M
madera
Guest
Thanks for the laugh.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Your argument rests on an assumption, “If …” which not everyone agrees with.
If it is our nature to seek goodness and nirvana is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject nirvana (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?
rossum
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
People knowingly and willingly reject God for the same reason they knowingly and willingly reject their human parents.
They have not learned humility and want to be the boss.
They have not learned humility and want to be the boss.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Actually, the Church makes no claim that anyone is in hell. The pharisees were blind. Do you see their blindness?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Thanks for replying. In my viewing, all people are subject to blindness. When a person is doing one of the sins you mentioned, they are blind to the value of their victim, they are not seeing that the harm they are doing is serious at all.
The necessary ingredient, though, is that he is blind to the humanity and value of his victim. Would he do such an act if his sister was the owner of the store? Not likely, but we could discuss that. In my viewing, anyone who behaves hurtfully toward someone else is blind to the value of the other in the moment. It happens automatically. Desire blinds us. Anger blinds us. It is part of our nature. Does this sound like “making excuses?”
I agree, it is not true. Possibilities are endless, but I can’t think of how it could happen. The “full knowledge” never seems to be present in the instance of sin.
Motives, to me, are important in terms of understanding, which is a big part of mature forgiveness. The addict is blinded by desire, (and despair) and can even be blind to the value of the owner/sister in the scenario I gave.
Does all this sound like more “making excuses”? Such would be my reaction, without getting more explanation.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
A person like this would be a sociopath or psychopath. Those are mental disorders. They would not be competent adults, if God so judges.
The qualities of the natural law
(a) **The natural law is universal, that is to say, it applies to the entire human race, and is in itself the same for all. **Every man, because he is a man, is bound, if he will conform to the universal order willed by the Creator, to live conformably to his own rational nature, and to be guided by reason. **However, infants and insane persons, who have not the actual use of their reason and cannot therefore know the law, are not responsible **for that failure to comply with its demands. (b) The natural law is immutable in itself and also extrinsically. Since it is founded in the very nature of man and his destination to his end—two bases which rest upon the immutable ground of the eternal law—it follows that, assuming the continued existence of human nature, it cannot cease to exist. The natural law commands and forbids in the same tenor everywhere and always. We must, however, remember that this immutability pertains not to those abstract imperfect formulæ in which the law is commonly expressed, but to the moral standard as it applies to action in the concrete, surrounded with all its determinate conditions. We enunciate, for instance, one of the leading precepts in the words: “Thou shalt not kill”; yet the taking of human life is sometimes a lawful, and even an obligatory act. Herein exists no variation in the law; what the law forbids is not all taking of life, but all unjust taking of life. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Consider murder. Human beings are subject to Natural Law. At a minimum, they recognize the basic instinct of self-preservation. They place a value on their life and its continuation. They would also recognize that this value judgment is not particular to themselves, but rather it is a trait of all of us. Hence, they have an understanding of the act they perform when they kill. In the Moreover, this understanding of the humanity and value of the victims can be applied to all of the mortal sins.
CCC 1773 In the passions, as movements of the sensitive appetite, there is neither moral good nor evil. But insofar as they engage reason and will, there is moral good or evil in them.
Actually it sounds like a total refutation of sin! Why would one be culpable for venial sins using your argument? Would you argue that there is no sin? No evil act? Self-defense, defense of offspring, and the like are “natural” and “automatic”.
If a person allows their passion (love, greed, lust…) to become so great that it blinds them to the natural law, then they have already sinned. Those passions are ones we learn to control at least to the degree that we do not choose the greater sin of acting on them. It is in the bad act that a passion engages our will and results in an evil act. A majority of people do not choose serious evil acts in response to strong emotion. It is the minority of human beings who act out because of them.
Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23). (The Catholic Encyclopedia)
If I steal your identity and bankrupt you, would you believe that I should be held accountable for my actions? How could I have less than full knowledge?
I have a reasonably well-informed conscience. I am a devout cradle Catholic striving to follow the dictates of my faith in all ways. I have no malice against you, nor do I have any crisis in my life such as long-term job loss. My children are all healthy and independent adults who are self-supporting except for my youngest son who is paying for college himself.
Motives are a source of understanding, but not an excuse. Are you arguing that “the ends justify the means?”
CCC 1789 Some rules apply in every case:
**- One may never do evil so that good may result from it; **
- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58
Yep. Why are you resistant to the concept?
Yes, mortal sin condemns us, but God gave us the sacraments to seek forgiveness. If someone refuses to be reconciled wouldn’t that be further evidence of their evil intent? It would demonstrate that they do not feel that they are not guilty.
O
OneSheep
Guest
You bring up some excellent points, chefmonster. I will attempt to communicate a response that makes sense.
However, all humans are capable of blindness. The crowd that sent Jesus to the cross was blind, but it is unlikely all had the disability addressed here.
– I cut out a part here, because my response would be repetitive.—
)
(continued}
You make a valuable point. There is a quasi- “permanent” blindness found in what we call psychopaths and sociopaths, who for some reason have a disability in developing empathy. People who are trained to ignore pain or “man up” to pain will have trouble developing empathy.
However, all humans are capable of blindness. The crowd that sent Jesus to the cross was blind, but it is unlikely all had the disability addressed here.
We are “bound” by conscience, and by assertion. However, this does not mean that people are not blinded to their conscience, assertion, or anything else when it comes to desire and resentment. The character “gollum” in The Hobbit is an extreme example of blindness triggered by desire. Hitler is an example of blindness triggered by resentment and desire. So, we should indeed make the assertion of such “boundness”, but blindness has a way of over-riding such rules. People’s behaviors are rarely rational when it comes to anger and desire. Rationality is what happens when people take a step back and observe their appetites and triggered emotions. When blindness happens, people are not aware of the seriousness of the sin.
Exactly. When people engage reason, and the discipline to forgive, then the blindness subsides. Is it possible for a person to forgive, and yet still sin? Is it possible for a person to see the value of the self or other, yet still sin? In my viewing, I have never witnessed such a thing. 1733 is suggesting something that I have not found to occur. We are bound to forgive all people we hold something against. Can you think of an example of someone forgiving someone else and then committing sin against them? Such “forgiveness” would be rather shallow, incomplete, and the individual still blind. Do you see what I mean?
To me, any hurtful act is sin, and should be considered evil, IMO. No behavior is automatic, behaviors involve choice. However, appetites, emotions, and blindness are automatic. Arguably, too, denial is automatic. These are all part of our nature, our good nature.
Another good point. Let us go back to the question, “why did the person ‘allow’ himself to become blind to natural law?” Let’s also add “why did the person ‘allow’ himself to become blind to the value of his victim?” In my viewing, the answer is that such “allowance” would involve awareness, but the blindness has already been triggered. There is no such thing as “willful” blindness in the context of complete awareness. Even when we say “I turned a blind eye to…” we are making a choice out of ignorance if the action would lead to real harm, and we are not realizing the seriousness of such “willful” blindness.
– I cut out a part here, because my response would be repetitive.—
I’m a little confused here. If you have no malice against me, you would only steal from me because you are blinded by desire. In that case, there is a call for repentance from such sin, you would not be a “devout Catholic”. Did something get mixed up here? (me?
)(continued}
O
OneSheep
Guest
Chefmonster quotes, cont’d:
onesheep:
When I accuse someone of “making excuses for people”, I am speaking from the position of my conscience. My conscience says “the violator should be punished”, and I am closed-minded toward understanding the person’s actions or anything that may lead to the person not being punished. When I am in that mode, I am actually blind to the value of the person. My mind is set on punishment, not on correction, even though my mind says “this is what the person needs” in a quasi-objective way. Note: I am not dismissing the value of punishment.
Questions to be pursued: Why do people refuse to reconcile? Why would a person not feel guilty? My answers: because of resentment and the triggered blindness. Resentment leads to a desire to punish, i.e. “that person deserves the worst”, and such “worst” includes non-acceptance of the individual. A person may not feel guilt because of an automatic denial accompanying the “it is all their fault” resentment toward the other.
What is your opinion on this, why would a person refuse to be reconciled? Why do people “reject God”?
These are all great disciplines that we are to adhere to. However, the question we are discussing is the “full knowledge” aspect of sin. We can point to many acts and so forth and say that they are wrong, and they are so. But is any wrong done out of “full knowledge”? Blindness and/or ignorance are always a factor in sin, in my experience.
Am I resistant to a concept? Let me know which one. I am quite open to concepts.
When I accuse someone of “making excuses for people”, I am speaking from the position of my conscience. My conscience says “the violator should be punished”, and I am closed-minded toward understanding the person’s actions or anything that may lead to the person not being punished. When I am in that mode, I am actually blind to the value of the person. My mind is set on punishment, not on correction, even though my mind says “this is what the person needs” in a quasi-objective way. Note: I am not dismissing the value of punishment.
Questions to be pursued: Why do people refuse to reconcile? Why would a person not feel guilty? My answers: because of resentment and the triggered blindness. Resentment leads to a desire to punish, i.e. “that person deserves the worst”, and such “worst” includes non-acceptance of the individual. A person may not feel guilt because of an automatic denial accompanying the “it is all their fault” resentment toward the other.
What is your opinion on this, why would a person refuse to be reconciled? Why do people “reject God”?
L
laircy
Guest
Saw this quote the other day: “Teenagers are God’s revenge on mankind. Let’s see how YOU like it to have someone made in your own image to completely disobey you and deny your existence.”People knowingly and willingly reject God for the same reason they knowingly and willingly reject their human parents.
They have not learned humility and want to be the boss.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
But are all humans “capable” of being blind all of the time? That is what it would take for your premise to be correct. We would all have to be so overruled by desires that none of us could ever choose to resist a serious sin and none of us could have knowledge that it is a serious sin and all of this to the degree that no one could ever be culpable! Do you really believe that?
The fact that one man (or more) MIGHT be blinded is not proof that EVERY man would be blinded. Could one? Yes! But EVERY?
What separates man from animal if not our reason? Animals act according to how they are acted upon. See food, hunt and kill. Smell the time of estrus, mate. Feel threatened (even by the presence of one’s infant offspring), kill. Sense the cold, seek refuge. None of these is evil or good because they don’t have reason. They just are as they were created.
Mankind is “human” to the extent that he can use his reason to moderate his actions. Hasn’t our evolution as human beings been one primarily of intellect and reason? We are able to make clear choices.
Have you ever been strongly affected by emotions? Did you choose to murder, rape, steal?
This is why we are taught to “avoid temptation”. We avoid pornography so that lust cannot develop to a “blinding” level. We practice charity to avoid “blinding” selfishness. We can’t just allow our feelings to overpower us. It is our duty to always maintain our ability to choose wisely. This is why the Church forbids intoxication while alcohol itself is not forbidden. When we allow ourselves to become intoxicated by drink, lust, or selfishness, we are responsible for the results! They may be unintended results, but they occurred because we did not maintain the sober mind that is required as a child of God.
I was raped. Does the fact that I did NOT seek retribution or revenge mean I didn’t feel it as strongly as someone who did? I like to think it is because I do have a conscience. I do have a choice. I CAN CHOOSE THE GOOD IN THE FACE OF GREAT EMOTION AND GREAT EVIL! If I can choose Good then wouldn’t I be equally able to choose Evil?
I haven’t read “the Hobbit”, (Truly a mortal sin?
) As for Hitler, I would say this. The sheer vastness of his evil would leave me impossible to judge in an unbiased way. I don’t believe he was insane (which COULD relieve SOME culpability, MAYBE). I believe he was EVIL. I believe he knew precisely what he was doing at all times. He did it not because his hatred “blinded” him to the value of human life. He did it because he EMBRACED THE BELIEF THAT JEWS HAD NO VALUE! A man is not long held in the extreme level of emotion sufficient to excuse a reactionary killing on the spot, for instance. But to kill scores of millions and to subject them to extreme atrocities over a period of YEARS cannot be excused by any theory of blindness.Continued…
C
chefmomster2
Guest
We are called to rationality! This is the height of humanity, of love, of maturity. We are not always successful. “When” blindness occurs this may be exculpatory. But do you hold that this blindness MUST ALWAYS occur? If not, then there is the possibility of mortal sin.
I would hold that in a competent adult with a well-informed conscience who has reached not only physical maturity, but also spiritual and emotional maturity, the vast number would be highly unlikely to ever reach such a degree of blindness that such rashness could occur.
Yes! They do it all the time! I love my husband completely, fully and unconditionally. I try to please him, comfort him, and support him. But there are times I drive him crazy! I can be impatient, sarcastic, selfish,…He forgives me every time! But, sometimes…he is stubborn, selfish, thoughtless… and I forgive him. We’ve been doing it for 32 years now!
LOVE PERFECTS US…IT DOES NOT MAKE US PERFECT!
Blindness is not the cause of this. Sinfulness is the cause! I can sincerely and fully resolve not to sin. But, I do. And I seek forgiveness. And I resolve again. I forgive others who sin against me. They hurt me again. I forgive them…70x7! Perfection is the GOAL. We are not there yet and as long as we are not, we will sin. We are not blind, we are frail, but culpable.
Therein lies the rub! NO BEHAVIOR IS AUTOMATIC! If your statement is correct you are implying that there is a separation between what I will call “feelings” and acts. The Church holds that to be true also. Those “feelings” you describe come to us automatically. But since they are SEPARATE, they do NOT initiate an automatic ACTION. It is in that space between feeling and action that we make our choice. We CHOOSE the action! If this action is hurtful, by your definition, then it is sinful. If it is seriously hurtful, it is seriously sinful.
By definition you can’t be blind to natural law. It is imprinted in us. It is with us much like our DNA. It does not have to be learned or introduced. There is no allowance. Life is a value. Period. We know it like we know our names. Why does the abortion debate hinge on the question, “When does life begin?” Because if there is life, there is VALUE! As far apart as the two sides are, most would agree on this point.
I’m not trying to confuse you. (Although I sometimes confuse myself!) LOL I am trying to present a hypothetical case.I’m a little confused here. If you have no malice against me, you would only steal from me because you are blinded by desire. In that case, there is a call for repentance from such sin, you would not be a “devout Catholic”. Did something get mixed up here? (me?
I am not blinded. My Catholic faith tells me it is wrong. But, I’m bored. I want your money. I don’t know you. I don’t need the money. I want to show I can do it. It’s fun. It’s a challenge.
If I did steal your identity could you believe I was blinded? Devout Catholics sin every day, you know. They commit every one of the sins. Evil is an equal-opportunity infestation. I don’t get a pass by being devout.
(continued}
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Saw this quote the other day: “Teenagers are God’s revenge on mankind. Let’s see how YOU like it to have someone made in your own image to completely disobey you and deny your existence.”
C
chefmomster2
Guest
I brought it up only because you suggested that one’s motives should be considered. I don’t believe that this could provide a true impediment to full knowledge.
I believe that we cannot be fully objective. But, while in that mode, do you seek revenge? My guess is that you, like most of us, are CONFLICTED, not BLINDED. We all feel that. It is ok to feel that way. It is a natural response to hurt. But, we are rational beings. This means that we can take a step back and allow our passions to subside. Isn’t that what we teach our children? Don’t hit him. Go and see the teacher. Or the victim, “Stop! Don’t take the law into your own hands.”
I guess what I am saying is this:
Rational man is not ruled by the passions. We can think, act, delay, and consider. We are invested with an innate sense of basic values of Natural Law. We are invested with God’s grace, a conscience and understanding of good and evil. We use this knowledge and our rational abilities and our conscience to make choices for good.
But, we are imperfect and sinful. We don’t always choose good. We know true value, but we allow ourselves to sin which is always a denial of value. Sometimes, for some people, there is an inability to choose rightly. There is a lack of full knowledge and therefore, they may not be fully culpable for a seriously evil choice resulting in mortal sin. However, this is a rare situation. The fact that it CAN happen does not mean it ALWAYS happen. In fact, it does NOT always happen and many people commit mortal sins. They are fully culpable.
Will they go to hell? That is their choice. They are now separated from God. If they desire reconciliation, God’s mercy is available to all of us from saint to sinner, If they do not reconcile and God judges them to be responsible for mortal sin; they are allowed to remain in their chosen state of separation from God.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
I don’t think there is a simple reason for this. Ultimately it is the result of the sin of pride.
- They don’t feel they did anything wrong. (Their understanding is superior to God’s)
- They believe there’s “plenty of time for that”. (Their timing is superior to God’s)
- I’m basically good. (Their definition of a good life is superior to God’s)
- God knows I’m sorry. (Their idea of reconciliation is superior to God’s)
- Why? I’ll just sin again. (Their understanding of our state of sinfulness is superior to God’s)
Why would a person not feel guilty? (Assuming they ARE guilty…)
- Self-justification.
- Self-satisfaction.
- Insufficient empathy.
- Arrogant denial of guilt.
- Unwillingness to submit to God.
In the remaining sections: A=Abuser V=Victim
Resentment triggers bad feelings, not “blindness”.
Not necessarily. If I resent that you have something that I don’t have, that could urge me to get a better job, save for those items, etc.
This is “blaming the victim” mentality. The stealing is not an attempt to punish the victim. It is about coveting your neighbor’s goods. The covetousness itself is sinful. Stealing is a consummation of this sinfulness and is thus even more seriously sinful.
A feels no guilt because he doesn’t feel the has to respect V?
True, he can. But he is deluding himself.
So, let me summarize:
The A sees that the innocent V has something he likes.
He resents that the V has it and he doesn’t.
His unjustified resentment is the sin of covetousness.
A compounds his sinful covetousness by stealing, an even greater sin.
A allows this sinful state to persist and he decides that the V “deserves the worst”, a sin of hatred- 5th Commandment.
A determines, in his separated state from God, that V didn’t deserve to be valued as a person- 5th commandment
So, V deserved what he got and A is, in his own seriously sinful mind, guiltless?
There is just no room in your scenario to argue that his self-induced blindness, if it existed at all, would somehow relieve him of responsibility of mortal sin. His sin of covetousness was concomitant with his resentment. He was not blinded by a normal passion of man. He was blinded by his own sinfulness! His covetousness led him ever more deeply into sin…stealing, disrespect for others, devaluing another, and, arguably setting his own selfish needs before his God, creating an idol of what he had to possess. Mortal sin is the only result of such sinful thoughts and acts.
My brain is fried! :whacky: LOL I’ll answer this one later.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
That is the voice of Satan! Listening to him is a rejection al all good - God.
O
opusAquinas
Guest
It is the hardness of heart as God hardened the heart of pharaoh.
O
oldcelt
Guest
I’m sure that it has been mentioned in some way, but I think that the people who willingly reject God do so out of pain. The few that I know were deeply faithful people who had a horrid tragedy befall a loved one…they have never forgiven God.
Perhaps they will one day. But, that is the danger of believing that God intervenes in human existence…you have to accept the horrid with the good.
Perhaps they will one day. But, that is the danger of believing that God intervenes in human existence…you have to accept the horrid with the good.
N
ngill09
Guest
So much for free will.
F
fhansen
Guest
This is the Church’s understanding of it, from the catechism:
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The greatest danger of believing God never intervenes is rejecting God for once and for all. A Creator who is helpless is worthless…
- Status