seven deadly sins

[Cam42]

humility:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic defintion']A quality by which a person considering his own defects has a lowly opinion of himself and willingly submits himself to God and to others for God's sake.[/quote]

liberality:
[quote name='dictionary.com']The quality or state of being liberal or generous.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Generosity for a proper and worthy charity that may involve the donation of our time, our money, or other possessions.[/quote]

brotherly love:
[quote name='dictionary.com']A kindly and lenient attitude toward people [syn: charity][/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Happiness in response to another’s success.[/quote]

meekness:
[quote name='dictionary.com']The feeling of patient submissive humbleness.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']A form of temperance that controls every inordinate resentment at another’s character or behavior.[/quote]

continued (too many quotes).......

[Cam42]

chastity:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Moderates desire for sexual pleasure, the body’s most imperious passion, according to principles of faith and right reason.[/quote]

temperance:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Moderation and self-restraint, as in behavior or expression.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definiton']The virtue that moderates the desire for pleasure.[/quote]

diligence:
[quote name='dictionary.com'] Earnest and persistent application to an undertaking; steady effort; assiduity.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']The decision to fulfull all of the responsibilities in our vocation or state in life.[/quote]

Ok, dairy, I did your work for you, but as you (and everyone else) can see, the definitions are the same. Your point is not proven. Now, would you like to enter into this discussion and stop with the platitudes. You are simply making yourself look silly.

I assure you that the vices are the opposite as the virtues in definition, yet they are similar in their own correlations. They are not "a bunch of hooey." They are accepted by both the secular as well as the religious as meaning the same thing, by defintion.

So, enter into this discussion and defend your position or get out. I am straight calling you out on this topic. It is time to see if you can put up, or if this will just be a means to having you shut up.

Let's see you bring it. If you think you got it. I don't think you do. I think that you like to stir the pot and troll. No more trolling. How about a discussion on the topic you started. If not, my point on this is proven. My point? The capital virtues are universal. They transcend Catholicism and Christianity; they extend to every living person who employs right reason.

What say you?

[Guest Rick777]

st. dominic savio

patron saint of altar boys!

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't deny I engage in platitudes sometimes. But it's funny the ones who like to point the finger in this regard are the ones who themselves engage in it. At least I admit it.


You must be using a different dictionary. I would bet you're using a catholic dictionary or something? If this is what you did, then you are really only pointing out the intent thing, which has been resolved.

Here for example is meekness using dictionary.com:
meek: Easily imposed on; submissive
You shouldn't always be easily imposed on or submissive even by Christian standards.

Some using your definitions even show my point:
diligant: Earnest and persistent application to an undertaking; steady effort; assiduity.
You shouldn't be earnest etc when undertaking sin..

Chasity isn't good if you're married, if you use the virginal definition espoused by seclar dictionaries and people's etc.

I only see you causing artificial confusion using words not in dictionary.com I don't think I am wrong to use common usage of of the words or a dictionary usage. Maybe this is where you could show me my error? But I don't know what's to show; again, if your point is to use a catholic dictionary etc, that's fine, but we've resolved the intent thing. I am not sure what the point of going further with this thread is.

Edited November 23, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]Chasity isn't good if you're married, if you use the virginal definition espoused by seclar dictionaries and people's etc.[/quote]

I hope and pray that you're confusing chasity with celebacy...

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]I only see you causing artificial confusion using words not in dictionary.com I don't think I am wrong to use common usage of of the words or a dictionary usage. Maybe this is where you could show me my error? But I don't know what's to show; again, if your point is to use a catholic dictionary etc, that's fine, but we've resolved the intent thing. I am not sure what the point of going further with this thread is.[/quote]

You are wrong to use common usage of words in interpeting things that were written long ago.

You are wrong in using common usage of words if that usage is wrong. Case in point:

Romeo and Juliet:

"Wherefor aret thou, Romeo?"

Does NOT mean "Where are you, Romeo," but "WHY are you Romeo?" Despite the common misinterpetation of wherefore that is common.

As a side note: What died and made dictionary.com the grand master of the English language?

[zunshynn]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 23 2005, 10:52 AM']You must be using a different dictionary. I would bet you're using a catholic dictionary or something? If this is what you did, then you are really only pointing out the intent thing, which has been resolved.
[right][snapback]798812[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

last time I checked, Catholics weren't running dictionary.com

You still haven't explained how kindness, self-control and humility could be sins, or in what situation lust and greed could be virtues.

[quote]I am not sure what the point of going further with this thread is.[/quote]

In that case, was there a point in starting it?

[Cam42]

Nope, used dictionary.com.

Sorry. Try it....

Example......[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brotherly%20love"]Brotherly love[/url]

They are all there.....and the Traditional Catholic definitons were from a Catholic dictionary, but I suppose they should be.

Don't call me disingenious.....I have nothing to lose.....only you.....

Time to put up or shut up. Defend your position.....

What say you, dairy?

[Socrates]

This is one of the most pointless threads I have seen.
Some ambiguities caused by changing and imprecise uses of the English language are no reason to denounce the traditional concept of virtues and vices as "hooey."

I also think most people who care about this have a pretty good idea of what is being condemned as the Seven Deadly Sins, and anyone who takes this seriously, can take the time to look up what their meanings are.

The idea of the Seven Deadly Sins, and their proper definitions has a much longer and venerable history than dictionary.com.

Your silly game of pulling out dictionary defintions and playing semantics does nothing to discredit Catholic morality. That is a lot of hooey.

[Cam42]

pride:
[quote name='dictionary.com'] An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Pride is inordinate esteem of oneself[/quote]

avarice:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Immoderate desire for wealth; cupidity.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Greed, the inordinate love of earthly things[/quote]

envy:
[quote name='dictionary.com']A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Sadness in response to another’s success.[/quote]

wrath:
[quote name='dictionary.com']Forceful, often vindictive anger.[/quote]
[quote name='Traditional Catholic definition']Anger, is emotional violence[/quote]

continued......(for the same reason)

[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.