Zoggie, see, that was kinda my point in mentioning that we have had representatives of at least four faith systems - Episcopalean (sorry, Poly, I know that’s spelled wrong), See my sig, Buddhist and Catholic - come in and say that the SDS are not good things.
So it’s not just about “God” being insecure. It’s about certain traits/mindsets/however you want to define the SDS being “bad” for humans in general. (Other species have refused to chime in on the subject.) Much like the fact that most faith systems have some version of “Do Unto Others,” banning or shunning those who exhibit the SDS until they change their ways is a good way to keep a community running in some semblance of harmony.
And I like the usage of “Hubris” to narrow down that we’re not talking about self-esteem or the satisfaction of a job well done … just as I mentioned “Lechery” as an alternate word for the SDS having to do with “wrongful” sex.
BTW, while I’m at that…
In my native tongue, Hubris/Pride as a “deadly sin” was and is to this day rendered as “soberbia,” as in thinking of yourself as superb, and carries a definite negative connotation of a sneering attitude.
“Lust for power” obviously is something different that “Lust(Lechery), Deadly Sin, collect all 7, win valuable prizes.” But there is a difference between a vocation for public service and a healthy ambition for advancement to a position where you can do the maximum good; vs. a blind obsession to seize power at all cost (including destruction of the innocent). Machiavelli advises the Ruler to be feared, but warns him to avoid in every possible way becoming hated for then he or his House will certainly fall.
Zoogie, you may have noticed that many of us have been able to discuss these moral rules w/o appeal to denomination-specific doctrine. However, since your OP was to the effect of how come the list includes what it includes, jmullaney stated ONE religious tradition’s specific application of the SDS. (and yes, in that tradition, God just cares about our well-being; and no, emotional disorders are not sins in and of themselves)
The thread on how come God should care to be worshipped or legislate rules for the worshippers to follow would be a different one
Yes! YES! THIS is what I love about the SDMB! Before I found this place I was the only person I knew who had EVER given a moment’s thought to the SDS, much less had realized that the reason they are so deadly is because they are normal, even POSITIVE, things taken to the extreme. And CheapBastid’s Buddhist perspective is PRECISELY the same for V2 Catholics and ELCA Lutherans (AKA, “liberal” Christians), near as I can tell. Of course, I could be interpreting those belief systems in light of my own, assembled, beliefs, but…
And I thought it was original with me. It probably was original with the guy who first came up with the list. Aquinas? Anselm? Bueller? Anybody know who?
But, yep, it fits tightly into most structures of moral interpretation… presuming the system has “good and evil behavior” categories to begin with; there are “ethical systems” which do not. (The quotes show what I think of those systems!:D)
I did a long post over on the Pizza Parlor about the philosophia perennis – the idea of Greek Christian philosophers about 1500 years ago that all ethical and metaphysical systems are at rock bottom one. (Do not let this reference hijack the thread into a debate about whether there’s any truth to this.) The reason I bring it up is that one can find examples of moral strictures and metaphysical concepts very reminiscent of each other in the oddest places: Vedanta Hinduism, for example, the Tao Te Ching, the Granth, the Koran, the Bible, Bertrand Freaking Russell’s work…you name it. This is a clearcut case of that sort of thing: the idea that “evil” is merely a perversion of good (which I will not suggest is parallel to how cold is a lack of heat or darkness is a lack of light, in view of how many camels carrying these concepts on their humps GD posters can load onto one thread as it passes through a needle’s eye (probably the one with a mote in it).
At rock bottom, Truth is One. But it is so multifold that everyone seizes one piece of it, and proclaims how much the elephant is like a tree, a snake, a rope, etc.
Here and there, Bill – grouping them into seven is merely a convenience invented by Gregory. It’s just like the Nine Choirs of Angels (seraphim, cherubim, thrones, archangels, etc.) – they’re all listed off in the Bible, mostly in St. Paul, but it took a guy named Dionysius whom everybody mistook for the one St. Paul converted on Mars Hill to collect them together into one list.
Oh!!! :smacks forehead: Thanks, Poly – I didn’t know a “throne” was a type of angel. There’s a quote from Porete’s book which I like (my copy is on loan) – wherein God gets rather, shall we say “medieval” on the unvirtuous. It goes something like: “I have sent thrones to purify you, seraphim to enlighten you, and cherubim to enflame you, but you have ignored their council.” And here I’ve been wondering how the heck a decorated couch purifies anyone!
I have learned a lot too. Yes, dropzone, there IS another person (maybe even one or two- hundred) whose every waking thought is fixated on the SDS.
I still don’t think they’re all that bad, but I know more than I did prior to the thread. But that’s alright, seeing as we have freedom of religion here in the good ole U.S. of A.
I never knew thrones were a type of angel. What type ARE they? I know that cherubim are the cute baby-esque ones, and seraphim are the fiery six winged angels that attend the throne of God (on a vocab test of recent- sheesh, scary).
I have grown up on an island, with a relatively small community (limited because the resources of the island are limited). I care for all the people of my community (even if I don’t necessarily like all of them). I have somehow managed to never hear of any of the world’s major religions.
However, I have learned the following:
If I eat more than my “fair share” (however that is determined), then someone else in my community will go hungry. Since I do not want to go hungry, I presume neither will anyone else, and I will therefore not be gluttonous.
Similarly, if I hoard all the wood and leaves from the local Truffula Trees, my fellow citizens will not have shelter or clothing. Since I do not wish to go without shelter or clothing, neither does anyone else, so avarice is out.
I can, if I choose, not go out and do my fair share of the chores. However, if something critical goes undone (like, say, planting or weeding), then due to the limited resources on the island someone may go hungry or unclothed or otherwise be put at risk. So, in order that everyone has what they need, I will not be slothful.
Although I may think my neighbor’s spouse makes a better Thneed blanket than I can, and may be jealous of that talent, destroying that piece of artwork is not going to gain me what I desire, and denying them that blanket may cause them to freeze to death at night. Therefore, I am more likely to ask them to teach me than to be envious.
Picking a fight with my neighbor and knocking his head in because he and I had a disagreement on some subject is going to reduce the ability of his family to survive, and will reduce the ability of all of my community to produce the things we need. So, while it is okay for he and I to be angry with each other, carrying that past anger and into wrath is not ok.
Not only that, but if I start to believe that my way is the only right way, there will certainly be dissent within my community. As such, the community’s ability to produce for each other will decline, leading to trouble for everyone to survive. It is okay for my neighbor’s spouse to be proud of their work on the thneed blankets, but for him/her to declare that he/she is the only person that can make such blankets would overwhelm him/her, and therefore cause others to lack blankets with the concommittant freezing problem. Her Hubris would be a Very Bad Thing.
Lust (Lechery), however, I have not yet come up with a good analogy for.
What do y’all think?
Re: Thrones. I dunno. Cherubim, however, as referred to in the Bible are not the cute ones that look like babies. That’s a renaissance conceit, IIRC
Which isn’t exacly how it first occured to me to interpret this verse:
But I truly trust in the divine guidance of Pope Gregory and the theologians on this one. (I remain uncertain as to the dancing and the pins, mind you. )
Thrones are the third nearest to God, according to St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica (following the lead of St. Denis)
).