Seven Deadly Sins Question [Archive]

six7s

28th October 2009, 11:26 PM

Are the seven deadly sins accepted by protestant and orthodox Christianity? Or are they purely Catholic tradition?The Catholics devised the list and the Protestants perfected it

Not to be outdone, the Vatican has added another seven

www.timesonline.co.uk Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3517050.ece)March 10, 2008

Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.

After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalisation. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “securalised world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.

The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence.

It holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes”, including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

You gotta love the caption below the pic of Benny:
Pope Benedict XVI said that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were making do without God

Its true !!11!!

Andrew Wiggin

28th October 2009, 11:45 PM

I like how pedophila is now a sin because it 'exposes the human and institutional fragility of the church'. and abortion is a sin because it 'offends the dignity and rights of women'. I wonder how long it took Darth Ratzinger to come up with that one.

The fact that I find the concept of sin irrelevant notwithstanding, I hardly think the worst part of pedophilia is that it exposes the weakness of the church, and I find a bigger insult to the dignity and rights of women in laws and customs that imply outside control of their reproductive capability.

A

H'ethetheth

29th October 2009, 01:13 AM

Lovely how the pope, in his golden citadel and his bejewelled dress, lectures the world on "excessive accumulation of wealth by few" on pain of eternal damnation.

quarky

29th October 2009, 01:16 AM

I had sex with the Pope, and am expecting his love child soon.

(Thought I'd mention it here before I sell the story to the tabloids.)

btw, I didn't have an orgasm. The hat was a turn-off.)

six7s

29th October 2009, 01:23 AM

Lovely how the pope, in his golden citadel and his bejewelled dress, lectures the world on "excessive accumulation of wealth by few" on pain of eternal damnation.Yeah... but he's got his fingers crossed... so it doesn't count

---
<aside>
I wonder... Does teh p0pe go to confession? If so... what does he say? Bless me, me, for I have sinned...?
</aside>

A.A. Alfie

29th October 2009, 01:24 AM

six7s

29th October 2009, 01:25 AM

btw, I didn't have an orgasm. The hat was a turn-off.)BTW... that ain't his hat

six7s

29th October 2009, 01:30 AM

Sins
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
PrideThey're not sins... not the first four, anyhoo... they're hobbies!

Underlining... on teh whirled wide web... now that's a sin!!11!!

H'ethetheth

29th October 2009, 01:45 AM

Camillus

29th October 2009, 03:01 AM

Pride isn't a sin it's a virtue.

H'ethetheth

29th October 2009, 03:20 AM

Pride isn't a sin it's a virtue.That depends. It's also a group of lions.

A.A. Alfie

29th October 2009, 03:30 AM

Are the seven deadly sins accepted by protestant and orthodox Christianity? Or are they purely Catholic tradition?

BTW, I think you'll find that the seven deadly sins pre date Christianity by quite a long way. Socrates or Plato perhaps.
I'm also pretty sure they don't actually appear in the bible anywhere (as a list at any rate).

Happy to be proved wrong though.

The Fallen Serpent

29th October 2009, 03:32 AM

That is not a list of sins, that is a list of motivations.

Monster Machine

29th October 2009, 05:28 AM

Pride isn't a sin it's a virtue.

Not when the sky daddy says you're worthless without him...

Monster

six7s

29th October 2009, 01:07 PM

Not when the sky daddy says you're worthless without him...

MonsterIf your sky daddy is the one from the OT, then note that he is a hypocritical schmuck!

The NEW New Testament: Now available on a t-shirt! (http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/the-god-delusion-t-shirt)
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

HansMustermann

29th October 2009, 01:12 PM

Just for information, I thought some might like to look at the seven deadly sins. Additionally, there are seven heavenly virtues.

Whether one believes in heaven or hell, religious or atheist, Catholic or Sikh - it matters not - they are still a good in terms of a general moral compass imo.

Sins
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

Virtues
Temperance
Wisdom/Generosity
Mercy
Justice
Love
Strength
Truth/humility

Actually, as I've been saying in another thread before, they're an _awful_ moral compass.

E.g., do you know that even as late as Dante, "sloth" didn't mean being "lazy", but merely being depressed and/or demoralized? Yeah, that's one sin so deadly that it destroys your very connection with God and _needs_ confession to a priest to get your ass off the hook. (That's why they're called deadly sins, see?)

And it was a sin because obviously you focus more on the material stuff that got you depressed, than on loving God and admiring God's creation.

I don't know about you, but kicking someone when he's down, and using their depression as a hook to sell them indulgences... I find that abhorrent to the extreme.

E.g., while Dante hooked a "to the extent that it becomes hate or contempt for others" to Pride to make it easier to swallow as a sin, you may want to notice that to this day the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't make any mention of that condition. Thinking too highly of yourself, your skills, your hard work that got you where you are, are enough to make you a worthless sinner. Even other qualifiers and quantifiers that have been tacked on to it before, usually focus on your opinion of yourself in relation to God, rather than in relation to how you treat your fellow humans.

(And at various times it also included vainglory a.k.a. vanity, and you only needed to buy a coat above what was considered right for your social station, to qualify for that.)

And that just rubs me the wrong way. I genuinely think that the world would be a better place if more people started taking more pride in their work and success, and more blame in their failures.

And even the ones which aren't as blatant an EPIC FAIL as those two, are still basically thought crimes.

Also as a moral compass, well, it already failed. There were plenty of loopholes and redefinitions to justify whatever you wanted. E.g., conquering a neighbour was OK if you didn't say you do it because you want more land (greed) but that you do it for God and as a mere servant of the One True Faith (humility.) E.g., slaughtering every last soldier of an attacked fort's garrison if they didn't surrender when you last asked them to, could be presented as not an act of vengeance (hence, Wrath) but as one of justice, which is already a virtue.

Jungle Jim

29th October 2009, 02:09 PM

And that just rubs me the wrong way. I genuinely think that the world would be a better place if more people started taking more pride in their work and success, and more blame in their failures.

Agreed. There is nothing wrong in pride as long as it is for something you accomplished. George Calin addressed this issue pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDgmjL6z2jY

A.A. Alfie

29th October 2009, 02:32 PM

Actually, as I've been saying in another thread before, they're an _awful_ moral compass.

E.g., do you know that even as late as Dante, "sloth" didn't mean being "lazy", but merely being depressed and/or demoralized? Yeah, that's one sin so deadly that it destroys your very connection with God and _needs_ confession to a priest to get your ass off the hook. (That's why they're called deadly sins, see?)

And it was a sin because obviously you focus more on the material stuff that got you depressed, than on loving God and admiring God's creation.

I don't know about you, but kicking someone when he's down, and using their depression as a hook to sell them indulgences... I find that abhorrent to the extreme.

E.g., while Dante hooked a "to the extent that it becomes hate or contempt for others" to Pride to make it easier to swallow as a sin, you may want to notice that to this day the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't make any mention of that condition. Thinking too highly of yourself, your skills, your hard work that got you where you are, are enough to make you a worthless sinner. Even other qualifiers and quantifiers that have been tacked on to it before, usually focus on your opinion of yourself in relation to God, rather than in relation to how you treat your fellow humans.

(And at various times it also included vainglory a.k.a. vanity, and you only needed to buy a coat above what was considered right for your social station, to qualify for that.)

And that just rubs me the wrong way. I genuinely think that the world would be a better place if more people started taking more pride in their work and success, and more blame in their failures.

And even the ones which aren't as blatant an EPIC FAIL as those two, are still basically thought crimes.

Also as a moral compass, well, it already failed. There were plenty of loopholes and redefinitions to justify whatever you wanted. E.g., conquering a neighbour was OK if you didn't say you do it because you want more land (greed) but that you do it for God and as a mere servant of the One True Faith (humility.) E.g., slaughtering every last soldier of an attacked fort's garrison if they didn't surrender when you last asked them to, could be presented as not an act of vengeance (hence, Wrath) but as one of justice, which is already a virtue.

If you want to apply the words to Dante, the church or elsewhere on th basis of how they have used them then you raise an interesting argument based on their own historical interpretations and applications and the "loopholes and redefinitions".

How that relates to their original meaning (if they can if fact be ascribed to Plate, Socrates or someone else) is a bit beyond me to be honest.

I did say "in my opinion" they can form the basis of a good moral compass for today as they simply relect - in conjunction with the virtues a suggestion of balance, hard work and fairness. I have not suggested anywhere that the natural urges and drives of a human should be unnaturally suppressed by strict adgerence to the virtues nor avoidance through fear (of eternal damnation) of the sins.

You seem to consider my suggestion as some sort of religious argument I'm not quite sure where you get that. You also seem to have an intense dislike of anything that might have a hint of being religious based on your comments above.

IMO they form a pretty good foundation for a good life filled with honesty, love, compassion, service etc.

If you want, I would be happy to chat about how they mnight relate in today's secular society. Again, I have not put these forward in any religious context at all.

Aepervius

29th October 2009, 02:43 PM

Pride isn't a sin it's a virtue.That depends. It's also a group of lions.

It can also be very gay. (tada).

Aepervius

29th October 2009, 02:48 PM

Sins
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

The problem with such definition, is not that Lust or pride or greed is really amoral (so it FAILS as a moral compass), it is rather more that the EXCESS of it can be amoral. But lust in itself is pretty OK, or even pride just like very cleverly pointed out above.

Actually they are all quite normal human feeling, good and bad, which we will all live through. It was quite a good check move by the church to make them sin, because then you are pretty sure the sucker believer will have then "sinned" since they are human.

In reality, only the excess thereof lead to problem.

A.A. Alfie

29th October 2009, 02:55 PM

The problem with such definition, is not that Lust or pride or greed is really amoral (so it FAILS as a moral compass), it is rather more that the EXCESS of it can be amoral. But lust in itself is pretty OK, or even pride just like very cleverly pointed out above.

Actually they are all quite normal human feeling, good and bad, which we will all live through. It was quite a good check move by the church to make them sin, because then you are pretty sure the sucker believer will have then "sinned" since they are human.

In reality, only the excess thereof lead to problem.

I agree totally. It is the excesses that are the problem. And your point goes to the heart of what I was saying about not suppressing natural human urges and desires.
for example:
Pride
There is a huge difference between healthy self esteem and uncontrollable ego.

Aepervius

29th October 2009, 03:05 PM

I agree totally. It is the excesses that are the problem. And your point goes to the heart of what I was saying about not suppressing natural human urges and desires.
for example:
Pride
There is a huge difference between healthy self esteem and uncontrollable ego.

Then you have to agree that as a moral compass the "sins"fails (as I understand it, it is not the excess which is a deadly sin, it is the feeling in *any* amount)

A.A. Alfie

29th October 2009, 03:26 PM

Then you have to agree that as a moral compass the "sins"fails (as I understand it, it is not the excess which is a deadly sin, it is the feeling in *any* amount)

In so many words yes. That's why I put the virtues in there too. There is a balance to be found. Natural feelings, desires and impulses are important/essential for human and individual survival and fullfilment, the excesses need to be tempered lest we have total anarchy and every man for himself type scenario. Society is sociable, excesses can be antisocial.

six7s

29th October 2009, 09:00 PM

IMO they form a pretty good foundation for a good life filled with honesty, love, compassion, service etc.Alas, the christian church was built on Peter, with the aim of a good after-life filled with honesty, love, compassion, service(?) etc.

The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life.

I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy.

I mean that if you are happy you will be good.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

A.A. Alfie

29th October 2009, 10:30 PM

Alas, the christian church was built on Peter, with the aim of a good after-life filled with honesty, love, compassion, service(?) etc.

The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life.

I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy.

I mean that if you are happy you will be good.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

I don't get you.

Sure, the church has adopted them but that's not where I'm coming from.

bruto

29th October 2009, 10:32 PM

I had sex with the Pope, and am expecting his love child soon.

(Thought I'd mention it here before I sell the story to the tabloids.)

btw, I didn't have an orgasm. The hat was a turn-off.)

You should go for the hat trick and get an abortion.

six7s

30th October 2009, 12:04 AM

I don't get you.

Sure, the church has adopted them but that's not where I'm coming from.I take exception to the terms 'the church' and 'adopted'

The list of seven deadly sins was devised (not adopted) by the top dogs of the church - the pope, various cardinals, bishops, etc - and imposed on the masses ('scuse teh pun).

I can only guess why they chose to do so... but my hunch is that it was a aimed at 'crowd control' using the catholic church's 'stock in trade'; guilt

A.A. Alfie

30th October 2009, 12:06 AM

I take exception to the terms 'the church' and 'adopted'

The list of seven deadly sins was devised (not adopted) by the top dogs of the church - the pope, various cardinals, bishops, etc - and imposed on the masses ('scuse teh pun).

I can only guess why they chose to do so... but my hunch is that it was a aimed at 'crowd control' using the catholic church's 'stock in trade'; guilt

Why would you take exception? Hardly seems relevant - no offence but sheesh.
Anyway, it's still not where I'm coming from.

HansMustermann

30th October 2009, 12:18 AM

In so many words yes. That's why I put the virtues in there too. There is a balance to be found. Natural feelings, desires and impulses are important/essential for human and individual survival and fullfilment, the excesses need to be tempered lest we have total anarchy and every man for himself type scenario. Society is sociable, excesses can be antisocial.

Except the rationalization for that list wasn't about being social or asocial at all. It was a power grab by the Church, plain and simple.

1. Just about each of them was defined in relation with God instead of with your fellow humans. E.g., Lust wasn't bad because of adultery or rape or whatever, but because spending more time lusting for that hot piece of ass leaves you with less time for God. E.g., Gluttony wasn't argued as bad because you'll get fat and clog the healthcare system (nonexistent at the time), but because supposedly you let yourself be driven by your natural biological instincts instead of by the love of God.

I find that a piss-poor start for any kind of moral or legal system.

2. As a trivial consequence of that warped definition in relationship to God, none of them required any actual damage done to anyone else, or even to act upon them, to be a deadly sin. They're thought crimes, pure and simple. (And at least one, depression a.k.a. sloth, isn't even something you can control.)

E.g., you can get less time left to spend thinking of God if you obsess about your cute neighbour, even if you don't ever do anything about it. In fact, if you just boned her and moved on, you'd probably have more time left for God, right?

3. And I find it warped that thoughts are deadlier sins than actual actions which harm others.

E.g., theft isn't a _deadly_ sin, but greed or envy are. E.g., rape isn't a deadly sin, but lusting over a classmate is. E.g., murder isn't a deadly sin, but wrath is. Etc. In all of those, if you manage to do the former without being motivated by the latter, you're a lot easier off the hook, than the latter without the former.

4. And it's a system warped enough to create plenty of disconnects between actions and the forbidden thoughts.

E.g., yes it's possible to do theft without being motivated by greed or envy, e.g., if you're a kleptomaniac and just do it for the thrill. It slips right through the cracks of that list.

E.g., if you do the atrocity known as "corrective rape" (short story: raping a lesbian to show her how much better a man is at that, and hopefully turn her heterosexual) you're not motivated by either lust or wrath. It's not (mainly) driven either by sexual gratification (lust) nor by revenge (wrath), so again it slips right through the cracks in that deadly sin list.

5. And is it right to blame a generic list of thoughts, anyway? Some of those, even in excess, are actually powerful motivators.

E.g., greed is pretty much what makes capitalism work. We'll legislate against actual harmful actions a person might do for greed, or just to be a prick. But why forbid a motivation which really is why that guy bothered investing in a company instead of shoving the money under a mattress?

E.g., envy not only is why a consumer society works, but even with Dante's addition that it's only bad when you want to deprive someone of something, it doesn't only motivate bad stuff. E.g., if what I seek to deprive someone of is the first place in some competition, I'd say that's actually a good thing.

A.A. Alfie

30th October 2009, 12:57 AM

[QUOTE=HansMustermann;5258200]Except the rationalization for that list wasn't about being social or asocial at all. It was a power grab by the Church, plain and simple.

QUOTE]

But again, not even close to where I'm coming from.
I am not Catholic, I'm not defending them as 'just' reasons for any dogma, tenets or behavioural control.

Although I must say your colourful examples above do make me wonder exactly how your moral compass and mind works.;):jaw-dropp

HansMustermann

30th October 2009, 01:16 AM

But again, not even close to where I'm coming from.
I am not Catholic, I'm not defending them as 'just' reasons for any dogma, tenets or behavioural control.

But nevertheless you seem to find them a good moral compass, when the same problems have been treated better and without as many loopholes from purely secular humanist angles.

Plus, you'll notice that none of my objections hinge on their being a Catholic power grab. Blaming a depression victim for their condition is wrong by itself, regardless of who does it.

Although I must say your colourful examples above do make me wonder exactly how your moral compass and mind works.;):jaw-dropp

Hmm? Did I call something evil that is good on everyone else's moral compass? Lemme guess, it was the rape, right? ;)

A.A. Alfie

30th October 2009, 01:23 AM

But nevertheless you seem to find them a good moral compass, when the same problems have been treated better and without as many loopholes from purely secular humanist angles.

Plus, you'll notice that none of my objections hinge on their being a Catholic power grab. Blaming a depression victim for their condition is wrong by itself, regardless of who does it.

Hmm? Did I call something evil that is good on everyone else's moral compass? Lemme guess, it was the rape, right? ;)

Lighten up dude.
But I am sorry about your depression.

HansMustermann

30th October 2009, 01:34 AM

I don't have a depression. I just find it wrong to tell someone who's clinically depressed that he'll burn in hell for eternity if he doesn't snap out of it. Just like I wasn't raped either, but I still can find that wrong.

A.A. Alfie

30th October 2009, 01:59 AM

six7s

30th October 2009, 01:26 PM

...that's not where I'm coming from.

...it's still not where I'm coming from.So?

Where are you coming from?

I'm coming from a position that acknowledges the catholic church is one of the biggest and most profitable businesses in history. This is, obviously, NOT an example of a belief system

I'm NOT coming from a position that accepts the catholic church as being a divine conduit to eternal salvation. That would, obviously, BE an example of a belief system

A.A. Alfie

30th October 2009, 04:23 PM

So?

Where are you coming from?

I'm coming from a position that acknowledges the catholic church is one of the biggest and most profitable businesses in history. This is, obviously, NOT an example of a belief system

I'm NOT coming from a position that accepts the catholic church as being a divine conduit to eternal salvation. That would, obviously, BE an example of a belief system

Obviously. Your hatred of the Catholic Church comes through loud and clear along with their doctrines and beliefs - even going back hundreds of years. Just how that is relevant to anything I said is lost on me

All I said was that the seven deadly sins, in conjunction with the seven heavenly virtues were a good guide in terms of a moral compass.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have other guides fine, I couldn't care less. But dont' attack what I say just because everything about any church is some sort of an abomination in your eyes.

I am not talking about a church, religion or spirituality. Mine was a simple - almost offhand reference - to moral values.

Where do you get yours from?

six7s

30th October 2009, 07:57 PM

Obviously. Yeah... riiiiiiiiiight....

Your hatred of the Catholic Church comes through loud and clearPlease, don't try to second-guess how I feel about the catholic church

All I said was that the seven deadly sins, in conjunction with the seven heavenly virtues were a good guide in terms of a moral compass.Indeed. And doinfg so is worthless, without stating why your opinion is worthy of consideration - especially in light of replies that question your opinion

If you have other guides fine, I couldn't care less.
Where do you get your [moral values] from?Make up your mind...

... dont' attack what I say just because everything about any church is some sort of an abomination in your eyes.Don't try to tell me what I can and cannot do

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 04:04 PM

Sorry, I actually mixed Hans' comments with yours.

I want to reiterate a couple of things here too:
-that I am not catholic and I am not defending the catholic church (or any other) at all.
-I am talking about the use of the words in todays society not some 00s of years ago.
-I tossed up the sins and the virtues to assist the discussion and offhandedly said they were imo a good guide.
- It is the excesses of the seven deadly sins -when not moderated -in general terms, make for antisocial behaviour.

I ask again.

What would/do you use? Or does anything go?

tsig

31st October 2009, 04:31 PM

Are the seven deadly sins accepted by protestant and orthodox Christianity? Or are they purely Catholic tradition?

Sins?? I thought they were a bucket list.

HansMustermann

31st October 2009, 04:31 PM

Sorry, I actually mixed Hans' comments with yours.

I want to reiterate a couple of things here too:
-that I am not catholic and I am not defending the catholic church (or any other) at all.

In the end, it doesn't matter if you are a catholic or not. If there's any merit in that list, it will still be there regardless of whether you're catholic, protestant, atheist, neo-druid, or whatever.

-I am talking about the use of the words in todays society not some 00s of years ago.

Then you might want to check out what the catholic encyclopedia says _today_ about them. I still see no mention of needing antisocial behaviour to be a sin.

To take the deadliest of them all as an example, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9620

I see no mention of actually causing any antisocial behaviour, or even needing any contempt for a fellow human, to be guilty of Pride. All that matters is that you credit yourself more for your own skills or success than you credit God.

Here's an actual quote there for you: "A less atrocious kind of pride is that which imples one to make much of oneself unduly and without sufficient warrant, without however any disposition to cast off the dominion of the Creator. This may happen, according to St. Gregory, either because a man regards himself as the source of such advantages as he may discern in himself, or because, whilst admitted that God has bestowed them, he reputes this to have been in response to his own merits, or because he attributes to himself gifts which he has not; or, finally, because even when these are real he unreasonably looks to be put ahead of others."

Note the emphasized phrases. Crediting yourself instead of God for your own success and skills, is a deadly sin. Even crediting God, but arguing that it was still your hard work that got you there, is a deadly sin. A sin so grievous that it destroys your very connection to God or chance of salvation on your own.

This is the entry valid _today_, not hundreds of years ago.

Just as a clarfication for whoever got curious about the quoted part being the less grievous kind: the more grievous kind, still doesn't require any harm to others or even any contempt for others. It just requires that you consider yourself self-sufficient enough to turn your back on God. (Something pretty much every single atheist has done.)

Actual harm to others -- e.g., someone practising medicine without a license -- warrants a single sentence on that page, and only as a possible consequence of Pride, not as something required to be a sin. It's in effect an example not even of Pride, but of the vice of "presumption", i.e., in their own words, "It means the desire to essay what exceeds one's capacity." Which is just thought to be often based on Pride.

(Incidentally that seems odious to me by itself. Basically everyone who ever sought to improve themselves by pushing the boundaries of what they can do -- be it trying to climb a higher mountain, writing their first novel and failing, aiming for a higher job than realistic for them, whatever -- is guilty of a vice in this moral system. And given that you always hit lower than you aim, pretty much anyone who isn't an underachiever is guilty of a vice. Still think it's that great a moral system?)

-I tossed up the sins and the virtues to assist the discussion and offhandedly said they were imo a good guide.

Nobody's gonna nail you to a cross for your opinions. But it seems to me like once posted it's then expected that it'll be taken as something that can be discussed.

- It is the excesses of the seven deadly sins -when not moderated -in general terms, make for antisocial behaviour.

Except the definition of excess used in their actual definition, is not necessarily what us laymen would consider "excess." Again, see the paragraph I quoted from the actual Pride definition, or peruse the whole page, and you tell me where does "excess" even enter it.

I ask again.

What would/do you use? Or does anything go?

Utilitarianism works for me, for a start. Enlightened self-interest too.

six7s

31st October 2009, 04:52 PM

I tossed up the sins and the virtues to assist the discussion and offhandedly said they were imo a good guide.So you keep saying...

And I keep asking why are they, in your opinion, a good guide?

six7s

31st October 2009, 04:59 PM

I ask again.

What would/do you use? Or does anything go?An ad hoc mix of emotion, impulse and reasoned thought...

Not the sort of thing that will get me onto the best-sellers list for self-help/improvement... but it seems to work... for me, most of my family, friends, colleagues and neighbours

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 05:27 PM

In the end, it doesn't matter if you are a catholic or not. If there's any merit in that list, it will still be there regardless of whether you're catholic, protestant, atheist, neo-druid, or whatever.

Then you might want to check out what the catholic encyclopedia says _today_ about them. I still see no mention of needing antisocial behaviour to be a sin.

To take the deadliest of them all as an example, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9620

I see no mention of actually causing any antisocial behaviour, or even needing any contempt for a fellow human, to be guilty of Pride. All that matters is that you credit yourself more for your own skills or success than you credit God.

Here's an actual quote there for you: "A less atrocious kind of pride is that which imples one to make much of oneself unduly and without sufficient warrant, without however any disposition to cast off the dominion of the Creator. This may happen, according to St. Gregory, either because a man regards himself as the source of such advantages as he may discern in himself, or because, whilst admitted that God has bestowed them, he reputes this to have been in response to his own merits, or because he attributes to himself gifts which he has not; or, finally, because even when these are real he unreasonably looks to be put ahead of others."

Note the emphasized phrases. Crediting yourself instead of God for your own success and skills, is a deadly sin. Even crediting God, but arguing that it was still your hard work that got you there, is a deadly sin. A sin so grievous that it destroys your very connection to God or chance of salvation on your own.

This is the entry valid _today_, not hundreds of years ago.

Just as a clarfication for whoever got curious about the quoted part being the less grievous kind: the more grievous kind, still doesn't require any harm to others or even any contempt for others. It just requires that you consider yourself self-sufficient enough to turn your back on God. (Something pretty much every single atheist has done.)

Actual harm to others -- e.g., someone practising medicine without a license -- warrants a single sentence on that page, and only as a possible consequence of Pride, not as something required to be a sin. It's in effect an example not even of Pride, but of the vice of "presumption", i.e., in their own words, "It means the desire to essay what exceeds one's capacity." Which is just thought to be often based on Pride.

(Incidentally that seems odious to me by itself. Basically everyone who ever sought to improve themselves by pushing the boundaries of what they can do -- be it trying to climb a higher mountain, writing their first novel and failing, aiming for a higher job than realistic for them, whatever -- is guilty of a vice in this moral system. And given that you always hit lower than you aim, pretty much anyone who isn't an underachiever is guilty of a vice. Still think it's that great a moral system?)

Nobody's gonna nail you to a cross for your opinions. But it seems to me like once posted it's then expected that it'll be taken as something that can be discussed.

Except the definition of excess used in their actual definition, is not necessarily what us laymen would consider "excess." Again, see the paragraph I quoted from the actual Pride definition, or peruse the whole page, and you tell me where does "excess" even enter it.

Utilitarianism works for me, for a start. Enlightened self-interest too.

Once again you're taking examples from the Catholic standpoint.
Why, I'm not? There are more than just the definitions of the (any) church.
Confuscious had similar thoughts on philosophy, human behaviour and righteousness. It is how they are applied. i.e. I do not apply the Catholic Encyclpaedic description to my life. Why do you keep tossing them up? Again, I give the example on pride:
There is a big difference between healthy self esteem and rampant ego. One serves well, the other doesn't. Do you understand? It has nothing to do with faith or doctrine but everything to do with ensuring it does not become excessive.

How on earth you could consider that self improvement should be quashed from anything I've said is ridiculous.

I'm happy to discuss and debate my opinions, but let's make sure you are discussing them from the same point in the same context. I do not believe that has been the case so far. For example, you throw up the church definition of pride that makes no mentyion of excess. Why are you comparing my opinion with that of theirs? They are not in the same context at all and "not where I'm coming from".

If utalitarianism is the "greatest good for the greatest number" - it seems to me that ensuring excesses of the sins do not run rampant, they are perfectly consistent with that form of pholosophy anyway. i.e. it is the excesses that are antisocial, not the healthy natural urges.

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 05:28 PM

So you keep saying...

And I keep asking why are they, in your opinion, a good guide?

I think I've answered that a few times already.
Partly repeated in the previous post.

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 05:32 PM

An ad hoc mix of emotion, impulse and reasoned thought...

Not the sort of thing that will get me onto the best-sellers list for self-help/improvement... but it seems to work... for me, most of my family, friends, colleagues and neighbours

How do you balance "impulse" with "reasoned thought"?
Impulse is without thought, it is automatic.

That could be descriptive of the "excess" that I speak of. It is the reasoned thought you have that tempers the impulse. Balance, consideration for others and the consequences etc etc. The sins and virtues, I respectfully suggest are in all your reasoned thoughts allowing you to make a value judgement on your behaviour.

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 05:36 PM

PS. Here's another definition of Pride, perfectly consistent with where I am coming from.

"A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect."

six7s

31st October 2009, 08:00 PM

Once again you're taking examples from the Catholic standpoint.
Why, I'm not?Why not?

Its not like any other cult imposes a list like that

:confused:

I'm happy to discuss and debate my opinionsProve it, by responding in a mature manner

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 09:50 PM

Why not?

Its not like any other cult imposes a list like that

:confused:

Prove it, by responding in a mature manner

Why not? Incredible!
Why do you want to take my conversation there. I haven't and it is not what I'm discussing.
Who said anything about cults?

Mature manner?
I just did. Now it's your turn.

six7s

31st October 2009, 10:12 PM

Mature manner?
I just did.FAIL

If that's what you sincerely call mature then I'm genuinely dismayed1 to the point where I suspect there is nothing to be gained by trying to have a discussion with you

Now it's your turn.If you feel that you have raised points that I have yet to address, please let me know

______________
1 dismayed but not surprised, bearing in mind your recent output, now hidden from public view in Abandon All Hope (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158011)

HansMustermann

31st October 2009, 10:55 PM

PS. Here's another definition of Pride, perfectly consistent with where I am coming from.

"A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect."

And that's a deadly sin? A sin so grievous that it severes your very connection to God and removes any chance of salvation on your own?

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 11:03 PM

FAIL

If that's what you sincerely call mature then I'm genuinely dismayed1 to the point where I suspect there is nothing to be gained by trying to have a discussion with you

That's how I feel too.
I withdraw; My initial impressions of you were correct.

HansMustermann

31st October 2009, 11:08 PM

Once again you're taking examples from the Catholic standpoint.
Why, I'm not? There are more than just the definitions of the (any) church.

So your moral system boils down to just taking a list of words and fitting your own meanings to it, completely disconnected to what that list was actually supposed to mean? Then why do you need that list in the first place?

Confuscious had similar thoughts on philosophy, human behaviour and righteousness. It is how they are applied.

Have you actually read the Analects? Now that was an inflexible puppy. Or are you again just arguing what you imagine Confucius would have said? :p

i.e. I do not apply the Catholic Encyclpaedic description to my life. Why do you keep tossing them up?

So why are we even debating the 7 Deadly Sins, if by that you mean something completely different than what the rest of the world uses for that? It's a bit like debating the value of giving to charity, except by "giving" I mean "paying for services" and by "charity" I mean "brothel" ;)

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 11:10 PM

And that's a deadly sin? A sin so grievous that it severes your very connection to God and removes any chance of salvation on your own?

Once again, you have brought God and the churches interpretation forward.
This is a totally false argument.
Do you understand it when I say I am not using a churches definition? You are arguing against something that isn't there.
I am talking about today's definition in todays society.
If you want to discuss that, I'm open for it if not, I will withdraw from the discussion with you too for the simple reason I am not qualified to talk on the teachings of the catholic church in any way shape or form.

HansMustermann

31st October 2009, 11:11 PM

So, again, why are we debating something called "The Seven Deadly Sins", if you don't even mean "deadly sins"?

A.A. Alfie

31st October 2009, 11:14 PM

So your moral system boils down to just taking a list of words and fitting your own meanings to it, completely disconnected to what that list was actually supposed to mean? Then why do you need that list in the first place?

Have you actually read the Analects? Now that was an inflexible puppy. Or are you again just arguing what you imagine Confucius would have said? :p

So why are we even debating the 7 Deadly Sins, if by that you mean something completely different than what the rest of the world uses for that? It's a bit like debating the value of giving to charity, except by "giving" I mean "paying for services" and by "charity" I mean "brothel" ;)

My first impressions of you were also correct.
I don't feel it necessary to repeat myself over and over, especially to you.

I withdraw.

HansMustermann

31st October 2009, 11:17 PM

No, you didn't explain. You just handwaved lots, tried to play armchair shrink (hum-de-do, another troll resorts to insults instead of supporting his claims), threw a tantrum, and then reverted to basically backing out of any definition and it became like trying to nail jello to a wall. Yeah, you think it's a good moral compass and that they're only crimes of excess, except by now you backed out of any definition of what they _are_ or _mean_.

HansMustermann

31st October 2009, 11:25 PM

But anyway, let's take the list as you posted it as, I dunno, "the 7 bad words". If you don't want to play catholic about it.

Sins
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

And now let's look at your definition of Pride, since it's one of the bad things there:

PS. Here's another definition of Pride, perfectly consistent with where I am coming from.

"A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect."

Just picking on the "sin" word when I asked about that, misses my main point: that's something bad?

bruto

1st November 2009, 06:04 AM

Once again, you have brought God and the churches interpretation forward.
This is a totally false argument.
Do you understand it when I say I am not using a churches definition? You are arguing against something that isn't there.
I am talking about today's definition in todays society.
If you want to discuss that, I'm open for it if not, I will withdraw from the discussion with you too for the simple reason I am not qualified to talk on the teachings of the catholic church in any way shape or form.So pride by itself, for example, isn't really a sin at all if you think of pride as meaning what the word usually means, and as long as you don't overdo it? If so, why the list at all?

What you seem to be saying is that the list of "deadly sins" is not too bad a list on which to base behavior, as long as you don't think of them as deadly sins in the usual sense of either of the words in the phrase, and as long as you dynamically redefine the terms for the sins themselves. That sounds pretty reasonable, in a way. Outside of endless cavils about who is or isn't religious, or whether God is being invoked, most of use have a pretty good idea of what is really meant by the injunction against the sin of pride, for example, and where the boundaries are between pride that's good and pride that's bad. But the sin, if we can call it that, is in the excess or the social context, or other qualifications not defined at all by the list or by the bare names of the sins. The prescriptive boundaries are left up to conscience or to other principles. That list of sins is not such a bad list of things to watch out for, but as a source of moral principles it misses the boat entirely. At best, it's a sort of post facto list of areas in which to apply moral principles found and learned elsewhere.

six7s

1st November 2009, 10:43 AM

That list of sins is not such a bad list of things to watch out for, but as a source of moral principles it misses the boat entirely. At best, it's a sort of post facto list of areas in which to apply moral principles found and learned elsewhere.Perhaps - at least from the perspective of a bleever, a pawn in the game of eternal salvation

However - from the perspective of those at the top end of the hierarchy - the ensuing guilt©®™ is a hitherto unparalleled masterstoke of marketing genius

A.A. Alfie

1st November 2009, 01:25 PM

So pride by itself, for example, isn't really a sin at all if you think of pride as meaning what the word usually means, and as long as you don't overdo it? If so, why the list at all?

What you seem to be saying is that the list of "deadly sins" is not too bad a list on which to base behavior, as long as you don't think of them as deadly sins in the usual sense of either of the words in the phrase, and as long as you dynamically redefine the terms for the sins themselves. That sounds pretty reasonable, in a way. Outside of endless cavils about who is or isn't religious, or whether God is being invoked, most of use have a pretty good idea of what is really meant by the injunction against the sin of pride, for example, and where the boundaries are between pride that's good and pride that's bad. But the sin, if we can call it that, is in the excess or the social context, or other qualifications not defined at all by the list or by the bare names of the sins. The prescriptive boundaries are left up to conscience or to other principles. That list of sins is not such a bad list of things to watch out for, but as a source of moral principles it misses the boat entirely. At best, it's a sort of post facto list of areas in which to apply moral principles found and learned elsewhere.

That is pretty much what I've been trying to say. Thank you.
My original post on this simply said "good in terms of a general moral compass imo".
I like your term "moral principles", as "sin" is something of a misnomer when applying it in today's life.

six7s

1st November 2009, 01:32 PM

That is pretty much what I've been trying to say. Thank you.
My original post on this simply said "good in terms of a general moral compass imo".You seem, to me, to be counting the hits and ignoring the missesThat list of sins is not such a bad list of things to watch out for, but as a source of moral principles it misses the boat entirely. At best, it's a sort of post facto list of areas in which to apply moral principles found and learned elsewhere.Note that, to me at least, the highlighted bit from bruto is at odds with your "good in terms of a general moral compass imo"

HansMustermann

1st November 2009, 01:32 PM

So pride by itself, for example, isn't really a sin at all if you think of pride as meaning what the word usually means, and as long as you don't overdo it? If so, why the list at all?

What you seem to be saying is that the list of "deadly sins" is not too bad a list on which to base behavior, as long as you don't think of them as deadly sins in the usual sense of either of the words in the phrase, and as long as you dynamically redefine the terms for the sins themselves. That sounds pretty reasonable, in a way. Outside of endless cavils about who is or isn't religious, or whether God is being invoked, most of use have a pretty good idea of what is really meant by the injunction against the sin of pride, for example, and where the boundaries are between pride that's good and pride that's bad. But the sin, if we can call it that, is in the excess or the social context, or other qualifications not defined at all by the list or by the bare names of the sins. The prescriptive boundaries are left up to conscience or to other principles. That list of sins is not such a bad list of things to watch out for, but as a source of moral principles it misses the boat entirely. At best, it's a sort of post facto list of areas in which to apply moral principles found and learned elsewhere.

But at that point it's at best a mnemonic list of words for whatever morals one already has. One could probably use the names of the seven dwarves instead, to the same effect.