Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they ate meat on Friday I think that was a venial sin - u only get roasted for mortal ones! Virgo Prunefiddle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Re: meat In a message dated 10/6/2006 2:52:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, dwatkins9@... writes: Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they ate meat on Friday I think that was a venial sin - u only get roasted for mortal ones! Virgo Prunefiddle N: I thought I'd better look this up so as to be prepared. Maybe if I get buried in an asbestos suit??? This is what I found at Answers.com: " The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into the mortal and venial categories. " Looks like they wanta keep their options open in case indulgences are reinstated. Aaargh. Blessings, PS Any sign of Bunky yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 Dear Virgo, Mortal sin - no question about it. As one who spent much of early childhood in scrupulous fear of eternal damnation, I know the old laundry list quite well. Other mortal sins include missing Mass on Sunday or " Holy Day of Obligation, " or just about anything pertaining to sex, including sexual relations outside of marriage, refusing sexual relations within marriage, use of contraception, or masturbation. Lying and stealing depend upon severity. Best, Dan ---- IonaDove@... wrote: > In a message dated 10/6/2006 2:52:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, > dwatkins9@... writes: > Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they ate > meat on Friday > > I think that was a venial sin - u only get roasted for mortal ones! > > Virgo Prunefiddle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2006 Report Share Posted October 6, 2006 ---- nancy smith wrote: > > Re: meat > > > In a message dated 10/6/2006 2:52:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, > dwatkins9@... writes: > Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they ate > meat on Friday > > I think that was a venial sin - u only get roasted for mortal ones! > > Virgo Prunefiddle > > N: I thought I'd better look this up so as to be prepared. Maybe if I get > buried in an asbestos suit??? > > This is what I found at Answers.com: > > " The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into > the mortal and venial categories. " > > Looks like they wanta keep their options open in case indulgences are > reinstated. Aaargh. > Speaking of meat, the Answers.com info appears to be bologna. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html While it is true that, to commit a mortal sin, one must know that it is a mortal sin (if cannibals really don't know that killing their enemies and roasting them and eating them is a grave, objective moral evil, then maybe they are not guilty of mortal sin), and commit it willingly. It is not the case, however, that there are no objective moral evils that, in themselves, are mortal and are called mortal sins: murder, adultery, and a host of others. Disobeying certain church laws was also cause for mortal sin - this is how eating meat on Friday could be a mortal sin and isn't any more. The church made the law, then later changed the law. Yes, the church claims for itself the power to make laws the violation of which can damn souls for eternity, and then change its mind. While I'm on my soapbox, let me point out that the whole doctrine of " mortal sin " depends on the possibility of human beings freely choosing evil. That is, it depends on the preposterous and utterly inane notion that human beings can voluntarily - i.e., with knowledge - choose to hurt themselves, or to do injustice to themselves. See Aristotle, _Nicomachean Ethics_, Book V (on justice) for the complete dismantling of this simply stupid notion. (See Aristotle _Nichomachean Ethics_ Book VII, on incontinence, to see him apparently contradict himself - bu never mind that now). Human beings harm themselves out of ignorance - period. Nobody knows the good and then " chooses " the bad - period (see Aristotle on choice as deliberation). If sin as sin harms the sinner, and if God punishes the sinner for sinning, then God punishes the sinner for his ignorance, nothing less, nothing more. QED. For further, and often very funny, devasting critiques of the sophistic causuistry of Catholic exoteric reasoning on sin (and other things), see Luther. A former Doctor of the Church, he's kicking butts and taking names, when he's not drinking or begetting children - and he doesn't care if it rains Duke 's nine days running. I love Luther. I prefer Lutheranism and Calvinism to the Catholic form of exoteric Christianity (on this list, at least, I don't think I need to say that none of them have much to do with Jesus Christ) because, while they are arbitrary and cruel, they are at least internally consistent (well, relatively so). That is, while perhaps just as arbitrary and cruel as the RCC, they are at least less stupid. Enough already. Dan > Blessings, > > PS Any sign of Bunky yet? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006  Re: meat> > > > Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they ate > meat on Friday> > I think that was a venial sin - u only get roasted for mortal ones!> > Virgo Prunefiddle> > N: I thought I'd better look this up so as to be prepared. Maybe if I get > buried in an asbestos suit???> > This is what I found at Answers.com:> > "The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided into > the mortal and venial categories. "> > Looks like they wanta keep their options open in case indulgences are > reinstated. Aaargh.> Speaking of meat, the Answers.com info appears to be bologna. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITYhttp://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.htmlWhile it is true that, to commit a mortal sin, one must know that it is a mortal sin (if cannibals really don't know that killing their enemies and roasting them and eating them is a grave, objective moral evil, then maybe they are not guilty of mortal sin), and commit it willingly. N: Didja know the Crusaders were sometimes cannibals? Giving Muslim parents ever since lovely bedtime stories on which to raise their young in the path they should go regarding Christians. It is not the case, however, that there are no objective moral evils that, in themselves, are mortal and are called mortal sins: murder, adultery, and a host of others. N: All those as Church defined rather than by law: "Thou shalt not kill." Nor take another in wedlock while the first spouse lives. Disobeying certain church laws was also cause for mortal sin - this is how eating meat on Friday could be a mortal sin and isn't any more. The church made the law, then later changed the law. Yes, the church claims for itself the power to make laws the violation of which can damn souls for eternity, and then change its mind. While I'm on my soapbox, let me point out that the whole doctrine of "mortal sin" depends on the possibility of human beings freely choosing evil. That is, it depends on the preposterous and utterly inane notion that human beings can voluntarily - i.e., with knowledge - choose to hurt themselves, or to do injustice to themselves. See Aristotle, _Nicomachean Ethics_, Book V (on justice) for the complete dismantling of this simply stupid notion. (See Aristotle _Nichomachean Ethics_ Book VII, on incontinence, N: Peeing in the wrong place involuntarily's a sin? to see him apparently contradict himself - bu never mind that now). Human beings harm themselves out of ignorance - period. Nobody knows the good and then "chooses" the bad - period (see Aristotle on choice as deliberation). If sin as sin harms the sinner, and if God punishes the sinner for sinning, then God punishes the sinner for his ignorance, nothing less, nothing more. QED. N: Seems to me a good reason to outlaw punishments of any kind. No more retaliations.For further, and often very funny, devasting critiques of the sophistic causuistry of Catholic exoteric reasoning on sin (and other things), see Luther. A former Doctor of the Church, he's kicking butts and taking names, when he's not drinking or begetting children - and he doesn't care if it rains Duke 's nine days running. I love Luther.I prefer Lutheranism and Calvinism to the Catholic form of exoteric Christianity (on this list, at least, I don't think I need to say that none of them have much to do with Jesus Christ) because, while they are arbitrary and cruel, they are at least internally consistent (well, relatively so). That is, while perhaps just as arbitrary and cruel as the RCC, they are at least less stupid.Enough already.Dan> Blessings, > > PS Any sign of Bunky yet? N: Good ol' Bunky's come home. Whew. Blessings, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 My husband (former altar boy) said it was not a mortal sin. Maybe the church isn't consistent on this. Carol > Dear Virgo, > > Mortal sin - no question about it. As one who spent much of early > childhood in scrupulous fear of eternal damnation, I know the old laundry > list quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Dear Dan, Knowing myself, I cannot agree with you that evil is only committed out of ignorance. Haven't we all, or is it just I been mean nasty unjust spiteful or a liar during out time on this earth knowing full well that we were transgressing our own moral law????, " While I'm on my soapbox, let me point out that the whole doctrine of " mortal sin " depends on the possibility of human beings freely choosing evil. That is, it depends on the preposterous and utterly inane notion that human beings can voluntarily - i.e., with knowledge - choose to hurt themselves, or to do injustice to themselves " " There are sins of commission and sins of omission....often we look the other way so we won't have to act. I consider a sin as conscious knowledge of doing harm to myself and others. I do not need Holy Mother Church to tell me what a sin is. I cannot ,however say, I am ignorant of the act I am committing in being unkind as well as murder,stealing,whatever.. I don't think we consider evil as important enough in this world and try to play down our own part in it. A lie may change someone's life, or a country's future...that isn't a " sin " ???? We can lie, be spiteful, hurtful...and we cannot claim ignorance. I dislike categorizing " sins " because anytype of behavior can be a sin to the person who knowingly commits it. Am I the only one whose memory can stretch to some hurtful past action against others? It would be comforting to think " I did the best I could under the circumstances " but we all know, do we know that we have not always done our " best " . It is no excuse, or rarely an excuse. Nobody knows the truth and doesn't chose it? Not true in my personal experience. Sometimes, we are stubborn enough to continue on a " wrong " path because we will not stop being willful. There are some crimes that take planning and concentration. Don't tell me that ignorance is an excuse. Toni Re: meat >> >> >> In a message dated 10/6/2006 2:52:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, >> dwatkins9@... writes: >> Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they >> ate >> meat on Friday >> >> I think that was a venial sin - u only get roasted for mortal ones! >> >> Virgo Prunefiddle >> >> N: I thought I'd better look this up so as to be prepared. Maybe if I >> get >> buried in an asbestos suit??? >> >> This is what I found at Answers.com: >> >> " The Church itself does not provide a precise list of sins, subdivided >> into >> the mortal and venial categories. " >> >> Looks like they wanta keep their options open in case indulgences >> are >> reinstated. Aaargh. >> > > Speaking of meat, the Answers.com info appears to be bologna. > > http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY > > http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html > > While it is true that, to commit a mortal sin, one must know that it is a > mortal sin (if cannibals really don't know that killing their enemies and > roasting them and eating them is a grave, objective moral evil, then maybe > they are not guilty of mortal sin), and commit it willingly. It is not the > case, however, that there are no objective moral evils that, in > themselves, are mortal and are called mortal sins: murder, adultery, and a > host of others. Disobeying certain church laws was also cause for mortal > sin - this is how eating meat on Friday could be a mortal sin and isn't > any more. The church made the law, then later changed the law. Yes, the > church claims for itself the power to make laws the violation of which can > damn souls for eternity, and then change its mind. > > While I'm on my soapbox, let me point out that the whole doctrine of > " mortal sin " depends on the possibility of human beings freely choosing > evil. That is, it depends on the preposterous and utterly inane notion > that human beings can voluntarily - i.e., with knowledge - choose to hurt > themselves, or to do injustice to themselves. See Aristotle, _Nicomachean > Ethics_, Book V (on justice) for the complete dismantling of this simply > stupid notion. (See Aristotle _Nichomachean Ethics_ Book VII, on > incontinence, to see him apparently contradict himself - bu never mind > that now). Human beings harm themselves out of ignorance - period. Nobody > knows the good and then " chooses " the bad - period (see Aristotle on > choice as deliberation). If sin as sin harms the sinner, and if God > punishes the sinner for sinning, then God punishes the sinner for his > ignorance, nothing less, nothing more. QED. > > For further, and often very funny, devasting critiques of the sophistic > causuistry of Catholic exoteric reasoning on sin (and other things), see > Luther. A former Doctor of the Church, he's kicking butts and > taking names, when he's not drinking or begetting children - and he > doesn't care if it rains Duke 's nine days running. I love > Luther. > > I prefer Lutheranism and Calvinism to the Catholic form of exoteric > Christianity (on this list, at least, I don't think I need to say that > none of them have much to do with Jesus Christ) because, while they are > arbitrary and cruel, they are at least internally consistent (well, > relatively so). That is, while perhaps just as arbitrary and cruel as the > RCC, they are at least less stupid. > > Enough already. > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 toni wrote: Dear Toni, Dear Dan, >Knowing myself, I cannot agree with you that evil is only committed out of >ignorance. >Haven't we all, or is it just I been mean nasty unjust spiteful or a liar >during out time on this earth knowing full well that we were transgressing >our own moral law????, At the time of the action, one believes that one will benefit from it. We may know it's "bad" (I trust you see its right to inverted commas?), but we don't think it's bad - for us. If a young man steals a car, he knows it's "wrong" - but he expects in fact to benefit. To impress his girl, get a car, whatever. "While I'm on my soapbox, let me point out that the whole doctrine of "mortal sin" depends on the possibility of human beings freely choosing evil. That is, it depends on the preposterous and utterly inane notion that human beings can voluntarily - i.e., with knowledge - choose to hurt themselves, or to do injustice to themselves"" There are sins of commission and sins of omission....often we look the other way so we won't have to act. I consider a sin as conscious knowledge of doing harm to myself and others. I say that it is impossible knowingly to do harm to oneself. For years I smoked. I "knew" I should quit - but I didn't really know, so I didn't quit. My true opinion was that I could probably get away with it for a while longer. Then I started having some respiratory problems, and I really did know I should quit. So, I quit. Now, I drink and eat too much. I "know" I should lose wieght. When I really know, then I will lose wieight. I do not need Holy Mother Church to tell me what a sin is. I cannot ,however say, I am ignorant of the act I am committing in being unkind I suggest that, if one is unkind, one believes that the other person has got it coming, or at least that it is good for oneself. That is, in the moment, one believes it is just. as well as murder,stealing,whatever.. I don't think we consider evil as important enough in this world and try to play down our own part in it. A lie may change someone's life, or a country's future...that isn't a "sin"???? May change it for the better - is that a sin? We can lie, be spiteful, hurtful...and we cannot claim ignorance. I dislike categorizing "sins" because anytype of behavior can be a sin to the person who knowingly commits it. Am I the only one whose memory can stretch to some hurtful past action against others? It would be comforting to think "I did the best I could under the circumstances" but we all know, do we know that we have not always done our "best". It is no excuse, or rarely an excuse. Nobody knows the truth and doesn't chose it? Not true in my personal experience. Sometimes, we are stubborn enough to continue on a "wrong" path because we will not stop being willful. There are some crimes that take planning and concentration. Don't tell me that ignorance is an excuse. Ignorance cannot (usually) be a legal excuse. It is enough that you know you're not "supposed" to steal the car. That, ultimately, is the stance that the RCC takes too - they are, after all, legislating largely for peasants (among whom, no doubt, they class such as we), not philosophers or scholars. Best, Dan .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 Carol Spicuzza wrote: My husband (former altar boy) said it was not a mortal sin. Maybe the church isn't consistent on this. I was also an altar boy, and spent a good deal of juvenile time on these matters. Was your husband really interested in theology? Few young boys are Whether every single priest or bishop was consistent on the issue of meat on Fridays, I couldn't say - but that the RCC's official position was that it was a mortal sin is not arguable. See DeHarbe's _Catechism_ (1924). Or see: http://www.angeluspress.org/angelus/1978_May/Ask_Me.htm (these guys are the old-fashioned hard core). If we want to be a bit casuistic about it, we could say that the mortal sin was not eating meat on Friday _per se_ (since that was a matter of positive law, not natural law), but rather disobedience of a Church dictate. But the end result is the same. Eat a hotdog, burn in Hell (unless you confess and receive absolution, blah, blah, blah). best, dan Carol > Dear Virgo, > > Mortal sin - no question about it. As one who spent much of early > childhood in scrupulous fear of eternal damnation, I know the old laundry > list quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 another link: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/fridayabstinence.htm Carol Spicuzza wrote: My husband (former altar boy) said it was not a mortal sin. Maybe the church isn't consistent on this. Carol > Dear Virgo, > > Mortal sin - no question about it. As one who spent much of early > childhood in scrupulous fear of eternal damnation, I know the old laundry > list quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2006 Report Share Posted October 7, 2006 nancy smith wrote: ----- > reinstated. Aaargh. > Speaking of meat, the Answers.com info appears to be bologna. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/gravity.html#GRAVITY http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html While it is true that, to commit a mortal sin, one must know that it is a mortal sin (if cannibals really don't know that killing their enemies and roasting them and eating them is a grave, objective moral evil, then maybe they are not guilty of mortal sin), and commit it willingly.  N: Didja know the Crusaders were sometimes cannibals? Giving Muslim parents ever since lovely bedtime stories on which to raise their young in the path they should go regarding Christians. Interesting, but not sure I see the relevance.   It is not the case, however, that there are no objective moral evils that, in themselves, are mortal and are called mortal sins: murder, adultery, and a host of others.  N: All those as Church defined rather than by law: "Thou shalt not kill." Nor take another in wedlock while the first spouse lives. Don't take your point. The RCC recognizes at least two kinds of law, positive (made up by human beings) and natural (made by God, but visible to or inferrable by unassisted reason). Per the RCC (don't think they've changed their minds), the RCC can make positive laws that are binding on Catholics, and that trump secular law. That said, it is also a sin to disobey legitimate secular law. Hence, for example, it can be a mortal sin to cheat on your taxes, if the amount is large - same as stealing. This leads to interesting consequence: bound by pain of mortal sin to pay (say) 30% of your income in tax in the USA, but 60% (or whatever) in Sweden. isobeying certain church laws was also cause for mortal sin - this is how eating meat on Friday could be a mortal sin and isn't any more. The church made the law, then later changed the law. Yes, the church claims for itself the power to make laws the violation of which can damn souls for eternity, and then change its mind. While I'm on my soapbox, let me point out that the whole doctrine of "mortal sin" depends on the possibility of human beings freely choosing evil. That is, it depends on the preposterous and utterly inane notion that human beings can voluntarily - i.e., with knowledge - choose to hurt themselves, or to do injustice to themselves. See Aristotle, _Nicomachean Ethics_, Book V (on justice) for the complete dismantling of this simply stupid notion. (See Aristotle _Nichomachean Ethics_ Book VII, on incontinence, N: Peeing in the wrong place involuntarily's a sin?   Huh? to see him apparently contradict himself - bu never mind that now). Human beings harm themselves out of ignorance - period. Nobody knows the good and then "chooses" the bad - period (see Aristotle on choice as deliberation). If sin as sin harms the sinner, and if God punishes the sinner for sinning, then God punishes the sinner for his ignorance, nothing less, nothing more. QED.  N: Seems to me a good reason to outlaw punishments of any kind. No more retaliations. In a perfectly just regime, the only legitimate use for punishment is to teach - to improve the one being punished. Now, there are no perfectly just regimes and never will be, and "society" or the regime has needs too (see Jung on capital punishment - also, not that some people aren't improved by death), such that this principle will never be fully actualized. God, however, is meant to be perfect and perfectly just. He is not hampered by our "all too human" situations that require compromising perfect justice. Yet, so we are told, God punishes for eternity - "abandon hope all ye who enter here." The purpose of Hell is not to improve, but punishment for its own sake. Hell represents, then, an assault on natural justice. God as portrayed by the RCC is a perfect tyrant. Best, Dan For further, and often very funny, devasting critiques of the sophistic causuistry of Catholic exoteric reasoning on sin (and other things), see Luther. A former Doctor of the Church, he's kicking butts and taking names, when he's not drinking or begetting children - and he doesn't care if it rains Duke 's nine days running. I love Luther. I prefer Lutheranism and Calvinism to the Catholic form of exoteric Christianity (on this list, at least, I don't think I need to say that none of them have much to do with Jesus Christ) because, while they are arbitrary and cruel, they are at least internally consistent (well, relatively so). That is, while perhaps just as arbitrary and cruel as the RCC, they are at least less stupid. Enough already. Dan > Blessings, > > PS Any sign of Bunky yet?  N: Good ol' Bunky's come home. Whew.  Blessings,  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.