Entry 717, on 2008-03-11 at 21:57:11 (Rating 4, Religion)
Today I heard a radio news item (yes, surprisingly it wasn't a podcast) which described seven new sins listed by a senior archbishop of the Catholic Church recently in the Vatican newspaper. Now if you have read previous blog entries and discussions here you might assume that this is leading into a rant against the Catholic Church (I am well known for being not too tolerant of organised religion) but its not that really.
I actually think its a good idea to try to create some moral leadership which is relevant to our modern lives. The original seven deadly sins are now 1500 years old and are rather general so that there is a case to suggest that newer, more specific and relevant sins might be useful.
Obviously I would prefer people to derive their morality from more logical sources than a church, but given that there are hundreds of millions of people who take the Catholic Church seriously its at least better that they make their leadership more relevant.
Before I talk about some of the new sins I thought I would quote the original list and the expected punishments in Hell. They are: pride (the punishment is being broken on the wheel - that'll learn ya), envy (you are put in freezing water for this - not so bad really), gluttony (you are forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes - sounds like an episode of Fear Factor), lust (you would be smothered in fire and brimstone - and rightly so, that's a bad one), anger (you could be dismembered alive - ouch!), greed (you are put in caldrons of boiling water - that's not nice), and sloth (for this you are thrown in a pit of snakes - I'm guessing they are poisonous).
OK, I said I wasn't going to diss the church and there I go making fun of their beliefs, but its just so easy! What kind of hypocritical church goes around babbling on about the mercy of Christ then dreams up these punishments anyway? OK, that's enough of that.
Getting back to the modern sins. As I said, I think there some potential good here so I will list a few of them and say why I think they might be good or bad. Actually, I've found some additional sources for this so I'll read them and discuss the "seven modern sins" tomorrow instead.
OJB - before you start getting all judgmental, may I suggest you understand the source meaning behind the story. If you don't then you're not the only one! Have a read of this opinion piece from the NZ Herald: Patrick Dunn and Gavin Abraham: New social sins list deserved applause
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-03-21 at 11:17:04:
Unlike the Herald I didn't say or imply this was official doctrine or that it originated form the Pope. I also said I thought the idea had some merit. I thought I was being pretty fair on that part of it. OK, so I ridiculed the punishments for the original sins (which I know also aren't part of official church dogma) but its just so much fun! I thought that crack about Fear Factor was particularly good!
Comment 3 by SBFL on 2008-03-21 at 21:50:33:
I should have made my comment on "Deadly Continued" but didn't only because there was another thread going on. I thought you would have assumed I was referring to your views in the item as covered in both your posts (not just this one).
Comment 4 by OJB on 2008-03-22 at 19:07:19:
Well if you look at the comments I made as a whole I wasn't totally negative (apart from the smart comments about the punishments which were clearly intended as a humorous interlude) and I did briefly justify my position. Remember that I'm not here to be friendly and to carefully sidestep the controversy. How else would I get people like you to comment!
Comment 5 by SBFL on 2008-03-25 at 00:58:19:
Well you are always honest, I will give you that!! (plus I have seen 'Fear Factor' on TV before, so I did chuckle at that quip!)
Comment 6 by OJB on 2008-03-25 at 10:14:18:
While I am deliberately contentious in this blog, I don't say anything I don't believe (unless I am indulging in humour, hyperbole, or some other form of dramatic effect). I try to present some balance which is why my reporting of this issue was more accurate than the news web site's was. Occasionally I get it wrong but I won't change my mind unless there is real evidence, just show it to me!
Comment 7 by SBFL on 2008-03-30 at 21:43:56:
I replied on 2 threads on the 25th, with the mind to reply to the rest you would have responded to on 22-Mar at a later date. Back tonight, but the red bold on the listing has obviously expired and again I am not sure what all the threads are that we discussed on 21-22 March! Arrrgh. Sooner you add those notification type features the better. I will have a flick through a few and see what I can find.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2008-03-31 at 18:28:42:
Right. There's a few issues to deal with, but I'll work on it.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE