seven deadly sins

[Cam42]

lust:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic defintion']A disordered emphasis on animality over the moral and spiritual dimension of our lives[/quote]

gluttony:
[quote name='dictionary.com']eating to excess (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: overeating, gula][/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Excessive and uncontrolled preoccupation with food and drink[/quote]

sloth:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Aversion to work or exertion; laziness; indolence.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic defintion']Laziness, is the decision not to fulfill a significant part of one’s responsibilities[/quote]

Notice, that the defintions follow the same pattern. Interesting. Now that we can see that the definitons are basically the same, we can see that your proposition is truly flawed. How are you going to reconcile this, dairy?

And how about acutally discussing the topic. Lest you think I am not authentic, I am.....I know what it is that I am talking about.....now how about discussing this.....your assertation is fatally flawed. You are flat out wrong.

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 21 2005, 07:30 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]


So, what your saying by your kindness, love, humility, etc. can be sinful? I don't quite see your logic, but once again, you leave a vary vague point. You need to elaborate more. Nobody can possibly know what point you're trying to convey if you just come out and say oh, vices can be virtues and virtues can be sins. That goes against everything that I've learned about virtue and sin, but I would be interested in hearing how you define vice and virtue. Care to elaborate dairygirl? Thanks.

God Bless,

[Cam42]

[quote name='Anthony' date='Nov 24 2005, 11:42 PM']I would be interested in hearing how you define vice and virtue.
[right][snapback]799940[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

virtue:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']A good habit that enables us to act according to right reason, enlightened by faith.[/quote]

vice:
[quote name='dictionary.com']An evil, degrading, or immoral practice or habit.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']A habit inclining one to sin.[/quote]

Pretty close in definition. I would love to see how this is going to be reconciled. And I would really love to see it done without platitudes and with an honest and thoughtful response.

Can dairy put up?

[dairygirl4u2c]

You're so big on this "put up or shut up" stuff and all this and more platitudes than I am and calling me silly to name a few things, yet you act as if you're immune to it. I'd like to see you bite your pride (in the bad sense!) and admit to platitudes etc. I know I'm full of it too much . This kind of honesty is what this board lacks. In fact, this lack is what keeps me thinking this board doesn't know the limits of its faith to the point of me wondering if it's trying to hide from it. (but this are other threads more than this one and if you're open to honest dialouge, then start em up. i acutally have a theory that the ones who I debate with are not the ones who would admit things etc when there are many that are honest and could be open. but they don't want to enter into the debate and the ones that do are not the ones that would be honest. genrally speaking all of course) I admit the points catholocism has.

You're either being disengenuous or you're not understanding what's been stated already. Unless I am missing something? I'll think it through here; I sort of see something you might be on to.

Now, you have some points with like avarice. As I said earlier, I was twisting it with semantics. I didn't go on ends to say how I was doing it, but I did mention it. The fact I admitted it tho admittedly low key indicates to me that this shouldn't be a reason for you to be continuing this thread. (unless you want me to admit more throughly, in which case I hope this satifsfies you!)

You have a point with avarice etc, and I think I have a point with the general definition argument for most of the others.

Now, to look at the list and say pride is wrong, is wrong. As we've established, if you look at the intent of the original list, they were obviously put there in the bad way and the virtues in the good. So to try and twist them as I initially did was wrong. So this doesn't seem to be a reason for you to continue.

Other considerations.
If you took me on my premises and used the definitions I asked you to use, you'd see my point. Case in point from dictionary.com:
Pride: A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.

Can you tell me your point in using the definitions like where pride/lust etc is defined as bad and not in a general sense or even in a good way? No one is going to argue that form of pride up there is bad. But for some reason you used a definition where it was defined as bad. Also, for you to say the people who use pride in a bad way is wrong, is wrong. The definition exists. Defniitions come from usage. We've covered the intent thing.

Thinking about it more, there is one thing I haven't stated that may help this discussion. That is, as you've been saying, the vices and virtues in today's world do have the connotations to them that the original list described, the virtues are often good and the vices bad. This much I've stated. In fact, they often have the bad definitions to them so much that it has it's own definition. This I haven't stated. But I at first do not see your point in pointing that out, because as I've shown, they also have other connotations to them. Ma You don't love sin. You are not kind to sinfullness. God is not kind at all to sin etc. You have pride in your accomplishments. etc And we've established the intent thing, which I was wrong about so.

But thinking about it more I might see your point. Correct me if I am wrong, by all means. The words do have the bad connotation to them or good in today's world as they were in the list, yes. While I do have a point with the don't sweep away all pride etc when it can be good, there is more to consider. That is, if your point is that I could have applied the bad/good connotations to them to begin with that exist in today's world, that's great. I've been trying to figure out your point for awhie now, so if this is your point, good point. I have a feeling you're simply stating that I should be using the bad definitions to correspond to the list etc and not really making this point, so you're missing my point if you are, but I am not sure. If that is your point, I'm not sure why you haven't been stating this more explicitly, that is truly a good point.

Edited November 25, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[argent_paladin]

This argument seems pretty pointless. The vices are wrong definitionally, that is, unconditionally. If definitions have changed since the list was made, that is not the fault of the list. For an example of each of these points, consider that Thomas Aquinas considered "sobriety" a virtue. And what was sobriety? It is the habit of drinking alcoholic beverages in moderation. That's right, sobriety is not avoiding all alcohol, but drinking in moderation. Thomas considered not drinking at all a vice (and he considered drunkenness a vice as well).
Grappling with a new vocabulary is common in beginning to study moral theology. One of the most famous examples of this is the cardinal virtue of prudence. Prudence means something very different today than it did in Thomas's time. It in fact takes a long time and much study to understand the true definitions of prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance.

[Theoketos]

[quote]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, [b]pick the one that makes my argument make sense.[/b] P.gif There'll be one. I'll give you the opposite situation for what each is usually expected to have.[/quote]

This is were our debate lies, and where the nuance might be lost on you.

edit to add

Why dont you pick the one that makes the Church's position make sense?

Edited November 26, 2005 by Theoketos

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't see how the nuance is lost on me. I corrected myself with the original intent thing. Aside from this, I pointed out how there are many definitions that could be used, so my point remined again without the intent thing. Finally, I dug out his point, if it was his point, that I could have used the bad or good to correspond to a list that would be right. My original point would still remain though that you shouldn't brush aside all forms of pride etc. and that people often feign from righteous indignation etc because they think anger is wrong, due to the semantics of the words. The best argument is the intent thing because had the list been made today, I would be the first to throw disclaimers on it, while admitting that it was even today meant to make sense in the one way.. The way he is responding leads me to believe that he doesn't understand the nuance because he doesn't acknowldege my point, he was the one who was using the definitions that I said he should not use if my argument were to make sense, and he does such a poor job making his that I am not sure I even know his point for sure. Plus the fact he probably will never admit to the platitudes he displays not only in this thread or with me leads me to believe the nuance if it wasn't lost on him was poorly made because he was too sidetracked with petty issues.

Edited November 26, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[argent_paladin]

Here's an analogy to your argument, darygirl:

Rape is not necessarily evil. Sometimes it can be good. For example:

[quote]rape2 (rāp)
n.

A European plant (Brassica napus) of the mustard family, cultivated as fodder and for its seed that yields a valuable oil. [/quote]

Indeed, rape yields a valuable oil.

Therefore, I have proved that rape is not immoral, and in fact, may be quite good.


Obviously, that is stupid because we are using two different definitions. First, we need to agree on a common definition and then discuss its merits.

BTW, punctuation is a good thing. One can hardly understand what you are trying to say, dairygirl, because it is all one sentence. If you truly wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps you should use actual sentences. It would save us all a lot of time.

[tojo]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Nov 26 2005, 01:25 AM']This is were our debate lies, and where the nuance might be lost on you.

edit to add

Why dont you pick the one that makes the Church's position make sense?
[right][snapback]800687[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly....

[dairygirl4u2c]

I could use the definition that would make the arguement given by the church to make sense. In fact, I mentioned in my fris thread that if you were to do that, assume the bad were bad etc, that I will not make my argument. If using the definition that would make the church's list make sense is what cam was getting at, it's a good point which I pointed out and drew out. I actually drew it out, but I did point out in the original thread that I was not going to do this. Really the only reason I said he had a good point was because my attempt to be amicable blinded me. The reason I was not going to use a word to make the list make sense as you say is because I think it's dangerous to say pride is a vice, when it can by today's standard be a virtue. (the original intent thing is a good point because back in the day it was clear, though to add to the confusion, I bet this clarity with the lack of a word or common word for righteous indignation grew from that, so I would here even throw out a smiliar disclaimer now that I think about it) It's okay to say that for instance pride is bad, but to simply say that alone is dangerous, and I was making the disclaimer.

The plant analogy does not stand because it is clear the distinction between the two rapes. The distinction between say pride is not clear. That is why people think all pride is wrong, all anger is wrong etc to the point they avoid righteous indignation etc. The distinction you might argue is clear if you think about it, I agree, but obviously people do ont think about it, so the distinction generally is not clear.

Edited November 27, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

The world can hardly be said to be suffering from an over-abundance of humility, generosity, brotherly love, meekness, chastity, temperance, and diligence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

My attempt to be amicable also blinded me to the fact that I also said in my initial thread "Some of the vices mentioned might fall in that category." the category being vice/virtues that cannot have any general or different definition such as avarice. I was wrong to try to twist it, but I was more playing and pretty much stating the whole time I was twisting those ones. I see no logical errors on my part in this thread other than my arrogance. I think everyone else here has just been trying to argue for the most part, and hasn't made a single new point yet. I actually had a feeling this would be the case, that's what I was thinking when I said in the original thread, "I'd think you'd all agree with me. What are your thoughts?" I knew some here would argue simply to argue. I knew some would say they were not being disingenuous and only I had something to lose, when they had their pride to lose, and it has now become shown to be the case. I can only think cam was offended looking through the thread when I said itw as ironic I noticed the intent thing without anyone else and said cam was on the right track. I did not mean anything by that. I actually knew he was probably on to something and drawing it out to show me the error. I still don't know what his point was, and if it's what I think it was, I stated the whole time I was not following those standards, but anyway I did not mean to throw a stone by that comment and I apologize for that.

Edited November 27, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 26 2005, 08:31 PM']My attempt to be amicable also blinded me to the fact that I also said in my initial thread "Some of the vices mentioned might fall in that category." the category being vice/virtues that cannot have any general or different definition such as avarice. I was wrong to try to twist it, but I was more playing and pretty much stating the whole time I was twisting those ones. I see no logical errors on my part in this thread other than my arrogance. I think everyone else here has just been trying to argue for the most part, and hasn't made a single new point yet. I actually had a feeling this would be the case, that's what I was thinking when I said in the original thread, "I'd think you'd all agree with me. What are your thoughts?" I knew some here would argue simply to argue. I knew some would say they were not being disingenuous and only I had something to lose, when they had their pride to lose, and it has now become shown to be the case. I can only think cam was offended looking through the thread when I said itw as ironic I noticed the intent thing without anyone else and said cam was on the right track. I did not mean anything by that. I actually knew he was probably on to something and drawing it out to show me the error. I still don't know what his point was, and if it's what I think it was, I stated the whole time I was not following those standards, but anyway I did not mean to throw a stone by that comment and I apologize for that.
[right][snapback]801140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh come off it. I think everyone arguing against you had good legitimate points, Cam as much or more than anybody else. (And it was quite obvioius what his point was.)
You can't just say that you are right and that everyone else here must just be arguing for the sake of arguing. In fact, if you ask me, it looks like the other way around.
You have hardly shown the traditional concepts of the virtues and vices to be "a bunch of hooey."