Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Amandil]

Why didn’t you care?

Because I didn’t need to.

Well, you rejected belief. We can try to figure out if you were really rejecting God.

I would appreciate that you not change my position for me. You cannot make the claim that I “rejected belief”.

I chose to be an atheist. Do I need to provide what the term “atheist” means?

Again, we are using different definitions of “saved” I think.

There is only one definition of “saved”.

Our salvation is our choice.

Only our choice? Are you sure about that?

Are you saying that something I am relaying about my own relationship with God would have failed to motivate you to repent? Okay, I can accept that.

No, I’m saying that whatever you believe about your relationship with God is not corresponding with the Gospel, which essentially consists of two commandments: to repent and believe in the Gospel.

Your opinion in this matter negates both of those.

What motivated you to repent? That is the important thing. What did that motivation look like?
What was your reason to stop being an atheist? (This is all part of the same question.)

Death, non-existence, the purposelessness of existence, and a desire to know the truth.

 

[Alex_Heartnet]

I firmly believe that many of the most influential people in the world today have completely and knowingly rejected God entirely, and are actively trying to undo anything and everything He has created. I see no other explanation for the state of the world today.

I also believe that most atheists are merely confused people. Deception and beguilement are the devil’s strongest tools, but even the devil cannot trick people into rebelling against God. The decision to rebel against God can only be made deliberately.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Amandil. I am weeding things down a bit for brevity. If you urgently want to discuss something I skipped, bring it back. I am trying to stay with the topic here.

Because I didn’t need to.

So, you did not care about God because you did not need to. At some point, you discovered that you needed to care?

My quote:

What motivated you to repent? That is the important thing. What did that motivation look like?
What was your reason to stop being an atheist? (This is all part of the same question.)

Your response:

Death, non-existence, the purposelessness of existence, and a desire to know the truth.

It sounds like you did not know the truth. It also sounds like you did not know God. What did you know of God?

“Death” indicates that fear was a factor. Purposelessness indicates that emptiness was factor, lack of fulfillment. As usual, I request that you please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[simpleas]

I thought that people who did not believe in God would have come to realise that there is a God through another person who showed them love, compassion and forgiveness?

Like if they received the Christian love we are to show to all, then they come to a knowledge that they never knew before and see a difference in how a person lives/behaves as a follower of Jesus, so that they too want to follow Jesus as best they can.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In fact, thank God I’m not an atheist now, because with what you’ve been saying since this discussion began I most certainly would be lost. I would have no reason to stop being an atheist, I would continue to sin mortally and into my own destruction because instead of you proclaiming the actual Gospel **you proclaimed a false gospel **, laced with your false sentimentality, confirming that I would be “saved” despite my wickedness and sinfulness without any need of repentance because I “never really rejected God”.

This is a sound position to take.

Atheism is the rejection of God, pure and simple. We know if we have rejected God. It is not possible to have never really rejected God. We either reject God by refusing to obey God (practical atheism), or by refusing to believe in God (theoretical atheism). If the latter, one can never say one never really rejected God. As Jesus reminded us, the agnostic is not secure. “He who is not with me is against me.” Matthew 12:30

 

[Amandil]

“Death” indicates that fear was a factor. Purposelessness indicates that emptiness was factor, lack of fulfillment. As usual, I request that you please correct me if I am wrong.

For your reference again:
CCC:
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

This whole time you have been arguing in favor of the very thing which the Catechism says in an error: judging the morality of human acts by considering only the intention(subjective feelings or states of mind) or the circumstances(considering the feelings of others), while explicitly avoiding the immoral nature of the objects chosen(in this case atheism which is in fact a mortal sin).

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Those were some examples of ignorance, and I observe that usually several of these forms are involved at once. Were you successful at seeing these as explanations rather than excuses? I know, it is very difficult. I read them, and my mind starts to contest and say “you should…”; but the fact is, people are ignorant, and lack of awareness is an essential component of all sin.

To me, if one or more of these are involved, then the sinner does not know what he is doing. And I would add that anyone who does not give infinite value to God and to all of His loved creation does not know what he is doing. Yes, lack of awareness is a huge factor in our behaviors. Do you see your mind going to “excuses, excuses”? The mind quickly tries to condemn explanations that sound like excuses. This is the way our normal conscience automatically works.

I am not God, I do not judge. We ourselves, cannot plead ignorance to all-loving and merciful God who knows everything about us. A sin is a sin; and He died that we might be saved.
If what you said had any element of truth, we would not go to confession, but rather to educational and informational classes.
My conscience works by informing me when I am doing wrong. I can lie to myself and block it. This is what your views sound like to me. But at this point it is your business, not mine.

 

[OneSheep]

I am not God, I do not judge. We ourselves, cannot plead ignorance to all-loving and merciful God who knows everything about us. A sin is a sin; and He died that we might be saved.
If what you said had any element of truth, we would not go to confession, but rather to educational and informational classes.
My conscience works by informing me when I am doing wrong. I can lie to myself and block it. This is what your views sound like to me. But at this point it is your business, not mine.

Educational and informational classes do not cover everything, but there is a place for such information, and it can take place in the confessional, and in fact it should for the person struggling with scrupulosity and self-forgiveness.

You never judge anyone? For me, judging is a triggered response. I tried “not judging” for a long time, and realized that I was self-deceiving. The best I can do is realize that I have judged, and then take the steps to forgive.

I can lie to myself and block my conscience? Doesn’t work, the guilt is still down there. No, the only way to deal with guilt, in my experience, is through reconciliation and prayer. Understanding plays a large role in this reconciliation.

 

[OneSheep]

For your reference again:
CCC:
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

This whole time you have been arguing in favor of the very thing which the Catechism says in an error: judging the morality of human acts by considering only the intention(subjective feelings or states of mind) or the circumstances(considering the feelings of others), while explicitly avoiding the immoral nature of the objects chosen(in this case atheism which is in fact a mortal sin).

I appreciate your efforts here, but I have not been addressing the morality of acts. I think we can agree on moral vs immoral acts, Amandil. Immoral acts are immoral regardless of intention.

It would be an error to say that understanding a behavior makes it moral. Understanding a behavior, however, is part of the path toward a mature forgiveness.

The question at hand is “Does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?” And your answer was yes, and we are investigating the example you provided. When you get a chance, please respond to my post #624, and we can continue.

Thanks! I really do appreciate your efforts; I know it takes time to do all of this.

 

[OneSheep]

I thought that people who did not believe in God would have come to realise that there is a God through another person who showed them love, compassion and forgiveness?

Like if they received the Christian love we are to show to all, then they** come to a knowledge that they never knew before** and see a difference in how a person lives/behaves as a follower of Jesus, so that they too want to follow Jesus as best they can.

Yes.

They hopefully “come to realize”. You, simpleas, are a true evangelist in this sense. You continue to show me how to be a follower.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I thought that people who did not believe in God would have come to realise that there is a God through another person who showed them love, compassion and forgiveness?

Like if they received the Christian love we are to show to all, then they come to a knowledge that they never knew before and see a difference in how a person lives/behaves as a follower of Jesus, so that they too want to follow Jesus as best they can.

Generally speaking, this is the case. Some people see God in other people, and from this they are drawn toward the God of love. Others wear such perfect blinders they do not even see that. But I think most people who are drawn to God are drawn for the love God inspires. The God of the philosophers … First Cause, Infinite Being, Absolute Good, etc. … does not inspire so much as a second thought. That is why the apostle John preferred to say “God is Love.” That will turn anybody’s head in the right direction.

 

[Amandil]

I appreciate your efforts here, but I have not been addressing the morality of acts. I think we can agree on moral vs immoral acts, Amandil. Immoral acts are immoral regardless of intention.

It would be an error to say that understanding a behavior makes it moral. Understanding a behavior, however, is part of the path toward a mature forgiveness.

The question at hand is “Does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?” And your answer was yes, and we are investigating the example you provided. When you get a chance, please respond to my post #624, and we can continue.

Thanks! I really do appreciate your efforts; I know it takes time to do all of this.

Now you’re dodging the issue, because the morality of human acts is fundamental to the morality of rejecting God.

The most basic answer to the question is simple: sin. Sin is why people knowingly and willingly reject God, denial of God is in fact a mortal sin.

But you have openly claimed that nobody really commits mortal sin.

The whole case for that supposition rests upon your idea that the intent and circumstances of that choice are primary and you are explicitly arguing that those are the only things worthy of examining.

And since both are really mostly subjective and relative, it’s nearly impossible to come to any objective conclusion because you are explicitly leaving out the most important part of any human act: the object chosen (I.e. rejecting God).

Rejecting God is a mortal sin, regardless of the intent or circumstances.

To ask “why” is no different than asking why someone shoves a screwdriver into a light socket, or starves themselves to look “pretty”. Sure it may give us insights, but they were probably insights we already had.

 

[Aloysium]

Educational and informational classes do not cover everything, but there is a place for such information, and it can take place in the confessional, and in fact it should for the person struggling with scrupulosity and self-forgiveness.

You never judge anyone? For me, judging is a triggered response. I tried “not judging” for a long time, and realized that I was self-deceiving. The best I can do is realize that I have judged, and then take the steps to forgive.

I can lie to myself and block my conscience? Doesn’t work, the guilt is still down there. No, the only way to deal with guilt, in my experience, is through reconciliation and prayer. Understanding plays a large role in this reconciliation.

A mentally ill person may knowingly and willingly reject God, but these illnesses can cause great confusion, anxiety and despair.
Sometimes delusions and obsessions involve religious themes. Irrational feelings and ideas require psychiatric intervention.

 

[Bradski]

I chose to be an atheist.

You chose to be an atheist?

Do I need to provide what the term “atheist” means?

An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in gods. So you are saying that you chose not to believe in gods. I’m not sure how that works. In fact, I know it’s not possible.

Belief (or lack of it) is a function of knowledge which is itself a function of evidence. The more convincing evidence that you have, the more knowledge you have. That itself dictates your level of belief. If the evidence is scant or non-existent about any particular matter, then you are not likely to believe it. If the evidence is overwhelming, then the likelihood is that you* will* believe it.

You can still refuse to believe it, but that means that you have to consciously reject the evidence.You have to knowingly and willingly reject it.

So if you were what you described as an atheist, you knowingly and willingly rejected God. You already had what you considered to be convincing evidence for His existence (you were already a Christian) so you couldn’t* choose* to stop believing unless you consciously rejected it (which somehow you re-accepted later on to become a Christian once more).

 

[Amandil]

You chose to be an atheist?

An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in gods. So you are saying that you chose not to believe in gods. I’m not sure how that works. In fact, I know it’s not possible.

Belief (or lack of it) is a function of knowledge which is itself a function of evidence. The more convincing evidence that you have, the more knowledge you have. That itself dictates your level of belief. If the evidence is scant or non-existent about any particular matter, then you are not likely to believe it. If the evidence is overwhelming, then the likelihood is that you* will* believe it.

You can still refuse to believe it, but that means that you have to consciously reject the evidence.You have to knowingly and willingly reject it.

So if you were what you described as an atheist, you knowingly and willingly rejected God. You already had what you considered to be convincing evidence for His existence (you were already a Christian) so you couldn’t* choose* to stop believing unless you consciously rejected it (which somehow you re-accepted later on to become a Christian once more).

This is basically the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

It’s your claim that there is some sort of “lack of evidence” regarding God which is absurd.

It’s not that there’s any lack of evidence, you just refuse to accept the evidence at hand.

And so as to shift the burden away from yourself and your claim you play this semantic game with the term.

Somewhat clever, but it is fallacious.

 

[Bradski]

It’s your claim that there is some sort of “lack of evidence” regarding God which is absurd.

You might note that in my last post I referred to ‘convincing evidence’:

‘The more convincing evidence that you have, the more knowledge you have. That itself dictates your level of belief.’

And to repeat, if that evidence is scant or non existent, then you are not likely to believe it. In my case, there is certainly evidence for the existence of God, but it is not, in my particular case, as far as I am concerned, evidence which I feel is convincing. Hence, Bradski is an atheist.

It’s not that there’s any lack of evidence, you just refuse to accept the evidence at hand.

Well…not finding it convincing and refusing to accept it could be construed as the same thing (‘this is not convincing therefore I am not accepting it’). So I’ll go with that. Which means that you actually did understand what I was saying. So I’m not sure what your argument is with it.

But again, if you started off as a Christian, you must have had evidence for God that you felt was convincing. I can’t see how that could not be the case. And then when you became an atheist, you must have, for whatever reason, consciously rejected that evidence.

That also must have been the case because it is a contradiction to say that you had accepted convincing evidence for God and have been an atheist.

 

[OneSheep]

Now you’re dodging the issue, because the morality of human acts is fundamental to the morality of rejecting God.

The most basic answer to the question is simple: sin. Sin is why people knowingly and willingly reject God, denial of God is in fact a mortal sin.

If you think I am trying to evade a question, ask me if I am trying to do so, okay?

So, now you are explaining why people K&WRG without establishing that people ever K&WRG in the first place. We were on track trying to determine if it ever happens, and I would like to keep working on that, and it would be great if you could answer my post 624 so that we could continue the investigation. In the mean time, we still have not come up with an example of anyone K&WRG.

After we establish that someone has done so, which I am quite open to admitting, then we can work on the “why” part, okay? Otherwise, the whole thread continues to beg the question.

But you have openly claimed that nobody really commits mortal sin.

I have yet to find an example of such mortal sin, but if you can come up with one, then feel free. You can start with chefmomster’s example or pick a new one. I am not “married” to the idea that nobody commits mortal sin. I just haven’t found an example yet.

The whole case for that supposition rests upon your idea that the intent and circumstances of that choice are primary and you are explicitly arguing that those are the only things worthy of examining.

And since both are really mostly subjective and relative, it’s nearly impossible to come to any objective conclusion because you are explicitly leaving out the most important part of any human act: the object chosen (I.e. rejecting God).

Rejecting God is a mortal sin, regardless of the intent or circumstances.

Actually, what comprises a mortal sin depends on knowing the seriousness of the act, remember? Let us see how much you knew the seriousness of the act in your answer to post 624.

Now, if you say “I committed mortal sin and that is that.” Who am I to argue a conclusion you make about yourself? That would be silly. The point of this aspect of the discussion is not to prove you wrong, no, not at all. My only point would be to explain what I am talking about. You may have no interest whatsoever in what I am talking about! If you do not, we can let it go. There is plenty of room for difference of opinion, and certainly difference of observation, in our great Church! And the “bottom line” is that I am trying to show you how to “make room” for those of us who see things a bit differently. Your answers are Catholic, Amandil, and so are mine. Our views are all centered in relationships with Abba.

To ask “why” is no different than asking why someone shoves a screwdriver into a light socket, or starves themselves to look “pretty”. Sure it may give us insights, but they were probably insights we already had.

So, it should be very easy to answer my post 624. We may gain insights, we may not.

But let me make a suggestion, Amandil. If you pick an example of K&WRG that is other than yourself, it is going to be easier to talk about. It seems to me that you may (notice this is not an assertion, it is a guess, and I may be wrong) hold some resentment toward the time when you chose atheism. You perhaps may be feeling a bit of condemnation toward yourself, have not forgiven yourself. Is that possible? I may be incorrect, forgive me if I am wrong, I mean no harm. If I am correct, that you do feel a bit negatively toward yourself about the time you chose atheism, then it is my observation that the mind blocks out inquiry. We don’t go to “why”.

If I start to inquire within about something bad I did in the past, asking “why did I do that”, my mind says “Whatever the reason, does not matter. It was bad, and you were bad for doing it, and that is that.” And then, I don’t “go there”. The challenge, Amandil, is to go there!

A very wise priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”.

Condemnation blocks understanding, and in doing so, it blocks empathy. It is an automatic phenomenon.

I know, I would be the last person, at this point, from whom you would glean anything you would describe as wisdom, and it is ridiculous on my part to offer such wisdom in this context. So, at best just ignore the wise words from the priest for now, and consider them sometime long after you remember anything else about this thread.

God Bless, Amandil

 

[OneSheep]

A mentally ill person may knowingly and willingly reject God, but these illnesses can cause great confusion, anxiety and despair.
Sometimes delusions and obsessions involve religious themes. Irrational feelings and ideas require psychiatric intervention.

A third person observer may assertain that a mentally ill person has knowingly and willingly rejected God, yes. The mentally ill person himself may say that he has .

However, whatever behavior he did that we describe as K&WRG probably involves one of the examples of ignorance I gave on post 617. And so my own observation would still remain that the K&WRG had not taken place. It is hard enough for a human to “know” very much about God. A mentally ill human? He would likely know even less about what he is doing.

Yes, such intervention may be appropriate, I agree.

 

[Amandil]

If you think I am trying to evade a question, ask me if I am trying to do so, okay?

You are evading because we have already gone down this road and now you’re acting as if your views were never even addressed and the whole discourse never took place.

You apparently then that you can just re-assert your position after I just proved that you were wrong.

I have proved that “knowingly” or “full knowledge” does not pertain to someone’s full understanding of their intentions or circumstances of the sin, but rather the only sufficient knowledge one must have is that the act itself is sinful.

I have proved that all men have sufficient knowledge of what is sinful by the fact of natural law(CCC 1860).

I have proven that sin is in fact an act of the will. Therefore when an evil act is chosen(such as lying), it is in fact a freely willed act.

Finally, any sin is in fact self-exaltation over God(CCC 1850). It is idolatry and thus a rejection of God.

So, now you are explaining why people K&WRG without establishing that people ever K&WRG in the first place.

I have already refuted that your definition of “K&WRG”. It is not in accord with Church teaching. In fact you have distorted what the Church has taught so as to raise the bar on the definition of mortal sin to such an absurd degree that it makes almost an entire part of the Catechism irrelevant.

It’s absurd to think that the Church’s definition would have any identity with yours and yet would spend so much time following the Ten Commandments in describing mortal and venial sins and the moral law in Part 3.

And because according to my criteria, which is self-evident and in accord with the Church’s position, there are in fact people who do.

We were on track trying to determine if it ever happens, and I would like to keep working on that, and it would be great if you could answer my post 624…

I answered your post with post 627.

After we establish that someone has done so, which I am quite open to admitting, then we can work on the “why” part, okay? Otherwise, the whole thread continues to beg the question.

Only in your mind.

I have yet to find an example of such mortal sin, but if you can come up with one, then feel free. You can start with chefmomster’s example or pick a new one. I am not “married” to the idea that nobody commits mortal sin. I just haven’t found an example yet.

Its your definition, which is a distortion of the Catechism, which is the problem and which makes your position untenable.

Scripture and the Catechism provides numerous examples of mortal sins(e.g. Gal 5:19-21) and how regardless of the intent and circumstances they are always mortal(CCC 1756).

Your claim simply holds no water.

 

[Amandil]

cont’d

Actually, what comprises a mortal sin depends on knowing the seriousness of the act, remember?

That’s not what the Catechism says. It says that sin is mortal when it is known that the act itself is contrary to God’s moral law. That is the “full knowledge” that the Catechism refers to. It says nothing about “knowing the seriousness of the act.”

Again you are contradicted by what the Catechism actually says:
"…no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man." (CCC 1860)

Now, if you say “I committed mortal sin and that is that.” Who am I to argue a conclusion you make about yourself? That would be silly. The point of this aspect of the discussion is not to prove you wrong, no, not at all. My only point would be to explain what I am talking about. You may have no interest whatsoever in what I am talking about! If you do not, we can let it go. There is plenty of room for difference of opinion, and certainly difference of observation, in our great Church!

What you are “talking about” is in fact bearing false witness to Church teaching, no matter how well intended. You are in a position of incredulity(CCC 2089).

And the “bottom line” is that I am trying to show you how to “make room” for those of us who see things a bit differently. Your answers are Catholic, Amandil, and so are mine. Our views are all centered in relationships with Abba.

You answers are not “Catholic”, nor can they be for the simple fact that it violates the law of non-contradiction if nothing else.

Catholic Christianity holds to something called objective reality, OneSheep. It’s expositions of moral law are based upon objective moral truths, real right and wrong, not subjective and relative moral opinions such as yours.

Your idea to simply “make room” for such opinions as yours is nothing more than a contradiction of Jesus’ own teachings. You want to compromise the Faith for a feigned sentimentality. Your opinions are no different than that of Montanus, Donatus, Pelagius, & Arius, to Calvin and Luther and every other schismatic and heretic who wanted the Church to “make room” for their absurd opinions.

If the Church had done what you suggest, not only would it have abandoned it’s vocation, it would make Christianity an absurdity and would make God a liar.

But let me make a suggestion, Amandil. If you pick an example of K&WRG that is other than yourself, it is going to be easier to talk about. It seems to me that you may (notice this is not an assertion, it is a guess, and I may be wrong) hold some resentment toward the time when you chose atheism. You perhaps may be feeling a bit of condemnation toward yourself, have not forgiven yourself.

Or rather that my choice of atheism directly contradicts your position. I stand as proof that your assumptions are in fact incorrect.

My feelings are irrelevant. Although I regret my choice, I have confidence in God’s salvation as an objective reality that (thank God) doesn’t depend on some “warm fuzzies” to know that it is true. That’s called faith.

A very wise priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”.

My problem with your position is that you are condoning. And apparently you don’t even possess the sense to see that you are doing it.

Condemnation blocks understanding, and in doing so, it blocks empathy. It is an automatic phenomenon.

This is rather backwards. Condemnation, especially self-condemnation, brings holy fear and self-loathing for sin committed. Thus it also brings forth repentance, humility, and reinforces our dependence on God.