Too be fair, there is still discussion on what exactly ofermode means in this context. The Battle of Maldon was almost certain written by a Christian and probably a monk: one Christianizing interpretation is that the cause of Byrhtnoth’s defeat was his “pride”. Other probable interpretations turn on “recklessness” for ofermode. This emphasizes a military rather than a moral failing.
I don’t disagree with your analysis at all. If I see an opportunity for an Old English tangent, I usually take it.
Pride, like the other six deadly sins, are sins because they are fundamentally “perverted” forms of love; Pride is excessive love of self (this is why Evagrius of Pontus, who first drew up the list, called them “passions”). Please don’t take that last sentence to imply that proud people are perverted; I mean to use the word in the sense of twisted or mis-applied.
To call them “Deadly” is a mis-translation of the original term “capital vices”. “Capital” here is used in the sense that these are the primary font of other sins (e.g. greed leads to the sin of theft), not “capital” as in “capital punishment”.
I think it was Dante who suggested the mis-directed love foundation of these sins in his Inferno. As love is the single, foundational principle of Christianity (if perhaps not always the practice), I personally find it a useful way to interpret them.
Pride is a deadly sin because it precludes correction, confession, contrition, atonement, improvement. If you arrogantly refuse to consider the possibility that you could be in the wrong, you’ll never get any better. People around you will find you insufferable, and you’ll be cruisin’ for a bruisin’ (aka “Pride goeth before a fall.”).
Pride in this sense is the opposite of humility and teachability.
I realize that the term “Pride” can have numerous meanings, including hubris. The problem is the term “Sin”. That is the real difference between the great Greek story tellers who show hubris/pride as cometh before a fall, akin to folly. “Sin” connotes guilt that extends to ones deserving of eternal punishment, hardly an equal reaction to the action of Pride in ones life. Pointing out that one acting inappropriatly can cause unwanted results is one thing…making it a SIN is more analgous to yet another tool of oppression.
Only in certain strains of western Christianity. A better understanding of sin is its literal meaning in Greek of “missing the mark”, i.e. of acting according to our fallen nature, rather than our original nature. When one sins, one fails to live up to what one was intended to be.
Whether you want to call it “missing the mark” or just plain doing dumb things, all “strains” of Christianity consider Sins proofs of our fallen nature, together which make us hell bound unless we accept the atonement of Christ or whatever else they might have to sell you at the time.
If there is some Christian sect that completely ignores the bible (hell is, I believe, more mentioned than Heaven in the new testament) and claims that the only reaction to doing dumb things like being prideful is merely the outcome of such actions contained within the mortal lifespan IE NO eternal consequence, It would look an awful lot like buddhism.
Christianity is the great homogenizer, the cultural steamroller that flattens every unique expression into a monofilament. The Empire in Starwars, the Borg in Star Trek etc. For this reason, Pride is defined as “Sin” to give it eternal consequence, rather than just being labelled “a simple error with earthly consequences only” Its the fuel for the steamroller.
A child steps cautiously away from his parent, on unsteady feet, and walks alone for the first time. On his face is a rapt expression of joy, that he has done this thing alone. He looks to his parent, and laughs with pride. His pride is free of comparison to any other deed or person. He is simply joyful in his own being, and proud to have done what he wanted to do.
I have trouble understanding why anyone thinks God despises this child’s open joy.
Later in life, the same child receives a gift, a toy of great value. He plays with the toy, and shows it to his friends. The toy is marvelous, and the child’s ownership of it gives him stature among his playmates. He refuses to allow them to play with it, unless they grant him privilege, to lead the play, to choose the players. He finds that he enjoys this new status.
How can anyone, man or God fail to see the harm this sin of pride is doing to the child we watched take his first step in joy?
I believe the Lord loves you enough to share the hurt you do to yourself, with your false pride, just as He shares the joy that your just pride brings you.
Pride also minimizes empathy: when we assume that whatever unfortunante situation someone else is in because we would have been too smart/too strong/too beautiful/ too whatever for that to happen to us, we lose the ability to ache for others, and ultimitely the ability to connect to others at all.
Not really. While it is popular to see everything that emanated from Christianity as a ploy for power and control, the fact is that in all societies those who have been prompted to engage in wicked acts as the result of hubris, superbia, mod, or pride have been condemned and often punished. (See the Furies (Eumenides or Erinyes).) In addition, you are now changing your position. At first you claimed that Christianity invented the notion for the purpose of oppressing people. Now you admit that everyone had the same idea that it was wrong, but Christianity simpy applied a harsher standard to the results. If you wish to assert the latter, fine, but your original statement to which I objected was simply in error.
mrrealtime, you seem to be taking “Christianity has always been and must always be used only to oppress people” as a fundamental axiom and basing your other arguments on it. I wish you’d reconsider that. I do not think it’s based in Reality.
My original statement was misinterpreted, so I added clarification. In my first statement, I should have emphasised the word SIN when I said “making pride a sin” as opposed to stating merely that pride is unwise. That has been true since the beginning of time.
Thudlow Boink -
First of all, I have not made or implied that statement. There are probably hundreds of tenants held to or even that originated with Christianity that I live by. However, the idea of making things “SINS” implying the need for salvation from an external source is, in my opinion, a tool of oppression. The very idea of something being a “SIN” as opposed to just being in poor judgement is what I have an issue with. I believe the OP asked “why is pride a sin”, not “whats wrong with pride”. I assumed the OP would understand that pride - hubris is probably not a great idea in general.
Maybe the debate centers on the meaning of the word “sin.”
I think someone like Thomas Aquinas (in the OP’s link) would take issue with your wording “making things ‘SINS.’” According to his Natural/Moral Law perspective, if I understand it correctly, he wasn’t “making” anything a sin, but determining (with the help of reasoning and experience) what was a sin according to the true nature of reality. It’s kind of like the difference between making it illegal to drive above a certain speed on a certain stretch of road, and determining that it’s unsafe to drive above a certain speed on a certain stretch of road (due to the danger of rollover, etc.).
But if I really wanted to do the question justice, I would have to read up on exactly what is meant by “[a] sin,” perhaps starting with this page (which says that “Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act”—along with a whole bunch of other stuff that I don’t feel like wading through right now) and then going on to consult other perspectives.
Depending on how you define it and what the context is, Pride itself can be good or bad. Sin as defined by a morally bad act is also extant beyond the confines of Christianity, its just a term for exactly that, a morally bad act. As long as the idea of Sin remains within the confines of this life, and its effects arent extrapolated to eternity by a ruling class, then I have no problem with the idea of calling Pride a Sin. However, my guess is that most people would tend to equate the eternal consequence of purgatory/gehenna as implied by the definition, and therefore judge that some form of retribution beyond the confines of the physical world is required to make amends.
This, I think, is the exact reason for the OP’s question. Unlike the other “deadly” sins, pride is somewhat ambiguous with respect to sin. I think the change has something to do with the evolving definition of words.
The words “gluttony”, “lust”, “envy”, and “lust” are defined as evils. Sloth and anger less so, mainly because in the modern age we equate sloth only with lack of physical activity (the original term simply meant lack of zeal, be it physical or mental), and the modern understanding of anger as a natural, somewhat uncontrollable action leaves modern man less ready to accept the emotion itself as a sin (on the other hand, acting on anger alone is still universally condemned).
Pride is another matter, as we can easily imagine contexts where pride is a virtue. I think the problem lies in the changing definition of the word over the centuries; would it be better, perhaps, to call the sin “Vanity” or “Arrogance”?
Y’know, it’s kinda irrelevant, as these are not always or even generally considered sins. Rather, they are bad things which can lead to sin or to our alienation from society. In fact, they are poorly understood mostly because of translation errors. No doubt my Church has made many errors over the years, but this… is not one of them.
If it helps at all, in French, there are two words that are translated by “pride”: fierté and orgueuil. Fierté means self-esteem, dignity, etc.; orgueuil means vainglory or hubris. The deadly sin is orgueuil.
And Lust is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the human race. My impression of what the Church teaches is that it’s the excess of the acts or qualities delineated which makes them sins. In other words, you’re not culpable for Gluttony if you eat enough to sustain yourself, or even a sumptuous feast occasionally. You could think of it as a religious interpretation of what the public health community tells us about overeating and overdrinking today. I recommend the OP see the Perfect Master’s explanation in the Straight Dope Archives.
