Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

Hi Vico!

Yes, we follow lamb-like. Superficial is all that is required for what?

Like I said, “opposition to God’s law” and “knowing the character of the sin” and “full knowledge” are much different words than “superficial” or “simple knowing”. If you are correct, that “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge”, then yes, people commit mortal sins quite regularly. They do not know what they are doing, but they sin. In that case, we are done with the discussion. Would you like to work on the exact topic of the thread instead?

I see, you are thinking that description of the occasion of sin is pertinent to the thread.

What does description of the occasion of sin have to do with this thread? I’d be happy to talk about it somewhere else, but I thought this thread was “does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?”

The applicability to the “occasion of sin” would be “why does anyone allow themselves to be led into sin”? We can agree that sin is a rejection of God, yes.

The question of this thread is i.e. whether anyone who allows themselves to be led into sin is knowingly and willingly rejecting God.

So, thanks for your effort, but these basics do not provide much in terms of the “knowing and willing” aspect.

Let me know if you would like to continue with the topic of the thread, otherwise, we can just quit. It would be interesting, but I am starting to think you do not want to delve into the “knowing and willing” going on in the mind of Judas or anyone else. That’s okay.

Have a great day, Vico, and thanks for your responses!

“Superficial is all that is required for what?” Superficial knowledge is all that is needed to know the sinful character of sin, which constitutes full knowledge.

The other portion of the pose applies to *this *thread because of “unwilling to give up” has to do with full consent to sin.

Some of what you dwell on pertains to full consent, although I believe you are categorizing it as full knowledge. Ignorance is not knowledge, and intentional ignorance increases the willfulness.

Catechism
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
**
1735 **Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Have you read any writing of Father Hardon, S.J., for example from A Popular Guide Based on The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1. Are we obliged to have a correct conscience?
   Yes. Failure to enlighten the conscience through seeking the true and good as well as habits of sin blind the conscience. In these cases a person is guilty of the evil committed through what is called vincible or culpable ignorance.

 

[simpleas]

The “keeps you out” part is on the other thread. Yes, I do get mixed up also.

So here, the questions here are:

1. Why do people ignore their conscience?
2. Why do people refuse to apologize?
3. Why do people hang onto grudges?

Again, in order to determine the K&WRG aspect, we would need to know what is actually going on in the person’s mind. You might be thinking, “how on earth can we know that, there must be an infinite number of possibilities…etc.”

And that would be a valid point. There probably are an infinite number of possibilities. Here is what I do. I figure out the “best case” scenario. Say, the person hates the guy who raped, tortured, and killed his daughter and cannot “go there”. Then, I take the take the “worst case” scenario, say “he hates all people because he thinks that everyone is annoying, worthless scum but himself.” The BCS and the WCS will be different for everyone, indeed, these images are all part of the formation of the conscience itself. We resent, we form an image, we despise the image, and we avoid being like the image. The image is in the content of our shadow, and to me it is the core of the conscience, our God-given conscience.

Anyway, once I have forgiven the images in the BCS and the WCS, then I am once again reconciled. There may be some “in-betweens” to work through, but the majority of the introspection is done. It is a prayerful introspection, I pray for understanding, and I am always having to go back to some very humbling admissions.

Thank you so much for your charity and respect. You must know I am especially enjoying our discussion, I much prefer looking at real-life examples instead of philosophical assertions.

:twocents:

1. Do people ignore their conscience? If so, maybe it’s easier for some to do so, therefore avoiding the truth of the matter.
2. Maybe because it’s harder for some to admit their wrong doing?
3. Because they can, it may make them feel “bigger” than the other person, or the “victim” who has everyones support, so they hold onto the grudge more so.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
I get e-mails now on this topic. The one who asked this question is incredibly unusual to me in a good way, but a lonely way also. However, he has great company, if you will think on this for awhile.
What is not clear yet, is why he is asking this question. I am working on that right now. What does he really want to know. Is it is anyone ever destroyed both body and soul in hell, where God did not say He did do that, but that He could do that.
Is he contesting in his mind an inconsistence in the Catechism like Limbo? Does it bother him that the Catechism is complicated and flawed in some places?
Maybe he is so caring that he cannot reconcile the fate of Satan, what ever that fate is after he is thrown into the lake of fire, by a single angle.
Maybe it is, how could Satan or anybody for that matter know something, and not react to it correctly?
If it is simply and answer he looks for then in the Bible it is said that when a man works hard enough, he can lie to his conscience enough that it no longer prohibits him from doing wrong.
…Curt/K…
One question of mine I researched is similar to his, but to keep it in Research Format, I will not be able to state the actual question, you should all know why that is.
I found in this work three staunch committed atheists. I wanted to know if there were any out there. Finding the extremes, is easier in research. Only 20 to 30 years or so was required to do this much. After finding the first one and he was severely atheistic in his statements. I asked him privately one day. Can you tell me, that you can say that there is no possibility that a God exists out there, who is responsible for all of this. (I waved my hands to include all that is made) No, he said. Then what gives. Meaning then in slang, why are you saying other wise to everyone. My mother he said. She is horrible and she is religious. Oh, I replied and then went off liking and using this guy in my work again safely, as I was in research then, advanced research, and without proof, God not existing by a researcher is dangerously wrong and he might be dangerously wrong on other things also.
Later, years later, I found another atheist. This one was also a staunch atheist. After he assumed incorrectly on my question, and then the question was restated. He said no. I cannot say that there is not a God out there that is responsible for all of this. I just don’t (can’t morally and intellectually), agree with the God that is put on my by a certain church. I have my own version of God, and it works quite well. The third staunch atheist was similar to the others, only she finally said: There are degrees of Atheism.
Now, typically I thought in practice no one would use a word that didn’t exist in nature. How is it then in practice Atheism means, I don’t believe you about your definition of God, and never ever I don’t believe that there is a God out there that is responsible for all of this.
This gentleman asks a question similar to that one. Is it possible that anyone could really oppose God, knowingly, without any caveats?
The answer may always be no, but the answer may also suffer from a lack of resources, as the only one we have heard of that did this was Satan, who never ever tells us the truth about anything, and if God does not answer this for us and this man, then hopefully he can find an example somewhere to his real questions. (And yes, this may be his real question, but it is unclear to me.)
…Curt/K…

 

[curtish1947]

Hi Again,
Biblically God said: The envy of the devil is what caused all the trouble we experience. It was never intended that way, I think I recall further it, The Bible saying, and therefore God is saying this.
The devil being smarter and more powerful than any of us, caused Eve to fail first, but in his ingenious ways possibly, merely causing Adam to fail, by not wanting to lose Eve, his wife.
What I do not know, in hopefully this most perfect example of ‘Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?’ is why or how even he could do this. God said one day, that it was good. He did that for all of creation. Still when did Satan come into existence? Is he part of creation or not? If not the problem is even more hard to solve, without looking to human examples like you are doing.
On humans, I have roughly One Hundred and Sixty man-equivalent-years of dealing with Sociopathic Personality Types. One day late in my life I found myself talking to a woman who knew why they do what they do. At least she has the class time and the way science sees this presently (remember some science is a rough work in progress.) They had proved she said something. She was wrong slightly. What they really proved is how a person can get beyond his or her conscience easily. In short she is taught it is either caused or it happens that the section of the brain which handles that stuff is merely missing in the most heinous criminals by brain dissections after they die, or it has been damaged so it does not function.
Choice is still possible there. But that issue has not been looked at and proven or disproven yet.
Yet, when I have had sufficient time with these folks, each of them always knew precisely what they were doing and how. I don’t have access to these kinds of people anymore, so that is all I have in your search.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico!

I had a long weekend away from the computer. Sorry for my delayed response.

“Superficial is all that is required for what?” Superficial knowledge is all that is needed to know the sinful character of sin, which constitutes full knowledge.

So, if I may summarize a little, I am still starting with the premise:

Premise:
When people sin, they do not know what they are doing. Through awareness, in the broadest sense of the word, we come to avoid sin.

Given that premise, I will apply the definitions of mortal sin.

1. If “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge”, then yes, mortal sin occurs often, and one could come up with an infinite number of scenarios of such occurrence. In that case, however, people do not know what they are doing, but we call it mortal sin anyway. In that case, perhaps the words “full knowledge” should be dropped altogether, and the words “simple knowing of the violation as being called ‘mortal sin’ by having heard it from others or from Church doctrine” would be more appropriate.
2. If “full knowledge” includes all the aspects of the sin, knowing the harm of the sin, knowing the value of the victim, knowing the value of all creation, God’s love, and really appreciating (through awareness) the presence of God’s love in every living human, including oneself, and have understood everyone involved (with the added dimension of awareness of the others’ motives, feelings, and perspective) and anything else I might have left out here, then I have never seen such mortal sin happen, nor can I come up with a scenario of such occurrence. To me, if such “full knowledge” were present, sin would never happen at all, except in fairly rare “lesser of two evils” scenarios.

Which brings us back to the K&WRG topic of the thread. Is my premise in this post valid, or is it not? Shall we work on Judas?

Are you trying to avoid examples? Judas was one of your suggestions, was it not? What was going on in Judas’ mind?

The other portion of the pose applies to *this *thread because of “unwilling to give up” has to do with full consent to sin.

Some of what you dwell on pertains to full consent, although I believe you are categorizing it as full knowledge. Ignorance is not knowledge, and intentional ignorance increases the willfulness.

Well, the “full consent” aspect is a bit fuzzy. If a person is fully consenting to sin based on ignorance, is he fully consenting to offend God? Let’s take the example of the teenager who, after tolerating a lot of aggression from a bully, finally takes a gun and shoots him. Is the sin offensive to God? Well yes, it is offensive to His Will, which is that we love and forgive one another. Does the teen realize that the bully is a valuable person in the eyes of God? No, absolutely not, the teen sees the bully as something disposable. So, did the teen consent fully to kill? Yes. Did he consent to defy God, was that his intent? Not in my viewing.

Perhaps you could provide an example of “intentional ignorance” and we could see if it ever happens. If it does happen, we can try to determine what is going on in the person’s head, and examine the “willfulness”.

Catechism
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
**
1735 **Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Have you read any writing of Father Hardon, S.J., for example from A Popular Guide Based on The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1. Are we obliged to have a correct conscience?
   Yes. Failure to enlighten the conscience through seeking the true and good as well as habits of sin blind the conscience. In these cases a person is guilty of the evil committed through what is called vincible or culpable ignorance.

The “imputability” clause seems to support the second version of “mortal sin” I presented above.

As far as “Failure to enlighten the conscience through seeking the true and good as well as habits of sin blind the conscience.”, this is, to me, a bit confusing. If a person fails to enlighten their conscience, then he is not blinded to his conscience, he is unaware of the content of his conscience in the first place. “Blinded” implies foreknowledge, and “enlighten” implies lack of knowledge. Informing the conscience is a life-long endeavor, is it not? As with the “vincible or culpable ignorance” assertions, what is called for is an example.

I try to get away from all the heady theoretical stuff and try to observe and really figure out what is happening in a given situation. ] In my observation, this is what happens: People only do hurtful things when they do not know what they are doing. I am using “knowing” in the broadest sense of the word.

After all, we all know what should happenshould happen is that everyone on Earth love God with all our minds and hearts and love everyone as we do ourselves. When we do this, all sin is avoided.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Here were my questions:

1. Why do people ignore their conscience?
2. Why do people refuse to apologize?
3. Why do people hang onto grudges?

:twocents:

1. Do people ignore their conscience? If so, maybe it’s easier for some to do so, therefore avoiding the truth of the matter.

Yes, I agree that may be one of the reasons, but I don’t think people realize that it is happening, as “easier” implies. In my observation, the mind sort of diminishes the importance of a certain content in the conscience or changes aspects of the situation at hand.

Say for example, a person A wants to take person B’s land, which is common in parts of the Middle East. Person B has lived on the land all of his life, and generations of his family had done the same. Person B’s family may or may not have title of the land, but if not, then neither does person A or anyone else, and if no title is present, it is simply acknowledged in the village that Person B owns the land.

Person A knows that theft is wrong, but wants the land. Person A has had some basically automatic reformulations happen in his mind: “Person B’s people do not deserve this land, and it is wrong for him to have it.” “Person B’s people took the land from my ethnic ancestry”. “Person B’s people do not care for the land as my people do, as I would.” Person A and his people, having the more powerful in military, confiscate the land using all of the above rationalizations, grounded in desire for the land and blindness to theft.

All of those perceptions are embraced as valid in the mind of Person A. What has taken place the a result of blindness. I am capable of such blindness caused by desire.

And that gets me thinking: What are “rationalizations” anyway? “Rationalizations” are my description of what another person is calling “content of the conscience”. The person who wants the land is making an assertion of his conscience, albeit an unwittingly modified conscience: “Person B does not deserve the land. It is not right for Person B to have the land.”

Rightness and wrongness are words of the language of the conscience.

1. Maybe because it’s harder for some to admit their wrong doing?

Yes, that is probably one of the reasons. I may do this because I don’t want to take ownership of the fact that I hurt someone. If I take ownership, then I perceive that I am somehow “less” in the eyes of other people. I want to deny any wrongdoing.

1. Because they can, it may make them feel “bigger” than the other person, or the “victim” who has everyones support, so they hold onto the grudge more so.

Yes, these are all reasons that I might hang onto a grudge. In addition, I do not realize that because I am holding a grudge, I am suffering internally constant resentment. Resentment compromises my holiness (oneness) with others and with God. Whatever the case may be, I am thinking “It is right to hold onto this grudge because of the great wrong that was done to me.” I am blinded to the call to forgive.

 

[OneSheep]

On humans, I have roughly One Hundred and Sixty man-equivalent-years of dealing with Sociopathic Personality Types. One day late in my life I found myself talking to a woman who knew why they do what they do. At least she has the class time and the way science sees this presently (remember some science is a rough work in progress.) They had proved she said something. She was wrong slightly. What they really proved is how a person can get beyond his or her conscience easily. In short she is taught it is either caused or it happens that the section of the brain which handles that stuff is merely missing in the most heinous criminals by brain dissections after they die, or it has been damaged so it does not function.
Choice is still possible there. But that issue has not been looked at and proven or disproven yet.
Yet, when I have had sufficient time with these folks, each of them always knew precisely what they were doing and how. I don’t have access to these kinds of people anymore, so that is all I have in your search.

Sounds like you have a lot of experience with Sociopaths!

I will concur that “sociopaths” know that they are, for example, killing or raping someone.

I use “knowing” very broadly.
1.Did the “sociopaths” you encountered know the value of their victims?
2. Did they know of the presence of God in their victims, as a Mother would in her child?
3.To what degree did they know of Love at all?

If you would like to reply to my post, hit the “quote” button on the bottom. Then, add your comments below my questions in the box that comes up.

 

[Vico]

…

Long day so I will have to post a more complete post later. Basics are necessary first before discussion of examples, I think. But I think you are getting at that one is not always certain and may also make erroneous judgments that are free of guilt:

CCC1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
You wrote “When people sin, they do not know what they are doing.” For example the Baltimore Catechism (what I used when taught) has sufficient reflection rather full knowledge. I believe it is less confusing, but note that if someone believes a sin is not to a grave matter but discovers later that it is grave, then the venial sin may become mortal if continued. Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 295. Which are the chief sources of sin?
A. The chief sources of sin are seven: 1.Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth, and they are commonly called capital sins.

Also from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (for teaching) there is this (which does not include to topic of willful ignorance): *56 Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

"Grievous matter." To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the "matter," namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be "grievous matter."

"Sufficient reflection," that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

"Full consent." Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man. Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:

    (1) The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
    (2) You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
    (3) You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.

57 Q. What is venial sin?

A. Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance, or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will.

"Slight," that is, a small offense or fault; called "venial," not because it is not a sin, but because God pardons it more willingly or easily than He does a mortal sin.

"Less importance," like stealing an ordinary, common pin. "Great importance," like stealing a diamond pin. Without "reflection" or "consent," when you did not know it was a diamond and did not intend to steal a diamond.

Posted before, was that full knowledge is written about in Catechism 1859 on Mortal sin: " It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law."

The term spiritual blindness is used by the Catholic Church in CCC 2088 to mean what is caused through cultivation. Also see CCC 2089 the sins are against faith: **2088 **The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

**2089** Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

One also needs to include conscience.
**CCC 2039** Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person's own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[OneSheep]

Long day so I will have to post a more complete post later.

Hi Vico! I guess you did have a long day! Thanks for making the late-night effort.

Basics are necessary first before discussion of examples, I think. But I think you are getting at that one is not always certain and may also make erroneous judgments that are free of guilt:

CCC1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
You wrote “When people sin, they do not know what they are doing.” For example the Baltimore Catechism (what I used when taught) has sufficient reflection rather full knowledge. I believe it is less confusing, but note that if someone believes a sin is not to a grave matter but discovers later that it is grave, then the venial sin may become mortal if continued.

“Sufficient reflection” runs into the same issue. If a person sufficiently reflects, and his conscience is well-informed in empathy, and he sees the infinite value of the well-being of his fellow man, then he will not sin, period. A person may “reflect” all that he is able, but if he lacks the ability to forgive his enemy, he may still do great harm to him, and think that it is “right” to do so. A person may have eyes blinded to the goodness of humanity, and in that case no amount of “sufficient reflection” will help. His experience of humanity is generally negative, he sees no value in the human or even his own life. This person is in great need of exposure to Love.

All of these have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 295. Which are the chief sources of sin?
A. The chief sources of sin are seven: 1.Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth, and they are commonly called capital sins.

Also from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (for teaching) there is this (which does not include to topic of willful ignorance): *56 Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

"Grievous matter." To steal is a sin. ....

**"Sufficient reflection," that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it**. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

"Full consent." Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man. Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:

    (1) The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
    (2) You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
    (3) You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.

57 Q. What is venial sin?

A. Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance, or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will.

"Slight," that is, a small offense or fault; called "venial," not because it is not a sin, but because God pardons it more willingly or easily than He does a mortal sin.

"Less importance," like stealing an ordinary, common pin. "Great importance," like stealing a diamond pin. Without "reflection" or "consent," when you did not know it was a diamond and did not intend to steal a diamond.

Posted before, was that full knowledge is written about in Catechism 1859 on Mortal sin: " It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law."

**CCC 2039** Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person's own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.[/INDENT]

Thanks for your efforts in presenting the basics!

Again, this section about “sufficient reflection”, bolded above, says that for it to be a mortal sin, the person must know what he is doing. When people sin, in my observation, they do not know what they are doing. But please, do not take my word for it or respond to my conclusion, we need to work on an example to verify my statement, or to find it false.

I still do not see why the sections on doubt, apostacy, and heresy apply to our discussion or this thread, but that is okay.

Shall we (finally) move on to an example?

May the Lord bless your day.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I still do not see why the sections on doubt, apostacy, and heresy apply to our discussion or this thread, but that is okay. . .

I believe they were included because what you are asserting goes against what the church teaches.
Saying something 7 X 77 X 777 X 7,777 . . ., even if you were to convince the entire world, does not make it true.

 

[curtish1947]

Sounds like you have a lot of experience with Sociopaths!

I will concur that “sociopaths” know that they are, for example, killing or raping someone.

I use “knowing” very broadly.
1.Did the “sociopaths” you encountered know the value of their victims?
Yes
2. Did they know of the presence of God in their victims, as a Mother would in her child?
Yes
3.To what degree did they know of Love at all?
They see it, they notice it, they have some knowledge of love and plenty of examples of Love. They are typically brilliant, and know what they see. So, they do know what Love is, that kind that is like God’s type of Love or is God’s Love, but respond to it with only hurt, and therefore what we call hatred. In others they say they love, they even have proven it, but in general do not do what lovers do completely. It is only partially that they do what lovers do. The rest of the time, they connive and think of how to get a slave, so they can get what they want, someone else to control, secretly, and to get all the benefits of that.

If you would like to reply to my post, hit the “quote” button on the bottom. Then, add your comments below my questions in the box that comes up.

Hi,
Over a half hour of work responding to you has just been lost, because the system auto logged me out, while I was writing. Logging back in did not redirect me to where I was at, which was merely previewing my (name removed by moderator)uts, but to nowhere that was recoverable. I don’t know if I can respond again that way, so in short.
It seems your main point that is totally defensible, full knowledge cannot be correct, if all the other statements by Saints are true and that some people do in fact go to Hell, for no one of us, can ever possess full-knowledge of anything at this time. And that is provable.
Do you understand that if you are right as it seems that you are, then those words should never have appeared there in that text.
I wonder if you think the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Absolutely correct? If you do, I have heard otherwise. And if you do, it makes total sense why you are asking these questions.

So in answer to number 1. Yes, 2 Yes, 3. Yes, but they don’t respond to it.
…Curt/K…

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico! I guess you did have a long day! Thanks for making the late-night effort.

“Sufficient reflection” runs into the same issue. If a person sufficiently reflects, and his conscience is well-informed in empathy, and he sees the infinite value of the well-being of his fellow man, then he will not sin, period. A person may “reflect” all that he is able, but if he lacks the ability to forgive his enemy, he may still do great harm to him, and think that it is “right” to do so. A person may have eyes blinded to the goodness of humanity, and in that case no amount of “sufficient reflection” will help. His experience of humanity is generally negative, he sees no value in the human or even his own life. This person is in great need of exposure to Love.

All of these have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Thanks for your efforts in presenting the basics!

Again, this section about “sufficient reflection”, bolded above, says that for it to be a mortal sin, the person must know what he is doing. When people sin, in my observation, they do not know what they are doing. But please, do not take my word for it or respond to my conclusion, we need to work on an example to verify my statement, or to find it false.

I still do not see why the sections on doubt, apostacy, and heresy apply to our discussion or this thread, but that is okay.

Shall we (finally) move on to an example?

May the Lord bless your day.

Baltimore states: “You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong”, and you said “When people sin, in my observation, they do not know what they are doing.”

That would mean you observe that they do not know that what they are doing is wrong. An act is known to be wrong because the Church has taught one that it is, even in opposition to a poorly formed conscience. Of course people may commit sin quickly without reflection. Yet, it is also possible to sin without knowing that an act is *wrong *due to intentional ignorance, for which one is culpable, and this is a second major way to sin. Then the will is predominant along with a careless or indifferent (or similar) attitude.

Archbishop *Cardinal Henry Edward Manning *wrote about Judas: Now St. John, in these words of his epistle, tells us that if any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he ought to pray for him. Now, what are the sins that are not unto death? They include sins of infirmity; sins of impetuosity; sins of strong temptation; sins which by the subtlety of Satan leads men astray; sins of passion, in which human nature, being weak and tempestuous, and liable to disorder, is drawn aside: if in all these there be not that malice which refuses to repent. Now, these are sins which all Christians are liable to commit, and do commit, and which, without doubt, you yourselves are profoundly conscious of committing. These are sins not unto death, as we may trust, because, if there be not an impenitent malice against God or our neighbor, then the soul might yet return to God through repentance; and in that case, St. John says, “Let him pray for him, and God will give life unto those that sin not unto death”; that is to say, He will give grace, sorrow, pardon, help, protection, and perseverance. He will watch over those souls if in humility and in sorrow they persevere; and the prayer of those who are faithful and steadfast will obtain grace for those that sin not unto death.

Then he goes on: “There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man should ask”: that is, that any man should pray for forgiveness for such a sinner. Now which sins are those which are * unto death? * By a sin that is * unto death * is commonly understood a willful apostasy from the Faith and from the known truth, when a sinner, hardened by his own ingratitude, becomes deaf to all admonitions, will do nothing for himself, but runs on to a final impenitence. The sin of Judas was, as far as we can see, a sin unto death. With his eyes open, with a knowledge of his Master — though, perhaps, he did not know of the mystery of the Incarnation as we know it now; nevertheless he knew enough — he sold his Master, and yet, perhaps, not knowing that he sold Him to be crucified; and then, despairing, he went out and hanged himself. This, then, was a sin unto death.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7053

 

[OneSheep]

I believe they were included because what you are asserting goes against what the church teaches.
Saying something 7 X 77 X 777 X 7,777 . . ., even if you were to convince the entire world, does not make it true.

Well, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what “assertion” I am making that goes against Church teaching.

I am saying that in my observation, when people sin they do not know what they are doing.

Someone also said that, while being crucified…

Please, Aloysium, I await your response on what is going through the mind of a person who abuses. Such a response would be more on the topic we are discussing. I am very open-minded about your insights on “abusers”.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi,
Over a half hour of work responding to you has just been lost, because the system auto logged me out, while I was writing. Logging back in did not redirect me to where I was at, which was merely previewing my (name removed by moderator)uts, but to nowhere that was recoverable. I don’t know if I can respond again that way, so in short.

Hi Curtish. The system does not autolog you out, at least in my experience, but there are ways to lose everything, so when I hit a wrong button, I go back and save what I have written onto a word doc. I’m not sure it is my computer or what. When you do make a response, though, if you put your notes between the beginning and end quote prompts, then when it is posted it looks like I said it, which can be confusing.

It seems your main point that is totally defensible, full knowledge cannot be correct, if all the other statements by Saints are true and that some people do in fact go to Hell, for no one of us, can ever possess full-knowledge of anything at this time. And that is provable.
Do you understand that if you are right as it seems that you are, then those words should never have appeared there in that text.
I wonder if you think the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Absolutely correct? If you do, I have heard otherwise. And if you do, it makes total sense why you are asking these questions.

Many consider the CCC completely infallible doctrine, but that is not the assertion. The CCC contains such doctrine, but is not entirely composed of such. Yes “full knowledge” does not make sense (to me) if it means “superficial knowing”, that is, not incorporated into the conscience, and not including the value of the person hurt or the harm done. On the other hand, does a person sinning out of ignorance actually drive some kind of wedge between himself and God? To me, it would seem to be more accurate to say that when a person sins, and realizes the harm he has done, his conscience serves him a load of punishing guilt, which is exactly the way the conscience is supposed to work. God, underlying the conscience, loves and forgives all the way through.
Here were my questions:

1.Did the “sociopaths” you encountered know the value of their victims?
2. Did they know of the presence of God in their victims, as a Mother would in her child?
3.To what degree did they know of Love at all?

So in answer to number 1. Yes,
2 Yes,
3. Yes, but they don’t respond to it. They see it, they notice it, they have some knowledge of love and plenty of examples of Love. They are typically brilliant, and know what they see. So, they do know what Love is, that kind that is like God’s type of Love or is God’s Love, but respond to it with only hurt, and therefore what we call hatred. In others they say they love, they even have proven it, but in general do not do what lovers do completely. It is only partially that they do what lovers do. The rest of the time, they connive and think of how to get a slave, so they can get what they want, someone else to control, secretly, and to get all the benefits of that.
…Curt/K…

Perhaps you are using a more narrow definition of “knowing”?
The next questions are:

1. If it is true that the “sociopaths” knew the infinite value of their victims, as having as much value as their own lives, and of great value in the eyes of God, why did they commit atrocities? Why did they not seek to protect what they value?
2. If they know the presence of God in their victims, as a Mother would in her own child, then you are saying that they would commit atrocities against their own children, which I suppose happens. In my understanding of such people labeled as “sociopaths”, though, they have a debilitated capacity for empathy, so they do not know meaning of the harm they are causing the victim. In addition, they find joy in the harm, the joy felt when one is in control of a situation or an enemy, the joy felt in dominating a situation. It is my understanding that serial killers continue to relive atrocities in their minds until the memories sort of “wear out”, and then they have to commit another atrocity to feed their need for dominance.
   If the “sociopath” knew of the intrinsic value of their victim, then they would do them no harm, indeed, they would seek to protect them. Does the “sociopath” know, as we know, the intrinsic value of anyone? If so, how can you prove this?
3. How have they “proven” that they know of Love? Are you referring to that they have proven they can fall in love, like romantic love? If so, do they value their mates? If they value their mates, they would seek to protect their mates, not seek to destroy them. If, on the other hand, you are saying that they value their mates as a means to status in society or as a means to satisfy sexual appetite, we are not talking about real value, or real Love, right?

Thanks for your response. I am looking forward to more insights when you answer my questions. It looks like we may need to define a few terms.

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

Baltimore states: “You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong”, and you said “When people sin, in my observation, they do not know what they are doing.”

That would mean you observe that they do not know that what they are doing is wrong.

Well, they may know that the Church says it is wrong, at a very superficial level, as we have previously described. However, they do not fully know what they are doing. Again, if “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge” then mortal sin probably happens often. To me, there is much more to “knowledge” when it comes to knowing the wrongness of an act than “it is wrong because the Church says so.” You disagree, and that is okay.

An act is known to be wrong because the Church has taught one that it is, even in opposition to a poorly formed conscience.

Yes. However, “knowing” involves more than simply acknowledging assertions. For example, Jesus said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We could take his word for it, but until we really investigate Jesus’ message and the motives of those he addressed, we may not truly take ownership of the assertion.

Of course people may commit sin quickly without reflection. Yet, it is also possible to sin without knowing that an act is wrong due to intentional ignorance, for which one is culpable, and this is a second major way to sin. Then the will is predominant along with a careless or indifferent (or similar) attitude.

To me, God wants us to respond for our actions whether we are ignorant or not. That is the meaning of culpability. If you mean “condemnable”, then we would be using a different definition, and we would be tackling the question “Does God condemn, or does He forgive?”
That would be a question for another thread. We are working on the human side on this thread. We could investigate “intentional ignorance” in an example. In my observation, intentional ignorance occurs because of ignorance.

Archbishop Cardinal Henry Edward Manning wrote about Judas:
…
By a sin that is unto death is commonly understood a willful apostasy from the Faith and from the known truth, when a sinner, hardened by his own ingratitude, becomes deaf to all admonitions, will do nothing for himself, but runs on to a final impenitence. The sin of Judas was, as far as we can see, a sin unto death. With his eyes open, with a knowledge of his Master — though, perhaps, he did not know of the mystery of the Incarnation as we know it now; nevertheless he knew enough — he sold his Master, and yet, perhaps, not knowing that he sold Him to be crucified; and then, despairing, he went out and hanged himself. This, then, was a sin unto death.
catholicculture.org/cultu…fm?recnum=7053

I see, you are thinking that proof of a person “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” or having “full knowledge” means providing assertions from a person of authority.

I’m sorry,Vico, I am not asking for assertions from anyone. I am asking for how a scenario can possibly occur where someone ever has “full knowledge” while committing a sin, or how anyone ever knowingly or willingly rejected God. I appreciate your efforts, but this is an investigation into someone’s mind, not research into what someone else asserts about Judas.

So, please, can you answer these questions from the Vico-who-is-fallible-like-all-of-us-and-just-guessing perspective? This is not for the purpose of accuracy, this is for the purpose of investigating the possibility of how anyone can ever knowingly and willingly reject God. It pains me that you go to such effort at addressing the question from what someone else said, when one cannot respond to inquiry about those assertions, as neither of us knows what proof the Cardinal had for what he asserted about Judas.

Here again, are my questions. Please, this is an investigation, not a research project into what other people have asserted about Judas. I want to know what you think could have happened.

1. Why did Judas turn Jesus over to the authorities?
2. What was going on in Judas’ mind when he betrayed Jesus?

I thank you again for your efforts. Please, be patient with me.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi Curtish. The system does not autolog you out, at least in my experience, but there are ways to lose everything, so when I hit a wrong button, I go back and save what I have written onto a word doc. I’m not sure it is my computer or what. When you do make a response, though, if you put your notes between the beginning and end quote prompts, then when it is posted it looks like I said it, which can be confusing.

Many consider the CCC completely infallible doctrine, but that is not the assertion. The CCC contains such doctrine, but is not entirely composed of such. Yes “full knowledge” does not make sense (to me) if it means “superficial knowing”, that is, not incorporated into the conscience, and not including the value of the person hurt or the harm done. On the other hand, does a person sinning out of ignorance actually drive some kind of wedge between himself and God? To me, it would seem to be more accurate to say that when a person sins, and realizes the harm he has done, his conscience serves him a load of punishing guilt, which is exactly the way the conscience is supposed to work. God, underlying the conscience, loves and forgives all the way through.
Here were my questions:

1.Did the “sociopaths” you encountered know the value of their victims?
2. Did they know of the presence of God in their victims, as a Mother would in her child?
3.To what degree did they know of Love at all?

Perhaps you are using a more narrow definition of “knowing”?
The next questions are:

1. If it is true that the “sociopaths” knew the infinite value of their victims, as having as much value as their own lives, and of great value in the eyes of God, why did they commit atrocities? Why did they not seek to protect what they value?
2. If they know the presence of God in their victims, as a Mother would in her own child, then you are saying that they would commit atrocities against their own children, which I suppose happens. In my understanding of such people labeled as “sociopaths”, though, they have a debilitated capacity for empathy, so they do not know meaning of the harm they are causing the victim. In addition, they find joy in the harm, the joy felt when one is in control of a situation or an enemy, the joy felt in dominating a situation. It is my understanding that serial killers continue to relive atrocities in their minds until the memories sort of “wear out”, and then they have to commit another atrocity to feed their need for dominance.
   If the “sociopath” knew of the intrinsic value of their victim, then they would do them no harm, indeed, they would seek to protect them. Does the “sociopath” know, as we know, the intrinsic value of anyone? If so, how can you prove this?
3. How have they “proven” that they know of Love? Are you referring to that they have proven they can fall in love, like romantic love? If so, do they value their mates? If they value their mates, they would seek to protect their mates, not seek to destroy them. If, on the other hand, you are saying that they value their mates as a means to status in society or as a means to satisfy sexual appetite, we are not talking about real value, or real Love, right?

Thanks for your response. I am looking forward to more insights when you answer my questions. It looks like we may need to define a few terms.

 

[curtish1947]

curtish1947:
Hi,
The system has logged me out automatically three times already. So much for the inaccuracy of your statement. My last reply has been lost, and the error message said I exceeded a twenty minute time limit, for that response. It said that I did not. Why are saying things that are not true?
However the points I made were ones of noticing from you, that new questions follow answers. You constantly change the subject, rather than finish the last subject.
That type of activity, is mentioned in the Bible, which is a lot more accurate and authoritative than the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is not and never has been determined by ex-cathedra to be infallible.
Please explain.

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
The system has logged me out automatically three times already. So much for the inaccuracy of your statement. My last reply has been lost, and the error message said I exceeded a twenty minute time limit, for that response. It said that I did not. Why are saying things that are not true?
However the points I made were ones of noticing from you, that new questions follow answers. You constantly change the subject, rather than finish the last subject.
That type of activity, is mentioned in the Bible, which is a lot more accurate and authoritative than the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is not and never has been determined by ex-cathedra to be infallible.
Please explain.

Please explain OneSheep.

 

[Vico]

Well, they may know that the Church says it is wrong, at a very superficial level, as we have previously described. However, they do not fully know what they are doing. Again, if “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge” then mortal sin probably happens often. To me, there is much more to “knowledge” when it comes to knowing the wrongness of an act than “it is wrong because the Church says so.” You disagree, and that is okay.

Yes. However, “knowing” involves more than simply acknowledging assertions. For example, Jesus said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” We could take his word for it, but until we really investigate Jesus’ message and the motives of those he addressed, we may not truly take ownership of the assertion.

To me, God wants us to respond for our actions whether we are ignorant or not. That is the meaning of culpability. If you mean “condemnable”, then we would be using a different definition, and we would be tackling the question “Does God condemn, or does He forgive?”
That would be a question for another thread. We are working on the human side on this thread. We could investigate “intentional ignorance” in an example. In my observation, intentional ignorance occurs because of ignorance.

I see, you are thinking that proof of a person “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” or having “full knowledge” means providing assertions from a person of authority.

I’m sorry,Vico, I am not asking for assertions from anyone. I am asking for how a scenario can possibly occur where someone ever has “full knowledge” while committing a sin, or how anyone ever knowingly or willingly rejected God. I appreciate your efforts, but this is an investigation into someone’s mind, not research into what someone else asserts about Judas.

So, please, can you answer these questions from the Vico-who-is-fallible-like-all-of-us-and-just-guessing perspective? This is not for the purpose of accuracy, this is for the purpose of investigating the possibility of how anyone can ever knowingly and willingly reject God. It pains me that you go to such effort at addressing the question from what someone else said, when one cannot respond to inquiry about those assertions, as neither of us knows what proof the Cardinal had for what he asserted about Judas.

Here again, are my questions. Please, this is an investigation, not a research project into what other people have asserted about Judas. I want to know what you think could have happened.

1. Why did Judas turn Jesus over to the authorities?
2. What was going on in Judas’ mind when he betrayed Jesus?

I thank you again for your efforts. Please, be patient with me.

There are two ways to sin, full consent while either knowing an act is a sin where for the purpose of understanding what full knowledge means in committing a sin, it means simply knowing that it is wrong from the authority of the Church or Christ or from conscience, and secondly through intentional ignorance.

There can be no discussion of Judas without “what other people have asserted about Judas” because what we have is from the testimony of the scriptures and tradition. I have no personal experience with Judas.

 

[rinnie]

One Sheep, Judas snapped when Jesus said he is the true God and you must eat and drink the flesh of Man. It is then that Judas betrayed God and the devil entered into him.

Jesus turned Jesus over to be killed.

When someone sins and know that it is a sin. Here is a true example.

I know that if I commit adultery against my husband I am knowing and willingly rejecting God. He teaches that if I want God I must accept his teachings not reject him.

So if I choose my sin, go cheat on my husband, I have knowingly and willingly rejected God.
IF I sin and refuse to confess the sin, and quit the sin, I am knowing and willingly rejecting God.

Knowingly and willingly rejecting God is putting your will over the will of God and doing what you want knowing the loss.

Just like when I would cheat on my husband, I know I am putting my marriage in jeopardy and my relationship with God into jeopardy but do what I want, and do not care who I hurt.