Ripheus23

You must remember that the final offenses are not united as the Trinity is. Their "unity" in the entanglement theorem is enough of an illusion to tempt us to the profane belief, here. However, it is true that due to their entanglement, romantic injustice and recursive disgrace can be intercomputed: the four forms of amendment "go with" the square of metafinity, so that for the problem

• Find the appropriate degree of punishment for the sin of romantic injustice.

... the solution goes for: [absolute finite: A; relative finite: B; relative infinite: C; absolute infinite: D] so that the priority of redemption over retribution gives us A = punishment, B/C = forgiveness/apologies, and D = redemption (atonement, salvation even). But if even the worst punishable sin (note: recursive disgrace is proto-talionic at least, but it does not seem as if transcendental delusion is the kind of thing that can be externally "avenged") merits absolute finite retribution at most, does it follow not that no sin ought to be punished so gravely as is required in the system of damnation?

[Of course, to tempt the victims [subjects] of this injustice, with the motive of vengeance, seemingly justified, is of the will of transcendental evil, here. For the rage of those violated in the first place is translated into the power of damnation itself, is it not?]