The new 7 deadly sins

Pherekydes

So the Vatican has announced a new set of seven deadly sins:

1. genetic modification
2. causing poverty
3. obscene wealth
4. experimentation with humans
5. taking drugs
6. polluting the environment
7. causing social injustice

So what ones do you fancy? Which have you committed/contributed to?

Do drink, ciggies and common medicines (Solpadiene, etc) count towards drug taking? If not I'm in the clear (except for the original 7 deadly sins - ah well)

Petey2006

I need clarification on the whole 'experimentation with humans' issues. If you're experimenting sexually, it'd be a whole different issue if it wasn't with another human being...

If we used refrigerators that emitted CFCs and technically weren't environmentally friendly, does that count as a deadly sin?

1. causing poverty
   I cause my own poverty all the time. Does that count?
2. experimentation with humans
   Myself and the missus experiment a lot. Now it's a sin. Damn.
3. polluting the environment
   There's hardly any bins and I have to put my rubbish somewhere
4. causing social injustice
   Does shouting a lot in public count?

Well, I'm going to hell.

Dord

Slow coach wrote: »

So the Vatican has announced a new set of seven deadly sins:

1. genetic modification
2. causing poverty
3. obscene wealth
4. experimentation with humans
5. taking drugs
6. polluting the environment
7. causing social injustice

So what ones do you fancy? Which have you committed/contributed to?

Do drink, ciggies and common medicines (Solpadiene, etc) count towards drug taking? If not I'm in the clear (except for the original 7 deadly sins - ah well)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!! :rolleyes:

spadder

What about a few more?

8. refusing to acknowledge that condoms prevent the spread of AIDs especially in third world countries.

2 stroke

I notice theres no mention of paeodophilia, this must still be ok in the churches eyes.

Schism

Obscene wealth is bs. If someone works hard for their money they are entitled to have it and do with it as they please (within reason of course)

Irishcrx

I loose hope...I really do.

TPD

I'm loking forward to seeing the new Magnum Ice Cream line based on these seven sins.

Archeron

TPD wrote: »

I'm loking forward to seeing the new Magnum Ice Cream line based on these seven sins.

Especially if flatulence falls under the whole "polluting the environment" bit.

seamus

Seven more nails in the Catholic Church's coffin.

Keep 'em coming Ratzinger!

aidan_walsh

So does this mean the old ones no longer count, or is this eight through fourteen?

Adam

Joe Robot wrote: »

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!! :rolleyes:

That was the first thing I said when I heard them this morning. Hypocritical pr1cks piss me right off.

Heinrich

Earthworm Jim! wrote: »

Obscene wealth is bs. If someone works hard for their money they are entitled to have it and do with it as they please (within reason of course)

Obscene wealth must be the proceeds from pornography and prostitution.:p

Adam

Heinrich wrote: »

Obscene wealth must be the proceeds from pornography and prostitution.:p

Yore ma's in trouble so.

kmick

I wonder would the vaticans wealth be considered obscene?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html

Spud83

1. genetic modification
   Not yet, but you never know what the future holds.
2. causing poverty
   Programmer -> Make computer system -> Computer system replaces human -> Human Fired -> Causes Poverty?
3. obscene wealth
   Depends on your definition of obscene is the fact I spend 500 euro on something that plays music obscene?
4. experimentation with humans
   Who hasn't done this to some degree?
5. taking drugs
   who me, never:o
6. polluting the environment
   When ya gotta go, ya gotta go
7. causing social injustice
   I'm confused, but I'm sure I have.

IanCurtis

Earthworm Jim! wrote: »

Obscene wealth is bs. If someone works hard for their money they are entitled to have it and do with it as they please (within reason of course)

They said "excessive" wealth, not 'obscene' and in fairness to the Vatican, the big man himself said this many years ago:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

I see the greedy Irish are still out in force :rolleyes:

orestes

Dammit, and I was nearly finished the last set too! TStunts like this is why I stopped buying Kinder eggs :mad:

seamus

IanCurtis wrote: »

They said "excessive" wealth, not 'obscene' and in fairness to the Vatican, the big man himself said this many years ago:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

I see the greedy Irish are still out in force :rolleyes:

Matthew wrote that at a time where people became rich mostly through birth, inheritance, slavery and dictatorial policies. He obviously saw the peasants as "purity" and the rich man as "evil" and wanted to try inject some humility into them.

In our modern world it is possible to be ridiculously wealthy *and* a very decent, very humble and generous person.

IanCurtis

seamus wrote: »

Matthew wrote that at a time where people became rich mostly through birth, inheritance, slavery and dictatorial policies. He obviously saw the peasants as "purity" and the rich man as "evil" and wanted to try inject some humility into them.

In our modern world it is possible to be ridiculously wealthy *and* a very decent, very humble and generous person.

I think you'll find Matthew was quoting Jesus there Seamus.

And I disagree - a man who is "ridiculously wealthy" by definition is not a generous person.

Jesus was spot-on.

Lockstep

by experimentation they mean morally debatable experiments.

But TBH most incredibely wealthy people aren't the most moral of people.


There are a few self made millionaires but plenty found ruthlessness and neoptism to work well.

seamus

IanCurtis wrote: »

I think you'll find Matthew was quoting Jesus there Seamus.

Yes, but he still wrote it because he saw some significance in writing it - some need to express the idea.

And I disagree - a man who is "ridiculously wealthy" by definition is not a generous person.

You can't save everybody. Just because you haven't given all of your money away, doesn't mean that you're stingy. By that definition, all of us are greedy and evil because we hold onto our own money. Have some spare cash and buy yourself a biscuit? EVIL!

Bill Gates has given away much of his wealth to needy causes but he is by every measure, still ridiculously wealthy. So you're saying he's not generous?

orestes

IanCurtis wrote: »

I think you'll find Matthew was quoting Jesus there Seamus.

And I disagree - a man who is "ridiculously wealthy" by definition is not a generous person.

Jesus was spot-on.

Bill Gates has given billions (that's billions, with a b) to charity, I'd call that pretty generous

IanCurtis

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but he still wrote it because he saw some significance in writing it.
You can't save everybody. Just because you haven't given all of your money away, doesn't mean that you're stingy. By that definition, all of us are greedy and evil because we hold onto our own money. Have some spare cash and buy yourself a biscuit? EVIL!

Bill Gates has given away much of his wealth to needy causes but he is by every measure, still ridiculously wealthy. So you're saying he's not generous?

The key word is "excessive" and I reckon that is up to the individual to define.

None of us, including myself, would give away every penny we don't absolutely need to those who do, but that is what Christians should do.

They're the supreme socialists, but that's a different discussion

Wazdakka

Yay, Once again even while trying to modernize itself the church has set unachievable levels of obedience required for soul saving

1.genetic modification

Try going a week without eating GM foods.. Even when you put serious effort into it, tis bloody impossible... Bar growing all your own veggies and slaughtering your own animals... Oh and fish on Fridays obviously

2.causing poverty
3.obscene wealth

Ahhhh I knew it.. Capatilism just isn't for the Vatican... They want us all to be communist. No poverty or wealth. Well at least we can rest easy that if we ever do make it up to the cloud sitting, winged harp playing, both Stalin and Lenin will be there to keep us company.

4.experimentation with humans

Hmmm a bit open ended that one...
So does that just cover atrocious scientific practices or does it include consenting sexual practices, or even market research??? :rolleyes:

5.taking drugs

I just dont think its even worth bothering to point out the state that mankind would be in without pharmaceuticals.

6.polluting the environment

Me at pearly gates: "Hello St peter, Can I come in please?"
St Peter leafing through book: "Whats this? You put plastics into your paper Weelie bin... HELL FOR YOU BOY!!"

[7.causing social injustice

Thats the best thing about Social injustice... Its defined by the masses...
Now I refuse to believe that the masses of the world are honestly buying this load of tripe....


Well done there Vatican.
another home run.

Pastafarianism ftw!

Defenestrate

8) Breaking wind on the DART or in a club. Dirty buggers. :mad:

WindSock

I thought Abortion and Paedophilia were on that new list?

thelordofcheese

Slow coach wrote: »

So the Vatican has announced a new set of seven deadly sins:

1. genetic modification
2. causing poverty
3. obscene wealth
4. experimentation with humans
5. taking drugs
6. polluting the environment
7. causing social injustice

So what ones do you fancy? Which have you committed/contributed to?

Do drink, ciggies and common medicines (Solpadiene, etc) count towards drug taking? If not I'm in the clear (except for the original 7 deadly sins - ah well)

As a mad scientist I object to the popes attempts to stifle science! Calling genetic modification a deadly sin, And why? Because I dared to dream …of my own race of atomic monsters! Atomic supermen with octagonal-shaped bodies that suck blood out of your eyes and have tentacles for legs.........

IanCurtis

At least they're trying, but I agree they're hopelessly out of touch.

They may be hopelessly losing the battle too.

Time for a Second Coming methinks.

Lockstep

Fair play to His Holiness for bringing up these issues.

heyjude

Wazdakka wrote: »

Me at pearly gates: "Hello St peter, Can I come in please?"
St Peter leafing through book: "Whats this? You put plastics into your paper Weelie bin... HELL FOR YOU BOY!!"

LOL

Are these new mortal sins retrospective or was it okay to be excessively wealthy in the past, for by making the possession of excessive wealth a mortal sin, will this not apply to many/most former popes ? Because for many centuries, the pope was among the wealthiest people on the planet. Also does this mean in future that leading churchmen will be less inclined to be pictured with such mortal sinners ? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Wazdakka

heyjude wrote: »

LOL

Are these new mortal sins retrospective or was it okay to be excessively wealthy in the past, for by making the possession of excessive wealth a mortal sin, will this not apply to many/most former popes ? Because for many centuries, the pope was among the wealthiest people on the planet. Also does this mean in future that leading churchmen will be less inclined to be pictured with such mortal sinners ? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Mark 10:25 "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven"

The church are always contradicting themselves.

Fad

Deleted User wrote: »

experimentation with humans
Myself and the missus experiment a lot. Now it's a sin. Damn.
Well, I'm going to hell.

im quite certain that wasnt allowed to begin with *raises one eyebrow*

Archeron

thelordofcheese wrote: »

As a mad scientist I object to the popes attempts to stifle science! Calling genetic modification a deadly sin, And why? Because I dared to dream …of my own race of atomic monsters! Atomic supermen with octagonal-shaped bodies that suck blood out of your eyes and have tentacles for legs.........

Please dont tell me you've given up on the Albino shouting gorilla idea?

Sam Vimes

4.experimentation with humans


so when developing a new medication, they're only allowed experiment on animals and then if those tests succeed, they have to give it to the entire population. if you give it to a restricted group first to test the effects, its considered experimentation and therefore evil

that or stop developing new medications

Fad

Sam Vimes wrote: »

4.experimentation with humans


so when developing a new medication, they're only allowed experiment on animals and then if those tests succeed, they have to give it to the entire population. if you give it to a restricted group first to test the effects, its considered experimentation and therefore evil

that or stop developing new medications

theres no point trying to reason with anything that the vatican has published in the last century,
in fact most things the church published in general:

take St Augustine Of Hippo- this asshat is responsible for the idea of ''original sin'', which he really just plucked out of his ass

mloc

Another 7 reasons why the catholic church is more irrelevant by the day.

IanCurtis

Fad wrote: »

take St Augustine Of Hippo- this asshat is responsible for the idea of ''original sin'', which he really just plucked out of his ass

Now that's just embarrassing.

Stark

Slow coach wrote: »

1. genetic modification

Does selective breeding count? Bye bye to bananas and terriers in that case.

bitemybanger

Apart from 2, im fcuked so:D

Stark

Slow coach wrote: »

1. polluting the environment

I can just see the new ending to "Se7en".

"Goddamnit man, the severed head goes in with the organic waste. Organic waste!".

one-angry-dwarf

So when do these new sins take effect? what i mean is, if someone died last week who was a good christian but just happened to enjoy a bit of the ol' genetic modification, presumably they would get into heaven because last week it wasn't forbidden and therefore ok? but if they died this week they'd be sent to hell? does it start from the moment his popeliness finishes his list. or maybe the moment he okays it with god? and presumably it takes a few days for word to get round all the catholics that the rules have changed, so what if you're modifying people's genetics all over the place for a while after the rule change but just havent heard about it yet?

I don't know. It all sounds a bit like pope Benny's just pulled this one out of his ass. But then again, what do I know? I mean he must be right. If anyone is in a position to judge people for causing social injustice it's a former member of the hitler youth.......right?

Stark

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3265

It looks like things have been blown out of proportion.

Lockstep

Wazdakka wrote: »

Mark 10:25 "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven"

The church are always contradicting themselves.

I prefer Supply Side Jesus


"IT's easier for a rich man to enter heaven seated comfortably on the back of a camel than it is for a poor man to pass through the eye of a needle"
and "if you are prosperous on earth, it means God is rewarding your rugged indivdialism, if you are poor it's a sign God frowns on your reliance on handouts.

phasers

I am so going to hell

AlmightyCushion

Slow coach wrote: »

genetic modification

Doesn't background radiation cause genetic modification every day?

obscene wealth

So that billionaire guy who has said that when he dies he will be donating most of his money to charity is committing a sin?

Slow coach wrote: »

experimentation with humans

So that medical science screwed. Cancer isn't really all that bad.

taking drugs

I just had a cup of tea, that's me screwed.

polluting the environment

Every time we breath we turn oxygen into carbon dioxide and every time we fart we create methane so that's everyone screwed.

Drift

Slow coach wrote: »

So the Vatican has announced a new set of seven deadly sins:

Eh ... no they haven't. Such bastions of reporting accuracy as the Irish Independent have!

thelordofcheese

Archeron wrote: »

Please dont tell me you've given up on the Albino shouting gorilla idea?

Never!
No man will ever stop me from having my gorillas shout our love from the rooftops!

Pherekydes

Drift wrote: »

Eh ... no they haven't. Such bastions of reporting accuracy as the Irish Independent have!

catholicnews.com wrote:

Social effects of sin greater than ever, says Vatican official

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In today's globalized culture, the social effects of sin are greater than ever before and deserve the church's urgent attention, a Vatican official said. New forms of sin have arisen in the area of biotechnology, economics and ecology, and many involve questions of individual rights and wider social effects, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti. Bishop Girotti is an official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, an office that deals with questions relating to penance and indulgences. He made the comments in an interview March 8 with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. Bishop Girotti said the sense of sin in today's world should be even more acute than before, since the effects of sin are often widespread. "If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has an impact and resonance that is above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization," he said.

The original source is the Vatican Newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

catholic news

Orion

aidan_walsh wrote: »

So does this mean the old ones no longer count, or is this eight through fourteen?

It might even be 15 through 21. Didn't JP2 release his greatest hits as well? I seem to remember him coming up with bulimia being a deadly sin - or did he just include that in gluttony?

It's good to see that Herr Ratzinger is really with it. "Causing social injustice"? How sweeping is that? If I pass by a beggar and don't give any money that's me ****ed. And aren't having extreme wealth and causing poverty two sides of the same coin? And aren't his cult guilty of both?