And this is what you call idealism, from a strictly material basis. Where do you derive morals from in such a system?

Malebranche would have told me in the confessional that it's a sin to doubt God. — Gregory

Unlikely: a priest is an itermediate, as writen by Thomas D'Aquin: he prays with (for) you or gives you guidance the way the Church tells him, towards an higher ideal that is not human intuition or arrogance; he doesn't tell you this or that is a sin or rule society. Priest were responsible for education as a charitable organisation of literates, as writing was for religious purposes to begin with.

An approach such as you guys have is typical of the military-industrial Anglo-Saxon system. French is more refined, it doesn't just get down to buzz words or individual concepts, it is more fluent than english and lends itself well to multiple meanings.

I've been told "such and such" is a "sin" many times in confession. I no longer go. Morality comes from within us, from our Dasein (is German as good as French?).

Maybe you went to a protestant church? I don't go to confession, I don't think the Catholic church has that either, it has the "recounciliation sacrament".
Often we think we are right, we know we are right and believe it in our heart, yet we are wrong. What is good about a religious organisation like the Catholic church that places charity above all is that it prevents human mistakes on humans in principle, like not furnishing bare minimum to the jobless because they should work and we think they protest needlesly, like in the u.s., and it is voluntary adherance. The reason they ran things back in the days in France was also the dime, when a politician suggested taxes should take the form of a monetary tax, he was guillotined.

In Catholicism, it's called the sacrament of confession, the sacrament of repentence, or the sacrament of reconciliation. All the same thing

Materialism gets kinda boring, which is why I've been exploring spirituality of late. But even when I'm a materialist I still believe in mortal and venial sins. You don't have to believe in God for that. Nowadays I see the idea and concept of God as expressing something about my self. The "Father" expresses memory, the "Son" expressed logos in my reason, and "Spirit" represents my free will. Maybe I am totally based on matter. I don't know those fundamentals.

I'm not into all these concepts, and I don't use the concept of sin, I don't think into that frame at all. I don't think there is such a thing as Catholisism, where did you get that term from? There can be materialism, as you can engage in material endeavours, but there's not such thing as a Catholic endeavour when talking about a sacrament. There can be Catholicism when speaking of engaging into the charitative activities of the church maybe, but in fact what you are talking about is a Confession. I'm no expert on the matter, all I know is there is Catechism, not Catholicism: such a term is derogatory and illogical.

But even when I'm a materialist I still believe in mortal and venial sins. — Gregory

Would you say that this is a biological interpretation of the diformation of something real a posteriori?

No need to drag the discussion if there is no interest, maybe others will respond too, maybe... Good day.

Sorry for the delay. People call themselves Catholic and have apologists who argue that their sacraments are from God. So that is on them. I did propose a biological interpretation of phenomena but I don't know if its a priori or a posteriori. Which do you think it is?

First time I hear that Catholics argue that their sacraments come from God: Where do sacraments come from? André KÉRYGME, Curé de Port Saint Nicolas: from Christ and the Church; it is from Christ and his apostle that come the initiative of these gestures and the words that accompany them; the Chruch intends to prolong them faithfully... in a celebration.

I felt like posting a new tread: I got baited: this isn't a philosophy forum.

I was told in a college that philosophy, in the ancient greek way it was practiced, was about philosophers going among the people and freely engaging in discussions with them, about nothing and everything.

My dictionary says: Philosophy: Domain of culture that consists in a whole of interogations, reflexions and research having a rational character and led since greek antiquity on the being, causes, values etc. and puting in play, in the diversity of ways employed and retained answers, man's relation with the world and his own knowledge.

Whatever you guys are doing here, it's not philosophy.

This forum is all compartimented and with fixed ideas and fixed starting points and clearly like a pop culture (for lack of a better term) media center. Philosophers in principle meet people freely, which is what I'm desperatly trying to do here and there on the internet, but philosophers don't run the place or host forums, the society is not open enough, this internet thing is like an anglo-saxon militarised and governmentalised jack pot with a negative net result. In college they encouraged philosophy for a better, open society (it's on the obligatoy curriculum in Québec province).

I think I'll just leave, I'm very disapointed that my ideas did not catch interest.

I did propose a biological interpretation of phenomena but I don't know if its a priori or a posteriori. — Gregory

A priori, it's just an interpretation, a proposition. How can you ask such a ridiculous question?

Phenomena are entities and activities encountered by the human brain that exhibit both transcendental and empirical characteristics.

Transcendental characteristics exhibited by phenomena are absolutely necessary and strictly universal (i.e., applicable to all entities and activities); whereas, empirical characteristics exhibited by phenomena are of a limited necessity and a restricted universality (i.e., applicable only to some, but not to all, entities and activities).

Noumena cannot be encountered by the human brain because they exhibit neither transcendental nor empirical characteristics.