The Seven Deadly Sins are just instincts yet Christianity relies on them to exist

The Seven Sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth.

Each "sin", associated with it's own "demon", are all part of self-gratification; be it emotional, physical or mental. All humans find these "sins" almost instinctual or natural.

To be greedy is to desire to attain wealth, power or objects (usually to a luxurious extent). To be envious is to look upon what others have and desire to attain them for oneself. Simply; these two "sins" are the two motivations behind ambition. In other words; do not be ambitious for it is a sin. To be a glutton is to simply over-indulge in food and drink - to which the next "sin", pride, would cause you to act in a way that boosted your self-respect and counteracted the gluttonous results of, say, obesity. Anyone who has dressed in something with a purpose other than to cover their nudity and stay warm is guilty of pride. Do not eat more than you need to keep you alive, for it is a sin. Also, do not have pride in your appearance or self, for it is also. Avoiding a task at hand or being reluctant to wake in the morning, something we've all experienced at least once, is to be guilty of sloth. Lounge for too long and you may be guilty of another "sin", lust. Having a stirring of sexual desire, or "wicked imaginations" as put by the Bible, is a "sin". Essentially, man's second strongest instinct and the reason we are all alive, is a "sin". You may be wondering what the strongest instinct is; self-preservation (staying alive). This fits in nicely with the last of the deadly sins; anger (also referred to as wrath). Surely, the instinct of a human when harmed is to become angry (demonstrate wrath) in order to protect ourselves from further attack and fulfil this basic survival instinct of self-preservation? Let no wrong go un-addressed; we see this in the justice system every day.

Since most forms of self-gratification are sins; all men are sinners and according to Christianity, they will go to Hell. In order to go to "God's Kingdom" or Heaven, we have to confess these "sins", pray to God for forgiveness of these "sins" and so on. Essentially; follow this religion because you don't want to go to this place. Man's instincts keep Christianity in existence.

Let's take a minute to look at the definition of sin again, and how it leads to immoral. Looking at immoral, we see "accepted standards of morality". Is it not true that accepted standards of morality have changed over the centuries? We no longer think sex is dirty - or that pride is shameful - or that aspiring to have that of someone else is vicious. When a calf grows it becomes a cow, when magic or speculation in philosophy becomes scientific fact it becomes medicine, astronomy and so forth. So why not the same with religion? Why, when we outgrow or no longer find it reasonable to live by its rules does Christianity still practice the same rules and go by the same name, when even it's followers no longer follow much of what its scriptures say? Why continue to support a belief which is contradictory with your natural instinct?
To try to live by these rules, is to die trying; keeping the Church in business. It reminds me immensely of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie - in the way that the religious leaders try to suppress any glimpse of ambition or pride with these "sins" - a way of controlling the masses - which is no longer relevant in modern society.

Times have changed but man has not. What remains is organisation of old religion. It is time, I'm sure you'll agree, that human beings stopped fighting themselves in the name of old religion and belief, and devoted their time to building temples designed for man's indulgences and enjoyment instead.

 

Ok so to start off, you're criticizing man as a whole for believing in the contradictions to human nature from these 7 deadly sins. First off, you stated it yourself, these are Christian beliefs. Christians consist of 32% of the world's population and is slowly declining (not declining in a sense of a smaller follower group but rather not growing as fast) and has been over taken in speed by Islam for example. 23% of the population is Muslim (whom do not believe in these 7 deadly sins) and is the fastest growing religion in the world (23% is pretty huge considering that it came 622 years after Christianity).

You cannot criticize man as a whole for Christian ideals, coming from someone who is not Christian and doesn't believe in such deadly sins. However, I do see (but do not agree) with where Christianity is coming from in the sense of these deadly sins. You have to put your scientific beliefs aside and understand where the Christians are coming from. They believe that this "instinct" is actually an "urge" that was put in every human by God to act as a test. You want to do it naturally but you must control yourself not to since this life is mortal and the reward afterwards is immortal. It's pretty much faith, and if you don't have it then you simply won't believe it.

I do however agree with you in the sense that the Church has turned into a business and has lost its divine sense. I liked your Marxist social class comparisons, pretty neat.

However the sins do differ from religion to religion again, Christianity is only 32% of the population. You can't criticize "religion" and only speak of Christianity. For example in Islam the 7 sins are:
1) associating anything or anyone else with God
2) witchcraft
3) killing one whom God has declared inviolate without a just case
4) consuming the property of an orphan
5) devouring usury,
6) turning back/deserting when the army advances
7) false accusation of chaste women who are believers but indiscreet.

Which do seem a bit more sensible.

I'm awaiting your response

 

For the most part, I think this is spot-on. The (Catholic/Christian) Church has been using many devious manipulation tactics since their conception. The must keep the masses fearful and docile, and the 7 deadly sins were a phenomenal way of doing so. Think of it: make a list of things to keep people from enlightenment/rebellion and tell them they're all mandatory for salvation! As evil as they were, the Catholic Church had some tricky motherfuckers running around.

However, I disagree that ambition should qualify as a sin. Leaving behind greed and jealousy, some humans have ambition and strive to better themselves and their world for the sole purpose of doing so. Is it not possible to naturally live without greed or jealousy and yet retain ambitions/goals?

 

It is posed against Christians, and Christianity - not everyone else. It was purposely aimed at those with these beliefs stated in Christianity. You may assume by religion I mean this one exclusively.

Yes, there are other forms of ambition that may not be considered as sin using greed and envy - but just shows that greed and envy are natural for anything to progress. Charity work and making the world a better place are very welcomed, but without greed or envy business and industry does not prevail.

 

Alright I should have guessed but wasn't sure since you were speaking of "religion" a lot. However my idea still stands:

You have to put your scientific beliefs aside and understand where the Christians are coming from. They believe that this "instinct" is actually an "urge" that was put in every human by God to act as a test. You want to do it naturally but you must control yourself not to since this life is mortal and the reward afterwards is immortal. It's pretty much faith, and if you don't have it then you simply won't believe it.


However as a non-Christian I wouldn't be able to debate as much about it since I disagree a ton about it too

 

I can understand what you're saying; but why would an all-knowing God need a test? God should know whether someone is all-faithful without suppressing man's needs and desires for his entire life - needs and desires that he gave man, might I add.

 

God is all knowing but he gives man free will once he is born. He knows the future and what he is going to do, but he didn't plan that. The person did it on their own. Why would he need a test? Why does he need humans? The only reason religiously speaking humans were created was to worship and praise God. He gives us a test to see if we are willing to do something for Him after everything He has done for us. We pass the test, He rewards us using his infinite power. You can't say He's suppressing us when He is the one who created us.

In the end, the roots of religion is faith in the unseen. Some people refuse to believe in the unseen while others do believe in it.

 

Why give man desires and things provided for self-gratification, just to suppress those feelings? Talk about giving someone a cake they can't eat, lol. If people want to dedicate their lives to the possibility that this is a test, to deny yourself self-gratification and live a possessionless, non-sexual, unnatural life for that possibility of being accepted by God - then more fool them. Who would want to be accepted by such a creature.

 

With the exception of the "don't commit adultery" rule, basically all of the other mainly practiced rules of Christianity are reflections of categorical imperatives. Sex is the only real "instinct" that the church denies people on moral principle alone.

 

That's what Adam and Eve's fall from grace implied - their descendants (all humans) would carry the original sin.

Greed and envy are two possible motivations for being ambitious; they are not the only ones. Can you not be be ambitious and have philanthropic or simply charitable motives?

That seems non sequitur. Maybe you can rephrase it?

If I wear a coat given to me by my grandfather because it has sentimental value, have I become prideful?

I thought gluttony was indulgence to the point of being a potentially harmful vice.

I guess

There is a difference between procreation and wicked imaginations.

So does pacifism.

That does not mean anger cannot be controlled.

Man's instincts fomented the institution of Christianity, or so the story goes. For what did Christ die, and what did his death bring about?

Don't you mean, A failure to comply with established standards of morality?

They have

But it usually is

I've never thought of knowledge originating in philosophy and then developing into science. From what I understand the two fields proceed in tandem, answering different questions and appealing to different kinds of knowledge, but often influencing each other. You'll find a prominent example of the latter point in the physics of the early 20th century, when the same minds that produced the revolution began to turn to ancient knowledge from the Greeks to the East.

I agree with you on this point, but perhaps its not the axioms of the religious institutions that need revision, but rather our perception of them.

I think in some way, shape or form morality will always be relevant within societies. And perhaps so will the abuse by those in power to exploit the human desire to be moral.

Maybe, but did you not say that standards of morality have changed over the centuries? From where does that change emerge if not from society?

True that

You ever been to a mall?

 

Your saying progress only follows greed and envy?

The testing you refer to is never apparent until after it has occurred; it is when you most strive to be 'good' that your desire is put to the test. You encounter all sorts of things everyday, things which cause you to consider whether or not you should actually do them. We often claim to be good people, but then how often do we act against that which only in retrospect reveals itself as an opportunity to have done good.

 

Marquis De Sade argued the same. He wrote a novel about it named the 120 Days of Sodom. He argued that man should act on all of their desires and indulges in them freely. He was a big proponent of sexual promiscuity and violence in sexuality. He is the origins of the word Sadism. It's an interesting philosophy but I don't really think it is a viable life philosophy.

Your argument is kind of a basic look at theology and not really a valid summation of the theology when contrasted to moral. Before you accuse me of being religious and offended I am not. Theology can be secular in nature, actually one of the writers I read often who writes on H.P. Lovecraft is a former baptist minister who now criticizes the Bible and the numerous flaws. His podcast is called The Bible Geek and it is really cool to listen to. He knows his shit.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.php

 

Yes. I didn't intend to say I meant all ambition - but certainly a lot of ambition is aspiring to have what someone else has, or more than what someone else has. Yes, you can be ambitious without sinning - but you probably fall under another type of "sin" - which my overall point of the first para was, to point out that everyone is a sinner.

I wasn't quite sure how to phrase it. You're sinning by being over-indulgent and say, becoming obese. But even rectifying it, taking pride in your appearance and having self-respect to counteract it is sinning - so you can't escape "sin" either way.

Again, like ambition, there are several ways you can do these things without sinning but still fall in to another - to achieve the conclusion I intended to write about - which is that we all are sinners, and the Church wants that.

Maybe

"Lust" is referred to as wicked imaginations. Am I sinning to imagine having sex with someone before it happens? Don't we all?

The point is it's a natural instinct. It can be controlled, so can sexual desire. But why should it be? I don't mean beat the crap out of someone who offends you; but you make it known it has offended you and wont be tolerated. These are our building blocks of being human.

It's dirty - but what I meant to say was that it's not frowned upon AS MUCH to have sex freely and with multiple people, etcetera. Humans are designed so that they want to have sex for pleasure and not just to have babies.

What I suppose I was trying to refer to is that every scientific discovery comes from people asking questions about the current theory or believed fact. Like the Earth being flat. Til someone questioned it and thought "wait a minute", it was just accepted. It takes philosophy to question what we know and better it, in my opinion. Bad words maybe, but you get where I'm trying to go (I hope).

Mm, sarcy. These giant holy temples, made with stone and treated with such respect - should be dedicated to embracing who we are, what satisfies us, what drives us - not segregating ourselves in to outdated religion.

Without greed and envy, A LOT OF (not all) people wouldn't be as successful as they are today. Business people, performers, your council-house school drop-out that became a millionaire - that was all aspiring to have what someone else had and wanting it for yourself. People coin greed and envy as bad words, bad actions, bad intention - but it's all totally natural in a meritocracy like most places have today.

 

My friend, I do understand where you are coming from, and it is a valid assertion. There is much that is in need of revision within the Christian institutions (which are distinct from the religion's axioms); I have heard Muslims say the same about the sectarian institutions operating under the moniker of 'Islamic.' The struggles between individuals and the group called society are manifest in many ways - religion is one of the foremost examples.
I do not want to go about this topic in circles, so all I will say is that we must be careful with how and to what we reduce matters as historically fundamental as religion. When we do so too quickly we often overlook the vast number of reciprocating events and initiatives, without which we would not be where we are today. And there is much to be said for the fact that we are here at all.

 

That's an excellent point. He should know this