# Give up yer new sins ...



## redstar (10 Mar 2008)

Catholic Church identifies new mortal sins for 'modern' times ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7287071.stm

Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Surely these were always sins, just their method of implementation has changed over time ?


----------



## Hoagy (10 Mar 2008)

They're a bit shaky themselves on 3,4 and 7.


----------



## Ceist Beag (10 Mar 2008)

You said it Hoagy - isn't the Vatican reputedly one of the richest countries in the world? The hypocrisy of these guys is astonishing ... if you were to take them credibly that is!


----------



## Simeon (11 Mar 2008)

"Yes Papa. I will do as you say and not as you do".


----------



## efm (11 Mar 2008)

Does the "Genetic Manipulation" apply to everything including foods? ie GM crops modified to grow better in difficult conditions in some 3rd world countries?

Also, what is the definition of "inflicting poverty"? my wife does that to me every week when she goes shopping!


----------



## z104 (11 Mar 2008)

She's a sinner


----------



## Caveat (11 Mar 2008)

So I wonder have any "oul" sins been relegated from the mortal division then?


----------



## DrMoriarty (11 Mar 2008)

http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm#answer8


----------



## Caveat (11 Mar 2008)

DrMoriarty said:


> http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm#answer8


 


Didn't think the internet was around in the 19th century.


----------



## efm (11 Mar 2008)

DrMoriarty said:


> http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm#answer8


 
I see that Male Prostitution is specifically mentioned but Female Prostitution isn't - does this mean that Female Prostitution is only a venial sin?


----------



## Jock04 (11 Mar 2008)

Caveat said:


> Didn't think the internet was around in the 19th century.


 
Sure, I put you right on this one before! 



Jock04 said:


> Aye, shrewd with money alright.
> 
> Sure, we've been making money from cyber-cafes there for ages now


----------



## rabbit (11 Mar 2008)

Hoagy said:


> They're a bit shaky themselves on 3,4 and 7.


 
Too true.  Plus , given that the population of the world has trebled from 2 billion to over 6 billion in the space of a lifetime ( eg someone who lived in mid / late 20th century ) , and given the effect of this ( climate change, earths resources etc ), and the cause of this ( big families,  restriction of contraception etc )....the whole thing is very debatable, if not shaky as you say.


----------



## GeneralZod (11 Mar 2008)

They've called the Genetic Manipulation one wrong. Just like they were wrong with Galileo and the Coperincan view of the solar system they'll be forced to drop this one as hereditary diseases are treated using gene therapy.


----------



## Complainer (11 Mar 2008)

redstar said:


> Accumulating excessive wealth


Does this one apply to organisations, as well as individuals?


----------



## truthseeker (12 Mar 2008)

redstar said:


> Drug trafficking and consumption


 
Why is drug consumption a sin in the eyes of God? Surely if I grow a spamspamspam plant in my back yard and roll it up and smoke it quietly and dont bother anyone Im not committing any sins??? Where is the sin in it?


----------



## The_Banker (12 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Why is drug consumption a sin in the eyes of God? Surely if I grow a spamspamspam plant in my back yard and roll it up and smoke it quietly and dont bother anyone Im not committing any sins??? Where is the sin in it?


 
Your question assumes the Catholic Church is a credible organisation, and an authority on what is right and wrong!


----------



## Miles (12 Mar 2008)

The_Banker said:


> Your question assumes the Catholic Church is a credible organisation, and an authority on what is right and wrong!



Good point! They do have a sense of right and wrong though - the systematic redeployment of abusing priests to other parishes when they re sins were uncovered shows they know what was wrong!

Is Deceit and Deception on that list somewhere?


----------



## truthseeker (12 Mar 2008)

The_Banker said:


> Your question assumes the Catholic Church is a credible organisation, and an authority on what is right and wrong!


 
You are quite right of course.

On a slightly off topic note 2 little old ladies from the local parish called on Sunday to welcome us to the parish on behalf of the parish priest and offer us a little holy booklet. We said No Thank You explained we are atheists. They both looked shocked and then made reference to us being 'nothing', we explained that atheism does not imply we are 'nothing', simply that we do not buy into the same (or indeed any) spiritual beliefs that they do. They couldnt understand it. I think they think we are sinners now


----------



## shanegl (12 Mar 2008)

If an experiment is a sin, surely its not morally debatable, and the debate is over?

Anyway, all of these new 'sins' are covered by the old ones. They've let themselves down badly here.


----------



## Simeon (12 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> You are quite right of course.
> 
> On a slightly off topic note 2 little old ladies from the local parish called on Sunday to welcome us to the parish on behalf of the parish priest and offer us a little holy booklet. We said No Thank You explained we are atheists. They both looked shocked and then made reference to us being 'nothing', we explained that atheism does not imply we are 'nothing', simply that we do not buy into the same (or indeed any) spiritual beliefs that they do. They couldnt understand it. I think they think we are sinners now



In the name of god can you define an Atheist. And would god's definition of an Atheist sound too egotistical?


----------



## Caveat (12 Mar 2008)

I like the perhaps provocative and controversial lower case 'g' and capitalised 'A'


----------



## truthseeker (12 Mar 2008)

Simeon said:


> In the name of god can you define an Atheist. And would god's definition of an Atheist sound too egotistical?


 
To answer your first - I cant do anything in the name of something I dont believe in.
To answer your second - how could god have a definition? Can things that dont exist define other things?

I actually suggested to my partner that we call the ladies back and offer them a copy of The God Delusion and then invite them for tea at a later date to discuss it.


----------



## Simeon (12 Mar 2008)

Then someone should get on to Bantam Press ...... the name of the tome is misleading. It (IMHO) should read "The Thing That Doesn't Exist's Delusion".
 Or "The Illusion Delusion"!


----------



## truthseeker (12 Mar 2008)

Simeon said:


> Then someone should get on to Bantam Press ...... the name of the tome is misleading. It (IMHO) should read "The Thing That Doesn't Exist's Delusion".


 
I like it!!


----------



## RMCF (12 Mar 2008)

Simeon said:


> Then someone should get on to Bantam Press ...... the name of the tome is misleading. It (IMHO) should read "The Thing That Doesn't Exist's Delusion".



Did anyone else read 'The God Delusion'?

Now I was a big fan of Richard Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil" TV programme, so I bought the book when I last went on holiday (I enjoy light reading!!).

However, as much as I took his point, he seems to be a believer in parallel universes and all that nonsense. He even gave an example, I believe, of a parallel universe where he has a green moustache!! Now he started to lose credibility with me at this point. He refuses to believe in a God but believes there is an infinite number of worlds which will cover EVERY single possibility that can exist.


----------



## efm (12 Mar 2008)

RMCF said:


> believes there is an infinite number of worlds which will cover EVERY single possibility that can exist.


 
Didn't Einstein theorise that this was the case or am I mixing up my physisiststsss..........scientists


----------



## Remix (12 Mar 2008)

> In the name of god can you define an Atheist


 
Surely a more appropriate exclamation would be: "In the name of Secular St. Darwin of the Galapagos"


----------



## truthseeker (12 Mar 2008)

RMCF said:


> Did anyone else read 'The God Delusion'?
> 
> Now I was a big fan of Richard Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil" TV programme, so I bought the book when I last went on holiday (I enjoy light reading!!).
> 
> However, as much as I took his point, he seems to be a believer in parallel universes and all that nonsense. He even gave an example, I believe, of a parallel universe where he has a green moustache!! Now he started to lose credibility with me at this point. He refuses to believe in a God but believes there is an infinite number of worlds which will cover EVERY single possibility that can exist.


 
Isnt this the basis of quantum theory or string theory etc?


----------



## Remix (12 Mar 2008)

RMCF said:


> However, as much as I took his point, he seems to be a believer in parallel universes and all that nonsense. He even gave an example, I believe, of a parallel universe where he has a green moustache!! Now he started to lose credibility with me at this point. He refuses to believe in a God but believes there is an infinite number of worlds which will cover EVERY single possibility that can exist.


 
Note that Dawkins appears to have conceded lately that life on earth may have had a designer - but from another planet !! (Should keep the scientologists happy!)


----------



## truthseeker (12 Mar 2008)

Remix said:


> Note that Dawkins appears to have conceded lately that life on earth may have had a designer - but from another planet !! (Should keep the scientologists happy!)


 
Really? I wasnt aware of this. Perhaps I should rethink my position on Atheism - I mean, if the Scientologists believe in Alien Design and now so does Richard Dawkins - well then - who am I to argue!


----------



## Remix (12 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Really? I wasnt aware of this. Perhaps I should rethink my position on Atheism - I mean, if the Scientologists believe in Alien Design and now so does Richard Dawkins - well then - who am I to argue!


 

Don't get it. If Dawkins concedes life on earth might have had an alien designer well that's not a rejection of his atheism. Rather it's an additonal story, if you like, to safeguard his atheism against other explanations.

Of course one might then ask how the alien intelligence came to be - oh yeah I forgot - an infinite number of universes make all things possible 

Reminds me of a quote from mathematician David Berlinksi (who is Jewish):



> If you ask me who is more credulous, the more suggestible, the dopier, the more perfectly prepared to convey absurdity to an almost inconceivable pitch of personal enthusiasm - a well trained Jesuit or a PhD in quantum physics, I’ll go with the physicist every time.


----------



## GeneralZod (12 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Isnt this the basis of quantum theory or string theory etc?



That's the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is popular with former physicists AKA string theorists because it gives them an excuse for its failure to predict anything and lets them invoke the anthropic principle.


----------



## Gordanus (12 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> Why is drug consumption a sin in the eyes of God? Surely if I grow a spamspamspam plant in my back yard and roll it up and smoke it quietly and dont bother anyone Im not committing any sins??? Where is the sin in it?



Alcohol is a drug........wine is served at Mass.......go figure


----------



## GeneralZod (12 Mar 2008)

Gordanus said:


> Alcohol is a drug........wine is served at Mass.......go figure



It's not wine, it's blood according to them. So they have an out on that one.


----------



## roland (12 Mar 2008)

GeneralZod said:


> It's not wine, it's blood according to them. So they have an out on that one.


 
Actually it's a very cheap cabernet sauvingon.  I'm paraphrasing some old adage here but if it smells like a cheap cab sav, and tastes like a cheap cab sav, well it very probably is a cheap cab sav!


----------



## Simeon (12 Mar 2008)

GeneralZod said:


> It's not wine, it's blood according to them. So they have an out on that one.


You can have it both ways ........ if you drink Bull's Blood. I drank some years ago. Hungarian I think.


----------



## cole (12 Mar 2008)

Gordanus said:


> Alcohol is a drug........wine is served at Mass.......go figure


 
Tea is a drug. Go figure!


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

GeneralZod said:


> It's not wine, it's blood according to them. So they have an out on that one.


 
so if I went and bled someone to drink their blood it wouldnt be a sin?


----------



## swordshead (13 Mar 2008)

truthseeker said:


> so if I went and bled someone to drink their blood it wouldnt be a sin?


errr...if you went and did that id be worrying about something more than if it was a sin or not


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

swordshead said:


> errr...if you went and did that id be worrying about something more than if it was a sin or not


 
I always found it a bit worrying as a kid about the whole eating/drinking of the body and blood of christ!!


----------



## Simeon (13 Mar 2008)

Surely a greater feat than the marriage feast at Cana or the loaves and fishes .......... he manages to give a bit of himself billions of times over at masses worldwide. Although for the latter he overdid the multiplicaion thing and the disciples were left with 12 large doggy-bags to tote away. However, nothing is mentioned of the 'reverse style' miracle performed by the crowd in This post will be deleted if not edited immediately' first miracle ........ turning the wine back into water a few hours later.


----------



## Pique318 (13 Mar 2008)

Obviously cannibalism & vampirism are fine then...


----------



## Lauren (13 Mar 2008)

my head hurts after reading this thread..... I think I need a holiday


----------



## truthseeker (13 Mar 2008)

Lauren said:


> my head hurts after reading this thread..... I think I need a holiday


Its possible that holidaying is a sin - best check the rules before you go


----------



## Simeon (13 Mar 2008)

Well you could try a few of the counties and townships in Arkansas if you want to get away. Plenty of dry areas there. Most in the south and mid west of USA. Of course if you wanted to be at one with the lord, you could climb the Rockies in Utah ...... thus being high and dry at the same time. Without shroons.


----------



## roland (13 Mar 2008)

Lauren said:


> my head hurts after reading this thread..... I think I need a holiday


 
Welcome to the irrational world of the catholic church.  Anything goes, but make sure it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Remix (14 Mar 2008)

Simeon said:


> Then someone should get on to Bantam Press ...... the name of the tome is misleading. It (IMHO) should read "The Thing That Doesn't Exist's Delusion".


 

Raises the question of what atheist women should cry out during org**m.


"Oh He-that-doesn't exist .. oh He-that-doesn't exist"..

Doesn't sound right.

How about:

"Dawkins! Oh, Dawkins! HitchenHitchenHitches... Right Harris... oh Dawkins... yeh right Harris. OH! That Dennet for me"


----------



## redstar (14 Mar 2008)

Remix said:


> an infinite number of universes make all things possible



Indeed. There's probably even a universe where people get holidays to celebrate somebody coming back from the dead !


----------

