Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[chefmomster2]

Emotions are part of almost every decision, whether we think they are or not. Would you say that emotion should not be the major part of the decision for the woman to get a pap smear if the emotion was fear (of cancer)?

Our emotions are present, but no, they should never be the “major part” of a rational decision. We reason with our minds, not our “gut”. I would absolutely tell people not to let fear guide their choices. Fear may be based on many inaccuracies and lead to an erroneous judgment. Facts can actually remove this fear or greatly diminish it.

His actions were still his choice, chefmom, please do not allow him to escape responsibility. All of our actions are the result of our choices.

Exactly where was he avoiding responsibility? That is a misreading of my statement. He is fully responsible for his action. Sin, pride, etc. are explanations for why man will sin. They are not excuses. He is fully culpable for his actions. He was not driven to the point of ignorance (blindness to the fact that adultery is a serious sin). So long as he still retains the ability to know this and to choose his action, he is K&W.

Yes, he acted counter to reason and conscience, when reason and conscience are considered in the context of his right mind, his unaffected mind, and well-informed conscience.

The mere presence of emotion, however strongly felt, does not in and of itself cause ignorance. He is only ignorant if he is unable to determine that he is about to commit a serious sin.

However, he was not “right” in his mind, and his conscience may have been malformed.

If his conscience tells him that adultery is seriously wrong, his conscience is not malformed. It is in full knowledge of the Church’s teaching.

Are you saying that you know just as much about the harm done as a person who has actually experienced divorce?

No, but I believe that the experience of positive values is equally strong. I don’t have to experience the harm of divorce or adultery. I know the value of fidelity! I have experienced the Christian ideals of a loving and faithful marriage. I know enough to hold fidelity in a place of high esteem, such high esteem that I would never consider acting against it. It is the opposite side of the same coin and equally valid. It is certainly more desirable.

In addition, your insistence on personal experience of the negative consequences would naturally mean that each of us must personally experience murder, homosexuality, abortion, adultery, etc. to have “full knowledge” according to your personal requirements. This just isn’t reasonable. The law is given to us to guide our moral choices. We are intended to trust that the law of Christ is there to protect us from harm. We can and do gain knowledge (an informed conscience) when we accept the Law, when we experience the “good” that exists when the Law is followed, and when we observe the experience of others.

To me, there is a gradient of “knowing”. When a person knows enough about the harm of sin, he avoids sin.

This is not Church teaching. Knowledge of the consequences is simply not required. It may be helpful; it may be instructive. It is not required. Generally there are unintended consequences which we might never anticipate. WhenI ,earned as a child not to touch the stove, it was enough to know that it would hurt me. Period. I did not and could not imagine all of the possible outcomes or harm. It wasn’t necessary.

The man has nothing new to say. He isn’t being obstinate. He merely states that nothing in his mind caused ignorance of the facts. He recognizes that he gave into temptation. His faith faltered. He repents because he knows that he has destroyed his relationship with God and hurt those affected by his actions. Repentance is the only path back.

 

[fred_conty]

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

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

The question of “Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?” is what Jesus said it to be, namely, that anyone who rejects the commandments rejects his Father, who is God.

Jesus also appeared to St. Paul in a blinding light and said,"…why are you persecuting me?" Jesus again is saying that thru our acts we are persecuting him,Jesus, who is God.

St. Paul in one of his letters says about the same thing when he says that murderers, fornicators, drunkards, etc., will not enter the kingdom of heaven…where God is.

There are other biblical examples of this same thing, but in short, we reject Jesus, God, when we reject his ways.

Now a person may not see it this way since they don’t rob banks by saying to the teller, “I am rejecting God knowingly and willingly” before they say “stick em up”. But that is what they are doing according to God. And he is the ultimate authority of what is real and what is the truth.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[OneSheep]

The man has nothing new to say. He isn’t being obstinate. He merely states that nothing in his mind caused ignorance of the facts. He recognizes that he gave into temptation. His faith faltered. He repents because he knows that he has destroyed his relationship with God and hurt those affected by his actions. Repentance is the only path back.

Yes, he gave into temptation. But what did that “giving in” entail? Please, chefmomster, have the man answer the questions I posed. He is being evasive again! How did he come to know that he destroyed his relationship with God? What happened? He was committing adultery, and then he stopped. please, have the man answer these questions from post 457:

OneSheep: But man is also judged by his behavior, is he not? Your choice to commit adultery became what you saw as the best thing to do at the moment, otherwise you would not have done it. You still did not tell me what happened to the thoughts of God’s good when you made the choice, but it is quite obvious that something happened to the commitment to God’s good. Are you yet willing to admit that you did as Eve, doubt that “eating the fruit” would lead to death?

Man: (?)

Indeed, when you made the choice did you even consider your wife, crying about your poor choice, crying about the loss of relationship, having one of the most Earth-shattering things ever to happen to her? Were you thinking about your life commitment to her, how much you love her and how your whole life revolves around her?

Man: (?)

OneSheep: I have an additional question for you. You have decided to repent from your sin. Why have you decided to repent?

Man:

chefmomster2:

I knew what I did was adultery.
I knew adultery was a grave matter.
I did it anyway.

I sinned, therefore, I repent.

OneSheep: Okay, you are saying that you “knew” before, during, and after the affair that what you did was a grave matter. No change there according to your testimony. What happened that led to your repentance, what triggered the repentance? Something must have changed, something must have happened along the way. You were in the affair, and something happened. What happened? In all repentance there is a change of mind, a change of “reason”.

As for the rest of your thoughtful response, chefmom, I will get to it, but I am having to plug in at Starbucks, for I am out of town again. Believe me, it has been a real pleasure discussing with you. I have encountered some rather unpleasant individuals on the forum lately. Please, take some time to think about the man’s response. Extend the story, if necessary.

 

[opusAquinas]

I don’t, but I have committed mortal sin.

I am jumping the gun here a bit by guessing that you are implying that if we don’t directly hate God we do not reject Him. The “hatred” that is implied by the commission of a grievous act is not “hatred of God” in the truest sense.

New Advent: "To be sure, according to the teaching of St. Thomas (II-II:24:12) and the theologians, any mortal sin carries with it the loss of the habit of supernatural charity, and implies so to speak a sort of virtual and interpretive hatred of God, which, however, is not a separate specific malice to be referred to in confession, but only a circumstance predicable of every grievous sin.

One need not personally hate God to reject Him. But such direct hatred is a particularly grievous mortal sin.

New Advent: “When by any conceivable stretch of human wickedness God Himself is the object of hatred the guilt is appallingly special. If it be that kind of enmity (odium inimicitiae) which prompts the sinner to loathe God in Himself, to regret the Divine perfections precisely in so far as they belong to God, then the offence committed obtains the undisputed primacy in all the miserable hierarchy of sin.”

I’ve never committed a mortal sin. I’ll pray for you.

 

[opusAquinas]

Adam and Eve sinned because they did not have the beatific vision - if you do you cannot sin. They could not see God in His glory though they had an intimate connection with Him. So in their test they failed. God specifically told them not to do something. Eve was deceived. But Adam schemed and thought He could be a god and chose himself- his love of self over God’s love.

 

[Amandil]

Adam and Eve sinned because they did not have the beatific vision - if you do you cannot sin.

If this is true how do you explain the fall of the angels?

opusAquinas:

They could not see God in His glory though they had an intimate connection with Him. So in their test they failed. God specifically told them not to do something. Eve was deceived. But Adam schemed and thought He could be a god and chose himself- his love of self over God’s love.

How do you get that Adam “schemed” from the text? Adam could have been afraid, either by being too attached to his own life or attached to Eve or to the pleasures of Eden. That fear and his inability, despite his preturnatural state and his duty to give up his life to keep the garden free of evil, and his refusal to call upon God in moment of temptation, were the occasion for Adam’s sin.

But I don’t see anywhere in the text that would suggest what you are suggesting.

Surely Adam maintained a natural relationship with God after the Fall. So it seems that your suggestion doesn’t follow.

 

[opusAquinas]

If this is true how do you explain the fall of the angels?

How do you get that Adam “schemed” from the text? Adam could have been afraid, either by being too attached to his own life or attached to Eve or to the pleasures of Eden. That fear and his inability, despite his preturnatural state and his duty to give up his life to keep the garden free of evil, and his refusal to call upon God in moment of temptation, were the occasion for Adam’s sin.

But I don’t see anywhere in the text that would suggest what you are suggesting.

Surely Adam maintained a natural relationship with God after the Fall. So it seems that your suggestion doesn’t follow.

The angels did not have the beatific vision. google it, I can’t find it.
He thought he could be like god. Become independent of God. Just like Satan. Pride.

 

[Amandil]

The angels did not have the beatific vision. google it, I can’t find it.
He thought he could be like god. Become independent of God. Just like Satan. Pride.

If you can’t find it how can you claim that it’s true with any certainty.

And frankly you made the claim, back it up. It’s not my job to do your work for you.

The angels are spiritual creatures that reside in eternity. God resides in eternity.

Or how do you explain Matthew 18:10?

And no, that’s what the serpent said. Adam and Eve believed that lie.

It was still pride, Adam ought to have either expelled the serpent(and possibly die in the attemot)or have called upon God to do it.

 

[opusAquinas]

If you can’t find it how can you claim that it’s true with any certainty.

And frankly you made the claim, back it up. It’s not my job to do your work for you.

The angels are spiritual creatures that reside in eternity. God resides in eternity.

Or how do you explain Matthew 18:10?

And no, that’s what the serpent said. Adam and Eve believed that lie.

It was still pride, Adam ought to have either expelled the serpent(and possibly die in the attemot)or have called upon God to do it.

Because it’s common knowledge you look it up you need to know what’s right. I posses it. The angels saw God AFTER they past the test to follow God. This is basic. YOU CANNOT SIN IF YOU HAVE THE BEATIFIC VISION. I AM GOD’S INSTRUMENT CONVEYING THE TRUTH TO YOU. Thank you Lord, yet again.

Adam wanted to be a god therefore independent of God. Study it.

 

[Amandil]

Because it’s common knowledge you look it up you need to know what’s right. I posses it. The angels saw God AFTER they past the test to follow God. This is basic.

You were there to witness this “common knowledge”?

CCC 391-395 says nothing of what you assert. So what you claim is “basic” seems more like pure conjecture on your part.

YOU CANNOT SIN IF YOU HAVE THE BEATIFIC VISION.

This is called begging the question.

From what I read the Beatific Vision does not overrule or override free will. The beatified saints don’t sin not because they are prevented necessarily, but because they simply don’t want to.

Grace builds upon nature, including free will, it does not destroy it.

I AM GOD’S INSTRUMENT CONVEYING THE TRUTH TO YOU. Thank you Lord, yet again.

Really? Are you an Apostle properly speaking? Are you a Bishop?

Or are you a lay person? Unless you are a Bishop you really have no authority apart from what the Church has officially taught. The rest is just speculation.

Adam wanted to be a god therefore independent of God. Study it.

I have. Yours is merely an interpretation, and I find it lacking from the text. You’re committing eisegesis.

 

[chefmomster2]

I’ve never committed a mortal sin. I’ll pray for you.

Thank you. I will pray for you too.

 

[Amandil]

I’ve never committed a mortal sin. I’ll pray for you.

“If we say that we have no sin, we decieve ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”(1John 1:8)

 

[chefmomster2]

Because it’s common knowledge This is basic. YOU CANNOT SIN IF YOU HAVE THE BEATIFIC VISION.

Correct.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The blessed are confirmed in good; they can no longer commit even the slightest venial sin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purest love of God. That is, beyond doubt, Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility of sinning is physical. The blessed have no longer the power of choosing to do evil actions; they cannot but love God; they are merely free to show that love by one good action in preference to another.

newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=810901
It discusses the majority opinion that Adam and Eve had not had the Beatific Vision.

This thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133231
The Angels and Beatific Vision

Also:
On the Beatific Vision of God
Benedictus Deus
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336
papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

 

[JiminyCricket]

This is going to read like vicious indictment of faith. But, it’s a true account and you asked.

I rejected God because there is no evidence for his existence* and…*

• In my youth when I was a Catholic I was plagued with cognitive dissonance on certain topics. My Catholic school teachers and parents tried to help me with this but I didn’t find their answers satisfactory most of the time.
• When I spoke the Apostles Creed at Mass it felt like a creepy brainwashing ceremony.
• I caught myself thinking badly of other groups of people (gays, people who enjoy sex, Muslims), but couldn’t really explain why with any conviction.
• I learned more about the history of the bible, the politics of it, the contradictions, the translations.
• I felt disappointed by the idea that this life was merely a test for the afterlife.
• The story of the afterlife seemed strange and not appealing.
• It became clear that evolution is true, I had to ask what else in the Bible was false.
• During the Reagan administration the diverse protestant Christian groups sort of united and became a powerful political force aligned with the Republicans, which, based on their predilection for war and treatment of the poor, seemed like they were on the wrong side morally.
• I became a person who enjoys sex and realized that the whole virgin Mary myth was probably responsible for a culture-wide sex shaming atmosphere which oppresses men and women alike.
• Some of my friends and relatives came out as gay and I realized that there was nothing morally wrong it; no victims, no suffering, only love.
• I studied other religions, but their absurdity caused me to look again at Catholicism with the same skeptical eye and I realized they are all ridiculous.

With each of these milestones and thousand smaller ones my frustration with faith grew, but I remained agnostic…with occasional flights of fancy into faith perhaps.

Then 9/11 happened, and I realized that it does matter what you believe.

I did a lot more reading on philosophy (including Aquinas), and realized that there are good reasons to be good even without God. And the nice thing is no more cognitive dissonance!

I faced the terrifying void beyond the grave, and asked myself if I was okay with it. I realized more clearly than ever before how short and precious life is, and how important it is that I make the most of it. Rather than nihilism, on the other side of faith I found a wealth of energy for righting wrongs, learning more about science, improving myself as a moral person, and more empathy for the rest of humanity. I also found more strength in my convictions. When science is on your side, and you are capable of changing your mind it’s very empowering.

Then the pedophile scandals within the Church came out, and re-enforced my suspicion that the vow of chastity, and promise that prayer works, probably attracts young men to the priesthood who are sexually deviant. I’m relieved that I never got diddled.

And of course, all around the globe, every day people of one faith are killing people of other faiths for of a lot of reasons, but they feel justified in doing so because of faith.

I’ve since come to view faith based ideologies as destructive and immoral forces. I hope to live to see the day when the world is majority secular and all the faith-based conflicts between people are done.

I do kind of miss confession though. That’s a nice tradition.

I get along pretty well with my dad. He’s very loving and nurturing…and a very scholarly Catholic. We are a lot alike.

-JC

 

[Aloysium]

This is going to read like vicious indictment of faith. But, it’s a true account and you asked. . . I rejected God . . .

I don’t read your confession as an indictment of faith since I don’t see any mention of Jesus at all. I can’t conceptualize what it is that you are rejecting; it may be Christ since you very much dislike His Church, but it seems to me, you haven’t read enough about our faith and thought this all out.

 

[Amandil]

This is going to read like vicious indictment of faith. But, it’s a true account and you asked.

I rejected God because there is no evidence for his existence* and…*

• In my youth when I was a Catholic I was plagued with cognitive dissonance on certain topics. My Catholic school teachers and parents tried to help me with this but I didn’t find their answers satisfactory most of the time.
• When I spoke the Apostles Creed at Mass it felt like a creepy brainwashing ceremony.
• I caught myself thinking badly of other groups of people (gays, people who enjoy sex, Muslims), but couldn’t really explain why with any conviction.
• I learned more about the history of the bible, the politics of it, the contradictions, the translations.
• I felt disappointed by the idea that this life was merely a test for the afterlife.
• The story of the afterlife seemed strange and not appealing.
• It became clear that evolution is true, I had to ask what else in the Bible was false.
• During the Reagan administration the diverse protestant Christian groups sort of united and became a powerful political force aligned with the Republicans, which, based on their predilection for war and treatment of the poor, seemed like they were on the wrong side morally.
• I became a person who enjoys sex and realized that the whole virgin Mary myth was probably responsible for a culture-wide sex shaming atmosphere which oppresses men and women alike.
• Some of my friends and relatives came out as gay and I realized that there was nothing morally wrong it; no victims, no suffering, only love.
• I studied other religions, but their absurdity caused me to look again at Catholicism with the same skeptical eye and I realized they are all ridiculous.

With each of these milestones and thousand smaller ones my frustration with faith grew, but I remained agnostic…with occasional flights of fancy into faith perhaps.

Then 9/11 happened, and I realized that it does matter what you believe.

I did a lot more reading on philosophy (including Aquinas), and realized that there are good reasons to be good even without God. And the nice thing is no more cognitive dissonance!

I faced the terrifying void beyond the grave, and asked myself if I was okay with it. I realized more clearly than ever before how short and precious life is, and how important it is that I make the most of it. Rather than nihilism, on the other side of faith I found a wealth of energy for righting wrongs, learning more about science, improving myself as a moral person, and more empathy for the rest of humanity. I also found more strength in my convictions. When science is on your side, and you are capable of changing your mind it’s very empowering.

Then the pedophile scandals within the Church came out, and re-enforced my suspicion that the vow of chastity, and promise that prayer works, probably attracts young men to the priesthood who are sexually deviant. I’m relieved that I never got diddled.

And of course, all around the globe, every day people of one faith are killing people of other faiths for of a lot of reasons, but they feel justified in doing so because of faith.

I’ve since come to view faith based ideologies as destructive and immoral forces. I hope to live to see the day when the world is majority secular and all the faith-based conflicts between people are done.

I do kind of miss confession though. That’s a nice tradition.

I get along pretty well with my dad. He’s very loving and nurturing…and a very scholarly Catholic. We are a lot alike.

-JC

You have several deficiencies in your understanding of the Catholic Faith. Too many to even address.

I used to follow the same rationale. I was wrong.

Is it reasonable to judge a system based upon it’s worst adherents?

Or is it more reasonable to judge it based upon it’s best?

And how do you know that it is the system and not sin which not only obscures your understanding but onfluences their bad behavior.

 

[OneSheep]

By Jiminy!

You gave us a lot to work on. I’m going to pick just a couple things, and you can respond, or you can leave it as so much rubbish. I hear and understand your resentment toward religious institutions and doctrine. I have a different way of looking at it, but I understand.

• I became a person who enjoys sex and realized that the whole virgin Mary myth was probably responsible for a culture-wide sex shaming atmosphere which oppresses men and women alike.

I see what you mean, and I have pondered this a bit, but not specifically addressing Mary. Speaking introspectively, it seems to me that we are born essentially unaware of our nature, specifically our innate drives and emotions, as well as our compulsion to punish wrongdoing, which I see as also innate.

That said, these innate drives and compulsions are there whether we choose them or not! Desire for other peoples’ stuff, desire for territory, control, and dominance (as well as a handful of other drives) are introduced into our mind very early, whether we know it or not. We get some time to get used to them. However, lo and behold, we get this new one! Sexual desire hits us like a ton of bricks whether we want it or not, it comes uninvited. Sure, there is a pleasurable aspect, but this “new addition” affects our mind, our outlook, our priorities, our entire life! There is something inside us that does not like change, especially when forced upon us, especially when this new desire does compel us to do some very, very, “stupid” things. So, just as the human comes to resent his own capacity for anger and perhaps depression, the human comes to resent his drive for dominance, sex, possession of material stuff, etc. Is it unnatural that such resentment not become incorporated into religious practice and doctrine?

That said, there is something very good to be heard from all of the mores. We are not to be enslaved by our nature, right? We need to practice self-discipline. In the practice of non-violent communication, we learn to translate what we condemn into expressions of feelings, needs, and requests. So, the Church is saying “We worry when you become enslaved by your nature, and we want society to be in control, not chaotic and dangerous. Please, be in control of your nature.”

• I studied other religions, but their absurdity caused me to look again at Catholicism with the same skeptical eye and I realized they are all ridiculous.

A very wise priest once told me “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” I understand your reaction to dogma and practice, and I hope that you can do the same. Skepticism is normal. When I judge something as “ridiculous”, (and I do, believe me) then I know that I have condemned it in some way. And isn’t our capacity to condemn one of the more troublesome parts of our nature? Yet, even such capacity has its place in our evolution, by jiminy. That said, our capacity to condemn is somewhat problematic. When we condemn, for example, we are blinded to the humanity of others (the “outgroup” of the moment) and we may end up doing some very hurtful things, we are prejudiced. Do we do this “knowingly and willingly” against God? No, not in my observation. When we are in condemnation mode we are blinded to people’s goodness and wonder. We are not seeing God in those we condemn. And when we do things that appear to “reject God”, we are not behaving out of enlightenment, but out of blindness. We do not know what we are doing, as Jesus stated from the Cross. Wise words, no?

I get along pretty well with my dad. He’s very loving and nurturing…and a very scholarly Catholic. We are a lot alike.
-JC

Isn’t it amazing how we come to autonomy from our parents? Are you a second child? I am. My oldest brother and my oldest son are philosophically carbon-copies (more or less) of their parents. Me and my second son are quite different from our own fathers in terms of politics and religion, etc. Yes, my own second is a card-carrying ultra-conservative (okay, I’m exaggerating a little), but we get along great. He is a bit too philosophical for me, though, getting his PhD in the stuff. I’m proud of him, he is going to be a really great restaurant server some day.

 

[OneSheep]

After a bit of a stall in our discussion, first chefmom with her distractions, and then my own, I am going to try to resume the conversation here. I am in discussion with a “reasoned Catholic” who has supposedly knowingly and willingly rejected God" in committing adultery, and I am supporting the premise that the man did not know the seriousness of his sin, therefore his sin is not “knowingly and willingly rejecting God” in his act, nor has a mortal sin occurred because he is not cognizant of the seriousness. I am saying that in my observation, in order for sin to occur there must be the necessary component of either blindness or ignorance. To test my premise (and hers) chefmomster as “the man” has been responding to my questions to first determine what happened in that this “reasoned Catholic” has committed such an act.

Adulterous Man:

chefmomster2:

When he decided that his good was better than God’s Good, he just stopped resisting.

OneSheep:Okay, he decided that his good was better than God’s good.

OneSheep: (to the man) You believed at the moment that God’s will was less important than your own “my will above God’s”. But is this the truth, that God’s will is less important than your own?

Man: Of course not! I knew that all along. Before and after!

OneSheep: I’m confused now. On the one hand you said “I knew that all along” that God’s will is more important than your own, but on the other hand you said that you decided “your good was better than God’s good” at the moment you sinned.

Are you saying that you knew “before and after” but not at the moment of the decision? Did the “knowing” of God’s good sort of disappear, fall by the wayside, was overcome by “my will is more important right now”?

Man: I meant that I knew throughout. It wasn’t a case of forgetting or putting aside.

OneSheep: So, you knew throughout that God’s good was more important than your own, but you decided that your good was better than God’s.

Are you saying that you simultaneously thought God’s good was more important than your own, but that you decided that your good was better than God’s? Hmmm.

It is clear to me that you had the two thoughts in your mind, but if the thoughts were simultaneous, there would be inaction. You decided that your good was better than God’s at the period of adultery, just as you stated.

You are saying that the “knowing” did not disappear or fall by the wayside, so what happened to “God’s good is more important than my own?” Where did it go?

]Man: I can only explain it by saying that what you describe here- knowing God’s good is best and still deciding that I want my own good- is at the very heart of sin. I don’t want to submit to God. I let my pride lead me to reject God’s will.

OneSheep: Okay, you not only decided that you wanted your own good, you acted on your decision, you rejected God’s will. Your truth, for the moment, was that your good was better than God’s, if you are a behavior-always-follows-reason individual. So, if you are a behavior-always-follows-reason individual, then your reason was, as you stated previously, an untruth, obviously flawed. And in that case, you had in your head that what you were doing was not wrong, what was wrong was the “truth” you were following. Adam and Eve had the same problem, remember? They were following an untruth when they doubted God. They were saying “God was joshing us! This fruit looks good!”.

So, either you were:

1. “reasonably” following an untruth, or
2. you are not a behavior-always-follows-reason individual or
3. another possibility, please explain. Is it possible that you were temporarily blinded?

Which is the case?

Man: I am human, complex and fallible. I can know what is right and yet do the opposite.

OneSheep: No, sir, I am sorry for challenging you on this, but either you did not do the opposite, or you are lying to me. You told me that you decided that your good was better than God’s good. So, you did not do what you thought was wrong, you thought what you were doing was better, a better good. As you told me, you decided such.

If you would like to now change your story and say that you can “know what is right and do the opposite”, then your answer falls along the lines of #2 above. Are you changing your story now, are you telling me that you are not a behavior-follows-reason individual?

Man: I didn’t decide it was better. Man does what he sees as “a” good, not necessarily the highest good. They are not necessarily the same thing

OneSheep: But man is also judged by his behavior, is he not? Your choice to commit adultery became what you saw as the best thing to do at the moment, otherwise you would not have done it. You still did not tell me what happened to the thoughts of God’s good when you made the choice, but it is quite obvious that something happened to the commitment to God’s good. Are you yet willing to admit that you did as Eve, doubt that “eating the fruit” would lead to death?

Man: (?)

Indeed, when you made the choice did you even consider your wife, crying about your poor choice, crying about the loss of relationship, having one of the most Earth-shattering things ever to happen to her? Were you thinking about your life commitment to her, how much you love her and how your whole life revolves around her?

Man:

chefmomster2:

The man has nothing new to say. He isn’t being obstinate. He merely states that nothing in his mind caused ignorance of the facts. He recognizes that he gave into temptation. His faith faltered. He repents because he knows that he has destroyed his relationship with God and hurt those affected by his actions. Repentance is the only path back.

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep: I have an additional question for you. You have decided to repent from your sin. Why have you decided to repent?

Man:

chefmomster2:

I knew what I did was adultery.
I knew adultery was a grave matter.
I did it anyway.

I sinned, therefore, I repent.

OneSheep: Okay, you are saying that you “knew” before, during, and after the affair that what you did was a grave matter. No change there according to your testimony. What happened that led to your repentance, what triggered the repentance? Something must have changed, something must have happened along the way. You were in the affair, and something happened. What happened? In all repentance there is a change of mind, a change of “reason”.

Man: (?)

---

So, this is where we are. Chefmomster is saying that she has no new responses for the man, but so much has still been left unanswered, including several of the questions above. However, I am not going to pursue those questions with the man at this point. And since chefmom has momentarily given up on the man, I am going to take the liberty of filling in for the man, in the hopes that chefmom may at least tell me, "no, there is another alternative, one that involves “knowingly and willingly rejecting God”.

Man (by OS):

Alternative 1: Okay, yes, something did happen. Just as the prodigal son, I realized that I was bankrupt, though my bankruptcy was spiritual, not monetary. I went home from the “other woman” to my loving wife, who had not a clue, and it hit home that she was loving me when I did not deserve to be loved, that she was loving a person who had wronged her greatly. Why did I not think of this, the look on her innocently, naively loving face, before I chose to commit adultery? I did not know what it was like to be in this circumstance. I had never experienced this before. I was very, very, stupid. I did not know what I was doing. I did not know how much my act would violate my own conscience in this way. Now I know.

Alternative 2: Well, I realized that the new woman was not so hot as my own wife. Sure, the new woman was exciting, and that felt great, but when I thought about all the problems of divorce and animosity with my wife’s family, I decided I was in the wrong. (Note: this is not a repentance spurned by the conscience, as in the first alternative. The man is still mostly ignorant, but is looking at practicality.)

Alternative 3: It happened when my wife found me out. She was devastated. She cried, a lot, and what could I do? I comforted her, or tried to. She pushed me away, but there she was, hurt. I had chosen against her but then I felt awful, when I realized that I had hurt her so much. She was angry, too, and I could have reacted to her anger and said “forget you!” but I couldn’t do it. I understood her anger and I knew now how wrong it was what I did. I knew of the consequence, it really hit home. God was right. I was wrong. Now, I really know how serious my sin was.

Alternative 4: (feel free to put one here, chefmom, anyone?)

All said, the man was not thinking of the impact, nor was he aware of the impact of his sin. He did not know the seriousness of his sin, in a very experiential way. Do you see my point?

 

[simpleas]

:twocents:

I don’t have a #4, and I think the other alternatives could be an answer, I do think its hard for people (even myself) to understand how being told that something is wrong needs to be experienced by some people to “open their eyes”.

The ten commandants : some we can commit, like stealing, and you can feel guilty for it and promise never to steal again, because you felt bad, so that is an experience…
But with say, murder, we don’t normally need to know what murdering someone or some creature would make us feel in order for us not to do it. We can see how precious life is.

If the “man” is a church goer, says the words, but hasn’t grown in his own spiritual way, he maybe more likely to fall into adultry, because just following a missal doesn’t necesarily make a person more aware of God and fellow humans, the man would need to want to know God more fully, in a way that he wouldn’t need to experience the consequence of his action, he would be aware of it through his love of God.