Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[davidv]

What is the Truth?

Truth = Jesus.
truth = that which corresponds to reality. These truths can be know through the use of right reason and via revelation from God.

I didn’t say that advances have changed truth into untruth.

That is what I implied from it being brought up. I think it is a red herring.

I was considering the medical side of advances. That we know alittle more now about why some, not all, actions humans can commit have reasons behind them, and not that people sin because they hate God, or their fellow man.

Take a person who does a very grave deed, there had been some who act out of charactor, and have been found to have brain tumors that affected their mind/conscience.
This would not have been known ages before now. So would have been seen as a grave sin, K&WRG.

A grave sin then is still a grave sin now. Medical advances cannot change the gravity of a sin.

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: "Yes, sin is irrational. The difference here is that the person himself is irrational, he does not know the truth, and he behaves in ways that are both in line with what he thinks and not in line. He thinks that he is bound and not bound. When we say that sin is irrational, we mean that it goes against a certain set of reasons that we see as true. When we are talking about a man who is irrational, a person who does not know the truth but thinks he does and behaves according to an untruth that he thinks is true, he himself is irrational, we are talking about the person not the sin. The irrationality of sin is not in reference to the person, it is in reference to the act itself characterized as against reason as we know it.
  A. All sin is opposed to reason. All sinners are opposed to reason in their actions. Irrational (adj.) definition: not logical or reasonable (not incapable or reasoning.)
• You wrote: "Yes, sin is an act contrary to reason. “Reason” is in the eye of the beholder, you and I, the community, the Church. If the sinner does not share in the “reason”, that is, he personally is irrational, then he is far from anything I can call “full knowledge”. We get back to the question Vico, did the crowd who hung Jesus commit a mortal sin? You would probably say yes. Yet, they did not know what they were doing. They believed an untruth, that Jesus was not God, not a person of value, expendable. Their behavior was irrational, in our eyes, but rational in their own. And Jesus forgave them. I put a lot of weight on what happened at the crucifixion.
  A. Reason used here in the catechism is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is natural reason revealing natural moral law. This is what the dogmatic statements about moral and philosophical sin were about.
• You wrote: “You stated that the man tried to avoid sin and failed. This is an act against his own will. He did not want to fail.”
  A. At time T2 he first fails willfully. At a later time he, due to fear, wishes to make a change, but still does not have repentance because he could not receive absolution without a change in his lifestyle.
• You wrote: "Yes, the question is, does anyone ever knowingly and willingly choose something gravely disordered? I use the word “knowingly” in an all-inclusive sense, and you do not. Was he saying that an irrational person, believing untruths and not knowing God in a real way has “full knowledge”?
  A. Yes, the Church teaches that man does “knowingly and willingly choose something gravely disordered” which is mortal sin. If you choose a different definition of knowingly, then you are not referring to the definition of mortal sin which is the topic of the thread.
• You wrote: “All of this begs an example from JPII himself. What examples did he have in mind?”
  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. 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.
  vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

 

[Vico]

…

Part 2

• You wrote: "How does this apply to those who hung Jesus on the cross? Did they not do something gravely disordered? Yet, they did not know what they were doing, and Jesus forgave them, unrepentant. Do you know how JPII would have applied what he said to the crucifixion and what Jesus said from the cross? Are people who “do not know what they are doing” knowingly rejecting God? "

A. Catechism
Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death
597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388
All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391 Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392
​

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico! Nice to see your post!

• You wrote: "Yes, sin is irrational. The difference here is that the person himself is irrational, he does not know the truth, and he behaves in ways that are both in line with what he thinks and not in line. He thinks that he is bound and not bound. When we say that sin is irrational, we mean that it goes against a certain set of reasons that we see as true. When we are talking about a man who is irrational, a person who does not know the truth but thinks he does and behaves according to an untruth that he thinks is true, he himself is irrational, we are talking about the person not the sin. The irrationality of sin is not in reference to the person, it is in reference to the act itself characterized as against reason as we know it.
  A. All sin is opposed to reason. All sinners are opposed to reason in their actions. Irrational (adj.) definition: not logical or reasonable (not incapable or reasoning.)

Yes, to us what the man did was illogical, but he had reasons for his behavior. He was “willing to risk” based on some reason that has never been explained completely. These are the possibilities for this individual:

1. That he believed an acted on what we see as an irrational untruth, in that case he was not “knowingly” rejecting, in the common use of the word.
2. That he doubted, was unsure of, the truth; he behaved against truth, but when he did so he somehow thought that he had a chance of avoiding hell. He “sort of” knew the truth, and he doesn’t want to end up in hell, but to me, this is far from “full knowledge” and he does not have the reaction to this sin as he would a murder or a theft. His conscience is not reacting to his behavior, in that he does not see any real harm in his marriage, in fact, he sees the marriage as life-giving in some way. They love each other.
3. He totally believes the Church to be true, and wants to be in communion even though he says “I am not bound”, and he behaves completely against all he believes. This is irrational behavior, and definitely not “willingly” rejecting God in my use of the word.

It is interesting that this contentious issue (those not married in the Church) is currently being addressed by the hierarchy. Where I live, there are probably more Catholics with children who have not celebrated the sacrament of matrimony than the other way around. We need to bring these people back into the fold, and telling them that they have to refrain from conjugal relations is a non-starter. And why should we, if they really want to be in communion?

• You wrote: "Yes, sin is an act contrary to reason. “Reason” is in the eye of the beholder, you and I, the community, the Church. If the sinner does not share in the “reason”, that is, he personally is irrational, then he has far from anything I can call “full knowledge”. We get back to the question Vico, did the crowd who hung Jesus commit a mortal sin? You would probably say yes. Yet, they did not know what they were doing. They believed an untruth, that Jesus was not God, not a person of value, expendable. Their behavior was irrational, in our eyes, but rational in their own. And Jesus forgave them. I put a lot of weight on what happened at the crucifixion.
  A. Reason used here in the catechism is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is natural reason revealing natural moral law. This is what the dogmatic statements about moral and philosophical sin were about.

Exactly. The man we are talking about either did not know reason, doubted reason, or knew reason and behaved while unwillingly rejecting. That is why I have determined that the individual did not K&WRG. Yes, he sinned.

• You wrote: “You stated that the man tried to avoid sin and failed. This is an act against his own will. He did not want to fail.”
  A. At time T2 he first fails willfully. At a later time he, due to fear, wishes to make a change, but still does not have repentance because he could not receive absolution without a change in his lifestyle.

Here comes again “wishes to make a change”. This still does not spell out to me that he wants to reject God. Indeed, he intends to be back in communion, even though he continues to fail. I do not understand this “willingly fails”. He decided to separate from his spouse and failed. He lacks the skill of restraint. Skill involves “knowing” how to do something, or avoid doing. He wants to be in communion, and he wants to stay with his wife. The Church is working on it.

• You wrote: "Yes, the question is, does anyone ever knowingly and willingly choose something gravely disordered? I use the word “knowingly” in an all-inclusive sense, and you do not. Was he saying that an irrational person, believing untruths and not knowing God in a real way has “full knowledge”?
  A. Yes, the Church teaches that man does “knowingly and willingly choose something gravely disordered” which is mortal sin. If you choose a different definition of knowingly, then you are not referring to the definition of mortal sin which is the topic of the thread.

The Church has never come up with an example. It is says the definition of mortal sin, but it does not specifically say that man has ever knowingly and willingly rejected God. Indeed, I cannot come up with a scenario of a person knowingly and willingly choosing something gravely disordered. Because ignorance and/or blindness are essential in sin, “knowingly” is not a part of sinful behavior, in my observation. If you were to summarize what I am saying, as I requested many times, we would not be here again.

I get it, you do not understand my point of view. I don’t know why you are unwilling to simply disagree and shake hands on it. Is it easier to point out heresies and anathemas than to shake hands?

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

The “end run”, continued. BTW, Vico and I are not intending to do anything wrong by going over 1000 posts here. Neither one of us likely sees anything wrong with what we are doing. If we are doing something really wrong, then we do so without K&WRG.
"Vico:

• You wrote: “All of this begs an example from JPII himself. What examples did he have in mind?”

…For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered…

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

This is repetition of the words of JPII. It does not contain an example, in only contains assertions. Again, it is my observation that no one knowingly and willingly chooses something gravely disordered.

Part 2

• You wrote: "How does this apply to those who hung Jesus on the cross? Did they not do something gravely disordered? Yet, they did not know what they were doing, and Jesus forgave them, unrepentant. Do you know how JPII would have applied what he said to the crucifixion and what Jesus said from the cross? Are people who “do not know what they are doing” knowingly rejecting God? "

A. Catechism
Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death
597 The historical complexity of Jesus’ trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles’ calls to conversion after Pentecost.385 Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.386 Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: “His blood be on us and on our children!”, a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.387 As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:

. . . [N]either all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . [T]he Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.388
​

Yes, the people that hung Jesus were ignorant and blind. They did not K&WRG. Why is it so hard for people to see that this is always the case when people sin? Jesus set the example for us, “See, these people do not know what they are doing.” We can see this in all sin if we use the gift of understanding.

All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion
598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, “None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391 Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392

We profess to know Him, but indeed, to the degree we sin, we do not. Our denial is a matter of lack of awareness and/or blindness, which was the case at the foot of the cross, and is the same case for all of our sins today. When people delight in vices and sin, they do so without knowing what they are doing.

Humans do not want to be ignorant, humans want to love, and humans obey when it makes sense to do so, when their healthy, informed, consciences guide them to what is best.

Those are my observations, and continue to be so until someone comes up with the scenario of a counterexample. People do not knowingly and willingly reject God. I know, Vico, you disagree, and as I said before, I respect your position.

Now will you shake hands with me Vico, and together call it a draw? If people reading this thread have gained some understanding as to why people sin, then everyone has won.

God Bless your day, my friend.

 

[simpleas]

Truth = Jesus.
truth = that which corresponds to reality. These truths can be know through the use of right reason and via revelation from God.

That is what I implied from it being brought up. I think it is a red herring.

A grave sin then is still a grave sin now. Medical advances cannot change the gravity of a sin.

No red herring from me. I thought my question was relevent. If a person is affected mentality from a medical condition, and commits a grave sin then they are not fully responsible for the situation because their reason is impared.

 

[Vico]

…

The thread is not about if man sins mortally, but why. The Church teaching is that mankind knowingly and willingly rejects God, it is called mortal sin. St. Pope John Paul II wrote of those that mortally sinned: breaking the original covenant:
Committed after original sin, personal sins are conditioned by the state of inherited inclination to evil (“the spark or incitement of evil desire”), in a certain sense already at the very point of departure. However, this situation of inherited weakness does not cancel human freedom. Every actual (personal) sin is a real abuse of freedom, contrary to the will of God. …
Speaking about Adam’s sin, St. Paul describes it as “disobedience” (cf. Rom 5:19). The same is valid for every actual sin committed. Man sins by transgressing God’s commandment, therefore he is “disobedient” to God as supreme lawgiver. In the light of revelation this disobedience is at the same time a breaking of the covenant with God. God, as we know him from revelation, is the God of the covenant. Precisely as God of the covenant, he is lawgiver. He inserts his law in the context of the covenant with man, making it a fundamental condition of the covenant itself.

Thus it was in that original covenant, which, as we read in Genesis (cf. Gen 2-3), was violated “in the beginning.” This appears still more clearly in the relationship of the Lord God with Israel at the time of Moses. The covenant made with the Chosen People at the foot of Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 24:3-8) contains as its constitutive part the Commandments” the Decalogue (cf. Ex 20; Dt 5). They constitute the fundamental and inalienable principles of behavior of every person in regard to God and in regard to creatures, especially to human beings.

According to St. Paul’s teaching in his Letter to the Romans, these fundamental and inalienable principles of conduct, revealed in the context of the covenant of Sinai, are “written in the heart” of every human being, even independently of the revelation made to Israel. The Apostle wrote: “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them” (Rom 2:14-15).
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861029en.html

Christ mentions those that the scribes and Pharisees mortally sinned:
Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Fifth Ecumenical Council - Constantinople II, 553 A.D. condemned the idea that there is not eternal punishment of impious men.

IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration ( apokatastasis ) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.asp

 

[987mk]

The last time I told someone why I, a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic have rejected God, I received an infraction.

I’m not foolish enough to fall for this twice!

 

[Vico]

The last time I told someone why I, a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic have rejected God, I received an infraction.

I’m not foolish enough to fall for this twice!

What does that mean?

 

[Ben_Quincy]

1,000 posts.

Thank you for participating…