Apparently some Archbishop has taken up the task of moderninzing the list of what sin is.
The original 7 deadly sins are
- Pride
- Envy
- Gluttony
- Lust
- Anger
- Greed
- Sloth
While these are still things we should not do, this Archbishop has added to the list. I like some of them...
- Enviromental pollution
- Genetic manipulation
- Accumulating excessive wealth
- Inflicting poverty
- Drug trafficking and consumption
- Morally debatable experiments
- Violation of fundamental rights of human nature.
Now, I've read two articles on this and already seen a few jokes about the current Pope being a former Nazi youth, especially in the area of "morally debatable experiments and a violation of fundamental rights of human nature" But all that aside, I like the way that these new sins are headed. I find that unlike the original 7 deadly sins, these are sins of corporation. It means that I commit sin by both driving a car on my own, but also as a population, we add to pollution by not pushing for the strictest/highest standards for a car's mpg.
So a question to the 5 or so people that actually read this blog... which of the newest "sins" do you find most intersting and why?
5 comments:
ok, the sin I would find most interesting would be the one against accumulating wealth. Statistically the ones with the most wealth give the most to charity and wealth grows more wealth. Perhaps the new sin should be living above your means or the sin of excessive waste, but accumulating wealth so that you have more to give is just stupid.
The bible tells us to use our talents, if your talent is accumulating wealth, should someone not use that talent? The super wealthy also built hospital wings and give money to cancer research and curing aid and a multitude of other charities and causes. I can't see how that could be a sin.
I agree with 'bhappy' on this. I think that could have been worded a lot better. Not to mention the Catholic church has been one of the wealthiest organizations in the world for a very long time...
true, but I'm going to guess that most priests fully believe that it is not the church which has that wealth, but God. As almost all of the priests and nuns have taken a vow of poverty, they really don't just have free access to that money.
I didn't take that new "sin" to be against rich people who give all of their money away, but the people who hoard it for themselves.
My favourite is the sin of inflicting poverty. It would be a neat experiment to see how we might go about our daily life if we look for things that we do which might inflict poverty on others.
I would point to the crucifixion of Jesus to disagree with the argument posed by bhappy:
Sure, Jesus' death gave salvation to humanity, and, in the end, it proved valuable to both the human condition and our collective relationship with God.
However, we don't uplift those who crucified him as heros. They did not kill him while telling themselves, "Well, this is ok because it's for the good of human kind." They did it to suit their own needs; salvation was a byproduct of their actions.
The same, I argue, is true of those who accumulate wealth. The rich don't get rich so they can help the poor. The fact that they CAN use their money to aid humanity is a byproduct of their wealth, not the purpose of their wealth.
The sin, says the pope, is not what they do with the money once they have it (and I would argue that far fewer wealthy people don't give than do); the sin is in aquiring it.
Where doest the money come from? Mostly, the sources of income of hugely wealthy people are morally questionable.
Wealth comes from exploitation. It's simply economics: in order to amass wealth--true wealth--the return must be several hundred times higher than the investment. That means the people doing the work to make Wealthy Person rich are not paid fairly--He or She is abusing their talents for the sake of profit.
THAT'S the sin.
Post a Comment