Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[chefmomster2]

To OneSheep:

Would you agree that to disprove your thesis that “People NEVER commit mortal sin.” I must show that** in at least one instance **your thesis is incorrect?

Just to give us an endpoint to aim for…

 

[oldcelt]

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am becoming that most people do not reject God, but their former vision of God. That could be rolled up as rejecting religion rather than God.

 

[tonyrey]

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am becoming that most people do not reject God, but their former vision of God. That could be rolled up as rejecting religion rather than God.

Only fanatics believe their vision of God is infallible! They reject God because they put themselves first…

 

[oldcelt]

Only fanatics believe their vision of God is infallible! They reject God because they put themselves first…

I don’t understand what that has to do with what I said, since I said that I don’t think that most people reject God, but religion (one group’s interpretation of God).

 

[OneSheep]

NOT AGREED This is about the order of things. Another post.

NOT AGREED We would have FAR fewer trials if this were so. The guilty would ALWAYS confess to be punished and relieve their consciences.

I’m a little confused about “the order of things”. One qualifier is that no conscience is exactly the same as another. Evidence: variety of answers to moral dilemmas. Have you heard of the train scenarios? Conscience formation is a life-long process. I will concede that given enough time and exposure to life, (and revelation) I think that any two individuals could eventually develop carbon-copy consciences.

NOT AGREED/SPECIAL OBJECTION They must be considered, but they are not always present. Isn’t this at the root of our disagreement? To win your argument you must show that your personal observation holds sway or we are at an impasse. This is NOT my observation and, I believe, not the opinion of our Church, but I won’t presume to speak for her.

The theft example is fine. It doesn’t really matter. But I am not quite ready. IMHO we need to resolve at least the issue of the order of things. What happens first, etc.

Yes, this is the root of our disagreement. I say that it never happens, and you do. Like I said, I’m a little confused about the “order of things”, but we can work that out when we discuss the example.

To OneSheep:

Would you agree that to disprove your thesis that “People NEVER commit mortal sin.” I must show that** in at least one instance **your thesis is incorrect?

Just to give us an endpoint to aim for…

Okay, but I request one little detail for the example. Please, do not pick a Biblical figure. Adam, for instance, is given super-human quality, that of omniscience. When Biblical figures are used, absence of evidence is treated as evidence of omniscience. Let’s talk about people or hypotheticals that we can speculate about without the restriction of Biblical framing.

You do not have to abide by my request; a hypothetical is best.

 

[OneSheep]

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am becoming that most people do not reject God, but their former vision of God. That could be rolled up as rejecting religion rather than God.

Very true. I would add that my saying people “reject God” is simply a judgment on my part. If I were to actually ask a person, “do you think you rejected God when you did that?” most of the time the person would say they did not think they were rejecting God.

I will add one more angle to the discussion here. A priest once told our class that If a person is considering belief in Jesus, but sees Jesus as a merciless, cruel individual, then that person would be better off not becoming Christian. Thus, the importance of giving people a clear message about the face of Jesus.

How many people have you known who present Jesus as a vengeful figure? It is quite common.

 

[OneSheep]

If I gave another example you’ll just say it’s blindness, or lack of empathy…

Well, we’d have to see. Besides, just because I say it does not make it so. It really helps to find all the possibilities yourself, simpleas. Don’t take my word for it. This is shadow work, remember? We all have different shadows.

When I think about it, one thing we can run up against is if/when you say “I don’t know” and then I am tempted (and give in) to filling in the blank. I need to not do this, otherwise, it becomes about me and my conclusions. I will try harder to avoid filling in the blank.

I have seen people’s lack of empathy first hand, so I know people think about others differently, they didn’t hate each other,(they’d say it, but I don’t think they meant it deep down) they just thought each was worthless in their eyes.

So every sin is in effect a fault in our conscience, so we could never knowingly and willingly reject God…But very easily reject each other. But then rejecting one another is also rejecting God, that’s if people believe in the one God of the universe and not a God they have created to meet their needs…

…And that they believe God is in the other person. And that they are not blinded to such a belief…

As far as every sin being a “fault of the conscience”, this depends on where we draw the line as far as “this is a matter of conscience” vs. “this is a matter of empathy” or “this is a matter of awareness/perception” etc. The definitions would probably have to be carefully lined out to be discussed in a fruitful way.

Some people really do hate, don’t they Simpleas? I have hated people. I have seen people as worthless without really hating too. The difference may be this: seeing a person as expendable vs seeing that a person’s disposal is deserved, or a “good”. I have experienced all of these.

 

[chefmomster2]

Like I said, I’m a little confused about the “order of things”, but we can work that out when we discuss

This is a little bit like my stimulus-response explanation. For instance, when in the process does the blinding occur? Our conversation has sometimes been like trying to hit a “moving target”. I’ll explain more in another post.

You do not have to abide by my request; a hypothetical is best.

No problem! I was intending to use Mr. Average, more or less. The “everyman”.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep:

In my observation, there is never full knowledge, nor full consent (because consent also has a knowledge component).

I am going to agree with this “overlap” of knowledge and consent after reading this quote from the CCC.

CCC1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Basically, according to the RCC, knowledge refers to one knowing that the act is sinful according to God’s law or that it is considered sinful by the Church. (One need not agree with the view that it is gravely sinful, but rather he knows that it is taught to be a grave sin by the Church.)

Consent refers to having enough deliberation so that one can make a personal choice.

Here are the definitions of the Church from the CCC.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

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.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.** But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. **The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

CCC1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factor.

I believe that these definitions are most important in our discussion. We have to agree on what they “are” to know when they do not exist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am becoming that most people do not reject God, but their former vision of God. That could be rolled up as rejecting religion rather than God.

Not really.

Rejecting one’s former vision of God can be a purely cleansing process, in which case you would not necessarily be rejecting religion but rather purifying one’s vision of God. Many saints have gone through this process and in their writings on spirituality have shared their experiences of radical transformation in their experience of God.

Of course if you reject all visions of God, that would be rejecting religion and God.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t understand what that has to do with what I said, since I said that I don’t think that most people reject God, but religion (one group’s interpretation of God).

The vast majority of people in the world do not reject religion…

 

[RCCB]

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am becoming that most people do not reject God, but their former vision of God. That could be rolled up as rejecting religion rather than God.

That is exactly the point and my own experience. I have no problem with the idea or potential of God. But that potential in not reflected in religion and I can no longer ‘suffer’ the intellectual double think that is the theological creation of religious tradition.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That is exactly the point and my own experience. I have no problem with the idea or potential of God. But that potential in not reflected in religion and I can no longer ‘suffer’ the intellectual double think that is the theological creation of religious tradition.

Wildly lashing out, are we?

 

[simpleas]

Well, we’d have to see. Besides, just because I say it does not make it so. It really helps to find all the possibilities yourself, simpleas. Don’t take my word for it. This is shadow work, remember? We all have different shadows.

When I think about it, one thing we can run up against is if/when you say “I don’t know” and then I am tempted (and give in) to filling in the blank. I need to not do this, otherwise, it becomes about me and my conclusions. I will try harder to avoid filling in the blank.

…And that they believe God is in the other person. And that they are not blinded to such a belief…

As far as every sin being a “fault of the conscience”, this depends on where we draw the line as far as “this is a matter of conscience” vs. “this is a matter of empathy” or “this is a matter of awareness/perception” etc. The definitions would probably have to be carefully lined out to be discussed in a fruitful way.

Some people really do hate, don’t they Simpleas? I have hated people. I have seen people as worthless without really hating too. The difference may be this: seeing a person as expendable vs seeing that a person’s disposal is deserved, or a “good”. I have experienced all of these.

One need only switch on the 24 hour news to see the hatred we humans have for one another. Take the current events happening in Africa. I’m sure there is a lot of hatred for Boko Haram, and their leader Abubakar Shekau.

When Shekau says something like this :

*“I enjoy killing anyone that God commands me to kill - the way I enjoy killing chickens and rams,” he said in the video clip released just after Boko Haram had carried out one of its deadliest attacks, in January 2012, killing more than 180 people in Kano, northern Nigeria’s largest city.

He believes that he his doing Gods will, even he doesn’t (it would seem) believe he is rejecting God, the way we would, because he doesn’t see his God in people of different faiths, unless they convert to his faith. (not the true Islamic faith)*

 

[chefmomster2]

Very true. I would add that my saying people “reject God” is simply a judgment on my part. If I were to actually ask a person, “do you think you rejected God when you did that?” most of the time the person would say they did not think they were rejecting God.

I will add one more angle to the discussion here. A priest once told our class that If a person is considering belief in Jesus, but sees Jesus as a merciless, cruel individual, then that person would be better off not becoming Christian. Thus, the importance of giving people a clear message about the face of Jesus.

How many people have you known who present Jesus as a vengeful figure? It is quite common.

One of the things that religion or a set system of beliefs gives us is limits, boundaries and definitions. It gives us a set of principles by which to guide our lives. So, if we are faithful to a specific faith, such as Catholicism, we are called to obey its precepts.

The definition of “knowledge” in the case of mortal sin is relatively simple. One must know that it is defined as a mortal sin by Christ, through His Church. That’s it. The Church tells me that stealing is a sin. I am aware of this fact. Therefore I have sufficient knowledge.

Rejection is also defined: rejecting God’s love and forgiveness, or in one word, His mercy. If we refuse to acknowledge that stealing is sin, refuse to have this view changed, or knowing this view continue to steal we are not open to love or forgiveness. We reject God.

If I claim to love you and continually make choices that I know are displeasing to you and this continues in the relationship, our relationship will fracture and break. That is similar to sin. Our sins first fracture our relationship of love with God. If these sins are serious, we lose the relationship. This loss is a direct result of rejecting God. Mortal sin IS A REJECTION OF GOD when chosen despite knowledge.

(I am talking only of KNOWLEDGE here and assuming for the discussion that there is CONSENT.)

Heaven, Hell and Purgatory by Pope St. John Paul II
God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. **But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. **

 

[tonyrey]

That is exactly the point and my own experience. I have no problem with the idea or potential of God. But that potential in not reflected in religion and I can no longer ‘suffer’ the intellectual double think that is the theological creation of religious tradition.

1. Where is that potential reflected?
2. How do you know “intellectual double think” is the theological creation of all religious tradition?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I do as well. However, it would appear that more than a few Catholics actually believe that this is indeed the case and that it why the majority of human beings will perish.

We have no opinion on who is saved and who isn’t. The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of means and the fullness of truth by which men may be saved. It is the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. To the extent one recoginzes these truths as existing in the Church and who still refuse to join communion with her, to that extent they bear and carry a serious burden. But just who or how many maliciously reject the truth only God can know. We suspect though, that the numbers are large.

I do think it safe to say that there will be no Sophists in heaven. Only the humble, the meek, the obedient will enter. The proud and the arrogant will find no dwelling there.

Linus2nd

 

[OneSheep]

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

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.

We can use these to speculate whether a particular sin is/is not “mortal” once we figure out if a person in the example you give “knowingly and willingly rejected God”. Here is a NT application of “knowledge”, or lack of it. Jesus forgave the unrepentant who were crucifying an innocent man. Capital punishment is against God’s law, but Christ forgave them, and the people responsible “did not know what they were doing”. The people certainly thought they knew what they were doing: they were punishing a blasphemer. We do not need to continue with this example, because this example does not work toward proving your point, we need to find examples that appear to prove yours.

The people of Boko Haram, mentioned by Simpleas, have no idea that they are destroying something of value to God, that they are violating God’s law in this way. They may find it unconcionable to not take revenge against those affilitated with the people who brought about mass killings of members of Boko Haram. Indeed, they may see it as “God’s law” to carry out such vengeful killings of Christians and others who oppose them. The people of Boko Haram are blinded by resentment and hate.

This in no way, as you accurately point out, excuses anyone from application of consequence. Application of consequence is a separate process from discovery. The Boko Haram responsible for attrocities should be brought to trial, as should those who committed atrocities against Boko Haram members. Sentencing should fit the crimes committed. And, hopefully, there will also be some restorative justice taking place, for that will bring reconciliation. Punishment generally does not.

No problem! I was intending to use Mr. Average, more or less. The “everyman”.

Thanks. I look forward to more difficult applications of “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” (sinning, etc.).

 

[OneSheep]

He believes that he his doing Gods will, even he doesn’t (it would seem) believe he is rejecting God, the way we would, because he doesn’t see his God in people of different faiths, unless they convert to his faith. (not the true Islamic faith)

Exactly. This is a person who believes in God, yet he thinks he is doing God’s will. Does everyone who thinks they believe in God have a clear understanding of God? Obviously not.

If he is finding joy in such killing, as he would animals, then he is not seeing God in certain people, and he seems to have little respect for the value of the life in animals either. (hunters I know find no joy in the killing, they find joy in a good shot, though). I am quite certain he finds joy in destroying what he sees as evil, it gives him a feeling of control, and he is satisfying his own desire for vengeance (punishment of those who persecuted his movement and/or supported such persecutors).

The ancient Israelis, too, saw fit to kill populations in villages and saw it as “God’s will”, even though the people were not a threat. “Thou shall not kill” has always had application to people of value. Shekau would not likely kill people of his “own faith” because those people are people of value, they are the “ingroup”. “Thou shall nots”, applied to the* ingroup* and many people today see it the same way, and they see it is so through example. “Crime is only crime when you do it to your people.” The Roma find it a crime to steal from each other, but not from non-Roma, and this view of crime applies to many people. “It’s okay to steal from those people, just don’t get caught.”

If a person “knows” that a sin is “mortal”, yet says “it does not apply here” or “I don’t care about what the Church says is a sin”, they are very limited in terms of “knowing”. As observers, we can say that the sinner is committing crimes against God, rejecting God, true, but in the case I am describing, the sinner has little notion of who God is, especially His presence in everyone. To the degree that a person does not know God’s love, he does not know God, and has little understanding of the depth of value of His creatures.

 

[simpleas]

Exactly. This is a person who believes in God, yet he thinks he is doing God’s will. Does everyone who thinks they believe in God have a clear understanding of God? Obviously not.

If he is finding joy in such killing, as he would animals, then he is not seeing God in certain people, and he seems to have little respect for the value of the life in animals either. (hunters I know find no joy in the killing, they find joy in a good shot, though). I am quite certain he finds joy in destroying what he sees as evil, it gives him a feeling of control, and he is satisfying his own desire for vengeance (punishment of those who persecuted his movement and/or supported such persecutors).

The ancient Israelis, too, saw fit to kill populations in villages and saw it as “God’s will”, even though the people were not a threat. “Thou shall not kill” has always had application to people of value. Shekau would not likely kill people of his “own faith” because those people are people of value, they are the “ingroup”. “Thou shall nots”, applied to the* ingroup* and many people today see it the same way, and they see it is so through example. “Crime is only crime when you do it to your people.” The Roma find it a crime to steal from each other, but not from non-Roma, and this view of crime applies to many people. “It’s okay to steal from those people, just don’t get caught.”

If a person “knows” that a sin is “mortal”, yet says “it does not apply here” or “I don’t care about what the Church says is a sin”, they are very limited in terms of “knowing”. As observers, we can say that the sinner is committing crimes against God, rejecting God, true, but in the case I am describing, the sinner has little notion of who God is, especially His presence in everyone. To the degree that a person does not know God’s love, he does not know God, and has little understanding of the depth of value of His creatures.

I don’t think any of us has a clear understanding of God. Shekau has invented his own religion/God based on what he believes is what that religion/God wants
.
Like you say he is satisfying his own desire for vengeance, not sure if he would not kill one of his own. But if the man has desire to protect his own, because he must feel a pain of hurt/anger, he may have empathy…But this empathy is locked up and only shows for his own kind, but it could be expressed to others if he so wished?

We are soley responsible for our actions, unless we are proven to be clinicly insane. Is Shekau insane? Or does he thrive in his power to do as he wishes, because his God tells him to.

Ok so when we are taught and read what is written by scripture and the church concerning “mortal” sin, unless we go deep into understanding why something is a “mortal” sin then we can’t really “know” how we are separating ourselves from God, because just being told something and reading a certain text doesn’t explain how certain sins “offend” and “turn us away” from God. We can’t see God, but we see each other, and can observe what harm some sins can inflict on one another.