Jump to content

Talk:Seven deadly sins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

[edit]

Arrogance instead of Pride 109.242.137.212 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-up Sources

[edit]

When navigating to the source of Dorothy L. Sayer's thoughts on wrath, the source number of 37 is that of (Landau, Ronnie (30 October 2010). The Seven deadly Sins: A companion. ISBN 978-1-4457-3227-5.) The true source of Sayer's quote is from the source number of 22, which is placed just under the heading of Historical Views here. Armadyx (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

[edit]

Who on Earth thought it was at all helpful to muddy the waters of an already muddy pool by introducing a corresponding list of deadly sins in Islam? Catholicism was muddying its own pool quite well enough by itself, thanks. At the very least, that person ought to have linked shirk to the Wiki article Shirk (Islam); ever-forgetful that there already is an English verb to shirk. As it adds nothing but confusion to the article (which apart from this deals exclusively with moral science from a Judaeo-Christian perspective), I'm partial to the notion of deleting the reference entirely; however, I'll withhold my damp sponge from the blackboard to see what others may think of it. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving pictures"

[edit]

In the introduction section, it says the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins has found its way "into the streams of religious and philosophical thought, fine art painting, and popular culture, including literature and new forms of media such as moving pictures and digital streaming." Is "moving pictures" really necessary here? Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedia style guide for such topics, but that seems unnatural, convoluted, and pretentious. It also compromises the reader's ability to quickly digest and comprehend this information in the way that an introduction section should for an article. Jtwooz (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entire post does not answer the question and is completely ofd track. It's a mess. 96.42.102.65 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sin greater than another. Period.

[edit]

The actual answer to this question is there is no sin greater to another. Period. Fact.That is the answer and there is nothing further except the explanation why. Sin as defined in the Old Testament means to "miss the mark". This would be like shooting an arrow and if you do not hit the center, it is not a bullseye no matter where you hot unless it is the absolute center. God hates sin. Period. Murder is equal to pride is equal to a white lie. God is perfect. Therefore any sin is horrific next to His glory. It would not take much real research to learn this if you looked for the truth instead of the glamour. It is not glamorous. God HATES sin. He is without sin. That being said, always remember that when we confess our sin to Him (directly to Him) then he forgives us and forgets as far as the east is from the west. It is the most simple concept. There are not different floors of hell either. There is a fallen angel named Lucifer that wants us to sin againt God. God wins. We know the end. The Bible is clear. Its not hard to understand. It is not tricky. There are no special codes. He wants us to understand it completely. Come on. You can all do better than this. Especially during a time when the free world is being led by a man that knows nothing but sin. I cannot believe your answers here are so completely wrong. Christians do not teach the "7 deadly sins" and the only people that discuss them are people that are not Christians. This entire page needs to be scrapped and restarted. C.S.Lewis was an amazing man but you only looked at the smallest piece of his work at the content you were looking for and not at his beliefs as a whole. He would not want to be a part of this definition and would most definitely have corrected it. I turn to Wikipedia a lot and never have seen you "miss the mark" by so much. As our old and now new First Lady says, be better. 96.42.102.65 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]