My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Seven Deadly Sins

K3vin

Registered User
Wikipedia lists; "In the currently recognized version, the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony."

The one attracting my attention is gluttony, being overweight, it is the one item in the list I haven't given much thought to. As a society, Americans have been increasing in girth.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this often overlooked "sin"?
 

cog41

Premium Member
Personally I consider the seven to be the ones listed in Proverbs 6:16-19.

But you ask about gluttony so here goes. I must admit I've been guilty more than a time or two. I'm only 8 lbs. overweight but there have been times I failed to control myself and simply gorge for no other reason than it just taste good.
I would attribute its deadlier form to the practice of gluttony. By practice I mean a person who continuously and without self control over does it almost every time they eat. We know it isn't healthy physically but sometimes it may also lead to an attitude of over indulgence in other aspects of life. That attitude may become greed or selfishness and We stop thinking of others simply to satisfy our own appetite for whatever it is we want to consume at the time.
Just my short hop opinion.
 

Companion Joe

Premium Member
wrath - I don't get too worked up about stuff
greed - money doesn't drive me; as long as I can pay my bills, I'm good
sloth - I run marathons, so uhhh, no
gluttony - see above
lust - I wished I could, but getting on toward middle age, it's just too much trouble :w00t:
envy - no, never, not my scene
pride - probably a little guilty; I bust my butt for what I have, so I am proud of that fact

 

dfreybur

Premium Member
The one attracting my attention is gluttony, being overweight, it is the one item in the list I haven't given much thought to. As a society, Americans have been increasing in girth.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this often overlooked "sin"?

There is vast pressure to eat low fat. Anything low fat is automatically labelled "healthy". The problem is for a large percentage of the population, somewhat more than the majority, eating low fat makes us more hungry not less hungry.

As a result of *following the directions* we are driven into a state of excess hunger. I fail to see how following the directions of those who are supposed to know best is sinful. So to me it's erroneous not sinful.

Happy New Year. This year another try at lower carb. Hard to start, easy to stay on, faced with endless opposition by general American society as not "healthy" because it's not low fat.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
This leads us to a great division in Christian doctrine, primarily between East and West. In West (Roman/Latin) Christianity, "sin" has been defined almost exclusively as "spiritual crime". That is, one must fulfill all the normal prerequisites of criminal liability to be "guilty" of sin. In Eastern Christianity, "sin" is defined in many ways, including with medical analogies. In addition, the original Greek and Hebrew words from Scripture are kept in mind, and neither of them translate as "crime" but instead translate more as "missing the mark". Thus, it is not unthinkable in Eastern Christianity to ask forgiveness for "sins both intentional and unintentional". The Roman/Latin Christian, having been brought up in a highly legalistic background, often is brought up short or even outraged by such a thought as an "unintentional sin", even though such is mentioned in Scripture (Luke 12:47-48, many mentions in the Old Testament). Of course, Christians are not expected to adhere to the multiple details of Mosaic Law (Acts 15), but the concept of unintentional sin was not exterminated, at least not early on. Later, when an obsession arose over legalistic reinterpretation, the idea of an unintentional sin became intolerable.

For those who might consider such a concept to be "unfair" to people who "try their best", consider Matthew 5:48. Christ does not say "do the best you can". It's an extremely high standard, but we are nowhere told that falling short of this standard is a guarantee of condemnation.

Therefore, "erroneous" is a form of "sinful", it's just not the Roman/Latin legalistic form of "sinful".

That being said, the term "deadly sin" is an innovation. The original work was in Greek, and they were known as "logismoi"--the "thoughts". Evagrius of Pontus singled out eight thoughts that he considered particularly dangerous, and he portrayed them as demonic tempters: http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/evagrius_of_pontus_eight_logismoi.htm
It was response to the temptation that mattered, not merely being tempted.
 

K3vin

Registered User
This leads us to a great division in Christian doctrine, primarily between East and West. In West (Roman/Latin) Christianity, "sin" has been defined almost exclusively as "spiritual crime". That is, one must fulfill all the normal prerequisites of criminal liability to be "guilty" of sin. In Eastern Christianity, "sin" is defined in many ways, including with medical analogies. In addition, the original Greek and Hebrew words from Scripture are kept in mind, and neither of them translate as "crime" but instead translate more as "missing the mark". Thus, it is not unthinkable in Eastern Christianity to ask forgiveness for "sins both intentional and unintentional". The Roman/Latin Christian, having been brought up in a highly legalistic background, often is brought up short or even outraged by such a thought as an "unintentional sin", even though such is mentioned in Scripture (Luke 12:47-48, many mentions in the Old Testament). Of course, Christians are not expected to adhere to the multiple details of Mosaic Law (Acts 15), but the concept of unintentional sin was not exterminated, at least not early on. Later, when an obsession arose over legalistic reinterpretation, the idea of an unintentional sin became intolerable.

For those who might consider such a concept to be "unfair" to people who "try their best", consider Matthew 5:48. Christ does not say "do the best you can". It's an extremely high standard, but we are nowhere told that falling short of this standard is a guarantee of condemnation.

Therefore, "erroneous" is a form of "sinful", it's just not the Roman/Latin legalistic form of "sinful".

That being said, the term "deadly sin" is an innovation. The original work was in Greek, and they were known as "logismoi"--the "thoughts". Evagrius of Pontus singled out eight thoughts that he considered particularly dangerous, and he portrayed them as demonic tempters: http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/evagrius_of_pontus_eight_logismoi.htm
It was response to the temptation that mattered, not merely being tempted.

Good point, I hadn't thought about the translation.

As far as gluttony itself, I wonder if some eating habits qualify, like eating while mindlessly watching television. In any case I am planning on tackling my excess weight this year, that's what triggered my initial curiosity in looking up the definition.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
It's not really about food. Food is how most people manifest it, but gluttony is about never getting "enough". One must always stuff in as much of anything as possible. Yes, I am talking about gluttony and not "greed", because the word translated as "greed" is "philargyria", which actually means "love of silver" or "love of money/wealth"--different from the desire to get and have ever more and more, stuffing things beyond full.
 
Top