Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

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?

This is not like the “psychopaths” you have heard about, I think. His empathy is blocked toward those he resents, he doesn’t realize it has happened. He sees his enemies’ lack of worth as a given, not a matter of changed perception on his part. Most people will have the same changed perception toward him, most will see this guy as “evil”.

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.

It is my contention that the “clinically insane” are still responsible for their actions. Nobody moves the hands of others to do crime (okay, there may be some wierd exception). So, yes he is responsible, but that fact of responsibility does not explain why he does what he does.

I think Shekau is blinded by resentment, and perhaps desire for power also blinds him.

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.

True, but there is more to it than that. There is the aspect of knowing the seriousness of the rules, and that is where there are major disconnects. Such knowing involves experience and empathy. .

 

[chefmomster2]

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 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.

Let’s use this as our example, OneSheep.

Let’s define our person as a cradle Catholic, practicing and with full sacraments. He went to catechism and generally strives to follow Christ. He has begun an adulterous affair with a Catholic co-worker. They met a year ago and they fought their mutual attraction for many months. They even talked about how terribly wrong having an affair would be. Eventually, though, they became involved.

Step one is to determine if the man is committing mortal sin. (Later we will consider whether the committing of mortal sin is a rejection of God.)

Mortal sin.

CCC 1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

CCC 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.

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 283. What do we mean by “grievous matter” with regard to sin?
A. By “grievous matter” with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that** we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.**

In our example, we would evaluate these items as follows:

1. The sin is grievous.
   Yes, adultery is explicitly prohibited in the commandments.
2. Sufficient reflection:
   Adultery is clearly taught to be a mortal sin. As a faithful Catholic, he can be expected to know this at the time he commits the sin.
3. The man must choose it despite such knowledge.
   In your example, "He says “it does not apply here” or “I don’t care about what the Church says is a sin”.

Therefore, he commits mortal sin. All three requirements for a sin to be mortal have been met.

 

[OneSheep]

Let’s use this as our example, OneSheep.

Let’s define our person as a cradle Catholic, practicing and with full sacraments. He went to catechism and generally strives to follow Christ. He has begun an adulterous affair with a Catholic co-worker. They met a year ago and they fought their mutual attraction for many months. They even talked about how terribly wrong having an affair would be. Eventually, though, they became involved.

Step one is to determine if the man is committing mortal sin. (Later we will consider whether the committing of mortal sin is a rejection of God.)

In our example, we would evaluate these items as follows:

1. The sin is grievous.
   Yes, adultery is explicitly prohibited in the commandments.
2. Sufficient reflection:
   Adultery is clearly taught to be a mortal sin. As a faithful Catholic, he can be expected to know this at the time he commits the sin.
3. The man must choose it despite such knowledge.
   In your example, "He says “it does not apply here” or “I don’t care about what the Church says is a sin”.

Therefore, he commits mortal sin. All three requirements for a sin to be mortal have been met.

Let’s look again at “sufficient reflection” and “knowledge of the sinful character of the act”.

1. Why does the couple commit adultery even though they “know” that it is a sin?(This is the most important question.)
2. Generally speaking, who has a better “knowledge of the sinful character of the act” (a more informed conscience), a virgin male, or an unwed mother?
3. And, therefore, who has a much better understanding of what “knowingly and willingly” rejects God?

 

[Aloysium]

Let’s look again at “sufficient reflection” and “knowledge of the sinful character of the act”.

1. Why does the couple commit adultery even though they “know” that it is a sin?(This is the most important question.)
2. Generally speaking, who has a better “knowledge of the sinful character of the act” (a more informed conscience), a virgin male, or an unwed mother?
3. And, therefore, who has a much better understanding of what “knowingly and willingly” rejects God?

Interesting questions. How about?:

1. That is the natiure and power of eros. Perhaps Adam was not deceived as was Eve, but rather unable to bear separation, chose to die with her.
2. I don’t think one can generalize. We do grow through our experiences, sometimes recognizing sin only after the fact…
3. God knows.

 

[chefmomster2]

Let’s look again at “sufficient reflection” and “knowledge of the sinful character of the act”.

1. Why does the couple commit adultery even though they “know” that it is a sin?(This is the most important question.)

They may not care or they may justify the act. In choosing adultery, the couple determines that they are the final judges of their own act. Considering their intentions is situational ethics, a system of belief that says morality is based on the individual conscience rather than the objective moral law of the Church.

Adultery is always objectively evil. Knowledge is defined by the Church. For our man to be in a state of mortal sin, he must know it is seriously sinful. The commandments and the Church are explicitly. Adultery is grave sin. The situation does not change the nature of the sin. It is grave no matter why it is committed.

1. Generally speaking, who has a better “knowledge of the sinful character of the act” (a more informed conscience), a virgin male, or an unwed mother?

Knowledge of the sinful character of the act is knowledge of its opposition to God’s law. One does not need to experience sin in order to know the action has “a sinful character”.

Our man knows that adultery is a severe objective evil. When he reflects on his desire to commit adultery, he is in the moment of “sufficient reflection”. He determines the Church teaching. Since the act is evil, he must not commit it for any reason.

CCC: II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 …There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1. And, therefore, who has a much better understanding of what “knowingly and willingly” rejects God?

Nowhere does the Church require that we positively assert our rejection of God. By definition mortal sin is a formal and complete break in our relationship with God- a rejection of God himself. The Church tells him that by committing this sin He will be rejecting God. If He does not wish to reject Him, he must not choose to commit the sin. CHOOSING TO COMMIT THE SIN IS CHOOSING TO REJECT GOD.

 

[simpleas]

This is not like the “psychopaths” you have heard about, I think. His empathy is blocked toward those he resents, he doesn’t realize it has happened. He sees his enemies’ lack of worth as a given, not a matter of changed perception on his part. Most people will have the same changed perception toward him, most will see this guy as “evil”.

It is my contention that the “clinically insane” are still responsible for their actions. Nobody moves the hands of others to do crime (okay, there may be some wierd exception). So, yes he is responsible, but that fact of responsibility does not explain why he does what he does.

I think Shekau is blinded by resentment, and perhaps desire for power also blinds him.

True, but there is more to it than that. There is the aspect of knowing the seriousness of the rules, and that is where there are major disconnects. Such knowing involves experience and empathy. .

I think…

He does what he does because “God” has told him…Or he uses his “God” as his excuse to do as he pleases…

 

[OneSheep]

Interesting questions. How about?:

1. That is the natiure and power of eros. Perhaps Adam was not deceived as was Eve, but rather unable to bear separation, chose to die with her.
2. I don’t think one can generalize. We do grow through our experiences, sometimes recognizing sin only after the fact…
3. God knows.

Cool. You want to take a stab at it too!

1. As far as the “nature and power of Eros” we both know that we are referring to God, right?
2. Well, we can generalize a little. In general, people learn from their experiences. A person with first-hand experience is going to know more about the downfalls, the harm, of sin. Of course, there will be plenty of exceptions, but I don’t think that is a misplaced generalization. We can agree to disagree, though.
3. Thanks for pointing out that the question needed to be clarified. Not that God doesn’t know, but I was aiming the question toward "which person is going to have a better understanding of “knowingly rejecting God”?

 

[OneSheep]

They may not care or they may justify the act.

In the interest of my time (I need to run) and brevity in general, I will start with this.

If they do not care, then they are clearly not cognizant of the sinful character of the act, that is, the harm it does. If committing a mortal sin is simply a matter of “now you know it is a sin, if you violate it, then you have committed it” then I agree, the adulterous act is a “mortal sin” in your definition. The CCC does not specify whether “knowing sinful character of the act” is simply a matter of having heard the words. In my view, the person would have to be of “informed conscience”, which is a much deeper knowing, in order to have violated their conscience. People murder, in battle, without violating their consciences. That is an evil done in order for good to happen.

How would they “justify the act”? Again, I am not talking about whether these people do or do not “deserve” some consequence. We are trying to figure out why they did what they did, and they may have justified it. What would they be saying to justify their act?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . As far as the “nature and power of Eros” we both know that we are referring to God, right?. . .

I would think that “falling in love” plays a huge role in affairs.
These would be the situations that particularly hurt the person’s partner and break up families.

The person engaged in the affair may be conflicted, but because they “love” the other person, it “feels right”.
The person justifies it to themselves that they are doing the right thing.
Of course reality is greater, more complex than hypotheticals.

I can’t sit in judgement of others, but try to manage my life so that I am not just another old fool.
Having said that, I earnestly ask God not to lead me into temptation,
knowing that when tested, even remaining true, a part of me is yearning for what I should not have.

Gen 3: 6 The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

The speck in other people’s eyes seems more apparent than the log in one’s own.
Part of the reason for this would be that when we reject God it is because we are loving a good, but lesser, a part of His creation.

 

[simpleas]

I would think that “falling in love” plays a huge role in affairs.
These would be the situations that particularly hurt the person’s partner and break up families.

The person engaged in the affair may be conflicted, but because they “love” the other person, it “feels right”.
The person justifies it to themselves that they are doing the right thing.
Of course reality is greater, more complex than hypotheticals.

I can’t sit in judgement of others, but try to manage my life so that I am not just another old fool.
Having said that, I earnestly ask God not to lead me into temptation,
knowing that when tested, even remaining true, a part of me is yearning for what I should not have.

Gen 3: 6 The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

The speck in other people’s eyes seems more apparent than the log in one’s own.
Part of the reason for this would be that when we reject God it is because we are loving a good, but lesser, a part of His creation.

In Red :
Can you explain what you mean by this sentence. Do you mean we reject God when we love each other for our own needs? I’ve never quite understood somethings that we may do for our own well being and others, that this would mean to some people that we love ourselves more than God.
We are emotional beings, yes I think there are times when we can most definately put others before our own needs, other times when we do need to do what is right for ourselves. In both cases God is always there if we seek him, and maybe even when we don’t imo.
What is the lesser part of his creation?

 

[Aloysium]

simpleas:
In Red :
Can you explain what you mean by this sentence. Do you mean we reject God when we love each other for our own needs? I’ve never quite understood somethings that we may do for our own well being and others, that this would mean to some people that we love ourselves more than God.
We are emotional beings, yes I think there are times when we can most definately put others before our own needs, other times when we do need to do what is right for ourselves. In both cases God is always there if we seek him, and maybe even when we don’t imo.
What is the lesser part of his creation?

It was not entirely clear. I meant a lesser good is placed above the greatest Good; creation is loved more than our Creator.

There is nothing wrong with loving each other, obviously.
I was addressing a question as to why people commit adultery, feeling that the discussion was not capturing some of the emotional aspects of these tragic situations.
When we marry, there are not just two people involved - God has entered into the relationship. While married, one may “fall deeply in love” with another person. Finding “one’s soulmate” does not get one off the hook with the commitment one made with one’s spouse and with God.

Life can get quite complex and very confusing, but we have to love and trust God, as did Abraham when asked to sacrifice his son.

 

[chefmomster2]

If they do not care, then they are clearly not cognizant of the sinful character of the act.

I don’t agree. “Not caring” is part of the third component of mortal sin. Knowing that the act is seriously sinful, one still chooses it. Our man cannot say adultery is seriously sinful (knowledge), decide to do it anyway (consent) and then say that because he consented, he must not have had knowledge of the act’s sinfulness.

The CCC does not specify whether “knowing sinful character of the act” is simply a matter of having heard the words.

The man has not simply “heard the words.” As a catechized Catholic, he knows as a fact that adultery is a grievous sin and that the Church has told him that it is a grave sin. In discussing the fact that it is wrong, the man has revealed his awareness of its sinful nature. The CCC defines “knowing the sinful character if the act” within this statement:

CCC 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.

I have sincerely searched for any definition that states or implies otherwise, but all I can find is that full knowledge is the knowledge that the act is grievous.

In my view, the person would have to be of “informed conscience”, which is a much deeper knowing, in order to have violated their conscience.

You are correct in asserting that he must have an informed conscience. The conscience is a sort of depository of moral laws and God’s enlightenment and assistance in judging rightly. Often these acts are not as clearly defined as adultery. In those cases, we rationally consider the act in terms of what we know through our conscience.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act…It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law…
1783…A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator…

Our man has determined that adultery is a grievous sin, which is truthful. Therefore, his conscience is sufficiently informed in this case.

People murder, in battle, without violating their consciences. That is an evil done in order for good to happen.

The ends do not justify the means. Murder is always evil. If our man killed in self-defense, for instance, the murder would still considered grievous sin. However, the extreme circumstance would relieve him of culpability.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention…or the circumstances…which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

How would they “justify the act”? What would they be saying to justify their act?

“We love each other. My wife doesn’t understand me.” (By justification I am speaking of self-justification, not true justification.) By making excuses, he is indicating that he knows it is wrong and feels responsible. This again speaks to the third component of consent. He knows it is wrong, but he does it anyway.

 

[chefmomster2]

I was addressing a question as to why people commit adultery, feeling that the discussion was not capturing some of the emotional aspects of these tragic situations.

You are certainly correct! The damage caused by this sin has enormous ripple effects!

In my discussion, my friend feels that adultery could be non-culpable. According to his theory the sinner could feel such passion that it would override his consent. For instance, his desire for the woman could blind him to the sin. I don’t agree with that viewpoint. I feel it is mortal sin and a rejection of God.

I am sorry that this makes the discussion pretty cold and detached. Thank you for pointing out the tragedy of these situations.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . According to his theory the sinner could feel such passion that it would override his consent. . .

Passions do not just appear out of the blue.
Consent is overridden, in this hypothetical but all too common scenario, in the same way a drunk is unable to give consent when drinking down the last drops of his bottle of liquor.
The warning signs existed and choices were made long before.
And, whatever the circumstances, the consequences will be what they are.

These passions are not dissimilar to what we find in Genesis:

Gen 4:5-7 But to Cain and his offerings he had no respect: and Cain was exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said to him: Why are you angry? and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and you shall have dominion over it.

 

[OneSheep]

You are certainly correct! The damage caused by this sin has enormous ripple effects!

If I may cut in, yes, there are enormous ripple effects. Is the man considering these effects? Does he know all these effects? Knowing these effects would be part of knowing the seriousness of the sin.

In my discussion, my friend feels that adultery could be non-culpable. According to his theory the sinner could feel such passion that it would override his consent. For instance, his desire for the woman could blind him to the sin. I don’t agree with that viewpoint. I feel it is mortal sin and a rejection of God.

“Friend” - I like that. You are a sincere and friendly person with whom to discuss the topic.

cul·pa·ble
 kúlpəb'l ]

guilty: deserving blame or punishment for a wrong

The man is culpable. The woman is culpable. I was thinking that you may be reading something into my views, and such “reading in” is very understandable. I am not excusing either one of them, I am only showing that they do not know what they are doing. I never denied that people sin, and that some consequence is often called for, but the issue is that “mortal sin” has a “knowing” component, knowing the “grievousness” and the “seriousness” of the sin. Just because a person is blind and/or ignorant does not mean that he is not subject to consequence.

We agree on culpability, I think.

I am sorry that this makes the discussion pretty cold and detached. Thank you for pointing out the tragedy of these situations.

Yes, these situations are tragic. Unresolved discord in marriage is also a tragedy.

I am not ignoring your response to me, I am thinking it over. Thanks for your response, and your patience.

Oh, I must add: culpable, but forgivable. Forgivable in the context of understanding their blindness, just as Jesus saw from the cross. Do you see what is going on? Aspects can be teased apart.

 

[simpleas]

It was not entirely clear. I meant a lesser good is placed above the greatest Good; creation is loved more than our Creator.

There is nothing wrong with loving each other, obviously.
I was addressing a question as to why people commit adultery, feeling that the discussion was not capturing some of the emotional aspects of these tragic situations.
When we marry, there are not just two people involved - God has entered into the relationship. While married, one may “fall deeply in love” with another person. Finding “one’s soulmate” does not get one off the hook with the commitment one made with one’s spouse and with God.

Life can get quite complex and very confusing, but we have to love and trust God, as did Abraham when asked to sacrifice his son.

Thanks.

Yes, there are many reasons why a marriage can break apart, not just adultery. (I know this is what is being discussed) However, the people involved may well believe that God is granting them through prayer the thoughts to end the marriage. So what one person may think is right for all concerned by ending the marriage, the other may think they should remain married, both believe God is helping them make a decision, because both love and trust God.
To say a person is loving God any less because of what they decide to do can’t be Christian…

Like you say, life is complex.

 

[chefmomster2]

“Friend” - I like that. You are a sincere and friendly person with whom to discuss the topic.

Thanks! I like people who can disagree without being disagreeable.

I am not excusing either one of them. We agree on culpability, I think.

Yes. Neither of us would excuse the couple. Our difference is in whether the man would be held culpable for mortal sin.

I am not ignoring your response to me, I am thinking it over. Thanks for your response, and your patience.

That’s fine! Take your time. There’s no reason to rush.

Oh, I must add: culpable, but forgivable. Forgivable in the context of understanding their blindness, just as Jesus saw from the cross.

Absolutely forgivable! Everything can be forgiven! But the fact that one can be forgiven does not imply that it is not mortal sin. It was not blindness exactly, but “invincible ignorance” in the case of Jesus’ death.

 

[OneSheep]

I would think that “falling in love” plays a huge role in affairs.
These would be the situations that particularly hurt the person’s partner and break up families.

The person engaged in the affair may be conflicted, but because they “love” the other person, it “feels right”.
The person justifies it to themselves that they are doing the right thing.
Of course reality is greater, more complex than hypotheticals.

I can’t sit in judgement of others, but try to manage my life so that I am not just another old fool.
Having said that, I earnestly ask God not to lead me into temptation,
knowing that when tested, even remaining true, a part of me is yearning for what I should not have.

Gen 3: 6 The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

The speck in other people’s eyes seems more apparent than the log in one’s own.
Part of the reason for this would be that when we reject God it is because we are loving a good, but lesser, a part of His creation.

Well, we are still loving a “good”, but we are in violation of the conscience, at least we are violating the conscience that every well-informed conscience would be.

Blindness has a way of diminishing the weight of a conscience, and if the conscience is a bit uninformed about the gravity of the sin, the seriousness of the sin, then it is all the more likely that such sin will be tossed aside for a perceived greater good.

In addition, a man who resents his wife is blind to her value, and may be seeking ways to punish her in a variety of ways, having no hesitation to punish her in an adulterous way. He does not know what he is doing, he is blinded by resentment.

Does any of this add up to “rejecting” God? I would argue that this is not the intent of the sinner. The person is “choosing God” in the form of a perceived good, and he does so in blindness and ignorance. For all the assertion we make about “choosing to sin is a rejection of God”, such rejection is only known in the mind of the individual. Many, many decisions are made that involve choosing one conscience decision over another; and when one adds the aspects of blindness and ignorance, who among us has a big enough log to judge another’s decision as rejection of God?

I just don’t see that it ever happens, such “knowing rejection of God”. Am I agreeing with you, or am I coming from a different position?

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks! I like people who can disagree without being disagreeable.

Yes. Neither of us would excuse the couple. Our difference is in whether the man would be held culpable for mortal sin.

That’s fine! Take your time. There’s no reason to rush.
Absolutely forgivable! Everything can be forgiven! But the fact that one can be forgiven does not imply that it is not mortal sin. It was not blindness exactly, but “invincible ignorance” in the case of Jesus’ death.

I am not familiar with the ideas of “vincible” vs “invincible” ignorance, but I observe that all sin is done in ignorance and/or blindness. All of these conditions are reversible.

What do you mean when you say “the man would be held culpable for mortal sin”. Who does such “holding”? What does such “holding” entail?

 

[antunesaa]

That’s an interesting point you raised.

I would argue that you are still seeking happiness. The problem is that you have made an error in judging what will ultimately bring you more happiness. For if you truly understood the ramifications of choosing a lesser good at the expense of a greater good, then you would have made a better choice. However, if you truly did understand the ramifications and still failed to make the better choice, then I would argue that you are not really a free agent, but an enslaved one.

“Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” Romans 7:20

The point raised about procrastination highlights one of the features always involved in the act of willfully and knowingly rejecting God. First, let me state clearly that I think the answer to the question “is it possible that someone knowingly and willingly reject God?” is a Yes. I don’t think that is incompatible at all with human nature. I do think that there is always an element of time inconsistency about such a choice: it might be the case that rejecting God now looks appealing (say, there’s this beautiful woman seducing you, a married man) but you already now that later you will regret doing it (say, your wife, who you love, kicks you out of home). Who can affirm never to have been in a situation like this? In such cases one acts willfully and knowingly, but time-inconsistently.

Perhaps with angels the thing is different and, due to their superior intellects, any decision is so definitive and strong that there’s no going back (and therefore no forgiveness is possible). And we Christians believe that’s exactly what happened with Satan and the other fallen angels.