Talk:Seven deadly sins/Archive 1

Removal of the Symbols of the Sins section (again), and other stuff
I've removed the Symbols of the Sins section as it really does make no sense at all. There's no defining list of colours or animals for the sins that I've located, save for the odd webpage that someone has used to voice their own ideas. The result of this is that there have been a number of edits changing these symbols (like changing the colour of Wrath from red to orange) that are simply the result of people expressing their own opinions. It also contained errors about the etymology of such phrases as "seeing red" or "green eyed monster", neither of which have anything to do with colours associated with the sins.

I've also removed the sections below the link to the Sins in Popular Culture article, as all of the information was just duplicated there and there was no reason to give the information in this article prominence over the other sections.

Also, this talk page is beginning to get rather long and confusing. Can we archive some sections, or are all the point still relevant?--Malvorean 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Then how does this list have anything to do with anything?
 * Sin 	Punishment in Hell
 * Pride 	Broken on the Wheel.
 * Envy 	Placed in freezing water.
 * Wrath 	Dismembered Alive.
 * Sloth 	Thrown in Snake Pits.
 * Greed 	Put in pots of boiling oil.
 * Gluttony Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes.
 * Lust 	Smothered in Fire and Brimstone.

Or sins associated with a color? I think symbols or mascots are just more "effective" tools of brainwashing for people who want to associate colors with sins and make decisions over items not because of their intrinsic worth or beauty, as they would see it in an objective way, but because of what color they are! I think the symbols were just fine in this page, and fit very well with the character of the page. Even though the topics discussed here do have some merit as far as inner self reflection and self control goes, the way it's exposed and turned into marketing fud by some holy power entitites is sad. There might be some people who take this page and the lists provided here more seriously, and don't want to offend them too much, when I don't take this article seriously at all. Therefore I refuse to contribute to this page, at least when it comes to reverts, because I follow it as sort of an entertaining amusement, and you just took away some of the amusing stuff! Sillybilly 07:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to add here the segment we're discussing, so it stays at least in the archive: The seven deadly sins are often associated with certain colors and animals: This would explain certain sayings such as "seeing red" when one is very angry, the "green-eyed monster" (referring to envy), or "pigging out" (referring to excessive eating).
 * Pride: violet and horse
 * Envy: green and dog
 * Wrath: orange and bear
 * Sloth: light blue and goat
 * Greed: yellow and frog
 * Gluttony: pink and pig
 * Lust: red and cow

Personal view: It's interesting that such things as cardinal/venial sin with form the basis of human spirituality, human outlook on life, and "goodness by coercion" as provided to you by some religions, when the whole thing sounds more like a text taken from a kindergarten storybook. Thou shalt not this and that, because the man with the big stick or the other guy with his 3 pronged fork will come beat your soul up after you die, for eternity? Human love, love of all things, onness with the universe and mystery of life is much more "adultly" depicted in other religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, even if those have their fair share of kindergarten topics. Sillybilly 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Another personal view regarding this other list

You could argue that balance is more the key, something along the lines of yin-yang. Too much of a good thing is bad, they say. A human being without pride, or a broken psyche to me is a lot less beautiful than one who can practice humility balanced with pride. You could argue very easily along each virtue and its corresponding sin that excess in either leads to undesirable outcomes, though true, the proper balance point should lie closer to the virtue part than to the sin part listed in this table. Sillybilly 07:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I *think* there is a set of contrary virtues that's usually considered 'official'. It's difficult writing about the Seven Deadly Sins referring just to religious canon, as there isn't really any. Therefore, the main sources for an article such as this should be the major formative works (Aquinas, Dante etc.) I noticed the same problem the article on the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Everyone knows that they're War, Famine, Pestilence and Death, but in the canon they're actually quite different. With regards to the sins, while in two hundred years time some of this symbolism may come to be considered 'official', wikipedia needs to record just what is widely known and accepted. If it is possible without using weasel words, it may be an idea to scrap all the stuff that isn't universally accepted and just have a note that there's a lot of interpretation of various aspects of the sins.--Malvorean 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. A wikipedia article should about knowledge written with a NPOV guiding principle, and I expressed personal opinions here on the talk page. I assume these lists have relevance to stay here inasmuch they have a historical record and citable source. I never read Dante's writings, does he discuss the punishments for each sin, and are they as listed? Then that list is relevant, whether some people find it funny or not. Same with color and animal mascot lists - is it ever listed in a serious reference? Just because one doesn't subscribe to the Mountain Spirit and Bear/Eagle Spirit interpretation of the world by native american cultures, or to the Sungod Ra interpretation by Egyptians, it doesn't mean it has no place in an encyclopedia article. I guess my issue (and many other people's) issue is in personal life, where I feel tremendous pressure and campaigning to accept one way of thinking vs. another, under such and such arguments, and feel it's oppressing my right to freedom of religion, and I shouldn't bring that argumenting here. I love knowing about all religions and all interpretations of the world, I'm very curious and happy to hear yet another story, but I have to tell you, for some reason I can listen with more respect and dignity to Mountain Spirit stories, because of the humanity they contain, unless I was campaigned, marketed and harassed into trying to accept them as the one and only true guiding principle, in which case I'd have similar rebellious attitudes toward that topic too. That's why I only touch the talk page, because of POV issues, though I understand some POV is helpful, and expecting complete NPOV is hard. Simply comparing differences in religions can be a form of POV that gets people excited and offended. I touch articles on topics where I can claim utter neutrality, or close to what's possible. Sillybilly 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work done here.
I would like someone to evaluate the second sentence I'm quoting here; it's from the second paragraph of the sins page: "Evagrius intended for this list to be used for diagnostic purposes. One cannot resist temptation without being aware of how it operates." My concern is that the test of a mortal sin is that it must be conscious and chosen. The statement I am quoting above would seem to me to contradict that. If the sentence is meant to represent Evagrius' pov then it could specify that. As it is it looks to me like it mixes things up. Also, I'd like to see a brief list of the criteria for a mortal sin included on the page.

Commentary on the request in the first paragraph of discussion.
I'm not an expert so I don't really want to get strongly involved in this entry. However, here are a few thoughts on the paragraph above. In Catholic Doctrine culpability all revolves around the operation of conscience and choice. To sin, you must have a well formed conscience on a matter and freely choose to do the wrong thing. There's a lot wrapped up in that sentence but that is the core of what it means to sin in Catholic Doctrine.

With recognition that not everyone uses English in the same way and that it is not everone's first language, I'd like to suggest a revision to a sentence in the paragraph above. The original was: "'My concern is that the test of a mortal sin is that it must be conscious and chosen.'"

A more accurately formed version would be: "'My concern is that the test of a mortal sin is that the serious, sinful act (the deed) and its evil must be the object of a well-formed conscience and nevertheless the seriously sinful act is consciously and freely chosen (the sin).'" It isn't easy to commit a mortal sin.

An answer to what a short list related to defining what it takes to commit a mortal sin, from the Baltimore Catechism: 69. What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

To make a sin mortal these three things are needed:


 * first, the thought, desire, word, action, or omission must be seriously wrong or considered seriously wrong;


 * second, the sinner, must be mindful of the serious wrong;


 * third, the sinner must fully consent to it.

This list warrants a lot of discussion. First, for there to be a sin there must be a sinful act (the choice) and a potential sinful act (the deed). Second, the sinful act (the deed) and its gravity and evil must be fully understood within the conscience of the actor(well-formed conscience). Finally, the actor must choose to commit the evil act. Most argue that it is the choice that is the sin. The actual act is only the fulfillment of the choice and produces the external consequences of the evil choice. Thus, if a sinner was to freely choose to murder a victim, but was frustrated in the act, the sin of murder would be upon his soul. Considering the level of my expertise, I think I have said enough. I hope it helps. ... disclaimer: I don't necessarily subscribe to Catholic Doctrine. Begs 09:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Desert Fathers contribution
Why was the section on Desert Fathers removed? It looks like an old edit from a year ago was pasted into the article, and that doesn't seem right. A serious, scholarly treatment of the history of the SDS must begin with Evagrius. Gregory didn't create the list -- he adapted the list of Evagrius.

And speaking of Evagrius in regard to the question posed above: the diagnostic purpose of the list is independent of categorization (capital/mortal/venial/etc). The goal is to merely show how the various temptations operate so that we can be better prepared to resist it. Perhaps the sentence in question should read: "One cannot effectively resist temptation without being aware of how it operates." Each of the SDS can be commited consciously/inadvertently/etc. The list allows you to diagnose your vulnerability to the SDS and avoid committing them. Davidfmurphy 23:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Major revisions in progress
I've removed several sections of this article in an attempt to make it more encyclopaedic and less jumbled. The section on Hierarchy reads like a forced attempt to connect each of the sins to one of the others. It also seemed to be a bit too much like original research.

The section on Mnemonics was just stupid. It's amazing that this was left up this long, and didn't seem to serve any useful function. There is also, I might add, no such latin word as Saligia or Saligiare (yes, I've googled it and come up with nothing more substantial than about a hundred clones of this page).

I was wary about removing the section on punishments in case I'm accused of being overzealous, but I've searched around and haven't found any reliable sources for this list. The same is true for the animals and colours associated in the actual sins section. I'd be happy to see them readded if someone found a reliable source (not just someone's webpage).

I know of at least one other user who's trying to turn this into a serious article, and so I'd welcome any other input. I'd like to ask that nobody readds the sections I've taken out for the present. Hopefully this won't cause a backlash and an edit war as these sections are readded and removed again, and with any luck we'll be able to turn this article around and make it useful, encyclopaedic and informative.--86.139.178.200 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your actions. The edits were necessary, and much more work needs to be done. Can I be the first to suggest that the lengthy (and growing) lists of things inspired by the SDS is getting out of hand? It's becoming an impressive list, and worthy of retention somewhere, but I really don't think it's Wiki-worthy. Examples include songs by metal bands, cartoon characters, foodstuffs, etc. This is the kind of thing people like adding to the article, but it simply doesn't belong here. How many other encyclopedias mention brands of pizza or ice cream in their treatment of this topic? What belongs? Major, classical works, such as Boch's painting, Chaucer, Piers Plowman, etc. In my opinion, Megadeth and Flogging Molly just don't quite meet this standard. Is there a way to keep this information, but not in this article? -- Davidfmurphy 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lust of cultural references is growing rather long. Perhaps we could create a second page, for Seven Deadly Sins in Popular Culture (I know it's not just popular culture, but that seems to be the naming convention for wikipedia articles of this nature.--86.132.121.200 03:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Me again (though I've finally registered to create the Sins in Popular Culture page). I've taken a stab at improving the definitons of the sins, but it's now quite late and I don't feel up to writing any more tonight. They are not currently what I'd currently consider good definitions, though I've done my best to add sources to some of the content that might need verification, feel free to add citation tags or edit things that look incorrect. davidfmurphy, I've used part of what you wrote on the talk page as inspiration for the sloth section, if you consider this plagerism then of course I apologise and feel free to remove or change it. Naturally, I hope people will be able to improve on what I've started. I'm wondering how detailed a definiton we need on this page, as all of the sins have their own page and much of what I've written may be more valid here, with just a token definition on this page to direct people to the different sins. As always, if anyone has any comments, feel free to buzz them about here. I think we're on the way to improving this article, but it still needs a lot more work!--Malvorean 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of the list
This needs to be further explored. Evagrius and Gregory are correctly identified as significant figures in the evolution of the list, but they are far from alone. A correct chronology would place Cassian immediately after Evagrius and before Gregory, while Danté comes after Aquinas.

Additional points on interest should include:


 * The Evagrian list was not of deadly sins, but of tempting thoughts (or passions). The difference, while subtle is significant. As I understand the distinction, a deadly sin is something you do, but a tempting thought is something you are tempted to do.
 * The eight Evagrian patterns of tempting thought are (in order): gluttony, lust, avarice, sadness, anger, acedia, vainglory, and pride.
 * Evagrius occasionally listed the thoughts in a slightly different order (such as swapping sadness with anger). In one of his letters (To Eulogious, On Vices Opposed to Virtue), he even spoke of an additional pattern: jealousy, which he placed between vainglory and pride. Despite these minor variations, the list as cited above is by far his most common arrangement.
 * John Cassian, the next major figure to address the list, opted for a list of faults (which he also called vices) instead of a list of thoughts, and he consistently placed anger before sadness. His slight shift in emphasis was later amplified by Gregory in the list of deadly sins. Later writers, such as John of Damascus, typically used Cassian's arrangement over that of Evagrius.
 * Gregory's revisions are extremely significant. Envy is added. Vainglory is merged into pride. Acedia is dropped from the list (perhaps it was considered too similar to sadness to warrant a separate entry). Gluttony and lust swap places.
 * Thomas Aquinas claimed all of the entries were some form of pride, so it is moved to a titular position, and vainglory is reinstated as a separate category. Sadness is replaced with sloth (merely a subset of acedia), and covetousness is moved down one slot. The term "Captial Vice" is used instead of "Deadly Sin."
 * The current catechism of the Roman Catholic Church follows Aquinas with only minor revisions. Pride returns in place of vainglory. Anger and avarice swap places. Envy is dropped one position. Sloth is moved to the bottom of the list.
 * The enneagram, a personality typology system similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indictaor, breaks people into nine personality types arranged by suspectibility to each of the deadly sins (with the addition of deceit and fear).
 * The lists of Gregory, Aquinas and the Roman Catechism are always listed with pride/vainglory at the head. This is different than the lists of eight, which place pride at the end. In the former, you get a "flows from" effect while the latter works from a "leads to" premise.
 * There have been many suggestions for addition to the list (by such figures as Evagrius, Cassian, various other Desert Fathers, and many more who wrote extensively on the subject). The most frequently mentioned nominees are, in no particular order: envy (not present in the list of eight thoughts, but in the list of deadly sins), jealousy, fear, deceit, blasphemy, and heresy.

-- User:davidfmurphy

Article needs serious revision
I feel tempted to add a 'this article does not cite its sources' banner. The page itself seems more like a talk page than an encyclopedia article. Very few references seem to be used, especially in sections that are considered open for discussion.

Some of these are dealt with in this talk page already, but I think they all need to be considered together and whether this should be strictly an encylopedia article or whether it is a forum for discussion religion. Having studied theology, I'm aware of the distinct difficulty in recording exact definitions and grading the importance gay of the sins when historically people had different ideas, but if we're going to record differences in opinion, especially modern opinions, we need to know exactly who has made them and where. I could just as easily write a section saying that Envy was the most important sin; it inspires us to attain more for ourselves, be treated better in comparison and fuels our anger towards those who have what we want. --86.132.118.225 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this article was not well written but was informable. Proverbs 6:16-19 really gives you the seven deadly sins that God hates. April 13, 2006-TJC

Note: The list in Proverbs 6:16-19 is not the list of deadly sins. Gregory wanted a list of seven because that number holds significance to Christians, but his list serves a different purpose than that of the list in Proverbs. Gregory actually pared down an earlier list of eight passions to arrive at seven and was not working from this passage of Scripture. Just because these lists do not appear in a neat list somewhere in Scripture does not detract from their legitimacy. These lists are systematic theological contructs, much like the common lists of God's attributes (all knowing, all powerful, etc.). -- User:davidfmurphy


 * Yet another thing I've noticed, is the section on the verb 'saligiare'. I have done a bit of medeival latin, and I've never once come across the verb 'saligiare' (and the fact that I can't find anything on this other than mirrors of wikipedia makes me think it's a dud).  However, I'm willing to believe that such a verb does exist if an authoritative souce can be provided. --86.132.118.225 19:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Greed as uncontrollable
I would like to point out that in order for a sin to be mortal, it requires grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. Therefore, it is impossible for an uncontrollable sin to be mortal, and thus greed cannot be said to be "An uncontrollable desire to gain". Don&#39;t give an Ameriflag 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point! CrimsonLine 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Along the same lines, it is inaccurate to say that the sins are "instinctual." I am changing the wording. I doubt that "fallen man's tendancy to sin" is the best choice of words, but it is better than "instinct" --Leonard C. Porrello 15:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Greed as Keystone
Since when was Greed the 'keystone' of the sins? I can well believe that somewhere some religious essay has placed Greed foremost, but as nothing's been referenced here I'm a little dubious about whether the whole Theocracy section needs revising. --Unregistered User 15:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While Thomas Aquinas maintained that all sins were equally weighted, his commentaries on Greed are particularly passionate. And Dante places Greed further into Hell than Pride.  Recent theological discussions have begun to move away from Pride being the central sin in favor of Greed.  Max 13:57, 03 March, 2006


 * This also ties into the logic behind "Money is the root of all evil". Hossenfeffer 04:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not for nothing, but it's actually that "Desire for money is the root of all evil". Money is an object, and can't be inherently evil.  It's rather the greed (the desire for money) that's the cause of evil. 68.61.158.74 20:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought it was "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil". Which - in my opinion - differes in two significant ways from the previous versions: Firstly, "Love" to me seems a far stronger emotion than simple "desire".  Most people "desire" more money, but to "love" money would imply valuing it above more worthy things (friendship, justice, and - since this is ultimately a religious topic - God).  Secondly, the "all kinds" part is significant, although the actual significance will depend on whether it is being used in the literal sense (love of money is the root of every kind of evil), or the colloquial sense (love of money is the root of many kinds of evil). Wardog 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lust as Keystone
Someone added a bit making lust the keystone sin. It seems to be based on the "greed as keystone" part of the "Hierarchy" section, but it was placed in "Mnemonic Devices" section, perhaps by mistake. It certainly doesn't belong there, so I moved it to the "Hierarchy" section and cleaned up the wording to make it more encyclopedic. But in the end, I'm not sure it belongs in the article at all - it sounds more like speculation of the person who added it, rather than an actual theory that's debated. I'm a theology student, and I've never even heard the "Greed as keystone" theory, let alone the "Lust as keystone" theory. The sins are definitely related, but calling "Sloth" an excess of desire seems a stretch no matter which way you slice it. Sloth is a lack of zeal, not an excess of a zeal for laziness (which seems nonsensical). CrimsonLine 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And now, sloth??
This is getting out of hand... CrimsonLine 12:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Gluttony is THE keystone
Most ancient authorities cite gluttony as the key deadly sin. Failure here opens the door to all of the rest. The issue of eligibility comes into play here. If you do not fall to gluttony, then you are not eligible for temptation in many other areas (with lust being the most frequently cited example). Cassian asserted that Jesus was never tempted by lust because He (a perfect man) never succumbed to gluttony, and was thus ineligible for it.

I'm not sure how prepared I am to accept Cassian on this point, but if you're wanting to make a big deal over which pattern is truly the keystone, I'd suggest we submit to the Fathers. There is unequivocally more ancient testimony attesting to the priority of gluttony than any other sin/passion.

-- User:davidfmurphy

Pride
Haha, you guys are a little off. Throughout the Bible it states that God hates pride the most. I'd provide some verses but its a little late and I'm off to bed.

I agree wholeheartedly; remember, it was pride that got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven, resulting in him becoming Satan. So, in a way, pride is the reason that sin exists in the first place! So, pride is the only one worthy for the title of "father of all sins"; because it literally is the father of all sins! Come on, this is a moot point! --Luigifan 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What did Thomas Aquinas and Dante do?
If the list was originally drawn up by Evagrius of Pontus and later reduced and reordered by St. Gregory the Great, then what contributions did Thomas Aquinas and Dante make to the list? --Tokek 05:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do we mention that they are "capital sins", without explicating in what sense a sin can be "capital"? Is it just a synonym for deadly? Or is there something more here?
 * If you look closely, you'll see it's the Catholic Catechism that is quoted as saying it. The article doesn't call them capital.

---

Why isn't substance abuse (including alcohol abuse) one of the seven deadly sins? --User:Juuitchan


 * This falls under gluttony; I've added mention of it there Mkweise 03:05 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Substance abuse was not considered a sin in the 13th century, in fact it did not even exist as a concept until very recently. Society was much less protective back then, and there were far fewer (if any) "victimless crimes" than there are today. LordK 09:45 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Isn't gluttony (especially given Dante's rendering) better explained as 'excessive consumption of anything', not just food? For example, sexual excess might fall under gluttony. The Oxford English Dictionary defines gluttony as "excessive greed", as well as its meaning in relation to food.John Dalton 02:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually sexual excess would still fall under "lust."
 * I disagree with this last point, but am uncertain.
 * : I'd agree with the above; Sexual Excess would be Gluttony, while Sexual Deviance would be Lust. Lust is the persuit of sexual gratification, while Gluttony is overindulgance in it. Lust shouldn't be directed purly towards sexual gratification anyway; it's the hunger for anything, quite like a mix of Greed, Gluttony, and Envy, rather then just a want for sexual excess.--Kuroi-Kami 22:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the above statements over simplify the nature of this sin. Lust is not simply sexual in nature.  One could also lust for excitment or the feeling you get while being high on drugs.  The line between lust and gluttony is blurry (actually the line between all the sins can blur if you look at each instance of sin) but there is a distinct difference between them.  The easiest way to remember it (in my opinion) is that Gluttony consumes while Lust is all about the sensation.  Gluttons tend to consume so that no one else is able to partake of that particular thing, be it food, alcohol etc.  A person guilty of the sin Lust potentially leaves something behind for someone else to see/feel/do.  Sex can be excperinced again, adreniline rushes are usually something you can recreate, like jumping out of a plane or off a cliff.

removed this dubious assertion: "Many psychiatrists believe that these are frequently caused by chemical imbalances in the brain." There may be a psychiatrist who thinks the seven deadly sins are caused by chemical imbalances somewhere, but there are certainly not "many". Also === The Gilligan's Island Connection === An easy way to remember the sins is to imagine each one as a character on the old TV show Gilligan's Island, with Gilligan being Satan himself. Here are the associations:

Since the imagined correspondence is...well, imaginary. And certainly not a device useful for memorizing the sins. And not encyclopedic. Etc. And while I was at it I change the typography for the movie "Se7en" which is the way it's named, though I can certainly understand if it's changed back to value ease of referal over accuracy. -- Someone else 05:21 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
 * The Skipper (Jonas Grumby) - Anger and gluttony
 * Thurston Howell III - Greed
 * Lovey Howell - Sloth
 * Ginger Grant - Lust
 * The Professor (Roy Hinckley) - Pride
 * Maryanne - Envy

More Work Needed?
I cleaned up some grammatical errors that I found throughout the page, but I still believe that the page could use a thorough proofing. On a side note, does anyone know of any other famous (or less famous) commentators on the seven deadly sins? I just feel that the article relies very heavily on the works of Dante. But hey, maybe I'm just out of it... Any opinions? --The jt

Post script: I will try to look up some more information on the subject the next time I get to a major/university library. --The jt

I'd say check out the book "The Concept of Sin" by Josef Pieper, St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologiae", "The Travellers' Guide to Hell" by Michael Pauls& Dana Facaros, and also this book "Sacred Origins of Profound Things" by Charles Panati, it's really helpful for getting information on/around this topic. Drmordakk 03:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Drmordakk


 * In the initial list of eight sins there are only seven. Judging by the following paragraph, the one that's missed out is sadness, but I'd need someone's confirmation before I edit it in. Foolish Mortal 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lust is a craving and as such is modulated by the pleasure center in the brain. The neurochemistry is complex but dopamine is central in the neural circuitry. I would suggest the other temptations/passions/sins are intricate derivatives of the dialectic of pleasure and frustration.

Aziraphale
The entry on Aziraphale's New Year's Resolutions: Could someone add a note on which work this appears in? --Slashme 06:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We should get rid of the Gilligan's Island stuff
Saying that they are "personifications" of the seven deadly sins implies that the characters were purposely designed to represent the sins. This assertion is based on nothing more than a much-forwarded e-mail joke, which compares the characters to each sin. Do a Google search for "Gilligan is Satan" and you can find the text of this joke. 1/13/06


 * I agree... AnonMoos 04:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A slightly different version (Gilligan is gluttony) is actually published in a book, so I've sourced it. Angr (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Childish vs. "Adultish" sins?
Could we please clear up or explain the final sentence of each sin's explaination (except Avarice and Pride)? It mentions "childhood" and "adult" sins, and then makes further distinctions between "childish, adolescent, and adultish" sins. Perhaps we could have a separate section explaining what all of those mean. ~Andy
 * It doesn't make much sense to me, either. Personally, I'd delete it. CrimsonLine 09:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's with this sentence?
"Both of these proposed schemes seem reductionistic, though - reducing both greed and lust so that they are synonymous with "desire." Perhaps Pride still makes the most sense as the father of all sins."

That needs major clean-up.

--Anon. 13:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote that, and if it needs clean-up, then cool. But my thought was that both the "Every deadly sin is really Greed" and the "every deadly sin is really Lust" schemes of understanding the deadly sins are excessively reductionistic, and rob both words, "greed" and "lust" of their distinctiveness. The schemes "flatten" all the sins, including the sins that supposedly are the wellspring. On the other hand, using pride as the mother of all sins isolates something characteristic in human nature, while at the same time allows the other sins to actually perform useful descriptive purposes. It's an analysis of the ideas, to be sure - and maybe it's not neutral, I don't know. But it seems accurate to me. I'm happy to have the discussion. CrimsonLine 14:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

-Anon. 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think that words like "though" and "perhaps" should not be used. The are not encyclopaedic. Could you attempt a rewrite?


 * Here's an attempt - is that better? I also corrected the bit about Lucifer being thrown from heaven for asking the angels to worship him - that's actually not stated in the Bible at all, but is an interpretation of the Bible. CrimsonLine 12:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

--Anon. 07:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks good. I'm glad you attributed the opinion to a certain group, since encyclopedias themselves should not propose opinions.

Second Request for Serious Revision
There have been requests for fine proofing and tweaking, yet this very important article, as it stands, is quite poor. This article needs someone who knows what they're doing to do major formatting, cut major chunks out, and add things in. Errr, I meant extravagance before lust
 * For formatting, I'm mainly referring to the description of each sin. They need to be more parallel and organized.  Catholic Virtues, Punishments, and Associations with Demons each get their own subsection below, yet the associations with the colors and animals are thrown in the individual descriptions.  The Punishments are repeated there as well.  Regarding the "maturity" of the sins, someone has made an incomplete explanation under 5 of the 7 sins.  Someone find them all and explain them better, or remove them all after fruitless research.  In Pride's description, there's an example.  While I'm not particularly fond of it, if a similar type of thing were added for each of the sins, it could help further illustrate and explain each sin, improving the article.  Also, the "A man named Dante Alighieri..." sin-grouping at the end of Hierarchy should be moved to and combined with pew s agl's description, under mnemonic devices.
 * That said, we need stuff completely removed from the article. If a world-renowned expert on the subject has explained some of this, that's fine, but as others indicated, the article seems to be a mesh of the ideas of individual users.  Unless anyone can find any talk of it elsewhere, I request that the entire keystone section be removed.  It's amusing to see that someone included a part for each sin as keystone, but the quality that they are at, with entries such as "Envy: Envying someone who hs more than you" under Gluttony as Keystone, is simply unacceptable.
 * Lastly, there are things of importance that are not mentioned in this article. Personally, I know very little of the history of the 7 sins, but sadness coming before sloth, and extravagance before avarice (which has now been edited into greed?) should both be explained by someone with knowledge.  Under hierarchy, someone should mention Dante's extensive writing on greed (as mentioned by others) when speaking of its rising importance.  We should worry about proofing and grammar after we have a good article to pretty up.


 * I am a bit confused about the main list. Is any of the content there attributable to Pope Gregory, or just the ordering?  Content from other sources, like Dante, is definitely mixed in, but it's unclear which parts are as yet unattributed. -- Beland 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Models portraying
I removed the bits about which model portrayed which sin on an episode of a TV show. While this may be germane to the article on the TV show or the model, it is not germane to this article. GRBerry 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research?
I removed the below, because it looks like original research. If anyone can supply citations to notable opinion-makers, it can be re-added. (Though these lists do put the article on the long side, and I would consider whether or not one or two examples wouldn't suffice.) -- Beland 23:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lust: Pride of sexual ability
 * Gluttony: Pride in one's consumption
 * Sloth: Too proud to consider anything new
 * Envy: Craving the pride of others
 * Wrath: Pride in violence
 * Greed: Pride in possessions
 * Pride: Too proud to consider others greater

More recently, Greed has been treated as the keystone of the seven deadly sins. The other deadly sins are tributaries of wanton greed:
 * Lust: Greed for sex, attention
 * Gluttony: Greed for self-indulgence
 * Sloth: Greed for avoidance
 * Envy: Greed for possessions, personal gain
 * Wrath: Greed for revenge
 * Greed: Greed for valuables
 * Pride: Greed for greatness

Alternatively, one could consider Lust to be the central sin:
 * Lust: lust for attention and sex
 * Gluttony: lust for self-indulgence
 * Sloth: lust for avoidance
 * Envy: lust for possessions and personal gain
 * Wrath: lust for vengeance
 * Greed: lust for money and power
 * Pride: lust for greatness and supremacy

One could also consider Envy to be the root of sins:
 * Lust: Envious of another's sexual ability
 * Gluttony: Envious of another having more than you
 * Sloth: Envy for avoidance
 * Envy: Jealousy towards another
 * Wrath: Envious of another resulting in harm or destruction
 * Greed: Envoius of another having more power and/or money than you
 * Pride : Envious of another's greatness

One could also interpret Gluttony as the basis of sins:
 * Lust: Gluttony for more sexual desire than one needs
 * Gluttony: Unreasonable consumption of more than is necessary
 * Sloth: Purposefully over resting when rest is not needed
 * Envy: Envying someone who has more than you
 * Wrath: Gluttony for more destruction, thoughtlessly wasting everything leading to destruction
 * Greed: Wasting money and power on thoughtless acts
 * Pride: Gluttony in having more greatness than others

Wrath could easily be interpreted as the father of sins:
 * Lust: Destruction through sexual assault
 * Gluttony: Destruction from thoughtlessness
 * Sloth: Destruction from laziness
 * Envy: Destruction because of jealousy
 * Wrath: Destruction for the sake of destroying
 * Greed: Destroying to gain power and money
 * Pride: Destroying to gain greatness and supremacy

The final sin can also branch out into the father of sins, the sin of Sloth:
 * Lust: One is too lazy to love
 * Gluttony: One is too lazy to consider others
 * Sloth: One is too lazy to do anything
 * Envy: One is too lazy to think about anything but money and personal gain
 * Wrath: One is too lazy to consider the consequences of their vengeful actions
 * Greed: One is too lazy to think about anything other than money and power
 * Pride: One is too lazy to understand that there is more to life than money and power

Well if you did remove it, it's back.

I request that the "original research" and "disputed" markers at the end of the mnemonics section be moved slightly. As it is, they appear to call into question my questioning of the final two menmonics. I assume this is not intended. I put those comments there before realising that there is this separate talk section - sorry I'm new! - but I believe the comments themselves are valid, and would question the questioning of them. '''Cheers! Saxmachine.'''

- You're right, they are perfectly valid questions, though i think they're more likely suited to the talk page. Personally, I'm all for removing the entire Hierarchy and Mneumonics section. It's not encyclopaedic and doesn't seem to be anything more than a few random points. If nobody complains, I'll remove them within the next day or so. --81.6.242.128 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Venial and Mortal Sins
There is a mistake in the definition of venial and mortal sin in the first paragraph. Venial sins offend God but do not warrant damnation if one does not confess them before death. Mortal sins (here synonymous with capital or deadly) are serious and do warrant damnation if not confessed before death. But in the true Catholic faith throughout history all sins can be cleaned from the soul through confession. Here is some more information on mortal sins in general from http://www.catholic.org:

Three things are necessary for a sin to be mortal:

1. Serious matter (things listed in this examination); 2. Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act; 3. Full consent of the will.

All three of these conditions must be present simultaneously for a sin to be mortal. This means that if you did not know the act was seriously wrong, then you are not guilty of having committed a mortal sin. If you did not will the act, e.g., if you were forced or if it was in a dream, if you were impaired or emotionally distraught or terrified, etc., you are not guilty of the act committed.

All mortal sins committed since your last confession must be confessed by both type and number, i.e., the kind or "name" of the sin and how many times or frequency it was done. If there is a mortal sin from the past that was forgotten and has not been confessed, once remembered it should be confessed at your very next confession.

It is not necessary to confess venial sins, but it is a good and pious practice. Drea34040 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to venial and mortal sins, I think there are 2 more types of sins, though they can overlap with the first two. These types of sin are, sinful deeds, and sinful motivation. Sinful deeds are the actual wrongdoings committed, while sinful motivation is the reason that one does an evil deed (or sometimes even a good deed.) God isn't so picky about sinful deeds; if you had no knowledge or firm belief that the act is wrong prior to doing it, if you were not fully willing to do the act when you did it, and/or if you were trying to ultimately achieve something good, then it's more easily forgivable. Knowledge of wrongdoing and consent of the will are explained above, while trying do do a good deed can be explained as a "steal from the rich and give to the needy" mentality. Sinful motivation is much more serious, because it means that you did what you did trying to do something bad. All of the seven deadly sins fall under this category, though they are not the only examples. God really dislikes sinful motivation, because it is the mark of a true menace to mankind. Someone who lives his or her life as a sinner, commits mortal sins, and does not repent, is extremely likely to wind up in hell!!!!! --Luigifan 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Individual Sins
This section also needs some major help. My guess is that this would be the single most read passage from the entry -- people want defintions of the deadly sins, right? Unfortunately, the descriptions read like bullet points instead of a legitimate article, and the descriptions do not completely mesh with classical, accepted defintions.

For example, the description of sloth needs a lot of work. It is easily the least understood of the deadly sins. It is actually a subset of acedia from the original Evagrian list of eight passions and is quite distinct from sadness. Gregory didn't merge them together when he retooled the list of eight into his version of the seven deadly sins. He kept sadness and dropped acedia (which includes sloth). Sadness was later dropped by Aquinas and replaced with sloth.

To define various terms:
 * Sloth connotes laziness, and does not really include much more than that. It is simply an "I don't want to do it" mentality. When people try expanding the definition of sloth to include more than this, they are stepping outside the bounds of this term and need to use a more precise word (such as acedia).
 * Acedia is an obscure word, but there are no other suitable alternatives to use in its stead. It is a creeping spiritual apathy that saps one's motivation. Symptoms include low standards and feelings of futility. Perhaps the person afflicted with acedia doesn't want to do it (like sloth), but acedia more directly addresses motive.
 * Sadness is all about dissatisfaction or discontentment. It is an unhappiness with your circumstances that ultimately leads to bitterness, grief and/or depression. Cowardice more properly fits under this category than acedia.

Interestingly, ancient authorities (such as Evagrius and Cassian) regarded sadness as the least deadly passion from their list of eight, while acedia was regarded as the most serious. I have no idea why these two passions are so frequently confused for each other or merged into the odd, mislabeled sin of sloth. The two passions are quite distinct and I believe Gregory/Aquinas/etc erred by dropping one or other simply to hit the "magic" number of seven.

A similar problem occurs when discussing pride and vainglory. Again, these are two very distinct problems, which are later merged into one less useful category. Vainglory is a desire to demonstrate personal superiority (i.e., "I'm better than you.") while pride is a desire to demonstration personal independence (i.e., "I don't need you.").

These distinctions are far from trivial and quite necessary. If improper terminology and incomlpete defintions are used, then the list is much less useful.

-- User:davidfmurphy

Well, God clearly hates both pride and vainglory, as he has demonstrated in the Bible, and these sins are similar enough that it makes sense to put them into the same category, as long as one is a clearly defined subset of the other.

Proposed Outline for a new article

 * Origin and evolution of the list (Evagrius, Cassian, Gregory, etc.)
 * Defintions of the various sins (based upon the classical defintions -- include an overview of the process/mechanics of temptation and a few charts to summarize the differences/similarities between sins)
 * Applications of the list (evaluating personal spiritual condition, preparing/equipping for spiritual warfare, inspiration of numerous works)
 * Historical significance (Aquinas, Danté, other classical)
 * Cultural appearances (art, music, movies, television, etc.)
 * Recommended reading
 * External Links

I would recommend completely removing some sections by adapting the relevant content to fit the proposed outline. The candidates for removal are heirarchy, mnemonics, virtues, punishments and associations with demons. Most of this content would get moved into an appropriate subsection of historical significance (Danté could command a lot of space here, but at least his contributions would be centralized instead of sprinkled throughout the article as it currently stands).

I love discussing this topic and want to contribute to the rewrite, but I am also very new to the whole Wiki concept and am unsure of how to proceed.

-- User:davidfmurphy

Thinking about it, do you think it would make more sense if the definitions of the sins came first? A casual reader would almost certainly come looking for definitions of the sins, and it's probably the keystone (pun intended) of the article. --Malvorean 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

davidfmurphy, you appear to have by far the most in-depth knowledge on the history of the Seven Deadly Sins by people who've made contributions recently. I for one would welcome changes along the lines you suggested. There's no mention of Aquinas at all in the history section of the article at the moment, for example. Just be careful not to throw at the baby with the bathwater- I don't think the article in its current state is awful, but it should be a lot better.

--145.221.52.70 10:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"The childish of the two misplaced childhood." (Sloth)
I have deleted this phrase, as it appears to be nonsensical. Rupert 132.181.7.1

Wrath
Why was the decription of wrath removed from this article? Even if it was seen as biased or contained original research, it could still be edited to a more appropriate format. Could someone enter a description of it akin to the other 6 listed?--66.24.231.214 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's far better to have a sparsely worded section than a larger section with information that has been clearly stolen from someone's random musings on the sins. I've removed the sections which are not only unverified but are also, in my opinion, incorrect.--Malvorean 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was initially surprised when I saw that sadism wasn't one of the seven deadly sins, but I think I now understand; it probably would be considered a subset of wrath. Sadism is the enjoyment of the suffering of others, and I thinks most sadists are like that because they have a lot of anger bottled up inside. What do you guys think? --Luigifan 12:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would sadism be listed? It isn't one of the seven deadly sins mentioned in the Bible. I don't think sadism should be mentioned. 68.119.15.57 03:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)snwalter07

Ahh... it's not in the Bible... good point. --Luigifan 00:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is the translator for the Dante quote? A citation would be nice.

Minor revisions for grammar and sense
I apologise in advance for making changes to an article which is being considered for major revisions, and I'm not an expert. However there didn't seem to have been much movement in the last couple of months, and I thought there were a number of changes I could make easily which would help the sense.

1) Added a link to the 'Desert Fathers' 2) Rewrote the sections on 'Gregory the Great' and 'Further developments' somewhat, as they were muddled and repeated material. 3) I replaced 'penitant' throughout with 'penitent', as I couldn't find 'penitant' in any dictionary I looked in. 4) I rewrote the section on Envy somewhat, as I didn't think it was either particularly clear or particularly encyclopedic. I've never seen "AKA the grass is greener" in an encyclopedia. 5) I modifed the Wrath section somewhat. I couldn't find 'vigilanteism' in a dictionary either, so I changed it to 'vigilantism'. I also pointed out that discrimination is a very modern concept of Wrath, for most of history it would have been considered completely normal to (for example) hate the unbeliever, 'just because' they have a different religion. 6) I made a few other changes to hopefully make it easier to read the article.

--145.221.52.70 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While vigilanteism is not a word, vigilantism would mean something significantly diffferent. Perhaps rewording the entire section would be more apropriate. Vigilant: watchful, Vigilante: retributive (as in vigilante justice).

"Vigilantism" is the correct word, see: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vigilante Bear in mind that the word "vigilante" comes from the same root as vigilant; so, "watchful" and "watchman".

--Merlinme 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Love and Lust
"lust and love are two different things; while love involves mutual (unrequited love is not mutual, e.g. God may love you but you may not love God) appreciation, trust, and deep friendship, lust is little more than extreme sexual arousal (or desire?)."

The ultimate test of (any form, devine, familial, romantic etc.) of love is sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.32.87.250 (talk • contribs)


 * I completly agree with most of that. Lust is when you do not care mutually or emotionally for someone (or something), but you are just sexually attracted to them. You would only have a physical infatuation, and that is not true love. You cannot base a relationship only on sexual desire. My opinion is, if you truly love someone, you would die for them. (like what you said, sacrafice). But the only thing I dissagree with is your unrequited comment. Unrequited love is mutual, but only by one person. For example, someone could love this person, care for them, trust them, etc, but that person does not recouperate. But it is still mutual on the behalf of the one who loves them. UnDeRsCoRe 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, but I'm not sure what your definition of "mutual" is. Mutual normally means something shared by more than one person, e.g. a mutual friend is a friend that two different people share. So I don't see how love can be mutual in the case where it's unrequited, i.e. where only one person is doing the loving.

--Merlinme 09:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I always though mutual meant loving someone or something purely and not lustfully. My mistake. UnDeRsCoRe 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

But I guess the real question would be if it's real love or is it just limerence? UnDeRsCoRe 13:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins in Protestant thought
This article is distinctly one-sided in treating largely of the work of Roman Catholics and the early church fathers on the subject. It ignores the considerably body of literature on the subject by Protestant authors. A simple library search reveals that many such works exist. DFH 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely scrap this article and start from scratch?
Is it just me or does this article seem to be a repeating series of delete/add? For a short while there, it looked like this article was making some progress, but people keep re-inserting material which has been moved to other pages (ie, the manga/movie/cartoon/pop culture stuff, the Desert Fathers info, the punishments section, etc.). It gets deleted, then added, then deleted, etc. Both the article and this talk page is should probably be archived and given a fresh start. As it currently stands, this article is too widely read to be so poorly written. Numerous people have tried getting it on track, but until one person steps forward with a cohesive, high-quality draft, this article will do little more than spin it's wheels. Davidfmurphy 03:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

...and are you going to be the person to produce this cohesive draft? Would be happy to consider the idea if I thought we would be replacing the current article with something better.

--Merlinme 13:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I'm glad that morality is so high on the agenda of so many people. --Luigifan 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for starting from scratch. The article as it is now is a mess, and I say that as a person whose done their best to work on it. I think if we make another article we need to make sure there's no room to add unhelpful discussion. Wikipedia isn't really the place for a theological debate, and thus I recommend that the new article is entirely factual (and probably limited to definitions of the sins and the history of their formation, rather than any conjecture on their symbolism etc.). --Malvorean 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The order
I came here from Andrea Yates, you remember the gal that drowned her five children while under the "care" of pyschiatrists. She mentions the "7th deadly sin" but I cannot figure out from this article which one she means. The order in the intro does not match the order in the body. Is there some commonly accepted order in the present day. If so that is important as people sometimes refer to them by number. Thanks --Justanother 14:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I´ve just had a look at the Andrea Yates article and I´m not much the wiser, I´m afraid. You´d have to know exactly which church she went to, to get some idea of any list she might have been using.

Barring that, the only thing I can think of is that perhaps she meant Pride. She saysː "The way I was raising them they could never be saved." So perhaps she was too Proud to fail? Pride is often listed as the most ´serious´ sin, the one which caused Lucifer to fall, for example. Perhaps Andrea Yates thought it was pride that made her act, rather than letting God sort her children out? But that´s only a guess.

--Merlinme 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I thought that perhaps the list was pretty much standardized thoughout 21st Century Christianity or at least among Christian Fundamentalists. --Justanother 14:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The article now says that they are listed in the 'standard' order, and Pride is indeed the 7th Sin.

--Merlinme 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd wording?
I don't know much about this subject but I thought this was odd wording; "According to The Picture Book of Devils, Demons and Witchcraft, by Ernst and Johanna Lehner, each of the Sins was associated with a specific punishment in Hell." If they are simply reporting a belief in that book it would be better as "Medieval Christians believed that each of the Sins was associated with a specific punishment in Hell." or some such and cite the book as a reference. Doncha think? --Justanother 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Odd sentence and capitalization
This sentence (at the end of the intro) bothers me: "Listed in the same order used by both Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th Century AD and Dante Alighieri, the seven deadly sins are as follows:" It is followed by the table of contents. I think it should be moved to the earlier paragraph where the sins are listed, and the list reordered to reflect the order of Dante and the pope. But before I do that I wanted to check if the current version is in that order for any reason. (The current version is pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth, which is not alphabetical in either Latin or English. The TOC list is currently lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.)

Also, within the "Lust" section, Lust is not always capped, while the other sins are always capped. I was raised Catholic, but not Catholic enough to know if this is within style, Are the sins always capped? In the meantime I'm going to fix Lust to bring it in line with the rest of the aricle. Natalie 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for capitalising Lust (and reverting vandalism, for that matter). I changed the opening paragraph as you suggested, as they were sensible suggestions. I credited you in the edit note, I hope you don't mind my making the change for you.

In general, I tend to think that especially where you're copy editing, you might as well go ahead and make the change. If people really hate it they can always change it back, but in my experience they're normally quite glad you've done the editing for style. I tend to leave the discussion pages for more controversial matters about content.

The main problem (for me) with using the discussion page for more minor matters, is that I see a lot of sensible suggestions from people on discussion pages which got forgotten about. So (especially for less well established articles) I figure you might as well get on and make the change while you're thinking about it. Although I imagine others would disagree with me.

--Merlinme 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On what basis is lust described as "undesired love"?
Under "Catholic Virtues", lust is described as "undesired love". This is counter-intuitive and may have no basis. Is it a typo? What is the basis for that description? Note that in another Wiki article, "Seven virtues", lust is described as "innapropriate love". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.71.245 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC).