Sadness was originally a sin

Remove all ads!

I was surprised to find out today that originally there were 8 deadly sins and sadness was one of them. Found this an interesting topic.

http://deadlysins.com/sins/history.html

Some of the punishments in hell are kind of funny but some are kind of cringe-worthy

 

Some of the animals associated with certain sins confuse me.

 

It was a sin, and rightly so. Now, before you lament that, cheer up or burn in hell.

 

@LKD - I know, the Horse and the Pig make sense and the bear as well but I don't know that frogs are greedy or that cows are particularly lustful. I think for Sloth they should have chosen the animal sloth. The dog kind of makes sense if you watch the behavior of dogs with each other.

@Ragusa - That's funny.

 

I can see how it could be in the old days. Now wonder the backlash from that era is still ongoing.

 

After seeing some of the emo kids at my son's high school, I say we bring it back as a sin.

 

Telling a kid that something is a sin won't necessarily make him stop doing it.

 

Interesting about sadness ... I could understand self-pity, as it's moreso volitional, but isn't sadness something that happens to you? I guess maybe this just reflects the archaic notion that everyone was supposed to be in total command of all their senses, feelings, and emotions at all times (which is obviously unrealistic by today's standards).

(The emo kidz are generally just putting on in my experience btw ... maybe they are sort of electively 'sad,' but genuine sadness is not a lifestyle choice or a fashion statement.)

 

Interesting!

According to wiki:

"In early Christian thought, the lack of joy was regarded as a willful refusal to enjoy the goodness of God and the world God created..."

 

would stand to reason, as religion was created to control people, listing sadness as a punishable sin would encourage apathy instead, sad people are more likely to become disgruntled and ask questions.

 

I would love to see evidence for that. If you can provide it.

 

I would think sad people are more likely to be apathetic and angry people are more likely to ask questions.

 

Rules and threats are a method of control.

Many religions have been created by people to influence others around them or to raise themselves above the masses, mormonism, protestant and scientology are perfect examples.

Gaear, I would say that a sad person is more likely to get angry then someone who is apathatic or happy.

 

And clearly that was also the intent when the Catholic Church enshrined the seven deadly sins - Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony and Lust - and the seven heavenly virtues - Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance, prudence - the exercise of power and control. Probably that goes for Justice in particular.

Now what about salvation? I think the notion that religion is all about power and control and that rules are part of that is a materialist folly, concocted by social sciences people, who, for one, do not take religion, let alone piety, seriously, and who don't bother dealing with theology, and who, as a result, prefer to read base motives in what may be sincere honesty, because they need to find out what religion is really about. If there's no there there, that's unacceptable.

That religion has been used in pursuit of material goals is one thing, but a statement like "Many religions have been created by people to influence others around them or to raise themselves above the masses" is so general that it doesn't mean anything really. Despite you mentioning Mormonism, Protestantism and Scientology it's a pointless banality.

That banality turns into insult against Protestantism when you throw in Protestantism with Mormonism and Scientology. Mormonism and Scientology were probably conceived as fraudulent for profit enterprises, which is a thing that cannot possibly be said about Protestantism and it's manifold sects and splinter groups that range from demure to deranged.

 

my grandparents on both sides of my family were uber religious, I went to church twice a week through a good portion of my life every friday and sunday - I'm from the UK, RE (religious education) is compulsory in school, so I spent a solid 5 years of my life learning about religion in school. Religion is a tool which is manipilated by whomever has the power at the time, if the religion were truly created by an almighty god, there would be no area for alteration or interpretation, there would be 1 church - these are the rules given to us by god, he has taught us our path to salvation that is our faith. Instead we have a massive splintering effect around the world, rulers change faiths, clerics change faiths and even groups of rabble can change a faith as they see fit.... whats that? God told us that abortion is wrong???? We'll go make our own church, god doesn't want me to divorce and remarry? I'll make my own church. Any teacher of a religion can alter it as they see fit or 'interpert' it as they see fit, which, back in the middle ages and earlier was easy because the poor couldn't read. That doesn't speak to me of a faith handed down to us by an almighty - that is the hand of man.
Or as George Carlin (RIP) put it:
"About 5000 years ago, a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure our how to control people, how to keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told so they announced that god had given them some commandments, up on a mountain where noone was around, god had given them the ten commandments."

 

Rather pointless to argue about the divine aspect of religion, unless it's clearly affecting someone in a negative way.
Some things are contradictory. One cannot claim religion is a tool and then blame the troubles of the world on it. We don't blame tools. That's just coloring up the whole truth, or denying it altogether.

 

What some denominations of some religions have done in the millennia of religious history does not paint an accurate picture of all religions at all times. To use an analogy- Governments have committed genocide. Does that mean that ALL governments are somehow inexorably linked to genocide or that the genocide is inherent in the concept of government itself? Does it mean that the concept of government is worthless because some of them have committed evil?

 

I believe there's a difference between faith and religion. Religion is the way you express your faith.
There once was a God (and I believe there still is) who gave us a mind of our own, so we wouldn't be mere cattle or robots. Some people had faith and a whole lot of more people had and thought it might be cool and fun to practise their faith together. And with all things that people do together, it's damn fine to establish some rules. These rules, along with habits and other practical stuff, is what I call religion. This religion is a way to deal with each other, not to rule over each other.
But sure, religion has been used in that way.

Other than that. I still have no clue why these animals are related to those sins. Perhaps it has something to do with what people thought certain demons would look like? Are there any fables linked to this or other stories, like the Divine Comedy?

 

You express that platitude again.

Let me put it more pointedly: How is promoting Justice as a virtue, or Greed as a vice, about the exercise of power and control in a negative way?

'Exercising control' by inducing self restraint in people for the good of all others isn't really a bad thing, much less is it about oppression or power as you imply. Religion is at least as good a tool to achieve peaceful coexistence, and probably better a tool than reliance on law and threat of punishment. In the ultimate sense we're talking of laws either way.