Forums | MacLife

everlong205 wrote:

They seem overly specific, and overlap existing sins. Becoming obscenely wealthy could be a sign of greed already. Why be so specific. Also, what does obscenely wealthy mean? How about moderately wealthy? How about if you're obscenely wealthy but fight social injustice and poverty? What if in doing so though you create pollution?
And what does causing poverty mean? Also taking drugs? What are defined as drugs? Aspriin are drugs. Is that a mortal sin. Polluting the environment? We do that simply by being human. One can be greener or engage in cleaner fuels, but simply by living in amodern society and having modernities we are creating garbage and using energy, both of which contribute to teh  pollution of the environment.
These are dumb

Tallgeese wrote:

I think that this list was put out because attention needed to be brought to certain issues - especially with the focus on gays that the religious right has, the Church probably saw the need to slap the conservatives a bit and tell them that they need to knock off their smurf, too.

I love it when these things happen so conveniently.

isaly wrote:

mind in the gutter. . .

Is that what the kids are calling it nowadays?

Tallgeese wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

I love how these new sins are so specific, as with how the old ones can be bent to anybody's will with enough determination.

Not really.

Things like pride, gluttony and wrath can be applied to a lot of situations. Don't sell or don't take drugs is very specific about a very specific action and/or event.
The old sins are negative character traits, the new sins are actions. They don't fit at all. They sound like somethign that would fit better under the commandments. ie. Dont do drugs, dont pollute.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-03-10 9:18 pm)

Tallgeese wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Not really.

Thinks like pride, gluttony and wrath can be applied to a lot of situations. Dont sell or dont take drugs is very specific about a very specific action and/or event.
The old sins are n3egative character traits, the new sins are actions. They don't fit at all. They sound like somethign that would fit better under the commandments. ie. Dont do drugs, dont pollute.

Yes, that is pretty much the criticism I leveled earlier in the thread. I was disagreeing with FD's estimation that "the old ones can be bent to anybody's will with enough determination." They can be applied to a lot of situations (which is why they are the Seven Cardinal Vices, after all) but I don't think "can be bent to anybody's will with enough determination" is an accurate assessment.

well, a bit, considering societies such as WBC

Last edited by FutureDreamz (2008-03-10 8:33 pm)

FutureDreamz wrote:

well, a bit, considering societies such as WBC

You realize they are using the banner of a non-Catholic brand of religion to hide behind right? (the "B" stands for "Baptist")

Genetic modification?  Are they kidding? That damns at least 80% of all biologists.

Here is a clearer English translation:

The seven social sins are:

1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

Rats! Not as sinful as I thought I was: only violations of 4, 7 and maybe 5 (when I get a new MacBook Pro).

Hank Rearden wrote:

Genetic modification?  Are they kidding? That damns at least 80% of all biologists.

But scientists are sinners anyways.

FutureDreamz wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

well, a bit, considering societies such as WBC

You realize they are using the banner of a non-Catholic brand of religion to hide behind right? (the "B" stands for "Baptist")

So? please explain, as I am now officially confused.

The seven deadly sins are a Catholic teaching, not just a general Christian one.

Why isn't pedophilia on the list?

Oh, I thought it might be something about throwing stones and glass houses or something.

I do think it's cute that the Vatican thinks its still relevant.

Turns out that Schnick and most of you were taken in by the main stream idiots.The Vatican did not say any of this, the media lie actually comes from an interview with a mid level bureaucrat who has no authority to speak for the church.

Once again media lies spread thru the interweb like wildfire and anti church zealots are only too happy to spread the lies without actually researching the topic.

Here is a translation of the actual interview.
http://blog.acton.org/uploads/penitenti … erview.pdf