Talk:Seven deadly sins/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Table

Catholic Seven Virtues is lacking some information. --121.54.96.3 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are only six sins listed in the summary?

The opening paragraph says "The final version of the list consists of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy."

There are only six sins here. Shouldn't "gluttony" be here too? 115.128.64.250 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 15/05/2010

Anger/Wrath

Every so often, I see editor changed Anger to Wrath, and vice versa. Could everyone please stop doing that? It seems like this may be some sort of slow moving edit war. Does anyone have a rationale for why it should be one way or the other? Or is this just a difference caused by different Biblical translations, and thus is simply a matter of personal preference? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Relation

There seems to be some relation to the five poisons and Arishadvargas in Hinduism and three poisons in Buddhism. Possibly a historical connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.219.178 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies that connection? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I have but then again I only stated a possible connection. If we look at it logically then the fact that Hinduism is 1500 years older than Christianity and five of the six Arishadvargas feature in the seven deadly sins (pride, jealousy, greed,lust and anger) may hint to Christians adopting these ideas into their religion. Also the five poisons in Buddhism sometimes include sloth as well. Its only an observation, i'm not stating anything as fact.

Can't add it to Wikipedia without a reliable source I'm afraid, otherwise it's just your opinion, i.e. Original Research. --Merlinme (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sauerkraut and wiernerbrachwursten (sausages) ... seriously?

"The devil is in german also called "Die Apfelteufel des alten Sauerkraut", and it is judged by the international committee of Wienermärchen that it derivers from the southern part of Germany around Munich. In the fairytales the devil usually scares away small children and afterwards sprays white powder in their eyes, making them instantly fall asleep. When the child is asleep, the devil picks up the kid and wanders around with it in the local town, meanwhile singing the local south-german song "Ich lieben die Wiernerbrachwursten". This fairytale has been commonly accepted in southern Germany and Austria as true and disturbing." I'm sorry but this sounds very implausible, is there anyone who can verify any of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.112.52 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced nonsense. Thank you for noticing this. It was obviously vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pride/Vainglory, Sloth/Acedia

Shouldn't all the evolving definitions be grouped together under the modern and most widely-used names, rather than being separate sections? Right now the list comes off as if there are nine deadly sins, and the naming scheme is tremendously inconsistent.70.34.147.3 (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism only

I'm under the impression that no protestant accept this list, so the intro should stress from the first sentence that this list is Roman-Catholic point of view. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Source, please? --Merlinme (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dr. K, in the section "Biblical Lists", why do you allow Proverbs and Galatians, but consider Mark to be "original research"? -- Rocky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.74.5 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In other religions

This entry could use a "in other religions" section, which might include summaries of some of the "see also" titles, but must definitely include the very similar "7 gates of Hell" from Quran: “And verily, Hell is the promised abode for them all. It has seven gates: to each of those gates is a specific class of sinners assigned.”[al Hijr, 15: 43-44]. Various verses at different chapters also name these gates, which in Islamic tradition are sometimes described as 7 levels.

Haji Ahmet Kayhan's book "İrfan Okulunda Oku" (translation: study in the school of wisdom/insight) lists 7 gates of Hell as: Pride, Greed (includes ambition and I suppose gluttony), Envy, Strife, Gossip, Lust, Wrath. (Similarly there are 8 gates/flights of heaven defined as Mercy, Honesty, Loyalty, Generosity, Patience, Discretion, Humility, Gratitude.) Nkt777 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) PS.sorry if this entry is crude - I'm new to this.

That does seem like a reasonable inclusion. This is technically only the article about the Christian ethics version, but I don't see a reason why we can't have a sentence or two about each of the other similar ideas in other religions. Do you have full publication info on Kayhan's book? That would be enough for me/someone to add the Islamic idea (we'll use Kayhan's version rather than the Qu'ranic account, as secondary sources are generally preferred to primary ones). Then we could pull short summaries of the Hindu and Buddhist versions into the same section, out of the See Also. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Kayhan, Hacı Ahmet (1994). "İrfan Okulunda Oku" (translation: study in the school of wisdom/insight), publisher: Bizim Büro Basımevi, Ankara, Turkey, pp.148-149. (This is the first edition. There is also a newer print which might have a different publisher and different page numbers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkt777 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prank error in text

The opening paragraph has this line: "The currently recognized version of the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lol, envy, and gluttony." Not "lol" I think. 88.109.11.234 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You can correct obvious errors/ vandalism like this yourself. Just click the edit link and save the page. --Merlinme (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FUBAR

The title of the article is Seven (7) deadly sins. There are NINE (9) listed.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive input. --Merlinme (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would write a longer response, but from your original entry I can only assume you haven't actually read the article in full, where it explains how the seven deadly sins evolved from earlier lists with a larger number of entries and with some differences in the sins listed.

Describing something as Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition is always unhelpful, and in this particular case, wrong. If you have something helpful to say about the article, please say it. --Merlinme (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

-So you can't tell the difference between the number seven and the number nine ?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If I could step in and stop the bickering--Mark v1.0, what Merlinme is saying is that if you read the article you'll see that at all points in history there were 7 Deadly Sins, but that exactly which 7 sins were on the list has changed over time. Thus, that section lists both the "current" as well as some historical ones that are no longer part of the "standard" list. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

-Yes I understand there is an explanation, there is always an explanation. The story of why does not change the fact that the title of the article does not match the content.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Problem resolved Thank you , whoever fixed the article back to seven = 7, for the list of sins.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That was me. Personally I didn't think it was that hard to understand, let alone FUBAR, that there were seven current definitions + a couple of older ones, making nine. However you don't seem to be alone in finding this confusing, so I explicitly separated out the older definitions into a separate heading. All things can be resolved. Civility is generally appreciated in the way you ask, though. --Merlinme (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The confusion is simple, the number seven is not the same as the number nine. When looking for the seven sins you don't want to find nine.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

An eight sin

Quite a long time ago, I heard on the radio that monks of the middle ages had considered there to be an eight deadly sin - boredom with the monastic life. Shouldn't this go in the article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bit hard to say without more context, but you may be referring to acedia (which is already in the article). --Merlinme (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what sloth, as listed in the catalogue of capital vices, actually means (if you happen to be a monk)... While it is true that laziness (as a very slight form of it) is sinful, the common replacement of this existential thing with the mere failure to work as much as you must (and maybe even to work more than you must which is no sin) has a slight Puritan touch, don't you think...--93.133.231.177 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

lechery vs lust

In high school literature class, while studying works of the middle ages we went over the 7 deadly sins and the one dealing with sex is called lechery, not lust as it says in the article. Lechery and lust are two different things. Lust is a feeling or emotion where as lechery is an action. This is the same reason that anger is not a sin because sins are actions not emotions. Anger may not be pleasant to feel, but that doesn't make it a sin. Lust may make people feel uncomfortable, or make you feel guilty but that doesn't make it a sin. Sins are actions, not feelings. Yes the bible says that you can sin in thought, but you still have to imagine the action, not just have a desire. I dont know of any place in the bible that it says that you can sin in emotion. You can have desires and feelings without channeling them into actions.

Lust is a natural feeling which can result in the action of sex. however sex is only considered lecherous if several conditions exist. It must involve fornication, and be unrestrained, excessive, or with multiple partners. Fornication is sex outside of marriage in most traditions, and in some traditions can expand to sex inside of marriage that's not for the purpose of bearing children, and in some Tantric and Gnostic traditions is any sex where the male ejaculates.

The deji (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Suicide as Wrath

Right now the article says, "In its original form, the sin of anger also encompassed anger pointed internally rather than externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, albeit tragic, expression of hatred directed inwardly, a final rejection of God's gifts."

I've been looking for a source for this, but haven't been able to find anything. Does anyone know an authoritative source for suicide-as-wrath? Running From Zombies (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one. The text should probably have a , to be honest. At one point the whole article was full of unsupported claims, although it has got better. "suicide-as-wrath" may be a reasonable view of Christian doctrine, but it needs support from some reliable source, e.g. a history of the Christian view of suicide. In the meantime I would treat the assertion as dubious until proved otherwise. I'll add the now. --Merlinme (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

At any rate suicide-from-sloth seems much more defensible.93.133.231.177 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I simply disagree with this proposition that suicide is an expression of self hate or self destructiveness. It's almost always used as escape from great pain. Suicide is much more often an expression of mercy than hatred. People who commit suicide usually don't really want to die but just can't imagine a way to go on in their current mental or physical state. Lechery is more of an expression of self hate as it is very destructive to the body, reputation, selfesteeme and Is usually behavior exhibited by people who have been taught to not value themselves through the abuse or neglect that they suffered at the hands of the ones who they looked up to and who were the very ones who should have taught them self love and self respect. The deji (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrath vs. Anger

i think wrath = 'orgy of anger' (since it translates as 'orge')? so wrath is better? Natmanprime (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

First we need a reference, second, as far as I know, different translations use different words...I wish we could find out which term is more common in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But sin have to be actions, not emotions. Anger is not an action. Anger isn't something that can be done. Wrath is an action, it is something that can be done to someone. The deji (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrath usually means strong anger. It has a rare usage to mean punishment but the normal meaning is not an action. The English translation of the Catechism (e.g. here) lists mostly emotions, not actions and does not appear to require action for commission of a sin. Your position appears to be based on [[WP:OR|original research]. Jojalozzo 18:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Demons

In demons section, the list puts Leviathan as envy. The next paragraph says other scholar "differs in pairing Leviathan with Envy". I don't get. They seem equal, yet called out as a difference. Didn't check discussion history, but nothing in current talk about this seeming disparity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowajason (talk • contribs) 01:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ummm?

Lucifer IS Satan. And Satan is Lucifer. Why is it listed that Lucifer is the demon of pride, and that Satan is the demon of wrath? They are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capernaum1995 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Capernaum1995: Read the cited sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Read Lucifer. Lucifer originally meant morning star or lightbringer. The association with Satan came later; there are also other associations, not related to Satan. Binsfeld apparently classified the two as separate "princes of hell", as did the 15th century Lanterne of Light, although I've been unable to check the references.--Merlinme (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So Lucifer and Satan are technically like 2 in 1? Because Lucifer DID become Satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.228.228 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you read Lucifer?

• The word Lucifer is a Latin translation of a Hebrew word which occurs once in the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12, which probably uses a Canaanite legend of the fallen morning star to refer to a Babylonian king.
• In Christian tradition some associated that passage in Isaiah with the devil, which means the word Lucifer became associated with Satan. Calvin and Luther both strongly disagreed with the association of the devil with that passage from Isaiah, so they would presumably also disagree with calling the devil Lucifer.
• By the 16th century, when witch hunting and demonology were in full swing, some rather elaborate demonologies (such as Binsfeld's) had been created, which treated Lucifer and Satan as separate "princes of hell". See Classification of demons. Frankly, the later demonologies seem to have taken mysterious sounding names of gods etc. from different religions and said they were "princes in hell". You will struggle to find any great consistency, as different writers used different names, different lists, and different associations. But clearly these writers did not consider Lucifer and Satan to be the same thing. --Merlinme (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Associations with demons

The section gives a list of sin/demon matches, then states that there is a different earlier list of pairings. The following list, however, is exactly the same as the bullet point list above. Or am I missing something? 91.97.177.181 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I found this sentence confusing: "Each is a form of Idolatry-of-Self wherein the subjective reigns over the objective." What does this mean?

There are many things in this article that seem to be either confusingly written or disconnected from the topic. Too many to itemize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Attribution of sins to demons — WP:OR violation

The first list presented in this section is based on a reference to the 1917 transcription of the The Lanterne, an anonymous English Lollard tract often attributed to Wycliffe, but dated in the cited work to ca. 1410.

The issues with the section are two:

• The conclusion that Wycliffe is not the author—a matter on which I have no opinion—is based solely on the introduction to this 1917 transcription, which was penned based on the recent (to 1917) MA dissertation of that author. While she may be correct, it is improper for this encyclopedia to have editors determining the veracity of the matter based on a single primary source.
• The list of sins and demons that appear are English renderings of the Latin, apparently taken from page 60 of the same 1917 source — the English transcription of which is entirely from the 15th century Latin; hence, the only way this list can appear in WP is either through application of an editor's original research (determining that the correspondence between demons and sins is being argued, and then which demon is being referred to in the original Latin, and then determining what its modern association should be), or by its derivation from an unnamed intermediary source or translation.

These are clear WP:OR violations, and/or WP:VERIFY violations. I have therefore placed a section tag, and a series of inline tags indicating that the information present (i) is derived by OR, (ii) is in need of expert verification, (iii) is taken from a primary source, and (iv) a source that is nearly a century old.

Taken together, these issues make at least half of this section a poor reflection of modern scholarship on the title and section subjects.

Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh....

"The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a classification of vices (part of Christian ethics) that has been used since early Christian times[1] to educate and instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. In the currently recognized version, the sins are usually given as loving tacos, loving people, loving fish, loving videogames, loving apples and peanutbutter and creme cheese.[2] Each is a form of Idolatry-of-Self wherein the subjective reigns over the objective."

I'm...pretty sure that's not supposed to be there. I'm not sure if someone deleted another sentence and replaced it with that or if it was just added in, though.

71.233.203.6 (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Greed as a "secular psychological concept"

From the article:

 As a secular psychological concept, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

How is what one deserves a secular concept? This is a matter of justice, something outside of the realm of secular psychology. 75.146.55.1 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why justice is either secular or non-secular. I'll reword. --Merlinme (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Deservices is in the eye of the deserver. The deserver is different in different religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.81.65 (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that "greed" is the wrong word. In my vocabulary it encompasses both avarice and gluttony. I suggest that it be changed to "avarice", which is what I thought the standard church of England list uses. Avarice is a spiritual vice, unlike gluttony. It does far more harm. DaveyHume (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Clean Up

I did some clean up on the entry. I removed the sections dealing with individual sins since this entry, it seems to me, should be about the collective that is the seven deadly sins. Pages already exist for the individual sins. I added the works of art dealing with the seven deadly sins since those works deal with the entire collective in a substantial, sustained manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElonShawn (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Proud in first section/salomon

The term proud is in error, the term is Haught Disdain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.29.60 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cristain seven sins:

The cristian seven sins are usually considered cons. Tempts onto the population to give up their lives, livelyhood and propriataries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.29.60 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, more than seven sins , in the article

I criticized this in December 2011 calling it FUBAR, and it has occurred again. Editors place more than seven sins in the seven sins article. This is blatantly insane. An editor named "Merlinme" corrected the error at the time.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I corrected it to the best of my ability.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The pride of Lucifer?

This article's section on pride mentions a story about Lucifer secumming to pride and turning into Satan which is a story I keep hearing from people but I have never seen one single source for such a story. In fact, the mistranslation in the kjv is not saying that Lucifer is prideful but rather pointing out his divinity. They were mocking the king of Babylon by comparing him to a heavenly body, the planet Venus which is Lucifer in Latin, to point out the king's pride. I happen to know for a fact that there is no Lucifer character in the bible except for this single mistranslation in the king james version.

When someone does something stupid and you say "good job Einstien!" You aren't saying that Einstien is stupid, you are pointing out how the idiot does not reach the intelligence of Einstien to make the idiot look even stupider in comparison. Like wise the narator in the kjv wasnt saying that the planet Venus was prideful, they were saying that the king was prideful and does not live up to something that is inherently divine like the planet Venus. They call the king Lucifer (Venus) just like you might call an idiot Einstein to mock them. The story was not about Lucifer, and further more, the mention was simply a mistranslation of Morning Star which is the planet Venus which they called Lucifer in latin.

So when I see mention of a story of Lucifer's fall I have to ask for the source because as of yet I have not found one myself. The deji (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Only thing I know of is Paradise Lost 1667 "Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n." says the Devil. When an Angel would say the opposite of "better to serve in Heaven then rule in Hell."

Folowing the link led me to a book "A Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels" Gustav Davidson. Reviewers say they loved it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as a matter of fact, Venus is already Latin, and is the name the Romans used for Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love/beauty/ἔρως. That verse was not referring to the planet Venus. עבד יהוה _talk 02:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shahar_%28god%29#Shahar_in_Isaiah_14:12.E2.80.9315 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.211.208 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Gonzales John/GreenessItself sockpuppetry

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gonzales John Doug Weller talk 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture to use for envy

Which of these is the better picture to use for envy?

The Seven Deadly Sins - Envy, by Jacques Callot. The snake and the dog are both symbols for envy.

Cain killing Abel, painting by Bartolomeo Manfredi, c. 1600

Currently the second one, which shows Cain killing Abel, is being used for this article, but I'm not sure whether it is the best picture, so I'm asking for the opinions of others.Gonzales John (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor quality ref spam links

As per WP:BRD I reverted User:Gonzales John’s edit which added 14 very poor quality external links to www.newadvent.com this looks like spamming to me. He has added them back again.Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, www.newadvent.org has been discussed before in multiple articles generalized as untrustworthy. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

New Advent

JudeccaXIII, kindly explain how New Advent is not reliable. It is quite useful for translations of texts like St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.Gonzales John (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Gonzales John, New Advent is not considered a reliable source because its content has been suspected before on Wikipedia to be WP:OR. Kevin Knight. the creator of the site uses multiple sources to build up his personal research/views. The site also has some WP:SPAM links and is considered a personal blog per WP:NOTBLOG. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! Gonzales John (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research

The article is stuffed full of original research and poorly referenced content for example... ”In accordance with the most widely accepted views, only pride weighs down the soul more than envy among the capital sins. Just like pride, envy has been associated directly with the devil.” and “In even more destructive cases, it is possessing the irrational belief that one is automatically and essentially better or more important than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal image or self (especially forgetting one's own lack of divinity, and refusing to acknowledge one's own limits, faults, or wrongs as a human being). “ where are the references we cannot say things like this in Wikipedias voice Theroadislong (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) he killed his brother

Seven sins (mistake in translation).

The use of the word sin is a transliteration mistake in the english language, and should be ' fear '. The ' fear ' of excess and the ' fear ' of insufficiency. That would translate immediately into that what is a neurological system.

Gusto (spanish), is another translation that fits within the context of the spanish language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.89.206 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Names of the deadly sins

 The list of deadly sins in the article starts by naming pride. It the goes on to name "greed". Is not this more commonly called covetousness? Greed could be taken as a synonym (at least, to some extent) for gluttony, which is also mentioned in the list. Vorbee (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"Immoral sexual acts" in lust

I feel that listing the sexual acts as "other immoral sexual acts" in the definition of "Lust" is very subjective and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Thoughts? –DLManiac (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the Seven Deadly Sins are a primarily a concept in Roman Catholicism, the definition of "lust" in the context of the Seven Deadly Sins is mostly determined by what the Roman Catholic Church defines it as. Some other Christian denominations do teach about the Seven Deadly Sins, but generally to a much lesser extent; the article should also mention what those denominations consider to be "lustful" behavior. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In culture

Perhaps a section could be addedto the article, headlined "In culture" with a reference to the 1995 movie directed by David Fincher, "Seven" (originally stylised with the title "Se7en")? The core theme of this thriller movie are modern examples of the seven deadly sins, and a vigilante raging vengeance against it in a series of murders, just to make a statement of his perception of a widespread moral decline in his society. Link to IMDB article: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114369/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flnielsen (talk • contribs) 11:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sins against the Holy Spirit

The article says there are multiple but in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it says there is only one. Really any sin is a sin against every member of the trinity. 2001:BB6:7A8B:5158:196F:6415:91B0:47ED (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

7 deadly sins in Bible

The 7 deadly sins are mentioned throughout the Bible, and referred to in different ways, usually under the term "abominations to the Lord" with their number consistently being 7. These different sins can be found referenced throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, with the help of www.biblegateway.com if further exploration is desired. PenguinKazoo (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Some of the eight deadly thoughts aren't organized enough in the categories that follow (ex. "Sloth" is replaced with "discouragement," which is basically the same thing as sorrow) Savagegenius888 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail^[✉] 23:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of each sin are needed

The staying point for discussion of each sin should be its definition. I suggest starting with definitions from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA and discuss how definitions and doctrine has or hasn't changed. For example, the definition of pride in this article is ambiguous. The CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA elaborates on what theologians have said about pride and explains different kinds of pride and category of sin. 172.58.188.34 (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Source update

Reference 29 is currently hyperlinked to "http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2000/september4/3.62.html", which results in a 404. Correct source is "https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/september4/3.62.html". I'd make the edit myself, but I'm unable to do so as a new user. Thanks in advance! Whisperwind1242 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

This page is excellent but is missing three important references. First, it's missing any reference to Henry Fairlie's book 'The Seven Deadly Sins Today,' which is a monolith in explaining the historical tradition of the Seven. Second, although it mentions the writings of Dorothy Sayers, one would think there'd be at least a reference to her essay "The Other Six Deadly Sins," which appears in 'Letters to a Diminished Church.' And third, as the disambiguation page for "Seven Deadly Sins" shows, there exists an ongoing conversation about the tradition of the Seven in pop culture. That should be addressed on this page to track the history of the tradition. Would someone consider adding these references, please?

I'd be happy to discuss any/all of these changes with whomever moderates this page and I can be reached via email at ALong(at)KCAI(dot)edu. Thank you! ALong 14:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the exact citations you'd like to add, as well as what text you'd like them to cite. If the information is already cited we don't necessarily need to add additional sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

gluttony gula, cali gula

Γαστριμαργία (gastrimargia) gluttony the meaning is cali gula, or conscious like caligula the prince of roman, incest sodom etc.. just like sodom and gomorrah. re think and re calculate in order to gain peace in mind QuaMbear (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect from Saligia

It's working, even though the mention of the acronym was removed long ago. Since then, more sources have been digitalized, e.g. this (p.68), this (p. 41 of the file, 456 of the book), and this (p. 4 of the file, 71 of the issue). I guess this acronym was actually a thing. 89.64.80.53 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Capital virtues not holy virtues

Hi, there is a glaring in the last sentence of the first paragraph section. The deadly sins are the opposite of the CAPITAL virtues not the HOLY virtues.

Unfortunately Wikipedia rolls these two lists of virtues into a single article.

Will someone please fix this, or let me know there is any objection to me making this change,? 2601:204:D600:24C0:DD8C:CECC:AF59:B1CB (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)