Vatican updates list of mortal sins

I would've been catholic, but my parents were just like "do whatever." Yay for awesome parents!
 
CptStern said:
this isnt the vatican slanting facts to support their ideology this just them pushing bullshit as fact
Click to expand...

Oh, kind sir, it is indeed fact slanting, since the Vatican forgot (in purpose, no doubt) to mention that spermatozoon, viruses and what not pass easily through the "net" formed by FAULTY condoms.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm in no way saying the Vatican is right, I know they're full of it.
 
yakuruto said:
Oh, kind sir, it is indeed fact slanting, since the Vatican forgot (in purpose, no doubt) to mention that spermatozoon, viruses and what not pass easily through the "net" formed by FAULTY condoms.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm in no way saying the Vatican is right, I know they're full of it.
Click to expand...

If they intentionally leave out the word "faulty" then they're just pushing bullshit as fact, not slanting facts. They're saying that all condoms are ineffective at preventing the spread of HIV, and thats just bullshit no matter what way you look at it.
 
yakuruto said:
Oh, kind sir, it is indeed fact slanting, since the Vatican forgot (in purpose, no doubt) to mention that spermatozoon, viruses and what not pass easily through the "net" formed by FAULTY condoms.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm in no way saying the Vatican is right, I know they're full of it.
Click to expand...

point out where it says this only applies to faulty condoms ...wouldnt that be redundant anyways: they're faulty
 
Eejit said:
1120recount.jpg


You clearly know the Church's position to science in so much detail!
Click to expand...

yeah...it's kinda hard not to know. actually...yea...i admit...they did change their minds alot...there was a time where people would get prosecuted in believing the world is round or the earth orbits the sun, tells much how religion really cherish science in all it's forms.



in 2500 AD, i'm sure they'll have some manual how to properly start up and maintain your personal fusion reactor in accordance to god.
 
jverne said:
yeah...it's kinda hard not to know. actually...yea...i admit...they did change their minds alot...there was a time where people would get prosecuted in believing the world is round or the earth orbits the sun, tells much how religion really cherish science in all it's forms.



in 2500 AD, i'm sure they'll have some manual how to properly start up and maintain your personal fusion reactor in accordance to god.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the earth is only 6000 years old and dinosaurs never existed.
 
CptStern said:
point out where it says this only applies to faulty condoms ...wouldnt that be redundant anyways: they're faulty
Click to expand...

Yup, but if you omit that simple detail you can make people think that you are saying that all condoms let HIV pass without actually stating it. Yes, reality distortion (in this context) becomes a lie.

It's clear they're lying, but not directly.
 
Whatever yakuroto, now you're just arguing semantics.
 
That's what I was doing from the beginning. You see, things can be said in many ways to use any information in your favor, just as the church is doing there.
 
Higlac said:
Condoms can still transmit aids. Abstinence doesn't. Sounds like the Catholic teachings would work better.
Click to expand...

Abstinence is impractical. For a start, complete lack of sexytime would ultimately doom the human race. Apart from that, condoms nearly always are effective when applied correctly, and it's already clear that few people are willing to give up sex completely just to avoid AIDS, even where it is so rife.

What is it with the Catholic Church and abstinence, anyway? There seems to be this prevalent theme of sex being "dirty" and "impure" in some way, as if it were a blemish on the soul. They seem to class sex before marriage as promiscuity. Why is this? Are you suggesting abstinence merely as a counter-measure to AIDS, or for the sake of their souls?
 
yakuruto said:
That's what I was doing from the beginning. You see, things can be said in many ways to use any information in your favor, just as the church is doing there.
Click to expand...

So your whole point was that the English language can be used to lie? HOLY SHIT I NEVER KNEW.
 
Abstinence is not a pretty cool guy.

Rubber Johnny, on the other hand...
 
I think the pope is a pretty cool guy. Eh spreads lies and doesn't afraid of anyaids.
 
I really doubt most of what's said in the Vatican is in English, so nope, my point is not that this or that language can be used to lie and you know it. What I mean is that everybody manipulates information to his or her own advantage and it's up to each person to believe it or not. But even if you don't believe in something someone else does, how can you be sure that belief suits that other person just fine?
 
Godron said:
Abstinence is impractical. For a start, complete lack of sexytime would ultimately doom the human race. Apart from that, condoms nearly always are effective when applied correctly, and it's already clear that few people are willing to give up sex completely just to avoid AIDS, even where it is so rife.

What is it with the Catholic Church and abstinence, anyway? There seems to be this prevalent theme of sex being "dirty" and "impure" in some way, as if it were a blemish on the soul. They seem to class sex before marriage as promiscuity. Why is this? Are you suggesting abstinence merely as a counter-measure to AIDS, or for the sake of their souls?
Click to expand...

simple answer, catholic church suck balls of young underage boys

Eejit said:
Uh, not the catholic church. They've accepted both the Big Bang theory and Evolution.
Click to expand...


woah...hats down! funny tough...70 years ago there was no theory of the big bang and evolution was a perverted sin..gee i guess nowadays with the intertubes it must be easier to chat with god on MSN. letters were quite expensive back then, especially the ones posted to heaven and back.
 
Don't forget that last year they suddenly "realized" that Limbo doesn't exist.

Poor Dante, he must rewrite his Comedy
 
jverne said:
simple answer, catholic church suck balls of young underage boys




woah...hats down! funny tough...70 years ago there was no theory of the big bang and evolution was a perverted sin..gee i guess nowadays with the intertubes it must be easier to chat with god on MSN. letters were quite expensive back then, especially the ones posted to heaven and back.
Click to expand...

You're acting like an idiot. :rolleyes:
 
/facepalm

Just because The Big Bang wasn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it contradicts it, since the Catholic church believes Genesis was a parable (like quite a lot of things in the bible).
Also the 'updated list' of seven sins is simply providing examples of how the old ones supposedly apply in the modern world.

They're not second-guessing God with regards to science etc. they're simply saying that there's no conflict between many scientific theories and Jesus' teachings -.-

Of course they're still dicks for being anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research, the condom and AIDs fiasco, covering up sexual abuse (which is no more common than in the rest of the population) but some of you guys are so rabidly anti-theist/anti-catholic you'll blast them for anything even if you don't understand what they're doing.

Whatever, enjoy your hate-filled biased opinions.
 
Eejit said:
They're not second-guessing God with regards to science etc. they're simply saying that there's no conflict between many scientific theories and Jesus' teachings -.-
Click to expand...


"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" /= "Q=mct"

On a serious note, I don't seem to recall Jesus ever talking about the moment of creation. :|
 
My guess is, being born a Jew, Jesus took the Genesis as a reliable source of knowledge in that matter. If you remember, the Old testament is comprised by elements of Jew scriptures.

Being a parable, it can be interpreted as if "Let there be light" alludes the flash of the Big Bang (or not :p)
 
CLEARING UP SOME STUPID THINGS:

- Catholics don't claim that God created the universe in 7 days, all of that stuff including 90% of the stuff in the Bible is considered metaphorical/symbolic and is used to convey some morals/themes/etc. (This is pretty hypocritical I know, but that's what they actually believe. The people you are actually bashing are Fundamentalists who are hated by Catholics lol)

- For religion bashers (again): RELIGION ISN'T THE CAUSE OF ALL OF HUMANITY'S PROBLEMS. OK? WE ARE. PERIOD. SO STFU ALREADY YOU WHINY BITCHES.

- It's not wrong that they are changing the rules. They change the rules to work in modern times. Although, if the religion were actually based on a god's real words, I'm sure that god would be able to give us some universal rules instead of ones that change every 50 years. But forgetting that idea, as an organization there is nothing wrong with The Church updating the deadly sins or anything of that sort.

- Modernism isn't the greatest alternative to religions either. Though I doubt people could think of anything better. Anyways, using the same logical reasoning as modernists use with religion to find faults, I can deduct that modernism has created: communism, nearly all the 19th century and 20th century revolutions (thousands of people slaughtered), materialism, etc, etc. So don't blame all people vs. people hate, and the degeneration of society solely on religion.

- The Church is a retarded, hypocritical, band-wagon hopper. It's also knowingly created by humans.

- Genetic mutation while morally debatable, is considered a sin because the religious are afraid of what it might mean, I think. It might prove the lack of existence of a god if they realize that people's behaviors can be changed simply by changing a few genes, which would also possibly prove the lack of free will (that's what Freud thought). Perfectly understandable action if you ask me, considering it doesn't really affect anyone who wants to try it anyway. It should be debated if we even want to know things like that before doing experiments.

- Finally, to those who say religion is stupid. I present Pascal's wager:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, the text is unspecified, but it could be implied that you go to limbo, purgatory, or hell: your loss is either null or infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

It is statistically smarter to be religious than to be atheist. So no, religion is not stupid. Atheists could be stupid though. But what it really boils down to is that we're all stupid, and we're all the same.

It's all just personal preference, neither side really having anything good to say. And I think that God vs. no God is one dilemma in which you should be neutral, getting pissed off at the retards on both sides. The end.
 
lame-o said:
It's all just personal preference.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha, the religion vs. no religion (and this religion vs. that other) dilemma solved in just 5 words.

The problem is that most of us are so selfish that can't stand people thinking different "because we're always right" and do whatever possible to "prove" it :)

We humans are sooo stupid... but i don't care, life is good.
 
lame-o said:
- Genetic mutation while morally debatable, is considered a sin because the religious are afraid of what it might mean, I think. It might prove the lack of existence of a god if they realize that people's behaviors can be changed simply by changing a few genes, which would also possibly prove the lack of free will (that's what Freud thought). Perfectly understandable action if you ask me, considering it doesn't really affect anyone who wants to try it anyway. It should be debated if we even want to know things like that before doing experiments.
Click to expand...

I suspect they partly consider it to be an example of hubris, i.e. pride, which is one of the seven deadly sins.
 
Pascal's Wager is silly, because it assumes that if there is a God, it's the Christian God. What if you, following the wager, believe in the Christian God and the Hindus turn out to be right? You're still fucked then and no better off than an atheist. So, believe in what god, exactly? Secondly, I would assume - if there is a god - he would prefer an honest atheist over a "believer" who just believes to save his own coward ass. Thirdly, you can't make yourself on believe on a rational (if retarded) argument when religious belief is by definition irrational, ie: you can't force yourself to believe.

Other than that, it's the usual run-of-the-mill self-righteous agnostic (presumably) rambling.

I don't think anyone claims that religion is the source of all humanity's problems, it certainly isn't and that's just a straw man argument. Irrational convictions and indifference are. Religion just happens to be a major contributor to irrational convictions. And while things like politics are debatable, religion just isn't. There are no compromises in religion, every party believes they have the absolute truth. That makes it especially dangerous.

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning religion which teaches that unquestioned belief is a virtue, that dogmatic thinking and unconditional loyalty are good while doubt and changing your mind belong to a weak person. It's something that demands (and gets it too!) automatic respect, which moves it out of range from all criticism. It teaches people not to question, doubt and criticize.
 
PvtRyan said:
Pascal's Wager is silly, because it assumes that if there is a God, it's the Christian God. What if you, following the wager, believe in the Christian God and the Hindus turn out to be right?
Click to expand...

Oh dear generic deity, let's not start a debate as to whether or not we don't believe in the correct god. I don't think I could handle arguing which god is the correct one to not believe in. Doesn't matter anyway cause whatever version of hell we all don't believe in we are all going there for not believing in it, unless of course one of the gods we didn't believe in to begin with doesn't have a hell and turned out to be real, in which case he or she must be a pretty good guy or gal and maybe we should've believed in that god to begin with instead.
 
Yeah but even if you believe in the wrong god you still chose the side with the better chances, because you might've picked the right one... And yeah, of course pascal's wager doesn't have any practical sense, but it still shows that statistically it's better to be religious. XD
 
Eejit said:
/facepalm

Just because The Big Bang wasn't mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean it contradicts it, since the Catholic church believes Genesis was a parable (like quite a lot of things in the bible).
Also the 'updated list' of seven sins is simply providing examples of how the old ones supposedly apply in the modern world.

They're not second-guessing God with regards to science etc. they're simply saying that there's no conflict between many scientific theories and Jesus' teachings -.-

Of course they're still dicks for being anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research, the condom and AIDs fiasco, covering up sexual abuse (which is no more common than in the rest of the population) but some of you guys are so rabidly anti-theist/anti-catholic you'll blast them for anything even if you don't understand what they're doing.

Whatever, enjoy your hate-filled biased opinions.
Click to expand...


it doesn't bother you the that the pope (or other religious madman) just makes up his mind on something and declares that sacred law?
who the **** is he to be acting on gods behalf?
he's applying old laws to modern trends...that is just wrong in so many ways. he's doing that on his personal opinion, he's manipulating scripture to make it seem compatible. HE IS APPLYING

what about the bad parts of the bible that tell about stoning and killing?
are those just not compatible anymore?

seriously man grow up. there was no pope around 300 AD. then they just started to make things up and add new stuff to the religion, like celibacy.

wouldn't you have though god would put a bit of foresight in the bible and prevent people from making up stuff?

you sir are truly stupid if you don't see the huge holes, inconsistencies, contradictions and downright lies the catholic church (all religions for that matter) makes.

of course there is nothing wrong for these things to exist, it's when people act upon them, that is wrong. then people start dying, money gets robbed and progress is slowed. thats what matters!



lame-o said:
CLEARING UP SOME STUPID THINGS:

- Catholics don't claim that God created the universe in 7 days, all of that stuff including 90% of the stuff in the Bible is considered metaphorical/symbolic and is used to convey some morals/themes/etc. (This is pretty hypocritical I know, but that's what they actually believe. The people you are actually bashing are Fundamentalists who are hated by Catholics lol)

- For religion bashers (again): RELIGION ISN'T THE CAUSE OF ALL OF HUMANITY'S PROBLEMS. OK? WE ARE. PERIOD. SO STFU ALREADY YOU WHINY BITCHES.

- It's not wrong that they are changing the rules. They change the rules to work in modern times. Although, if the religion were actually based on a god's real words, I'm sure that god would be able to give us some universal rules instead of ones that change every 50 years. But forgetting that idea, as an organization there is nothing wrong with The Church updating the deadly sins or anything of that sort.

- Modernism isn't the greatest alternative to religions either. Though I doubt people could think of anything better. Anyways, using the same logical reasoning as modernists use with religion to find faults, I can deduct that modernism has created: communism, nearly all the 19th century and 20th century revolutions (thousands of people slaughtered), materialism, etc, etc. So don't blame all people vs. people hate, and the degeneration of society solely on religion.

- The Church is a retarded, hypocritical, band-wagon hopper. It's also knowingly created by humans.

- Genetic mutation while morally debatable, is considered a sin because the religious are afraid of what it might mean, I think. It might prove the lack of existence of a god if they realize that people's behaviors can be changed simply by changing a few genes, which would also possibly prove the lack of free will (that's what Freud thought). Perfectly understandable action if you ask me, considering it doesn't really affect anyone who wants to try it anyway. It should be debated if we even want to know things like that before doing experiments.

- Finally, to those who say religion is stupid. I present Pascal's wager:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, the text is unspecified, but it could be implied that you go to limbo, purgatory, or hell: your loss is either null or infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

It is statistically smarter to be religious than to be atheist. So no, religion is not stupid. Atheists could be stupid though. But what it really boils down to is that we're all stupid, and we're all the same.

It's all just personal preference, neither side really having anything good to say. And I think that God vs. no God is one dilemma in which you should be neutral, getting pissed off at the retards on both sides. The end.
Click to expand...

ok this message already got owned. but i'll add.

well yes, there are other stupid things around, but i feel that with religion the responsibility is placed on some imaginative being and humans don't take responsibility for it. which was not the case with Nazism, Stalinism, communisem,...
 
I think we should bring back the greek gods. Who wants to restart that religion with me?
 
Sorry, K., but those gods demanded tribute and some other things, so it would be almost the same as with nowadays religions. Pastafarianism on the other hand, is very lax and promises a heaven with a stripper factory and a beer volcano :naughty:
 
lame-o said:
Yeah but even if you believe in the wrong god you still chose the side with the better chances, because you might've picked the right one... And yeah, of course pascal's wager doesn't have any practical sense, but it still shows that statistically it's better to be religious. XD
Click to expand...

Since it doesn't have any practical sense, no, it doesn't.
 
Jintor said:
Since it doesn't have any practical sense, no, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It means that those who DO believe have a better chance of gaining something, and those that DON'T have no chance of anything good. It's not supposed to be a guide for choosing whether you believe or don't believe. So yes, it DOES show that the odds of profit are better for those who believe. What are you, a rebel of logic or something?

Jverne said:
ok this message already got owned. but i'll add.
Click to expand...
When was my message owned?
 
I'm just saying that since it has no practical value, the statistics don't matter.
 
Statistics have nothing to do with what you're talking about, we have no hard data on what happened to believer and non believers of any religion. You're talking odd, that's probabilistic studies.

Better odds, logical thinking, whatever the reason, PvtRyan's right, you can't force yourself to believe, but you can choose to believe (or not).

If you feel comfortable believing based on Pascal's wager, congratulations, but there are many people who don't believe even using the wager because it doesn't suit them, not because they want to go against logic. Believing is not a matter of logic, it's a matter of conviction.
 
Pascal's Wager is bull because it treats belief like many religious people do: as a label. Label yourself a believer and get free admittance to heaven. Simple as that. Except most religion's scripture demands complete belief and total conviction, something I don't think many people are capable of. What I think some people fail to consider is that, supposing for a second that any given religion is actually true, there are going to be alot of people turned away at heaven's gates because they were just along for the ride, or were just kidding themselves.

Also, this links into my one major problem with most religion, which is people's reason for believing in the first place: fear. You're not picking a religion "to be safe" just so you'll get into heaven, you're clinging to it for fear of hell. I'll grant you that's a much more rational reason to believe than most, but it's still a pretty shitty basis for a religious conviction.
 
lame-o said:
It means that those who DO believe have a better chance of gaining something, and those that DON'T have no chance of anything good. It's not supposed to be a guide for choosing whether you believe or don't believe. So yes, it DOES show that the odds of profit are better for those who believe.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If there is no evidence for the existance of something, than the chances are that it doesn't exist. Pascal's wager is so dumb - I can't believe religious people still use it as an arguement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top