Vatican Adds 7 More Sins

[H-Town Man]

Wow. You're basing your argument on a book published in 1828? Not only has a lot been learned about European history since then, we've learned quite a bit about bias in previously accepted European history introduced by ... the Catholic Church.

I said that Guizot was the first. Read what I write. I'm also basing my argument on what was taught me by a tenured professor (and former dean) at the University of Chicago.

You've got some proof of that? Surely you're aware of the dispute about the date of the Gospel of Thomas. It may pre-date any other gospel.

Okay, maybe not the Gospel of Thomas. When did the Gnostic sect begin? When were the four canonized gospels believed to be written?

The Gnostics were a fast growing religion. Many of them considered themselves Christians. The distinction between gnostics and what became Roman Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are not as clear cut as you seem to think. Valentinius was a candidate for bishop in the Roman church.

Interesting stuff.

That doesn't answer my question. If the Catholic church never replaced pagan culture, why are medieval writings an example of Catholic influence and not pagan?

Again, it never replaced it in the Roman Empire. You seem to have trouble reading what I write. As long as the empire lived, pagan culture hung on. Hence you cannot equate the Romans with the Catholic Church, as you embarrassingly did.

Rome evolved into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. That's why the day of rest is observed on Sunday. That's why their hierarchies mirror Roman government. That's where all the latin came from. It doesn't seem funny to me, since Augustine clearly saw the Roman religion replacing the Roman state.

The state did not "evolve" into the church. The church grew up alongside the state, was persecuted by the state for a time, became the official religion of the state, and then lived on when the state was dead. The Eastern Orthodox church did not come about until several centuries later. I don't call that "evolution" from one to the other. Yes, the Catholic church picked up certain things from the Roman state such as certain legal forms; so what? America picked things up from Rome too - I suppose Rome evolved into America. The Catholic church used latin... Wow! Your evidence is devastating!

I did not know that Augustine ever referred to Catholicism as "the Roman religion." Can you give me a source for this rather uncharacteristic choice of phrase? Nor did I know that Augustine ever said that the Catholic religion would replace the Roman state. Tell me, if the Roman state evolved into the Roman Catholic Church as you say, which of the two did Augustine live under - the Roman state or the Roman Catholic Church? In other words, was it still the state when he was alive, or had it already turned into the Church?

You may want to revise a few of your statements.

He did no such thing. Are you saying that fossils are a trick being played upon us?

What do fossils have to do with scientific laws?

I'm sorry I won't be able to reply to this; I'm sure you will come back with some good evidence.

[webdude]

Some gods are more sinful than others.

And regarding the pagan similarities, here are more talking points about them. They are many bias sites claiming or disclaiming the similarities, but this is one of the few non-bias* sites.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

*It promotes religion so its a little bias.

Of course, the most fascinating stuff are the similarities between horus and jesus. Just google to get a more detailed list of the similarities. Also add osiris to make it a party.

[BryanS]

We have all this b/c of sin, the fall. Before the fall, everything was perfect. The thing is, we expect God to do good things. Well, he does. He offers salvation. We as humans have disobeyed our creator. The wage for that is eternal death. That's what we've earned for ourself, death. He had nothing to do with that. He does not make anyone sin. But because he loved us, he died for us. How many of us would sacrifice our lives for people who constantly do us wrong? None of us. We were enemies of him, yet he still died and rose, and gave opportunity for salvation.

Even little innocent kids who, through not fault of their own, who have no concept of sin, no concept of the complex meanings of religion/Christ, deserve a long, painful death where the "treatment" for their disease/cancer is in some ways worse than the disease itself - and they still end up dead, at the age of 7? Do these kids really deserve this? They are completely innocent, free of sin... yet they suffer horribly.

I don't know that I would want to worship a God that is all knowing, and benevolent, that would let this kind suffering to persist in the world.

The basic tenant of Christianity, as I learned it, is that God knows all, is all powerful, and is benevolent, and those that accept Christ as their savior are guaranteed a better existence in the after life. God is perfect. God knows no free will (as we humans do). Yet... he fails to relieve the pain and suffering of those that are so innocent. So maybe the God we think we know... is not that God at all... Perhaps something different, perhaps nothing at all.

[BryanS]

No, things like that happen because people don't interpret the Bible properly, therefore living it out incorrectly. Me or nobody I know who hold true to similar biblical doctrines have any hostility towards anyone. It's not a matter of my god vs. your god. It's a matter of what is true.

And taken to the extreme... people die, maim, and kill, in the name of God, for the sake of "truth," which is completely relative, when it comes to organized religion. Christians believe one thing, Jewish people another, Muslims another, and all have a history of killing each other over it - and still do to this day. The Bible is not the absolute truth; there are other religious texts in the world. Would you support the statement that these other religions are "wrong?"

While you may hold no personal hostility toward anyone, there are people, who have the same beliefs as you, that do. And when we get to the point that we are killing each other, over religious beliefs, I say enough. You all can't be right. There must be something else... or perhaps nothing at all... (just re-stating my spiritual/agnostic beliefs, not intentionally trying to be repetitive)...

[TheNiche]

Even little innocent kids who, through not fault of their own, who have no concept of sin, no concept of the complex meanings of religion/Christ, deserve a long, painful death where the "treatment" for their disease/cancer is in some ways worse than the disease itself - and they still end up dead, at the age of 7? Do these kids really deserve this? They are completely innocent, free of sin... yet they suffer horribly.

I think that this falls in the category of "original sin". Which is to say that yes, the kids do deserve it, and that if they don't already, they're destined to do something later in life that'd be worthy of being smote down by the wrath of god.

BTW, have you actually spent any time with many 7-year-olds? A lot of them are little hellspawn, I swear.

[memebag]

I said that Guizot was the first. Read what I write. I'm also basing my argument on what was taught me by a tenured professor (and former dean) at the University of Chicago.

Guizot was the only name you gave me. If you have a more recent argument for the notion that the Roman Catholic Church civilized or domesticated the Vandals or the Visigoths, please share it with me. I don't know who your professor was.

Okay, maybe not the Gospel of Thomas. When did the Gnostic sect begin?

There were many different sects later categorized as gnostic. The Sethians probably pre-date Christianity.

When were the four canonized gospels believed to be written?

Opinions vary. 60 to 70 AD is probably a good guess for the earliest, but there are many different theories.

Again, it never replaced it in the Roman Empire. You seem to have trouble reading what I write. As long as the empire lived, pagan culture hung on. Hence you cannot equate the Romans with the Catholic Church, as you embarrassingly did.

But pagan culture hung on long after the Roman Empire fell. See my points about Sunday, holidays, rituals, etc. Pagan beliefs were widespread in medieval Europe. You haven't explained why you think ideas like charity, chastity and marriage found in medieval documents are more Christian than pagan. If marriage is somehow Christian, why does Paul advise against it so strongly in 1st Corinthians?

The state did not "evolve" into the church. The church grew up alongside the state, was persecuted by the state for a time, became the official religion of the state, and then lived on when the state was dead.

We'll have to disagree on that. When I look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church, I see more Rome than Jesus.

The Eastern Orthodox church did not come about until several centuries later.

Huh? They were officially the same religion until 1054.

I did not know that Augustine ever referred to Catholicism as "the Roman religion." Can you give me a source for this rather uncharacteristic choice of phrase?

Roman Catholicism was declared the state religion of Rome six years before Augustine converted.

Nor did I know that Augustine ever said that the Catholic religion would replace the Roman state. Tell me, if the Roman state evolved into the Roman Catholic Church as you say, which of the two did Augustine live under - the Roman state or the Roman Catholic Church? In other words, was it still the state when he was alive, or had it already turned into the Church?

He was a citizen of Rome, and an official in the state religion.

You may want to revise a few of your statements.

Why?

What do fossils have to do with scientific laws?

I don't understand the question. You asked "..who knows what we were like before?", to which I responded: "I do." Unless you think fossils were put here to trick us, I can't see where you're getting the idea that death has changed in some way.

[webdude]

repeated

[webdude]

I think that this falls in the category of "original sin". Which is to say that yes, the kids do deserve it, and that if they don't already, they're destined to do something later in life that'd be worthy of being smote down by the wrath of god.

BTW, have you actually spent any time with many 7-year-olds? A lot of them are little hellspawn, I swear.

The concept of original sin makes god look like a spoiled little brat or an incompetent fool. He/she should smote him/herself down.

[lockmat]

The concept of original sin makes god look like a spoiled little brat or an incompetent fool. He/she should smote him/herself down.

How so besides you just saying it?

The basic tenant of Christianity, as I learned it, is that God knows all, is all powerful, and is benevolent, and those that accept Christ as their savior are guaranteed a better existence in the after life. God is perfect. God knows no free will (as we humans do). Yet... he fails to relieve the pain and suffering of those that are so innocent. So maybe the God we think we know... is not that God at all... Perhaps something different, perhaps nothing at all.

People always describe God as loving and all those 'good' things, and he is. But He is also just. He must be in order to stay in line with his character. Would we praise a judge in court if he let all the murders, molesters and theives go free? Of course not. He must uphold the law or else he's a bad judge and we'd call him twofaced. The Bible teaches the law(not laws as we know them but God's law) exists to show us our sin, because without it, we wouldn't see our sin(although it would still exist).

And taken to the extreme... people die, maim, and kill, in the name of God, for the sake of "truth," which is completely relative, when it comes to organized religion. Christians believe one thing, Jewish people another, Muslims another, and all have a history of killing each other over it - and still do to this day. The Bible is not the absolute truth; there are other religious texts in the world. Would you support the statement that these other religions are "wrong?"

While you may hold no personal hostility toward anyone, there are people, who have the same beliefs as you, that do. And when we get to the point that we are killing each other, over religious beliefs, I say enough. You all can't be right. There must be something else... or perhaps nothing at all... (just re-stating my spiritual/agnostic beliefs, not intentionally trying to be repetitive)...

Taken to the extreme with a distorted understanding of the Bible, yes. With a proper understanding of the Bible, no.

And yes, I would support that all those other religions are wrong. If I'd say they were right, I'd be a fool, for how can two contradictory beliefs be right at the same time? When there's absolute truth, and there is, only one thing can be right, not two or more. I would expect anyone else who believed something different than me to say I am wrong. For if they thought I was right too, then how could they be right at the same time?

[H-Town Man]

Guizot was the only name you gave me. If you have a more recent argument for the notion that the Roman Catholic Church civilized or domesticated the Vandals or the Visigoths, please share it with me. I don't know who your professor was.

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

But pagan culture hung on long after the Roman Empire fell. See my points about Sunday, holidays, rituals, etc. Pagan beliefs were widespread in medieval Europe. You haven't explained why you think ideas like charity, chastity and marriage found in medieval documents are more Christian than pagan. If marriage is somehow Christian, why does Paul advise against it so strongly in 1st Corinthians?

Marriage is more than "somehow Christian" - it's a church sacrament. 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." Did the barbarian hordes think sex outside of marriage was sinful or against the wishes of their gods? You know more about them than I do, so let me know. I am interested in learning more about their beliefs.

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.

We'll have to disagree on that. When I look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church, I see more Rome than Jesus.

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?

Huh? They were officially the same religion until 1054.

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?

Roman Catholicism was declared the state religion of Rome six years before Augustine converted.

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.

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?

He was a citizen of Rome, and an official in the state religion.

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

Why?

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.

I don't understand the question. You asked "..who knows what we were like before?", to which I responded: "I do." Unless you think fossils were put here to trick us, I can't see where you're getting the idea that death has changed in some way.

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).

[memebag]

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.

[Montrose1100]

Woo Hoo... more sins to commit!!

Amen!

[LTAWACS]

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?

[AmbroseBierce]

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.