Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

: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.

“My pride is a rejection of God”. Please explain how this works. Is it like, “I think I am so great, God is not as good as me?” or “My ideas are better than God’s.”? I am looking for what you are calling “rejection of God” and then ascribing “pride” as the cause. “Excessive love”, what is an example of excessive love?

God is within only to the degree that sin is not and that I am love: a very long way to go.

I have never heard a theological (or anthropological) basis for this. From what I see, God is in everyone. I haven’t really thought about it in terms of degrees. I think you are saying that God is reflected most by those who keep His commandments, and I agree. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that you don’t see God in the Sinner?

The way I look at it, some individuals in Church history looked at the behavior of man, and said that pride is a matter of “excessive love”. This was a scientific approach, an attempt to explain behavior’s cause. We know a bit more now about the cause of behaviors.

 

[OneSheep]

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!

Okay, so you found St. Augustine’s roadblock. Augustine was doing great in understanding and forgiving the sins of many, but he got stuck on the pear incident and he wasn’t able to forgive himself for joining and promoting manichaeism either.

However, it is seen in his writing that he did not steal for theft’s sake, he stole for the joy of it, for the thrill. Perhaps he momentarily relished the act of defiance, the freedom from the mores of society. Indeed, he wanted freedom, autonomy from the “oppression” of the adult world with all of its rules. Isn’t this typical of teenagers? These are people (children) who behave not out of empathy but because of external pressures, they have not the knowledge of the deep value of the other.

Augustine looked back on his crime and condemned himself. He said “this was my neighbor, a good man, I was evil”. Such self-condemnation (guilt) is the activity of the conscience. Condemnation blocks empathy. His mind went straight to “I did evil, I was evil”. He hated the sin and the sinner when he thought of the occurrence, that is the way our God-given conscience works.

But what was happening when he destroyed the pears? He was blind to the value of his neighbor. His desires blinded him, or perhaps he was a bit ignorant of the value of his neighbor, or both.

Do you see how he also self-condemned for being spoiled?

 

[OneSheep]

Christ says, “I am the vine and YOU ARE THE BRANCHES.” Not, your gifts are the branches, your talents are the branches.

Our talents are gifts too. This is a bit of a tangent, and we can take it up on a different thread, okay? I was calling attention to the “direction” that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to.

So I reiterate my example:

You are, I hope, still thinking about the man’s response, my questions on post 238.

“Responsibility” is the ability to respond. Have the man respond for himself by answering my pointed questions.

 

[OneSheep]

It does if the rest of the sentence is considered.
Fall short of what? It explains very well why pride is the root most sin.

Well, we are talking about explanations for people’s behavior, and then looking at the root cause of the explanation.

I think it would be fruitful at this point to describe a behavior, explain it, and see if the “pride” explanation is adequate. If “pride” is adequate, then we can investigate the source of “pride”, and determine whether or not “excessive love” falls short. What I am saying here is that much of this begs the question, and the question is “Why does man sin?”. Let’s start from there, a specific behavior, okay?

I don’t buy this. Is a rapist or murderer or sexual abuser ignorant of their victims’ needs and value. How could they not?

A “psychopath” is a person with a compromised ability to empathize. He has a misperception of the value of the human, and the harm we can do to one another.

Without this pathology, perpetrators of the acts you describe are blinded by desire for control, power, or sex, or blinded by condemnation, or ignorant of their victims’ value. Would these acts be taken against the perpetrator’s mother? If not, we are talking about ignorance, or blindness from desire. If so, we have blindness from condemnation, probably. We are blind to the value of those we condemn. Those we condemn are “worthless” “evil” “scum” etc., you know the labels.

Yes I understand. I reject it because it isn’t an adequate answer to the question of from whence comes sin.
See above. I have seen much human behavior that indicates that sin occurs despite knowledge.

Okay, let’s compare observations. Chefmom has worked up an example, and she is in the process, I hope, of answering my post 238. Feel free to answer for the man, or bring up a different example. We are trying to find an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, but so far we are not there.

To save you a bit of reading, if “knowing” is simply a matter of “knowing the rules” then we have no discussion. Yes, people break the rules even though they know what they are doing is against the rules.

Taking the next step, saying that knowing or breaking the rules is the same as knowingly and willingly rejecting God would mean that the perpetrator has buy-in on the assertion and knows the depth of the assertion. If we assert that the lack of buy-in is also breaking the rules, then we are again up against the same problem, the perpetrator would have to have buy-in on that assertion, also, in order to have “knowledge”.

Did the crowd who hung Jesus believe that they were knowingly and willingly rejecting God? Absolutely not; perhaps the opposite, they were acting on their consciences. Jesus saw their blindness, activated by condemnation, and saw that they did not know what they were doing. They did not see His divinity, and they did not see his humanity. They thought they saw evil, and they set about punishing it, destroying it.

 

[davidv]

Well, we are talking about explanations for people’s behavior, and then looking at the root cause of the explanation.

I think it would be fruitful at this point to describe a behavior, explain it, and see if the “pride” explanation is adequate. If “pride” is adequate, then we can investigate the source of “pride”, and determine whether or not “excessive love” falls short. What I am saying here is that much of this begs the question, and the question is “Why does man sin?”. Let’s start from there, a specific behavior, okay?

Not OK. Any specific example may not resolve the general case. Genesis 3:6 has very good example why man sins.

[6] So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

Adam and Eve had the knowledge of the prohibition and the penalty for disobedience. Despite this knowledge, they disobeyed anyway.

A “psychopath” is a person with a compromised ability to empathize. He has a misperception of the value of the human, and the harm we can do to one another.

Without this pathology, perpetrators of the acts you describe are blinded by desire for control, power, or sex, or blinded by condemnation, or ignorant of their victims’ value. Would these acts be taken against the perpetrator’s mother? If not, we are talking about ignorance, or blindness from desire. If so, we have blindness from condemnation, probably. We are blind to the value of those we condemn. Those we condemn are “worthless” “evil” “scum” etc., you know the labels.

What proportion of rapists, murders and adulterers are psychopaths? A psychopath’s “excuse” cannot be applied to people who are not psychopaths.

Okay, let’s compare observations. Chefmom has worked up an example, and she is in the process, I hope, of answering my post 238. Feel free to answer for the man, or bring up a different example. We are trying to find an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, but so far we are not there.

That is because the rejection of God is implied by their refusal to obey His laws.

To save you a bit of reading, if “knowing” is simply a matter of “knowing the rules” then we have no discussion. Yes, people break the rules even though they know what they are doing is against the rules.

Sin is breaking God’s rules. Is the discussion over?

Taking the next step, saying that knowing or breaking the rules is the same as knowingly and willingly rejecting God would mean that the perpetrator has buy-in on the assertion and knows the depth of the assertion. If we assert that the lack of buy-in is also breaking the rules, then we are again up against the same problem, the perpetrator would have to have buy-in on that assertion, also, in order to have “knowledge”.

This is not what the Catechism says. One does not need to buy into the rules, nor have an in-depth understanding of them.

Did the crowd who hung Jesus believe that they were knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

I don’t know. Do you? How do you know?

Absolutely not; perhaps the opposite, they were acting on their consciences.

Consciences are often malformed, more often they are ignored for the sake of doing what one wants instead of what is right.

Jesus saw their blindness, activated by condemnation, and saw that they did not know what they were doing. They did not see His divinity, and they did not see his humanity. They thought they saw evil, and they and they set about punishing it, destroying it.

How do you know what they thought? Even if they did, they were putting to death and innocent man, and/or celebrating it.

 

[chefmomster2]

Our talents are gifts too. This is a bit of a tangent, and we can take it up on a different thread, okay? I was calling attention to the “direction” that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to.

This is not a tangent from my point of view. It is a scriptural reference to the truth of a judgment in which those who do not “bear fruit” will be judged unacceptable and cast into “the fire”.

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.
“How important it is to remain in his love” implies that we can move outside of His love. (His love is present, but by choosing sin we reject it.)
…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.
Note that we must follow His commandments to preserve eternal life.

You are, I hope, still thinking about the man’s response, my questions on post 238.

Could you answer these questions, sir?
Which part of the equation did you neglect?
M: Equation? I knew it was a sin. I knew it was a mortal sin. I did it anyway.

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.)

M: Pride is certainly the reason and an explanation. It is not merely self-condemnation. It is a statement of a particular vice. All vices are negative as all virtues are positive. They are qualities of our character. They are the evidence of our state of sinfulness.

What exactly is wrong with self-condemnation? We should “condemn” ourselves, or hold ourselves guilty, of evil once we recognize it. The fact that we recognize that we have sinned is a good thing! It is the first step in reconciliation. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Without it we do not seek reconciliation, we do not become reconciled and we risk the loss of eternal life.

If the answer to all is “pride”, have the man explain how “pride” affected his thinking and his decision.

M: Pride is the result of only one thing: the propensity of man to sin. We will never be free of this inclination. We try, and to the extent that we are holy, we succeed, but all of us are touched by the evil influence of sin. Of evil itself. Evil does not ever reduce our culpability. It is part and parcel of the choice we made. All such choices are a battle between good and evil.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep: 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)

God CANNOT “reconcile them”. That would require God rescinding our free will. The grace of God is present but when we sin grievously we reject it. God does indeed come to us with arms full of love, but we must be willing to accept it through the redemptive mercy offered by the sacrament of reconciliation. That is the only way back.

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.

1 John 5:3
For the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

1 John 2: 3-5, 13-14
3 The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments.
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live [just] as he lived.

These verses are are talking about our responsibility to follow God’s Law. They state the results of following the Commandments and not following them. Yes, we abide in love when we follow the Great Commandment. We will abide perfectly with Him in heaven if we continue to follow His commandments. (This theme is reiterated in the parable of the vines and the branches.)

But they say much more:

• They define love of God as keeping the commandments.
• They inextricably link our actions to our demonstration of love for God.
• They show that abiding in this love is dependent on keeping the Law.
• We abide in His love when we live our faith.
• Our love is made perfect by our continuing to follow God’s will.

They also tells us that when we do not live by the commandments, through serious sin, we cannot abide in Him. If we claim to be His followers, but do not live as He lived, we are liars. We do NOT follow Him. If we die in that state, we will continue being separated from Him for Eternity.

You have yet to demonstrate that your definition of “full knowledge” is accepted by the Church and therefore applicable to these ideas which are basic to the Catholic faith. “Your observation” cannot be used as a standard, because it isn’t “standard” at all. Your observations are not universal. The Church defines a standard applicable equally to ALL people.

*The Church never suggests that we must have “full knowledge” of God. *Why would it? Such a thing is utterly impossible. We know God if we know Christ and we know Christ if we hear His Word. What would such knowledge consist of? What more would we need to know?If you want to assert this need for full knowledge of God, you must prove that this knowledge is both possible and required. You also need to show that it is a requirement for mortal sin and therefore, for rejection of God Himself.

Consider the fallen angels. Who could have known God better than the angels who lived with Him? But, despite this knowledge, they used their free will to choose to reject Him by the sin of pride. They were thrust into Hell for this rejection. As creatures like us, we should regard this as a warning of the seriousness of our sins and their potential to cost us eternal life.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . How do you know what they thought? Even if they did, they were putting to death and innocent man, and/or celebrating it.

:twocents:

Whatever they thought. Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34)
Recall that earlier he had prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
So we really do not know the outcome for those who crucified Him. Jesus is to judge the living and the dead so it is more complicated than I understand. However, at least some of them could be in hell.
They were clearly committing a sin regardless of whether they were aware of its enormity or not. There would be no reason to forgive them otherwise.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep: It comes from our nature, our God-given nature.

CCC 358 … It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures!
Yes! We are good in His eyes! But pride is not a “gift of God”. It is a trait of our sinfulness. It does NOT come from God. It came as a result of Original Sin.
CCC 1707 "Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history."10 He succumbed to temptation and did what was evil. He still desires the good, but his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error…
Our true nature was scarred by sin. Sin is not a part of our true nature. Neither are the vices.

She is (probably) not intending to hurt someone, she has not the empathy to know such. She is ignorant, and may be blind too.

(See below*)Intent is not a factor, but if it were… Not a reasonable position. Teenagers have achieved the age of reason. She certainly knows that theft is a sin. It’s on “God’s Top Ten List”! She does not need empathy. That is not an aspect of the Church’s requirement for full knowledge. Besides, she knows how she would feel about it. Nor is there blindness. I can virtually guarantee that she hid her actions, looked around to ensure no people or cameras could see her and carefully hid the items on her person. All of these constitute consciousness of guilt.

However, she seeks to satisfy a God-given appetite, she intends to satisfy this appetite, her intent is understandable.

(See below*) Intent is not a factor, but…God did not give us a free pass if we choose to satisfy our appetites in an immoral way. She does not have to steal! She can earn money and purchase it properly. God’s gifts are good. Evil is about ACTS. Her act is evil because it chooses immoral over moral, evil over good. No, it is not reasonably “understood”.

Her intent, to her, is “good”.

(See below*) Her intent is NOT good. Her intent is to shoplift. What she chooses as a “good” end is the acquisition of an object she wants.

If she is indeed trying to hurt someone, we can look at the “good” intent of that also.

If her intent is to hurt someone, there is no need to look at that. The ends NEVER justify the means.

*Please note that in the case of stealing, intent is NOT a factor. There is absolutely no situation in which the act could be a moral good.
Pope John Paul II: “But the negative moral precepts, (The negative moral precepts are the “Thou Shalt Nots”, explanation mine.)those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67).
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and are never justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other knowingly chosen acts.

 

[tonyrey]

*A specific example will demonstrate that evil is never good:

It was good that Jesus chose to die because it was motivated by His love for us but His death was evil because it was the result of men’s ignorance, weakness, malice, prejudice and selfishness. God permitted it because it was a lesser evil than failing to liberate us from ignorance, weakness, malice, prejudice and selfishness.

The Crucifixion was due to evil intentions and the act itself was evil but the ultimate consequences were good.

 

[OneSheep]

Not OK. Any specific example may not resolve the general case. Genesis 3:6 has very good example why man sins. Adam and Eve had the knowledge of the prohibition and the penalty for disobedience. Despite this knowledge, they disobeyed anyway.

The creation story, to me, is an allegory. It depicts two omniscient humans. Please, find an example that does not involve omniscient humans because humans are not so.

What proportion of rapists, murders and adulterers are psychopaths? A psychopath’s “excuse” cannot be applied to people who are not psychopaths.

It is a small proportion, I expect. Did you read my post? I explained why those who are not psychopaths commit the crimes. These are explanations, not excuses. I am not talking about excusing them from anything. Do you see the difference?

Sin is breaking God’s rules. Is the discussion over? ]This is not what the Catechism says. One does not need to buy into the rules, nor have an in-depth understanding of them.

One “does not need”; I think you are saying one does not need to buy into the rules to be accountable to them. It seems to me that you are addressing accountability. I am not, I am addressing whether people knowingly and willingly reject God. Can you tease out an attempt to understand people’s behavior without getting into application of consequence? It is a scientific endeavor, not a judicial one.

As far as the mindset of the crowd goes, we can discuss it further if you like. I am working from the mode of projection. Why would I have been there hanging Jesus? Well, if I heard Him refer to Himself as God, and saw no basis, I might have been a bit perturbed. If leaders I respected found Him abominable, I might support their calls for crucifixion. In any case, for me I would have had to condemn Jesus in some (ignorant, blind) way before I could support and encourage His death. I would have to see it as a matter of justice, my gut, my conscience, would have to be reacting to Him negatively. I would not be seeing His innocence at all, I would be blind.

How could you see yourself as part of the crowd? What would be your mindset? Would you know what you were doing?

It was certainly “part of the rules” in Jewish law not to execute an innocent man. So, when killing Jesus they “knew enough” that their sin could be described as “mortal”. However, they did not “know what they were doing”, as Jesus accurately said from the cross. It seems to me that the words by Jesus from the cross are a reasonable guide for understanding what “knowing” means. Do people break the rules even when they know they are doing so? Yes. Do they know what they are doing? No. Do you see what I am saying here?

However, if you are satisfied with “knowing” simply being a matter of knowing the rules, yes, we have no discussion.

Accuser: It says in this book that you have committed a mortal sin, and by doing so, you have rejected God.

Accused: I don’t believe your book.

Accuser: It says here that even if you don’t believe this book, you are still rejecting God.

Accused: I don’t believe that either. I was not rejecting God. That was not my intent.

Accuser: It says here in this book that even if you had good intent, you were still rejecting God.

Accused: Did you hear me? I don’t believe your book. So go away. I did nothing wrong.

Does the accused have an informed conscience, does he know what he is doing? No. Knowing the seriousness of a sin involves much more than knowing that it is written in a book. Is he to be excused from consequence for such ignorance? No.

Is he forgiven by God? God as I know Him forgives all. God forgives us, as none of us know what we are doing when we sin. We all have different relationships, though… so I respect different views about that question.

 

[davidv]

The creation story, to me, is an allegory.

This is not consistent with Church teaching.

It depicts two omniscient humans.

Oh really? I have never heard this before. It is clearly not evident in the text.

Please, find an example that does not involve omniscient humans because humans are not so.

Since Adam and Eve are not omnicient, they are a pertenant example.
{snip}
The rest seems to be based on the false assumptions above and these need to be addressed.

 

[OneSheep]

This is not a tangent from my point of view. It is a scriptural reference to the truth of a judgment in which those who do not “bear fruit” will be judged unacceptable and cast into “the fire”.

It is my reading that this thread is not about judgment, it is “why”, not “what happens next”. God as I know Him loves unconditionally. Yes, there are some parts of the gospel that imply that this is not the case. we could address them one at a time, if you like, but I don’t think they pertain to this thread. Feel free to PM, me, or invite me to a new thread. I am trying to be as brief as possible.

Could you answer these questions, sir?
Which part of the equation did you neglect?
M: Equation? I knew it was a sin. I knew it was a mortal sin. I did it anyway.

Yes, I heard you say that. I wasn’t sure what you were referring to, so that was why I asked.

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

M: Pride is certainly the reason and an explanation. It is not merely self-condemnation. It is a statement of a particular vice. All vices are negative as all virtues are positive. They are qualities of our character. They are the evidence of our state of sinfulness.

OneSheep: Well, let’s see how the “pride” applied, and make this part of the investigation when we get to it. Let me be more specific on the “how did this happen”? question.
(2) (specified) What was going on in your mind, what were you thinking?

Man: (?)

Do you see one of the problems we run into chefmomster?

Q:Why does man have the propensity to sin?
A:Because of pride.
Q: Why do you have pride?
A: Because I sinned.

It gets circular when we do not go into the specifics. Let’s look a little closer by having the man answer more questions.

M: Pride is the result of only one thing: the propensity of man to sin. We will never be free of this inclination. We try, and to the extent that we are holy, we succeed, but all of us are touched by the evil influence of sin. Of evil itself. Evil does not ever reduce our culpability. It is part and parcel of the choice we made. All such choices are a battle between good and evil.

Let us try to figure out how “pride” influenced your decision, so we can figure out what happened.

For example, I am still wondering about your answer to the last question:

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

What exactly is wrong with self-condemnation? We should “condemn” ourselves, or hold ourselves guilty, of evil once we recognize it. The fact that we recognize that we have sinned is a good thing! It is the first step in reconciliation. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Without it we do not seek reconciliation, we do not become reconciled and we risk the loss of eternal life.

Sorry, I did not mean to say that there was anything wrong with self-condemnation. It is an action of the conscience, and it is takes place to guide us. When ever we self condemn, though, we are to forgive, just as we are to forgive all those we condemn. I am not seeing your statement as contrary to that.

And do you see what I am saying about how the conscience works? We can try to live by “hate the sin, love the sinner”, but that is not the way of my conscience. My conscience beats me up pretty good when I sin. It does not pay attention to the statement. For me, I have to forgive in order for there to be resolution, reconciliation. I have to understand the sin and pray for the ability to forgive. This applies to the self, and to others. Oof, what a hypocrite. So much for brevity. I give in to opportunities to say something about forgiveness. I am a forgiveness zealot. No need to reply on this matter.

Whew! I guess your guest left. Thanks for all the effort. I wish that I could just sit down and talk with you, you seem like such a knowledgeable, likeable person.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Crucifixion was due to evil intentions and the act itself was evil but the ultimate consequences were good.

Consistent with the loving act of Jesus to prove what he had preached:

“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

 

[OneSheep]

This is not consistent with Church teaching.

Oh really? I have never heard this before. It is clearly not evident in the text.

Since Adam and Eve are not omnicient, they are a pertenant example.
{snip}
The rest seems to be based on the false assumptions above and these need to be addressed.

So, if they were not omniscient, then God said they were going to die and they did not know what “death” or suffering was, because it was not in their experience, and they did not know that their act would lead to the sufferings of billions of other people, if we read the story literally. So they acted without knowing the seriousness of their sin.

And then God punished man for man acting on his own God-given desire to be autonomous with the God-given capacity to behave defiantly (often in ignorance), the God-given capacity to doubt the words of authority. If these capacities are not God-given, then God did not create man. If God is omniscient, and I believe He is, then in the literal reading He created man knowing full well that man would defy Him, and planned to go ahead with condemning him to death, suffering, etc. This is the god who gives and then takes away, addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

This does not reflect a God who loves and forgives, as we know through Jesus. And when we focus on those aspects, we lose the point of the story, which I think is to explain the way that man gained a conscience, “the knowledge of good and evil” as well as explaining what our God-given conscience does to us when we misbehave, which is to soundly condemn us.

So, either the story is an allegory, or it conflicts with the idea of a God who forgives. Remember, the ancient Jews put limits on God’s forgiveness, and Jesus addressed that issue. We did not just defy Him, and He forgave. We tortured and killed Him, and He forgave. Do you see the tremendous change in direction that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to?

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep: Well, let’s see how the “pride” applied, and make this part of the investigation when we get to it. Let me be more specific on the “how did this happen”? question.
(2) (specified) What was going on in your mind, what were you thinking?

Man: Nothing beyond what I have previously mentioned. I considered the decision to commit adultery even though it is intrinsically evil. My pride caused me to fall short of what God wants of me.

Q:Why does man have the propensity to sin?
A:Because of pride.
Q: Why do you have pride?
A: Because of sin.

This is only a problem given your answers to the questions. Mine are:
Q: Why does man have the propensity to sin?
A: Because of Original Sin.
Q: Why do you have pride?
A: That is one way in which sin manifests itself in man. It is a component of Original Sin itself.
Therefore, it is not circular, but rather both are caused by sin with pride being a more specific attitude of the same sinfulness.

Let us try to figure out how “pride” influenced your decision, so we can figure out what happened. For example, I am still wondering about your answer to the last question:

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

I had an excessive trust in my own abilities. This is the sin of pride. I thought I knew “enough” despite the teaching that I must persevere in ever-deepening my faith. I thought myself above the need to avoid this sin despite the Church’s teaching that it is necessary.

I wish that I could just sit down and talk with you, you seem like such a knowledgeable, likeable person.

Back at you! :tiphat:

 

[OneSheep]

Our true nature was scarred by sin. Sin is not a part of our true nature. Neither are the vices.

This again gets us into the area of man sinning because of his pride, and the pride scar happening because of his sin. Please, let’s jump out of the circle and have the man answer for himself.

(See below*)Intent is not a factor, but if it were… Not a reasonable position. Teenagers have achieved the age of reason. She certainly knows that theft is a sin. It’s on “God’s Top Ten List”! She does not need empathy. That is not an aspect of the** Church’s requirement for full knowledge**. Besides, she knows how she would feel about it. Nor is there blindness. I can virtually guarantee that she hid her actions, looked around to ensure no people or cameras could see her and carefully hid the items on her person. All of these constitute consciousness of guilt.

Perhaps she does know how she would feel about it, but she is not putting herself in the place of her victim. She is not considering the victim at all, the victim is some unknown dude whom she doesn’t care about in the least. She knows that what she is doing is against the rules, but she does not know or consider the value of whom she is hurting. This is ignorance. She should feel guilty, but she is not experiencing guilt.

She is not buying into the Church’s requirement. This is not an excuse, it is an explanation.

(See below*) Intent is not a factor, but…God did not give us a free pass if we choose to satisfy our appetites in an immoral way. She does not have to steal! She can earn money and purchase it properly. God’s gifts are good. Evil is about ACTS. Her act is evil because it chooses immoral over moral, evil over good. No, it is not reasonably “understood”.
(See below*) Her intent is NOT good. Her intent is to shoplift. What she chooses as a “good” end is the acquisition of an object she wants.

Her act is immoral because it causes harm, and the Church expresses that the act is sinful because of such wrong. The Church confirms the “wrongness” experienced by those of many other faiths. She is not acting with an informed conscience unless we are tightening her story into the same as the man we have been addressing, and we can continue to address that there.

And yes, the “good” she wants is the object she steals. This does not justify her act, but again we are not addressing justice, we are addressing why people do what they do.

If her intent is to hurt someone, there is no need to look at that. The ends NEVER justify the means.

When a mother spanks or yells at a child, this is a means to a good end in her eyes. When a shoplifter wishes to punish a shop owner for some wrong he did to her, this is in her eyes a means to a good end. She is not buying the “theft is always wrong” assertion. When gang members kill a fellow gangster for leaving the gang, the “good” end is dedication by fellow gangsters and release from the fear that the culprit will rat on them. We are not talking about people who have informed consciences (except, perhaps, the first case, if she is actually thinking “I am doing this out of love”. This is a topic for another thread.). None are knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Their malformed consciences are telling them “what he did was wrong”, and they compulsively seek to punish the wrongdoer.

*Please note that in the case of stealing, intent is NOT a factor. There is absolutely no situation in which the act could be a moral good.

Pope John Paul II: “But the negative moral precepts, (The negative moral precepts are the “Thou Shalt Nots”, explanation mine.)those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67).
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and are never justified by intention, or by circumstances, or by other knowingly chosen acts.
​

I am not talking about whether the such acts are objectively justified. They are not. They are understandable and explainable, but they are to be condemned.​

 

[OneSheep]

Man: Nothing beyond what I have previously mentioned. I considered the decision to commit adultery even though it is intrinsically evil. My pride caused me to fall short of what God wants of me.

OneSheep: So, to the best of my recollection, the only thing that was going through your mind was that you thought you would not give into temptation. Is that correct? We can address that below.

This is only a problem given your answers to the questions. Mine are:
Q: Why does man have the propensity to sin?
A: Because of Original Sin.
Q: Why do you have pride?
A: That is one way in which sin manifests itself in man. It is a component of Original Sin itself.
Therefore, it is not circular, but rather both are caused by sin with pride being a more specific attitude of the same sinfulness.

We run into the same problem though.

Q: Why does man have original sin itself?
A: Because he sinned against God.
Q: Why did he sin against God?
A: Because of pride.
Q: Why did he have pride?
A: It is a component of Original Sin.

Here, try this on for size:

Q: Why does man sin?
A: He sins because he was born with appetites, and he is ignorant and capable of blindness.
Q: Why is he ignorant?
A: I have no idea. We are born ignorant, as evident in my answer here.
Q: Why is he capable of blindness?
A: It benefits his survival, and the survival of the empathy trait. If a tribe was always in empathy mode, they would be incapable of protecting themselves when attacked by other tribes, and incapable of severely reprimanding wrongdoers. In addition, desire blocks empathy so that the most empathic do not end up getting the short end and not surviving.
Q: Why did God give him the appetites?
A: These are to benefit man in his survival, his continuation as a species.

Man:

I had an excessive trust in my own abilities. This is the sin of pride. I thought I knew “enough” despite the teaching that I must persevere in ever-deepening my faith. I thought myself above the need to avoid this sin despite the Church’s teaching that it is necessary.

Back at you! :tiphat:

OneSheep: So, you see now that you thought you knew enough, but you know now that you did not? You thought you were above the need to avoid the sin? What aspect of the sin did you think you were “above”? Can you give voice to what was actually being said in your mind? Give me the actual words of your reasoned mind.

Man?)

oof. gotta get to work.

 

[tonyrey]

Consistent with the loving act of Jesus to prove what he had preached:

“Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

Anyone who rejects that principle is either ignorant or malignant.

 

[chefmomster2]

Returning for a moment to our young shoplifter:

OneSheep: She is not considering the victim at all,

Empathy is NOT REQUIRED.

She knows that what she is doing is against the rules, but she does not know or consider the value of whom she is hurting.

Likewise, this is NOT REQUIRED.

This is ignorance. She should feel guilty, but she is not experiencing guilt.

This is NOT ignorance. Independently support your definition.
Her actions as I described show a consciousness of guilt.

She is not buying into the Church’s requirement. This is not an excuse, it is an explanation.

So what? Mortal sin is only applicable in a Catholic context. She knew it was stealing. She knew it was seriously wrong. She did it anyway.

This does not justify her act, but again we are not addressing justice, we are addressing why people do what they do.

This is exactly what we are talking about. God’s justice. Specifically, can man truly sin such that he can justly be condemned to hell?

You claim:
That man cannot commit mortal sin. (I say they can.)
That mortal sin is not a rejection of God. (I say it is.)
That no man goes to hell due to mortal sin. (I say that such an outcome is possible. Note: I do not say that it must happen. Only that it is possible.)

Clarify, please, if I have misstated.

This is in her eyes a means to a good end. She is not buying the “theft is always wrong” assertion. When gang members kill a fellow gangster for leaving the gang, the “good” end is dedication by fellow gangsters and release from the fear that the culprit will rat on them.

Theft and murder are intrinsically evil acts and are never reasonably considered as “good”. It cannot be argued that they didn’t know. They are commonly held to be evil across religions, cultures, societies and nations. They don’t have to “buy into them”. They only need to know that they are serious.

None are knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

This is a separate point to be determined once we have a conclusion as to whether one can commit mortal sin. This is an important thing to establish. Mortal sin is rejecting God according to the Church. So finding that our male thief has indeed committed mortal sin matters tremendously.

Their malformed consciences are telling them “what he did was wrong”, and they compulsively seek to punish the wrongdoer.

We have discussed this before and I don’t agree. You say this is your observation. I say it is not my observation. You will need an objective proof of this.

I am not talking about whether the such acts are objectively justified. They are not. They are understandable and explainable, but they are to be condemned.

So having all three components of mortal sin, she is condemned as guilty of mortal sin. (I’ll repeat that we are “judging” only as a part of the argument.)