Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

Do you have a resistance to letting to of ‘invincibly ignorant blindness’ in light of understanding why people sin?

I have no resistance at all. The thing is, when we understand why people sin, we can always find, in my experience, a blindness or lack of awareness. If a person wants to hang onto blame, or some other reason, then then the understanding will be resisted. Do you resist understanding?

Don’t conflate the appetite itself with the conscious will to give way to the desire. Thomas Aquinas and others said this.

I guess you are clarifying to say that the desire itself is not sinful, but the conscious will to put the desire over relationship with God is sinful, correct?

What are the thoughts of a person putting the desire for power over their relationship with God? Could you find the words?

Gorgias:

She had the knowledge; she just chose to disregard it. It is in that pride – that is, in the pride that sought to disregard God’s command – that the culpable sin resides.

In light of the way that humans usually behave, it was not a deliberate choice. If it was a deliberate choice to disregard, it was a choice made in blindness and/or ignorance.

Please show me – from the Scripture from which you’ve quoted – that it wasn’t deliberate.

Only that there is no mention that such is part of her reasoning. In her eyes, the fruit looked good, so she wanted to eat it. She did not say, “I want to separate myself from God.” There is nothing that indicates that such was her intent.

When one exceeds the speed limit on a road, does one intend to insult, or leave forever, the State? No, one wants to get there faster, yet remain a good citizen (for the most part), correct?

So, your personal notion of how “God and the world” works, gets to trump what God has revealed to us in His Word? Hmm…

I have shown you how what I have found in relationship does not trump revelation.

I’m asserting that it’s “if and only if A, then B”

That’s not what he was asserting. I also showed you an alternative to “if and only if” that negates the format. The alternative to “God sends” is “man chooses”. Your image is the former, or a version of the former, correct?

Says who?

There is nothing in Genesis 3 that says that Adam and Eve intended to leave God. It is uncharitable to assume they wanted to insult or offend God, and it is contrary to human dignity to assume that they did not do what they thought was best in the moment.

 

[OneSheep]

Catechism

404

Correct. And the personal sin is not claimed to be mortal. The dogma addresses original sin, and 404 addresses the personal sin.

Are you thinking that Adam and Eve intended to offend God?

 

[sudy]

and you suppose Jesus taught errors

OneSheep Post 657: John 15:22 ‘I’m really glad you brought this one forth. It directly contradicts “for they know not what they do” which was observed by both Jesus at the cross and Peter et.al. in Acts concerning Jewish leadership. What can be remembered is that Jesus grew in wisdom, and it could be that he came to see that there is much more to “seeing” than simple hearing.’

CCC 460 […]The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

Modernism has infiltrated the foundations of your faith.

I called it modernism because that’s what it looks like.

OneSheep Post 727: ‘The Father loves beyond the confines of the conscience. The Father’s love transcends the conscience, sees its value, but understands and forgives without condition.’

This looks like you’ve take it upon yourself to search all hearts and have therefore done the judging.

CCC 679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He “acquired” this right by his cross. The Father has given “all judgment to the Son”. Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one’s works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

OneSheep Post 384: ‘So the whole concept of us doing something and God not forgiving is not trusting in this way.’

This view is presumption on God’s mercy and is against hope.

CCC 2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption: […]

CCC 2092 […]he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

Modernism quotes:

It is important to note that the characteristics of Modernism involve: a movement toward some sort of reconciliation and bonding with disparate Christian denominations, non-Christian religions, and even atheism.

It is the attitude that emphatically says, “I know the truth” on a matter on which one cannot possibly know the truth that is at the heart of the errors of Modernism.

source: Modernist Heresy: Western Man's Descent from Philosophy into Modernism

 

[sudy]

Modernism has infiltrated the foundations of your faith.

OneSheep Post 185: ‘Regardless of how the Church teaches, when a person is not cognizant of something relevant to the choice to sin, then that person does not know what they are doing.’

OneSheep Post 737: ‘It needs to be noted that the council of Trent presents an image of God who judges in indignation and wrath. While this image is still accepted in the Church, many (most?) faithful now are in relationship with a Father who always forgives.’

OneSheep Post 741: ‘The Baltimore catechism, nor the Council of Trent, present the image of a Father who loves and forgives unconditionally. The image they present is more a default image, the image that naturally forms from the workings of the Superego/conscience’

There appears to be a deliberate consciousness of rejecting church teaching revealed here.

CCC 891 […] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,“and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

CCC 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Modernism quotes:

It is important to note that the characteristics of Modernism involve: adoption of a spirit of complete emancipation from ecclesial (and all) authority.

It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty.

 

[sudy]

OneSheep Post 678: ‘What I am saying is that belief in a God who ever condemns is a natural projection. Through growth of emotional and cognitive empathy (and spiritual growth through prayer), it is an image that is replaced with that of an unconditionally loving/forgiving God.’

There appears to be a certain arrogant presumption in this… a holier than thou approach where you have grown to spiritual awakening where others have failed. I don’t mean to imply boastfulness, but a superiority nevertheless.

CCC 2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle. Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes: He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.

Modernism quotes:

When a Catholic layman or a priest forgets the precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism

It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty.

To suppose that we can continue to sin makes a mockery of Christ’s death and resurrection. Why did he need to repair the friendship if we can just do the same damage all over again? It’s not the almighty God who is changed to accepting our sins, it’s we who must change by rejecting sin. With Christ, we are given the tools we need to do this.

The thing is that we, as Catholics, believe that God’s revelation to mankind came through Christ. He gave the teaching authority to the Church and we have apostolic succession to make that authority still as valid today. The Church is God’s voice on earth. We are guided by both the Church and our individual conscience… which is formed by knowledge of right and wrong written on our hearts, and Church teaching. The Church has God-given teaching authority. The Church teaches us to repent using the sacrament of reconciliation… and baptism as a condition for salvation.

It’s not okay for you to come along with different teachings. I’m not actually against your belief in an all loving and forgiving God, and I compliment you on your lack of mortal sin, but I had to speak against you potentially leading others astray, teaching them they’re not really responsible for their sins… they’re just blind or ignorant and therefore not culpable… it encourages complacency. Matthew 18:6 springs to mind here, too. We can hope and pray for salvation but we cannot teach it as assured. Even St Paul hoped in his salvation. At the end of the day, I can only show what scripture and the catechism teach.

Acts 10:42
He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead.

The debate seems to be going round in circles now and so my participation in this thread has come to an end. God bless.

 

[Gorgias]

The thing is, when we understand why people sin, we can always find, in my experience, a blindness or lack of awareness.

OK. So, your understanding is anecdotal, then, and based on your personal experience alone. Fair enough.

That doesn’t overrule the teaching of the Church, however.

I guess you are clarifying to say that the desire itself is not sinful, but the conscious will to put the desire over relationship with God is sinful, correct?

Yep.

What are the thoughts of a person putting the desire for power over their relationship with God? Could you find the words?

This seems like an unhelpful exercise. Nevertheless, “man, I sure want to be the POTUS! Sure, I’d have to step on a lot of people, and take advantage of a lot of people on the way, but man… I sure want to sit in the Oval Office!”

She did not say, “I want to separate myself from God.” There is nothing that indicates that such was her intent.

The character of Eve in that story didn’t verbalize it in that way, but please… don’t blind yourself as you read it. She explicitly verbalizes that she knows God’s command. And then, just as explicitly, she disobeys it, based on her own counsel.

When one exceeds the speed limit on a road, does one intend to insult, or leave forever, the State?

In a certain sense… yes. By disobeying the law, you are literally saying “I don’t have to be constrained by your laws! I’m above them! I make my own rules!” And so, whether or not you’re currently and actively speeding, you do hold that thought in your heart. So… yeah.

No, one wants to get there faster, yet remain a good citizen (for the most part), correct?

Just to make sure I understand the pretzel logic: you want to be a good citizen, and therefore, you break the law. Got it.

That’s not what he was asserting.

It really is. You just characterized it differently than it was presented.

There is nothing in Genesis 3 that says that Adam and Eve intended to leave God.

They deliberately broke His command. They hid from Him, for crying out loud! Doesn’t get much more clear than that, OneSheep!

It is uncharitable to assume they wanted to insult or offend God

No it isn’t – because they, themselves!, knew that they had done so!

it is contrary to human dignity to assume that they did not do what they thought was best in the moment.

You’re making an argument from conscience here. Conscience must be obeyed; but it can be objectively in error. There is no “human dignity” in following a poorly formed conscience.

 

[OneSheep]

You only have to look in some of the other threads on here, such as those about the priestly sex offenses, to recognise that forgiveness isn’t always easy.

Yes, it is not always easy. Does it seem impossible?

Some sins cry to heaven for retribution.

People cry to heaven for retribution, but God always understands and forgives. The desire for retribution is part of our nature, it is functionally beautiful, but God does not punish for the purpose of retribution as we commonly think of it. God’s interactions with people come in the form of what He can do to help people see, to bring people closer to Him; if these are the purposes of “punishment” or “retribution”, then that is in conformity with His infinite love and mercy.

Of course, there is plenty of room in the Church for different images. The image of a God who punishes for the purpose of “payment” is very common, and is arguably our natural default. This is the Anselmian image, which was downplayed by Pope Benedict.

Pope Francis is right in what he says… but this isn’t the complete picture. He also says,… Sacramental Confession is the way of sanctification both for the penitent and for the confessor .’

Yes, it is the way of sanctification. These words do not contradict the statement that God always understands and forgives us. Sanctification is a process of relationship.

I am sorry that I offended you

Thank you, but like I said they looked like judgments. I did not take offense. Even if they were judgments, they were well-intended. That is what I had in mind.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

The Father, who in image always loves and forgives, is not wrathful, so one has to discern what “the wrath of God” is in the context of the Gospel. It could very well mean “natural consequences”. However, if a person’s image of God is such that He does indeed get angry and withholds forgiveness, then the verse can be taken literally. This, to me, is the beauty of the Gospel, it does not assume the reader’s image of God, it is accepting, essentially endorsing, different images. The Church has plenty of room for differing images.

Seeing that God always loves and forgives is an invitation. However, the invitation is not yet extended to those who need (because of undeveloped empathy, among other reasons) to be motivated by punishment and the image of an angry God. For those that have this need, they best remain with the wrathful God image.

 

[OneSheep]

John 15:22-24
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin…

“For they know not what they do” are words that come later in His his earthly life. This may represent another example of an outward transformation, much like how He changed the way He addressed the Canaanite woman. You can probably see that killing Him was a much more severe sin than simply thinking He was not speaking truth; yet from the cross, He saw their blindness. He was not “making excuses” for either the Canaanite woman or those who hated Him, He was “growing in wisdom” through understanding and forgiving. Of course, there are other interpretations of what happened in the interaction with the woman.

the forgiveness that must be asked

The person who is not sorry for his sins is lacking in awareness, his conscience is undeveloped. In addition, contrition and humility are essential parts of relationship; they must be present to be in relationship.

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

Wow, that is really beautiful. Yes, God is far more loving and forgiving than our own hearts.

1847 “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Yes, His mercy flows from relationship. His love and mercy are gratuitous, but we receive it through being in relationship. This section of the CCC is not meant to only say that God’s faith, justice, mercy, love, forgiveness depend on the state of mind of the sinner; these are unwavering aspects of God, independent of our own attitudes. There remains room for other images.

There is some congruence between this and the issue addressed by duns Scotus, “Did the incarnation depend on man sinning?” His answer was no, the behavior of man does not destine God.

1864 “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Exactly. The limit is the openness of the individual, for God’s love and forgiveness is gratuitous, unconditional. This sxn does not say that people know what they are doing when they are impenitent. It is the “can lead” part, upon reflection of human dignity, that can be seen to be essentially impossible. People always want what they see as best.

I’ll get to the rest when I can!

 

[OneSheep]

That doesn’t overrule the teaching of the Church, however.

Church teachings do not negate the possibility that no one knows what they are doing when they sin. In fact, when we address human dignity, we can see that people behave badly out of blindness or ignorance, not out of informed will.

OneSheep: I guess you are clarifying to say that the desire itself is not sinful, but the conscious will to put the desire over relationship with God is sinful, correct?

Gorgias: Yep.

So, when people have that “conscious will”, they do not know what they are doing. That is what I am observing.

This seems like an unhelpful exercise. Nevertheless, “man, I sure want to be the POTUS! Sure, I’d have to step on a lot of people, and take advantage of a lot of people on the way, but man… I sure want to sit in the Oval Office!”

Well, sitting in the oval office for a person is not impossible. When a person wants to, "step on/take advantage of/ people, are they seeing the infinite value of people? No, they are blind, they are seeing people as objects.

What are the thoughts of a person putting desire for power over their relationship with God?

She explicitly verbalizes that she knows God’s command. And then, just as explicitly, she disobeys it, based on her own counsel.

Yes, she doubts the command, and the penalty. Because of the blinding effect of desire, the desire gains a misplaced priority. She starts to believe an untruth. Believing an untruth is not “knowing what you are doing”.

To think that she wanted to separate herself from God would be a projection, and uncharitable.

In a certain sense… yes . By disobeying the law, you are literally saying…

That would be one putting thoughts and intentions upon the person, not actually hearing the person’s reasoning. If you have children, including adult children, do you think that defiance of your rules means that they want to be away from you? If so, I recommend doing some rethinking on that, opening your mind to other possibilities.

You just characterized it differently than it was presented.

Your opinion.

They deliberately broke His command. They hid from Him , for crying out loud!

Why did they hide from God, Gorgias? Try to pay attention to projections.

No it isn’t – because they, themselves!, knew that they had done so!

This is a projection, Gorgias. “If I had said/done this, it would have come from wanting to insult or offend God”. In reality, the possibilities of their thoughts and motives are infinite.

There is no “human dignity” in following a poorly formed conscience.

The dignity, in part, is that people do what they think is best, even when their conscience is poorly formed.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Catechism

404

Correct. And the personal sin is not claimed to be mortal. The dogma addresses original sin, and 404 addresses the personal sin.

Are you thinking that Adam and Eve intended to offend God?

The loss of justice is the loss of sanctifying grace. That is what mortal sin is.

Posted before. (post 748) Catechism

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. …

 

[OneSheep]

The loss of justice is the loss of sanctifying grace. That is what mortal sin is.

Rather than going round and round with this, I am wondering if you can remember my response to this assertion that Adam and Eve were guilty of mortal sin because of what happened afterward. When you can recall that, please address it.

Take a look at post 748. You did not address the point I made, you simply repeated “B, therefore A”.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning Sudy, I do hope you can take the time to read my responses to your very important points.

This looks like you’ve take it upon yourself to search all hearts and have therefore done the judging.

Not really. What I have done is “removed all the posts” from my eyes that were accessible. This is called “shadow work”, but through the Gospel it goes beyond “shadow work” and involves embracing, and seeing the beauty in, all aspects of what it means to be human. A person can reach a stasis in which one sees beauty in and accepts all that is. It is an inner reconciliation. When we search hearts, through the gift of understanding we can find beauty, innocence, good intent. There may be a lot of blindness and lack of awareness, and that is where sin is rooted.

OneSheep Post 384: ‘So the whole concept of us doing something and God not forgiving is not trusting in this way.’

This view is presumption on God’s mercy and is against hope

Yes, we can presume that God loves us unconditionally, but it can only be found in relationship, through loving/forgiving oneself and others without condition. Is this “against hope”? I don’t see how that adds up. It is against hope when a negative is presumed.

CCC 2092 […]he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

The idea of merit is one that endorses the “payment” image of God’s mercy. While this image is the default presented by the workings of our conscience, the CCC does not intend to limit His gratuitous love and mercy. What 2092 is expressing is that we cannot experience his love an mercy in this life (especially freedom from slavery) without following his commandments and being in relationship.

Modernism quotes

If I could somehow grasp how these apply to what I have written, I would address them. Understanding why people sin is not “modernism”. St Augustine pursued the same objective. He failed, in part, but he still tried. So did Thomas Aquinas.

There appears to be a deliberate consciousness of rejecting church teaching revealed here.

None of those teachings rule out the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin. Luke 23:34.

(continued)

 

[Gorgias]

Church teachings do not negate the possibility that no one knows what they are doing when they sin.

No – they do not negate the possibility that there exist those who do not know what they are doing when they sin. If no one knew, then that would imply that the Church is teaching nonsense. (After all, the Church also doesn’t teach lots of stuff that doesn’t apply to humans. If ‘mortal sin’ didn’t apply, then you’re saying that Christ and the Church are lunatics.)

So, when people have that “conscious will”, they do not know what they are doing.

No, that’s not at all what it means. It means that people, in their conscious will, choose their personal desires over their relationship with God. It does not mean that they “do not know what they’re doing”. The former does not imply the latter.

No, they are blind, they are seeing people as objects.

Again, “they are blind”. Prove it, please. Otherwise, it’s just an assumption drawn from an anecdotal observation.

Believing an untruth is not “knowing what you are doing”.

It’s a mistake, without a doubt. However, it’s not blind action.

To think that she wanted to separate herself from God would be a projection, and uncharitable.

Did she want to make herself “like God”? That’s not a projection – that’s directly from the words of Scripture. It’s not ‘uncharitable’, it’s “actually reading what the Scripture says”.

Why did they hide from God, Gorgias? Try to pay attention to projections.

Read God’s question to them. They were afraid because they had eaten from the tree. Try to pay attention to your projections.

In reality, the possibilities of their thoughts and motives are infinite.

Then that means that you cannot assert that it’s due to “blindness”. If I can’t play that game, neither can you. And if you can’t play that game… then you cannot make the assertions you’ve been making. So… which is it? Drop your projections (and therefore your case), or admit that the opposing case has merit?

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep Post 678: ‘What I am saying is that belief in a God who ever condemns is a natural projection. Through growth of emotional and cognitive empathy (and spiritual growth through prayer), it is an image that is replaced with that of an unconditionally loving/forgiving God.’

There appears to be a certain arrogant presumption in this… a holier than thou approach where you have grown to spiritual awakening where others have failed. I don’t mean to imply boastfulness, but a superiority nevertheless.

I take you back to the study you posted, the one that showed that as people grow older, they become more forgiving. So what is the older person to think in terms of their own Spiritual growth? “I am better now”? Well, the older person is living a freer life, no longer enslaved as much, so he is betterin terms of freedom and acceptance of life. Is he “superior” in any way? No, but he is in some respects closer relationship with God, he is more in tune with his “true self”, the inner self that does not judge others. Simply stated, some people, through prayer and experience, are closer to God than others. How we process that observation is going to depend on our own relationship with God.

To suppose that we can continue to sin makes a mockery of Christ’s death and resurrection.

Sure we can continue to sin, but when we are doing so we are enslaved, not in relationship. He still forgives us, but we cannot experience the loving relationship unless we avoid the enslavements of sin. As you once indicated, contrition and confession are important parts of keeping relationship.

I’m not actually against your belief in an all loving and forgiving God

That’s an openness to the Spirit, but in my experience one can only see this image unless one loves and forgives everyone. For me, it involved understanding self and others, removing the posts.

I compliment you on your lack of mortal sin

I’ve had plenty of sin, the point is that I don’t see how “mortal sin” can occur for anyone.

 

[OneSheep]

but I had to speak against you potentially leading others astray, teaching them they’re not really responsible for their sins… they’re just blind or ignorant and therefore not culpable… it encourages complacency.

There is a fear in that if God blames/condemns no one, people will not be motivated to behave.
The fear can be explored. If God did not blame or condemn your bad behavior, would you misbehave? If so, your empathy and love for self and others is not developed enough, and it would be better to remain with the image that God condemns people.

Then, let’s look at others, the ones for whom we fear their complacency. These are the ones that we fear that if they knew that God loves/forgives unconditionally they would not fear going to hell. For these, we can remember that the default image of God is not what any person tells them, it is the conscience itself that presents a conditionally loving and forgiving image. Believe me, if a person has an image of a God who loves and forgives on condition, you could tell that person about an unconditionally loving and forgiving God until you are blue in the face, but unless that is his or her experience of His love, through parenting or prayer, they will simply not believe you. Quite possibly, if we do not forgive as He forgives, the image will never change.

What about the psychopath, the person who has an empathy disability and can only be motivated to avoid sin unless they fear direct consequences? What about those whose empathy is undeveloped and those who do not avoid sin because their conscience is undeveloped? Well, for these people society has laws that provide consequences for bad behavior. When they come to care about relationship with God, when their empathy and conscience are developed, they will turn to Him.

In the mean time, people who believe in God, but insist that God only forgives the repentant, will not believe that God forgives without condition. No, they will hang onto their grudges, insisting that God is on their side.

Acts 10:42
He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead.

The beauty of the new testament can be seen right there. If a person has the default image of God, such that He loves and forgives upon condition, the verse works. If a person sees that God judges all people innocent and beautiful (blind/or lacking awareness when we sin), the Father who forgives always, it also works. Neither image is wrong. Jesus invites us to move beyond the default image, but does not say that the default image is wrong, even though He clearly expresses that we not judge people.

 

[OneSheep]

If no one knew, then that would imply that the Church is teaching nonsense.

That implication does not necessarily follow. The Church endorses both images of God, the Father who loves/forgives conditionally, and the Father who loves/forgives unconditionally. Both of these images have their place in the catechism.

It means that people, in their conscious will, choose their personal desires over their relationship with God.

Please express what that person is actually thinking, and we can examine how informed it is.

Again, “they are blind”. Prove it, please. Otherwise, it’s just an assumption drawn from an anecdotal observation.

Okay, try to create an anecdote in which a person is stepping on others in the process of obtaining power. Express what is going on in his mind as he is hurting other people. Then we can see if he is blind, or if he is lacking awareness, or if he is fully aware and not blind.

OneSheep: Believing an untruth is not “knowing what you are doing”.

Believing an untruth is not knowing the truth. Knowing is more than hearing, knowing is being convinced of the knowledge to the degree that it is relied on to guide choices. Anything short of this is partial knowledge.

The more we know about a truth, the more we are convinced of its veracity.

OneSheep:To think that she wanted to separate herself from God would be a projection, and uncharitable.

Wanting to make oneself like God is not saying one wants to be separated from God. If you are reading separation from that want, it is a projection. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be like God; we want to be like Jesus, correct?

Read God’s question to them. They were afraid because they had eaten from the tree. Try to pay attention to your projections.

Actually, Genesis 3 says that they were afraid because they were naked. What does a naked person in public fear? They fear the judgment of others. We cannot ignore the aspect of Genesis 3 in part being an allegory about people gaining a conscience. They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is an aspect of the conscience. They began to judge themselves and one another, which is also an aspect of the conscience.

So yes, they gained a conscience, and then they felt guilty. We are in a much greater state of “knowing” when we have guilt than when we are blinded by desire.

I’ll post my response to the rest when I can.

 

[Gorgias]

Please express what that person is actually thinking, and we can examine how informed it is.

Express what is going on in his mind as he is hurting other people.

Oh boy, here we go.

Let’s role-play this out:
I’m gonna say, “I can’t tell you their personal thoughts”.
Then you’re gonna say, “well, that means that you can’t tell me that they’re rejecting God”.
Then I’m gonna respond, “their visible actions tell us that.”
And you’re gonna counter, “well, you can’t make your assertion.”
And I’ll conclude with, “if I’m unable to tell you their thoughts, then you’re unable to assert that they’re ‘blind’.”

Did that just save us a whole lot of back-and-forth?

Believing an untruth is not knowing the truth. Knowing is more than hearing, knowing is being convinced of the knowledge to the degree that it is relied on to guide choices. Anything short of this is partial knowledge.

Two thoughts:

• The issue here isn’t “partial knowledge”, it’s “sufficient knowledge”. One (who isn’t God) never has perfect and complete knowledge. However, that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have sufficient knowledge in order to make a decision; it’s the way we do things all the time.
• One may be mistaken about one’s conscience-informed decision. However, that doesn’t mean that one isn’t responsible (or unreasonably held to responsibility) for one’s decisions.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be like God; we want to be like Jesus, correct?

That’s different than disobeying God in the attempt to have the same powers as God.

Actually, Genesis 3 says that they were afraid because they were naked.

Keep reading. Look at God’s take on the situation.

What does a naked person in public fear? They fear the judgment of others.

The point is that they didn’t have that anxiety prior to committing sin.

We cannot ignore the aspect of Genesis 3 in part being an allegory about people gaining a conscience.

Now you’re the one projecting one’s self on the narrative. There’s nothing in the narrative about this being all about “gaining a conscience”.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The loss of justice is the loss of sanctifying grace. That is what mortal sin is.

Rather than going round and round with this, I am wondering if you can remember my response to this assertion that Adam and Eve were guilty of mortal sin because of what happened afterward. When you can recall that, please address it.

Take a look at post 748. You did not address the point I made, you simply repeated “B, therefore A”.

I did address what you said. However since you do not state precisely what you mean here, I am not going to guess at what you are getting at. It is sufficient that the dogma of the Catholic Church is that Adam and Even committed a personal sin which resulted in the loss of justice (Council of Trent). The teaching of the Church is that loss of justice is loss of the state of sanctifying grace and there is only one way for that to occur for those that have a state of sanctifying grace (Adam and Eve were constituted with sanctifying grace before their choice to reject it, just as those that receive baptism and later loose their state of justice through sin.)

 

[OneSheep]

I’m gonna say, “I can’t tell you their personal thoughts”.

Well, people have various levels of cognitive empathy, so it cannot be expected that everyone is able to imagine the thoughts of another person.

It’s all projection, so simply state what you would be thinking if it was you stepping on people, hurting people in your own drive for power.

Then I’m gonna respond, “their visible actions tell us that.”

While visible actions can be indicative of a person’s thoughts, it is completely illogical to conclude that actions are attributable to specific thoughts. All one can do is examine all the possible thoughts.

It is very good to examine one’s thoughts, gorgias. Self-awareness is prayer, it is part of relationship, even if it is difficult or painful.

The issue here isn’t “partial knowledge”, it’s “sufficient knowledge”. …, that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have sufficient knowledge in order to make a decision

When the person knows and has in mind (not blind) to the point of sufficiency, they choose not to sin. This can be examined.

One may be mistaken about one’s conscience-informed decision. However, that doesn’t mean that one isn’t responsible…

We are responsible for every single decision we make, regardless of the circumstances.

That’s different than disobeying God in the attempt to have the same powers as God.

People have the natural desire for power. It is not sinful. Disobedience was a matter of believing an untruth. If desire to “have the same power as God” is something for which you project that God would be angry about, then that is possibly an aspect of your shadow. If you want, try this: How do you feel about your own desire for power?

Keep reading…

Nowhere does it say she wanted separation from God.

The point is that they didn’t have that anxiety prior to committing sin.

Exactly. Experience is an enormous part of knowing. They were much closer to “sufficient knowledge” once they experienced anxiety about what they had done. People learn slowly, but anxiety does help. Prior to their defiance, we have no reason to believe that they knew what it was like to experience guilt.

 

[OneSheep]

Now you’re the one projecting one’s self on the narrative. There’s nothing in the narrative about this being all about “gaining a conscience”.

Projection is a matter of “this is what I would do/think/be motivate by/ in that situation” whether or not one owns their thoughts. You could be saying that I am projecting that the author of Genesis was inspired to write a story, that in part explains humans having a conscience, and that I am saying he did so for the benefit of the reader, to help them understand why we think in terms of good and evil and experience guilt. If so, that would be correct. I am projecting that the author wrote it for the benefit of the reader.

Then that means that you cannot assert that it’s due to “blindness”.

Sure I can, it reflects my own projections, just yours does your own. What I am saying is, do our projections reflect the image of humanity as beautiful, loveable, and innocent in intent, in keeping with the catechism’s words on human dignity, or do they instead reflect self-blame, feelings of negativity we have toward oneself and others?

Do the projections demonstrate that people have infinite value? If so, they express the truth. If not, they express some variation of belief in human depravity, which is rooted in blame, rooted in judging, part of the workings of the conscience.