It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Bothers me how this is treated as immediate dogma. First of, only three or four of them are directly condemned in the source material (and even then, you can argue it was just a condemnation of extremes rather than the concepts themselves), and second, most of these sins are not only as bad as everyone portrays them, but ostensibly vital for human survival. There's a reason why Greed is considered a necessary evil, for example.
As for virtues, its also worth to note that them in extremes can also be fatal (except Temperance, obviously).
Comments
Yeah uh, how? I mean, there's always been cases of religious people preaching things that aren't part of the main source material anyway, hasn't there? Doesn't sound like anything too out-of-the-ordinary.
Well, the concept of greed could be thought of as the coveting of more than one's fair share, which (for a proper definition of fair share) would involve basically social costs (to all of society) being higher than private costs (to oneself) of taking more than that fair share. Basically, if you take too much, then society suffers as a whole even if you're slightly better off yourself. And that's a bad thing for societal stability.
Well, if you haven't even realised the implications, it'd be an excellent case to make the population docile by telling that their self-worth is a sin.
Conversely, most first world society is individualist and consumerist, and actively marries individual expression with the acquisition of resources. Think about how technology, moreso than anything else, has become the de-facto status symbol.
^^ Wait, what?
As a general rule, when you're trying to convince someone of your opinion, you're supposed to tell them what your opinion is, rather than telling them something tangentially related and asking them to deduce your opinion.
Seven Deadly Sins?
No. Seven Asses.
Meanwhile, in 2010.
I don't know why I felt compelled to post this, but its what the discussion looks like.
An absolute lack of pride is self-loathing or never being content with what you have done.
An absolute lack of lust means no sex drive at all.
An absolute lack of sloth means you will work yourself to death.
An absolute lack of wrath means you cannot be indignant when you see injustice.
An absolute lack of envy is to never want better in your existence.
An absolute lack of greed is the lack of desire, ambition, and the will to live.
Well lust doesn't necessarily mean sexuality. It can simply refer to things you seek out to indulge in a passionate manner. So a lack of lust is a lack of passion and engagement.
In most contexts, lust refers to sex.
Nah Greed is about wanting things. Lust is about experiencing things.
I think lust covers indulgence of the id, whereas greed covers indulgence of the intellect. You lust for experiences, but are greedy for resources. That kind of thing.
ninjalk'd
No, just absent of the desire to do so at the cost of others'. It's quite possible to want to do better for yourself without wanting to take someone else's stuff.
People can look enviously on things they want and not act on the urge to steal it.
The way I see it, the terms themselves have the "excess" part already incorporated. For example, desire --> lust/greed, anger --> wrath, etc.
Do we need to have a discussion about something so obvious? No offense to anyone.
What's that from, Bastion?
A review of Serenity, naturally.
Hell, I'm fan of all seven.