Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Aloysium]

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.

Knowing means knowing what you are doing. The guy who cut off the head of a fellow passenger on a bus a couple of years ago, thought the young man was an alien communicating with him telepathically. This is an example of someone not knowing he is sinning and therefore rejecting God. Whether you know about God or not, a sin is a sin.

 

[davidv]

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.

Why are mortal sins restricted to Catholics?

God said that the natural law was written on the human heart. Very few, have an excuse for not listenning to their heart.

 

[chefmomster2]

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.

It applies equally to all Christians. It is known from scripture which is basic to all Christianity. The Bible tells us that sin is a rejection of God. When we sin, we reject God.

They have to know that what they are doing is a sin.
They have to know that it is a grave matter.
They have to do it anyway.

 

[davidv]

It applies equally to all Christians. It is known from scripture which is basic to all Christianity. The Bible tells us that sin is a rejection of God. When we sin, we reject God.

They have to know that what they are doing is a sin.
They have to know that it is a grave matter.
They have to do it anyway.

Note also: They do **not **have to know the consequences.

 

[OneSheep]

It applies equally to all Christians. It is known from scripture which is basic to all Christianity. The Bible tells us that sin is a rejection of God. When we sin, we reject God.

They have to know that what they are doing is a sin.
They have to know that it is a grave matter.
They have to do it anyway.

The rejection of God is going to depend on the person’s mindset. We can, and arguably should, make the assertion that, say, murder is a rejection of God. However, it may be that the person saw the murder as a righteous act, or some other “good”, and disagrees with the assertion as pertaining to his behavior. When we make the assertion, we are in the process of educating the seriousness of the sin. Sin is not sin just because it is a violation against the conscience. Sin is wrong because it hurts people. Sin is wrong because it causes harm. To get people to grasp the wrongness, we have to show the harm, which appeals to natural empathy. Only those with debilitated empathy (“psychopaths”) are going to need to solely rely on threats against them in order to change behaviors.

So, we are still trying to determine if the man saw that what he was doing was a grave matter. Educating takes more than mere assertion, does it not? If we tell someone, “shooting that person in the head is wrong, a grave matter.” we are not educating the graveness. When we say “shooting that person in the head causes their death” then we are getting a little closer to educating the graveness. If we say, “shooting that person in the head is wrong, causes death, and this person is a special creation, a valuable person, a person you can love.” then we are even more educating the graveness of the matter. The fact is, the more the person comprehends the graveness of the matter, the less likely he is to sin.

What is the man’s response to post 435?

 

[chefmomster2]

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?

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.

I didn’t decide it was better. Man does what he sees as “a” good, not necessarily the highest good. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Man is also capable of acting against conscience. We know it is wrong to lie, for instance and we know that misrepresenting ourselves on a resumé is a lie. Yet, people do it. And they do it knowingly and willingly. They want to keep more of their money. They are willing to lie in order to keep the money.

Man does in fact act against reason at times. Many women do not have routine pap smears performed. Many know that it is essential as a tool to catch cancer early and to improve their possibility of survival if it shows the presence of malignant cells. Maybe they are uncomfortable with the exam involved, maybe they are afraid of the results. Nonetheless, some of these same women still resist regular testing despite reason.

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?

I am saying that man may be capable of acting reasonably, but he does not always act that way. This man didn’t. Behavior may or may not follow reason.

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.

LOL Not a chance!

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

I knew what I did was adultery.
I knew adultery was a grave matter.
I did it anyway.

I sinned, therefore, I repent.

 

[simpleas]

Why are mortal sins restricted to Catholics?

God said that the natural law was written on the human heart. Very few, have an excuse for not listenning to their heart.

Because its the Catholic teaching that informs us how we K&W reject God.
Other faiths don’t have the exact teaching on what a mortal sin is.

You could be right about the law being written on mans heart, most people do realise that killing another human is seriously wrong.

 

[simpleas]

It applies equally to all Christians. It is known from scripture which is basic to all Christianity. The Bible tells us that sin is a rejection of God. When we sin, we reject God.

They have to know that what they are doing is a sin.
They have to know that it is a grave matter.
They have to do it anyway.

Yes, so the people that do not know what is a mortal sin can never K&W reject God.

 

[simpleas]

I didn’t decide it was better. Man does what he sees as “a” good, not necessarily the highest good. They are not necessarily the same thing.

Man is also capable of acting against conscience. We know it is wrong to lie, for instance and we know that misrepresenting ourselves on a resumé is a lie. Yet, people do it. And they do it knowingly and willingly. They want to keep more of their money. They are willing to lie in order to keep the money.

Man does in fact act against reason at times. Many women do not have routine pap smears performed. Many know that it is essential as a tool to catch cancer early and to improve their possibility of survival if it shows the presence of malignant cells. Maybe they are uncomfortable with the exam involved, maybe they are afraid of the results. Nonetheless, some of these same women still resist regular testing despite reason.

I am saying that man may be capable of acting reasonably, but he does not always act that way. This man didn’t. Behavior may or may not follow reason.

LOL Not a chance!

I knew what I did was adultery.
I knew adultery was a grave matter.
I did it anyway.

I sinned, therefore, I repent.

He repents, did he still K&W reject God?

If he doesn’t repent, he K&W rejects God?

 

[chefmomster2]

However, it may be that the person saw the murder as a righteous act…and disagrees with the assertion as pertaining to his behavior.

He is then in erroneous judgment and his grave act can still be mortal sin. Murder, like adultery, is always a grave matter. It is a part of natural law and as such all of mankind is aware of the gravity of taking a life.

When we make the assertion, we are in the process of educating the seriousness of the sin.

There is no “process” needed. There are two kinds of sin: grave and less serious. It is one or the other. Knowledge only requires the certainty that it is a grave sin.

Sin is not sin just because it is a violation against the conscience. Sin is wrong because it hurts people. Sin is wrong because it causes harm.

CCC: 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 (Note from Chef: Hence it is still man acting for a good, but one that is “perverse”). 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.” Sin does not necessarily or obviously hurt people: missing Mass, failing to pray, donating the organs of a dead person who has not explicitly agreed to it, in vitro fertilization, using God’s name in vain, impurity… They might, but not always. This does not make them less sinful.

To get people to grasp the wrongness, we have to show the harm, which appeals to natural empathy.

We do not need to know the consequences. Not even those to ourselves. We only need to know that the sin is grave.

Educating takes more than mere assertion, does it not?

Perhaps, but this is not “mere assertion”. It is doctrine of the Church since it is on the topics of faith and morals. It is part of Christ’s teaching. I’ll take His word for it.

The fact is, the more the person comprehends the graveness of the matter, the less likely he is to sin.

That may be necessary on some level to help man avoid the commission of grave sin. However, one only needs to know it’s grave to have the requisite knowledge to make the act mortally sinful.

Forgive my slowness! I am thinking… LOL

What is the man’s response to post 435?

 

[chefmomster2]

Yes, so the people that do not know what is a mortal sin can never K&W reject God.

Yes, but some sins are serious (grave matter) no matter what, like murder. That is always serious and it is part of natural law that all humans understand. Any man can be held responsible for willingly killing another.

CCC The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

In other cases, if a particular person does not know a sin is mortal and their ignorance is not due to any fault of their own, then their grave act may mitigated in full or in part. The act doesn’t become moral, they just aren’t necessarily responsible.

 

[chefmomster2]

simpleas:
He repents, did he still K&W reject God?
If he doesn’t repent, he K&W rejects God?

I K&WRG when I committed mortal sin. I repented in order to restore my relationship.
K&WRG is forgivable, but if one dies without reconciliation of their mortal sin their salvation is at risk.

If I do not repent, I remain in this state of K&WRG and I lose eternal salvation.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, but some sins are serious (grave matter) no matter what, like murder. That is always serious and it is part of natural law that all humans understand. Any man can be held responsible for willingly killing another.

CCC The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8

1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

In other cases, if a particular person does not know a sin is mortal and their ignorance is not due to any fault of their own, then their grave act may mitigated in full or in part. The act doesn’t become moral, they just aren’t necessarily responsible.

Yes I expressed most all humans know murder is wrong in #448

 

[opusAquinas]

Do any of you hate God?

 

[chefmomster2]

Do any of you hate God?

I don’t, but I have committed mortal sin.

I am jumping the gun here a bit by guessing that you are implying that if we don’t directly hate God we do not reject Him. The “hatred” that is implied by the commission of a grievous act is not “hatred of God” in the truest sense.

New Advent: "To be sure, according to the teaching of St. Thomas (II-II:24:12) and the theologians, any mortal sin carries with it the loss of the habit of supernatural charity, and implies so to speak a sort of virtual and interpretive hatred of God, which, however, is not a separate specific malice to be referred to in confession, but only a circumstance predicable of every grievous sin.

One need not personally hate God to reject Him. But such direct hatred is a particularly grievous mortal sin.

New Advent: “When by any conceivable stretch of human wickedness God Himself is the object of hatred the guilt is appallingly special. If it be that kind of enmity (odium inimicitiae) which prompts the sinner to loathe God in Himself, to regret the Divine perfections precisely in so far as they belong to God, then the offence committed obtains the undisputed primacy in all the miserable hierarchy of sin.”

 

[OneSheep]

Adulterous Man:
"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?

I didn’t decide it was better. Man does what he sees as “a” good, not necessarily the highest good. They are not necessarily the same thing.

OneSheep: But man is also judged by his behavior, is he not? Your choice to commit adultery became what you saw as the best thing to do at the moment, otherwise you would not have done it. You still did not tell me what happened to the thoughts of God’s good when you made the choice, but it is quite obvious that something happened to the commitment to God’s good. Are you yet willing to admit that you did as Eve, doubt that “eating the fruit” would lead to death?

Man: (?)

Indeed, when you made the choice did you even consider your wife, crying about your poor choice, crying about the loss of relationship, having one of the most Earth-shattering things ever to happen to her? Were you thinking about your life commitment to her, how much you love her and how your whole life revolves around her?

Man: (?)

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

Man:

I knew what I did was adultery.
I knew adultery was a grave matter.
I did it anyway.

I sinned, therefore, I repent.

OneSheep: Okay, you are saying that you “knew” before, during, and after the affair that what you did was a grave matter. No change there according to your testimony. What happened that led to your repentance, what triggered the repentance? Something must have changed, something must have happened along the way. You were in the affair, and something happened. What happened? In all repentance there is a change of mind, a change of “reason”.

Man: (?)

 

[OneSheep]

"chefmomster2:

Man is also capable of acting against conscience. We know it is wrong to lie, for instance and we know that misrepresenting ourselves on a resumé is a lie. Yet, people do it. And they do it knowingly and willingly. They want to keep more of their money. They are willing to lie in order to keep the money.

Yes, in some cases such lying is a matter of blindness caused by desire. I think it is more often the case that “what that person does not know will do no harm” or something like that. People doubt the seriousness of the sin.

Man does in fact act against reason at times. Many women do not have routine pap smears performed. Many know that it is essential as a tool to catch cancer early and to improve their possibility of survival if it shows the presence of malignant cells. Maybe they are uncomfortable with the exam involved, maybe they are afraid of the results. Nonetheless, some of these same women still resist regular testing despite reason.

Yes, they have a reason. The “reason” is because as you stated, they feel uncomfortable, afraid of the results, etc. As always, they make choices based on what they are thinking, just like the man did. If one indeed is infected or not, they truly do not know what they are doing.

I am saying that man may be capable of acting reasonably, but he does not always act that way. This man didn’t. Behavior may or may not follow reason.

Okay, let’s clarify. Behavior does not always follow what we later see as the best of reasoning. The woman who goes to get a pap smear after 10 years and gets a negative result says “see, it would have been a waste of time for me to go all of those years.” She is making a “reasonable” conclusion. It is reasonable to her. If the results come back positive, she is going to see that her reasons for not having the test were a grave error. Reason is in the context of the individual. There are* always* reasons for a person’s behavior, even though those reasons may involve blindness or ignorance. The man had reasons for his behavior.

He is then in erroneous judgment and his grave act can still be mortal sin. Murder, like adultery, is always a grave matter. It is a part of natural law and as such all of mankind is aware of the gravity of taking a life.

There is no “process” needed. There are two kinds of sin: grave and less serious. It is one or the other. Knowledge only requires the certainty that it is a grave sin.

Like I said in the past, if “knowing” something is a serious sin just because “the Church says so” then we have no discussion. You would be in effect saying that a person who does not know the harm done by adultery “knows the seriousness of the sin”. If that is the case, will have to agree to disagree on that one. To me, a person who is not cognizant of the harm done by adultery does not know the seriousness of the sin. He is ignorant.

CCC: 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 (Note from Chef: Hence it is still man acting for a good, but one that is “perverse”). 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.”

Yes, he was acting on a perverse good. His reason was there, but the reason was wrong. Is the man going to admit that his reason was there, and it was the reason he found best in that it led to his choice of behavior, but his reason was wrong? No need to answer that here.

Sin does not necessarily or obviously hurt people: missing Mass, failing to pray, donating the organs of a dead person who has not explicitly agreed to it, in vitro fertilization, using God’s name in vain, impurity… They might, but not always. This does not make them less sinful.

Missing mass hurts the community and hurts the individual in their relationship with God. Failing to pray is detrimental to the individual, they are not keeping alive the relationship. Donating the organs in that case is a “harm” against the value of commitment and respect for the individual’s wishes. Using God’s name in vain. Hmmm. I don’t think it “harms” God. It does communicate a disrespect for God, though, and in that sense if such disrespect influences others, then it may lead to a loss of gratitude for our loving Creator, leading to a harm in the relationship. In vitro fertilization? Same concept. The Church does not randomly decide what is a sin, the harm done is communicated.

Forgive my slowness! I am thinking… LOL

I need time to think too. I still don’t know where this is going, but it is going somewhere, I think, and I wholeheartedly thank you for your patience and good humor. We’ve got to pin the man down; he seems a bit evasive!

 

[chefmomster2]

Yes, they have a reason. The “reason” is because as you stated, they feel uncomfortable, afraid of the results, etc. As always, they make choices based on what they are thinking, just like the man did. If one indeed is infected or not, they truly do not know what they are doing.

I disagree. Reason implies the critical analysis of objective facts. It is a right and reasoned decision that a woman get a pap smear as directed by their physician. If they allow their emotions to override the reasonable decision, they are acting against reason and in contradiction of the facts. This is true regardless of the test results. Our emotions are intended to inform our emotions, not to make them. Emotion does not blind them to the reasonable choice. If they did not see it as the reasonable act to take, they would have no angst over their decision.

Likewise the man has made a reasoned decision- that he must not commit the grave sin of adultery. He allows pride, temptation, sinfulness or other things to overrule his right decision in this case. This does not indicate “blindness” since he is fully aware of the decision of right reason. But, he sins when he acts counter to reason and his conscience.

Behavior does not always follow what we later see as the best of reasoning. The woman who goes to get a pap smear after 10 years and gets a negative result says “see, it would have been a waste of time for me to go all of those years.” She is making a “reasonable” conclusion. It is reasonable to her.

Again, I disagree. Having a reason is quite different from being reasonable. If her choice was not one based on objective facts, it isn’t reasonable, but rather an unsound decision. Now, if she based her decision on facts that might include a careful review of certain factors such as race, age, medical history, etc. it would again be a reasoned decision. Reason is about the decision-making process.

There are* always* reasons for a person’s behavior, even though those reasons may involve blindness or ignorance. The man had reasons for his behavior.

We agree as long as by reasons you mean explanations. But, he may not have acted in a reasoned way.

You would be in effect saying that a person who does not know the harm done by adultery “knows the seriousness of the sin”. If that is the case, will have to agree to disagree on that one. To me, a person who is not cognizant of the harm done by adultery does not know the seriousness of the sin. He is ignorant.

We do disagree. That is not the definition for the commission of a mortal sin and therefore rejection of God. Ignoring the small number of people who are always the exception to the rule, who could feasibly claim ignorance of the harm? I have not been divorced. My husband and I have no divorce among our parents, grandparents, siblings or children. All I have ever known or experienced has been fidelity. I don’t have to experience evil to know its presence or its power.

Missing mass hurts the community and hurts the individual in their relationship with God. Failing to pray is detrimental to the individual, they are not keeping alive the relationship. Donating the organs in that case is a “harm” against the value of commitment and respect for the individual’s wishes. Using God’s name in vain. Hmmm. I don’t think it “harms” God. It does communicate a disrespect for God, though, and in that sense if such disrespect influences others, then it may lead to a loss of gratitude for our loving Creator, leading to a harm in the relationship. In vitro fertilization? Same concept. The Church does not randomly decide what is a sin, the harm done is communicated

My point was that people being hurt is inadequate as a definition. There is arguably little or no visible or quantifiable damage done in those situations.

…he seems a bit evasive!

What you see as evasion, I see as a result of reaching “the end”. He acts contrary to conscience because of his weakness, pride, and sinfulness. I have no doubt he felt desire, excitement, etc. But so long as he still knew what was right and acted against it, he was K&WRG. That may not be your reason, of course, but therein lies our disagreement.

I’ll be extra slow- going to visit the in-laws. Lots of fun to be had by all! :whacky:

 

[Patty23]

I suspect that for a lot of people knowing and rejecting God is tied in to knowing and rejecting any Father figure. This can be due to the absence of a father, or to a horrible relationship with a father, or to a bland and unloving relationship with a father.

This has been written about extensively and persuasively by psychiatrist Dr. Paul Vitz’ in his book Faith of the Fatherless. Vitz examines the biographical material available about many of the worlds most famous atheists/agnostics and shows how in each case dysfunctional relationships with the father had produced a dysfunctional relationship with God.

I totally agree. I once wrestled with Nietche’s famous question, “suppose there is truth, why truth rather than untruth?”. In other words, ok fine there’s a God, why should you follow him?

For me, that makes total sense. If Zeus were true, I don’t feel any obligation to follow him whatsoever. Jesus’ revelation that God is a father makes a profoundly big difference.

I have thousands of reason not to follow God, but a loving father?

Nietche’s question stands insofar as God is a God. But if you frame it this way " Suppose your dad is a loving father, why should you love him? Why not hate him?" It still makes sense but not so in the real world

 

[OneSheep]

I disagree. Reason implies the critical analysis of objective facts. It is a right and reasoned decision that a woman get a pap smear as directed by their physician. If they allow their emotions to override the reasonable decision, they are acting against reason and in contradiction of the facts. This is true regardless of the test results. Our emotions are intended to inform our emotions, not to make them. Emotion does not blind them to the reasonable choice. If they did not see it as the reasonable act to take, they would have no angst over their decision.

Emotions are part of almost every decision, whether we think they are or not. Would you say that emotion should not be the major part of the decision for the woman to get a pap smear if the emotion was fear (of cancer)? No, we do not say “do not let fear of cancer be part of your decision.” Our “gut” thinks much faster than our mind, and our “gut” includes quick judgments and emotions. We have to accept this, chefmom, there is no getting around it. Sure, we can hope that all of our decisions are ideally “most reasonable”, but they are not. And people are going to disagree what “most reasonable” truly is in terms of decisions. Have you heard of the train scenarios? Bottom line: “reason” is in the eye of the beholder; an observer can say another’s reason does not measure up, but that is not the guiding factor for the individual.

Likewise the man has made a reasoned decision- that he must not commit the grave sin of adultery. He allows pride, temptation, sinfulness or other things to overrule his right decision in this case. This does not indicate “blindness” since he is fully aware of the decision of right reason. But, he sins when he acts counter to reason and his conscience.

His actions were still his choice, chefmom, please do not allow him to escape responsibility. All of our actions are the result of our choices. The man chose what he saw as a good, and to him in the moment it was a greater good, otherwise he would not have chosen it. Yes, he acted counter to reason and conscience, when reason and conscience are considered in the context of his right mind, his unaffected mind, and well-informed conscience. However, he was not “right” in his mind, and his conscience may have been malformed. Adam and Eve did the same, remember? They reasoned, and they chose. They reasoned wrong, and they chose. A&E’s minds were influenced by desire, they were not of “right mind”. Is this man somehow immune to wrong reason:shrug:?

We agree as long as by reasons you mean explanations. But, he may not have acted in a reasoned way.

Notice that I use “reason” in “scare quotes” when I am referring to reasons that are not objective or not acceptable in ordinary terms. Yes, they are explanations. We are trying to find out what happened in the man’s mind, we are looking for explanations.

My quote:

You would be in effect saying that a person who does not know the harm done by adultery “knows the seriousness of the sin”. If that is the case, will have to agree to disagree on that one. To me, a person who is not cognizant of the harm done by adultery does not know the seriousness of the sin. He is ignorant.

Chefmom response:

We do disagree. That is not the definition for the commission of a mortal sin and therefore rejection of God. Ignoring the small number of people who are always the exception to the rule, who could feasibly claim ignorance of the harm? I have not been divorced. All I have ever known or experienced has been fidelity. I don’t have to experience evil to know its presence or its power.

Are you saying that you know just as much about the harm done as a person who has actually experienced divorce? This is like saying you know just as much about losing a child as a person who has actually lost one. To me, there is a gradient of “knowing”. When a person knows enough about the harm of sin, he avoids sin. For many of us, the “knowing” involves a great deal of suffering. Alcoholics have to suffer a lot before they “get it”. People who go through life using violence to get their way have to suffer a lot before they “get it”. Until then, they are truly ignorant. Knowing the sinful character of an act, its opposition to God’s law, is a matter of conscience. Conscience formation is a life-long process. There is a difference between hearing and incorporation. A person who merely hears what should be the content of a healthy conscience does not necessarily buy into it, and even “buying into it” has its level of commitment. The man may not have sufficiently bought into this aspect of the conscience. Again, these are possible explanations.

My point was that people being hurt is inadequate as a definition. There is arguably little or no visible or quantifiable damage done in those situations.

We can agree to disagree on this one. To me, sin causes harm. “Sins” are not random human behaviors, they are specifically behaviors that cause harm. Wait, I must add a qualifier. Sins are acts that cause harm* and trigger human resentment*. We do not usually consider accidental harm a sin.

What you see as evasion, I see as a result of reaching “the end”. He acts contrary to conscience because of his weakness, pride, and sinfulness. I have no doubt he felt desire, excitement, etc. But so long as he still knew what was right and acted against it, he was K&WRG. That may not be your reason, of course, but therein lies our disagreement.

Let us see what happens in his next responses.

I’ll be extra slow- going to visit the in-laws. Lots of fun to be had by all! :whacky:

Have fun. I look forward to the man’s response!