus chose to allow Himself to be tortured and killed to liberate us from evil. His suffering and untimely death will always be evil even though He used them to express His love for us. Nothing can change the fact that it has been, is and always will be evil to torture and kill a person.
I said that evil was relative, not absolute. If you believe Jesus’ death served a greater good, then it was good that Jesus should die. If not, then why did God allow it to happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top