why is there a need for a priest's intervention? are we not able to converse with Him whenever we want to? why then should our asking of forgiveness be in the presence of another mortal?

We can always talk to God wherever and whenever we want to.

when you say "talk to" iba pa ba yun sa "talk with" kasi kapag sinabi mong "talk with", kinakausap ka nung kausap mo, meaning sinasagot ka niya. at eto lang, sinasagot ka ba ng kausap mo? dein ata.(and please. no nonsense bout the 'god works in mysterious ways' eklat eklat.)

so ewan. kapag nagdadasal ka (the world's notion of talking to gods...) hindi ba ur just talking to yourself? kausap mo lang sarili mo tsong.

and oo. hindi kailangan ng mga pari para sa mga confession and all.. nasasayo naman yan eh. if sa tingin mo hindi masama yung ginawa mo pero sa buong mundo sobrang grave and mortal sin na yun at uulanan ka na ng fire and brimstone dahil dun, ayos lang. basta sa tingin mo tama, gawin mo lang ng gawin. tao rin ang gumawa ng diyos. therefore tao ang diyos.

don't get me wrong i'm not talking with the devil's tongue here... sinasabi ko lang na nasa tao na kung sa tingin niya masama ang ginawa niya. tawag diyan morals. wala lang.

and i don't believe in penance either, guilt is punishment enough... don't you think?

so yun lang. ewan.. inaantok na ata ako at kung anu ano na pinagsasabi ko.

mainam chong.. mainam.. heh..

When you say "talk to", that is different from "talk with." although may similarity sila dahil parehas kang nakikipag-usap. The mjor difference is that ang "talk to" - ikaw lang ang kumakausap. When you say "talk with"- as you said so, yung kinakausap mo nagrereply.

Kaya ko nga sinabing "talk to" kasi you don't expect a response. Hindi ko po sinabing "talk with."

I don't do confessions anymore. To me it's useless. Sometimes I think there's an imaginary sign on your way out of the confession box that reads: "Go forth and try not to sin again. If you do, just come back here and ye shall be forgiven."

It's a vicious cycle. I pray one Our Father and three Hail Marys and after that, am I half the sinner that I was? No. I've sinned, done those stupid (evil?) things and no amount of prayer can undo what I've done.

Penitence? I don't need a priest to be really REALLY sorry for my sins now, do I?

kung di ka naghihintay na magreply kausap mo... pano mo nalaman na finorgive ka na niya? diba you said na kausapin mo na lang si God kahit kelan mo gusto? regarding confession, pano mo lam na He actually accepted ur apology? .... ay oo nga pala... i forgot. GOD IS SOOOO FORGIVING...(bobo ko talaga.)eh kung patayin kaya kita at magsorry sa Diyos ng taus-puso pagkatapos... masusunog pa kaya ako sa impyerno?? hehehehe joke lang mehn. mabait akong tao.

(bat mo ako pino "po"? bata pa ako. unless ur mocking me....... hmmm...... ) ehhe

Sorry, I don't believe in the so-called "hell." People take the "fires of helll" and the other characteristics of hell in the Bible literally. Hell is not those underground thingy that has fire or sumthing.
I won't further discuss about that thing because that is not the topic at hand.

Anyway, saying "po" and "opo" in the Internet is one of the net etiquettes. I'm
not trying to mock anyone. That's not my
attitude.

One more thing: I did not say in the first post that when we talk to God whenever and wherever, we are actually forgiven. I just said that we can talk to GOd whenever and wherever we want to. That's the only thing I said.

sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not how reconciliation works.

wanting to be forgiven and being forgiven is more than just saying sorry to God. any sin, no matter how trivial, is an offense against God and the community. the priest pardons you on behalf of God and of the community.

however, forgiveness doesn't stop there. we know we are forgiven once we actively take it upon ourselves not to repeat our past sins. it's a process.

[/b]

that's right. nothing you do can undo the damage. but you can be part of the reparation. and the first step is admitting you're wrong and allowing the offended party to welcome you back.



no, but you DO need a priest to administer the sacrament of reconciliation.

unless you're not Catholic, in which case you're free not to confess. nasa paniniwala iyan eh.

then you're saying na kung Catholic ka, then you're obligated to do penance?

eh bakit nga? elaborating on what d98603b said, i could always ask for forgiveness from God through the priest without the priest knowing if i'm sincere or not. the priest then forgives my wrong doings. so even if my asking of forgiveness is not heartfelt, it wouldn't matter kasi the priest would not know. basta ang gagawin nya, papatawarin nya lahat ng hihingi ng tawad sa kanya diba. using the same Catholic context, pinatawad na rin ako ni God kasi lahat ng papatawarin ng priest, papatawarin din Nya.

lumalabas tuloy na pointless ang penance unless of course gusto mong maging cycle ng sin, confession, sin, confession, sin, confession ang buhay mo.

with these, the presence of a priest becomes trivial and to some point may even be unnecessary. my question then remains. why the need for priests?

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: clandestine ]

I'd like to think that not only did I offend the community, but also the rest of humanity. That's why being pardoned through the words of a single "representative" of God seems a bit... er, bitin.

Of course I agree when you said that "wanting to be forgiven and being forgiven is more than just saying sorry to God". Indeed I do my best to try not to repeat my sins and then make up for them (not thinking of course that one particular good deed "cancels out" a bad one). However, what makes confession so special that I will not be able to redeem myself or "reconcile" with those I offended if I did not go through it? This may be a crass example, but what if I get stuck in some remote location and only native Africans and shamans are around?

um, yes?




then congratulations, you'd have just lied to a priest, committing more sin.

serously, though, i've already said that the culmination of the sacrament of reconciliation is us not wanting to sin anymore, and actively avoiding sin. if we lie about being sorry to the priest, then the sacrament is not fulfilled, the penance empty. then we go to that cycle you were saying.

why the need for the sacrament of reconciliation? i will get back to you on that, there's a Biblical verse somewhere that says so. mamayang hapon, balikan ko ito. nasa opisina ako on lunchbreak eh.

Thronclaw, if there aren't any priests around, or if you're microseconds away from death, i think God will understand if you confess directly to Him. however, given the Biblical verse that i will cite later (promise!), God has shown us an avenue by which we can be reconciled to Him through the Apostles and their successors.

Ack! *pulls on her hair* My name! What did you do to my naaaame?! j/k

Anyway! Isn't it better if we just talk directly to God? Why do we even need a third party? Parang long distance call. Mas okay direct-dial kaysa operator-assisted, diba?

then what if i, a Catholic, chooses not to? furthermore, what if i choose to ask for forgiveness directly from Him?



i may have lied but the priest did not know so my other sins were forgiven. after confession, i'm only left with one sin (unless i missed something) which is the lying that i did to the priest.



this is where my confusion worsens. if i remember right, Christ said that whoever His disciples forgive, He will forgive as well. the priests (His modern day disciples) forgives those who do penance right? since they don't have the capability of knowing whether someone is sincere or not in their asking of forgivess, they end up forgiving almost everybody. i could aways say "i promise not to do it again" then do it again.

for example, I insincerely do penance. the priest forgives me. since Christ said na He will forgive those people who have been forgiven by his disciples therefore the sins i confessed are forgiven.

Christ, on the other hand, could tell whether i'm being sincere or not. He then, could choose to accept my apology or not. But, if He chooses not to (even if i was already forgiven by the priest), then He's acting against what He said.

so diba dapat wala na lang penance? :confused:

[quote]Originally posted by raggster:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by clandestine:
... there's a Biblical verse somewhere that says so. mamayang hapon, balikan ko ito.
[/quote]

can i just add? (oo malamang. kaya nga forum eh.) anyway. maybe we should remind ourselves na the bible is a censored/edited/filtered/cut version of what christianity is really about... and personally... i don't think it is very reliable.

(so tanong. saan natin ibbase yung relihiyon natin?) ba malay ko wag ako tanungin niyo. de joke. kasi ang relihiyon naman ay isa sa mga need ng tao eh.. and it being a need he can shape it to whichever way he wants. kaya kayo, kung gusto niyo magconfess, ayos. kung gusto niyo makipagusap sa Diyos, ayos lang din. religion IS a human need. one of the many.

ay, sorry.



will answer that and clandestine's and d98603b's questions later. couldn't find the verse eh. still looking for my reference book.

anyways, patience is a virtue.

"God, grant me patience. And please hurry!"

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Thornclaw ]

somethign i found on the net that may give some insight:



this, at least, explains the origins and the Biblical basis for the sacrament. Jesus has given us a means by which we can be reconciled with God. if it was a simple matter of confessing directly to God, then why did Jesus specifically confer unto the Apostles the power to forgive sins on earth?

~~~

clandestine, it is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.

if you don't mean what you say, the confession and absolution means nothing, even if the priests says the words, "Your sins are forgiven."

~~~

d98603b: if the Bible is really a "censored/edited/filtered/cut version" of Christianity, then what is its original form? what is your basis for claiming this?

Whoa there... Confessing directly to God is not that simple to me! I mean, you're confessing to the CEO of the entire cosmos, not his secretary.

Anyway, I could still accept that Jesus "[conferred] unto the Apostles the power to forgive sins on earth". Just remember that these people actually met Jesus. They knew him. Two thousand years later, I don't think anyone could know Jesus the way these Apostles did. Not even the Pope himself. The Apostles experienced Jesus' spirit and his humanity at the same time, while the rest of us knew Jesus only through faith.

Maybe God does have faith in priests to forgive us on His behalf. Still, knowing and feeling deep down that you have been forgiven is something I trust more than the common words of a priest saying, "Your Father has forgiven you." And comparing between the time I last stepped out of the confession box and the time I "talked" to God from the roof of my home, I say that I truly felt God's forgiveness when it was just me and Him.

please read the very last sentence in the exerpt i quoted.

and lest we forget, St. Paul never met Jesus personally, yet was also conferred the power to forgive sins when Peter, James and John recognized Paul as a fellow Apostle in the Lord. that says something.



well, to me it sounds more like a preferential issue than an actual doctrinal problem on your part. i wouldn't be bothered by the sacrament issues, if i were you.

ako, personally, ilang ako kapag hindi ko kilala yung priest. so as much as possible, i go to confession doon sa kilala kong pari. it's a personal preference.

it also depends on how you understand the word "forgiven." in your mind, how do you know that you're forgiven? is it a "gut feel?" or do you see it translated into action, either on your part or on the part of the offended party/ies? or perhaps a mix of both?



i'm not about to question your personal experiences with God. no one has the right.

the Bible that is being used by the present day church is indeed the "censored/ edited/ filtered/ cut version". if i remember right, it was originally written in Aramiac (i'm really not sure though). so before it arrived to how it is now, it went through several translations. actually, it went through A LOT of translations.with these translations came unevitable changes of the gist of the verses. one famous example of this is a translation from a language which uses one word to pertain to both sexes to a language which uses two different words. it's like this:

"siya ay gagawin kong pinuno"
translation: "i will make him a leader"

normally, the "genderless pronoun" when translated becomes a "male pronoun". bigla tuloy men lang yung gagawin niyang leader when infact he was pertaining to both genders. iyan yung issue sa women ordination but i'd be talking nonesense if dwell on it since this is nowhere near related to what we talking about. ayan, proof that the bible has been messed around with,pwedeng accidentally and pwede rin intentionally.



[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: clandestine ]

is not that against what Christ said? and if this were indeed the case then what's the sense of presence nung priest if their granting of forgiveness is not that significant? and please, don't insist that it is because if it's still Him who chooses who to forgive and who not to, then the forgiveness of the priest becomes negligible.

I didn't forget -- I just didn't know. So thanks for clearing that up.




I'm not really bothered about the whole doctrine thingymajiggies. Just confused on why we are obliged to go to confession and spill our darkest secrets to someone just as mortal as we are.



I think it's both. It's more than just gut feel for me. It's also affirmation, or actually "knowing" that I was forgiven.



Thanks?

well not really... pero we also don't have proof na it is not a "censored/edited/filtered/cut version", do we? wala lng.

I think what raggster means here is that why do you even bother to go to confession if you're not going to be sincere anyway? That's why it's called confession -- because you are supposed to declare your sins. In short, tell the truth.

Inistorbo mo na nga yung pari, pinahaba mo pa yung pila.



As far as I know, penance is an expression of regret or sorrow for your sins. You can't stop some people from showing that they do feel guilty for what they've done.

Example. Convicted murderer na sobrang na-guilty sa ginawa niya na kulang na lang pakamatay siya... It doesn't necessarily have to follow that he has to pray the rosary non-stop for the rest of his life. What can he do? He could spend his life in jail and then accept it. For me, that's penance already. Kung walang penance, pwe, swerte niya... BUT! I know FOR SURE he wouldn't like it one bit.



(Typo demons, bad! )

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Thornclaw ]

whether you're sincere or not is not the point. what i'm saying is, how you feel towards the sin is something the priest is oblivious of so it SEEMS like it would not matter.

in addition to this, confession is just, well, confession. you merely came clean. it does not necessarily etail you being sorry.

for example, i intentionally broke your vase:

thornclaw: oh my golly-gosh-gosh! who broke my antique vase? my vase... my beautiful vase.. my beautiful antique vase.... *she then breaks into unstoppable tears* (hehehe... )
clandestine: i broke the vase and i'm happy about it.

i declared my sin but was not sorry. confession pa rin yon diba?



[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: clandestine ]

Going to confession means that you want to be forgiven for your sins. This means that you feel guilt in some form or another.

In your case, it's like going in there and saying, "I broke Thornclaw's vase (and I'm happy about it)." Then you step out. What's the point of even going there if you're just going to lie anyway? Sure the priest doesn't know. But hey, confession is supposed to be a two-way thing. The priest does his part and listens to you, and so you should also do your part.




Yup. Confession in the dictionary sense. Big diff.

[quote]Originally posted by clandestine:
the Bible that is being used by the present day church is indeed the "censored/ edited/ filtered/ cut version". if i remember right, it was originally written in Aramiac (i'm really not sure though). [/quote]

Greek, actually. though i recall they probably spoke Aramaic.

[quote]
so before it arrived to how it is now, it went through several translations. actually, it went through A LOT of translations.with these translations came unevitable changes of the gist of the verses.[/quote]

ah, i see.

but i would think that the differences in meaning that are lost in the translation are minimal, don't you? what i'm asking is how the doctrinal truths of the Bible are representative of the supposed "cut/edited/filtered version of Christianity" brought up earlier.

[quote]
one famous example of this is a translation from a language which uses one word to pertain to both sexes to a language which uses two different words. it's like this:

"siya ay gagawin kong pinuno"
translation: "i will make him a leader"

normally, the "genderless pronoun" when translated becomes a "male pronoun". bigla tuloy men lang yung gagawin niyang leader when infact he was pertaining to both genders. iyan yung issue sa women ordination but i'd be talking nonesense if dwell on it since this is nowhere near related to what we talking about. ayan, proof that the bible has been messed around with,pwedeng accidentally and pwede rin intentionally.
[/quote]

that's a language issue na. Filipino, as a language, uses a lot of pronouns that are genderless; in fact, this is a common occurence with a lot of Oriental languages not normally found in Western tongues.

as for the translation of the gender, that's where Apostolic Tradition comes in. since the beginning of the ministry, it has never been in question that it was the men who were to be called to be preachers and church leaders, with the women and children to live out their Christian beliefs in terms of daily living instead. it's a cultural influence, to be sure, but if we really want to keep the doctrine intact, we have to keep the tradition intact as well.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: clandestine ][/B][/quote]

perhaps you could point out exactly what it is that Christ said (as in Biblical verse)that conflict with this?



okay, ganito. Christ instituted that the Apostles, in their official capacity as being sent by the Son to continue the work the Father sent Jesus to do, can forgive sins. now, whose forgiveness are they giving, their own personal forgiveness or God's? siyempre kay God, kasi si God lang ang puwedeng magpatawad. BUT they have been given authorization to do so on God's behalf.

but as pointed out na by Thornclaw, and as evidenced in excerpts in Acts (will try to get specific verses later), people who confess are assumed to be doing so out of the sincere desire to be pardoned of their sins. without this sincere desire, the confession is meaningless.

furthermore, remember the Biblical verse. whatever sins they forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven, and so on. so if the priests absolves a death row convict of multiple counts of rape right before his execution, and the convict really did feel sorrow and regret and wanted to atone, then he will be forgiven. but if i, for example, go to a priest, confess that i kicked our neighbor's dog but don't really feel any guilt for it, then i do not receive absolution even if the priest says so.

if you want to make it simple: if you're not sincere, then God won't forgive you, regardless of what the priest says when you go to confess.

we do. it's called "Apostolic Tradition."

also remember that the Bible is not a complete source of Christian doctrine and beliefs, and that we shouldn't fall into thr trap of saying that belief in the Bible makes us Christians. after all, if that's the case, then what about the thousands of Christians who lived during the time when the Bible had not yet been compiled? malabo.

~~~

i will probably get flack for this, and it'a bit off-topic, but the King James version does have some alterations. you see, King James had this thing against magick users during his time, especially after three alleged sorcerers attempted to assasinate his brother.

so, he made sure to make liberal mention of witches in the King James version of the Bible, replacing terms such as "poisoner" and "soothsayer" with the term "witch."

compare with the Catholic editions. the New American Bible and the Revised Standard edition never makes any mention of the word "witch" nor "witchcraft," and only mentions "sorcery" once.

going into the Greek and Latin translations (check out www.sacred-texts.com for those version, pretty good website), it is impossible that the terms there refer to witches. "witch" is a derivative of "wicce," which is Old Anglo-Saxon English, meaning it's a relatively new term.

yun lang.

you really think na enough na yun para maniwala? ewan, kasi di pa din ako ganun ka convinced eh...wala lng..wait.. sabi ko na nga ba at dapat nakinig ako kina mrs. Frago at mr. miranda habang lecture eh..well kung ano man yun, edi cge..meron pala eh..oh well. pero siguro mas madali na lang talaga ang buhay if people just followed blindly...magpagamit na lang tayo sa mga manggagamit. answers just lead to more questions... bleurgh! yoko na.

heheh i never liked confession, honestly. I mean, why can't I say it to God (if there is one) myself? A priest can't always resist from spilling the beans, no matter what. I mean...okay, you confess, so you can be cleansed and blessed and everything, but who are we to demand to be forgiven...it's kind of like that. How many times have you heard a priest saying you're not forgiven, turn your back on God, there's nothing you can do? Ginagawa lang penitence...then...there. you're clean. But i still think praying to God on your own is much better.

[/b]

my task is to clarify, not to convince.

you said the Bible is "censored/ edited/ filtered/ cut version." i asked why, and you gave a hint of uncertainty, then appealed to the lack of proof. i gave you the proof you needed. you still don't believe. ultimately not my problem, yes?

[quote]
wala lng..wait.. sabi ko na nga ba at dapat nakinig ako kina mrs. Frago at mr. miranda habang lecture eh..well kung ano man yun, edi cge..me

[/b]

my task is to clarify, not to convince.

you said the Bible is "censored/ edited/ filtered/ cut version." i asked why, and you gave a hint of uncertainty, then appealed to the lack of proof. i gave you the proof you needed. you still don't believe. ultimately not my problem, yes?



hehehe... sumbong kita kay Ma'am Frago, neighbors and relatives pa naman kami.

~~~

Quicksilver, a priest can NEVER divulge anything said during confession. Biblical iyan. the only time they can "spill the beans" on you is if you give them permission. violating the secrecy of the confession is considered a grave sin.

as for the reasons why we should go to a priest, i posted parts of it above. check it out.

but on another aspect, people have this notion that we are confessing to a priest, not to God. mali. we are confessing to God, through a priest.

the other side of it is that people think that the priest forgives us, not God. mali nanaman. God forgives us, through the priest.

we don't demand forgiveness, we humbly ask for it. think about it. when was the last time we forgave someone who demanded that we forgive them? di ba ang labo nun? why would God be any different?

whether or not priests actually don't forgive sins during a confession is something we'll never know (although the Bible gives no precedence for that sort of thing). but just because it's "automatic" from our point of view doesn't mean that it's meaningless. it is only meaningless inasmuch as we don't give it as much meaning as we should.

o' course. Bawal na bawal yan. But then again, priests are still human. I think (i'm not sure ha!) i remember a priest at mass shared that he shared with a fellow priest a part of confession. But i don't think he knew who the person was.

Basta yon, the temptation will always be there and mahirap magresist.

so you're telling me that you're asserting that all priests are susceptible to the temptation of "spilling the beans," based on something you think you remember, but of which you aren't sure?

*ahem*

okay.

~~~

btw, the limitation of the inviolable secrecy of confession is that it pertains specifically to confession as the sacrament. just because you tell something to a priest doesn't mean you're actually confessing already. if you just tell the priest something out of the blue, that doesn't constitute confession, and the priest is at liberty to share that. although the general practice is to consider all forms of private confidement as sacred, and generally not to be shared unless under very general circumstances (for example, citing parts of a "confession" for the purpose of illustrative example, without revealing specific details or naming names).

just FYI, pips.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAh fine!
Yes, they are ALL susceptible to it, and i do remember! i just don't remember WHO it is! there! it's not like they're so super duper pure saintly that they're untouchable by temptation...

yes, they still could! They could be...whatchamacallit...taken out of priesthood for telling...

but whether or not i remember it correctly, it does not mean that they are imm...immune to temptation. It does NOT mean there is still no possibility. There IS a possibility of them telling, and that iS my POINT!

sorry.

:eek: :eek:

k. finally, to try and clear up what i said, i MEAN that when we say confession, whether or not we mean it for God, the priest will hear it. It's confession. You tell it to the priest. It may be THROUGH the priest, but the priest will hear it nonetheless.

and, i said that going to confession is like practically demanding it. I mean, unless you comitted a mortal sin, the priest is going to give you penitence and say ...i forgot the line...'you're forgiven, go out and sin no more' or ssomething like that. It's practically a given that God through the priest will forgive you. so it's like it. you go to confession and come out a clean, new person.

there. that's what i meant. hope that clarified, and showed what i really meant.

sorry if it was malabo before, and if my post sounds..uhm...i don't know...

you're giving us a possibility and presenting it as a highly likely possibility, when in fact you have one instance of it happening, and given the narration you gave, it seems that the priest was only sharing the situation that was confessed, and not the identity nor the exact contents of the confession, which is not part of the limitations. so even if your example can be generalized to include all priests, it still doesn't give us a concrete example of priests "telling" on us.

QUOTE

yes, they still could! They could be...whatchamacallit...taken out of priesthood for telling...

actually, they're not taken out of the priesthood. they're stripped of the privileges of dispensing the Sacraments, and he's made to devote a very long time in solitude and prayer (kinda like exile). so sacred is the secrecy of the confession.

but giving us the punishment doesn't mean that it happens all the time.

QUOTE

but whether or not i remember it correctly, it does not mean that they are imm...immune to temptation. It does NOT mean there is still no possibility. There IS a possibility of them telling, and that iS my POINT!

and my point is that you're hyping up the possibility too much, to the point of being unreasonable. by that logic, we shouldn't go out on the streets because of the possibility of being hit by a car, or being mugged; or we shouldn't breathe because the free radicals in the air will probably cause cancer.

QUOTE

k. finally, to try and clear up what i said, i MEAN that when we say confession, whether or not we mean it for God, the priest will hear it. It's confession. You tell it to the priest. It may be THROUGH the priest, but the priest will hear it nonetheless.

you say that like it's a bad thing.

QUOTE

and, i said that going to confession is like practically demanding it. I mean, unless you comitted a mortal sin, the priest is going to give you penitence and say ...i forgot the line...'you're forgiven, go out and sin no more' or ssomething like that. It's practically a given that God through the priest will forgive you. so it's like it. you go to confession and come out a clean, new person.

first you say we demand it, now you say it's automatic. how can we demand something if it's automatic? :confused:

sorry, nalalabuan talaga ako.

~~~

[b]major point: just because we don't understand what a particular sacrament is all about - what it means, how we got it, how we go about it, what are the implications -, it doesn't mean that we should automatically junk it in favor of what we feel is better for ourselves.

God left us with something to work with: Apostolic Tradition and the Bible. why then should we insist on doing things our way?

Gee. Here's my take on the subject.

1. God exists. If He didn't then there would be no point to this entire discussion. Therefore, within this context, it must be assumed that God exists.

2. God knows what I'm thinking. This assumes that God is omniscient. If He isn't omniscient, then he probably wouldn't know what goes on in the world anyway (I consider the idea of a transcendent being with a limited perception of reality absurd), which would again render the discussion pointless.

3. God is aware of our thoughts and feelings regarding our own moral actions as they relate to our own personal ethos. This follows from 2.

4. God is fair. If God played dice with souls, then once more, this discussion would be totally irrelevant. Thus, within the context of this discussion, God must be assumed to be fair.

5. It is unfair to expect a person to act according to information he or she does not possess.

6. God judges each one of us according to our own context. This follows from 4 and 5. If God is truly fair, then each of us would be judged according to our own perceptions of the world.

7. The moral rightness or wrongness of an action as God judges it depends upon the doer's world-view at the time the act is committed. God will consider a person's action to be morally wrong if and only if that person (consciously or unconsciously) considered that action to be morally wrong at the time the act was committed. This follows from 6.

8. The moral value-judgment of an act is figured upon its occurrence. This follows from premise 7.

9. This value-judgment can either be altered or will remain constant. If it can be altered by changing the doer's world-view, then God does not require any conscious communication from that person in order to incorporate the change and factor it into the revised value-judgment (following from 3). If the value-judgment remains fixed, then no amount of attempted communication with God will alter it.

Conclusion:
We don't have to confess to anyone.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fire n' Shadow ]

*sigh*

the problem is that #4 makes a huge assumption on the nature of God, and does not present a holistic picture. yes, God is fair. but relative to whose terms? ours? why should God be bound to observe what we consider fair, and not what God considers fair?

another thing is that logic of #6 isn't even the way it works in real life. are cult members forgiven of their acts when they commit crimes that, in their perspective are "in line with their beliefs?" does the unrepentance of a rapist/murderer exempt him from judgement if he honestly believes that there's nothing wrong with what he did?

in real life, there are moral standards to be followed that are, in many senses, universal in nature. ignorance of these standards is NOT an excuse for being "divinely forgiven." hence #'s 5, 6 & 7 do not hold water.

furthermore, #9 ignores the importance and the impact of self-realization of that person's inner changes, and contradicts #6. if that person is not aware of the changes in world-view taking place inside him/her, and if people are not made aware of it as well, than how is everyone expected to act accordingly? that person will look like a hypocrite for acting one way and then changing ways the next day in the eyes of everyone else who doesn't know better.

~~~

Mk 2:9-11 "Which is easier, to say to the man sick with palsy, 'Thy sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Arise, take up thy bed and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of man hath the power on earth to forgive sins, - he said to the paralytic - 'I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.'"

Jn 20:21-23 "Jesus said to them, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.' And when he said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.'"

I just thought that in order to argue this matter, God should be assumed to be universally fair and reasonable. Otherwise, the system would be too chaotic and unpredictable. If God weren't fair, then our actions and moral outlook wouldn't matter at all. I find it hard to fathom that God would have a set of unknowable criteria against which we are measured. I think the only way that God could fairly judge each individual is on the basis of that individual's context.



And morality is entirely different from legality. Yes, it may be morally right for the cultist to commit illegal acts, but it will also be morally right for the authorities to prosecute them.



Who is to define those universal moral standards? No human organization can presume to speak for the entirety of the human race. The only way that a moral value-judgment system can be made universal is for it to be individual.



Clarification of 6: Our perceptions of the world include the views we hold unconsciously.

And 9 does not contradict 6, unless you equate social norms with morality.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fire n' Shadow ]

nakaw!! patay tayo jan! pero ayos lang, di na naman ata ako kilala nun... hehehe... pero si mr miranda ewan ko na lang... ak lang yung kaisa isang taong nagsummer sa religion classes nung third year eh! waaaahh....potek.

pwedeng sumingit? (pwede.) wek... edi if nag "spill ng beans" yung pari, tas nagcommit siya ng grave sin.... edi mag confess na lang siya sa ibang pari para maatone yung kasalanan niya... ehhe... wek. don't mind me... bored lang po. hehe


bleurgh!

AhhH! okie...

i'm convinced. That's all. I've been convinced by..uhm.. raggster. I guess i have no idea what i'm talking about. I suppose my logic is a bit...IS lopsided.

but hey, this is a faith issue and i've got none. faith, i mean. faith in the priest, faith in god, faith in fellow human beings, faith in the way god wants this thing to work.

kc dapat humble tayo kc we have sinned kaya sa priest..db mga merong "i confess to Almighty God,and to you,my brothers and sisters,that i have sinned..."

no, you don't need a priest to be really, sincerely sorry for your sins. but to actually repair the damage to your relationship with God (caused by sin) you need his grace and forgiveness, not to mention the strong and sincere resolve on your part to safeguard that relationship.

this is probably not the best analogy but here goes... the priest to whom you confess your sins acts as the medical doctor who diagnoses your spiritual health. on the assumption that you were truly sorry, and you have undergone sincere examination of conscience prior to your Confession (Big C, to differentiate it from our dictionary definition), the priest is in the best position to get your spiritual health back on track. he also has the physical hand that provides God's absolution/grace.

if we do a personal Confession, that is, when we self-diagnose, our personal biases could possibly blind us from what we are supposed to do.

alcoholics, for example, when they join AA, stand up and say, I'm so-and-so, and i'm an alcoholic. they do so not because they are proud of it, but because they admit that there is a problem, and they have decided to do something about it. this is what we do when we Confess. we are not proud about what we did, but we tried to overcome embarrassment by telling someone we did do wrong, and against no less but the One who gave us life/free will. (believe me, it is very hard for people to muster enough courage to tell the priest the bad things they've done) but that first act, provided that the penitent is sincere, is a start to change.

the great thing about Confession is that we have someone to report back to in terms of our progress - our personal rah-rah guy, just like the participant in AA has his co-attendees to do the same for him.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: human nature ]

the problem is that we'd be assuming that what we think of as reasonable would be the same as what the Divine would find as "reasonable." if such is the case, then God becomes a subject to human nature and human will, and not the other way around. God ceases to be Divine and Transcendent if It is unable to go beyond the limitations of human understanding. which is a contradiction in definition.



morality is the capacity of people for knowing right and wrong. laws, being the collective agreement of the citizens of a country as to what is considered socially right or wrong, are a part of morality, though not necessarily equal.

interestingly, you didn't touch on the rapist/murderer example, only the cultist example. would it have made a difference if i had said that the illegal cultist practice was ritual virgin sacrifice?

of course, this point leads somewhere, but i want to hear your answer first.



the part i italicized is a logical contradiction. if we reduce the sense of right and wrong to the individual understanding of it, then we have no single, universal understanding of it. relativism cannot be equated with universalism.

as for universal moral standards, they need not be absolutely uniform in form, only in principle. UN has already made a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which i would find anyone hard-pressed to denounce as "relative" to anything. if you want a religion-free standard for moral behavior, that would be a good place to start.



by that standard then, no one can be held accountable for anything for so long as it can be justified, either by themselves or by someone else on their behalf. the only time we do something morally wrong is when we go against what we believe in, for no particular reason, and no one can justify our act for us. now, what person in his right mind would do something like that?



unless you can provide me with a contrary example, yes, social norms can be equated with moral standards ("morality" is not the same as "moral standards," by the way), and in most cases it usually is.

exactly. and their penance is what i said earlier, yung magdadasal sila in solitude for a long time, and that they'll be stripped of their priviliges to administer the Sacraments.

But unpredictable systems are SOOOO unscientific... And can human understanding not be transcendent as well? I think so. Masyado namang mababa ang tingin mo sa tao.

"It can't be explained, let's not think about it" isn't a very appealing assertion, methinks.



My point is that there is no universal moral standard that can apply to everyone. Laws are merely social conventions that maintain order. They are a system of rewards and sanctions meant to keep people in line so that practical progress can be possible. Morality has very little to do with this pragmatism.

And yes, the same applies to the rapist.



What I meant to say in a rather roundabout way (hey, that rhymes...) is that the only universally fair and reasonable arrangement would be a value-judgment system that varies per individual.

The DHR was intended to maintain order and the status quo. The more powerful nations were democratic and relatively liberal, so they made sure that the UN advocated their own ideals.



If an act is justified reasonably by the individual herself based on her ideals, then it is necessarily right. If somebody else does the justifying, then it shouldn't affect the value-judgment. And yes, hypocrisy is the only sin.



I was referring to morality, moral right and wrong, not social standards.

Are you saying that "If everybody does it, then it must be right," is a sound maxim to live by? :eek: