7 Deadly Sins and Murder

Hermes

Zos Kia Cultus
Messages
448
Reaction score
15
Points
18
Location
Northern California
..."deadly sin" is rather melodramatic way of putting it but it is as such for millions of believers.
So....since nobody answered my post/confession about my killing feral pigeons, I like to repackage the idea/question.
"Thou Shall Harm No-one" is a mighty goal. But what if you do not believe in death, per se? Can you NOT "kill"? If death does not bring you the same emotions and sense of permanency, would you not have a different measure for "killing"? Would you kill in order to defend you mother? your baby? or anyone dearest to you? Would you think you are spiritually doomed, nevertheless?
 
perception again.... how do you perceive the dream you are creating?

the jain will sweep in front of them to insure they don't step on a creature, only eat what falls from the tree and wear a mask so they don't breathe in any gnats, yet inside their body, in order for them to survive millions of germs and bacteria are having a war while digesting their food and breaking down nutrients to feed themcellves... the friendly flora and fauna are gobbling up and killing things at the speed of light, and that apple, if left to rot could have grown to another tree and created thousands more apples......all life begets death.....

But beyond that.... what if the dog is howling because your son is squealing on that clarinet, working diligently on his scales, whilst driving the entire family crazy.... "Can you stop that infernal noise, learn how to play, or just quit now" or your daughter brings home a picture and asks you to put it on the fridge," Oh honey, I know you can do better than this, look at what your sister has done...." Have you just murdered creativity? Killed a budding artist? Destroyed a goal to play like Benny Goodman?

perspective.....

we are not punished for our sins....but by them.
 
Obviously there is morality in there somewhere. Killing for fun/sport is not so good, killing for food is ok - the Ancients thanked and prayed while processing the carcass they hunted down. His Holiness the Dalai Lama would swat a mosquito especially if in his infinite wisdom he sensed it carried West Nile virus. All act would carry its reaction for karmic balance.
 
yes perspective....

my enemies enemy is my friend...

how does the mosquito become bad by carrying the virus...who is to determine who shall live and who shall die?

killing for food ok? cats, dogs, horses? why or why not?

killing for sport not good? Who says? Why?
 
..."deadly sin" is rather melodramatic way of putting it but it is as such for millions of believers.
So....since nobody answered my post/confession about my killing feral pigeons, I like to repackage the idea/question.
"Thou Shall Harm No-one" is a mighty goal. But what if you do not believe in death, per se? Can you NOT "kill"? If death does not bring you the same emotions and sense of permanency, would you not have a different measure for "killing"? Would you kill in order to defend you mother? your baby? or anyone dearest to you? Would you think you are spiritually doomed, nevertheless?

I would hope not. I did kill in the name of ideology and "for my brothers I served with". Was it right? I just do not know, but I percieve it was not a good thing to do.

See, there is a difference between "what is moral" and "what is right" and "what is ethical". It was "right" that I killed. It was (perhaps) "moral" that I killed (to protect others). Was it "ethical" in some universal sense, I cannot accept that. Just my humble opinion.
 
...you cannot whitewash killing for moral/political reasons yet it happens, and according to my former teacher it is not the worst "sin", if you can even call it that...
betrayal, cowardice, etc there are a lot worse. When death occurs, life spun instantly. Never anyone falls for no reason at all. It is a circle of nature. Judas followed his karma so did Jesus and their paths was forever intertwined.
I would hope not. I did kill in the name of ideology and "for my brothers I served with". Was it right? I just do not know, but I percieve it was not a good thing to do.

See, there is a difference between "what is moral" and "what is right" and "what is ethical". It was "right" that I killed. It was (perhaps) "moral" that I killed (to protect others). Was it "ethical" in some universal sense, I cannot accept that. Just my humble opinion.
 
Judas followed Jesus. Can anyone who 'believes' believe G!d didn' t know would eat the apple or where they were hiding....

take the sop and go do what you must..... it was part of the plan....

Yes we are living the dream of our creation and yes the circle is never complete, the contracts are met, what happens in the future is not determined by our past, it is our past, being played for us....

the endless loop until we understand...
 
"Thou Shall Harm No-one" is a mighty goal. But what if you do not believe in death, per se? Can you NOT "kill"? If death does not bring you the same emotions and sense of permanency, would you not have a different measure for "killing"? Would you kill in order to defend you mother? your baby? or anyone dearest to you? Would you think you are spiritually doomed, nevertheless?
One must abide by the Laws of the Land in which you reside. Moral judgments are subjective though and personally if I judge the killing of someone or something necessary I have no problem with that.
 
Hi Hermes —
..."deadly sin" is rather melodramatic way of putting it but it is as such for millions of believers...
I think you've got the wrong idea about 'deadly sins'.

They originate as a septenary within the Greek philosophical tradition (along with the seven virtues) and were transposed into the Christian Tradition, but I would suggest they are universal.

They are not sins against another, but sins against the self, they are the primary reasons that prevent a person realising their true potential, so they don't really sit within a discussion of sociology or ethics as here.

But what if you do not believe in death, per se? Would you think you are spiritually doomed, nevertheless?
Certainly the Philosophers, and the Fathers after them, regarded 'death', or extinction, as a possibility ... and these were the primary causes.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Is there a difference killing a person (say a criminal in self-defense) and putting down a horse? Both are sins against your self, as you aptly put it....
what about a mosquito? or a rat? Life is a life....
Hi Hermes —

I think you've got the wrong idea about 'deadly sins'.

They originate as a septenary within the Greek philosophical tradition (along with the seven virtues) and were transposed into the Christian Tradition, but I would suggest they are universal.

They are not sins against another, but sins against the self, they are the primary reasons that prevent a person realising their true potential, so they don't really sit within a discussion of sociology or ethics as here.


Certainly the Philosophers, and the Fathers after them, regarded 'death', or extinction, as a possibility ... and these were the primary causes.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Judas followed Jesus. Can anyone who 'believes' believe G!d didn' t know would eat the apple or where they were hiding....

take the sop and go do what you must..... it was part of the plan....

Yes we are living the dream of our creation and yes the circle is never complete, the contracts are met, what happens in the future is not determined by our past, it is our past, being played for us....

the endless loop until we understand...

We can never understand the endless loop because we cannot process the irrational, the self-contradictory, and stories that violate our intuitive morality. Writers who were not even exposed to Greek logic or scepticism created the stories. They served a purpose in giving the Semitic people a worldview, some psychological security that a powerful Space Alien looks after them, and fear of offending that powerful Space Alien.

Warlords, chiefs, shamans, and groups of tribal councils needed the myths with all of their fear, commandments, and unity to help the tribe or clan survive in a world they did not understand. That is not criticism. My own Celtic Ancestors had irrational myths, saviour gods (Lugh), and High Creator Gods, Dagda and Brigit for their Druidic worldview. To the same extent, they had evil gods like the Female Trinity of the Seductress, War Raven, the Crone, and the evil Balor. They served their purpose in a pre-Scientific society.

I do not try to understand the Mythical Tains or that Cuchullain could transform into a giant dog or bear to protect Ireland. The Bible, the Koran, and the Celtic Tains and complex myths must be understood as non-solvable. They served their purposes in a Neolithic and Bronze Age society.

You can’t solve the literal meaning of Jack and the Beanstalk. You must create metaphors.

Amergin
 
Hi Hermes —

I think you've got the wrong idea about 'deadly sins'.

They originate as a septenary within the Greek philosophical tradition (along with the seven virtues) and were transposed into the Christian Tradition, but I would suggest they are universal.

They are not sins against another, but sins against the self, they are the primary reasons that prevent a person realising their true potential, so they don't really sit within a discussion of sociology or ethics as here.


Certainly the Philosophers, and the Fathers after them, regarded 'death', or extinction, as a possibility ... and these were the primary causes.

God bless,

Thomas
Both the Seven Sins and the Ten Commandments are IMO rewritings of ancient Egyptian religion; The "42 Negative Confessions" comes from the 'Book of Going Forth By Day' commonly called the 'Book of the Dead'. This declaration of innocence had to be said by the deceased in the Hall of Two Truths, in order to be purified and to be allowed Rebirth.
 
Both the Seven Sins and the Ten Commandments are IMO rewritings of ancient Egyptian religion ...
Well the Decalogue is common to the Mesopotamian region, not only the Commandments, but even the rite of their enactment ... but there is a distinct difference in the case of the Jews, which sets them apart — they open up a theological dimension ('I will be your God, you will be my people').

But the 'seven deadly sins' are something else, they are universal human traits, flaws of character if you like, a disorder of the passions and thus give rise to sin ... they are traditionally considered 'deadly' because they create the condition in which sin can occur.

In Hindu theology for example, the Arishadvarga correspond to the Seven Deadly Sins: kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobh (greed), moha (attachment), mada/ahankar (pride) and matsarya (jealousy).

In Brahminism, they are the negative characteristics which prevents man from attaining salvation. In Sikhism they are known as the Five Evils, as they are referred to in Sikh Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, which does not include matsarya (jealousy).

The Christian 7DD were taken from Greek philosophy, but that's not to say that the Egyptians didn't have their equivalent, nor that older cultures didn't have theirs ... I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that ideas are passed from one culture to the next like a baton in a relay race, they can arise quite distinctly within cultures, given that man is the same the world over.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Well the Decalogue is common to the Mesopotamian region, not only the Commandments, but even the rite of their enactment ... but there is a distinct difference in the case of the Jews, which sets them apart — they open up a theological dimension ('I will be your God, you will be my people').

But the 'seven deadly sins' are something else, they are universal human traits, flaws of character if you like, a disorder of the passions and thus give rise to sin ... they are traditionally considered 'deadly' because they create the condition in which sin can occur.

In Hindu theology for example, the Arishadvarga correspond to the Seven Deadly Sins: kama (lust), krodha (anger), lobh (greed), moha (attachment), mada/ahankar (pride) and matsarya (jealousy).

In Brahminism, they are the negative characteristics which prevents man from attaining salvation. In Sikhism they are known as the Five Evils, as they are referred to in Sikh Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, which does not include matsarya (jealousy).

The Christian 7DD were taken from Greek philosophy, but that's not to say that the Egyptians didn't have their equivalent, nor that older cultures didn't have theirs ... I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that ideas are passed from one culture to the next like a baton in a relay race, they can arise quite distinctly within cultures, given that man is the same the world over.

God bless,

Thomas
I don't see anything wrong with any of these supposed Sins; greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth

I don see something wrong with the impedance of another's Will and desires though.

Impeding certain 'vices' such as Lust is IMO detrimental, for it is a natural chemically induced emotion necessary for the propagation of species.
Matter of fact Lust is an aspect of Love . . . should we add Love as the 8th Deadly Sin?

Pride is what drives all our great achievements and Art, as a society we need this, it is healthy. Teaching against pride encourages people to be submissive to religious authorities in order to submit to God, thus enhancing institutional church power.

Aristotle's description of pride makes more sense, respect for oneself, as the greatest of all virtues. Rational pride makes a person harder to rule and dominate.

Making Envy a sin encourages people to be satisfied with what they have rather than object to others' unjust power or seek to gain what others have.

Teaching that Gluttony is a sin encourages those with very little to not want more and to be content with how little they are able to consume, since more would be sinful.

Anger? Come on, this is a no brainer, getting a little pissed off at yourself, something or someone else in order to make a change is sometime needed.

Condemning Greed once again is a device that keeps the poor in their place, and prevents them from wanting to have more.

Sloth is the most misunderstood of the Seven Deadly Sins. Often regarded as laziness, it is more accurately translated as apathy: when a person is apathetic, they no longer care about their duty to God and ignore their spiritual well-being. Condemning sloth is a way to keep people active in the church in case they start to realize how useless religion and theism really are.

Just Sayin' :D
 
From the Kalama Sutta


"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed (or hate or delusion) arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this greedy person, overcome by greed(or hate or delusion,) his mind possessed by greed (or hate or delusion,) kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."​

So, it seems that they key is not to let your mind be overwhelmed by these things? (That would certainly be interefering with the Will of a being--your own being!)
 
What philosophers and theologians have been defining and discussing as good or bad (or right or wrong) are precisely these things. There are fancy terms for those that never develop a superego... solipsist or sociopath come to mind. The first believes that the only world is in his or her mind--reality exists only within their mental and physical going ons. As Russell and Whitehead both pointed out, if consistent, it is a verifiable and unarguable view (do not have to accept proof of anything contrary because "I just believe differently"). The second believes there just is just a material world and he or she who dies with the most toys, regardless of how actieved, wins. Psychology pretty well affirms (and behavior) that little or nothing can be done to change such a view.

From a more inclusive and socialize view, the former is just a diversion while the latter is a threat. Even materialist, scientistic, atheistic libertarians would have rules in place to limit the impact of the latter (especially "the impedance of another's Will and desires" via force, lies or trickery).
 
I don't see anything wrong with any of these supposed Sins; greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth

I don see something wrong with the impedance of another's Will and desires though.

Impeding certain 'vices' such as Lust is IMO detrimental, for it is a natural chemically induced emotion necessary for the propagation of species.
Matter of fact Lust is an aspect of Love . . . should we add Love as the 8th Deadly Sin?
:rolleyes:
seattlegal-albums-misc-picture1116-pepe-le-pew.jpg

Wouldn't this be impeding the Will of another?
 
Back
Top