…and this is a 
We're all going to hell now
Category: Kooks • Religion
Posted on: March 10, 2008 1:56 PM, by PZ Myers
We've got some new additions to the Deadly Sins, the ones that will get you consigned straight to hell as soon as you die.
"You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos," he said.
Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or "the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few".
He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".
The mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church", but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.
The article also mentions using contraception is a mortal sin.
It's a strange list. There are a couple that are common practices of the Catholic church itself, the excessive accumulation of wealth and pedophilia (and isn't that just the cutest little disclaimer? The church is "taking steps to deal with it" — which usually means hushing it up and sending the offending priest off to virgin hunting grounds). Does the Vatican really haven any credibility when an old guy in silk robes encrusted with jewels declares the virtues of poverty?
The dictum against polluting the environment is a good one, but awfully vague. Is he promoting a zero-carbon footprint? Is he arguing against nuclear power? Should we stop exhaling carbon dioxide? Similarly, the prohibition against drugs isn't very specific — are all pharmacists going to hell now?
Declaring that meddling in the fate of embryos is also terribly broad, suggesting that all developmental biologists are also going to hell. This is one mean and nasty pope, I think — he has me damned on several counts!
And I'm sorry, but it is not defending the dignity and rights of women to deny them family planning. It also contradicts any sincere desire to improve the livability of the planet to argue that people are not allowed to take simple action to limit their fecundity.
But of course this is all an exercise in empty rhetoric. The pope does not have any better knowledge of the mind of any god than I do, and does not know anything about the actual fate of human souls after death. It is a bit presumptuous to be declaring that there is an immortal omnipotent being who will torture you for eternity for putting a condom on, don't you think?
Comments
And I'm betting that he doesn't consider alcohol to be a drug. Probably just a 'dietary supplement'. Or maybe liquid manna from heaven.
Posted by: Gary | March 10, 2008 2:03 PM
Okay, polluting is a sin but according to the corpse Jerry Falwell being an environmentalist is a sin because environmentalism is satanic.
So either way we're going to hell. I'm so glad the religious have provided a great moral standard.
Posted by: Doug | March 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
And if one is wasted
God gets quite irrate
Monty Python
Posted by: OhNo | March 10, 2008 2:11 PM
ichthyic and I were musing about Hell last night. I'm finally going to open that catering business I've been dreaming of.
He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".
The mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church", but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.
Umm, could it be possible because the Church protected both the child-rapists and their protectors from the law? That's not the media's fault asswipe.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 2:12 PM
Re: #1,
Nor caffeine, I bet.
Posted by: Aaron Golas | March 10, 2008 2:14 PM
lol, part of environmentalism is sound family planning
The Earth can't sustain Catholicism's version any longer
Posted by: Chris A | March 10, 2008 2:15 PM
"The dictum against polluting the environment is a good one, but awfully vague. Is he promoting a zero-carbon footprint?"
Vague or not, it's a good idea. I'm often surprised that more Christians aren't environmentalists. I mean, if you believe god made everything and put everything here in a perfect system, don't you think it'd be a good idea to keep it nice?
The same argument goes for the ID weirdos. If an 'intelligence' made this ecosystem, who are we to mess it up.
Me, I just like trees better than mini-malls.
(I think Falwell and the fundies don't support environmentalism because they believe they're going to be raptured up anyway, so why bother with the mess)
Posted by: Arkonbey | March 10, 2008 2:16 PM
But man, it must be soooo cool to hear voices in your head from an ultimate and unquestionable authority which you may then pass along for the 'benefit' of everyone. Sweet deal, this whole infalllibility/proxy for The Magical Sky Man Who Shall Not Be Questioned thing, really... Just think... However batty might be the commands (ahem), they are to be followed.
Oh... Wait... Coooool... I'm getting something now... The voice in my head says the Vatican cardinals got it wrong, last 'election'. It turns out they were really deceived by evil forces from beyond, and I was supposed to be the pope that time 'round... Ratzinger is an imposter! This is my first revelation. Praise be!
Oh, and for my first Papal bull (how aptly named these be), The Holy Commands From The Sky Are: stop wearing clothing with buttons. This is a sin. And every man, woman and child on the planet is to send me $50...
Oh... And one more coming in... (Moans and groans 'n slightly inappropriate Victorian seance-ish fashion)... Ummm... His command is: if you see any member of the Catholic clergy, moon them...
Oh... But children are exempt from this last commandment. The Magical Sky Man said this exemption had somethin' to do with 'not asking for trouble'...
Hey, don't give me flack over this. These were His commandments. Do as I say! I'm infallible now, doncha know...
Posted by: AJ Milne | March 10, 2008 2:20 PM
I'm so sick and tired of these goofy idiots in their ornate costumes barking out orders from their imagined deity. Do they actually think that wearing those things gives them credibility? Those people, and anyone who gives any credence to their insane views, are delusional.
Posted by: Alex | March 10, 2008 2:24 PM
Even if the morality is itself under debate, you're going to Hell.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 2:25 PM
The Catholic Church (and the Christian religion in general) has got a lovely scheme going on with their ability to equivocate on the word "sin" -- which has entered the language as meaning the same as the secular concept of "evil" or "harm" or "wrongdoing." It's the same thing, really, they imply. Surely we can all get together and agree that ruining the environment, like murder, causes unnecessary harm, right?
Except that when used in the religious sense, "sin" does NOT mean the same as "wrongdoing" in the secular sense. It means "going against the will of God." Which may -- or may not -- be discernibly wrong to those outside of the Special Revelation. There is no harm done according to the standards of the world caused by homosexuality, or blasphemy, or contraception -- all of them "sins." Victimless "sins."
And add to that "interfering with Nature." Some genetic manipulations can potentially cause harm to people -- and some only violate the injunction that "God doesn't want people to do that." That's a critical difference -- unless it's all "sin." You know. Like murder.
They like to slide that little discrepancy by the unwary.
Posted by: Sastra | March 10, 2008 2:26 PM
I think Mormons and Some sects of Judaism overbreed even more than Catholics do.
They actively try to have lots of kids, Catholics at least try the pull out method.
Posted by: Stevie_C | March 10, 2008 2:30 PM
the book of nuggan
Posted by: T_U_T | March 10, 2008 2:31 PM
He's a bishop, not the pope. Although I'm sure the pope would damn you on several mean and nasty counts, as well.
To which I will drink - after my developmental biology class; before I strap a condom on (never can be too careful when taking drugs, you know).
Posted by: J Daley | March 10, 2008 2:34 PM
As long as they don't make it a sin to make fun of people wearing those silly pope hats, my salvation is secure...
Posted by: gg | March 10, 2008 2:34 PM
This pope talks way to much, at least the last one had the decency to mumble only now and then. If he really has to talk this much, let him go on a talkshow tour.
/Imagines the pope explaining transubstantiation to Stephen Colbert./
Posted by: Dutch Delight | March 10, 2008 2:36 PM
I find these lists counterproductive. They think you'll see some item on the list and think "oh noes, i will never do this again." But really, there are so many things on that list for which you're already going to hell, you might as well go all out.
Posted by: Hans | March 10, 2008 2:36 PM
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
Posted by: True Bob | March 10, 2008 2:37 PM
I can't take seriously a institution run by someone who bears such a striking similarity to Emperor Palpatine.
Posted by: jeh | March 10, 2008 2:37 PM
Abortion "offends the dignity and rights of women"? I guess that's the dignity of the poverty stricken single mother and a woman's right to have a child by incest or rape. Well thank Jebus the Church is looking out for us!
Posted by: Alexandra | March 10, 2008 2:41 PM
Cn we please buy a consignment of wiffle bats and let the catholic clergy go at it with the heads of the LDS, moonies, baptists, scientologists, calvanists, episcopaleans (how the hell do you spell that?), that nutjob that pickets funerals, CofE, CofS, etc. We could do it like the world cup andhave rounds, but I think it would be better to just throw them all in a pit with their bats. Let them al pray to skydaddy to be on their side and see how it turns out. Last man standing.
Posted by: AlanWCan | March 10, 2008 2:44 PM
Hmm... alcohol is a drug, it's more harmful and does more damage to society than many other drugs.
Does that mean all catholic priests are now living in mortal sin for holding mass?
Certainly would get the confession attendance up... take mass, then you immediately have to confess to taking drugs; 5 hail-marys and a fiver in the donations tray. Great new revenue stream for the church.
Posted by: MartinSGill | March 10, 2008 2:47 PM
WTF??!! What the hell kind of fuzzy thinking is this? What the hell does "carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments", mean????
Morally debatable does not = morally wrong, it = up for discussion.
My 6th grade teacher Sister Mary Mother Of Pain would have smacked him with a ruler and made him like it for talking crap like this.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 10, 2008 2:47 PM
Here's a thought for you. What if the catholic church not only allowed the use of contraception but handed out free condoms after their sermons? Their numbers would skyrocket, don't you think?
They could make the lubricant with holy water!
Posted by: Whodunnit | March 10, 2008 2:49 PM
"We're all going to hell"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOffYj5TxU
Posted by: Anon | March 10, 2008 2:52 PM
It's funny seeing some conservatives. They see the environmental movement as liberal propaganda who puts the world before humans but when THEY support it, it's a message from God.
Posted by: Geral | March 10, 2008 2:55 PM
No, because they also believe in the Rapture. What's the point of keeping the earth nice, if Jesus is gonna come back, take all the righteous to Heaven, and lay waste to everyone else with his super powers?!
Posted by: zer0 | March 10, 2008 2:56 PM
AlanWCan,
How will each sect be represented? Will it be proportional to the number of believers or a set number for each "team". I think a set number takes away that clear Catholic/Muslim advantage.
Can we please dress them up in uniforms? Oh! and have mascots! Get some big dancing magic underwear to cheer for Captain Romney and the Joseph Smithies.
I'm really looking forward to your Faith Bowl.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 10, 2008 2:59 PM
You folks always pick the easy targets in your rants against religion and God. But I challenge you to read some intelligent believers whose faith is well-reasoned and see if your "rock-solid" belief systems aren't shaken, at least a little.
Try Tim Keller http://thereasonforgod.com/ or Donald Miller http://www.donaldmillerwords.com/
Peace!
Posted by: Rodd | March 10, 2008 3:09 PM
"You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA..."
Are there any genetic manipulations that do not alter DNA? So, what, moving DNA from one room to another is still permitted, but having poor repair of a T-T dimer after a sunburn, that will send me straight to hell?
Posted by: MPM | March 10, 2008 3:13 PM
Let's see...check, check, check...oh wait..it's not a checklist... Isn't "morally debatable" a good thing? You know...actually being able to question and reexamine whether something is ethical rather than being held to millenia old dogma of oppression and bigotry?
I do pollute the environment pretty regularly...since I do emit greenhouse gases and consume natural resources. Sadly I can't even compete with the church on insulting the dignity of women and I don't recall sheltering any paedophiles because they were part of my exclusive club. Oh well, I guess the makers of the checklist are always going to be the best at meeting the goals.
Posted by: Patrick | March 10, 2008 3:14 PM
You can see their priorities: paedophilia isn't wrong because is hurts children, but because it exposes the church.
Posted by: Margaret | March 10, 2008 3:16 PM
You can see their priorities: paedophilia isn't wrong because is hurts children, but because it exposes the church.
Well, duh. With exposure, the supply dried up.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 3:17 PM
Bishop Girotti said...the mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church".
That's a big step forwards for the Catholic Church. 100 years ago (or perhaps even 50) the scapegoat wouldn't have been the media; it would have been the Jews.
Posted by: hyperdeath | March 10, 2008 3:19 PM
All sins are deadly. The Pope would know that if he became a born-again Christian. He could have his sins forgiven though, if he believed that Jesus took the punishment for his sins, and if he committed his life to following God. No rituals, no extra good works, no intercession by Mary or saints required.
Posted by: Ross Nixon | March 10, 2008 3:21 PM
So Ross, what exactly is it that makes our American "born-agains" more credible than the Catholic church? Is it the suits?
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 10, 2008 3:27 PM
We're all going to hell now
'bout time. I sent out the invitations AGES ago.
Just how long did you all think I could keep the entertainment on hold?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 3:30 PM
The Pope would know that if he became a born-again Christian. He could have his sins forgiven though, if he believed that Jesus took the punishment for his sins, and if he committed his life to following God. No rituals, no extra good works, no intercession by Mary or saints required.
Frankly, Ross, that's something I'd like to see.
the added extremism would only doom the delusion that is xianity that much faster.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 3:31 PM
PZ you've just given me an idea for a great new party game:
Everyone is given the following sentence: "Does the Vatican really have any credibility when an old guy in silk robes encrusted with [blank] declares the virtues of [blank]?" and is given 30 seconds to come up with a pair of words that have no precedent in an actual douchebag from some point in the church's ~two millenium history of fucking other people's shit up.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 10, 2008 3:33 PM
"All sins are deadly. The Pope would know that if he became a born-again Christian. He could have his sins forgiven though, if he believed that Jesus took the punishment for his sins, and if he committed his life to following God. No rituals, no extra good works, no intercession by Mary or saints required."
Nah, if I'm gonna buy into a made up belief system of imaginary, all-seeing space tyrants, the guy in charge better at least have a kickass hat and some nice artwork.
Posted by: Patrick | March 10, 2008 3:38 PM
How can you call them victimless when they make baby Jesus cry?
Posted by: Tulse | March 10, 2008 3:38 PM
Are there any genetic manipulations that do not alter DNA?
sure.
There are manipulations that alter how and when genes are expressed that don't in any way alter the DNA itself. Hmm, I suppose one might more accurately define those as "epigenetic" manipulations, though.
Not that it's relevant in any way to the nonsense under discussion here, but I thought it worth tossing out there.
ichthyic and I were musing about Hell last night. I'm finally going to open that catering business I've been dreaming of.
*rubs hands together*
Gooood. Goood.
remind me to send you those recipes for long-pig.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 3:39 PM
Margaret Cho on the Pope (esp from about 1:10 in).
"Queen, please!"
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 3:40 PM
Nah, if I'm gonna buy into a made up belief system of imaginary, all-seeing space tyrants, the guy in charge better at least have a kickass hat and some nice artwork.
"The only tenet any religion should have is that hats are optional"
George Carlin
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 3:41 PM
Or tentacles! Don't forget tentacles!
Posted by: Tulse | March 10, 2008 3:42 PM
Rodd (#29):
I'm obviously not going to fork out my hard earned $$ for a book on your say so. As you neglected to describe the "reasoning" behind these peoples faiths I investigated the resources you did give.
After reading Keller's "study guide" for his book it's obvious that he brings to light neither new arguments nor new evidence (or even old evidence). He seems to be vomiting up the same old strawmen and pathetic Christian apologia. Nothing more than a courtier's digression.
Can you point to the location on Miller's website where the arguments for
1) the existence of a (any) god
2) the validity of Christianity
are made? I really don't feel like going through all links looking for them. They might not exist on his site and, if his "revelations" follow the standard pattern, I would have to fork over more $$ to read some more of the same-old same-old.
So to avoid draining my already depleted coffers, could I take advantage of your kindness and ask you to summarize Keller's and Miller's arguments for points 1 & 2 (above). Thank you.
Martin
Posted by: MartinDH | March 10, 2008 3:46 PM
Tulse, are you implying that the mighty cephalapod overlord is imaginary? How dare you?!
Posted by: Patrick | March 10, 2008 3:46 PM
On the optimistic side, I'll have you know that there are plenty of Catholics who don't like the pope either.
Posted by: miller | March 10, 2008 3:46 PM
Maybe they appear to be easy targets to you because they don't have the "right" faith. You are all easy targets. Inconsistant liberal theology is still sky fairy worship with no real evidence to support it.
Try reality it's fucking great.
Posted by: Schmeer | March 10, 2008 3:55 PM
Not imaginary, but from such unspeakable antediluvian dimensions beyond all puny human conceptions of space and time that he might as well be.
Posted by: Tulse | March 10, 2008 4:01 PM
"I'll have you know that there are plenty of Catholics who don't like the pope either."
Well then they ought to overthrow him. That would at least provide some entertainment for us.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 10, 2008 4:07 PM
Not imaginary, but from such unspeakable antediluvian dimensions beyond all puny human conceptions of space and time that he might as well be.
And better tasting than Jesus. C'mon, wafers or fried calamari? No brainer!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 4:08 PM
And better tasting than Jesus. C'mon, wafers or fried calamari? No brainer!
all the better to fatten you up with..
er, I mean, what I meant to say was...
oh forget it, you'll find out soon enough (if you're lucky).
Posted by: Cthulhu | March 10, 2008 4:19 PM
It had to be said!
Posted by: Randy Owens | March 10, 2008 4:21 PM
Many infants (Jesus seemed to indicate most) will grow up to reject salvation and end up in everlasting torment.
Children who die before 'the age of accountablity' will go to heaven.
For those who believe these two statements the most loving thing they can do is to kill all infants as soon as they are born.
Posted by: Kenny B | March 10, 2008 4:37 PM
Martin,
Sorry, I should have been clearer about both Keller and Miller but you won't find any type of scientific evidence proving existence/non-existence of God. Both agree, as do I, that the existence question is a philosophical one, so far not proven one way or the other with any hard facts. Both make reasoned arguments for the plausibility of a biblically-rooted faith, for those interested in hearing it.
Posted by: Rodd | March 10, 2008 4:40 PM
Of course, for Catholic babies, that is a recent development, and a big improvement on Limbo. (Man, those babies who died prior to 2007 must be pissed.)
Posted by: Tulse | March 10, 2008 4:41 PM
Good thing consecrating wine turns it into blood. That way everyone is safe from church sponsored sin.
Like others, I note the primary effect of the church's stance against contraception is increased population. The more people, the more pollution and degradation of the environment.
With all the advisors on the payroll, you'd think they wouldn't let such big errors slip through.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | March 10, 2008 4:45 PM
#52:
But have you tried turduckjesus?
Posted by: Epikt | March 10, 2008 4:46 PM
Rodd #29 wrote:
One of the most common arguments atheists hear is the "Oh, well, I don't believe in THAT God, either" argument. Presumably, the atheists have managed to find a silly, clumsy, straw-man version of "God" lying around somewhere which the sophisticated believer doesn't believe in either. And THAT's really the problem. Stopping too soon on the journey.
Trouble is, that comes from all sides. Everyone thinks their own version of God is the mature, sophisticated view, and "those other guys" who see it differently simply haven't thought it through deeply enough. Whether God is "a Heavenly Father overseeing human affairs" or "a substance of infinite attributes expressing eternal and infinite essentiality" or "a field of consciousness set up for maximum diversity" or "a symbol of the mystery that lies between the poles of our clearest rational dichotomy" or "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it" -- some believer who thinks they've given a deep and meaningful description of God is balanced out by another believer who now is rolling their eyes at the stupidity, and waiting to give theirs. Or, in many cases, not waiting to give their definition at all, because their theology works better if they never really get down to what they actually mean by the word "God."
As MartinDM points out, those websites are pretty vague, and as far as I can tell wasting a few minutes on them don't get into anything specific. It would be nice if you, personally, provided something concrete.
However, I'm going to make a quick and dirty guess here that these gentlemen have more liberal versions of God which are pretty vague and nonspecific as well. Less concrete. Thus, more reasonable. When you get right down to it, the only versions of God which start to "make sense" and seem a bit likely are the ones that manage to cover themselves deeply in analogy and secularization. The "prayer is not to ask God for favors; it is for the person praying to find acceptance for whatever happens" school of apologetics. See? Nothing an atheist wouldn't or couldn't do.
That is not a route where people are going to "get to" God. That is where people on their way out of God are going to cling on to some last minute scrap of credibility.
Posted by: Sastra | March 10, 2008 4:47 PM
But have you tried turduckjesus?
Will the tryptophan make me sleep for three days?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 4:49 PM
Everyone thinks their own version of God is the mature, sophisticated view, and "those other guys" who see it differently simply haven't thought it through deeply enough.
hey, my unicorn has a SILVER horn, OK?
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 4:50 PM
Hell PZ, it's even broader than that. Merely allowing genetic manipulations, etc. to occur--never mind actually being the manipulator--will get you fired, so to speak. Quite a bummer to have to choose between supporting gene replacement therapy for, say, Cystic Fibrosis, and eternal damnation. I guess anyone who isn't a rabid, lab-smashing anti-science activist is in for it.
Posted by: DanioPhD | March 10, 2008 4:52 PM
I'd much rather go to the place you're going than the place Fred Phelps is going.
That's a no-brainer.
Turns out I will be anyway. I just hope I can decompose in a helpful way. Maybe my survivors can get a carbon credit or two when I go.
Posted by: MikeM | March 10, 2008 4:57 PM
Ichthyic #62 wrote:
But it's not a literal silver horn, right? That would be silly. It's a symbolic, metaphorical silver horn, and it represents some very profound and timeless truths about the human condition which speaks to our hearts in language that transcends the literal and expresses what lies just beyond our intellectual comprehension, though not outside our conceptual consent.
Posted by: Sastra | March 10, 2008 4:58 PM
The problem with 'well-reasoned' Christian faith is that it draws no support from scripture unless you do a lot of intellectual hand-waving about which scriptures you cite and which you ignore. There comes a point at which, if you are truly 'well-reasoned', you realise that what you are doing is re-defining Christianity to fit, well, whatever the hell you think it's supposed to fit.
Going though that process didn't just shake my faith; it killed it. That's how I became an atheist.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 10, 2008 5:00 PM
But it's not a literal silver horn, right? That would be silly. It's a symbolic, metaphorical silver horn, and it represents some very profound and timeless truths about the human condition which speaks to our hearts in language that transcends the literal and expresses what lies just beyond our intellectual comprehension, though not outside our conceptual consent.
Beer?
Bee-er?
B-E-E-R!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 5:01 PM
But it's not a literal silver horn, right?
yes, it is. I polish it often.
hint:
don't use Tarnex!
That would be silly.
I can't disagree with that, since it was indeed the point.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 5:06 PM
Sastra,
I'm glad you checked out the link. Both of the authors mentioned come from a reformed Christian background, and I wouldn't categorize either as liberal or vague. Both put forth a theology based on an interpretation of the bible as God's revelation about who we are, who God is and how he relates to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Both author's do a much better job than I ever could of making that last statement not sound so strange.
When you say "The "prayer is not to ask God for favors; it is for the person praying to find acceptance for whatever happens" school of apologetics. See? Nothing an atheist wouldn't or couldn't do." makes total sense if you agree with the notion that if there is a god, and he is truly a god in the sense that he is in complete control over everything, then our prayers would be pointless. But Keller and Miller propose that the bible, through all kinds of literary styles, presents a God who is in control, but good.
Now if you hold to the philosophical view that there is no God, then you need go no further. But if your philosophy stems from your disagreement with what's revealed in the bible, then it may be useful to hear Keller and Miller out.
Posted by: Rodd | March 10, 2008 5:16 PM
These recent papal admonitions made me think of this web comic. It answered all my nagging doubts as to the pope's divine connections.
Posted by: trj | March 10, 2008 5:17 PM
I've never gotten a response when I've asked the faithful about this one...
What about fertility clinics?
If abortion = murder ...
Fertility clinics = mass murder, right?
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2008 5:17 PM
Both of the authors mentioned come from a reformed Christian background, and I wouldn't categorize either as liberal or vague.
RUN LIKE THE FUCKING WIND!
The Reformed tradition is fucking insane. I escaped from those people and couldn't be happier. Those are the crazy-ass right-wing Dutch Iowa relatives, and I'm never returning to Iowa.
RUN!!!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 10, 2008 5:20 PM
Sorry Rodd. Nice try. Thanks for playing. The home version of the game is available backstage, on your way out. Join us again next time for Reality, same place, same time and same channel.
You could also try lurking for a while - lots to learn from the sinners who frequent here. Hell, just today I learned that not only is there Baby Jesus and Zombie Jesus, but there is also an Action Hero Jesus (release date: TBA). I'm sure he'll really kick ass - if Chuck Norris doesn't take him out first.
Posted by: WRMartin | March 10, 2008 5:33 PM
Action Hero Jesus
i dunno about "hero", but you can already buy an action figure Jesus:
http://www.vicalecorporation.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=5
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 5:48 PM
Rod #69 wrote:
Thank you. If the writers both come from a "reformed Christian background" as I'm familiar with it, they most likely put forth an apologetics of presuppositionalism or TAG -- and their works would be unlikely to be helpful to me. As I understand from what I've read and past encounters, this form of theology works from the starting assumption that the existence of God is obvious and basic, and inescapably clear to all but those who are willfully blind or perverse. God is the ground of rational thought itself, which cannot be 'justified' without it.
That is, if you think about it, not an attempt to persuade or convince someone who honestly disagrees. If a Muslim told you that you knew, in your heart of hearts, that Islam was true and Keller and Miller were liars -- and that you were forced to assume Allah exists in order to deny it -- there is no common ground you could start from to persuade him that no, you don't know or do any such thing.
It's a chump's game. You can have a fair give-and-take debate on whether or not you're wrong, and don't know it. But you really can't have a fair debate on whether or not you're lying -- and don't know it. The minimum ground necessary for mutual courtesy is to assume mutual sincerity.
I do not "hold" to the view that there is no God in the sense that it is an unalterable premise; I consider it to be a "working theory," subject to revision. And the versions of God I find unpersuasive include versions far more general -- and far less specific -- than the Calvinist God of the Bible. I wasn't raised in any particular religious tradition, so for me the issue lies "further up" than any single Special Revelation. So no, I don't think it would be particularly useful.
Posted by: Sastra | March 10, 2008 5:49 PM
That is a great song! btw, is that PZ I saw during the refrain after the third verse, along with Richard Dawkins, or am I just seeing things after all the birthday tributes??
"Hell, Hell, Hell
is a wonderful place
filled with fire
and brimstone"
Posted by: dwarf zebu | March 10, 2008 5:50 PM
In my Sunday Observer newspaper (no digital access without payment, sorry) a reader's letter pointed out that, in fairness, if Stephen Hawking was going to be referred to as 'the notorious atheist' then the Pope ought to be referred to as 'the notorious believer'.
It struck me that this was one way of making religious views not the default state.
So "The notorious believer Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included...". Kinda has a ring to it.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | March 10, 2008 6:07 PM
Pz. Z. Meyers and associates searching out additional roads to Hell.....now that's overkill...stop looking you're way over qualified.
Posted by: Keith Eaton | March 10, 2008 6:07 PM
Pz. Z. Meyers and associates searching out additional roads to Hell.....now that's overkill...stop looking you're way over qualified.
no it's not.
ever tried making it there on the main thoroughfare during rush hour?
traffic's a bitch.
We're even thinking of offering GPS service that maps out alternate routes. Discount rates are available on long term service contracts.
Yeah, I know you bought a bunch of paper maps, Keith, and no, the discounts we offered you on the paper maps are not transferable.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 6:14 PM
"Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, "
The Wire: Vatican City
"He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion . . . and paedophilia"
A rather good word-choice there, I think.
" which offended "the dignity and rights of women""
Indeed, the Vatican's preoccupation with abortion - and obsessive opposition to reproductive rights- does offend "the dignity and rights of women" the world over. I'm glad they're catching on.
"The article also mentions using contraception is a mortal sin."
A little while back I decided to see what the current justification for this silliness was. That was a mistake, as the resulting high blood pressure probably took a couple months off my life. Besides being on the same level as 'we shouldn't fight cancer, because God's trying to tell us something!' or 'the Heimlich maneuver frustrates God's design, because there is a morally inseparable connection between swallowing and breathing,*' if you get into more detail, it turns out to be basically an elaboration of the idea that eating walnuts is good for your brain (because they're wrinkly and kinda-brain-shaped), or the related idea that the often fantastical accounts of animal life and behavior found in bestiaries were actually lessons and representations of the Christian story.
Medieval meanderings with no place in the modern world.
At least that's a kind of improvement over Paul VI, who thought contraception was just as bad as rape (although to be fair, I suppose he should get some depressingly genuine credit for realizing that marital rape was bad back in 1968). If we're going to have popes -which I'm not necessarily opposed to, though it seems a bit primate**-hierarchy-crazy - could we at least have ones with a chance of having mature and healthy experiences of sexual & familial relationships, instead of these wizened and pampered celibates cut off from basic human realities?
* of course, both the link between (pleasurable, intimacy-enhancing) sex and reproduction, and that between breathing and eating (with, for us, that unfortunate side effect of being choking-prone) do indicate a kind of deeper 'truth'. but not the one the church intends. . .
** heh.
"The mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church", but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it."
There's a term for what he's doing here, I'm sure, this sort of 'DHS is making a big fuss out of some bruises and burns my kid got because they're trying to persecute me . . .' thing . . .
It's amazing - there's was a bit of a furor recently in the Philly Inquirer letter-column over an (arguably heavy-handed) editorial cartoon re: clergy sex abuse cases, and none of the oh-so-offended people - from representatives of the archdiocese to random abuse apologists - ever seemed to grasp that by protecting and facilitating kid-raping priests, the church did something unspeakably worse than draw a cartoon.
"or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos,"
Now, what's this about? Certainly there are genuine ethical concerns about some possible uses, but given that the population isn't still largely illiterate, uneducated, sometimes literally mentally stunted through malnutrition and hardship, and generally involved in constant backbreaking labor throughout a short life often spent within a few often sparsely-populated miles of one's birth - not the kind of circumstances that predispose one to complicated ethical reasoning - maybe we can get a little more nuance? No doubt some of it is merely the same 'we are slaves of God who mustn't dare dream of mastering our own destiny' thing that also surfaces in the anti-contraception shtick, but . . . perhaps Haidt's ideas about moral purity are relevant here?
{shakes head}
Posted by: Dan S. | March 10, 2008 6:18 PM
DiscoveredJoys #77:
What about the 'ring' to:
"The self-proclaimed believer Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included...".
Posted by: Sastra | March 10, 2008 6:19 PM
What, there was a pronouncement from the vatican condemning most of humanity? I did not see that coming.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 10, 2008 6:19 PM
self-proclaimed believer
redundant.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 10, 2008 6:21 PM
Haven't they just admitted that the bible is not the source of all morality? Could be something of an own goal there.
Posted by: FollowTheGourd | March 10, 2008 6:33 PM