10 ms·

As a Catholic I can say that was B.S. Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin. It's a good thing that the index has been a

As a Catholic I can say that was B.S. Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin. It's a good thing that the index has been abolished in 1966.

hypertele-Xii 1y ago
[flagged]
- mullsork 1y ago
  > I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For anyone curious.
- thbb123 1y ago
  Or simply yelling "fire" for no reason in a crowded space must be a sin, pretty much like it's a limit of free speech.
  - karlgkk 1y ago
    in the catholic church, it'd be probably invoke three paths to sin. scandal, which is causing others to do evil without their intent to do so. justice: requiring the dignity and safety of others. and of course, lying.
- aetherspawn 1y ago
  Indeed, Reading and Thinking … porn or filth for example … can also both be sins per Bible. Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
- lukan 1y ago
  Maybe he is a catholic, who chooses to not take the bible literal? (those who do are actually the rare exception)
- sapphicsnail 1y ago
  If you actually read about the Bible you would know that 1 Timothy is probably fake. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles Any attempt to justify banning books from the New Testament is indirect at best. All Christians play loosy-goosy with the Bible to some degree. There are things Jesus directly warned against like gathering wealth that most Christians have no problem doing. Paul seems kinda iffy about marriage but for many Christians that's a core religious value. Meanwhile there's a bunch of stuff like book banning or being gay that's at best ambiguously condemned in the Bible that people are up in arms over.
  - photios 1y ago
    TIL about that hypothesis. I admit, I had a good laugh. > St. Paul wrote "it is a shame for women to speak in the church"! Noooooo, it must be fake!
  - hypertele-Xii 1y ago
    You are blatantly obviously lying. The Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in several places. Try harder, Satan.
School-Cotton 1y ago
In case you care: that the index was abolished in 1966. Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with. Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present. For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon. And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present! To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.
- adrian_b 1y ago
  I believe that in such a case one can use both "has been abolished in 1966" and "was abolished in 1966", but they mean different things. "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today. "Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today. So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today. That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.
ahoka 1y ago
They still don't allow condoms to be used. They are the bullshit.
karlgkk 1y ago
> Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin. the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition. indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence. the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this which is to say, reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion
- graemep 1y ago
  The thing is what works, thoughts or speaking is abhorrent? It would have to be something sinful in itself, so, for example, planning a murder is clearly a sin, although only a thought. Taking pleasure is someone else's suffering is also a sin. Reading to learn, honest thoughts, and honest speech cannot be sins. I think those are what the post you are replying to had in mind.
  - ivape 1y ago
    God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament. With that said, doubt is part of faith, and exploration of that is just an articulation and not outright denial. I would bucket “honest confusion” the same way. To be confused in the desert is to be confused in the desert, akin to throwing a non-swimmer into water. The confusion before faith (before swimming) is okay, I believe. That’s all I can postulate from my own meditation. Anyway, we have to always remember that Christ went toe-to-toe against his own religion. These Christian denominations must always know Christ will reject them outright if they are misinterpreting (and how could anyone think otherwise is beyond me, going up against Judaism was his first major imperative). He was a very serious activist, beyond.
dkiebd 1y ago
I envy modern Christians for their ability to make up their faith by pretending the scriptures don’t exist. “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”
- ysofunny 1y ago
  there is no way I gotta stop thinking if your head hurts
- sapphicsnail 1y ago
  Imagine thinking that Jesus wants you to be like the legalistic Pharisees of his time.
  - dkiebd 1y ago
    One has to read the scripture. In many cases we are talking about things that were clearly defined as sins in the scripture. Just read the scripture instead of making up the rules.
    - lurquer 1y ago
      Are you suggesting the scriptures do not obligate church leaders to protect the flock from heresy? 1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences. Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading. Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.” 2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them. Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith. Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people. Etc, etc, etc.
thinkingemote 1y ago
"I confess ... that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words."
boxed 1y ago
Of course all those things can be sins. The two first leads directly to atheism, and the third can be used to spread atheism.
- graemep 1y ago
  Atheism is not a sin - not if a sincere belief. An honest mistake is not sin. If you are arguing that intrinsically good things (reading, thinking, speaking) can be turned to bad purpose, then so can almost anything. If done with honest intent I cannot see how reading, thinking of speaking atheism is sinful. Is there anything in the the Catechism that says otherwise.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god. Not sure how you define atheism if it doesn't include that.
    - falcor84 1y ago
      "gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at." Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
    - graemep 1y ago
      > Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god. its not obvious to me. I cannot see how an honestly held belief can be a sin. Is it evil to be an atheist because you believe there is no God? Clearly not, so how can you say its a sin?
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        When I honestly think you are a murder, is that not insulting to you? When I honestly think I'm entitled to the money in the bank, does that mean I won't be judged? If there are people that are atheists, because they have never heard of anyone telling them about god, then no that is not a sin. I doubt that applies to most people. Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god.
abrenuntio 1y ago
Not sure whether an index is still pragmatic. But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
I dunno. Depends how many people hear it.
ralfd 1y ago
Knowing how LLM work made me more sympathetic to curating my own „training set“ though.

As a Catholic I can say that was B.S. Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin. It's a good thing that the index has been abolished in 1966.

hypertele-Xii 1y ago

[flagged]

mullsork 1y ago
> I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For anyone curious.
thbb123 1y ago
Or simply yelling "fire" for no reason in a crowded space must be a sin, pretty much like it's a limit of free speech.
- karlgkk 1y ago
  in the catholic church, it'd be probably invoke three paths to sin. scandal, which is causing others to do evil without their intent to do so. justice: requiring the dignity and safety of others. and of course, lying.
aetherspawn 1y ago
Indeed, Reading and Thinking … porn or filth for example … can also both be sins per Bible. Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
lukan 1y ago
Maybe he is a catholic, who chooses to not take the bible literal? (those who do are actually the rare exception)
sapphicsnail 1y ago
If you actually read about the Bible you would know that 1 Timothy is probably fake. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_epistles Any attempt to justify banning books from the New Testament is indirect at best. All Christians play loosy-goosy with the Bible to some degree. There are things Jesus directly warned against like gathering wealth that most Christians have no problem doing. Paul seems kinda iffy about marriage but for many Christians that's a core religious value. Meanwhile there's a bunch of stuff like book banning or being gay that's at best ambiguously condemned in the Bible that people are up in arms over.
- photios 1y ago
  TIL about that hypothesis. I admit, I had a good laugh. > St. Paul wrote "it is a shame for women to speak in the church"! Noooooo, it must be fake!
- hypertele-Xii 1y ago
  You are blatantly obviously lying. The Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in several places. Try harder, Satan.

School-Cotton 1y ago

In case you care: that the index was abolished in 1966. Using “has been” here makes it immediately clear that you’re a non-native English speaker, unless you’re speaking some dialect I’m not familiar with. Usually, we use the perfect (“has been”) with time intervals that include (or asymptotically approach) the present. We use the simple past (“was”) with time intervals or points that are closed and are clearly sepatated from the present. For example: “I went to Lebanon in 2015”. 2015 is a specific point in time. But if I don’t include a time, I’d say “I’ve been to Lebanon”. Even though this was in the past, the fact that I don’t mention a specific time in the past means it implicitly includes the present, because I’m describing my current state: I’m someone who has been to Lebanon. And, if I were in Lebanon now, for the first time, I could say “I’ve been to Lebanon”, and then it really does concretely include the present! To illustrate another edge case: I’d say “my father has never been to Lebanon” but “my grandfather never went to Lebanon”. Because my father is still alive, but my grandfather is dead. So any statements about his life are automatically about a closed interval lying entirely in the past.

adrian_b 1y ago
I believe that in such a case one can use both "has been abolished in 1966" and "was abolished in 1966", but they mean different things. "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today. "Was abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966, but it provides no information about whether it might have been reinstated later and it might continue to be enforced today. So in this case I believe that the other poster was correct in using "has been abolished in 1966".
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > "Has been abolished in 1966" says that it was abolished in 1966 and it remains abolished today. That meaning would be expressed as "has been abolished since 1966", unless it is still 1966 when the idea is being expressed, in which case "has been abolished in 1966" works instead; "has been abolished" is a present perfect (passive voice) construction so "in <past time period>" doesn't make sense with it, while "since <past time period>" or "in <current time period>" does.

ahoka 1y ago

They still don't allow condoms to be used. They are the bullshit.

karlgkk 1y ago

> Reading cannot be a sin. Thinking cannot be a sin. Speaking cannot be a sin. the catholic church is an ancient institution that believes it is the continuing ministry of jesus christ. and thus, it is not beholding to purely biblical rules - but also tradition. indeed, sin is an "utterance, deed, or desire" that offends God. the concept of sin is that it is abhorrent, and caused by concupiscence. the ccc (catcheism) indeed has a definition for sin and does not specify what is or isn't sin directly - but rather through the above criteria, both biblical and traditional. and it is defined and ruminated upon by those who are the apostles (bishops) via the magisterium, which is their upholding of this which is to say, reading can be a sin - if those works are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church thinking can be a sin - if those thoughts are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church speaking can be a sin - if those words are abhorrent to god, the bible, or the tradition of the church and boy howdy, if those fuckin jesusmonks put together a book of read-sins and by the magisterium and the tradition of the church, then reading them is a sin. sorry about your religion

graemep 1y ago
The thing is what works, thoughts or speaking is abhorrent? It would have to be something sinful in itself, so, for example, planning a murder is clearly a sin, although only a thought. Taking pleasure is someone else's suffering is also a sin. Reading to learn, honest thoughts, and honest speech cannot be sins. I think those are what the post you are replying to had in mind.
- ivape 1y ago
  God-denial is a big deal in the Bible. I recommend people do a small survey on what happened to entire people(s) when they pursued God-denial in the Old Testament. With that said, doubt is part of faith, and exploration of that is just an articulation and not outright denial. I would bucket “honest confusion” the same way. To be confused in the desert is to be confused in the desert, akin to throwing a non-swimmer into water. The confusion before faith (before swimming) is okay, I believe. That’s all I can postulate from my own meditation. Anyway, we have to always remember that Christ went toe-to-toe against his own religion. These Christian denominations must always know Christ will reject them outright if they are misinterpreting (and how could anyone think otherwise is beyond me, going up against Judaism was his first major imperative). He was a very serious activist, beyond.

dkiebd 1y ago

I envy modern Christians for their ability to make up their faith by pretending the scriptures don’t exist. “I was taught that Jesus is love, therefore, if it makes me happy or gives me pleasure it can’t be a sin”

ysofunny 1y ago
there is no way I gotta stop thinking if your head hurts
sapphicsnail 1y ago
Imagine thinking that Jesus wants you to be like the legalistic Pharisees of his time.
- dkiebd 1y ago
  One has to read the scripture. In many cases we are talking about things that were clearly defined as sins in the scripture. Just read the scripture instead of making up the rules.
  - lurquer 1y ago
    Are you suggesting the scriptures do not obligate church leaders to protect the flock from heresy? 1 Timothy 6:20–21 – “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 2 Timothy 4:3–4 – Warns of people turning from truth to myths, implying leaders must protect them from such influences. Titus 1:9–11 – Bishops must “stop the mouths” of those teaching error, which includes preventing their works from spreading. Acts 20:28–31 – Paul warns the Ephesian elders to guard the flock from false teachers who will arise “speaking perverse things.” 2 John 1:10–11 – “If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” Romans 16:17 – Mark and avoid those who cause doctrinal divisions; a list of banned works is a formal way of “marking” them. Acts 19:19 – New converts in Ephesus publicly burn their occult books after coming to the faith. Deuteronomy 13:1–5 – False prophets and their influence must be eradicated from the midst of the people. Etc, etc, etc.

thinkingemote 1y ago

"I confess ... that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words."

boxed 1y ago

Of course all those things can be sins. The two first leads directly to atheism, and the third can be used to spread atheism.

graemep 1y ago
Atheism is not a sin - not if a sincere belief. An honest mistake is not sin. If you are arguing that intrinsically good things (reading, thinking, speaking) can be turned to bad purpose, then so can almost anything. If done with honest intent I cannot see how reading, thinking of speaking atheism is sinful. Is there anything in the the Catechism that says otherwise.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god. Not sure how you define atheism if it doesn't include that.
  - falcor84 1y ago
    "gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at." Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
  - graemep 1y ago
    > Saying god doesn't exists, is obviously a sin against god. its not obvious to me. I cannot see how an honestly held belief can be a sin. Is it evil to be an atheist because you believe there is no God? Clearly not, so how can you say its a sin?
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      When I honestly think you are a murder, is that not insulting to you? When I honestly think I'm entitled to the money in the bank, does that mean I won't be judged? If there are people that are atheists, because they have never heard of anyone telling them about god, then no that is not a sin. I doubt that applies to most people. Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god.

abrenuntio 1y ago

Not sure whether an index is still pragmatic. But I hope the Catholic Church of the future will take the defense of its flock more serious again. Many books (and movies and TV series...) out there contain downright evil ideas, sometimes presented in dishonest ways. Perhaps some organized, ecclesiastically sanctioned system of reviews to guide readers would be feasible?

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago

I dunno. Depends how many people hear it.

ralfd 1y ago

Knowing how LLM work made me more sympathetic to curating my own „training set“ though.