Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[simpleas]

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?

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleas
*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. *

The first line I wrote was after reading this : gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html. It sort of makes sense that if Judas hadn’t called Jesus Lord, then perhaps he hadn’t believed him to be so. The second line was me speculating that Judas had seen the miracles and heard the words, but wasn’t convinced. The others calling Jesus Rabbi, would be normal, because he was like a great teacher.

Yes, I agree with the second part you wrote, I just was thinking that Judas can be seen by some people to be the worst ever because of what he did, and it was wrong, he was sorry I think, but he did fall into despair, because he never accepted Jesus, so maybe believed he could not be saved. This to me is very much what we all go through in one form or another on our journeys.

Do you know where in the Gospel Peter asks for Jesus’ forgiveness?

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

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

Okay, the man knows that the Church says it is a sinful act, but we still have not determined if he knows what he is doing, in the way that Jesus used “know” during the crucifixion. We also do not know if he has knowingly and willingly rejected God, or even if that is a possibility, because we have yet to determine why he chose to sin even though he knew he was choosing death for himself and his spouse.

So, we will know a bit more once you answer the questions from my post 800. We will continue on the path, having the man “respond” for his questions, until the last question is answered. We will know that we are there when we get to the last question. In my experience, there is always a last question. I ask for your patience. It is worthwhile, believe me.

So, please answer question 1, 3, and 4. And yes, “make stuff up”. We are trying, for one thing, to figure out why they would want death rather than life. It makes no sense, right?

Thanks!

 

[davidv]

Okay, the man knows that the Church says it is a sinful act, but we still have not determined if he knows what he is doing, in the way that Jesus used “know” during the crucifixion. We also do not know if he has knowingly and willingly rejected God, or even if that is a possibility, because we have yet to determine why he chose to sin even though he knew he was choosing death for himself and his spouse.

So, we will know a bit more once you answer the questions from my post 800. We will continue on the path, having the man “respond” for his questions, until the last question is answered. We will know that we are there when we get to the last question. In my experience, there is always a last question. I ask for your patience. It is worthwhile, believe me.

So, please answer question 1, 3, and 4. And yes, “make stuff up”. We are trying, for one thing, to figure out why they would want death rather than life. It makes no sense, right?

Thanks!

A. Sin is an offense against God
B. Offending God is to reject Him
C. To sin one must know what one is is doing is a sin (sufficient knowledge) and do so willingly.
Conclusion: Any sin committed, whether venial or mortal, is to reject God, knowingly and willingly.

 

[Vico]

Okay, the man knows that the Church says it is a sinful act, but we still have not determined if he knows what he is doing, in the way that Jesus used “know” during the crucifixion. We also do not know if he has knowingly and willingly rejected God, or even if that is a possibility, because we have yet to determine why he chose to sin even though he knew he was choosing death for himself and his spouse.

So, we will know a bit more once you answer the questions from my post 800. We will continue on the path, having the man “respond” for his questions, until the last question is answered. We will know that we are there when we get to the last question. In my experience, there is always a last question. I ask for your patience. It is worthwhile, believe me.

So, please answer question 1, 3, and 4. And yes, “make stuff up”. We are trying, for one thing, to figure out why they would want death rather than life. It makes no sense, right?

Thanks!

You wrote 4: “4. Does he value his life? His spouse’s life?”

A. He values physical more than spiritual life but there is fear for the future. He values the spouses life, but the spouse is not really helping with avoiding sin. It will be better for both once married validly.

You wrote 3: “I guess it is still the same question, why would he choose death, for both of them, rather than life?”

A. This is the why sin question you are asking. He has an inclination towards sin. He has put himself into a situation of near occassions of sin. It is difficult to not fall into sin of lust and give scandal to his wife and others.

You wrote 1: “So, he wants to “return to the sacraments”? Why?”

A. So he will not go to hell.

You wrote: “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.”

A. To answer why, requires first to determine if it is a case referred to so we have excluded some cases of sin. We have a material sin, and knowledge that it is wrong, then we need willingness. Culpability is a conclusion that comes later. Enough refers to knowledge that it is wrong, and that it is personal choice, and I am saying we have enough for that, so we could consider why now. It is possible that a sin involving grave matter committed may be mortal or venial (or none, but excluded here), but that is not really pertinent to determining why one sins.

 

[OneSheep]

A. Sin is an offense against God
B. Offending God is to reject Him
C. To sin one must know what one is is doing is a sin (sufficient knowledge) and do so willingly.
Conclusion: Any sin committed, whether venial or mortal, is to reject God, knowingly and willingly.

Hi David, it sounds so cut-and-dried, but it becomes less so with closer examination. Try to follow me on this. There is nothing here against Catholic teaching, the only difference you will find is that of my observations. We may (probably) have different observations, that is.

To me, “A” must be clarified. Sin is an offense against God’s law, when viewed by a knowledgeable third person. The sinner actually may not know that the sin is against God’s law, which he would only “know” with his well-informed conscience; he has taken ownership of the law in his conscience. In my observation, people only sin when they do not know what they are doing. Sin is an act against reason.

B: Sufficient knowledge is knowing that it is against God’s law, which again runs into the conscience question. Does the person really have a grasp on the importance of the sin? For example, crucifying Jesus was a sin. Did they know they were rejecting God? No, they were acting on their misinformed consciences. Their punishment of Jesus was a decision of their consciences, and they did not know what they were doing. In addition, capitol punishment is a sin, is it not?

C. So, given that the crowd who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing, they were not sinning? In that case, sin never happens, because when people do harm to others, they do not know what they are doing.

People do not knowingly and willingly reject God when they sin, not only by lack of intent, but because they do not know what they are doing in the first place. People who do harm to others are not seeing the value of the victim’s well-being. If they did, they would not sin.

To reject God is to reject a loving entity of infinite value. A person who is not cognizant of His infinite value, and His presence of infinite value in all His sheep, does not know who they are rejecting. Yes, rejection happens, but it happens unwittingly. If that hit the “he is making excuses” button, please remember that there is a big difference between determining explanations and making excuses. Explanations, in themselves, excuse nothing.

If that all seems a bit weak, try to tackle this question, just for a different approach. What would the crowd who hung Jesus have to know in order to actually know what they were doing?

Thanks, David, keep it coming, we can address one thing at a time.

 

[chefmomster2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleas
*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. *

The first line I wrote was after reading this : gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html.

Be cautious of that website. It is a site run by ministers who declare, “We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.” In other words, it is not a Catholic site. That doesn’t make it “bad” but Protestant doctrine is not the same as RC doctrine. It is safer to pursue our answers on Catholic sites.

but he did fall into despair, because he never accepted Jesus, so maybe believed he could not be saved. This to me is very much what we all go through in one form or another on our journeys.

I think Judas fell into despair because he DID know what he had done! He knew with certainty that he had been responsible for the death of the one true Lord and Messiah. If he hadn’t believed in Jesus he wouldn’t have cared in the same way. He thought he would not be saved, that his sin was unforgivable. He rejected the loving forgiveness available from God. Yes, we all have doubts and feelings of unworthiness, but this does not mean that we don’t know who God is. We just haven’t come to understand Him fully nor trust Him at every moment.

Remember that Judas travelled with all of the apostles, Jesus, and the other disciples. He was hearing, learning and experiencing all of the same teachings that the other apostles did. Perhaps Judas did not use the word “Lord” in the Gospel stories we have, but there was very little information about Jesus except at the end of the Gospels. The absence of the word “Lord” does not prove anything about the state of Judas’ knowledge. Plus, as I showed, that was a very common title for Christ.

Do you know where in the Gospel Peter asks for Jesus’ forgiveness?

NABRE John 21: Jesus and Peter.*
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Notice how the Lord asks Peter to state His love three separate times? That parallels the three times that Peter denied Christ. The Church views this as Peter’s “rehabilitation”. It also indicates Christ’s forgiveness of him. After all, Jesus instructs him to begin his work as the leader of His Church.

I hope this helps!

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico, and thanks for the response!

You wrote 4: “4. Does he value his life? His spouse’s life?”

A. He values physical more than spiritual life but there is fear for the future. He values the spouses life, but the spouse is not really helping with avoiding sin. It will be better for both once married validly.

You wrote 3: “I guess it is still the same question, why would he choose death, for both of them, rather than life?”

A. This is the why sin question you are asking. He has an inclination towards sin. He has put himself into a situation of near occassions of sin. It is difficult to not fall into sin of lust and give scandal to his wife and others.

You wrote 1: “So, he wants to “return to the sacraments”? Why?”

A. So he will not go to hell.

So, we have all heard before the sort of glossing-over “He has an inclination towards sin”. Here, you are talking about the appetites. People have appetites, and they are inclined to fulfill them, yes. People do not sin for the sake of sin. However, the strongest “appetite” of all, in a rational, loving human is for life itself! A man I respect a great deal says that the strongest appetite is the desire to help others, but I think that such an observation is for those who appetite for life extends to the lives of others, which comes with maturity. So, let us get right down to the moment, to what is exactly going on in the man’s mind.

On the one hand, he wants the intimacy, on the other hand, he wants life. We have some cognitive dissonance going on here, because in choosing the intimacy, he is choosing death. So, given cognitive dissonance, which is quite unreasonable, and that he wants to follow Jesus, by intent, in the case of unresolved dissonance he is far from “knowingly” doing anything in the situation, he doesn’t even know what he knows, he is torn. And since he is intending to get it all resolved, we cannot possibly conclude that he is rejecting God because he has no intent to do so.

However, if he is like most people, he is resolving the cognitive dissonance by lessening the impact of “truth” in some way. Please choose one or more of the following going on in his mind, or supply an alternate:

1. “God will forgive me, we are going to get this all worked out. He knows where my heart is.”
2. “Yes, the Church says what I am doing is wrong, but lots of good people do what I am doing. The Church is a little off on this one. People who love God do not go to hell.”
3. “The Church does not want me to separate from my wife, that would be a sin.”
4. Who am I hurting by being intimate with the one I love? God still loves me, and we are very happy together. We want to stay together, and we are committed to each other."

You wrote: “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.”

A. To answer why, requires first to determine if it is a case referred to so we have excluded some cases of sin. We have a material sin, and knowledge that it is wrong, then we need willingness. Culpability is a conclusion that comes later. Enough refers to knowledge that it is wrong, and that it is personal choice, and I am saying we have enough for that, so we could consider why now. It is possible that a sin involving grave matter committed may be mortal or venial (or none, but excluded here), but that is not really pertinent to determining why one sins.

The problem here is still what is going on in the man’s mind, the “knowledge that it is wrong” part. You have presented a very special case, and it is quite interesting. It is the case where he has the full intention and is actively trying to return to the sacraments, but in the mean time is behaving in a way that is contradictory. He is saying “yes” and “no” at the same time. He may be K&W rejecting God, while simultanteously K&W building a relationship with Abba. So, do we look for a “net effect”? Do we try to determine a “net effect” in his “rejection” versus “joining”? Let us first determine exactly what is going on in his mind, so please pick one or more of the chooses above (1-4), or provide a different one.

Thanks! We are definitely getting somewhere! Please feel free to continue providing counterpoints to my assertions or observations, that is what this is all about.

 

[davidv]

Hi David, it sounds so cut-and-dried, but it becomes less so with closer examination. Try to follow me on this. There is nothing here against Catholic teaching, the only difference you will find is that of my observations. We may (probably) have different observations, that is.

To me, “A” must be clarified. Sin is an offense against God’s law, when viewed by a knowledgeable third person. The sinner actually may not know that the sin is against God’s law, which he would only “know” with his well-informed conscience; he has taken ownership of the law in his conscience. In my observation, people only sin when they do not know what they are doing. Sin is an act against reason.

B: Sufficient knowledge is knowing that it is against God’s law, which again runs into the conscience question. Does the person really have a grasp on the importance of the sin? For example, crucifying Jesus was a sin. Did they know they were rejecting God? No, they were acting on their misinformed consciences. Their punishment of Jesus was a decision of their consciences, and they did not know what they were doing. In addition, capitol punishment is a sin, is it not?

C. So, given that the crowd who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing, they were not sinning? In that case, sin never happens, because when people do harm to others, they do not know what they are doing.

People do not knowingly and willingly reject God when they sin, not only by lack of intent, but because they do not know what they are doing in the first place. People who do harm to others are not seeing the value of the victim’s well-being. If they did, they would not sin.

To reject God is to reject a loving entity of infinite value. A person who is not cognizant of His infinite value, and His presence of infinite value in all His sheep, does not know who they are rejecting. Yes, rejection happens, but it happens unwittingly. If that hit the “he is making excuses” button, please remember that there is a big difference between determining explanations and making excuses. Explanations, in themselves, excuse nothing.

If that all seems a bit weak, try to tackle this question, just for a different approach. What would the crowd who hung Jesus have to know in order to actually know what they were doing?

Thanks, David, keep it coming, we can address one thing at a time.

I believe it is as cut-and-dried as I presented it. Your observations are incomplete. Knowledge and the will are spiritual and are thus not available to be observed by human senses.

Your clarification of sin is actually a distortion as is it not equivalent to the Church’s definition.

CCC:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

Nowhere is law included in this definition.

Additionally, conscience is a judgment, not knowledge, further distorting the view.
CCC}1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform:

would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50

I won’t comment on the balance.

 

[simpleas]

Be cautious of that website. It is a site run by ministers who declare, “We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational.” In other words, it is not a Catholic site. That doesn’t make it “bad” but Protestant doctrine is not the same as RC doctrine. It is safer to pursue our answers on Catholic sites.

I think Judas fell into despair because he DID know what he had done! He knew with certainty that he had been responsible for the death of the one true Lord and Messiah. If he hadn’t believed in Jesus he wouldn’t have cared in the same way. He thought he would not be saved, that his sin was unforgivable. He rejected the loving forgiveness available from God. Yes, we all have doubts and feelings of unworthiness, but this does not mean that we don’t know who God is. We just haven’t come to understand Him fully nor trust Him at every moment.

Remember that Judas travelled with all of the apostles, Jesus, and the other disciples. He was hearing, learning and experiencing all of the same teachings that the other apostles did. Perhaps Judas did not use the word “Lord” in the Gospel stories we have, but there was very little information about Jesus except at the end of the Gospels. The absence of the word “Lord” does not prove anything about the state of Judas’ knowledge. Plus, as I showed, that was a very common title for Christ.

NABRE John 21: Jesus and Peter.*
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Notice how the Lord asks Peter to state His love three separate times? That parallels the three times that Peter denied Christ. The Church views this as Peter’s “rehabilitation”. It also indicates Christ’s forgiveness of him. After all, Jesus instructs him to begin his work as the leader of His Church.

I hope this helps!

Thanks for that, I never thought of the love question being compared to asking for forgiveness.

too.

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks for that, I never thought of the love question being compared to asking for forgiveness.

too.

Remember that sin is a lack or absence of love (rejection of God because HE IS LOVE!) The assertion of love is acceptance of love and therefore of God. (We call this reconciliation because it recommits our relationship, repairs it, reaffirms it, renews it. We are literally IN LOVE with God.)

This is why we talk about mortal sin as a rejection of God. By K&W choosing to do an unloving act, an act counter to God-Love, we are rejecting Him.

Our final judgment is about choice.

Did we reject God-Love by grievous acts of commission or omission of the Christian duty to live the Love that Jesus taught us?

Did we fully embrace our duties as loving Christians, living the Beatitudes, loving and assisting those in need as a fruit of our true faith, and seeking reconciliation when we failed?

Choosing Good -----> Choosing Love --------> Choosing God’s Will -----> Saying YES to God-Love! -----> Living in the Presence of Pure Love for Eternity

Rejecting God -----> Choosing to Be Unloving -----> Choosing Our Own Will —> Saying NO to God-Love! -----> Living in the Absence of the Presence of Pure Love for Eternity

This really answers the “Why” of this forum. We do it because we choose our actions according to our own will and not the Love of God. We are prideful we human beings. We think we know what’s best for us. We believe we are “independent” when we truly need to guidance of God.

I really enjoy our conversations. I hope you do too!

 

[Vico]

Good morning, Vico, and thanks for the response!

So, we have all heard before the sort of glossing-over “He has an inclination towards sin”. Here, you are talking about the appetites. People have appetites, and they are inclined to fulfill them, yes. People do not sin for the sake of sin. However, the strongest “appetite” of all, in a rational, loving human is for life itself! A man I respect a great deal says that the strongest appetite is the desire to help others, but I think that such an observation is for those who appetite for life extends to the lives of others, which comes with maturity. So, let us get right down to the moment, to what is exactly going on in the man’s mind.

On the one hand, he wants the intimacy, on the other hand, he wants life. We have some cognitive dissonance going on here, because in choosing the intimacy, he is choosing death. So, given cognitive dissonance, which is quite unreasonable, and that he wants to follow Jesus, by intent, in the case of unresolved dissonance he is far from “knowingly” doing anything in the situation, he doesn’t even know what he knows, he is torn. And since he is intending to get it all resolved, we cannot possibly conclude that he is rejecting God because he has no intent to do so.

However, if he is like most people, he is resolving the cognitive dissonance by lessening the impact of “truth” in some way. Please choose one or more of the following going on in his mind, or supply an alternate:

1. “God will forgive me, we are going to get this all worked out. He knows where my heart is.”
2. “Yes, the Church says what I am doing is wrong, but lots of good people do what I am doing. The Church is a little off on this one. People who love God do not go to hell.”
3. “The Church does not want me to separate from my wife, that would be a sin.”
4. Who am I hurting by being intimate with the one I love? God still loves me, and we are very happy together. We want to stay together, and we are committed to each other."

The problem here is still what is going on in the man’s mind, the “knowledge that it is wrong” part. You have presented a very special case, and it is quite interesting. It is the case where he has the full intention and is actively trying to return to the sacraments, but in the mean time is behaving in a way that is contradictory. He is saying “yes” and “no” at the same time. He may be K&W rejecting God, while simultanteously K&W building a relationship with Abba. So, do we look for a “net effect”? Do we try to determine a “net effect” in his “rejection” versus “joining”? Let us first determine exactly what is going on in his mind, so please pick one or more of the chooses above (1-4), or provide a different one.

Thanks! We are definitely getting somewhere! Please feel free to continue providing counterpoints to my assertions or observations, that is what this is all about.

None of the above.

He is not willing yes and no at the same time. No man can have two masters. He is willing no. He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it.

It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).

Cognitive dissonance theory indicates stress as a motivating factor, but does not predict when a person makes up their mind, which is the volitional moment. There may be dissonance but the will to repent has not occurred yet, which must be all or nothing.

He knows that what he does is sinful (he was taught this), and has chosen it personally. Therefore it is time to consider why.

 

[RockyBaileys]

Though we were made in the image of God, and thus have the natural inclination to favor and do what is good, original sin and free make us susceptible to evil and deceit.

People sometimes choose to reject God simply because they can. God wants us to do what is good but he also wants us to freely choose the good, ESPECIALLY if the desire to turn towards evil is very strong.

Temptation is powerful. Satan is powerful. When people turn away from God it is simply a display of imperfection in their faith. I’ve sinned plenty of times; we all have. We’re not strangers to the power of sin.

Turning towards and accepting God is much harder than it sounds. It is easier said than done. Though we may find an abundance of happiness in the Lord, the lure of sin always seems much more immediate and gratifying.

 

[simpleas]

Remember that sin is a lack or absence of love (rejection of God because HE IS LOVE!) The assertion of love is acceptance of love and therefore of God. (We call this reconciliation because it recommits our relationship, repairs it, reaffirms it, renews it. We are literally IN LOVE with God.)

This is why we talk about mortal sin as a rejection of God. By K&W choosing to do an unloving act, an act counter to God-Love, we are rejecting Him.

Our final judgment is about choice.

Did we reject God-Love by grievous acts of commission or omission of the Christian duty to live the Love that Jesus taught us?

Did we fully embrace our duties as loving Christians, living the Beatitudes, loving and assisting those in need as a fruit of our true faith, and seeking reconciliation when we failed?

Choosing Good -----> Choosing Love --------> Choosing God’s Will -----> Saying YES to God-Love! -----> Living in the Presence of Pure Love for Eternity

Rejecting God -----> Choosing to Be Unloving -----> Choosing Our Own Will —> Saying NO to God-Love! -----> Living in the Absence of the Presence of Pure Love for Eternity

This really answers the “Why” of this forum. We do it because we choose our actions according to our own will and not the Love of God. We are prideful we human beings. We think we know what’s best for us. We believe we are “independent” when we truly need to guidance of God.

I really enjoy our conversations. I hope you do too!

Thanks, I do enjoy what you write, it helps with my pondering mind

There was one thing I thought about regarding forgiveness. I know Jesus gave the power to Peter to forgive or not etc. Jesus asking Peter did he love him, came only after Jesus’ resurrection, Peter saw the “proof” if you like, therefore he would no longer doubt, or deny Jesus. I know we have heard the word and that “happy are those who believe and have not yet seen” comes to mind. That’s fine, But if much importance is put on asking God for forgiveness, even if you believe you love God, how was this not something clearly focused upon by Jesus in his conversation with Peter?
Almost like saying, Peter was the example, when he sees Jesus risen from the dead, he doesn’t ask for his forgiveness right out, as a clear example of how we should ask for forgiveness. Instead Jesus asks does he love him.

Your answer will be appreciated

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks, I do enjoy what you write, it helps with my pondering mind

There was one thing I thought about regarding forgiveness. I know Jesus gave the power to Peter to forgive or not etc. Jesus asking Peter did he love him, came only after Jesus’ resurrection, Peter saw the “proof” if you like, therefore he would no longer doubt, or deny Jesus. I know we have heard the word and that “happy are those who believe and have not yet seen” comes to mind. That’s fine, But if much importance is put on asking God for forgiveness, even if you believe you love God, how was this not something clearly focused upon by Jesus in his conversation with Peter?
Almost like saying, Peter was the example, when he sees Jesus risen from the dead, he doesn’t ask for his forgiveness right out, as a clear example of how we should ask for forgiveness. Instead Jesus asks does he love him.

Your answer will be appreciated

Hello!

If something wasn’t mentioned, it isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. The Gospel writers could not possibly write down every single word or action that occurred in the life of Christ.
John 25: Conclusion.
24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
The authors selected what was included based on themes that were important. Obviously asking for forgiveness is fundamental to our salvation. It is mentioned frequently and strongly. It just wasn’t mentioned directly in this instance. In my mind this is more an example of:

• The forgiveness of even the most grievous wrongs.
• The experience of reconciliation.
• The reaffirmation of Peter’s continuing role in the Church despite his imperfections.
• If you are correct and it was not actually a part of Peter’s reconciliation, perhaps it is an even greater example for us: that we must forgive others, whether they ask for our forgiveness or not! Reconciliation as the renewal of the relationship requires the coming together of both people, but the granting of forgiveness requires only one.

It is important to look at the entirety of the Gospels to find the various teachings which together form the foundation of our faith. No single verse holds all of the details. Even the Great Commandment took two!
Mark 12: 29-31
Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Have a blessed day!

 

[rinnie]

Hi Rinnie!

Were you thinking that my questions were about making excuses for people? I’m sorry, we had already covered that ground earlier in the thread, you probably missed it.

Excuses are not the same as explanations. This thread is about explanations. “Making excuses” implies that the goal is to escape punishment of some kind. Sin has its own consequence, there is no excusing ourselves out of the consequences.

Understanding is not the same as condoning or excusing. It is an important distinction to make. If I ask, “Why did the lion kill the antelope?” there is no aspect of “excuse” in the human mind, at least not ordinarily. The same objective approach can be applied to human behaviors, but a person has to let go of the “making excuses” aspect, which is part of the “Don’t go there” resistance I referred to in a post I made today.

So, when you get a chance, perhaps we can work on one of the examples you presented.
For now, I gotta run. I might be able to get back to this tonight.

Excuses or explanations are pretty much the same when it comes to sin, don’t you think.

I can say I cheated on my husband because I did not feel he gave me enough attention, what is the difference between explaining why we sinned, or making excuses why we sinned, when the point is we indeed sinned?

It all goes back to not why you sinned, or having good reasons for sinning, we are told we are not to sin.

So while you could say I truly understand why you cheated on your husband, you were not getting what you should get out of a marriage, and the next person says I don’t care if you were not getting enough attention at home, you should not cheat, the final outcome is this, You sinned and must repent that sin, rather you have a good reason, or excuse or understanding of why someone sinned, Sin is sin,

You have a women who cheats who has the best husband in the world who gives her all the attention in the world who still cheats, whom you cannot understand why, or one who as I explained why, she got no attention and felt loved for the first time in years and cheated, it makes no difference, Its still mortal sin. And must be repented.

Or to make it more simple 2 women same situation, both get no love at home, find someone to give them love, one cheats one does not. One committed sin, one did not.

Its not that we cannot understand why people sin, we can all relate to it, But truly makes no difference why, wrong is wrong no matter what good reason you can give.

 

[OneSheep]

He is not willing yes and no at the same time. No man can have two masters. He is willing no. He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it.

Good morning, Vico. Again, we have some clarification to do, then. This investigation is making a turn!

You wrote, on earlier posts:

Vico:

(from several posts)
Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? - No.
Does he have a prayer life? - Yes
1: “So, he wants to “return to the sacraments”? Why?”
A. So he will not go to hell.

Which gives the indication that he wills “yes”, but his sin says “no”.

1.So, are you saying that he thinks he wills “yes”, but he is kidding himself, he is lying to himself?, that deep down, he is really saying “no”?

1. If so, would you like to modify some of those statements you made about him (above) on earlier posts, to reflect what he is thinking "deeper down? After all, we are only talking about scenarios. Feel free to change a previous characterization.

It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).

Yes, he definitely seemed to “fall away” from the faith. It is my observation that for such “falling away”, there was not much to “fall from” in the first place. It does not seem as if he had a committed relationship with Abba. Your other statements indicate that his will has changed, that he is moving (slowly) towards repentance. Remember, this thread is about whether anyone ever K&WRG. If you want to talk about the before-the-will-to-repent time, that would be a different investigation. What we are studying now is what appears to be a time of decision to repent. I look forward to your answer to question #1 above.

Cognitive dissonance theory indicates stress as a motivating factor, but does not predict when a person makes up their mind, which is the volitional moment. There may be dissonance but the will to repent has not occurred yet, which must be all or nothing.

He knows that what he does is sinful (he was taught this), and has chosen it personally. Therefore it is time to consider why.

I gave you these options for what is going on in his mind:

1. “God will forgive me, we are going to get this all worked out. He knows where my heart is.”
2. “Yes, the Church says what I am doing is wrong, but lots of good people do what I am doing. The Church is a little off on this one. People who love God do not go to hell.”
3. “The Church does not want me to separate from my wife, that would be a sin.”
4. Who am I hurting by being intimate with the one I love? God still loves me, and we are very happy together. We want to stay together, and we are committed to each other."

Your answer:

None of the above.

I asked you to please give me an alternate if it was none of those. Please, provide an alternative thinking going on in his mind.

There is another alternative: He is not thinking about it at all. Is he avoiding thinking about it. Is that what is going on?

Thanks, Vico, this is really a great thread!

 

[OneSheep]

Nice to hear from you again, Rinnie! I hope you had a nice break.

Excuses or explanations are pretty much the same when it comes to sin, don’t you think.

Let me give an example. If a lion kills a gazelle, we do not ordinarily use the word “excuse” to explain why she did it. “Excuse” is a word that ordinarily has more to do with getting out of some consequence. If when addressing a human behavior, we use the word “excuse” instead of “explanation” we are stating why the behavior should not be penalized or punished. When we use “explanation”, we are simply seeking to understand why the behavior happened.

That is my own observation of common usage, but that does not mean that I am saying that is the only way that people use the words. To you, the words are synonymous?

I can say I cheated on my husband because I did not feel he gave me enough attention, what is the difference between explaining why we sinned, or making excuses why we sinned, when the point is we indeed sinned?

It all goes back to not why you sinned, or having good reasons for sinning, we are told we are not to sin.

Rinnie, in my view, every behavior has some good intent. So, if I said " I did not feel he gave me enough attention" so that I could somehow blame him, and therefore avoid feeling guilty myself, then yes, that is making an excuse. I would probably be trying to avoid punishment by my own conscience, by God, or by anyone else. The full statement implied is thus: “I did not feel he gave me enough attention, it is his fault, he deserved it.”

An explanation looks more like this: “I was not getting my need for attention met, so I felt lonely and looked for attention elsewhere. I was blaming my husband for wronging me, but I was not taking the steps to resolve the situation by other means. Also, I had negative feelings about my husband, and that blocked my own willingness to resolve the situation.” Now, upon editing this, I can say that even this “explanation” can have the intent of being an excuse. It would have to be delivered with the tone of remorse or at least lack of anxiety about judgment in order to sound more like an explanation. It really boils down to underlying motive for the statement. There would have to be an implied “I am not saying this to avoid judgment.”.

So while you could say I truly understand why you cheated on your husband, you were not getting what you should get out of a marriage,…

Well, I would not say that. But you are half right. I would say, “I understand why you cheated on your husband, you wanted more out of your marriage.” Depending on my relationship with the speaker, I would either leave it at that and let them respond to my listening, or if it was someone closer I might ask how the husband is doing, how he felt, whether you were feeling any guilt, etc. When Jesus said, “do not sin again” to the adulterer, was his tone chastising, requesting, or advising? I say, a mixture.

and the next person says I don’t care if you were not getting enough attention at home, you should not cheat, the final outcome is this, You sinned and must repent that sin, rather you have a good reason, or excuse or understanding of why someone sinned, Sin is sin,

Whew! Well, I would have to be feeling mighty confident to be that much in-your-face. I would never say “I don’t care”, though. Really, I would only say these things in this way when my “judging” trigger has been touched off. I would ask a lot of questions, instead. People don’t need my pointing finger, they need someone to listen to them, someone to guide them. It really depends on a lot of interpersonal dynamics.

You have a women who cheats who has the best husband in the world who gives her all the attention in the world who still cheats, whom you cannot understand why, or one who as I explained why, she got no attention and felt loved for the first time in years and cheated, it makes no difference, Its still mortal sin. And must be repented.

Or to make it more simple 2 women same situation, both get no love at home, find someone to give them love, one cheats one does not. One committed sin, one did not.

Its not that we cannot understand why people sin, we can all relate to it, But truly makes no difference why, wrong is wrong no matter what good reason you can give.

Yes, wrong is wrong, no matter what the explanation. The woman who cheats, in my observation, does not know what she is doing, though. The “full knowledge”, in my view, doesn’t happen if “full knowledge” is all-inclusive. She is not K&WRG.

There are no excuses for sin. There are explanations for why people sin. I am not saying this to impose my definitions, though.

 

[Aloysium]

This thread has been sounding like a bad ChickLit Romance Novel.
Maybe people enjoy it, but is it such a good idea to wallow in sin, talking about it endlessly?
Go to confession and be done with it.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi David, thanks for responding!

I believe it is as cut-and-dried as I presented it. Your observations are incomplete. Knowledge and the will are spiritual and are thus not available to be observed by human senses.

So, are you saying that people have a will that they do not know? In other words, “I will to be with God” delivered in complete sincerity, may be totally incorrect? Interesting. Sounds like some denial might be occurring?

Your clarification of sin is actually a distortion as is it not equivalent to the Church’s definition.

Please let me know what part of my clarification is a distortion.

Nowhere is law included in this definition.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Additionally, conscience is a judgment, not knowledge, further distorting the view.

Originally Posted by CCC}1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians
would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50
I won’t comment on the balance.

I put in bold all the words that involve knowledge. I did not say that the conscience is knowledge. I said that the conscience is informed, and informing of our consciences is a life-long endeavor. Yes, the conscience involves judging also.

I would really like to know your answer to this question:

What would the crowd who hung Jesus have to know in order to actually know what they were doing?

Have a great day, David.

 

[davidv]

Hi David, thanks for responding!

So, are you saying that people have a will that they do not know?

No, I did not say that.

In other words, “I will to be with God” delivered in complete sincerity, may be totally incorrect? Interesting. Sounds like some denial might be occurring?

Not what I wrote nor can be concluded from what I wrote.

Please let me know what part of my clarification is a distortion.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

I put in bold all the words that involve knowledge. I did not say that the conscience is knowledge. I said that the conscience is informed, and informing of our consciences is a life-long endeavor. Yes, the conscience involves judging also.

I would really like to know your answer to this question:

What would the crowd who hung Jesus have to know in order to actually know what they were doing?

I have no idea. Why do you say that the object of Jesus statement is the crowd and not someone else?

Have a great day, David.

Thank you