Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[TheSeeker2014]

“Goodness is that which all things desire.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If it is our nature to seek goodness and God is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject God (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?

Believe it or not, I have came across many people out in the world that hate God and/or believe He is bad and would plain out choose right now to go to hell rather than heaven knowing they would burn forever because they plainly do not want to be around God. (although no one should believe in God and try to get to heaven because of the fear of hell)
But my point is that it is out there and from what I have heard from them, they just hate God or think He is wrong or bad and would rather go to hell forever rather than be around Him. And there is no convincing them or changing their mind. They know pretty much what any good Christian would; they just have their thoughts/beliefs.
Others just deny His existence for whatever reason. (fear)

 

[Vico]

…
As far as the “no longer able to receive communion” part, it seems that the “fallen away” has already predetermined that he doesn’t wish to receive communion anyway, right? The fact that he is not allowed to receive communion is moot to him. …

However, the inquiry here is on the whether or not anyone ever knowingly and willingly rejects God aspect of “why people sin”. …

In this post I am only responding to these things you said, I will return later when I can.

No, it states that the person “returns” which means he has decided to resume practicing the faith.

Really the topic accepts that people do knowingly and willingly reject God.

 

[OneSheep]

Also, I hope you read this entire document from Vatican II, but particularly this:

With the whole tradition of the church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers,
​

Okay, let us apply this to what happened at the crucifixion. First of all, did the crowd, Sanhedrin, and Roman authority freely and consciously reject God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers? It depends on the definition of “freely” and “consciously”. Their “freedom” was in the confines of their knowledge, which was limited, so no, not really free. Consciously? Well, they were conscious, but they were far from having a grasp of what they were doing.

preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way as in every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter.

Was the crucifixion God’s will? Whew! That is another topic. But let’s focus on the generalities. Killing of an innocent person is against God’s will. They did not know what they were doing, but yes, they killed Him.

Man perceives that this disobedience to God destroys the bond that unites him with his life principle: It is a mortal sin, that is, an act which gravely offends God and ends in turning against man himself with a dark and powerful force of destruction.

Did they perceive that this disobedience to God destroys the bond that unites them with Man’s life priniciple? No, they were crucifying Jesus under the principle that blasphemers are to be punished and/or destroyed. The idea that they were destroying a bond that unites was far, far, from their perception.

During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of " fundamental option"-as is commonly said today-against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered.

I am not familiar with the “fundamental option”, but let us examine with the definition that mortal sin occurs when a person knowingly and willingly chooses something gravely disordered, for whatever reason.

Did they crucify Jesus knowing that what they were doing was gravely disordered? No, they did not know this. In fact, they were thinking that what they were doing was quite “ordered” in the moment. They were punishing a blasphemer.

There is a bit of a contradiction in this section, “knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason.” The reason is that they are not knowing. So, if we are saying “for whatever reason” then we are including the reason that they are not knowing, but the “knowing” is part of the requirement in the first place. I know, it sounds confusing, but the passage is confusing and needs clarification. The crowd did not know what they were doing. They were choosing, unwittingly so.

(cont’d)​

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity. Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.

[/INDENT]vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

Did the crowd who hung Jesus lose charity? Well, Jesus forgave them. He showed us that God loves unconditionally. He showed us that God forgives unconditionally. How does a person “lose charity”? Does that mean that a person is no longer loved by God?

I am not casting doubt on the traditional concept of mortal sin. What I am saying is that I have never observed it happen, nor can I think of a scenario of how it could happen, but that can be discovered in the examples we are working on.

If the definition in the document you presented indicates that the crowd was guilty of mortal sin, then it self-contradicts, because they did not fall out of God’s charity. In addition, if they were not guilty of mortal sin, because they did what God willed, then there would be no reason for Jesus to ask for God’s forgiveness.

All very confusing.

This is what makes sense to me: The crowd, not having a clue that they were killing someone of great importance, was caught up in their mode of punishing a blasphemer and killed Jesus. God the Father, knowing that all this was going to happen before He even created man, was not in the mode of condemning man, because He loves us unconditionally. Jesus says, “forgive them, for they know not what they do” not as a plea for God to forgive (because God, as I know Him, never holds anything against us), but to show, from the cross, what it means to love, and forgive, unconditionally, as God loves us. In addition, He showed us a means to a deeper forgiveness: to understand why people sin in terms of their “not knowing”.

In other words, no one knowingly and willingly rejects God. People do not know what they are doing. We can understand all decision to sin in this light.

All told, this document from Vatican II does not clarify; indeed, it seems to make it all seem more confusing. I think that a single theologian or philosopher would create an explanation much more congruent, but since the document reflects a number of positions, congruency gets a little lost in the shuffle.

Thanks again. No need to respond to this one. The fornication scenario is much more pertinent. Yes, the topic “accepts” that we knowingly and willingly reject God, but this point is unproven. That is why we must find an example.

 

[OneSheep]

Believe it or not, I have came across many people out in the world that hate God and/or believe He is bad and would plain out choose right now to go to hell rather than heaven knowing they would burn forever because they plainly do not want to be around God. (although no one should believe in God and try to get to heaven because of the fear of hell)
But my point is that it is out there and from what I have heard from them, they just hate God or think He is wrong or bad and would rather go to hell forever rather than be around Him. And there is no convincing them or changing their mind. They know pretty much what any good Christian would; they just have their thoughts/beliefs.
Others just deny His existence for whatever reason. (fear)

Thanks for adding to the discussion! If a person hates God, then he somehow thinks that God has wronged him. If he thinks God is bad, then he does not know God.

In either case, they are either blind, ignorant, or both. They are far from “knowing and willing”, do you see what I mean?

There is always a way of changing people’s minds. It has to be done through love. I hear your frustration, though. Don’t give up! For starters, we can communicate that God forgives them, even if they reject Him.

They know pretty much what any “good Christian” would? Really? If they knew such, then they would not hate, not see anything but beneficence and love, right?

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps your confusion is because you’re focusing on Jesus’ true humanity and not remembering that he was also fully God. Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him, but That doesn’t take away Judas’ free will. If he had not done so, then Jesus would have known that and the story would have been different- but still within God’s plan for salvation.

What do you mean when you say that Jesus "wouldn’t have been able to see into Judas’ soul? He is God! He can do ANYTHING!

It is mentioned in my quote from Pope Benedict above.

“But the Gospels tell us that Satan entered into the heart of Judas. He yielded to a temptation from the evil one.”

Judas was not the devil himself. He chose to follow the temptation of Satan. He was under the influence of Satan, but Satan does not have the power to remove free will. Judas had a choice. There may have been a point where his choice became final and he could no longer change his mind, but the choice was still his.

No, I have always understood Jesus to be both man and God to the best of my ability

What I meant by "wouldn’t have been able to see into Judas’ soul? Is that as God he knew that Judas was the one who would be the betrayer, if he didn’t know for sure, he could not have been God. Judas knew it himself anyway because he had arranged it all before the supper, yet still asked "is it I Rabbi? and Jesus said “you have said so”…So then again, if they all heard this at the table, they all knew it would be Judas.
I do think Judas may have been able to change his mind, I’ve just learnt that Judas had never accepted Jesus as he called him Rabbi rather than Lord like the others.
He saw all that Jesus had done (I think) but didn’t believe he was the Lord.

Satan entering Judas’ heart always sounded like pocession to me, but it just means satan tempted him to take money for the arrest of a person he didn’t believe in anyway, but if he didn’t believe in Jesus why a change of heart, would it be deep down inside Judas knew the truth, but had a hard time accepting it? Sort of like how people today have a hard time accepting a belief in God.

Had satan entered simon’s heart too, when he denied Jesus, through fear he K&WRG too, but in a different way?

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Thanks for adding to the discussion! If a person hates God, then he somehow thinks that God has wronged him. If he thinks God is bad, then he does not know God.

In either case, they are either blind, ignorant, or both. They are far from “knowing and willing”, do you see what I mean?

There is always a way of changing people’s minds. It has to be done through love. I hear your frustration, though. Don’t give up! For starters, we can communicate that God forgives them, even if they reject Him.

They know pretty much what any “good Christian” would? Really? If they knew such, then they would not hate, not see anything but beneficence and love, right?

not always. you can know the same things and still have different opinions and perspectives.

I know there is always that chance of changing peoples minds… i said that phrase in refering to how dead set they are on their views beliefs and opinion about God. For them to hate Him doesnt mean they feel wronged by God. For some it is a power issues, others they do not agree or see right on how He deals with the world or how it was created. Others see Lucifer as being right in His rebellion and agree with His view about God. Lucifer also knows what every good christian knows and probably in some ways a little more but he still has his ideas

 

[OneSheep]

not always. you can know the same things and still have different opinions and perspectives.

So, a person can know that God loves him unconditionally, and provides all that he has, yet still hates God or thinks God is bad?

Fascinating. How could this have happened?

BTW, I pray often for people in the Middle East. Thanks for putting that on your posts!

 

[TheSeeker2014]

So, a person can know that God loves him unconditionally, and provides all that he has, yet still hates God or thinks God is bad?

Fascinating. How could this have happened?

BTW, I pray often for people in the Middle East. Thanks for putting that on your posts!

I already said how it can. If you want more details you are going to have to ask them. Lucifer it was the same circumstance. However if you do not understand it is ok, as it is hard for us to understand their view until you talk to them about it. ESp since we love God and agree with His ways and views.

Your welcome and glad to hear it. They really need it!

Have a great day!

 

[chefmomster2]

I’ve just learnt that Judas had never accepted Jesus as he called him Rabbi rather than Lord like the others.
He saw all that Jesus had done (I think) but didn’t believe he was the Lord.

May I ask where you learned that? Here is what I have learned:

From the NABRE: ‘Rabbi’: literally, “my great one,” a title of respect for teachers and leaders.

Jesus talks to the people about this term: Matthew 23: 8

• As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
  (Isn’t Christ the One Teacher, the true Rabbi?)

Mark 11: 21 Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.”

John 1: 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God;* you are the King of Israel.” 50 Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree?* You will see greater things than this.” 51 And he said to him, “Amen, amen,* I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

John 3: 1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.*
2 He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”

John 4: 31 Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.”

John 9: 1 As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

How would you explain the above uses of the word “Rabbi” by all of these different persons? Isn’t it more likely that it is a sign of respect which was just one of the many titles used for Jesus?

Satan entering Judas’ heart always sounded like pocession to me, but it just means satan tempted him to take money for the arrest of a person he didn’t believe in anyway, but if he didn’t believe in Jesus why a change of heart, would it be deep down inside Judas knew the truth, but had a hard time accepting it? Sort of like how people today have a hard time accepting a belief in God.

Had satan entered simon’s heart too, when he denied Jesus, through fear he K&WRG too, but in a different way?

I think that Satan is always at work when we are being tempted or when we sin. This happens to everyone, from Pope to parishioner! Judas was not unique in sinning nor in committing a grievous act. Even after he had done it, he could have been saved. The difference between Judas and Peter, besides the horror of Judas’ act, is that he succumbed to despair instead of confessing his wrong and trusting in the great mercy of God.

 

[Vico]

…

I am not familiar with the “fundamental option”, …

This is only on the fundamental option.

You can get familiar with the fundamental option right here, this is from Catholic Answers catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-fundamental-option-theory:The Pope condemned the fundamental option theory, but he admitted that it had some valid elements.

According to fundamental option theory, each person makes a deep and basic choice for or against God. Individual acts we perform may or may not be in accordance with that fundamental choice. For example, when a person who has made a basic choice in favor of God sins, this choice to sin is not in accord with his fundamental orientation in favor of God.

The key claims of fundamental option theory are that individual acts do not change our basic orientation and that only when our fundamental option changes against God do we fall out of a state of grace. A person can commit particular sins without losing a state of grace.

Historic Catholic theology would say that those sins which do not change our fundamental option are venial sins and that those sins which do change it are mortal sins. Whenever a person commits a mortal sin, he has changed his fundamental option and chooses to be against God; he loses the state of grace.

But this is not the way fundamental option theorists present their system. They typically claim that one can commit acts such as adultery, homosexuality, and masturbation, which the Church has always regarded as mortal sins, without changing one’s fundamental option. Some go so far as to imply that no single act of sin one commits changes one’s fundamental option; only a prolonged pattern of sinful behavior can do so.

The effect of fundamental option theory, when it is presented this way, is to minimize people’s awareness of mortal sin and the danger it poses to their souls. It was this teaching, which undermines what the Church always has taught concerning sin, that the pope condemned (Veritatis Splendor 65-70).

 

[Vico]

…

Here is the next question:

1. Why has he fallen away? (What was he thinking when he had done such “falling away”?)

(I know, you have no idea what he was thinking. Guess! Come up with some options if you like. Let’s find out if he really knew what he was doing.)

As far as the “no longer able to receive communion” part, it seems that the “fallen away” has already predetermined that he doesn’t wish to receive communion anyway, right? The fact that he is not allowed to receive communion is moot to him.

Here is another option, you can try this question: If a person says “I know I should resist because it is wrong, but I want this.” Why does he do what he knows is wrong? What is going on in his mind in terms of priority and gravity?

Yes, the appetites compel us to do things. However, in order to actually sin, there is some defectiveness, some lack of sensibility that goes into an act, against reason, as stated by St. Thomas Aquinas. We are born with a palette of drives, desires, and capacities. The key part of what we are discussing here is not the appetites themselves, but what is going on in the sinner’s mind, what he is thinking.
…
Yes, this is the Church’s explanation. However, the inquiry here is on the whether or not anyone ever knowingly and willingly rejects God aspect of “why people sin”. Let us move further with the questions I added above. …

This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the *will *to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made.

 

[OneSheep]

This is only on the fundamental option.

You can get familiar with the fundamental option right here, this is from Catholic Answers catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-fundamental-option-theory:The Pope condemned the fundamental option theory, but he admitted that it had some valid elements.

According to fundamental option theory, each person makes a deep and basic choice for or against God. Individual acts we perform may or may not be in accordance with that fundamental choice. For example, when a person who has made a basic choice in favor of God sins, this choice to sin is not in accord with his fundamental orientation in favor of God.

The key claims of fundamental option theory are that individual acts do not change our basic orientation and that only when our fundamental option changes against God do we fall out of a state of grace. A person can commit particular sins without losing a state of grace.

Historic Catholic theology would say that those sins which do not change our fundamental option are venial sins and that those sins which do change it are mortal sins. Whenever a person commits a mortal sin, he has changed his fundamental option and chooses to be against God; he loses the state of grace.

But this is not the way fundamental option theorists present their system. They typically claim that one can commit acts such as adultery, homosexuality, and masturbation, which the Church has always regarded as mortal sins, without changing one’s fundamental option. Some go so far as to imply that no single act of sin one commits changes one’s fundamental option; only a prolonged pattern of sinful behavior can do so.

The effect of fundamental option theory, when it is presented this way, is to minimize people’s awareness of mortal sin and the danger it poses to their souls. It was this teaching, which undermines what the Church always has taught concerning sin, that the pope condemned (Veritatis Splendor 65-70).

Thanks. Seems a bit formulaic, but I’ll study it a bit more when I get a chance.

 

[OneSheep]

I already said how it can. If you want more details you are going to have to ask them. Lucifer it was the same circumstance. However if you do not understand it is ok, as it is hard for us to understand their view until you talk to them about it. ESp since we love God and agree with His ways and views.

Your welcome and glad to hear it. They really need it!

Have a great day!

Hi Again,

What I am asking is “how does a person come to the point that he hates God?” (What happened?)

And

“How does a person come to the thinking that God is bad?”

Thanks for responding. Feel free to wildly speculate!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico.

When you say “this person”, then I am a little worried that you have a specific person in mind, and we may come to a point where you do not think you can speculate. Let’s try to make this a “John Doe” sort of quest, okay?

This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the *will *to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made.

Okay, let me get this right. In this scenario, he is choosing between his spouse and rejoining the Church, but he enjoys the intimacy with his spouse.

Why would he want to stop the intimacy with his wife? This seems a bit odd. Does he love her? Is it all about sex? Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? Does he have a prayer life? Is his wife opposed to marriage in the Church, and that is why he is having to choose between one and the other? Does he experience God in his spouse? Is God somehow present in their relationship, without their knowing? Whew, so much to cover. Let me try to simplify the question based on a number of assumptions.

Let’s say that the spouse cares nothing about God and wants to hear nothing of it, and he truly wants to rejoin the Church. However, he is living in sin.

1. Does he believe he is living in sin, does he see that his relationship with his spouse somehow compromises his relationship with the Father?
2. Is he thinking, “What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”. Or, is thinking, “This is no big deal, God loves me anyway.” It sounds like he is putting sex, (assumption) as a priority over relationship with God; why does he have this priority?

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico.

When you say “this person”, then I am a little worried that you have a specific person in mind, and we may come to a point where you do not think you can speculate. Let’s try to make this a “John Doe” sort of quest, okay?

Okay, let me get this right. In this scenario, he is choosing between his spouse and rejoining the Church, but he enjoys the intimacy with his spouse.

Why would he want to stop the intimacy with his wife? This seems a bit odd. Does he love her? Is it all about sex? Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? Does he have a prayer life? Is his wife opposed to marriage in the Church, and that is why he is having to choose between one and the other? Does he experience God in his spouse? Is God somehow present in their relationship, without their knowing? Whew, so much to cover. Let me try to simplify the question based on a number of assumptions.

Let’s say that the spouse cares nothing about God and wants to hear nothing of it, and he truly wants to rejoin the Church. However, he is living in sin.

1. Does he believe he is living in sin, does he see that his relationship with his spouse somehow compromises his relationship with the Father?
2. Is he thinking, “What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”. Or, is thinking, “This is no big deal, God loves me anyway.” It sounds like he is putting sex, (assumption) as a priority over relationship with God; why does he have this priority?

Actually it is the choice between enjoying pleasure and returning to the sacraments, not rejoining the Church.

Why do you need so many questions answered? It is enough that the person knows that what is done is wrong, because that is what learned in catechism, and then freely chooses to do it.

I can make some answers up.

Why would he want to stop the intimacy with his wife? - Since there is not a valid marriage, it is to stop sinning gravely, and allow a return to the sacraments.
Is opposition to marriage in the Church why he must choose between one and the other? - No. This is not about eventuality but about the present. (The marriage process takes time.)
Does he love her? - Yes.
Is it all about sex? - No.
Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? - No.
Does he have a prayer life? - Yes.
Does he experience God in his spouse? - No, they are not in a state of grace.
Is God somehow present in their relationship, without their knowing? - Yes, God always helps us even when we are not in a state of grace.

1. Does he believe he is living in sin, does he see that his relationship with his spouse somehow compromises his relationship with the Father? - Yes, that was given.
2. He is thinking, “What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”.

Sex has a priority over the relationship with God, because he is inclined to sin due to lust, given in the original post.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Hi Again,

What I am asking is “how does a person come to the point that he hates God?” (What happened?)

And

“How does a person come to the thinking that God is bad?”

Thanks for responding. Feel free to wildly speculate!

Ok you seem very similar to this one person I have come across before on this website so This will be my last answer whether you understand it or not or accept it or not and it is as blunt as I can make it.

I told you from what I have asked people who do hate God . NOTHING HAS TO HAPPEN. People observe through the scripts… and many do agree with lucifer. Nothing has to happen to them to decide to hate God because of how He has worked through History or for them to agree with Lucifer’s view. I am really not sure why you are so dead set on “something happened to them”.
Also there is no evolution to a person “coming to thinking that God is bad” with many people on this topic. they look and make a decision.

There are people out there like this. And I do know that it is difficult for people to understand who do love God and have not talked to these kind of people themselves.

Unless you were asking about people not like this with your questions. If so I cannot answer because I have not had those kind of answers.

 

[OneSheep]

Ok you seem very similar to this one person I have come across before on this website so This will be my last answer whether you understand it or not or accept it or not and it is as blunt as I can make it.

I told you from what I have asked people who do hate God . NOTHING HAS TO HAPPEN. People observe through the scripts… and many do agree with lucifer. Nothing has to happen to them to decide to hate God because of how He has worked through History or for them to agree with Lucifer’s view. I am really not sure why you are so dead set on “something happened to them”.

Well, I have never observed otherwise, but I am quite open to an example of such. Whenever I have heard of someone “hating God”, they do so in ignorance. They do not know God. They are hating a false image. Just as those who hung Jesus hated Him, they do not know what they are doing. If you do not want to explain, that is fine. People hate for a reason, not for the sake of hating. Do you ever hate for the sake of hating? Something has always triggered my own hate.

If someone hates, do you hold it against them, or do you forgive?

Also there is no evolution to a person “coming to thinking that God is bad” with many people on this topic. they look and make a decision.

There are people out there like this. And I do know that it is difficult for people to understand who do love God and have not talked to these kind of people themselves.

How do you feel toward “these kind of people”? You must have encountered “those kind of people”. I am very interested in why they could possibly think that God is bad.

A priest once told us, “If a person perceives that Jesus is vengeful, cruel, unforgiving, or some other aspect that He is not, that person is better off rejecting that image of Jesus.”

Indeed, if a person thinks that God is bad, then they do not have a clue who God is. If they reject a “bad God”, they are knowingly and willingly rejecting a false image.

Unless you were asking about people not like this with your questions. If so I cannot answer because I have not had those kind of answers.

No, I am asking about “those people”. I would like to ask further questions, because they might provide the counterexample I am looking for, but I respect your wishes to end the conversation, if you so choose.

Thanks again for responding. Are you okay? It sounds like you may have been having a bad day. We all have bad days.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi again Vico! I am responding tonight because I don’t think I will be able to get back on here for a couple days.

Actually it is the choice between enjoying pleasure and returning to the sacraments, not rejoining the Church.

This is a little confusing.
1, So, he wants to “return to the sacraments”? Why?

Why do you need so many questions answered? It is enough that the person knows that what is done is wrong, because that is what learned in catechism, and then freely chooses to do it.

See, there you go again. We all do this when we are in the “did he violate?” mode! When you use the word “enough”, you are referring to “enough to be culpable”, but remember, we are trying to determine if he is K&WRG, not trying to determine if he did a violation of some kind. We already know he violated the rules, he is fornicating.

So, he knows that the Church says what he was doing is wrong.

1. What does he think, does he think he is doing something wrong, or does he see no harm in his fornication? Wait, you answer later, I think. Often, kids do not take ownership of this “wrong”, which is unfortunate. That is not the case here.

I can make some answers up.

Why would he want to stop the intimacy with his wife? - Since there is not a valid marriage, it is to stop sinning gravely, and allow a return to the sacraments.
Is opposition to marriage in the Church why he must choose between one and the other? - No. This is not about eventuality but about the present. (The marriage process takes time.)
Does he love her? - Yes.
Is it all about sex? - No.
Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? - No.
Does he have a prayer life? - Yes.
Does he experience God in his spouse? - No, they are not in a state of grace.
Is God somehow present in their relationship, without their knowing? - Yes, God always helps us even when we are not in a state of grace.

Ah, I get it. This is probably the “rule rather than the exception” now, right? It is in my neck-of-the-woods. Its like pulling teeth to get these kids to get married, seriously! But I know the mindset. Perhaps we all do.

1. Does he believe he is living in sin, does he see that his relationship with his spouse somehow compromises his relationship with the Father? - Yes, that was given.

1. Okay, going with your “given”, though, (which is quite rare) the Church teaches that in his sin, he is choosing death versus life, and so is his spouse. Why would he rather choose death than life?

1. He is thinking, “What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”.

I guess it is still the same question, why would he choose death, for both of them, rather than life?

4, Does he value his life? His spouse’s life?

Sex has a priority over the relationship with God, because he is inclined to sin due to lust, given in the original post.

Yes, you did, thanks for pointing that out again, and thanks for your patience, too, Vico. I have no idea how this is going to turn out.

 

[Vico]

…
See, there you go again. We all do this when we are in the “did he violate?” mode! When you use the word “enough”, you are referring to “enough to be culpable”, but remember, we are trying to determine if he is K&WRG, not trying to determine if he did a violation of some kind. We already know he violated the rules, he is fornicating.
,

Uh. It is about full consent because the material act is there, the gravity, and the knowledge.