Seven modern day sins according to the Vatican:
Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature
Seems pretty progressive to me, the church is surely going in the right direction. All of those things are actually despicable – although I wouldn’t agree with “morally debatable experiments” if it is referring to stem cell research.
I think the Vatican is really redefining what a sin is: it has gone from his strange metaphysical crime to a rejection of modern practices, the list is basically a list of “vices” (character flaws) rather than sins.
These new sins have very little to do with scripture and more to do with the Catholic Church’s idea that in order to have a “spiritual rhythm, ” a Catholic must go to confession and repent. As confession rates have declined, the Church needed to think of a way to get people to attend Church, so more sins have been created. Now that Catholics have more sins to confess, it is believed they will attend Church more often. It’s the Catholic Church’s way to get more…
$$$$$$
The Catholic Church is so pathetic. It is really upsetting.
I think you guys are being way too harsh on the church. This list represents great progress for them – they are no longer talking about Satan publicly and burning Muslims for idolatry. This is a much more moderate and progressive outlook on the world. I am the most critical person you will ever meet over organized religion, but when radicals begin to show a more progressive side, you must encourage them , not spit in their face. Reactionary Christianity is a horrible thing, i’m just glad that the Vatican has had the wisdom to begin to tackle real-world injustices instead of metaphysical abstractions.
That’s a good point.
These are things that should be deadly sins to everyone but there are now second nature to most people
Sinning is a ridiculous concept. Especially catholic style where you are forgiven if you repent.
No forgiveness is something many people don’t use any more. If people would learn to forgive on things instead of holding grudges if the person was truly sorry (and repent means being truly sorry and NEVER doing it again or to achieve not doing it again with help) then the world would be a much posi place. Repenting and Forgiveness are not just Catholic concepts either. I’m not saying I could forgive someone for you know killing my mom or something but you get the picture. Besides sinning is not a ridiculous concet unless you think it’s ridiculous to consider murdering/stealing/lying as bad things.
Sure it is. Making people live out of punishment of a furious god instead of being good for the sake of goodness and virtue does not sustain a society, as can be clearly observed in the modern era. One should not be ethical due to the law, or because a deity will punish us if we are not, in fact, people that behave in this way are just as bad as those who are unethical, it betrays their true mindset as being pernicious but cowardly to act upon it.
As far as Issa’s criticism of Christian forgiveness, I agree, although for probably different reasons. When one commits an unjust or malicious act they should not rely on this saving grace, they should accept the responsibilities of their actions and vow never to act upon it again. Christian forgiveness enfeebles people from taking responsibility for their own actions and makes ethical infractions a possible option. The classical example is the person who says “I’ll just do X and Y sins but it is no problem because i’ll get forgiveness.”
Within the psychology of a person “sinning” should not be an option , it should be an unacceptable choice, death should be preferred. The idea that the human will is weak and suspect to sinning is not productive and not healthy: human beings can develop and cultivate a cast-iron will and a fortified character that does not need the grace of a god because ethical infractions are no longer possible. When the will rarely fails and something mediocre occurs, great self-scrutiny occurs with a vow never to do it again.
Christian forgiveness is based on true repentence which is accepting the resposibilities, being sorry, and vowing never to act upon it again. Most people think it’s just saying “Oh I’m sorry” or I know this is a sin but I’ll ask forgiveness later. That’s not how it works, it’s even said in the Bible that if you know you’re sinning and do it anyway that’s a sin in itself which isn’t forgiven unless you truly repent.
What good is there in repenting? It makes you weak-willed and destroys your self-esteem. Scold yourself, curse yourself, and move on, vowing never to act in a mediocre way again, not out of fear of some god, but out of fear of betraying your own trust.
Cursing yourself and talking down to yourself can have serious side affects, repenting doesn’t just mean to a god Krause it means to the people you acted against also which is the big problem is behaving horrible towards someone and not repenting to that person for what you’ve done.
It has no serious side effects. Saying mentally “What the fuck are you doing? You are better than this, this isn’t the type of person you wanted to be, never do this again” is the way to properly changing your behavior. The idea is always to look toward a higher ideal, not to settle for a reality in which you CAN sin. Christians follow a law but a better way is to set for yourself a model of how to live properly, and select certain characteristics as touchstones of goodness, and then to avoid ALL actions which hinder the pursuit of that standard and to adopt all actions which would cultivate the pursuit of that standard.
The two approaches are drastically different. In the first an individual is following the “rules” because he has been told to, he might even want to “sin” but is too much of a coward to act upon it. In the second, a heroic ideal has been established, and the idea is to not settle for just tolerating a law, but always looking higher. The second is a better way to live.
And again you show an ignorance of true New Testament Christianity..I don’t mean what people today live by I mean what the Bible actually says. Jesus is the model that we’re to fall under. He didn’t always follow the Mosianic law. When asked why He worked on a Sunday He said it was better to heal a man when He could and had the chance than to not work at all. We are to follow His example, set Him as our model.
This is my point, you are following what the bible says; you are referencing a lawbook on how to live. The model of Jesus has been defined for you, Jesus is an allegorical characterization of the entirety of the law, and he demands that faithful believers adhere to the letter of the law, he says that he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
An alternative way to live is to reason an ideal model of perfection and then to constantly quest toward it. While you are unlikely to ever reach it, the idea is that you are always striving higher, not simply doing what is expected of you, but acting exemplary.
The second component of this alternative ethical system is virtues – characteristics which you find to be truly admirable, and as such, spend all of your time in pursuit of practicing well. The Christian writers (especially Paul) were influenced by an ethical system which did advocate this sort of way of life (stoicism) and thus passed the Christian virtue. Unfortunately I think that this is sort of a strange and incomplete foreign intrusion into the whole of Judeo-Christianity and really represents a pagan way to live.
Practically speaking, there is no law to reference but your own conscience, you are a law unto yourself, and the most ethical person is extremely strict with themselves and tolerant of others.