Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep:

So, either you were:

1. “reasonably” following an untruth, or
2. you are not a behavior-always-follows-reason individual or
3. another possibility, please explain. Is it possible that you were temporarily blinded?

Which is the case?

Man: (?)

I am human, complex and fallible. I can know what is right and yet do the opposite. I recognize my fault in this situation, but I certainly do not condemn myself or believe that I “deserve the worst”. I believe that I have sinned and hurt people. Now I need to confess and repent. But, I trust in God’s love. Despite the fact that I sinned grievously I never sink into self-denigration because He is the source of my hope.

Chefmom, do you observe what I observe?

No, I truly don’t.

However, what the “blocking” also does is inhibit us from actually entering into the moment and figuring out what happened.

Only if your premise is correct. I believe that I know what happened. Due to the concupiscience we inherited as a result of original sin, we are weak and prone to sin. Sometimes our vices, particularly pride, weaken us further and we do what we should not have done.

We think of our sin, our conscience says “bad!”, punishes us with a shot of guilt, and we just don’t go there. Do you see how difficult it is for the man to come up with a rational explanation? This is new territory for him.

Guilt is not punishment, it is the prompting of our conscience which reveals our sin to us and informs us of the need for repentence. After repentence, this guilt is over. I can think of my sin without guilt because I have been forgiven.

We have covered this territory before, I’m afraid. We are back where your observation and mine are different.

 

[chefmomster2]

The son goes off, does all what he likes, ends up with nothing, knows his fathers servants get more food than he can, so he decides he was in fact wrong, crawls back to his father and says sorry. The father forgives him, welcomes him back, all live happily ever after.
Some how life doesn’t seem to work like that though does it?

I have known it to work in a similar way. Pope St. John Paul II forgave the man who attempted to murder him. I forgave my son who had plans to murder me. A lady I know forgave her son who burnt her house down in an attempt to kill the family, but to this day she is in contact with him and loving him.

But, it is a far cry from happily ever after. In my case, I find that I must work constantly to try to rebuild our relationship. From time to time an unknown area of resentment on my part reveals itself. I find myself having to forgive again. It is an ongoing and complicated process. It is not easy.

The lady I mentioned must correspond with her son through the prison mail service while he serves a long sentence for multiple offenses. The pain is great for her. But, so is the joy of maintaining the link with her child.

It truly can be done.

 

[chefmomster2]

Originally Posted by OneSheep
. . . The person with anger, the person ignorant of the value of the human, the person blinded by the appetites, the person blinded by desire to punish, these are not cognizant of the love and wonder of God in the other. They do not know what they are doing.

Nonetheless, they are still guilty of rejection of God. We have full knowledge when we are aware that what we are about to do is a grievous act. We have willingly consented when we have acted despite this knowledge. That is mortal sin.

Even if all of those types of blindness you assert are real, they do not necessarily block one from the full knowledge necessary to reject God and put their soul in jeopardy.

 

[oldcelt]

Nonetheless, they are still guilty of rejection of God. We have full knowledge when we are aware that what we are about to do is a grievous act. We have willingly consented when we have acted despite this knowledge. That is mortal sin.

Even if all of those types of blindness you assert are real, they do not necessarily block one from the full knowledge necessary to reject God and put their soul in jeopardy.

As I said long ago in this thread, people do not necessarily reject God. They may come to realize that the particular God they had worshipped is not real and move to a more realistic view of the Deity.

 

[chefmomster2]

As I said long ago in this thread, people do not necessarily reject God. They may come to realize that the particular God they had worshipped is not real and move to a more realistic view of the Deity.

They do if they commit mortal sin. That is the definition.
,
Rejectimg a God "who is not rea"l is not sinful. That is an image not the Deity. Rejection of The Deity Himself is necessarily the result of mortal sin.

 

[OneSheep]

If no one ever does, what is the meaning the Church’s teaching on sin and salvation? If we don’t knowingly and willingly reject God, what is sin? If there is no sin, why did Jesus become man, suffer, die and rise to life?

I am starting to be quite fond of this explanation:

Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about. With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity

More here:
robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

To me, it is more like man who does not know God, and God comes and embraces us, saving us from our own misperceptions about our Creator, and simultaneously giving us the means to overcome slavery to our nature.

Is everyone in these states, all of the time?

That is a very good question! Since we all are ignorant, all of us are in a “state” of non-omniscience.

I observe that people are guided by love, by good intent. Problem is, when we are blind and/or ignorant, we hurt people. This is a definition of “sin” that works for me, sin is simply doing harm to the self or others.

 

[oldcelt]

They do if they commit mortal sin. That is the definition.
,
Rejectimg a God "who is not rea"l is not sinful. That is an image not the Deity. Rejection of The Deity Himself is necessarily the result of mortal sin.

We seem to agree to an extent.

 

[davidv]

I am starting to be quite fond of this explanation:

Accordingly, in the New Testament the Cross appears primarily as a movement from above to below. It does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man; it is his approach to us, not the other way about. With this twist in the idea of expiation, and thus in the whole axis of religion, worship too, man’s whole existence, acquires in Christianity a new direction.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity

More here:
robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

To me, it is more like man who does not know God, and God comes and embraces us, saving us from our own misperceptions about our Creator, and simultaneously giving us the means to overcome slavery to our nature.

That is a very good question! Since we all are ignorant, all of us are in a “state” of non-omniscience.

I observe that people are guided by love, by good intent. Problem is, when we are blind and/or ignorant, we hurt people. This is a definition of “sin” that works for me, sin is simply doing harm to the self or others.

I don’t believe any of this addresses my questions.

Does anyone ever sin mortally?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I observe that people are guided by love, by good intent. Problem is, when we are blind and/or ignorant, we hurt people. This is a definition of “sin” that works for me, sin is simply doing harm to the self or others.

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Secular society and evidently many Catholics have lost the concept of sin. This follows, or will naturally lead to a loss of faith in God. The sense of offense against God is the true meaning of sin. We pray the Confiteor at the beginning of the mass to free us from guilt and to reconnect with God. The harm of sin is not only done to our neighbor but to God, to Love Himself.
I feel badly for people who do not recognize sin for what it is. In not asking for forgiveness, I believe they will be left susceptible to irrational bouts of guilt, which they will naturally try to merely assuage by appealing to reason excusing themselves as having been ignorant - and so it will go round and round.

 

[OneSheep]

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Secular society and evidently many Catholics have lost the concept of sin. This follows, or will naturally lead to a loss of faith in God. The sense of offense against God is the true meaning of sin. We pray the Confiteor at the beginning of the mass to free us from guilt and to reconnect with God. The harm of sin is not only done to our neighbor but to God, to Love Himself.
I feel badly for people who do not recognize sin for what it is. In not asking for forgiveness, I believe they will be left susceptible to irrational bouts of guilt, which they will naturally try to merely assuage by appealing to reason excusing themselves as having been ignorant - and so it will go round and round.

Yes, an action against others is an action against God, we have that from the Gospel. However, does God actually go through the human emotions of anger towards offense, and then eventually forgiving? Not God as I know Him. This projection will depend upon individual relationships with God. God is not “harmed” by my sin, I do not have the power to do so. God as I know Him may be saddened by my sin, but even this does not make sense in light of an omniscient creator who chose to create even though He knew every single action we would do before He “hit the button”.

Did you really think my words implied that people feeling guilty are not to ask for forgiveness? I may have lost your concept of sin, but I have a concept of sin… … and it is not anti-Catholic, and it is not secular. When Jesus said, “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” he gave us the tools to a deeper level of forgiveness, a forgiveness that includes understanding the other, being able to say “I could have done that, if I had his awareness and motives active at the moment”.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t believe any of this addresses my questions.

Does anyone ever sin mortally?

I’m sorry, you asked why Jesus came, and I thought the Cardinal’s answer was great, and in context it means more, so hit the link. It is worth the read.

I never said that sin does not happen, if sin is simply defined as harming self or others. And our species is most certainly in need of salvation from our own shortcomings, is it not?

As far as anyone ever sinning mortally, I have never observed such sin. To me, people sin in a “state” of blindness or ignorance, and I have yet to come across a counterexample (as chefmomster and I are in the process of investigating.)

Would you like to present a counterexample?

 

[davidv]

I’m sorry, you asked why Jesus came, and I thought the Cardinal’s answer was great, and in context it means more, so hit the link. It is worth the read.

I never said that sin does not happen, if sin is simply defined as harming self or others.

This is not the Church’s definition of sin.

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

And our species is most certainly in need of salvation from our own shortcomings, is it not?

Yes. Why do we need salvation? Sin.

As far as anyone ever sinning mortally, I have never observed such sin.

How can you observe if anyone is sinning mortally. This requires that you know the state of their soul.

To me, people sin in a “state” of blindness or ignorance, and I have yet to come across a counterexample (as chefmomster and I are in the process of investigating.)

Would you like to present a counterexample?

Adam and Eve are counterexamples. The Prodigal son is a counter example.

 

[simpleas]

I have known it to work in a similar way. Pope St. John Paul II forgave the man who attempted to murder him. I forgave my son who had plans to murder me. A lady I know forgave her son who burnt her house down in an attempt to kill the family, but to this day she is in contact with him and loving him.

But, it is a far cry from happily ever after. In my case, I find that I must work constantly to try to rebuild our relationship. From time to time an unknown area of resentment on my part reveals itself. I find myself having to forgive again. It is an ongoing and complicated process. It is not easy.

The lady I mentioned must correspond with her son through the prison mail service while he serves a long sentence for multiple offenses. The pain is great for her. But, so is the joy of maintaining the link with her child.

It truly can be done.

I can empathise with you to a degree regarding your son, for me it was a problem with my sibling (far to deep to go into and its not what the thread is about)
Thanks for sharing though.

The guy that attempted to murder PJP2, did he ask for his forgiveness?

If everyone forgave like the Prodigal son parable shows, the world would be a better place, we all would agree with that. Its so sad to see people who believe stoning people to death over marriage, adultry, is what God would want, etc still exists.

These people have the wrong image of God as you said, so I wonder will God have more pity for them, less pity for the people who have a correct image of God, but have K&W rejected God, because if you know God and still sin, you must be K&W rejecting God for sure…I’m not that sure, only because I have what I believe is a good image of God, yet I have to be K&W rejecting God when I sin, even a small sin.
Yet I can’t say that I fully know God either, so I have to trust another person from their image of God to inform me of how I K&W reject God as they know him…

 

[OneSheep]

Adulterous Man:

Originally Posted by chefmomster2
When he decided that his good was better than God’s Good, he just stopped resisting.

OneSheep:Okay, he decided that his good was better than God’s good.

OneSheep: (to the man) You believed at the moment that God’s will was less important than your own “my will above God’s”. But is this the truth, that God’s will is less important than your own?

Man: Of course not! I knew that all along. Before and after!

OneSheep: I’m confused now. On the one hand you said “I knew that all along” that God’s will is more important than your own, but on the other hand you said that you decided “your good was better than God’s good” at the moment you sinned.

Are you saying that you knew “before and after” but not at the moment of the decision? Did the “knowing” of God’s good sort of disappear, fall by the wayside, was overcome by “my will is more important right now”?

Man: I meant that I knew throughout. It wasn’t a case of forgetting or putting aside.

OneSheep: So, you knew throughout that God’s good was more important than your own, but you decided that your good was better than God’s.

Are you saying that you simultaneously thought God’s good was more important than your own, but that you decided that your good was better than God’s? Hmmm.

It is clear to me that you had the two thoughts in your mind, but if the thoughts were simultaneous, there would be inaction. You decided that your good was better than God’s at the period of adultery, just as you stated.

You are saying that the “knowing” did not disappear or fall by the wayside, so what happened to “God’s good is more important than my own?” Where did it go?

Man: I can only explain it by saying that what you describe here- knowing God’s good is best and still deciding that I want my own good- is at the very heart of sin. I don’t want to submit to God. I let my pride lead me to reject God’s will.

OneSheep: Okay, you not only decided that you wanted your own good, you acted on your decision, you rejected God’s will. Your truth, for the moment, was that your good was better than God’s, if you are a behavior-always-follows-reason individual. So, if you are a behavior-always-follows-reason individual, then your reason was, as you stated previously, an untruth, obviously flawed. And in that case, you had in your head that what you were doing was not wrong, what was wrong was the “truth” you were following. Adam and Eve had the same problem, remember? They were following an untruth when they doubted God. They were saying “God was joshing us! This fruit looks good!”.

So, either you were:

1. “reasonably” following an untruth, or
2. you are not a behavior-always-follows-reason individual or
3. another possibility, please explain. Is it possible that you were temporarily blinded?

Which is the case?

(Man):

I am human, complex and fallible. I can know what is right and yet do the opposite.

OneSheep: No, sir, I am sorry for challenging you on this, but either you did not do the opposite, or you are lying to me. You told me that you decided that your good was better than God’s good. So, you did not do what you thought was wrong, you thought what you were doing was better, a better good. As you told me, you decided such.

If you would like to now change your story and say that you can “know what is right and do the opposite”, then your answer falls along the lines of #2 above. Are you changing your story now, are you telling me that you are not a behavior-follows-reason individual? Please answer with a simple yes or no on that question, feel free to change your story, but if you are not changing your story, you have a lot of explanation to do as far as what happened. We may have to start from ground zero, for if you are a “reasoned” individual, your behavior is not being explained, your testimony has great contradiction.

Man:

OneSheep: I have an additional question for you. You have decided to repent from your sin. Why have you decided to repent?

Man:

 

[OneSheep]

This is not the Church’s definition of sin.

Originally Posted by CCC
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

Let’s see…

Is harming the self or others “an offense against reason, truth, and and right conscience”?

Yes.

Is harming the self or others a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by perverse attachment to certain goods?

Yes, but if “perverse” is defined as “unacceptable” then that would be a very difficult attachment to ascertain. Let’s face it, all sin involves the appetites in some way, right? Attachment happens, and is the motive behind sin. Attachment that leads to blindness is part of the capacity to sin. All sin, however, is caused by human choice.

Does harming the self or others “wound the nature of man and injures human solidarity”?

Yes, harming the self and others does injure human solidarity. However, does anything “wound” our God-created nature? I do not have the power to create myself, not in the sense that I can actually change my nature. And I don’t see the activities of any person changing the nature of the self or anyone else. I do see that the act of one person may effect the perceptions of another, but perceptions are not part of our nature. So, that particular aspect of the definition in the CCC does not make sense to me.

Is harming the self or others “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”?

Yes.

So, I don’t see my definition sin as “harming the self or others” a contradiction to the CCC. A small part of the CCC definition does not make sense to me, but my definition does not contradict the CCC. Perhaps my definition leaves a few sins out? Let me know what I am leaving out, and we can kick it around a bit.

Yes. Why do we need salvation? Sin.

Yes, if the “salvation” is a not matter of expiation, that this is not the purpose for the salvation, then we agree. However, to me “sin” is only part of the answer. I like the Cardinal’s answers.

How can you observe if anyone is sinning mortally. This requires that you know the state of their soul.

Very, very true. All of such observation involves projection. I look at the behavior of someone else, and I determine, in my mind, “why would I do that?”. When I figure out why I would do the harm that someone else does, some ignorance or blindness is always necessarily involved in the matter. If there is ignorance or blindness, there is not a “sufficient” knowledge of the wrongness of a behavior. When there is “sufficient” knowledge, the behavior does not happen.

People who sin are lacking knowledge about the seriousness of the sin. When you sinned, did you know the seriousness of the sin? Were you cognizant of the infinite value of the person harmed?

Adam and Eve are counterexamples. The Prodigal son is a counter example.

I have discussed Adam and Eve with others before, but the problem with those two is that the discussion ends up with a disagreement on Adam and Eve’s omniscience. People assume that A&E knew that they were harming the lives of all future generations, etc. If A&E were omniscient, then they sinned “mortally”. However, if they were omniscient, then they were not human. We can discuss A&E as non-omniscient humans, otherwise they do not act as a counterexample. I am talking about real people, not omniscient people.

The prodigal son did not know the seriousness of his sin when he was sinning. I think that is fairly evident, is it not? He was behaving quite stupidly. The greatest harm was done to himself, and he did not have a clue.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Most of the people who “knowingly and willingly reject God” do so because they can hardly stand the thought of an Ego bigger than their own.

 

[chefmomster2]

Most of the people who “knowingly and willingly reject God” do so because they can hardly stand the thought of an Ego bigger than their own.

:tiphat:

 

[simpleas]

Most of the people who “knowingly and willingly reject God” do so because they can hardly stand the thought of an Ego bigger than their own.

Maybe you posted earlier, but I’d like to ask in your opinion, who are the people who K&W reject God?

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

Maybe you posted earlier, but I’d like to ask in your opinion, who are the people who K&W reject God?

Thanks.

Anyone who commits a mortal sin.

 

[simpleas]

So its just us catholic’s that can K&W reject God should we fall into mortal sin. The rest of the non catholic human race that do not know what mortal sin is, can never K&W reject God.