Before getting to environmental sin let me begin with a primer on the transformation of sin into law.
Racism is an invented sin; a twentieth century crime invented by sharpshooters, race hustlers, do gooders and religious fanatics.
Hear me out on this before labeling me a racist because I deny racism’s existence. Hatred exists, greed exists, envy, jealousy, and all of the rest of mankind’s character flaws are all too real but not racism. Racism is nothing more than hatred’s latest disguise worn by some individuals. Racism is not an original deadly sin.
Understand that over many centuries sins became laws that prohibit. Thou-Shall-Not was codified; becoming the foundation for every judicial system. Socialists could not rely upon laws that prohibit to advance socialism; so they devised Thou-Shall laws. Thou-Shall laws do not address crime and punishment, but they do require funding; ergo, a tax on personal income to pay for all of it.
Naturally, necessity dictates exceptions; thou-shall-not own a gun, and thou-shall-not use rough interrogation methods on known-terrorists.
Sins and laws
Knowing that sins become laws, dirty little moralists seized the opportunity to increase the scope of their expertise by first inventing racism, then transforming it into a hate crime.
Moralists always end up with all of the money. That is why they are never in short supply. So it is not unusual to see race hustling preachers and leading Democrats getting rich by contributing nothing more to society than their objection to a non-existent sin.
At long last racism found love
Laws against racism is another attempt to legislate love. Love born of legislation is as unsustainable as is compassion legislated by coerced charity.
The last thing that mankind needs is designer-sin. Tried and true, mass produced, sins on the books for centuries are more than sufficient.
The first thing wrong with designer-sin is that it gives perverts the opportunity to define reprehensible behavior without relinquishing their own perversion. Here’s an example: The anti-tobacco movement was a gift to freakazoids. Public and private demonstrations of anger over secondhand smoke allowed every pervert in the country to show how moral they really are. Many were probably closet-smokers as well.
Unlike laws against committing real crimes, racism’s laws demand specific behavior from everyone.
Just like every priesthood that ever was, Socialists try to make the transition from prohibiting and punishing reprehensible behavior to telling everyone how to conduct their daily lives. Socialists can, and do, get away with abolishing private property, taxing incomes, perverting the law, betraying the country, and violating the Constitution at every turn. For all of the things Socialists in government can do, they cannot govern unless they force people to do as they are told. In short: YOU MUST NOT becomes YOU MUST.
Slavery
There is no evidence of racism existing throughout history. Slavery is not racism. Slavery has always been about forced labor. At one time or another members of every race were slaves as well as slave owners. Communist governments still enslave irrespective of race.
Today’s definition of racism has its roots in pre-Civil War slavery, while racism as a sin/crime was invented decades after the War Between the States ended.
Interestingly, every individual can be the victim of a real crime, but only blacks can be the victims of racism. Every individual can engage in crime, but only blacks are incapable of committing the crime of racism —— according to liberals.
Designer-sin was followed by designer-science. Sharpshooters running the environmental movement invented designer-science as a scare tactic. Four years ago designer-science morphed into designer-sin.
In 2008 the Vatican fashioned seven new sins and named them social sins. Social diseases was the first thing I thought of, but they did not make the cut.
I’m okay with the first two on the list:
Genetic manipulation is new, while selective breeding has been around for centuries —— breed the best to the best and hope for the best.
It will probably be many decades before genetic engineering is separated into acceptable practices and criminal behavior. I doubt if sin will influence the decisions. Priests usurping authority over criminal activity is just as dangerous as is politicians demanding moral authority over sin.
Technically, alcohol is a drug. Morally —— drug use is no different than alcohol use. I suspect God will give drunks a pass on Judgement Day if they did not hurt others while under a full head of steam; so why not drugs?
Pollution made the cut just when headway was being made against the global warming hoax.
It was not Pope Benedict it was Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti who announced the new sins in an interview. I don’t know anything about Girotti. I don’t think he could have done the interview without the Pope’s approval.
From what I know about the Pope, I thought he was an all-around good egg. I’m not saying that my original impression was wrong, but I have to say that Eggs Benedict let me down. The Pope stunned me for two reasons:
1. If polluting is a sin it must be a collective sin as much as it is a sin committed by individuals. I pray that I am not judged in the hereafter as one of a group. Judging an entire group as one person is causing enough trouble in this life without doing it in the next. I assume pollution means more than the sin of air pollution. So I should not be sent to Hell for the sins of corporate executives dumping pollutants into the drinking water supply.
Even if polluting is treated as a criminal activity, collective liability can get out of hand mighty fast once the government charges everyone with everything just for being alive.
2. The environmental movement has become the home of displaced Communists since the Soviet Union imploded. Communists are not friends of Supreme Deity religions. The Roman Catholic Church least of all. That makes it difficult for me to understand why the Vatican would give credence to any part of the environmental movement.
I understand the Vatican is trying to introduce new products in order to increase its customer base, but for the R.C.Ch. to call some of those things sins implies that the living will be judged in the next life for committing those sins.
Adding pollution to the list of long-established sins will attract more depraved human beings than you can catalogue with a super computer. Perverts don’t pollute, they abuse children, they murder, they encourage depravity, then they lead marches for every environmental cause that comes along.
Fair is fair
Being judged by God for driving a polluting gas guzzler is hardly fair since everybody who died prior to the Vatican’s new list got off easy.
The rubber meets the road in the final three:
How can anyone work for a living without widening the divide between themself and those who don’t work for a living? Cynics might say priests contribute to the widening divide because they do not work for living the same way wealth creators work. Of course, number 5 could mean do not create wealth.
Who defines excessive? Logically, the guy with one dollar thinks the guy with two dollars is excessively wealthy. One of the original seven deadly sins —— ENVY —— covered the matter thoroughly. Frankly, I see more politics than improvement in social sins.
I could not find any examples of how one creates massive poverty. Even slavery creates wealth. In any event, I don’t think too many Roman Catholics will take that last one seriously.
Here’s the link to the 2008 article:
Racism is an invented sin; a twentieth century crime invented by sharpshooters, race hustlers, do gooders and religious fanatics.
Hear me out on this before labeling me a racist because I deny racism’s existence. Hatred exists, greed exists, envy, jealousy, and all of the rest of mankind’s character flaws are all too real but not racism. Racism is nothing more than hatred’s latest disguise worn by some individuals. Racism is not an original deadly sin.
Understand that over many centuries sins became laws that prohibit. Thou-Shall-Not was codified; becoming the foundation for every judicial system. Socialists could not rely upon laws that prohibit to advance socialism; so they devised Thou-Shall laws. Thou-Shall laws do not address crime and punishment, but they do require funding; ergo, a tax on personal income to pay for all of it.
Naturally, necessity dictates exceptions; thou-shall-not own a gun, and thou-shall-not use rough interrogation methods on known-terrorists.
Sins and laws
Knowing that sins become laws, dirty little moralists seized the opportunity to increase the scope of their expertise by first inventing racism, then transforming it into a hate crime.
Moralists always end up with all of the money. That is why they are never in short supply. So it is not unusual to see race hustling preachers and leading Democrats getting rich by contributing nothing more to society than their objection to a non-existent sin.
At long last racism found love
Laws against racism is another attempt to legislate love. Love born of legislation is as unsustainable as is compassion legislated by coerced charity.
The last thing that mankind needs is designer-sin. Tried and true, mass produced, sins on the books for centuries are more than sufficient.
The first thing wrong with designer-sin is that it gives perverts the opportunity to define reprehensible behavior without relinquishing their own perversion. Here’s an example: The anti-tobacco movement was a gift to freakazoids. Public and private demonstrations of anger over secondhand smoke allowed every pervert in the country to show how moral they really are. Many were probably closet-smokers as well.
Unlike laws against committing real crimes, racism’s laws demand specific behavior from everyone.
Just like every priesthood that ever was, Socialists try to make the transition from prohibiting and punishing reprehensible behavior to telling everyone how to conduct their daily lives. Socialists can, and do, get away with abolishing private property, taxing incomes, perverting the law, betraying the country, and violating the Constitution at every turn. For all of the things Socialists in government can do, they cannot govern unless they force people to do as they are told. In short: YOU MUST NOT becomes YOU MUST.
Slavery
There is no evidence of racism existing throughout history. Slavery is not racism. Slavery has always been about forced labor. At one time or another members of every race were slaves as well as slave owners. Communist governments still enslave irrespective of race.
Today’s definition of racism has its roots in pre-Civil War slavery, while racism as a sin/crime was invented decades after the War Between the States ended.
Interestingly, every individual can be the victim of a real crime, but only blacks can be the victims of racism. Every individual can engage in crime, but only blacks are incapable of committing the crime of racism —— according to liberals.
Designer-sin was followed by designer-science. Sharpshooters running the environmental movement invented designer-science as a scare tactic. Four years ago designer-science morphed into designer-sin.
In 2008 the Vatican fashioned seven new sins and named them social sins. Social diseases was the first thing I thought of, but they did not make the cut.
I’m okay with the first two on the list:
Genetic manipulation is new, while selective breeding has been around for centuries —— breed the best to the best and hope for the best.
It will probably be many decades before genetic engineering is separated into acceptable practices and criminal behavior. I doubt if sin will influence the decisions. Priests usurping authority over criminal activity is just as dangerous as is politicians demanding moral authority over sin.
Technically, alcohol is a drug. Morally —— drug use is no different than alcohol use. I suspect God will give drunks a pass on Judgement Day if they did not hurt others while under a full head of steam; so why not drugs?
Pollution made the cut just when headway was being made against the global warming hoax.
It was not Pope Benedict it was Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti who announced the new sins in an interview. I don’t know anything about Girotti. I don’t think he could have done the interview without the Pope’s approval.
From what I know about the Pope, I thought he was an all-around good egg. I’m not saying that my original impression was wrong, but I have to say that Eggs Benedict let me down. The Pope stunned me for two reasons:
1. If polluting is a sin it must be a collective sin as much as it is a sin committed by individuals. I pray that I am not judged in the hereafter as one of a group. Judging an entire group as one person is causing enough trouble in this life without doing it in the next. I assume pollution means more than the sin of air pollution. So I should not be sent to Hell for the sins of corporate executives dumping pollutants into the drinking water supply.
Even if polluting is treated as a criminal activity, collective liability can get out of hand mighty fast once the government charges everyone with everything just for being alive.
2. The environmental movement has become the home of displaced Communists since the Soviet Union imploded. Communists are not friends of Supreme Deity religions. The Roman Catholic Church least of all. That makes it difficult for me to understand why the Vatican would give credence to any part of the environmental movement.
I understand the Vatican is trying to introduce new products in order to increase its customer base, but for the R.C.Ch. to call some of those things sins implies that the living will be judged in the next life for committing those sins.
Adding pollution to the list of long-established sins will attract more depraved human beings than you can catalogue with a super computer. Perverts don’t pollute, they abuse children, they murder, they encourage depravity, then they lead marches for every environmental cause that comes along.
Fair is fair
Being judged by God for driving a polluting gas guzzler is hardly fair since everybody who died prior to the Vatican’s new list got off easy.
The rubber meets the road in the final three:
How can anyone work for a living without widening the divide between themself and those who don’t work for a living? Cynics might say priests contribute to the widening divide because they do not work for living the same way wealth creators work. Of course, number 5 could mean do not create wealth.
Who defines excessive? Logically, the guy with one dollar thinks the guy with two dollars is excessively wealthy. One of the original seven deadly sins —— ENVY —— covered the matter thoroughly. Frankly, I see more politics than improvement in social sins.
I could not find any examples of how one creates massive poverty. Even slavery creates wealth. In any event, I don’t think too many Roman Catholics will take that last one seriously.
Here’s the link to the 2008 article:
Last edited:
