Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

I am thinking perhaps the answer to the question of this thread is not one that is approachable by use of the CCC.

The Church does not claim that anyone is in hell. To do so would put the Church in the position of judging someone, which Jesus soundly tells us not to do, and presumes the knowledge of a limit to God’s mercy and saving grace. On the other hand, the Church would be false in saying that knowingly rejecting God is impossible, for that would mean that man does not have free will. On yet another hand (I may be running out of hands here) man has “free will” only to the extent that he knows the choices and the consequence of those choices. True freedom is an all-knowing freedom, if we take it to the “nth” degree.

Ignorance is by no means an excuse, but it sure gets us in a world of trouble.

This is what the CCC addresses: the CCC presents what “mortal sin” is in a way that will give no Christian follower an excuse for committing a sin, and it does a commendable job of doing so.

The CCC does not set about explaining human behavior, but guiding human behavior. We can look at the sciences for explanations. In my view (from a Christian perspective somewhat informed by the sciences), humans only sin when there is a component of blindness and/or ignorance. This can be verified in personal experience. When we sin, do we really know what we are doing? Or are we blind, like the crowd who hung Jesus was blind?

In the mean time, all of us as Catholics are to continue to rely on the guidance of the CCC. What is said to be immoral is reasonably immoral, and it behooves us as humans to understand the reasons. In addition, we can go much further in halting sinful behavior by showing why it causes harm rather than simply asserting that it is wrong and leaving it at that.

Unfortunately, some people have to go to the “school-of-hard-knocks” before they get it right.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep:
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.

This is an erroneous argument. Sin does not result in Original Sin. It originates there. The equation must begin with Original Sin in the first position. Original Sin itself causes mankind to be inclined to sin. Some marks of this inclination are the vices. Pride is one of these. This cardinal vice is itself a sin and can lead to other sin. The direction is always…
Original Sin----Sinful Inclinations/Vices----Individual 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.

He does not sin because he has appetites. Appetites are neutral. Sin applies to acts. Appetites can be quenched in a large variety of moral ways. Man sins when he chooses to satisfy them in immoral ways. He chooses immoral means because he is inclined to evil due to Original Sin and often chooses the immediate good of what he desires rather than the greatest good, defined as the choice aligned with the will of God.

Q: Why is he ignorant?
A: I have no idea. We are born ignorant, as evident in my answer here.

Sorry, but it is not “evident”. You have yet to defend your definition in the concept of mortal sin peculiar to the Church.

We are born with knowledge of the Natural Law.

CCC 1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.

At Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit who is present in our soul to help us recognize sin and direct us away from it. Our knowledge increases as we spiritually mature. We gain it through the Holy Spirit, the Doctrines of the Church, Scriptures, Tradition, Religious Instruction, and Participation in the Sacraments. We CAN be truly ignorant. It does NOT follow that we MUST be ignorant.

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.

This description does not follow either. Empathy exists, but we are not blinded to it by desire. Empathy is a factor that contributes to our decision-making, particularly as a Christian. It is at the heart of the Great Commandment.
Man’s ability to survive has very little to do with empathy. It is related to our basic instincts for survival, care of the young, continuation of the species, etc. If we wish to survive by moral means then we will be guided by such things as empathy in order to temper our instincts with Christian morality.

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: I have searched my recollections, but there is nothing further that I can think of. I was attracted to her. But I had been fighting that for months. I told myself that it was wrong to continue to see her, even at work. But my pride tempted me. I could be friends without getting more involved. I could keep it under control. Pride tempted me to believe my own words.

Man: I knew that sexual involvement with this woman was adultery and that adultery is a mortal sin. Certainly I have learned from my experience. I know that I will really try to follow the instructions of the Church after this. I should not have rejected what the Church teaches about avoiding temptation. Choosing not to was a big mistake!

 

[simpleas]

This is an erroneous argument. Sin does not result in Original Sin. It originates there. The equation must begin with Original Sin in the first position. Original Sin itself causes mankind to be inclined to sin. Some marks of this inclination are the vices. Pride is one of these. This cardinal vice is itself a sin and can lead to other sin. The direction is always…
Original Sin----Sinful Inclinations/Vices----Individual Sin

He does not sin because he has appetites. Appetites are neutral. Sin applies to acts. Appetites can be quenched in a large variety of moral ways. Man sins when he chooses to satisfy them in immoral ways. He chooses immoral means because he is inclined to evil due to Original Sin and often chooses the immediate good of what he desires rather than the greatest good, defined as the choice aligned with the will of God.

Sorry, but it is not “evident”. You have yet to defend your definition in the concept of mortal sin peculiar to the Church.

We are born with knowledge of the Natural Law.

CCC 1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.

At Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit who is present in our soul to help us recognize sin and direct us away from it. Our knowledge increases as we spiritually mature. We gain it through the Holy Spirit, the Doctrines of the Church, Scriptures, Tradition, Religious Instruction, and Participation in the Sacraments. We CAN be truly ignorant. It does NOT follow that we MUST be ignorant.

This description does not follow either. Empathy exists, but we are not blinded to it by desire. Empathy is a factor that contributes to our decision-making, particularly as a Christian. It is at the heart of the Great Commandment.
Man’s ability to survive has very little to do with empathy. It is related to our basic instincts for survival, care of the young, continuation of the species, etc. If we wish to survive by moral means then we will be guided by such things as empathy in order to temper our instincts with Christian morality.
Man: I have searched my recollections, but there is nothing further that I can think of. I was attracted to her. But I had been fighting that for months. I told myself that it was wrong to continue to see her, even at work. But my pride tempted me. I could be friends without getting more involved. I could keep it under control. Pride tempted me to believe my own words.

Man: I knew that sexual involvement with this woman was adultery and that adultery is a mortal sin. Certainly I have learned from my experience. I know that I will really try to follow the instructions of the Church after this. I should not have rejected what the Church teaches about avoiding temptation. Choosing not to was a big mistake!

So the person only fully realises that the act was a mistake after. Before he fully sees what he has done to his family he had to make that mistake. Not all people will do this, some people have more self control than others, and would think on what their actions would do to other people involved.
We all sin in different ways, but still I’m stuck on anyone knowingly and willingly rejecting God, unless they worship others or satan.

Question, for anyone who would answer :

When you have sinned in the past or recently, did you think “I’m going to do this regardless of what God wants for me”? I know I haven’t.

After the sin. on reflection, I have felt bad if I caused hurt of someones feelings etc, then learnt from it. I could never say I would never do what other people slip into doing, that would be me thinking I could never sin like them, and of course we should never judge

 

[chefmomster2]

simpleas: So the person only fully realises that the act was a mistake after. Before he fully sees what he has done to his family he had to make that mistake. Not all people will do this, some people have more self control than others, and would think on what their actions would do to other people involved.

Not exactly. I knew it was a mistake to commit adultery when I did it. I knew it was a mortal sin. The only thing I was unclear of is how easy it can be to sin. This isn’t knowledge of the sin. It is awareness of a particular vice that I need to work on to avoid any kind of sin, not just adultery.

We all sin in different ways, but still I’m stuck on anyone knowingly and willingly rejecting God, unless **they worship others or satan.**Actually, you are close to your answer there! When we choose to follow our own judgment in place of God’s, we are worshipping ourselves.

In adultery, this is fairly obvious. People know adultery is wrong. It is a pretty universal belief. So, it would work something like this:

• Man is sinful due to Original Sin.
• We are afflicted with vices. We are subject to temptation.
• Temptation leads us to a choice.
• We can either resist temptation or succumb to it.
• This requires that we make a decision.
• How do we make it?
• We use our conscience and the teachings of the Church.
• Our conscience is either properly informed or it isn’t. If a person can rationalize a way that such an obvious and intrinsically evil act could be justified, their conscience is flawed.
• We are required to follow Church teaching in faith and morals. It provides an objective way to look at decisions. If it says the action is moral, we are fine. If it tells us it is immoral, we need to take that seriously.
• When it comes to adultery, the act is both known to be seriously immoral and taught by the Church to be a mortal sin.
• We have the opportunity to commit the act despite our knowledge or to use our knowledge to fully resist the act.
• If we resist the temptation we are strengthened in faith. If we do not resist, we seriously sin. (We don’t have to think, “I’ll do it anyway.” We just DO IT anyway.)
• So, this would be mortal sin.

Next…how mortal sin is a rejection of God.

 

[OneSheep]

"OneSheep:

She is not considering the victim at all,

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.

Returning for a moment to our young shoplifter:
Empathy is NOT REQUIRED.
Likewise, this is NOT REQUIRED.

Yes, these observations do not excuse the act of theft, they explain how the theft happens. Are you yelling? I think not, it just looks like yelling.

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

Hmmm. Ignorance is lack of knowledge about something. If she does not know the value of whom she is hurting, she is ignorant. However, she may be cognizant of the rules, and her looking for cameras may mean she does not want to get caught. But guilt?

I once watched a “60 Minutes” interview of a mob boss who was in prison for multiple murders. He was getting old and wanted to spend more time with his family. The interviewer asked “Why should you be allowed to see your family, when because of your actions so many people will never see their loved ones again?” The mob boss answered, “I did not know any of those people”.

The mob boss has no empathy for the human individual as a human. He only finds value in his “in-group”, his family. Everyone else was expendable and of no value. This ignorance is not an excuse, it is explains why he was capable of such atrocious sin. The shoplifter, too, is ignorant in this manner.

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 see, that is where our minds are going in different directions. I am addressing whether or not people knowingly and willingly reject God, and you are addressing whether or not people should be condemned. If you want to talk about whether people are condemned by God, I have a very simple answer: To me, God forgives everyone. If a person chooses to go to hell, it is not a matter of God-sending, it is a matter of free will. As I said before, I agree with the priest who said “if anyone chooses hell, they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” Do you see the change in direction? People choose “hell” every day in their acts. Addiction is hell. Slavery to the appetites is hell. Clinging to resentment and anger against people is hell. Please, chefmom, let’s keep the judicial approach to a different thread. These are “hells” chosen in blindness and ignorance.

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.

Okay, I will clarify (thanks for trying though!) I agree with the priest I quoted, man has the free will to knowingly and willingly scream and kick against God all the way to some form of separation, “hell”. However, I do not understand how such separation can occur, since we are nothing without God. I am thinking that the “separation” is of a movement from existence to non-existence, that is the only way I can get my head around it, given the parameters. So, yes, man “can” commit a mortal sin as defined as knowingly rejecting God, in terms of free will, but I have never observed such mortal sin actually occurring, as I have before stated.

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.

Judicial “need” vs. scientific “why”. “Need” is the judicial approach.

You are correct, no one “needs” to have buy-in of anything in order to avoid condemnation by society. But I am carrying a microscope, and you are carrying a gavel. I hope this is entertaining for the reader. One of us needs to give up and start discussing the same topic as the other. I would be happy to give up the “why” and change to the judicial discussion, but I fear the moderator would not be happy, and I find the “why” a bit more interesting for now. We haven’t heard the last from the man, nor perhaps the young shoplifter.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep:

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.

chefmomster2:

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.
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.

Remember, I was proving that this male punishing shoplifter had “good intent” in his own eyes. This again is “why”, and you are again addressing what the judicial reaction should be. Are you starting to see that we are having different discussions?

chefmomster2:

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.)

What I said was “the acts are to be condemned.” I did not say “she is condemned”. I am saying I am in agreement that as a society we should condemn the acts, and in saying so I am weighing in on the judicial approach. I did not say she committed a mortal sin. As I said before, if “knowing” is simply a matter of having heard the rules, then we have no discussion. In my observation, the more people know the seriousness of a sin, the less likely they are to choose the sin. A child hears many rules and breaks them without knowing the seriousness of his sin. Do you give more credit than due to an adult with empathy issues? Have you ever been blind (not the physical sense)? I have.

 

[OneSheep]

simpleas:
So the person only fully realises that the act was a mistake after. Before he fully sees what he has done to his family he had to make that mistake. Not all people will do this, some people have more self control than others, and would think on what their actions would do to other people involved.
We all sin in different ways, but still I’m stuck on anyone knowingly and willingly rejecting God, unless they worship others or satan.

But then they are rejecting what they think is God, but is not God. Satan worshippers are finding a “goodness” in satan, a freedom perhaps. Worshiping others? Perhaps God is in the “others” in some way. This may be missing the mark, but it is a not a matter of doing so in a “knowing” way, right?

Question, for anyone who would answer :

When you have sinned in the past or recently, did you think “I’m going to do this regardless of what God wants for me”? I know I haven’t.

After the sin. on reflection, I have felt bad if I caused hurt of someones feelings etc, then learnt from it. I could never say I would never do what other people slip into doing, that would be me thinking I could never sin like them, and of course we should never judge

I agree. It would be more like I am thinking, "Well, God wants this for me, but he also wants this for me. And if desire is pushing one or both those “thises”, blinding me of a more objective, loving truth, then I make a decision in blindness. And if I truly do cause harm, and am aware of the harm, then I can learn from it.

 

[davidv]

But then they are rejecting what they think is God, but is not God. Satan worshippers are finding a “goodness” in satan, a freedom perhaps. Worshiping others? Perhaps God is in the “others” in some way. This may be missing the mark, but it is a not a matter of doing so in a “knowing” way, right?

I agree. It would be more like I am thinking, "Well, God wants this for me, but he also wants this for me. And if desire is pushing one or both those “thises”, blinding me of a more objective, loving truth, then I make a decision in blindness. And if I truly do cause harm, and am aware of the harm, then I can learn from it.

The reality of sin

386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

 

[OneSheep]

This is an erroneous argument. Sin does not result in Original Sin. It originates there. The equation must begin with Original Sin in the first position…

He does not sin because he has appetites. Appetites are neutral…

I think we are going to have to have fun with these some other place, as there is too much to discuss and we are off-topic.

We are born with knowledge of the Natural Law…

At Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit who is present in our soul to help us recognize sin and direct us away from it. Our knowledge increases as we spiritually mature. We gain it through the Holy Spirit, the Doctrines of the Church, Scriptures, Tradition, Religious Instruction, and Participation in the Sacraments. We CAN be truly ignorant. It does NOT follow that we MUST be ignorant.

Baptism or not, if we do not increase in knowledge, we remain to some degree ignorant. Natural law is within, teachings and experience are the keys to awareness of what is within. When we are unaware, though, we are ignorant. Awareness is a lifelong process.

This description does not follow either. Empathy exists, but we are not blinded to it by desire.

Well, I have been blinded by desire. When I get the opportunity to make a lot of money from an investment that involves supporting a company that does bad things in the world, my mind starts rationalizing the bad acts. This is blindness triggered by desire.

Empathy is a factor that contributes to our decision-making, particularly as a Christian. It is at the heart of the Great Commandment.

Yes, without empathy, we are very ignorant in our decision-making.

Man’s ability to survive has very little to do with empathy. It is related to our basic instincts for survival, care of the young, continuation of the species, etc. If we wish to survive by moral means then we will be guided by such things as empathy in order to temper our instincts with Christian morality.

Without empathy, we would not survive as a communal species. We need empathy in order to get along. Without empathy, we would be worse than dog-eat-dog. When we experience the pain of others, we avoid sin against others. Empathy is key.

Man: I have searched my recollections, but there is nothing further that I can think of. I was attracted to her. But I had been fighting that for months. I told myself that it was wrong to continue to see her, even at work. But my pride tempted me. I could be friends without getting more involved. I could keep it under control. Pride tempted me to believe my own words.

Man: I knew that sexual involvement with this woman was adultery and that adultery is a mortal sin. Certainly I have learned from my experience. I know that I will really try to follow the instructions of the Church after this. I should not have rejected what the Church teaches about avoiding temptation. Choosing not to was a big mistake!

OneSheep:
(1) How do you know now that it was a big mistake? What did you learn that you did not know before?

As far as “there is nothing else I can think of”, you can think of something. Don’t give up. You are saying that pride tempted you to believe your own words.

(2) What were those words? What were those very words that “pride tempted you to believe”.? We have heard the words “this is wrong” going on in your mind, but what were the other words? Please, be as specific as possible. Quote your mind. My mind said " ".

Man: (?)

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep: The Church does not claim that anyone is in hell. To do so would put the Church in the position of judging someone, which Jesus soundly tells us not to do,…

Well, no human creature, anyway. But the “fallen” angels are there. It CAN happen. I don’t necessarily believe anyone is there either, besides demons. I just believe that it is theoretically possible according to Church teaching. Why would man reject God? Because of the effects of sin.

…and presumes the knowledge of a limit to God’s mercy and saving grace.

There is no limit to God mercy, but as to saving grace, that is a separate thing altogether. Assuming that our man did freely and with full knowledge commit a mortal sin, the result is a loss of sanctifying grace. The Holy Spirit leaves our soul. This isn’t my opinion. It is the teaching of the RCC.
NewAdvent: “Tradition shows that the discipline of confessors in the early Church proclaims the belief that grace and justification are lost by mortal sin.”
The fact that mortal sin takes the soul out of the state of grace is due to the very nature of mortal sin. Mortal sin is an absolute turning away from God, the supernatural end of the soul,
With regard to the moral virtues, the seven gifts and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which invariably accompany grace and charity, it is clear that when mortal sin enters into the soul they cease to exist (cf. Francisco Suárez, “De gratia”, IX, 3 sqq.).
God’s mercy still exists but the man rejected it when he chose to follow his own counsel rather than God’s. He can’t be forced to accept it. And, without it, he can’t achieve heaven.

 

[simpleas]

Not exactly. I knew it was a mistake to commit adultery when I did it. I knew it was a mortal sin. The only thing I was unclear of is how easy it can be to sin. This isn’t knowledge of the sin. It is awareness of a particular vice that I need to work on to avoid any kind of sin, not just adultery.

We all sin in different ways, but still I’m stuck on anyone knowingly and willingly rejecting God, unless they worship others or satan.

 

[simpleas]

I was sent this off a blog today, thought it would be interesting to you all

God = Me

In the Peter Barnes play, The Ruling Class, the schizophrenic earl is asked how he knows that he is God. He replies “Simple, when I pray to him, I find I am talking to myself.” But we do not need to be schizophrenic to suspect that when we ask ourselves about the will of God in such or such a matter (or fashionably ask: “What would Jesus say?) the answer we give owes more to our own will than it does to God’s.

This is not just an observation we may make about ourselves, interesting tests have confirmed that our instinct to confabulate God with ourselves can be measured in our brains. When, for instance, we are asked to think about both our own person, and about being English, two separated parts of our brain light up to deal with each concept. But when we think both of our own person and God, nothing happens: the brain does not record a difference.

So we are put on warning. When we are faced by a moral decision, we have to allow for this instinct by opening our minds to the fact that our inclination may be wrong. And that goes against the grain. Since we know that the final decision must accord with our reason, reason itself requires us to set aside our arational tendencies in order to find the truth. So, let’s have a look at some moral issues to test how we handle this.

You have to choose a primary school for your child. One possibility is the Catholic school down the road. Unfortunately it doesn’t have a good scholastic record, and you feel that your child may be disadvantaged at secondary school. Another primary is not a faith school, but it has an excellent academic record. Which one are you going to choose?

You are a journalist on a successful newspaper. Your salary is not as high as you would like. But it has been explained to you, on the quiet, that the paper never questions your expenses – within a reasonable figure. And that’s to your advantage because expenses are not taxable. Will you take advantage of this convenience?

You have a young friend who often listens to your advice. You know that he is in a sexual relationship but you suspect that he is not using any contraception. Would you advise him to get equipped and protect his girlfriend, or would this simply double the wrongdoing?

You are the next of kin of an elderly patient who is dying in hospital. The doctor tells you that the patient, currently unconscious, could live for a few more days, and perhaps have episodes of some consciousness – which may well involve considerable pain. The doctor suggests that, except for the continuance of morphine, treatment should cease and the patient be allowed to die, perhaps in the next few hours. Will you agree to this?

I realise that final decisions would require more information than I have given, but perhaps this will be enough for you to test any difference between what you may think and what God may think.

 

[chefmomster2]

So he now knows that the truth is that his action has harmed other people. Before that just being told that it would do real harm didn’t inform his conscience enough.

Personal experience is not the main way that a Catholic informs his conscience. He does it through knowledge of scripture (“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”) and Church teaching (Adultery is a grave sin.

We can learn the harm done by observing the harm caused by others. It doesn’t make sense that we would have to experience each evil sin personally to “know” it’s gravely sinful.

Beyond that, people can and do learn by listening. Take the concept of murder:

• Have you ever murdered anyone?
• Do you know it’s seriously wrong?
• Did you have to learn it’s wrong by killing someone?
• If you murdered tomorrow, could you say you didn’t know it was wrong or seriously sinful? Do you seriously doubt it does great harm?
• What about the murder of a low-down, evil, drug-dealing thug who has no one who would miss him or care that he was murdered? Was there true harm done?
• Do we get to decide if someone “deserves” to be murdered?
• Does him being evil make it non-sinful?

The man learned something. Every moment we learn something. What he learned was not new knowledge that he was previously unaware of. It just served to reinforce what he already knew.

Beyond all of that, he doesn’t need to know every intimate detail of his sin. He only needs to know two things: It is wrong. The church says it is a mortal sin.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep…man has “free will” only to the extent that he knows the choices and the consequence of those choices. True freedom is an all-knowing freedom, if we take it to the “nth” degree.

Freedom is not dependent on knowledge. If I am fully free I can act in a total absence of knowledge. If my freedom is limited by requiring full knowledge then how “full” can it be? Free will is the freedom to choose from an array of possibilities. My free will gives me the ability of selecting any of those choices. I am completely free to disregard any objective or subjective rules, advice or admonitions. Knowledge comes in not as a requirement for choice, but as a requirement for discerning the morality of that choice.

In my view (from a Christian perspective somewhat informed by the sciences), humans only sin when there is a component of blindness and/or ignorance. This can be verified in personal experience.

My personal experience does not verify it. In my experience people do know what the moral choice is but they reject it. They aren’t ignorant of its immorality, but they decide that they are going to do it anyway. They are prideful, selfish. or whatever. But none of these things fully blinds them to the fact that it is immoral.

The CCC does not set about explaining human behavior, but guiding human behavior. We can look at the sciences for explanations.

The CCC does both.

We behave in a good way when we act out of the virtues which God has graciously given us to assist us in combatting evil. He wants to give us every possibility of success because he truly wants us to be with Him. Explanation of “good” behavior: God’s goodness. The CCC guides us by teaching us what is truly good and in discerning right behavior.

Furthermore, we sin when and because we rely upon our own judgment rather than upon the judgment of God as expressed by the scriptures and the Church.

Why do we knowingly and willingly reject God? Because we are sinful creatures who decide we know what’s best for us. We are “bad” when we commit bad acts, i.e. use contraception. We are “condemned” when we decide that we don’t have to follow the will of God as transmitted by the infallible moral teaching authority of the Magisterium because we hold a different and necessarily “correct” opinion. The CCC guides us by explaining how these acts are incompatible with God’s will and how to discern right behavior.

When we sin, do we really know what we are doing? Or are we blind, like the crowd who hung Jesus was blind?

First, mortal sin is always forgivable. No change there. Jesus was expressing the fullness of God’s love- that even the cruel crucifixion of His Son could be forgiven!

Lack of knowledge has always been a factor in determining culpability. Jesus, as Divine Judge, is able to see into the hearts of the people of the crowd and see that their knowledge was insufficient. He will judge all of us including consideration of the extent of our guilt.

The fact that those people at that time were forgiven and found inculpable by lack of knowledge does not mean that we are always blinded. I don’t hold that we always have full culpability. But it is still possible, rare, but possible.

Look at the flip side. Why was the “good thief” promised heaven? According to your view he would be equally ignorant. So, why is he credited with goodness? If there is no full knowledge he can’t possibly have full knowledge of Christ. So, it can’t be “credited” to him any more than the bad acts of the crowd could be held against them. I hold that he “knew enough” and that full knowledge, according to your definition, is not a requirement.

…we can go much further in halting sinful behavior by showing why it causes harm rather than simply asserting that it is wrong and leaving it at that.

Absolutely! I firmly believe that the lack of high-quality catechesis over the past 35 years has pretty much left people adrift. Most aren’t at all clear about what they are asked to do by the Church and how much is truly “required”. They are much more at a loss to explain how the Church formulated its doctrines and why we should follow them. We can’t move from an external and shallow understanding of God to an intimate, deep relationship if we don’t learn these things.

 

[simpleas]

Personal experience is not the main way that a Catholic informs his conscience. He does it through knowledge of scripture (“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”) and Church teaching (Adultery is a grave sin.

We can learn the harm done by observing the harm caused by others. It doesn’t make sense that we would have to experience each evil sin personally to “know” it’s gravely sinful.

Beyond that, people can and do learn by listening. Take the concept of murder:

• Have you ever murdered anyone?
• Do you know it’s seriously wrong?
• Did you have to learn it’s wrong by killing someone?
• If you murdered tomorrow, could you say you didn’t know it was wrong or seriously sinful? Do you seriously doubt it does great harm?
• What about the murder of a low-down, evil, drug-dealing thug who has no one who would miss him or care that he was murdered? Was there true harm done?
• Do we get to decide if someone “deserves” to be murdered?
• Does him being evil make it non-sinful?

The man learned something. Every moment we learn something. What he learned was not new knowledge that he was previously unaware of. It just served to reinforce what he already knew.

Beyond all of that, he doesn’t need to know every intimate detail of his sin. He only needs to know two things: It is wrong. The church says it is a mortal sin.

I was thinking along the same lines, that we don’t need to commit an act to know that it is wrong. But it seems even devout catholics, can ,with informed conscience still go ahead and commit a “mortal sin”. Possibly because none of us are perfect.

We had alittle discussion about why some peoples consciences seem to be more informed than others on another thread somewhere.
There are things I know are wrong, and wouldn’t ever really think of ever doing because I just know and see that harm, so why some people have good consciences and some don’t still pickles my brain some, I can only answer myself that we all experience life differently and pressures etc lead us to do something we can’t easily avoid. Not that I’m saying its right to do what ever we wish, just certain life issues aren’t easy to avoid…

 

[simpleas]

But then they are rejecting what they think is God, but is not God. Satan worshippers are finding a “goodness” in satan, a freedom perhaps. Worshiping others? Perhaps God is in the “others” in some way. This may be missing the mark, but it is a not a matter of doing so in a “knowing” way, right?

I agree. It would be more like I am thinking, "Well, God wants this for me, but he also wants this for me. And if desire is pushing one or both those “thises”, blinding me of a more objective, loving truth, then I make a decision in blindness. And if I truly do cause harm, and am aware of the harm, then I can learn from it.

If a person is brought up and taught about God, then decides to join a group of satan worshipers for some reason, then this could be knowingly and willingly rejecting God. They can however change during their life experience and return to God. ( I’m thinking God never left them)

Others could be anything from people, animals, materialistic things that we can place above God, maybe these things are so much easier to desire/worship than God because they can be seen, touched etc. Not all people find spirituality easy to practise, and some think its a joke…

So there are people who never give God a second thought, sometimes until something bad happens and they seek answers. But not all knowingly and willingly reject God because they just haven’t found him yet. IMO

Thanks for answering my question

 

[OneSheep]

If a person is brought up and taught about God, then decides to join a group of satan worshipers for some reason, then this could be knowingly and willingly rejecting God. They can however change during their life experience and return to God. ( I’m thinking God never left them)

It really, really depends on what they have been taught about God, Simpleas. Were they taught that God wants people to suffer, to never have fun? Was their experience of God only being forced to go to a big building every Sunday and having to endure extreme boredom? Are they told a lot of rules and the rules are God and all about God, and the rules are just “there because God said so”? There is a lot to know about God, and there are a lot of things I can say or do as a parent that give a very wrong impression of our creator. So, what are they rejecting? Are they rejecting God, or are they rejecting a false image? If they are rejecting a false image, they are not rejecting God. To me, people only reject false images, they do so in ignorance or blindness.

Others could be anything from people, animals, materialistic things that we can place above God, maybe these things are so much easier to desire/worship than God because they can be seen, touched etc. Not all people find spirituality easy to practise, and some think its a joke…

If they knew that God’s presence was in those things, then they would know that as they worship, they are simultaneously giving thanks to God. How can a person place something above God if they don’t believe in God in the first place? And if God is all about a bunch of moralizing people forcing their way into other’s freedom for no real bona fide reason(a common misconception) then what are they rejecting? A false image. We have to start with the right image. First, God is our Daddy, He loves us, He forgives us, He loves us no matter what, He gave us everything we have.

So there are people who never give God a second thought, sometimes until something bad happens and they seek answers. But not all knowingly and willingly reject God because they just haven’t found him yet. IMO

Well, let’s try an example then, shall we? Can you think of a scenario of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God, yet has already found God? Describe the situation, and we can investigate. If you are thinking of a specific friend or acquaintance, describe it. Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

Freedom is not dependent on knowledge. If I am fully free I can act in a total absence of knowledge. If my freedom is limited by requiring full knowledge then how “full” can it be? Free will is the freedom to choose from an array of possibilities. My free will gives me the ability of selecting any of those choices. I am completely free to disregard any objective or subjective rules, advice or admonitions. Knowledge comes in not as a requirement for choice, but as a requirement for discerning the morality of that choice.

You still have to know the choices, and you have to know the quality of those choices in order to make informed decisions. Let me revisit the Ollie North example. I think we decided that Ollie was not choosing morally (remember, he was “supported” by our beloved Ronald Reagan). Col. North was part of the military mindset. Did he consider the option of forgiveness and reconciliation? Probably not, these are not part of the military mindset. His superior must have told him to keep the contras funded, it was his job to figure out how. The military mindset is not whether the military solution is the solution, it is how to apply the military solution given the task at hand. Do you see what I am saying?

My personal experience does not verify it. In my experience people do know what the moral choice is but they reject it. They aren’t ignorant of its immorality, but they decide that they are going to do it anyway. They are prideful, selfish. or whatever. But none of these things fully blinds them to the fact that it is immoral.

I am still waiting to hear from the man to verify this.

The CCC does both.

We behave in a good way when we act out of the virtues which God has graciously given us to assist us in combatting evil. He wants to give us every possibility of success because he truly wants us to be with Him. Explanation of “good” behavior: God’s goodness. The CCC guides us by teaching us what is truly good and in discerning right behavior.

Let’s say a person behaves because if they don’t the wrathful God will put them in hell. Are they behaving well because of seeing God’s goodness? Only if they see that God has their best interest in mind. If that “best interest” is that they are avoiding God’s wrath, then again, we are not seeing a merciful, forgiving God. Let’s say a person is behaving because they want to be seen as “good” by everyone else. This often stems from a desire for popularity, status. Are they behaving because of God’s goodness, or are they simply following their appetite? Do you see what I am saying? I can relate to all of the scenarios here. Been there, done that.

Furthermore, we sin when and because we rely upon our own judgment rather than upon the judgment of God as expressed by the scriptures and the Church.

By this logic, it is possible that a mother who lets her children starve to death rather than stealing food, when that is the only option in her mind, is in error. The Church does not teach this. We have to rely on our own informed judgment, and that judgment has a lot of limitations.

Why do we knowingly and willingly reject God? Because we are sinful creatures who decide we know what’s best for us. We are “bad” when we commit bad acts, i.e. use contraception. We are “condemned” when we decide that we don’t have to follow the will of God as transmitted by the infallible moral teaching authority of the Magisterium because we hold a different and necessarily “correct” opinion. The CCC guides us by explaining how these acts are incompatible with God’s will and how to discern right behavior.

I, like many others, do not believe in infallibility of any human. We are all capable of error. If we were to “kick out” everyone who did not believe in infallibility, then we would have a small Church indeed, and that would be a shame, and it would be against God’s will, and I say that infallibly.

I’m glad you brought up contraception. I know very few people who buy into the Church’s stance on contraception and mortal sin, and the Church has a very weak case for it. Much has yet to be developed on the issue.

First, mortal sin is always forgivable. No change there. Jesus was expressing the fullness of God’s love- that even the cruel crucifixion of His Son could be forgiven!

Lack of knowledge has always been a factor in determining culpability. Jesus, as Divine Judge, is able to see into the hearts of the people of the crowd and see that their knowledge was insufficient. He will judge all of us including consideration of the extent of our guilt.

Those people were not feeling guilty, and they did not know what they were doing. If we are back to “culpability”, though, I think that is one of those words from the judicial approach.

 

[OneSheep]

chefmomster2:

The fact that those people at that time were forgiven and found inculpable by lack of knowledge does not mean that we are always blinded. I don’t hold that we always have full culpability. But it is still possible, rare, but possible.

Look at the flip side. Why was the “good thief” promised heaven? According to your view he would be equally ignorant. So, why is he credited with goodness? If there is no full knowledge he can’t possibly have full knowledge of Christ. So, it can’t be “credited” to him any more than the bad acts of the crowd could be held against them. I hold that he “knew enough” and that full knowledge, according to your definition, is not a requirement.

Credits and debts are still matters of the judicial approach. Cardinal Ratzinger had a bit to say about the “debt” issue in his Intro. The cross is not about debt. Christ is not about debt.

Absolutely! I firmly believe that the lack of high-quality catechesis over the past 35 years has pretty much left people adrift. Most aren’t at all clear about what they are asked to do by the Church and how much is truly “required”. They are much more at a loss to explain how the Church formulated its doctrines and why we should follow them. We can’t move from an external and shallow understanding of God to an intimate, deep relationship if we don’t learn these things.

And that move does not happen without the vital component of prayer. Prayer is not vital in terms of “ought”, though, it is vital in terms of developing an relationship with the One who loves us.

OneSheep: What are those words? (See post 310)

Man: (?)

 

[chefmomster2]

You still have to know the choices, and you have to know the quality of those choices in order to make informed decisions.

Absolute freedom includes the freedom to make immoral choices, incorrect choices, or unreasonable choices or it isn’t absolute freedom. Absolute means there are no restrictions.

Oliver North is not a good example. He had almost no freedom. He could have refused to follow through on his orders, but he could not choose them. He could have considered forgiveness and reconciliation as a basis for such a refusal, if he chose. He did not. He was not the decision-maker.

Let’s say a person behaves because if they don’t the wrathful God will put them in hell. Are they behaving well because of seeing God’s goodness? Only if they see that God has their best interest in mind. If that “best interest” is that they are avoiding God’s wrath, then again, we are not seeing a merciful, forgiving God. Let’s say a person is behaving because they want to be seen as “good” by everyone else. This often stems from a desire for popularity, status. Are they behaving because of God’s goodness, or are they simply following their appetite?

None of this changes the morality of the act, assuming we are speaking of a Christian here. No matter what knowledge they have about God’s “personality”, they can make a choice with full knowledge and consent. Acting morally out of fear is considered to be acting from a low level of understanding. But, it acknowledges that the act is evil or they need have no fear of God, wrathful or not. Similarly, acting morally for false reasons arises from an immature level of understanding, but it too recognizes the need to behave in the proscribed way. Knowledge of God is necessary to a true understanding of faith, but it is not required in order to make choices.