Well, let's see. Back at home for c. a month, in peace. Several straggling addictions have been, it appears, curbed. And by what? Well, it seems, by God. Of course perhaps not: perhaps by me. Been reading and thinking through various matters religious. The problem of sin is still the problem that I have: I wrong you, and yet am forgiven not by making amends to you, but my being forgiven my God. An Aristotelian conception of sin: no relations, just properties of my. Now one interpretation is that it's both. That by wronging someone one qualifies them and oneself. One can then remove one's qualify but not the other's. It just seems unfair, does it not? That one can be a dick, hurt someone deeply, and then be forgiven, while the other continues to suffer. Exactly, unfair. But, does not the justice system operate according to the same presumption? Are we not looking, in this idea of punishment, precisely an eye for an eye? There are two different issues here: it's unfair because the wrongdoer isn't punished, it's unfair because the wrongdoee isn't comforted ( or better phrase). So, the ideal situation would be: I repent, then God rewards the other, sort of a psychical settlement. Why does this not occur? Ultimately we're back, it seems, to theodicy. Precisely to dice, dike. But we should disentangle the two ideas of punishment and settlement.