Well, this sims too much, some of them are conducted by the Church itself.
Here is the list
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


and here is the link to the article
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... M&refer=uk

Well people, remember not getting excessive welth, and please, stop researching for the good of mankind, is a fucking social sin!!!

5 6 and 7 are basically the same fucking thing.

Hmm...pedaphilia is still OK I guess....lucky priests.

"Excessive wealth"....hmm, you mean like the kind the catholic church has?

Hypocrisy - its not just a band anymore.

The Catholic Church endorses birth control (NFP), they just refuse to call it that. The Catholic apologists and theologians need to go back and reread Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists by Noonan, but this time instead of quote mining it they should actually read what is said. Augustine himself condemned the ancient version of NFP.

:D:D

Anyway, so I've broken all commandments, I've commited all the seven deadly sins, but at least I'm a Social Saint!

Yes, but they needed seven to make it analogous to the previous seven deadly sins, one of which, avarice, kind of also covers 5, 6, and 7.



Even the sixth? (which I guess is the fifth if you're Catholic...)

I'm still a proud Fenian and I'm not a fan of Catholic bashing for the sake of it. Nonetheless...



Abstinence from sexual intercourse is a behavioral method of birth control. If the RC was really against it then the ludicrous celibacy rule of clergy would be abolished and priests would be allowed to have sex with adult men and women.



I'll let them have that: though I think stem cell research is important and should continue, it's fair enough to have reservations about controversial experiments.



Insipid.



Says the tiny state with a population of 800 and it's own airline. Nice platitudes, but look into video conferencing in future instead of flying bishops from Guatemala and Alaska.



Combine these three, and add two rules that don't come off as hypocritical posturing or meaningless patronising. Maybe something like "don't cover up massive paedophile sex scandals" or something.

That's just beautiful, but hey... better they spend the money on the cathedral than having them put it into missionary work. Having a nice looking church is much more important than aiding those in need





They have, are, and shall forever be

The only reason Stem Cell research is looked down upon is not some sort of desire to remain sick but simply because its sort of disgraceful for an unborn fetus. Not only does it get denied the right to life but then it is harvested? That's pretty fucked up to me, but again that's my opinion. If scientists cloned stem cells or gathered them from another source (Not unborn babies) then I doubt that Catholic Church would in any way call it a sin.

Also the Catholic Church does mass amounts of charity work, that's why I find it hilarious when people bring up stuff like expensive churches. It's completely unrealistic to assume that every single penny of the Catholic Church's money should go simply to missionary work when that's really a duty of the country we occupy.

Then again, Atheists are willing to bitch about any religion despite they have no more evidence than religion to prove God exists.

You dont even know the definition of Atheist.

I - I do ethically agree with you to some extent. As for cloning, although I have not read the churches views upon the subject I'm almost positive they're against it.

II - I brought it up because of just that. They're a somewhat charitable organization and they go blow millions on a church like that. I wonder how non-religious charity organizations would be looked upon if they gave billions to the needy and then went and erected a multi-million dollar building for their headquarters. I think many a people would call it a waste, just as I have.


Being an Atheist myself I have no moral obligation to do anything, but that doesn't give me less of a right to condemn those who don't/can't follow their own.

Please explain why and how using cells of fetuses who would have never lived anyway to help science and medicine save lives is "disgraceful" and "fucked up".


Again: why does the source matter? Those fetuses are dead anyway. At least now they may have a use to someone else.


I find it extremely bizarre that you correlate charity work with missionary work - they are completely unrelated, in truth. In fact, I would be very much glad if the Church stopped doing missionary work altogether. But while the Church may do charity work, it should be noted that its opulence is as legendary as it is unnecessary, not to mention contrary to the teachings of the man they claim to profess.
But since you correlate missionary work with charity work... one has to wonder, indeed, if it's truly charity they're after, rather than gaining converts?

(And then you have people like Mother Teresa, who literally hoarded millions and millions of dollars worth of donations and did nothing with them. She could have built clean, and sanitary hospitals, all sorts of modern facilities in India for the sick and poor, but, much better to keep people suffering in crappy hovels, since it "brings them closer to Jesus"... ) Of course, when she felt sick, she opted for a modern clinic, so go figure.


And christian apologetics sure can't help sniping their passive-aggressive little jabs everywhere someone criticizes them, huh? In any case, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim ("God exists"), not the other way around.

The unfortunate thing about any sorts of ethical proclamations emanating from religious authorities is that their arguments are invalid, even if I agree with their conclusions. They presume the existence of a deity with grotesquely arbitrary characteristics and the truth of one out of a thousand holy texts as divine. Yet there is nothing unique about that particular book and no clear, objective method of interpreting it. Read literally, it is almost indistinguishable from other such books, full of mythological happenings which no-one in their right mind (this, unfortunately, excludes a large portion of humanity) would take seriously would they occur today. Their ethical contents are usually crude and devoid of meta-ethical justification short of the once-again arbitrary divine command.

This is exactly what I think.

The official stance of the Catholic Church since about the time of Augustine (I'm pretty sure he was the guy who first defined it this way) there is a Platonic Dualism in the conceived fetus, hence the basis of the belief in a soul that keeps going after the body dies. When you combine this with the uncertainty that the Church has on where the soul goes if the vessel is terminated either right after or as it is leaving the Guf for the body, it all sort of falls into place, whether you agree with it or not.

This only explains the opposition to the abortion itself, and thus the opposition to the proliferation of the terminated embryos/stem lines for research. I would gather they are opting to cut off the practice of abortion by attacking the utility of the raw materials rather than targeting the abortion itself, since so many of it's own congregation has become pro-Choice since the 70s.



The fetuses were likely killed in order for the research to occur, so the pro-lifer sees the two as linked and thus opposes both abortion in principle and the perceived benefits of the act afterwards.



The Church makes a distinction between Charity and Altruism, although most outside the Church don't, part of the reason why the philosopher Auguste Comte coined the term Altruism is because he wanted to eliminate the "God" aspect of Christian Charity and replace it with a self-proving principle, similar to Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative (I think it was influenced by the latter actually).

The Vatican views Charity as being synonymous with the saving of a person's dual self, ergo both his life and his soul. You could argue that the Vatican is simplying propagating a lie in order to gain power, and based on the tendencies of the church hierarchy over the past 50 years or so there'd probably be something to it, but a true Christian believer would be motivated both for prudent and benevolent reasons, both putting the convert in better standing with God, as well as putting him/herself in better standing with God.



Mother Teresa is indicative of the trends of the post-Vatican II Church, it's alleged heroes are wealth and power hungry. But the part that you neglected to mention was that Mother Teresa was quoted on a couple of occasions as not really believing in God, so you could summarily conclude that she was a fraud in every sense. Note her opposition to divorce, unless you're British Royalty like Princess Diana.

Oh yeah, back on topic now.



1. I find it humorous that the Church puts out all of this material about how bad chemical birth control is yet they refuse to either excommunicate or even reprimand pro-Choice presidential candidates such as Rudy Giuliani and John Kerry who claim to be practicing Catholics.

2. Again, you don't like stem cell research but you are fine with prominent politicians contradicting your official stance on abortion, likely because they keep your money cougher full, such hypocrisy here.

3. I guess Gluttony is an outdated term, or more likely the Church doesn't consider bad diet and over-eating to be as big a problem.

4. I guess I'll stop exhaling to keep the CO2 levels down.

5&6&7 - Redundant and unfortunately inadequate, Greed was a fine and covered most of this, while Envy (in the traditional medieval sense of "Malevolence" towards those with more than you) took care of the rest.



I used to be fairly active with the Ancient Order of Hibernians here in Pennsylvania. Given the tide in the hierarchy of the Church of late, you might want to consider Sedevacantism, I just decided to switch over.

Unfortunately, this (the Catholic opinion itself) doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.


Evidence? I thought the embryos were doomed from the start, such as those created (but not used, or stored for too long) for in vitro fertility treatments. In any case, those embryos would have never actually lived at all so it's not like anyone is being "denied a chance at life".


Oh she was an hypocrite all right, but I don't think she was wealth-hungry. The Vatican has said that her quotes alleging her doubt in her faith were not considered a block to her beatification so I really wouldn't put too much stock in those. I don't think she was really a fraud, or meant to be: she probably sincerely believed all her stupidity about "suffering being good for the soul" but she was probably lying to herself, or rationalizing her hypocrisy away like so many do (of course, she may have been a total fraud, we'll never know for sure). But - if she were simply greedy, she would have -used- the money, but she didn't - she just had it stored away to accumulate.

In the case of the current Catholic Church, I would agree with you, they don't really hold a consistent viewpoint on this. But you'd have to believe in Platonic Dualism in order for the Christian concept of the soul as it's been defined by Augustine in order for the actual consistent viewpoint to make sense metaphysically, and I don't recall whether you had philosophical leanings towards Plato but I would assume not.



I don't have any that all or even most of those embryos were killed SPECIFICALLY for stem cell research (although legal stem cell research with additional government money would create a demand for more embryos by this means eventually), but from a standpoint of the Church preferring natural methods of reproduction and traditional adoption, I would guess that they should think that messing around with embryos for in vitro fertilization is kind of dubious ethically as well if they wanted to be consistent with In Humanae Vitae, which argues against what it deems as "unnatural reproduction".

Personally I don't see this as any different than doing organ transplants given the circumstances you lay out, however I would raise questions about the fact that the process of using fertility drugs (assuming that this is needed) in order to harvest eggs for any purpose is risky given some studies I've read about how those drugs can increase the likeliness of getting certain cancers.



1. Hunger for wealth doesn't necessarily mean material wealth, fame and a lasting legacy for theatrical deeds fall into this as well, and those also need to be funded. That money that has been accumulating was likely her ticket to beautification.

2. Given that I have personally renounced Vatican II based on some research into it's contradiction with traditional Catholic Dogma and thus do not recognize the legitimacy of the current Papacy (if I did I would be guilty of Schism), the fact that they are ignoring this is precisely why I put stock in it.

3. We can reasonably deduce that a person with her political connections (The Reagans, the British Royal Family, et cetera) that her sincerity towards the common person is not above question. When I compare her with the accounts of earlier Saints, as well as the fact that one of her 2 alleged miracles can be explained through a natural/medical procedure rather than divine intervention, she is hardly worthy of the praise she reaps.

4. Who's to say she didn't use it? That money will default back to the current antipope and the Vatican II church, her beautification given the amount of money she gained for them is grounds for suspicion if nothing else.

Those seven seem logical enough, although I'd disagree on the first one. I don't really see what all the fuss is abou, to be honest.

Okay, so they're against in vitro reproduction... but even if we take that into account, it still doesn't explain why they'd rather the dying embryos went to waste.

Anyway, I already know the Church is primitive and retarded, I'm more interested (well, only marginally so ) in the reasoning of people like Driotheri. I'm of course kind of hoping he's not an actual devout Catholic clinging to a primitive cult, just an apologist for the church.



True.


Never said it was "above question". I just would not be surprised if she were indeed sincere. Her behaviour, to me, seems more like the one of a deluded brainwashed fool than a greedy liar (especially the "suffering is good for the soul" part). But of course, I could be wrong.


This applies to all "miracles", you know.


She didn't use it while she was alive. Greed implies a (usually unhealthy) desire for money to use it for your own selfish gains. She didn't actually DO anything with all that money - she just stored it away. Of course, it could be as you said, that she saw the mere act of gathering all this wealth as her ticket to heaven and/or beatification, but there's no proof either way.

Ugh, they could've at least built a church that doesn't look like shit. Modern architecture isn't always a bad thing, but that just looks like a factory or something.

As for 5, 6, and 7, they're vague at best. I agree with 6 at least nominally, after all, "excessive" is very open to interpretation. 7 is just bizarre; how does one "create" poverty anyway? Stealing from people just barely above the poverty line? Overtaxing a population? 5 also puzzles me. Hell, every time you buy something from Wal-Mart rather than a little corner store you're at least somewhat contributing to the divide between rich and small. What a ridiculous list.

The thing is they don't publicly denounce in vitro reproduction either, the only reason why I said that was because the writing that they base their opposition to contraception on "In Humanae Vitae" (antipope Paul VI, manifest heretic in my view) uses "natural reproduction" as the reasoning. Their opposition to stem cell research is tied in with this work as well.

The truth is that if you read all of the stuff that has been put out since John XXIII (the guy who claimed to be pope from 1958-1963), none of it makes sense and contradicts most of what was previously considered dogma from the founding of the church until the death of Pius XII. That's part of the reason why I became a Sedevacantist (I still consider myself a Catholic, but I don't believe a successor has been named since 1958, so we're still not quite on the same page).



You mean like I used to be before recently?

My guess would be his reasoning is tied to his acceptance of the current Church authority, so you'd have to go by what they put out because that is probably where he is getting his views from.



Didn't mean to imply that you did, I was just trying to explain why I view this as I do. Someone as artful in swaying an audience to love her the way she did could potentially be a deluded brainwashed fool, however, her skill at putting a charitable face on a church that is not what it makes itself out to be leads me to believe that she was a hired propagandist and knew precisely what she was doing. I doubt she observed a life of poverty, but I too could be wrong.



From the viewpoint of the philosophical naturalist, yes. The problem is that I'm not, besides, I'm not a Deist and that's the only form of theism I could claim to fall under if I believed that. I'm still technically a Catholic, I just chose to reject Vatican II and the validity of the last 5 popes (including the current one).

But to play devil's advocate, what I was implying was that there was a witness who had contradictory evidence to one of her specific miracles, the one where a woman was cured of cancer while allegedly praying to a portrait of her. The person testifying to the contrary was the woman's doctor.



Maybe Greed isn't the correct word to describe what I'm getting at, but there is a similarity between seeking social standing and influence and the hedonistic side of the greed coin.

The thing is, I wonder if she really had to do anything with all of that money, the Vatican bank probably provided her the funds to live a comfortable life while she made all the necessary political connections and the like with the secular governments of the world.

However, you are correct about there not being solid proof, but a smoking gun is not always necessary to draw conclusions in things like this. One thing I know for certain, Mother Teresa's beatification is in contradiction with the original standards of sainthood set by the church, so I'm not recognizing her beautification, nor do I plan on throwing praise to her for the works that she paraded around in public in order to cement her legacy.

To include saints fighting dragons?

I'm a Christian, but I hate Catholics and their totally unnecessary and unjustified "rules" and restrictions on life. Fuck.

They came up with the '7 Commandments For The Road' last year as well, this seems to be the Seven Commandments for the wealthy, or politicians(differance?). Threw in drug abuse to even it out, same with #1.


...Lets hope they dont come out with a list for music.

Self-delusion, hallucinations and lies are all rational, scientific explanations for the claims of a saint fighting dragons.

Or that Saint George encountered a giant Crocodile while in Northern Africa (which would have looked similar to what Europe believed dragons to be) and killed it with his sword/spear when it attacked him. When you consider that tribal peoples often sacrificed people in the belief that it would appease the Gods, many of whom were manifest as terrifying natural predators, this legend has a good deal of potential to be true. The lore that probably followed it about this dragon talking or breathing fire (if that was part of the initial legend, I can't remember) was probably the result of embellishment in order to make the story even more entertaining at camp fires during the Crusades. If you lacked knowledge of Aristotle's system of categorizing animal species and had never encountered a large reptile before, and your place origin has myths and lore about dragons, you might draw a similar conclusion at first encounter.

Well, that too. Potential explanations were certainly not limited to the examples I listed. And this still doesn't make it miraculous in any way.

Even the plauges of Egypt have been explained away via natural occurances. Right down to the death of the first-born.

It's a good thing that we're coming to a point where it's easier to explain happenings scientifically than to pass them off as miracles.



Wow. Well according to Google, it's "The Drivers' Ten Commandments". Number one took me a bit by surprise.

1. You shall not kill.
2. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.
3. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.
4. Be charitable and help your neighbour in need, especially victims of accidents.
5. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination, and an occasion of sin.
6. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.
7. Support the families of accident victims.
8. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.
9. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.
10. Feel responsible towards others.

Miracles are in the eye of the beholder, and I think often that people see them as contradictions in natural law, but natural laws are themselves relative to the individual nature of an object or entity. If there existed an entity with abilities inherent in its nature similar to the Q in Star Trek; The Next Generation, it would likely be seen by most lesser advanced beings as something God-like.

Nonetheless, I personally think that taking on a 15 ft. or more crocodile with just a sword or spear is pretty amazing, as most people today are probably used to defending themselves with something that tilts the fight more to their own advantage such as a gun.



True, the problem is reconciling how Moses knew these things were going to happen without some sort of technology that was likely not available at that time. Assuming that you accept the story as true to begin with.

Therein lies the problem; what incentive do I as a skeptic have to take 2000+ year old hear-say, inadmisable in a court of law, as evidence? What evidence is there to suggest that Moses did infact know about these before-hand and not ex post facto, given that all prophecies are always vague and interpreted ex post facto.

Well, the problem with miracles isn't just that they are "in the eye of the beholder", but rather that there is no evidence whatsoever that something beyond the natural occurs in the first place.



Impressive, perhaps, but hardly miraculous in any way whatsoever...

1&2. As an engineering student the one thing that all my lecturers have in common is harping on about sustainability. There's nothing wrong with recycling the waste products from an abortion, it's highly efficient!

3. Abusing Drugs > Abusing Children.

And the rest are bollocks, especially 5,6 & 7. I'm going to assume that you create poverty by not giving money to charity or helping the unfortunate in some way. That or you refuse to get a job and become poverty stricken! Those last three rules really do give me the shits, they're so utterly ambiguous and open to far too many interpretations.

I'm glad to see polluting the environment on there, but it's not like it will be listened to.

In short, this.

Ok sorry. I knew you'd be the first to police this thread, for some reason.

But I think Osmium's post just summarises it nicely. He takes the words out of my mouth every time. Half the world's atrocities seem to be committed upon the interpretation of a handful out of a million pieces of scripture.

Don't worry too much about it. It's okay to simply voice your agreement once in a while. The rule is mostly for those who post little else but that, and/or who do so repeatedly. Unless I'm unaware, I don't believe you fall under these categories.

There we go. They got two right. Where's the rule regarding child molesting and the biggest organization in the world covering it up?