Seven Deadly Sins

[Daisy]

These are traditionally Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony.

Do you think they are still relevant to the 21st Century or what would you suggest in their place?

[Mimi]

Intorelence
war

[Daisy]

Mimi - yes, interesting suggestions. Shall we make that 9 deadly sins or can you suggest 2 we can forgive ourselves for?

[Plantaholic]

Unkindness

[Elisi]

These are traditionally Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony.

Do you think they are still relevant to the 21st Century or what would you suggest in their place?

Getting angry solves nothing and creates further confrontation., so shouldn't let that one go. Being greedy, with food or drink or wanting too much. Well perhaps you can let that go. Sloth is an individual thing. Some people are just born like this, so let that go. Pride: in what? Vanity is worse. Pride in what you achieve, or in your family or work. As long as it's kept in perspective that can go. Lust: for what? another human being or money or power? IMHO that stays. Envy is pointless and soul destroying so that also stays. Gluttony again is very individual and perhaps some people cannot help this for physical or mental reasons so cannot condemn everyone.

[Guest]

These are traditionally Wrath, Greed, Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy and Gluttony.

Do you think they are still relevant to the 21st Century or what would you suggest in their place?

Oh yes, although the definition of each of them would be a little different these days.

Wrath: all war mongerers, all those who abuse others especially children, all those who cause distress by a cutting and nasty tongue

Greed: all of us really, we all have far more possessions than we need, but some are really deadly. 5% of the world's population own 96% of the world's wealth. That is the real scandal, but anyone who is blessed with material good and fails to share with family, friends and the wider community with which they are involved, is guilty to an extent too.

Sloth: well, we've all worked with lazy people who fail to do their fair share and make constant excuses for their inertia. Just imagine what workplaces and communities would be like if everyone gave their bast according to their abilities.

Pride: in its original sense it's that attitude which despises others and holds them to be of no account. It's a sense of extreme self regard and and a careless dismissal of others. It doesn't include the modern sense of appropriate pride in good achievement.


Lust: certainly. That includes the incessant pornography which invests the media, the casual taking up and discarding of sexual partners without thought of the hurt and pain that it causes and the objectification of (mainly) women which reduces human beings to sexual objects.


Envy: that's an odd one in that it hurts the envied more than the envied. I suppose it's there because a constant dwelling of what one doesn't have leads to a sourness of character and unhappiness which then impacts on everyone around.


Gluttony: I don't think this is just being a bit of a piggy! It's also an extreme fussiness of those who reject perfectly good food, lovingly prepared, because, for example, 'Oh I can only eat organic vegetables' or 'Sorry about that, but I like my egg just so - five minutes exactly and butter please not one of those spreads'. You get the idea. It's also the wanton wasting of food instead of using scarece resources properly.

So, yes, I think they still stand, but I do think we all need to think about the way they can be interpreted for today.

[Plantaholic]

Thanks MS for that.

[Elisi]

A very thought provoking read Minny, thank you.

[Daisy]

As Elisi says, those are interesting comments, Minny. What prompted me to ask the question was thinking about greed - not for food, but possessions, money, influence. We all want more, more, more, and sometimes that is to the detriment of someone else. But then I thought that things - goods and services - that we buy enable other people to earn money to live by providing those goods and services.

[Guest]

Good point, Daisy. But I think it's the inequity that constitutes greed. I don't see anything wrong in making or buying beautiful objects or valuable services - as you say, that's what keeps the economy going. It's when so few have far too much, and so many struggle for basic necessities that greed is the right description.

[Elisi]

Although some would argue that greed is an inherent part of human nature, and if those who have not much now, are given more, they will simply continue to want more and more! If you are starving, you have not got the time or energy to philosophise. When you have plenty and your belly is full, wine is to hand, and a good TV programme is coming on soon, THAT is when we should be content enough to start thinking of the nature of greed, what we have, if we really do need to continue acquisition for its own sake, and how to control it. Plus how to help those less fortunate. So, like everything else, greed as a concept has layer upon layer upon layer of meaning.

[Daisy]

Elisi - I agree. If you are in absolute poverty and your basic needs for food, water, shelter and safety are not met attaining those things is your priority. It sounds a bit like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, doesn't it! But at what point does 'need' become 'greed'? Even in our lifetimes the things we consider 'essential' have changed dramatically. Should we be looking for a life that is less full of possessions? For example, how many of us have talked about decluttering our homes, or sorting out our wardrobes. In effect we have acquired things we don't either want or need. If we continue with our insatiable desire to have more and more, what are we doing to the world's finite resources?

[Elisi]

It is very true that the more we have the more we seem to want Daisy. But at least we recognise this. The real problem is when people just acquire things for no good purpose other than to possess them. Perhaps this all boils down to educating the young to only buy what they really need? I am as guilty as the next man! I have clothes and shoes, furniture and objects I could well live without although I do make an effort to give the surplus to charity, I still have too much if measured by those in the developing world who have virtually nothing. I don't consider myself greedy, but hang on a minute! I enjoy my holidays. Those who are struggling for food and clean water can only dream of taking a break from the unrelenting poverty and hopelessness of their lives. So, yes, guilty as charged! I enjoy a standard of living a billion people can only dream of.

In so many ways we are impotent in being able to change this on a personal level. Yes we can be more circumspect in what we buy and eat, and so on. But how does that help someone who is starving?

IMHO it helps in that, as you rightly say, not abusing the planet's finite resources. We are all aware of the huge amounts of money sent by the UK as aid to developing countries (not all of them needing it)! and when we pay Tax, a tiny part of this goes to helping others. There are many highly respected organisations working hard to make some difference where it is needed. So, the question is, knowing all this do we sit back and put it all to one side and get on with our lives, or, be active in some way, which in turn, makes us less greedy? Or does it? Does it only make us feel self satisfied? Difficult thoughts!

[Guest]

It is very true that the more we have the more we seem to want Jean. But at least we recognise this. The real problem is when people just acquire things for no good purpose other than to possess them. Perhaps this all boils down to educating the young to only buy what they really need? I am as guilty as the next man! I have clothes and shoes, furniture and objects I could well live without although I do make an effort to give the surplus to charity, I still have too much if measured by those in the developing world who have virtually nothing. I don't consider myself greedy, but hang on a minute! I enjoy my holidays. Those who are struggling for food and clean water can only dream of taking a break from the unrelenting poverty and hopelessness of their lives. So, yes, guilty as charged! I enjoy a standard of living a billion people can only dream of.

In so many ways we are impotent in being able to change this on a personal level. Yes we can be more circumspect in what we buy and eat, and so on. But how does that help someone who is starving?

IMHO it helps in that, as you rightly say, not abusing the planet's finite resources. We are all aware of the huge amounts of money sent by the UK as aid to developing countries (not all of them needing it)! and when we pay Tax, a tiny part of this goes to helping others. There are many highly respected organisations working hard to make some difference where it is needed. So, the question is, knowing all this do we sit back and put it all to one side and get on with our lives, or, be active in some way, which in turn, makes us less greedy? Or does it? Does it only make us feel self satisfied? Difficult thoughts!

Indeed, so many points to ponder. I suppose we are all part of the society we have been born into and none of us can change the world, but we can start in small ways. First our family because that's where our influence will be the greatest. Bringing up our children to be generous, unselfish and so on will spread that further. Then our immediate friends and the wider community that we live in. And then the much wider world. I think we have to choose what we do in that regard. For most people there will be a personal connection, because that's what humans are like, and I certainly don't think it's wrong to feel good about doing good! I know there are the naysayers who scoff at what they choose to call 'dogooders' but they are often people who do nothing and seek to justify their selfishness. After all, the recipient of a good deed or a service or a gift doesn't have it spoilt if the giver feels good about it. Perhaps if they were boastful, but that's very different.