The messages could have simply come in delayed. I was in a bad connection zone.

Wallace has entered the chat

@Milkgamer55 I presume you desire the cheese?

If so I can send Gromit to fetch it...

What about Wensleydale?

That sounds good

Wallace and gromit was my childhood, best thing ever

Lol

I was just thinking about Wallace and Gromit a couple days back. The nostalgia.

Cheese, Gromit!

YES

WALLACE AND GROMIT WAS MY CHILDHOOOOOOD

Jesus is the real homie

@Memologist Ph.D. he's the original G

Y’all please pray for the legendary pastor/theologian Tim Keller, he’s still batting pancreatic cancer. The world needs his wisdom

Happy Thanksgiving @everyone

Thank you and to you as well but don't try to ping everyone

I have none

Forget “all lives matter,”
To God, and therefore also to Christians, all life is sacred.

Here Here.

Big win for the churches and synagogues

Reminder that God is good, Christ is King, and that Christ is Risen and that He is based and epic. 'Kay. Good night.

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

@Hibernian Raptor-Lord If I’m understanding the question right, you’re asking how someone who does evil things who doesn’t *know* they’re evil things isn’t guilty of sin?

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

@Hibernian Raptor-Lord You don't need to feel embarrassed. At times one can overlook a detail when they are trying to decipher something important. I've done it before. All that matters is that you realized what you overlooked.

Sin is sin. No matter what you think is or is not sin. Even if you don't know something is a sin and you commit it, you are still sinning.

In my opinion, sin is not objective. It is defined by what the Bible says.

On the part concerning the committing of a morally objectionable act, the importance of the "ignorance" would likely need to be stressed. If one was never exposed to God, such as being raised in an atheistic household, certain things can be more readily forgiveable. It was "honest" ignorance. On the other hand, if the individual was totally aware of the moral wrongness of their actions, and simply conveniently turned a blind eye to it, arguing that " how could I have known it was wrong? Some Faith's say it is good, others as you it isn't". This is dishonest ignorance. It is akin to me refraining from going to the dentist do to me fearing bad news about an aching tooth. I cannot be honest in saying" I didn't know it was an issue".

Either way, knowing whether or not you are sinning doesn't stop God's judgement

Or better words his knowledge of it

I agree. But, the level of sin can be measured, to some extent,by ones knowledge ofthe sin being a sin.