The Seven Deadly Sins

[kenod]

Officially the list is:

pride
greed
envy
anger
lust
gluttony
sloth




​

Some of these seem to be double sided - for example, pride can lead to striving for excellence, or it can mean thinking we are superior; anger can be seen as a valid response to injustice, or it can mean having a temper tantrum.

It raises the question of what feelings are valid for a Christian to have, and what emotions might be harmful.

Is there any human emotion that is wrong?
Or are feelings wrong only when perverted (desire -> lust), or when take to excess (hunger -> gluttony)?

 

[cavalier]

Officially the list is:

pride
greed
envy
anger
lust
gluttony
sloth





​

Some of these seem to be double sided - for example, pride can lead to striving for excellence, or it can mean thinking we are superior;

I remember being told that the French have 2 words for pride. One for each of the meanings you have given. The deadly sin would be the bad one.

anger can be seen as a valid response to injustice, or it can mean having a temper tantrum.

Indignation might be better word for the first of your two meanings. An emotion which is not a sin itself but which could easily lead onto something sinful. [/quote]

 

[kenod]

I remember being told that the French have 2 words for pride. One for each of the meanings you have given. The deadly sin would be the bad one. Indignation might be better word for the first of your two meanings. An emotion which is not a sin itself but which could easily lead onto something sinful.

Yes, I think there is a lot in how we perceive the words. In the KJV indignation, anger, and wrath are used about God, sometimes in the same passage. When indignation is used about humans it often seems to smack of self-righteousness, eg

Psalm 78:49
He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.


​

Mark 14:4
And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?

Acts 5:17
Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation


​

It concerns me that some Christians feel that they must deny their emotions if they are to be truly spiritual. If it isn't all love, joy and peace they think they are not in the will of the Lord. Grief, fear, anger, hate, etc are all a part of a Christian's life and, I believe, can serve a useful purpose. However, I think excessive, irrational, or prolonged negative feelings can be counter-productive.

​

 

[moseslmpg]

The Wikipedia article on the seven sins explains them in a different way. They say the sins aren't exactly what they are named, in the way we understand them today. For instance, sloth is supposedly spiritual laziness and apathy and not just being too tired to get up and change the channel on the TV.

 

[Quahom1]

Officially the list is:

pride
greed
envy
anger
lust
gluttony
sloth






​

Some of these seem to be double sided - for example, pride can lead to striving for excellence, or it can mean thinking we are superior; anger can be seen as a valid response to injustice, or it can mean having a temper tantrum.

It raises the question of what feelings are valid for a Christian to have, and what emotions might be harmful.

Is there any human emotion that is wrong?
Or are feelings wrong only when perverted (desire -> lust), or when take to excess (hunger -> gluttony)?

Pride (self esteem vs. self importance in the extreme)

Greed (reaching for a dream or goal vs. pretty much hording all, and never satisfied with what one has)

Envy (whimsical wish vs. coveted jealousy)

Anger (indignation vs. unreasonable Rage)

Lust (healthy desire vs. animalistic wantoness, for that which does not belong to one, or is healthy for the one)

Gluttony (acquiring vs. excessive hording)

Sloth (temporary carelessness vs. total apathy towards concern)

None of the attitudes become "deadly" to man's soul until taken to extremes.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[BlaznFattyz]

too bad the english language doesnt lend itself to altering a word to meet its different definitions and extremes. i can see why english is not an accurate language.

 

[Quahom1]

too bad the english language doesnt lend itself to altering a word to meet its different definitions and extremes. i can see why english is not an accurate language.

Quite the contrary. English is the most comprehensive, exact and concise language on earth...that is why it is used for commerce, transportation and international emergency.

No inflection required. No dual meanings to words of emergent import.

v/r

Q

 

[BlaznFattyz]

sure there are some things english is good for, others it falls short. then there is that old saying which i agree somewhat. personally for me nothing sounds as beautiful as speaking about god in spanish. but if you want to do business, for whatever reason, maybe economic superiority, then speak english. i think god purposely chose greek for the new testament for many reasons, and then latin as the translation.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

funny, i was looking up most widely used languages in the world, im assuming thats what u meant by comprehensive. it looks like maybe mandarin is.

LanguageApprox. number
of speakers 1. Chinese (Mandarin)1,075,000,000 2. English514,000,000 3. Hindustani1496,000,000 4. Spanish425,000,000 5. Russian275,000,000 6. Arabic256,000,000 7. Bengali215,000,000 8. Portuguese194,000,000 9. Malay-Indonesian176,000,00010. French129,000,000

 

[Quahom1]

funny, i was looking up most widely used languages in the world, im assuming thats what u meant by comprehensive. it looks like maybe mandarin is.

LanguageApprox. number
of speakers 1. Chinese (Mandarin)1,075,000,000 2. English514,000,000 3. Hindustani1496,000,000 4. Spanish425,000,000 5. Russian275,000,000 6. Arabic256,000,000 7. Bengali215,000,000 8. Portuguese194,000,000 9. Malay-Indonesian176,000,00010. French129,000,000

Of course, forgive me. Mandarin is the next language that the entire world is going to use for international communications, when the people in the next province over, can't understand a lick of it. In the mean time, your flights from every nation on earth (including China), speak to ground control and each other, in English...which by the way, is understood by many who speak Mandarin...

 

[moseslmpg]

Quite the contrary. English is the most comprehensive, exact and concise language on earth...that is why it is used for commerce, transportation and international emergency.

No inflection required. No dual meanings to words of emergent import.

v/r

Q

Are you serious? English is a mess. I agree with the comprehensive, but not exact or precise.

 

[Quahom1]

sure there are some things english is good for, others it falls short. then there is that old saying which i agree somewhat. personally for me nothing sounds as beautiful as speaking about god in spanish. but if you want to do business, for whatever reason, maybe economic superiority, then speak english. i think god purposely chose greek for the new testament for many reasons, and then latin as the translation.

Why didn't you say so? Of course, one of the languages of love...whole heartedly agree, English is not a romantic language. It is cold, precise and specific. There is no passionate flair to it. That may be why it is the international language of communication for day to day, logical sequences. Because there is no room for interpretation.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Are you serious? English is a mess. I agree with the comprehensive, but not exact or precise.

Precise. There is no doubt in your mind when I say, you are in error about the precision of English. My statement was exact, to the point, and precise.

If on the other hand I were to say "Je t'aime" or Je vous aime.

Or if I were to say "I'll n'ya pas de quoi", or "de rien".

or "Je m'ene fiche".

what is it exactly that I was meaning? I like you, or I really like you, or I'm in love with you, or I love you?

How about It is nothing, or not at all, or you are welcome.

Finally, I'm screwed, or I messed up or I am in a mess, or things aren't going well.

English has precise variations of a theme, that are precisely spoken when the nuance to what is felt is needed.

In other languages, the nuance that identifies the thought, must be heard or seen. Otherwise the statement is generic, and subject to interpretation.

Does my statements make sense now?

v/r

Q

 

[moseslmpg]

OK, but what about Buffalo buffalo Buffallo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? What about all the heteronyms and homonyms for that matter? Even the definition of precise. There are different definitions of the word, which would alter the validity of your statement. Unless there is a way to accurately, and precisely measure the preciseness and exactness of English with respect to other languages, I don't think your statement is justified. OK, I'm done being OT.

 

[Quahom1]

OK, but what about Buffalo buffalo Buffallo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? What about all the heteronyms and homonyms for that matter? Even the definition of precise. There are different definitions of the word, which would alter the validity of your statement. Unless there is a way to accurately, and precisely measure the preciseness and exactness of English with respect to other languages, I don't think your statement is justified. OK, I'm done being OT.

Really? give the definition of each "simally", and then maybe as you do, you will see the answer to your own question. Because why? You do so in English, and each has a precise meaning that can be read and verbally understood, depending on the context in which it is being used. For those that are obvious mispellings, it is irrelevant.

Oh, and regardless of the spelling, the meaning (literally) is the same. Unless you wish to use colloqueal jargon, as a counter point...which means you don't really want to know about buffalo, but are trying to bufallo me and make me look stupid, for your own personal benefit. That kind of buffalos me into a confused state, since I had no intention of Buffalowing you...I don't even know you. But I can pick a bad buffalo out of the herd...

v/r

Q

 

[jiii]

Unless there is a way to accurately, and precisely measure the preciseness and exactness of English with respect to other languages, I don't think your statement is justified. OK, I'm done being OT.

Clearly, there is no such method, and no such method could ever really be devised. Furthermore, why would we bother devising one? I hardly think, however, that talking about such things as the preciseness of certain languages is meaningless and moot simply because we can't prove with statistics that we are entirely correct.

 

[cavalier]

funny, i was looking up most widely used languages in the world, im assuming thats what u meant by comprehensive. it looks like maybe mandarin is.

LanguageApprox. number
of speakers 1. Chinese (Mandarin)1,075,000,000 2. English514,000,000 3. Hindustani1496,000,000 4. Spanish425,000,000 5. Russian275,000,000 6. Arabic256,000,000 7. Bengali215,000,000 8. Portuguese194,000,000 9. Malay-Indonesian176,000,00010. French129,000,000

Mandarin.
Figures of how many people in China can actually speak Mandarin are extremely vague, but it's far from the entire population. Also as Q points out, people in one province often can't understand, or have real trouble understanding those from another province.
Many here in Taiwan have no idea what Beijingers are talking about, and vice-versa. They are though, both speaking "Mandarin". You may also be interested to know that Taiwan and Hong Kong have a different writing system to China. And to know that according to the Chinese Communist Party, about 40% of Chinese cannot read and write Mandarin.

English
The figures for English speakers are too low because this does not take into account the huge numbers of people who have English as a second language.


If, by comprehensive, we mean the most widely used then Englsh is the most comprehensive by far.

 

[cavalier]

Clearly, there is no such method, and no such method could ever really be devised. Furthermore, why would we bother devising one? I hardly think, however, that talking about such things as the preciseness of certain languages is meaningless and moot simply because we can't prove with statistics that we are entirely correct.

There is one statistic that we could use, that of how many words each language has. English has far, far more words than any other language.

English is not perfect, but in terms of preciseness, it is the best we have.

 

[cavalier]

Enough of this though, do we really need to define in words exactly waht the seven deadly sins are? We all know in our consciences don't we?

 

[Quahom1]

Enough of this though, do we really need to define in words exactly waht the seven deadly sins are? We all know in our consciences don't we?

I opine yes. We know when we are doing wrong.

(was gonna be a smart ass and rephrase the thought several dozen ways, but I digress)

v/r

Q