Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Vatican Adds 7 More Sins

Recommended Posts

I wasn't referring to just the Vandals and Visigoths, but all the barbarian groups involved in the fall of the Roman Empire.

You said the Catholic Church "domesticated" the barbarians who "invaded" Rome. You weren't clear about which invasion, but I assumed you meant 410 (Visigoths) or 455 (Vandals). I doubt you mean the Gauls, since that was BC, and if you think the Saracens were "domesticated" by Catholicism, you're using some definition of "domesticated" that I can't fathom.

So be specific. Who are the barbarians that the RCC domesticated?

Try William H. McNeill - he was an atheist, so that should take away the church bias you accused Guizot of (though I did not think Guizot or most French intellectuals of that era were too influenced by church views).

I didn't accuse Guizot of a "church bias", I said previously accepted European history contained bias introduced by the Catholic Church. Many of the stories told for centuries about the fall of Rome were colored by the RCC. But you should be aware of this, shouldn't you?

I can't find anything by McNeill that says the RCC domesticated or civilized the barbarians. Can you be more specific?

Marriage is more than "somehow Christian" - it's a church sacrament.

But marriage goes back to prehistory. How can that be more Christian than pagan?

Paul only advises against it because he wants Christians to be celibate apostles like him. He says that if you cannot handle celibacy, then you should be married "so as to avoid sin."

Right, so marriage is a pre-christian tradition that Paul barely tolerates. That doesn't lend much credence to your claim that marriage was a Christian idea.

Did the barbarian hordes think sex outside of marriage was sinful or against the wishes of their gods?

Which ones? The ones that invaded Rome (Vandals and Visigoths) did. They worshipped Roman gods and lived under Roman law.

I don't think it can be argued that the high values of chastity and charity in the middle ages came anywhere but from Christianity. Sir Galahad found the Holy Grail because he was the most pure. Nearly all of the barbarians who came into Western Europe converted to Christianity within a century or two of their arrival (see McNeill), so it's hard to imagine where else these ideals would have come from in the middle ages, especially as the church promoted them so strongly.

Huh? Christianity came to Western Europe long after the barbarians. The ideals of chasity and charity were part of Celtic and Roman culture. Ever read Plato?

To reiterate, "barbarians" were non-Romans. The same way I am a gentile because I am not Jewish, Celts, Picts, Saxons, Huns, Egyptians and everyone else were barbarians. Jews were barbarians. The first Christians were barbarians.

Then why did the church condemn and put to an end so many characteristically Roman things? If the church "evolved" out of the empire and was more influenced by the empire than by Jesus Christ, why did it demand the end of all the old imperial cults and the banishment of Roman gods from the temples?

It didn't. They turned into saints.

That's my point. Why the six century delay if the Eastern Church "evolved" out of the Roman Empire like you say the Roman Church did? Did one side just evolve faster than the other?

Huh? The Roman empire adopted Christianity as the state religion. Then it split into eastern and western empires. As those empires eroded, differences developed between the kinds of Christianity practiced in each empire. I can't figure out where you get this six century delay from.

So that means that Augustine would have referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman religion? Find me a place where he says that. I'm all ears. Augustine contrasted the Catholic church strongly from the imperial culture (even though it was declared the state religion) and would never have referred to his religion as "Roman," but this damages your theory that the Catholic church was more from Rome than from Jesus.

Huh? Christianity was the state religion of Rome when Augsustine became a Christian. I called it the Roman religion. I don't know if he did.

It isn't my theory that there's more Rome than Jesus in the Catholic Church, it's my observation. The graven images, the opulence, resting on Apollo's day and not the shabbat, choirs, latin, hierarchies, all that came from the folks who killed Jesus, not from Jesus.

Also, why quote Paul, a first century writer, as a source for church views if it "evolved" out of Rome (and not from Jesus' teachings)? Had the evolution started this early?

Because it's further evidence of that evolution. If the Roman Catholic Church had stuck to early church writings, marriage would have been discouraged except as a last resort against sin. It didn't. It preserved Roman marriage traditions and related social structures. The Christians who followed Paul's advice stopped procreating, which is a tough survival strategy for any religion.

He couldn't have cared less about his Roman citizenship.

So? You asked if Augustine lived under the Roman state or the Roman Catholic Church. I answered.

Because saying that the Catholic church evolved out of an empire whose culture was so directly hostile to it and in fact spent centuries persecuting it until it finally won out makes about as much sense as saying that modern science evolved out of the medieval church.

And yet it did. Rome was hostile to Christians; Rome created the Roman Catholic Church. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Sorry to be unclear; I had mixed up statements from another argument. Briefly put, fossils alone don't tell us much. To understand the fossils, we need things like carbon dating, and the assumption that things on earth have pretty much always operated the way they do now, an assumption that relies heavily on faith in the eternal immutability of scientific laws. The fact is, if God could create the world, then presumably he could have altered it at any point far beyond our understanding. You may not believe that he created the world, but to anyone who does, arguments on what happened must have happened millions of years ago have little weight. They are good as assumptions, and I am not against scientific study, but I am not going to take any conjecture on how things began as absolute, especially considering how many times science has scrapped and overhauled its own theories (I'm sure you'll want a source for that; see Thomas Kuhn).

Sorry, I'm an atheist. You'll have to make scientific arguments that don't involve gods changing the laws of physics if you want me to respond.

Edited by memebag

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
So it's okay to be rich, as long as you aren't focused on money. Kind of like it's okay to eat six course meals as long as you're not gluttonous. But if you aren't gluttonous, then why would you eat six course meals? And if you aren't focused on money, then why hoard up riches for yourself rather than giving them to those in need?

Sorry, but you're not going to argue this one away.

What if they were really small portions?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lust, gluttony, greed and the rest of the seven deadly sins gathered in the 6th century will have to get used to a modern companion. A Vatican official has articulated seven new categories of sin "due to the phenomenon of globalization."

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

8. Giving credence to anything the Pope says about anything.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...