Why?

[STT]

I don’t understand this, could you explain.

we are taught when we sin we must confess or sins to a Priest. Then by the power of the Holy Spirit we are either forgiven or our sins are held bound.

What I do not understand is how repenting to yourself is honoring oneself. Maybe you can explain that. I do not believe you nor I hold the power to forgive sin. By that I mean absolution for that sin. Where did your teaching come from that you honor yourself by repenting?

Let me explain it this way. We are all on our way to become Godly and honorable. Performing sin is against this. Therefore repenting to yourself is matter of realizing that how important we are, simply honoring yourself.

No need to say that repenting yourself also improve our conscience too.

 

[STT]

This is simply untrue. When you sin you offend God. And when you sin there are times you also not only hurt God you hurt others.

Where do you claim this power comes from that you have to forgive sin? No one has that power but God. While I can forgive you for hurting me, I do not have the power to forgive your sin.

Many people sin and hurt others and do not care. People who steal cheat and lie, couldcare less about others, and are quite happy with themselves.

It is a grace from God that you choose not to do those things, not a grace from oneself.

You cannot hurt God but others. Others become Godlier once they forgive you. Therefore you only do bad to yourself.

 

[friardchips]

Yes.

Meaning is different from reason.

How do you define meaning?

How do you define reason?

We could act free when non of the options in disposal are not opposed to meaning.

I think there is a double-negation too many in that sentence, for comfort. This is the equivalent of stating that we could act freely…when none of the options are in keeping with meaning.

A few posts ago, you said that we are only ever free when divorced of meaning.

You think that we can make reasoned choices even when meaning is not present, even though you think that meaning, is all encompassing?

You apply meaning in terms of a philosophical stance only and reason to thought deduction…based on pure logic, maybe?

How can one turn away from meaning that is all encompassing, which guides our actions, because for meaning to be all-encompassing, this is equal to the fact that meaning is already present, and if so, it is not dependent upon purely subjective reasoning i.e:- one cannot choose when to avoid meaning because the meaning in the case you have presented is bigger than one’s own perceived reality?

 

[STT]

How do you define meaning?

That is a difficult one. I invite you to read the following article.

I don’t completely agree with the following definition but I think that is a good starting point.

Meaning are purposes that not only have a positive value, but also render a life coherent , make it intelligible, or transcend animal nature.

How do you define reason?

The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

I think there is a double-negation too many in that sentence, for comfort. This is the equivalent of stating that we could act freely…when none of the options are in keeping with meaning.

What do you mean with keeping?

A few posts ago, you said that we are only ever free when divorced of meaning.

I would say that we are completely free when we divorce the meaning.

You think that we can make reasoned choices even when meaning is not present, even though you think that meaning, is all encompassing?

I don’t think that we can make reasoned choices without the meaning.

You apply meaning in terms of a philosophical stance only and reason to thought deduction…based on pure logic, maybe?

No.

How can one turn away from meaning that is all encompassing, which guides our actions, because for meaning to be all-encompassing, this is equal to the fact that meaning is already present, and if so, it is not dependent upon purely subjective reasoning i.e:- one cannot choose when to avoid meaning because the meaning in the case you have presented is bigger than one’s own perceived reality?

Why anyone should turn away from the meaning? That is what I call wrong act.

 

[friardchips]

What do you mean with keeping?

‘In keeping’ means ‘connected’, ‘apt’. ‘relevant’, ‘to do with’, ‘in harmony with’…

Why anyone should turn away from the meaning? That is what I call wrong act.

Earlier you said that to be free (and freedom can be defined as thus) is when meaning is not attached to our actions. And you concurred that this was the only relationship between freedom and meaning.

You have said here that to turn from meaning would be a wrong act. Therefore, drawing the inevitable conclusion, that you believe freedom is wrong.

When maybe, what you are in fact attempting to piece together, is the theory that the definition of freedom comes only with the ability to choose wrong acts?

 

[STT]

No, but you apparently do as I’m questioning it.

So you believe that God can not reason that sin (what is prohibited) is wrong (against justice). So everything is based on what He likes or even who cares blah blah.

 

[STT]

‘In keeping’ means ‘connected’, ‘apt’. ‘relevant’, ‘to do with’, ‘in harmony with’…

I see.

Earlier you said that to be free (and freedom can be defined as thus) is when meaning is not attached to our actions. And you concurred that this was the only relationship between freedom and meaning.

You have said here that to turn from meaning would be a wrong act. Therefore, drawing the inevitable conclusion, that you believe freedom is wrong.

You are still free to choose when there are options which embarrasses the meaning.

When maybe, what you are in fact attempting to piece together, is the theory that the definition of freedom comes only with the ability to choose wrong acts?

You can do that either. The meaning is the only principle for establishing morality.

 

[Gorgias]

You cannot hurt God but others.

We cannot hurt God… but we can offend Him.

Others become Godlier once they forgive you.

Be careful with that assertion: by that standard, the person who sins and is forgiven is holier than the one who never sins. In other words, sin increases holiness. (St Paul would have a cross word or two with you over that assertion… )

 

[STT]

We cannot hurt God… but we can offend Him.

Yes, if we do it purposefully. Doing sin is not implicitly or explicitly an offend to God but himself.

Be careful with that assertion: by that standard, the person who sins and is forgiven is holier than the one who never sins. In other words, sin increases holiness. (St Paul would have a cross word or two with you over that assertion… )

He is of course wrong. Suppose that everybody constantly sin and then confess. That would be a social disaster!

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, if we do it purposefully. Doing sin is not implicitly or explicitly an offend to God but himself.

That’s where your opinion and God’s revelation diverge. All sin is explicitly an offense against God.

He is of course wrong.

Of course he is. After all, he’s only an apostle and a saint.

Suppose that everybody constantly sin and then confess. That would be a social disaster!

No… a “social disaster” would be the case in which people constantly sin and then don’t repent. Kinda like all of history.

 

[friardchips]

You are still free to choose when there are options which embarrasses the meaning.

If I have misunderstood what you meant by “embarrassing the meaning” then let me know, because this is what I think:

Earlier you said that freedom is void of (without) meaning which is the same thing as saying that to be free one must avoid freedom. But then you said that it is wrong to turn from meaning. Then, when faced with the question, as to whether you think, then, that freedom is wrong, you now say something about options “embarrassing the meaning”. If I read this the way it is written, you are in-effect not saying anything different to before. Presumably, “embarrassing the meaning” is just another way of saying what you said before, about other choices than meaningful ones?!

You can do that either. The meaning is the only principle for establishing morality.

Meaning only exists if there is a choice to pick less-than meaningful options? And this is the difference between being moral or not?

From that conclusion, then, you also believe that one cannot grow by making meaningful and slightly less meaningful decisions. The only way that you believe people can be moral is by having the option of immorality and a meaningless option with every choice?

This doesn’t make any sense, sorry. If one is not free with meaningful choices and the result of that being that one is only free without meaning, and that meaningful choices are the moral ones, and that to go against them is a wrong act, then you are basically saying that one is free only when we are not moral and when we do not pick meaningful choices.

You can’t mean one thing while also meaning the opposite. That is certainly not reasonable.

So, do you believe then, that freedom is wrong, because if not, then you have given incorrect answers?

 

[STT]

That’s where your opinion and God’s revelation diverge. All sin is explicitly an offense against God.

I don’t agree with your system of belief.

Of course he is. After all, he’s only an apostle and a saint.

So we agree on that.

No… a “social disaster” would be the case in which people constantly sin and then don’t repent. Kinda like all of history.

Repent doesn’t really change anything if we keep doing sin.

 

[STT]

If I have misunderstood what you meant by “embarrassing the meaning” then let me know, because this is what I think:

Earlier you said that freedom is void of (without) meaning which is the same thing as saying that to be free one must avoid freedom. But then you said that it is wrong to turn from meaning. Then, when faced with the question, as to whether you think, then, that freedom is wrong, you now say something about options “embarrassing the meaning”. If I read this the way it is written, you are in-effect not saying anything different to before. Presumably, “embarrassing the meaning” is just another way of saying what you said before, about other choices than meaningful ones?!

Let me try again. Suppose that you are in a situation with two options one embraces meaning and another doesn’t. Picking the first option is right and picking the second option is wrong. In that sense you don’t have any freedom. Now suppose that you are in a situation with some options in which some embrace meaning and others don’t. In this case you have freedom to pick up an option among those which embrace meaning.

Meaning only exists if there is a choice to pick less-than meaningful options?

Yes, meaning exist if there is an option. I don’t understand the rest of your question.

And this is the difference between being moral or not?

An act is moral or not if it is embraces the meaning or not respectively.

From that conclusion, then, you also believe that one cannot grow by making meaningful and slightly less meaningful decisions. The only way that you believe people can be moral is by having the option of immorality and a meaningless option with every choice?

The only way that people can be moral is by following the meaning. I don’t understand all your question.

This doesn’t make any sense, sorry. If one is not free with meaningful choices and the result of that being that one is only free without meaning, and that meaningful choices are the moral ones, and that to go against them is a wrong act, then you are basically saying that one is free only when we are not moral and when we do not pick meaningful choices.

Of course you have freedom when you have meaningful choices. I don’t understand what is the source of misunderstanding.

You can’t mean one thing while also meaning the opposite. That is certainly not reasonable.

I think we misunderstood each other.

So, do you believe then, that freedom is wrong, because if not, then you have given incorrect answers?

Freedom is wrong when it oppose to the meaning.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t agree with your system of belief.

Fair enough. We Catholics would assert that this isn’t a “system of belief” characteristic, that’s something that God revealed through His Word. So, you’re asserting that the Bible is not truthful.

It’s gonna be kinda difficult to have a conversation about theological matters if you plainly assert “your theology is wrong.” No animus; but certainly we may have hit a wall in this discussion.

Repent doesn’t really change anything if we keep doing sin.

Actually, I think it does. After all, repentance brings forgiveness for the past and resolve for the future. On the other hand, “we keep doing sin” because we’re imperfect and vulnerable to concupiscence.

So, repentance gives us the ability to face the future with hope and purpose. It changes us, internally… even if we do sin, subsequently.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… . Suppose that everybody constantly sin and then confess. That would be a social disaster!

That’s why being in some of the High Demand New Movements is a social disaster!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… We are all on our way to become Godly and honorable. Performing sin is against this. Therefore repenting to yourself is matter of realizing that how important we are, simply honoring yourself.

No need to say that repenting yourself also improve our conscience too.

These are actually the same thing, honouring oneself in the appropriate way is improving one’s conscience. Facing responsibility for one’s potential impact, and grateful for the chance to act in conformity with that.

 

[STT]

These are actually the same thing, honouring oneself in the appropriate way is improving one’s conscience.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Let me try again. Suppose that you are in a situation with two options one embraces meaning and another doesn’t. Picking the first option is right and picking the second option is wrong. In that sense you don’t have any freedom. Now suppose that you are in a situation with some options in which some embrace meaning and others don’t. In this case you have freedom to pick up an option among those which embrace meaning.

…

Yes, one has the freedom because it is an effort to take the initiative to embark on either option.

That is still true if there are circumstances hampering or hindering one performing either or both choices, circumstances making it seem almost inevitable one would be swept into one option, insufficient information to evaluate the options objectively, etc.

Freedom can be difficult, as we all know, every minute of every day.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Why should be eternally damned if we don’t want and accept God’s Love? He should still love us and set us free so we can live our ways.

As an agnostic, being told random undigested bits and pieces doesn’t make sufficiently constructive sense to you, and I don’t expect it to.

When I speak to other Christians I don’t always cite specific Bible passages, because I expect them to recognise them.

There is the way many Christians edit out of their doctrinal consciousness the fact that the major part of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ (and most of the Old Restament writers’) warnings are against those of His people who cut thelmselves too much slack in the face of the realities already offered to them.

The Old Testament writers promised future Holy Spirit power and Jesus and New Testament writers describe the effect of present Holy Spirit power, which is meant to enable us to feed our fellow believer and not stunt him.

A good deal of the sort of warning you are referencing does not apply to outsiders and agnostics, it is against those who are wasting what they’ve already been given.

God does have warnings to outsiders, but they occupy a smaller proportion of Scriptures.

 

[friardchips]

Let me try again. Suppose that you are in a situation with two options one embraces meaning and another doesn’t. Picking the first option is right and picking the second option is wrong. In that sense you don’t have any freedom.

Meaningless option = wrong…Meaningful option = right.

Because there is only one right option then we are not free.

(Or, it is made easy for us to be free! ).

Now suppose that you are in a situation with some options in which some embrace meaning and others don’t. In this case you have freedom to pick up an option among those which embrace meaning.

Meaningful option = right…Less meaningful but still meaningful option = less right but still right.

Because both are meaningful options just at various levels of meaning then we have a choice to be free.

Yes, meaning exist if there is an option. I don’t understand the rest of your question.

Don’t be concerned. This last few paragraphs is more beneficial as it is clearer to see what you mean.

An act is moral or not if it is embraces the meaning or not respectively.

You are applying ‘meaning’ to define an objective good?

The only way that people can be moral is by following the meaning. I don’t understand all your question.

Not to worry. I have a better idea now where you are with your last few answers.

Of course you have freedom when you have meaningful choices. I don’t understand what is the source of misunderstanding.

I was thinking that you were saying that you only have freedom if you have wrong choices that are objectively evil. But I don’t think this is what you are saying now…

You are not saying that evil helps to define freedom.

You are saying that freedom comes with the ability to choose good choices?

Correct?

I think we misunderstood each other.

Not necessarily. Maybe before.

Freedom is wrong when it oppose to the meaning.

What you mean by “freedom is wrong” is that when we pick wrong choices we misuse our freedom and therefore we distort and pervert freedom to mean something else?

Sorry for late reply to your PM.