just joining... could u define "liberalism" quick?

so im on the same page

ppl seem to think of it differentl..

yh in this context

Currently, i presume, as opposed to classically. Because "the left" is ot what it was.

*not

Would you agree that there is a place for the left though?

Well, not agree, necessarily. Hold that view, then?

As a counterweight to the very possible excesses of thre "right?"

I tend to think that the right is "better," broadly s[peaking, but like any human institution is prone to corruption, power grabbing, elitism etc

if it has something to fight it stays on its toes more, so to speak.

or should

intersting

very good how?

curious to know

Yeah i get that.

I'm not liking the noises globalism is making, however.

true, at least not completely. one should still attempt it tho

true, at least not completely. one should still attempt it tho

mistake

Yes. But one shouldn't shrink from doing right just because it seems useless or hopeless.

"He sees all that is done in sectret etc"

and willingness

prudence obviously. to tackle that which seems *less *hopeless.

howd u italicize lol

there are driving forces tho. both of this world and the one below.

cheers

wait so u didnt lol

more that which is impossible

Slight change of topic, but does anybody else find it funny/somewhat alarming that we, collectively, consider ourselves to be the untouchable zenith of human achievement?

Incapable of falling?

All others fell.

Not learning from history is a serious fallacy...

idt its limited to modern man alone, but yes

At least for the past several centuries there was the grounding influence of belief, regardless of where u urself believe.

it made us look up, and not around/down so much

Nietzche wrote of that.

can we drop that joke lol? none of us even remeber it

its being used as one, certainly

If you don't mind my asking, are you a professional medical person?

In Ireland it's being used to push through, clandestinely, many types of unrelated and far reaching negative legislation

Our police have the ability to arrest on grounds of not complying with the "guidelines"

to my knowledge it hasnt been used yet, but why the hell do we need that

we dont

k imma head out ✌️

I like your style.

All right, people of the Discord. So there's an question I'm having with a Catholic teaching.

If sin is objectively wrong, how does one reconcile that to the teaching that one is not guilty of sin if one is acting on an inculpably erroneous conscience?

An IEC is a conscience that informs one wrongly. It judges good as bad and bad as good, in an extreme case. In its more common form, it easily *confuses* right and wrong.

I get that it's just on God's part to not impute guilt in the case of an unknowing misdemeanor, but is the axiom of the objectivity of evil suspended in this case? If so, why? You can't, like, do that. For God to suspend a transcendent moral principle would be against his nature, Him being all the omni's etc. He can't redefine the Natural Law because to do so would tantamount to admitting a mistake in the original Natural Law...

Maybe this is the wrong place for this lol

Almost. I'm more tryna find out how to harmonise the notion of evil being objective and the teaching of guiltlessness when the evil is unknowingly committed. Surely there must be some guilt, Even very little?

Waaaaaait is it just that the guilt isn't counted but the sin is still a moral evil?

Gosh that's simple. Embarrassing lol

In other words, sin *is* objective? Sin being defined as a deviation by an individual from the Eternal Law.
Also, sin isn't sin "because the Bible says so." The Bible says that a particular action *is* a sin because it *already was.* The Bible is part of the Revealed Law which helps humanity, with its compromised (since Adam and Eve's fall) intellect, to discern moral evil.

it changes form, not nature.

Agreed.