seven deadly sins

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think to say that the seven deadly sins are wrong is simplistic thinking.

Here's the seven deadly sins with their counterpart virtues:
Pride/Humility, Envy/Love, Wrath/Anger, Anger/Kindness, Lust/Self control, Gluttony/Faith and Temperance, Sloth/Zeal

I say all of the sins could easily be virtues and all of the virtues could easily be sins. Jesus had anger at the tax collectors. God doesn't love sin. It's good to be proud when you win a race or at least when your friend does.

Now, if the vices are by definition wrong, such as gluttony is by definition eating too much, then I stand corrected. Some of the vices mentioned might fall in that category. But the ones that don't I would be careful about labeling.

Furthermore, I think our language barrier has caused this oversimplication regardless of if it's warranted by being "by definition bad" to cause undue harm. This is because we have no words to describe the vices when they are good, only when they are bad. They have to be explained as good, otherwise they're considered bad. This simplification causes society to fear being proud of accomplishing good things, or turning over the table like Jesus did.

I'd like to think everyone here agrees with my assessment just given. Ideas to the contrary are welcome. spanx,

[cmotherofpirl]

Have you read C S Lewis's discussion of these sins in Mere Christianity?

[zunshynn]

[quote]Here's the seven deadly sins with their counterpart virtues:
Pride/Humility, Envy/Love, Wrath/Anger, Anger/Kindness, Lust/Self control, Gluttony/Faith and Temperance, Sloth/Zeal

I say all of the sins could easily be virtues and all of the virtues could easily be sins. Jesus had anger at the tax collectors. God doesn't love sin. It's good to be proud when you win a race or at least when your friend does. [/quote]

Yeah... I definitely see how it can be a sin to be kind and humble and with self-control.... or not? Care to expand on that?

[Cam42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 21 2005, 06:30 PM']I think to say that the seven deadly sins are wrong is simplistic thinking.

Here's the seven deadly sins with their counterpart virtues:
Pride/Humility, Envy/Love, Wrath/Anger, Anger/Kindness, Lust/Self control, Gluttony/Faith and Temperance, Sloth/Zeal

I say all of the sins could easily be virtues and all of the virtues could easily be sins. Jesus had anger at the tax collectors. God doesn't love sin. It's good to be proud when you win a race or at least when your friend does.

Now, if the vices are by definition wrong, such as gluttony is by definition eating too much, then I stand corrected. Some of the vices mentioned might fall in that category. But the ones that don't I would be careful about labeling.

Furthermore, I think our language barrier has caused this oversimplication regardless of if it's warranted by being "by definition bad" to cause undue harm. This is because we have no words to describe the vices when they are good, only when they are bad. They have to be explained as good, otherwise they're considered bad. This simplification causes society to fear being proud of accomplishing good things, or turning over the table like Jesus did.

I'd like to think everyone here agrees with my assessment just given. Ideas to the contrary are welcome. spanx,
[right][snapback]797067[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Would you care to explain how envy, wrath, lust, sloth, gluttony and pride can be seen as being virtuous?

I excluded anger, because when anger is justified, it is not necessarily sinful.

If we are going to have this conversation, you need to define your position. Unlike your polls, you can't just throw it out there and expect us to figure out what is going on in your head. So, with that being said, I would like to see where you are going with this line of reason. I think that you are going to find it hard to define those terms as virtuous.

Once you let us know your position, we can understand your starting point.

[Cam42]

As for pride.....Sirach 10:6-18.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I agree with Cam, and I would even go so far as to say that Anger, properly understood, is also definitionally sinful, because with a proper understanding one will see that anger and righteous indignation are two different things. Righteous indignation attends to Justice, while anger attends to selfishness.

If a person thinks that one of the deadly sins could be a "good" thing, then this is simply indicative of the fact that the person in question does not have the proper understanding of the sins.

[Cam42]

[quote]Here's the seven deadly sins with their counterpart virtues:
Pride/Humility, Envy/Love, Wrath/Anger, Anger/Kindness, Lust/Self control, Gluttony/Faith and Temperance, Sloth/Zeal[/quote]

Capital Virtue/Opposing Sin

humility/pride
liberality/avarice
brotherly love/envy
meekness/wrath
chastity/lust
temperance/gluttony
diligence/sloth

I think that proper listings are appropriate at this point.

That's right folks, LIBERALITY is a capital virtue.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 21 2005, 08:33 PM']Capital Virtue/Opposing Sin
   
humility/pride
liberality/avarice
brotherly love/envy
meekness/wrath
chastity/lust
temperance/gluttony
diligence/sloth

I think that proper listings are appropriate at this point.

That's right folks, LIBERALITY is a capital virtue.
[right][snapback]797118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

are you going to define them as well?

Edited November 22, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 21 2005, 07:33 PM']That's right folks, LIBERALITY is a capital virtue.
[right][snapback]797118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[MC Just]

being liberal is a capital virtue? ROTFL

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='Nov 21 2005, 06:44 PM']Yeah... I definitely see how it can be a sin to be kind and humble and with self-control.... or not? Care to expand on that?
[right][snapback]797086[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol


dairygirl might have a tough time with that!

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 21 2005, 07:36 PM']are you going to define them as well?
[right][snapback]797119[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Gee, I was waiting on dairy to give her definitons first. That is why I said:

[quote]If we are going to have this conversation, you need to define your position. Unlike your polls, you can't just throw it out there and expect us to figure out what is going on in your head. So, with that being said, I would like to see where you are going with this line of reason. I think that you are going to find it hard to define those terms as virtuous.

Once you let us know your position, we can understand your starting point.[/quote]

[jezic]

um those sins that you mention seem to be the source of all the others. Is that why they are listed as deadly ..... hm.....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 21 2005, 07:10 PM']Would you care to explain how envy, wrath, lust, sloth, gluttony and pride can be seen as being virtuous?
[/quote]

Welcome to Modern Liberalism in a Nutshell.

[Cam42]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Nov 21 2005, 07:55 PM']being liberal is a capital virtue? ROTFL
[right][snapback]797129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Don't believe me? Liberality is a spirit of generosity for a proper and worthy charity that may involve the donation of our time, our money, or other possessions.

Liberality is completely different from the political philosophy of liberalism. Liberality is personal rather than social, and consistent with a well formed Catholic conscience.

It's a good hook though. It will get people reading the thread.

[Socrates]

As they have been classically defined, the virtues could never be considered vices or vice-versa (no pun intended) by any sane human being.
These terms have specific definitions, and are not just empty words.

Humility - Recognizing one's place before God and recognizing Him as the source of all good
Pride - Putting exagerated self-love before love of God and neighbor

Liberality - Giving freely to others
Avarice - Wanting to accumulate excessive material possessions for one's self at the expense of others

Brotherly love - Loving one's neighbor as one's self
Envy - Having ill will because of other's good fortune

Meekness - Controlling one's anger
Wrath - Giving in to one's temper and violent impulses

Chastity - Exercising proper control of one's sexual appetites
Lust - Uncontrolled sexual appetite

Temperance - Exercising moderation in food and drink
Gluttony - Eating or drinking to excess

Diligence - Working hard at doing one's duties
Sloth - Laziness, not doing one's share of work

Can anyone seriously say that we would be better off if everyone strove to practice the vices, rather than the virtues.???

That is moral relativism to the point of insanity!

Edited November 22, 2005 by Socrates

[scardella]

Is liberality == largesse ?

[Socrates]

I think the subtitle "A Bunch of Hooey" very accurately describes Dairy's assertion in this thread.

[Cam42]

Still waiting on diary's definitons.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Take for instance the idea, it's not anger, it's "righteous indignation". If one were to say that's what the "anger" in the vice list is suppose to mean, then as I said in the first post, by definition it's bad. If by definition it's bad, then it cannot be good. My point is that anger in a general sense, without that necessity of bad, can be good. Jesus had anger in a general sense.

All of them, in a general sense, can be good or bad. For definitions, I refer you to www.dictionary.com If there's more than one definition, pick the one that makes my argument make sense. : There'll be one. I'll give you the opposite situation for what each is usually expected to have.
humility/pride
Pride in one's work is not bad we all agree? I would assert that it's good. Humility to the point of no pride then, I would argue is bad. Now, one might argue that the pride one has always will have humility in there somewhere, sure.

liberality/avarice
Liberally accepting new understandings of things is good; for the sake of something you'd accept, development of doctrine and science. People didn't always bow to the Eucharist, but when they realized what It was, put two and two together, they did. To not do this would be bad. Avarice is defined as immodest desire for wealth, but modest simply means not extreme and wealth is generally goods. God provides grace, and to go to the extreme to get it is what saints do.

brotherly love/envy
I'm a hippie when it comes to love. I stand corrected here with my argument with brotherly love. I think God loves sinners in hell and Satan. If you don't think He does, then to you I stand uncorrected... There's nothing wrong with envying or some of what others have, for instance saintly habits. Envy means resentment, and since resentment is a describing word without something to qualify, I say you resent your bad habits. Maybe I should use a legal dictionary?

I could go on, but I think you see where I'm getting at.
meekness/wrath
chastity/lust
temperance/gluttony
diligence/sloth

After all this, I retract my argument, sort of. Ironically not because of what you all argued. Cam was on the right track with the definition thing. I think we need Al here; he's a good debater. He'd point out the intent issue. Why I change is the idea that the vices when listed were meant in the bad sense, so they are bad. The virtues in the good.
Also, they are what normally tend to bring people down or up. Righteous indignation, while a good form of general anger (or I could word that better I suppose) and should be sought when necessary, isn't a primary virtue. No one ever said the list was complete. It's a good list. What might be beneficial is listing the good form of each in a general sense next to its opposite. eg Love should have righteous indignation noted beside it.
I said I retract sort of because I did say that if you think the bad are by definition bad etc, then they're bad etc. And I shouldn't make my arguemet when the intent issue comes up, because there's no arguing intent. I don't want to be a crooked lawyer here.
[i]So, it's a bunch of hooey if you don't look at the intent of the list...[/i]

So, I still insist virtues can be vices and vice versa (no pun intended) if you "twist" the intent to a general sense without intent.

This helps remember as I initially said that the opposites in a general sense are good. Jesus was angry in a general sense, that's that. We need to use the word anger when speaking in common language because there's not much mention of more developed words for the good form. Think about the fact that there are not many times words are used for the good times the "vices" are practiced. "Righteous indignation" type of definitions exist, but they're not common usage. The main point I'm driving home to is that because people think "anger" is bad, they begin to think "righteous indignation" is bad. I'm sure we all can agree this happens and is bad? So we should say anger can be good, in a general sense.

Edited November 22, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c