Talk:Seven deadly sins/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of the Symbols of the Sins section (again), and other stuff

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commentary on the request in the first paragraph of discussion.                          

message: 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)
thread_title:  Desert Fathers contribution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major revisions in progress 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article needs serious revision

message: 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't give an Ameriflag 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greed as uncontrollable

message: ===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)
thread_title: Which sin is the Keystone?

message: 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)
thread_title: Greed as Keystone

message: 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)
thread_title: Lust as Keystone

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Pride

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More Work Needed? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Aziraphale

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  We should get rid of the Gilligan's Island stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Childish vs. "Adultish" sins? 

message: "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)
thread_title: What's with this sentence?

message: 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.
* 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.
Errr, I meant extravagance before lust
: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)
thread_title:  Second Request for Serious Revision 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Models portraying 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Venial and Mortal Sins

message: * 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)
thread_title: Proposed Outline for a new article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrath 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Minor revisions for grammar and sense 

message: "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)
replies: text: Sorry, I always though mutual meant loving someone or something purely and not lustfully. My mistake. UnDeRsCoRe 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love and Lust 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seven deadly sins in Protestant thought 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Completely scrap this article and start from scratch? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The order 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Odd wording? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Odd sentence and capitalization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On what basis is lust described as "undesired love"?