User:CarnMeynen

CITIZENS OF THE WORLD REJOICE, YOUR NEW LORD AND MASTER AWAITS YOU.

Have you looked to the North pole? Take away the constellation imagery and view the constellation boundries and you will see your Gods and masters before your eyes...



NOT FINISHED

--- work in progress ---

DEPRECIATED TOPIC, no longer relevant

The topic of the day is THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS. And some people who seem to have all the time to completely show no respect, but not paid any attention to my own comments on a section entiled THE SEVEN SINS.

Lets first see the updated interpretations of the THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS

Lust
Lust (or lechery) is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature. Unfulfilled lusts sometimes lead to sexual or sociological compulsions and/or transgressions including (but obviously not limited to) sexual addiction, adultery, bestiality, rape, and incest. Dante's criterion was "excessive love of others," which therefore rendered love and devotion to God as secondary. In "Purgatorio", the penitent walks within flames to purge himself of lustful/sexual thoughts and feelings.

My response
All sins can be regarded as obsessive or excessive thoughts of a sexual nature. Lust is the desire for flesh

Gluttony
Derived from the Latin gluttire, meaning to gulp down or swallow, gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. In the Christian religions, it is considered a sin because of the excessive desire for food, or its withholding from the needy.

Depending on the culture, it can be seen as either a vice or a sign of status. Where food is relatively scarce, being able to eat well might be something to take pride in (although this can also result in a moral backlash when confronted with the reality of those less fortunate). Where food is routinely plentiful, it may be considered a sign of self control to resist the temptation to over-indulge.

Medieval church leaders (e.g., Thomas Aquinas) took a more expansive view of gluttony, arguing that it could also include an obsessive anticipation of meals, and the constant eating of delicacies and excessively costly foods. He went so far as to prepare a list of six ways to commit gluttony, including:


 * Praepropere - eating too soon
 * Laute - eating too expensively
 * Nimis - eating too much
 * Ardenter - eating too eagerly
 * Studiose - eating too daintily
 * Forente - eating too fervently

My response
Greed leads to the same consequences as gluttony so cannot be made the same.

Greed
Greed (or avarice, covetousness) is, like lust and gluttony, a sin of excess. However, greed (as seen by the church) is applied to the acquisition of wealth in particular. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that greed was "a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things." In Dante's Purgatory, the penitents were bound and laid face down on the ground for having concentrated too much on earthly thoughts. "Avarice" is more of a blanket term that can describe many other examples of greedy behavior. These include disloyalty, deliberate betrayal, or treason, especially for personal gain, for example through bribery. Scavenging and hoarding of materials or objects, theft and robbery, especially by means of violence, trickery, or manipulation of authority are all actions that may be inspired by greed. Such misdeeds can include simony, where one profits from soliciting goods within the actual confines of a church.

My response
Whoever you are, the author of this article, you are trying hard to confuse the meaning of the word "deadly" and the true consequences of each sin. Greed is simply the desire for more. For example, money. What you are not preaching to the readers of this article is the danger in sinning, and how tiny is the mindset of those who sin. you are also misrelating greed and avarice when avarice is related to pride.

Sloth
More than other sins, the definition of sloth has changed considerably since its original inclusion among the seven deadly sins. In fact it was first called the sin of sadness or despair. It had been in the early years of Christianity characterized by what modern writers would now describe as melancholy: apathy, depression, and joylessness — the last being viewed as being a refusal to enjoy the goodness of God and the world he created. Originally, its place was fulfilled by two other aspects, acedia and sadness. The former described a spiritual apathy that affected the faithful by discouraging them from their religious work. Sadness (tristitia in Latin) described a feeling of dissatisfaction or discontent, which caused unhappiness with one's current situation. When Thomas Aquinas selected acedia for his list, he described it as an "uneasiness of the mind", being a progenitor for lesser sins such as restlessness and instability. Dante refined this definition further, describing sloth as being the "failure to love God with all one's heart, all one's mind and all one's soul." He also described it as the middle sin, and as such was the only sin characterised by an absence or insufficiency of love. In his "Purgatorio", the slothful penitents were made to run continuously at top speed.

The modern view of the vice, as highlighted by its contrary virtue of zeal or diligence, is that it represents the failure to utilize one's talents and gifts. For example, a student who does not work beyond what is required (and thus fails to achieve his or her full potential) could be labeled slothful.

Current interpretations are therefore much less stringent and comprehensive than they were in medieval times, and portray sloth as being more simply a sin of laziness or indifference, of an unwillingness to act, an unwillingness to care (rather than a failure to love God and his works). For this reason sloth is now often seen as being considerably less serious than the other sins, more a sin of omission than of commission. The South American animal was named after this sin by Roman Catholic explorers.

My response
Your interpretation of sloth is very clever and certainly makes the church look neutral in this article... Sloth is simply the desire to sleep, do nothing, slouch about all day to put it in it's colloquial form. In other words it happens when you run out of strength and have the desire to be lazy and not work.

Wrath
Wrath (or anger) may be described as inordinate and uncontrolled feelings of hatred and anger. These feelings can manifest as vehement denial of the truth, both to others and in the form of self-denial, impatience with the procedure of law, and the desire to seek revenge outside of the workings of the justice system (such as engaging in vigilantism) and generally wishing to do evil or harm to others. The transgressions borne of vengeance are among the most serious, including murder, assault, and in extreme cases, genocide. Wrath is the only sin not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest (although one can of course be wrathful for selfish reasons, such as jealousy, closely related to the sin of envy). Dante described vengeance as "love of justice perverted to revenge and spite". In its original form, the sin of wrath also encompassed anger pointed internally rather than externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, albeit tragic, expression of wrath directed inwardly, a final rejection of God's gifts.

My response
Vehement denial of the truth eh. What truth? Can you describe it? Anger is a method of venting your frustrations brought about yourself because of sinning.

Envy
Like greed, envy is characterized by an insatiable desire; they differ, however, for two main reasons. First, greed is largely associated with material goods, whereas envy may apply more generally. Second, those who commit the sin of envy desire something that someone else has which they perceive themselves as lacking. Dante defined this as "love of one's own good perverted to a desire to deprive other men of theirs." In Dante's Purgatory, the punishment for the envious is to have their eyes sewn shut with wire, because they have gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought low. Aquinas described envy as "sorrow for another's good".

My response
What else can I say

Pride
In almost every list pride ( or hubris or vanity) is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and indeed the ultimate source from which the others arise. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to give compliments to others though they may be deserving of them, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor." In Jacob Bidermann's medieval miracle play, Cenodoxus, pride is the deadliest of all the sins and leads directly to the damnation of the titulary famed Parisian doctor. In perhaps the best-known example, the story of Lucifer, pride was what caused his fall from Heaven, and his resultant transformation into Satan. Vanity and narcissism are prime examples of this sin. In Dante's Divine Comedy, the penitent were forced to walk with stone slabs bearing down on their backs in order to induce feelings of humility.

My response
Pride above is assimilated to vanity which bears no connection whatsoever.

I received responses as well, but nothing to do with my content, but rather than remarks about me for some reason

The first incident was the tearing down of my notices on the page entitled the SEVEN DEADLY SINS so I simply pasted them back and added a little comment at the top of the sub section entitled SEVEN DEADLY SINS Seeing as you don't even have the decency to reply with any intelligent response to my remarks, but simply slander me with accusations that what I am writing is nonsense, I will continue to remark on your interpretations of the sins until you relent.

But later It was brought to my attention that there was another page where I could discuss the main page. So I simply added the same comments and waited to see if anybody might notice that I am making very relevant points to the interpretations prevailing on the page right now.

Then I received a message warning that I am not acting in the interests of the WikiPedia community.

User Caerwine manages to write a lecture on what WikiPedia is not, but plays a very clever deception by suggesting that I am trying to post my own definitions, when in reality I am trying to make a dialog with the people who edit the same section and discuss THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS

CarnMeynen, what you should keep in mind is that your comments as interesting or insightful as they may or may not be, are not what Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia is for. In particular, let me quite from the relevant section of What Wikipedia is not:
 * Do not use Wikipedia for personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

What you have been trying to add to this article simply does not fall within the scope of an encyclopedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This where the dialog starts...

My comments are not my personal interpretations, but responses to your interpretations, and here is the right place where I am entitled to debate this. And as yet, you still will not comment on what I am actually saying but are insisting that you know best about the subject and I know little else.

The flame war begins

But sadly you are wrong, your writings ARE interpretations of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS because they are still based on other peoples interpretations. I am not trying to lay down the law as to what they are, but simply debating. AND AS YET, you still have not remarked on each of my seven comments.

I as an intelligent person, who genuinely understands English and the true meaning of the word as laid down by the queen, expect to be treated with dignity and not insolence. I know this is true, because I never get a genuine response. Which gives me the impression that you, for example, are not genuine but are up to something that is not in my interest.

Now the bitching starts

Learn how to add sections to a page correctly.

This page is not "our" interpretations. It is a compilation of the various documented interpretations given to the topic by historians and monks who actually spent time thinking about it, and not some kid who wants to parade around that "[I'm] British and must be obeyed!"

Dignity is earned, not expected, by the way. You've done nothing so far to earn dignity, and instead have enacted a belligerence to others and a willful disregard for the guidelines of this project.

Dignity is taken, not given. And as you have been doing all along, you are hiding behind WikiPedia hoping that they will kick me off. I have not been aggressive to anybody and I am following the rules. And you are simply acting very childish by again TALKING DOWN TO ME - and I have no willfull disregard for this project and you may notice, I haven't from the start.

An encyclopedia is not a public fora for debate. If you believe it to be, you are simply and utterly wrong. Encyclopedia's are collaborative efforts toward educating their readers, and no true encyclopedia has ever been written so that it makes up its own information based on its personal dictionary (completely disregarding the blatant reality of DIFFERENCES IN MEANING WITHIN AN EVOLVING SET OF LANGUAGES), while attacking the other authors.

I'm sorry, am I mistaken? I thought this page was the place to "discuss" the article on WikiPedia entitled "THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS". And what you are doing here on this discussion is preaching to me. Good, sermon is over. WikiPedia is the first time that people on the streets actually have a chance to contribute to a knowledge base and hopefully have a chance to discuss topics - in this case THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS - and come to some sort of agreement as to how they are to be interpreted in their true form and not as the church would like you to believe. And as I know, this is the correct place to do this.

And all you have done, is simply list my responses above with no comments from your part.

If your comments were not your own personal interpretations, you would be able to cite them to published sources. Even high-school students are taught that in academia, all claims must be cited in order to be respected.

You are not paying attention to a word I am saying are you? We are discussing changes to an article on WikiPedia entitled "THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS". And in order to agree how the subject is written and presented we discuss it here. Whether you call it discussion or debate, it does not matter, and you are being petty by picking points in what am saying, and not staying on-topic. You are all making it clear that you believe that only you have the right to discuss this for some strange reason, by citing your so-called "credentials" which to me mean absolutely nothing.

As a final dig, and with all due respect to her majesty - the queen was not yet born when these concepts were created. Unless she has done an immense amount of research on the topic of Judeo-Christian theology and doctrine, to the extent that all other scholars recognize her as the leader of their field, her word on the subject is as authoritative as my front porch's.

You are a fool to correlate yourself with others like that, no matter who they are. Knowledge and logic is the right of any intelligent species, so it is the right thing to do to allow anyone to discuss here by contributing their ideas or experiences how the main page content is expressed.

"And with all due respect", you are showing no respect to anybody here. And what is funny, you don't actually understand what the term "The Queens English" actually means, and I ain't going to explain it because it falls outside the scope of this discussion of the article of "THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS". You can call yourself what you like and you can claim to be what you like, but it still does not give you the right to claim that you know more than any other person about the article called THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS. Now let me simply state here, my name is Andrew Sprott and I have never sinned once in my life. I am not on the defensive, I am not on the offensive, I am simply attempting to debate the relevance of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS and maybe make the article interesting and see how what is one of the oldest things known to man came to be.

And I promise you, out of sight is out of mind and if you were here with me in my presence you would be thinking very differently about contradicting me. Anyway, I have bigger fish to fry now, your homosexual sinners.

Now we have a plead for mercy

Find some other place if you wish to discuss sin. Wikipedia is not a debating society.

It appears to be Caerwine

...really, stop it. You're not as funny as you think you are, you're just annoying.

I am not trying to be funny, in fact humour leads back to the sins, a good example is selling your soul, did you not know? YOU can not prove that I am annoying, because you are not actually behaving like adults who like to discuss intelligent matters. And the SEVEN DEADLY SINS are a topic pretty close to the knuckle at the moment. And as yet, you still have not responded to any of my remarks anywhere, in particular my comments on your interpretations, that are based on other interpretations, yes, of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS.

I said, and I quote, "This page is not "our" interpretations. It is a compilation of the various documented interpretations given to the topic by historians and monks who actually spent time thinking about it, and not some kid who wants to parade around that "[I'm] British and must be obeyed!"" - not my interpretations, not your interpretations. The interpretations of experts. If you had reading comprehension, you'd notice that the part about "British" is because you were parading it around as a reason you must be obeyed - I couldn't care less either way.

Oh yes you do, otherwise you wouldn't have even taken notice that I happened to mention that I was english. As I said, experts or not, they are still interpretations. I am NOT trying to force you to change your entries into the encyclopaedia but discuss the true meaning of them, and maybe contribute, which is not the impression you are trying to label me as. And since when did I try to overrule anybodies ideas, or force anybody to accept my opinions of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS. But as I have mentioned increasingly it is you WHO IS TALKING DOWN TO ME.

I will also mention, again, that I have not made any substantial edits to that half of the article, regardless of your constant accusations of it.

Then why the flame war

If you truly think that Dignity is a natural right, not something earned, you are a fool.

If you consider yourself that high and mighty that you can dictate who can be treated with dignity and who can not before you even know them, then you are evil and have no regard for anyone but yourself and your clique. And this is what I seem to be dealing with here on this part of WikiPedia, a clique.

If you cannot recognize how everything you right is incredibly aggressive to all of the other editors, you are a fool. For the Lord's sake, I merely copied excerpts of the official material to your page, and you yelled back at me that I was a faithless Christian and was going to Hell!

Who said faithless, it wasn't me, and it was you who insisted that you were going to hell because you said you had a pass. Read your comments again please. And as for grammar you have misspelt two words in your comment above.

As for "not having disregard for this project" - yeah, you do. You continously posted aggressive and incendiary remarks to the main article page, after continously being asked to stop. You've done the same with The Omen, as well. I have no sympathy for you.

OK, let us reflect on this very volatile flame war which I trust am not contributing to. At the moment, all you are saying to me, is I'm disrespectful, a fool, a kid, someone who must be obeyed and all sorts of slander. BUT as yet, you have NOT COMMENTED ON MY REMARKS. All you are doing, is getting more and more angry, and simply throwing fuel onto the fire. And as for the mistakes I made in the first place, you know perfectly well, I learned from them and NO LONGER am editing the main article page entitled THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS. In fact, if you didn't notice by now, I am attempting to debate the content of the main page entitled THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS.

Yes, you are mistaken. The talk page is for discussing citation errors and formatting choices for the main article. Soapboxing and Foruming as you are trying to do are strictly out of line, as non-cited interpretations are simply irrelevant to the project. Wikipedia is NOT meant to allow the layman to believe he is more of an expert than the scholar - it's simply a means to farm out the basic editing of the encyclopedia to people who aren't constantly busy researching and producing.

You don't say. So where do I apply for the right to write on WikiPedia. Or did I somehow have the belief that WikiPedia was the chance for any intelligent person to have a chance to debate and finally present information pertaining to the subject of the debate, in this case THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS.

I know this is a cynical view, but it's essentially true - we are not allowed to come up with the information on our own. We're only allowed to copyedit and present what has already been determined.

If cynicism is systemic in WikiPedia then you have succeeded in killing off a chance for the repressed, oppressed - in particular by religion - to make their statement heard for other inquiring minds to read and digest. And I can easily see where you are going with your latter statement, THE BIBLE IS READ. WRONG, it is written by man so is perfectly eligible for anybody to interpret what was written, why it was written and what are the consequences.

Oh, I would also like to remind you that I DID pay attention to the changes you made earlier, and took the time to politely explain on your talk page why they were incorrect. You erased my comment on there and began telling me what a horrible Christian I was. So....I see no reason why I should waste my time again, assuming that you're trying to do anything more than be a nuisance.

And that is a complete lie, I have not censored anybodies comments on my page. You are now bordering on the paranoia.

No. You are asking to put in your own, un-cited interpretations into an article, in which you make fun of the other editors and the Church herself. We explained to you why this was against the guidelines, and you attacked us as faithless Christians and liars. You were the one who started the off-topicness as well, so you can't pin that on me either. You are also, for some reason, claiming that the published interpretations of actual scholars and historians (which I never actually claimed to be a part of) should be ignored in favor of you reading out of a dictionary. None of this is relevant discussion - it is merely trolling.

You are now talking nonsense, and also everything you have said in the paragraph above is completely wrong. I did not ask, but made comments. I don't make fun, and have not attacked the church as this is not the time. I said nothing about you being faithless, and I have only accused you of lying once in this update I am making. Your next sentence is also nonsense, in particular where does a dictionary come into this. I have not said that anybodies interpretations should be ignored or deleted. So yes I agree this is not relevant discussion.

Holocaust. Stalin's Gulag's. The Roman Coliseum's persectution of innocents. If you truly think that someone disagreeing with on an online encyclopedia means the world is in an unendable shit-spiral, you are truly insane.

Well, there is no doubt that the world is in an eternal shit-spiral, but I wasn't aware that this was because someone disagreed with an online encyclopedia. Time will tell who is insane.

??? No. I don't know nor care if the other editors are against you. As I have explained before, I am also not the editor who constantly reverted you. Let's examine the facts:


 * 1) You post your ramblings to the page.


 * 2) They are, correctly, reverted.


 * 3) You repost them and attack the reverting editor as censoring you without attempting to discuss them with you.


 * 4) I see what is going on, and add comment's to your talk page trying to explain why your interpretations are contradictory to Church doctrine (one of the most applicable sources, in this case)


 * 5) You delete my comments, then repost your ramblings which again claim that you have been censored and no one is trying to discuss them with you.

Well, most of the above has been covered, so moving on...

So, in short, you are a liar. And a stupid one, at that, as the facts of the matter are easily obtained by examining the edit history. At least try to lie about something I can't immediately disprove.

It is plain as the day, that you are determined to brand me a bad person, which I am not. In fact I have never sinned in my life. But what you are really trying to do is NOT debate my remarks on the SEVEN DEADLY SINS and attempt to kick me off this website.

And again, I put to you that no queen of england was alive when the concept of the SDS was created. My point stands. None of them have any right to determine what the sins "mean". If, as I hoped you weren't, you actually believe that the queen's attempt at creating a dictionary entry for the english translations of the words is more valid than centuries of theology and historianship, then you are, again, a fool.

I believe the only people who have the right are those who have never sinned. And I promise you there are many. And if you are looking to the church for candidates, then you are looking in the wrong direction.

And again, we will cover the fact that I am claiming no authority in the subject myself. Unlike you, I am not egotistical. I recognize that I am no expert in this, and defer to studied theologians and historians.

And then finally, we will cover the laughability of someone claiming to be "simply attempting to debate the relevance of the SDS", when they are simply reading out of a dictionary and then calling the other editors "homosexual sinners" for disagreeing with them.

OK, lets skip the droll and onto my favourite topic, homosexuality. I am not, and I resent it being discussed anywhere, especially in the context of this discussion of the SEVEN DEADLY SINS. But where did you get the idea that I was accusing your editors that you are homosexuals? Or have you got dyslexia? But I can't prove that I didn't do this now can I because you have CENSORED my comment, now who is the hypocrite it ain't me.

Comment - this whole section is a completely off-topic forum rant (and replies to it). I will remove it in 24 hours unless an established editor objects or does it for me. This is not what wp is for. Abtract (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This section started as an attempt by Caerwine to remind editors that the SDS article should not be used by anyone to write a personal essay, which seems sensible. Unfortunately discussion has since degenerated. Generally I think deletion is a rather blunt tool and should be used sparingly. It may be appropriate here; I would suggest restoring to the original Caerwine post rather than deleting the whole section, though. --Merlinme (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK no problem I was simply expressing my support in this rather sad episode; you decide. Abtract (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

My remarks to you all are... Do you realise how bigoted each of these individuals are. All I want to do is discuss with others, share experiences of the subject and allow me to put in my ideas of the sins, as I am pretty familiar with them. But access to the discussion is just closed on both sides and in return I receive slander, ridicule, insults and God knows what else than simply responding to what I believe how the sins could be defined on the main page.

And if you Christians could do something to end all this conflict, you could simply accept your Jesus as your saviour and be done with it. Please, this insolent and bad attitude you have brought about yourselves is just wearing us down and it has to stop.

I am always naive as to thinking that anyone on this planet knows what they are talking about, or rather, have any idea about what is happening on this planet. Nevertheless, I have tried again to discuss the sins...

Greed with Gluttony and Vanity with Pride
Would someone please explain why you make Greed and Gluttony separate sins, as to me they fit together as one sin.

Also, why do you assimilate Pride with Vanity, when they are different.

Just by looking up the online Chambers dictionary vanity is defined as "the quality of being vain or conceited". Then conceited defined as "having too good an opinion of oneself".

The way I see it, Vanity is the individuals inner image of how he/she appears to others. Whereas Pride is more of the attitude the individual has of other people. For example, I have a better job, I have a better car etc.

So I don't believe Vanity fits within the scope of Pride and really, IMHO should be a sin alone. Be Good (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I comment on your remarks let me make something clear. The only way anybody can communicate, or rather clearly make ones ideas or opinions known we need to understand the meaning, or definition of *any* word. Be it the name of any sin, or whatever.


 * Trying to hide behind your "clique", ie., the church, you seem to claim that you are scholars and theologians by right and know everything about the world and religions that everybody is doctrinated into believing. By debating the seven sins, you automatically assume you are dealing with God, The Devil etc., whereas, in fact the sins date back to the beginning of the universe where we all came from. IOW nothing.


 * The way I see it, what the editors of this section of Wiki are doing is confuse the issue behind what the sins are and what the consequences of sinning by making the meaning ambiguous. But more than anything else, the editors are making the church look neutral, and assuming that anybody who works for, or attends any kind of service for the church is also innocent, by making it clear that your Jesus will save everybody.


 * Gluttony is any obsession with food. Not a desire to have more - simply spending too much time thinking about food. Thus, a picky eater is just as gluttonous as a fat hog. Furthermore, it applies ONLY to food and drink. It is a banal sin, like lust.
 * Greed is the desire to have more than one needs, specifically in regards to money or material goods. Completely separate from Gluttony, in that it is the "More! More!" about the act which is sinful, not exactly the obsession itself.


 * What is a appetite, other than the craving for more than you need. Hence the common relationship between Gluttony and Greed. Trying to use petty grammar to differentiate the two apart allows you to weed out the sin that is pretty much a vogue sin today... Vanity.


 * Pride is the most sinful of sins - while others are simply natural appetites perverted, Pride is a spiritual sin, in which the soul places itself in competition with others. As such, it is contradictory to love or empathy. Vanity is a form of this. It can be confused with greed, in that both a greedy and prideful person could accumulate too much money, except that a greedy person would do it for love of money, while a prideful person would do it to have more than another person.
 * Vanity is essentially a feeling of "I'm better than you". Thus, it is EXACTLY a form of pride, though perhaps not the worst form.


 * Actually, wrong again. Pride and Vanity are a kind of pair of sins that have a reciprocal meaning. IOW, pride is the desire to feel better than everybody, or at least the people you know. Having a better car, better house, 1000 inch tv screen etc., mostly so that you can gloat or brag about yourself.


 * Whereas, vanity is something different. Being vain is when you have a conceited opinion of yourself. It has nothing to do with looking down on others like pride, it is when you feel you are attractive in all respects, your appearance, your body, mind and way you think, IOW how you believe your outward self is seen by others.


 * Again, a dictionary is simply the most ridiculous place to look for research on this topic. It's a theological concept, look it up in theological literature or encyclopedias. I don't like being harsh, but it is also important that it doesn't MATTER what "your humble opinion" about the topi is, unless you're concerned about the formatting or grammar of the page. None of us are allowed to insert "our humble opinions" - we are allowed to go so far as to decide what to italicize, what to bold, and even then there are guidelines we are expected to follow. All the actual information on a page has to be taken from actual authorities on the subject. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really know who you are and what kind of organisation you belong to, but here in the real world, people can actually think for themselves if they are encouraged. What you are doing here is *not* that. Trying to claim that only so-called theologians are "smarter" or "clever" to understand such a complex meaning such as the sins is arrogant.


 * The times move on every second. Nothing remains the same, and sooner or later, you, everybody, will have to face the facts and actually admit, everybody has sinned. And more important than anything else, by hiding the issue on such a web site as this you are actually breaking one of the rules mentioned in the book of revelations, and that is to change the meaning of the words.


 * Now say what you like about me and what I have said above, I don't care. But be warned, it is getting harder to find excuses to ignore the facts of the real world. The fact that global warming is nearly becomming irreversable with no plan B. And you only need to look at Venus to see what will happen to Earth. Be Good (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I begin: If you break up my comments again in order to ramble on "point by point", I will simply delete any of your edit which is inside of mine. It is not proper commenting behavior, and you have been asked not to do it before.
 * "My clique"? No, I am claiming the quite obvious fact that theological scholars will have more authority on a theological subject than some prat reading out of his dictionary (as you have admitted). I'm surprised you haven't gone over to the "Mass" page and argued with them whether the page should be about a Catholic ritual or a measurement of matter.
 * ...if you believe the Seven Sins (in committance or documentation) have a non-religious origin, you are incredibly mistaken, and are probably watching too much anime.
 * Jesus will not save everybody. Jesus will OFFER to save everybody. Most Christians will still be damned, so stop trying to get off topic and try not to be a prat.
 * You miss the difference between Gluttony and Greed entirely. Gluttony is NOT defined by eating too much. You can eat too much and be quite sinless - most religious leaders are quite round. The MARK of gluttony is obsession with food - thus, a woman who constantly annoys others by demanding food cooked a difficult certain way is STILL gluttonous, even if she is eating small portions. GREED is desire for more than one needs, specifically in regards to possessions.
 * So, let's examine:


 * 1) GLUTTONY is obsession with food or drink, perverted any which way.
 * 2) GREED is the perverse desire to have more possessions than one needs.

While these are not opposites, neither are they the same.


 * Vanity is to assume one deserves God's place, or some other's place above one's natural station. While it is a weak form of pride, in that true, full pride is outright rebellion, vanity and over-ambition are still pride - putting oneself where one doesn't belong, in someone else's place. Humility is clearly the opposite of both pride and vanity (further proof that they are the same) - humility is not a low opinion of oneself, but in fact acceptance of one's true place.
 * "people can actually think for themselves if they are encouraged." - Yes, people are allowed to think for themselves. WHAT THIS ENTAILS is not the supreme laziness of merely cracking open a dictionary and acting as if one was the authority, but research into the history of a topic, its meanings throughout said history, and what the term would logically mean in its proper context. The proper context of the concept of the seven deadly sins is in the lives of ascetic eurasian monks. One can easily see that, as they are the ones first known to have originated the concept of the deadly sins, it is the meanings which would make sense in their lives that are the correct meanings.
 * I am not claiming that only theologians are "smart" enough. I am claiming that, as the topic is a theological concept, anyone who studies it enough to become any kind of reliable source will have become a theologian. I am also arguing that your rampant ignorance only underscores this theory.
 * ....ummm, yeah, I've already admitted that I have sinned. I kind of admitted that I have what amounts to a notarized document denoting my final, quite warm, destination.
 * ???? Yes, because by relying on the context of the Bible and early Christian life (the kind which John would have lived), instead of an English dictionary, I am so wildly changing the meaning of the words. How blind of me, not to notice it before.
 * ????Seriously, do you KNOW how to discuss things intelligently, or do you just enjoy the sound of your own blathering? Fine, let me comment on Global Warming - the Earth is still not as warm as it was BEFORE the Industrial Revolution, many industrial processes produce chemicals that actually COUNTERACT the greenhouse effect, and the Mesozoid and Cambrian eras (in which life was much, much more diverse and flourishing) were much, MUCH warmer than the Earth is today. At worst, we'll convince people to stop building on the damn ocean, and live on the savannah and hills like they're supposed to. By the way, a big part of Venus being so damn hot is that it is 40 MILLION MILES closer to the sun, and has almost no Oxygen or Nitrogen in its atmosphere. At its hottest, Earth was never so hot as Venus. Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 06:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I can clearly see that it is a complete waste of time trying to hold a coherent dialog with you. You are *childish*, you are not funny, you try to be clever and are a complete insolent youth who is convinced. But then, sinners are, that is why the sins are called DEADLY.

You are completely misguided as to what global warming is doing to this planet, but then we all know, over here in the UK what your government is doing to play it down. Your media has an iron grip on you, controls you, and only lets you hear in your news what you want to hear. Proof of this is your dogmatic belief that "many industrial processes produce chemicals that actually COUNTERACT the greenhouse effect", which is complete rubbish. Be rest assured, we all on this planet are living on what we here in the Swansea Astronomical Society call the "Thin Red Line" and global warming is not getting better, it is getting worse, much worse.

And your knowledge of Venus is uninformed. The pressure on it's surface is 90 times the surface pressure of Earth. Yes there is no oxygen and nitrogen because of the *sulphuric acid* rain and CO2 enriched atmosphere that lets in more heat than out. The planet is covered in molten lava, and Venus is 27 million miles closer to the sun. Also, the sun's temperature isn't static and changes considerably. It is a possibility that life did exist on Venus, but then, no-one knows, but argue as much as you like, Venus is a runaway greenhouse planet.

Your country is contributing to global warming more than any other, and your precious republicans are doing everything they can to push many issues you have no idea about, for example, look up Monsanto.

Nevertheless, like I said, it is useless talking to you, *because* you simply don't listen, and from what I gather on your own pages, you are obsessed with anime crap which is about as close to the real world as your understanding of me. Be Good (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)