IMO, I think the Roman Catholic Church is just trying to keep up with the times, to stay relevant. Though, I find it hard to understand how genetic manipulation can be considered a sin. Perhaps, they think that act constitutes unacceptale intrusion into the realm reserved for God. Who knows?
I am Catholic, by the way.
So is my wife and I have a lot of Catholic friends and none of them (so far) accept the black and white dictate regarding genetic medicine. I personally, as a nominal Christian, find it quite baffling.
Of course, as we all know, just because something is a sin does not mean Catholics will not do it, it just means they have a little more to confess.
|
Religion is among the most dearly held beliefs for many individuals. While the new sins aren't as 'cool' as the last seven, the point is not to send more people to hell, but to open debate about these issues and make the point about whether they are right or wrong.
An excellent point.
Yeah, I smiled at that one too... all that gold and rare art/treasures...
By that logic, the U.S. govt. should sell off all that stuff they've collected in the Smithsonian, the White House and anywhere else because no one needs to try and preserve their heritage or history.
I know my church actually breaks down how much money came in and what each dollar was spent on and the info is given out for anyone to read. I believe the diocese gives that information too.As for the "billions" of dollars, you do realize the Catholic is one of the largest charitable organizations in the world, right? How do you think they run all those hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, orphanages, etc. without the financial means to back it up?
Oh, and I should add: everyone is entitled to their religious feelings and beliefs. It's just the practices of a massive, ultra-rich, power-hungry organization that's the problem for me.
Wow, too bad the Protestants cornered that market already then, eh? I guess you'll have to move on to Buddhism...
Though, I find it hard to understand how genetic manipulation can be considered a sin. Perhaps, they think that act constitutes unacceptale intrusion into the realm reserved for God. Who knows?
Many issues stem from using embryos in ways the Church deems unacceptable like in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research. In these procedures, embryos are destroyed and the Church regards the embryo as a living being. From the moment of conception, you have a soul in their book.
|
Many issues stem from using embryos in ways the Church deems unacceptable like in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research. In these procedures, embryos are destroyed and the Church regards the embryo as a living being. From the moment of conception, you have a soul in their book.
It's a question then of whether you wish to prolong your life and at what cost.
As to considering being uber rich a sin, I think the following quote says it best: "Behind every great fortune, there is a crime."
Yeah, I smiled at that one too... all that gold and rare art/treasures...By that logic, the U.S. govt. should sell off all that stuff they've collected in the Smithsonian, the White House and anywhere else because no one needs to try and preserve their heritage or history.
The U.S Gov't. didn't say mass wealth was a sin. I'm guessing the gov't. is all about mass wealth. In fact I'm sure the gov't. (all gov't. not just the U.S.) is pure evil.
The Next Deadly Sin: Government/Politicians never mix the two
Fizz
An interesting question as regarding the "ontological leap" that the egg is said to go through when fertilized, and becoming a blastocyst: If the soul gets put into the blastocyst at the moment of conception, do identical twins only have half a soul each? Or if they share a soul, does one get condemned to hell if the other does genetic modification? Do you have to kill both for their soul to go to heaven, or can it get there partway? and so on...
Yay for "moment of conception" theology.
I think all those CEO's should have their head nailed to the floor just on principle.
Will you tell Lisa or do you want me to? :P
I always thought the original seven came with too much overlap; I mean, what's the difference between Avarice and Greed? Or even Envy?
You want something you've not earned, or that's not yours, either way, no?
Greed is wanting more and more. Doesn't matter whether you earned it or not.
Let's see:
Pollution
Genetic Engineering
Being Obscenely Rich
Drug Dealing
Abortpion
Paedophilia
Causing social injustice.
Since Dante couldn't be reached, we'll have to find our own punishment.
Pollution: Being dragged through a filthry river with your mouth held open by a jawbreaker.
Genetic Engineering: Get your head put on backwards
Being Obscenely Rich: Trapped in a country where your currency isn't accepted
Drug Dealing: Eternal Horror Trip
Abortion: Being stuck in an elevator halfway between floors, with an annoying guy that stinks.
Paedophilia: Something extremely nasty, properly involving someone well-endowed and/or possessing lots of large, sharp and spiky objects. (Anyone seen Little Nicky and the Hitler Scene? Something like that)
Cusing Social Injstice: Living in shack that's in a closed-in courtyard between houses of very rich people. You can't get out, you don't get any sun but a lot of rain, and they throw their trash into your yard, and look out the window and laugh at you.
So when will we get the other virtues?
What would those be?
Generosity
Cleanliness
Patience
Humour
What else?
An interesting question as regarding the "ontological leap" that the egg is said to go through when fertilized, and becoming a blastocyst: If the soul gets put into the blastocyst at the moment of conception, do identical twins only have half a soul each? Or if they share a soul, does one get condemned to hell if the other does genetic modification? Do you have to kill both for their soul to go to heaven, or can it get there partway? and so on...
I think the view is that souls get a "two-for-one" special in that case. There seem to be plenty of them to go around, what with 6.5 billion+ people and more on the way every second...
Yes, well it's no surprise that they can't figure out an answer to that one, is it? =) Special case, of course.
|
|
An interesting question as regarding the "ontological leap" that the egg is said to go through when fertilized, and becoming a blastocyst: If the soul gets put into the blastocyst at the moment of conception, do identical twins only have half a soul each? Or if they share a soul, does one get condemned to hell if the other does genetic modification? Do you have to kill both for their soul to go to heaven, or can it get there partway? and so on...
Yay for "moment of conception" theology.
Best to err on the side of caution in my opinion.
|
|
An interesting question as regarding the "ontological leap" that the egg is said to go through when fertilized, and becoming a blastocyst: If the soul gets put into the blastocyst at the moment of conception, do identical twins only have half a soul each? Or if they share a soul, does one get condemned to hell if the other does genetic modification? Do you have to kill both for their soul to go to heaven, or can it get there partway? and so on...
Yay for "moment of conception" theology.
And the 'twinning' doesn't happen for up to eight hours. It's all one egg at the time of conception, and, doctrinally, the soul is squirted in there *immediately.* So, up to eight hours later, that single soul is ripped into two. Alternately, the soul ends up in only one of the twins-to-be, and the other one becomes the 'evil twin' common to movies and thriller novels, a soulless and nasty piece of work that runs around getting their sibling into trouble and sleeps with their spouse and all that jazz.
Now, since holy water supposedly cannot be diluted, and blesses non-consecrated water it is placed into, because 'you can't dilute the power of God,' that could be seen as precedent for nature not being able to make a soul less than a soul. If it gets ripped in half, it becomes two equally complete souls (same if it splits again some hours later and becomes quadruplets or something). So a Jesuit would have a ready made argument for why the ripping in half thing wouldn't be an issue, that no person has 'less of a soul' than any other person, all souls being equal in soulyness.
But if one twin bogarts the soul and the other one gets nuffin,' then we're talking evil twin. Which is creepy and yet cool. I know several pairs of twins, and while neither of them *seems* evil, that's not proof of non-evil. Perhaps we could come up with some sort of test, such as throwing them both in a pond, and if one of them drowns, then that one was innocent (the water accepted them) and if one of them floats (rejected by the water), then that's the soulless evil twin and must be hauled out, dried off and then burned at the stake. Also a procedure that is tried and tested, with extensive precedent, for finding witches, anyway, although I'm sure it could be adapted for evil twins. :) [The making them run across heated plowshares thing sounds like a lot of work. Plus, who has plowshares hanging around these days? Perhaps it could be updated to use the hot engine blocks of '57 Chevys...]
More seriously, it would seem like a scientist, in working with genetics and creating life, would be *honoring* God's creation. If I thought that creating life was *bad,* I probably wouldn't be that comfortable worshipping a Creator, now would I? Isn't one of the goals to live a more Godly life, to live our lives by the examples provided to us by the Creator?
God is supposed to be omniscent, remember? So I figure He KNOWS there will be twins, and provides two souls "up front"--one of which just sort of floats around in the womb until it's needed, I guess. (Not that I necessarily believe any of this, but as long as there's an omniscient Deity, why shouldn't he provide extras as needed?)
In Judaism, a baby doesn't get a soul until the head and shoulders come out of the mother. I'm told that circa AD 1000, the Church believed that the soul wasn't given till late in the pregnancy.
As a secularist, I view the soul as the subjective you (how you are perceived) and as opposed to the objective you (your corpus). So, IMHO, you don't get a soul till someone is aware of you.
For being an omniscient Deity, he/she/it sure screws up a lot.
Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent - choose any two.
Do we have the full explanation for all of these new sins? Or just what the article says? I don't consider a small article to be an in-depth analysis or explanation of the full extent of what counts under these new sins.
I wouldn't make hasty generalizations on what this all really means. I need more information.
For being an omniscient Deity, he/she/it sure screws up a lot.
Hmm... this reminds me of that episode of Venture Bros...
Dr. Venture: Why. You. Son of a b@+~~!! Do you know what you just put me through?! What the f~#% were you thinking?! What kind of f&*#ed up planet are you from where you think showing up as my dead f*%!ing father is supposed to make me feel any better?!
Jonas Sr. Alien: Okay, take it easy-
Dr. Venture: You prick!
Jonas Sr. Alien: Look, I just saved your entire planet-
Dr. Venture: PRICK!!
Jonas Sr. Alien: Alright, fine! You wanna see?! Here!!
Off camera; Jonas Sr. Alien pulls off his face off to reveal his true visage. Nobody looks pleased.
Jonas Sr. Alien: There! That would have been better?! If I showed up looking like that out of nowhere?! Look at you! You practically crapped your pants! Except him; he crapped his pants!
Ned: Boom boom.
Jonas Sr. Alien: We know what we're doing up there, okay? So don't second guess me! Just get in your little plane, go back to your little lives and thank your lucky stars someone in this universe is looking out for you! Ungrateful little half-monkeys!
Dean: Um. Bye.
Jonas Sr. Alien: Whatever.
|
In Judaism, a baby doesn't get a soul until the head and shoulders come out of the mother. I'm told that circa AD 1000, the Church believed that the soul wasn't given till late in the pregnancy.
As a secularist, I view the soul as the subjective you (how you are perceived) and as opposed to the objective you (your corpus). So, IMHO, you don't get a soul till someone is aware of you.
My soul cost $9.95 at K-Mart. Blue Lite Special. No joke.
|
|
As a secularist, I view the soul as the subjective you (how you are perceived) and as opposed to the objective you (your corpus). So, IMHO, you don't get a soul till someone is aware of you.
See, now I'm going all quantum and having an observer effect moment.
If some evil person kills off everyone who knows and remembers me, wipes out my bank records, social security, etc. would I blink out like a light? There do seem to be a lot of people (particularly in the entertainment industry) who feel like they 'aren't real' unless they are center stage...
|
|
As a secularist, I view the soul as the subjective you (how you are perceived) and as opposed to the objective you (your corpus). So, IMHO, you don't get a soul till someone is aware of you.See, now I'm going all quantum and having an observer effect moment.
If some evil person kills off everyone who knows and remembers me, wipes out my bank records, social security, etc. would I blink out like a light? There do seem to be a lot of people (particularly in the entertainment industry) who feel like they 'aren't real' unless they are center stage...
It's like the all-too-common misinterpretation of Descartes' famed statement. What he said was "I doubt my exixtence, therefore I exist." Something didn't carry from the French to the English, rendering it as "I think, therefore I am" - a fallacy.
If you stopped thinking, you would cease to exist. Poof. Gone.
The correct interpretation is more like The Matrix - ...
I can't really explain it. I'm too f%+*ing tired.
If some evil person kills off everyone who knows and remembers me, wipes out my bank records, social security, etc. would I blink out like a light?
If he doesn't touch your body, you're still there. And if you're still there, you're aware of yourself, and therefore still have a soul.
Souls aren't necessary for existence: they occur as a result of intelligence. Souls are not necessarily personal either. The spirit of a group can be influential without knowing any individuals that composed it.
If you stopped thinking, you would cease to exist. Poof. Gone.
Doesn't Zen Buhddism teach meditation where you are suppose to not think and 'quiet your mind'?
Souls aren't necessary for existence: they occur as a result of intelligence.
What level of intelligence is required for a soul? Surely some animals demonstrate intelligence, some even demonstrate self awareness. Some research suggest inscets may posses a level of intelligence too.
Becoming obscenely wealthy
So.. Oprah Winfrey. Tanaari or batezu? Discuss.
Doesn't Zen Buhddism teach meditation where you are supposed to not think and 'quiet your mind'?
For a Hindu, non-existence (Nirvana, stepping off the wheel of reincarnation) is the ultimate goal, so maybe you're on to something there.
So.. Oprah Winfrey. Tanaari or batezu? Discuss.
She's obviously a ghereleth.
If some evil person kills off everyone who knows and remembers me, wipes out my bank records, social security, etc. would I blink out like a light?
Well, give me your name, social security number, and the name and address of all your kin and acquaintances, and we'll find out.
(Attack the name and social stuff in an enclosed envelope. I'll give them to a hacker friend to wipe out the stuff, and then kill the guy. I can't know your real name for this experiment to work).
*goes back to beating his horse instead of posting not-so-witty reply*
So, will we get a new, revised RotRL adventure path with new runelords?
I hope that one of the sins is creating a reality TV show. Those people need some eternal punishment.
Hmm.. a Runelord of Pollution...
My apologies.
Souls aren't necessary for existence: they occur as a result of intelligence.What level of intelligence is required for a soul? Surely some animals demonstrate intelligence, some even demonstrate self awareness. Some research suggest inscets may posses a level of intelligence too.
Well, anything that a human observes has a soul; though obviously we express a tree's soul differently than a person's.
Do animals imbue things with a soul? That's a more difficult question. I suspect yes, to the degree that they have intelligence.