I'm going to have to dispute your choices here. Maybe it's because I consider pride to be noble rather than sinful. Just think of it as integrity instead, and the whole story becomes a lot less clear.

Anyway, I'll start with Lucifer. The word itself is Latin, and derives almost certainly from the name Pyroforos, one of Prometheus' epithets. Lucifer's status as a fallen angel does indeed derive from a translation error from Isaiah, a title that was most likely meant to refer to a Babylonian king as the bringer of the dawn. So if we consider Prometheus to be the "real Lucifer", the story that seems most appropriate is his stealing fire from the gods and being punished by being chained to a cliff and having his liver eaten by one of Zeus's eagles every day. Certainly tragic, but I don't really see it as humility. Fortitude, perhaps? I don't really have another choice for humility in the Judeo-Christian milieu, the only example that comes to mind is Bishma from the Mahabharata. He swore to live his life in perfect celibacy, so that his father could marry the woman of his choice. Now that's humility!

Now Lilith is a real mess. The name is as much as 5000 years old, deriving from a Sumerian storm demon. Over the centuries, the name wrapped up such diverse entities as Astarte, Anu, a screech owl (?), and finally the original wife of Adam. This last version is actually quite recent, little more than 1000 years old. The conflict between the two creation stories in Genesis, now understood to be the result of a fusion of creation myths from two distinct cultural sources, led rabbinic authorities to the idea that Adam had more than one wife. It was at this time that Lilith came to be described as Adam's first wife, and the story of her losing one hundred children a day came about at about the same time. Even if we take this latest version as the truth, I'd have to point the finger at god, rather than at Lilith. How can threatening to kill someone's children to force them back into an arranged marriage be virtuous? Why should anyone be expected to accept such a demand? These kinds of objections have led to Lilith's current status in pop culture as a feminist icon, as in the "Lilith Fair", a concert tour featuring exclusively female performers. Well, actually, 90% of the musicians were still male. Anyway, I still think that Satan, or whatever label is attached to the fallen angel, would still be the best choice to represent pride. Pride seems to have been the sole motivating factor for his actions, while Lilith was fleeing from an unhappy marriage. Certainly pride has its place in her actions, but the same could be said of almost all so-called "sins".

Yay, mythology!

Stormcrow wrote:

I'm going to have to dispute your choices here. Maybe it's because I consider pride to be noble rather than sinful. Just think of it as integrity instead, and the whole story becomes a lot less clear.

I didn't intend to rewrite the Seven Deadly Sins (even though I did change some of the Virtues) so I stuck with their traditional definitions. Ultimately none of them are sinful if they aren't done in excess. Lust, I feel, is unavoidable as long as you have working senses. Gluttony is basically defined as eating to excess, but obviously not eating at all is also a bad thing. Likewise without some amount of Greed a person would give up everything they own and die in a gutter. Wrath is just anger's ugly cousin, despite the 'righteous wrath' that abounds in the Bible. Envy can cause people to strive in order to better themselves, even if it's not a pleasant emotion. Without Pride, a person becomes a doormat who can and will be taken advantage of. All things in moderation, none of these are sinful or deadly. Conversely, practicing any of the Virtues to a great extent is just as easily going to end in self-destruction or, worse; hurting others.

To put it another way, I completely agree with you.

Stormcrow wrote:

Anyway, I'll start with Lucifer. The word itself is Latin, and derives almost certainly from the name Pyroforos, one of Prometheus' epithets. Lucifer's status as a fallen angel does indeed derive from a translation error from Isaiah, a title that was most likely meant to refer to a Babylonian king as the bringer of the dawn. So if we consider Prometheus to be the "real Lucifer", the story that seems most appropriate is his stealing fire from the gods and being punished by being chained to a cliff and having his liver eaten by one of Zeus's eagles every day. Certainly tragic, but I don't really see it as humility. Fortitude, perhaps?

Looking at Prometheus as being the "real Lucifer" I'd value his action rather than his punishment. I'd stick him under Generosity, since he's taking a personal risk to better the lives of humans and ultimately gets tortured for it. In a way there's a resemblance to Satan in the story, although inverse. Rather than accepting humans as being superior to angels because God says so, Satan refuses to bow to Adam and a family spat results. For Prometheous, instead of looking down on humans as insignificant the way Zeus does, he steals fire and shares its secret with mankind. It's ultimately humans that write these stories, so Prometheous eventually gets to return to Olympous while Satan doesn't return to Heaven.

I wasn't looking at it through the Prometheus story, though, just the role of Lucifer as an angel and as Venus. My reason for casting Lucifer as Humility isn't based on anything he's done that I've read about. In fact, as a non-fallen angel he hasn't really done anything of note. As you say, aside from one mistranslation, there's nothing to indicate that Lucifer is fallen, so it strikes me that it's got to be pretty galling for a misunderstood metaphor to have slandered him. Obviously he can't show up on Earth and start cussing people out, but he has a rawer deal than Satan does; the fact that Lucifer is still up there is what I take as humility. Mostly I'm going against the tide for the sake of 'accuracy.'

I'm running low on time, so I'll come back for Lilith later on.

Stormcrow wrote:

Yay, mythology!

Stormcrow wrote:

It was at this time that Lilith came to be described as Adam's first wife, and the story of her losing one hundred children a day came about at about the same time. Even if we take this latest version as the truth, I'd have to point the finger at god, rather than at Lilith. How can threatening to kill someone's children to force them back into an arranged marriage be virtuous? Why should anyone be expected to accept such a demand?

The "proper religious explanation" is probably "God works in mysterious ways, we can't begin to comprehend the actions he takes based on his infinite wisdom." Or the threats of murder could be attributed solely to the three angels sent to retrieve Lilith, doing what they believe to be the best tactic in order to return with her and thus complete their mission. No matter how you slice it, it's an awful method to get anything done, even if the children are demons/horrible abominiations unto the world. That doesn't make either God nor the angels prideful, however. Lilith knows that the angels mean what they say and that she can't stop them from carrying out their promise unless she returns to Eden. So what sort of mother allows her children to be slaughtered for any reason? She doesn't want to go back to Adam, that's understandable. She believes she's equal to Adam because God created them both from clay; yet Adam insists that she be subserviant to him. She's given a horrific ultimatum and chooses to accept that her babies are massacred rather than submit to anyone's will. Ignoring how awful everyone else is being in the story, Lilith is letting her pride cost the lives of thousands upon thousands. Her pride isn't unfounded, it's not unjust nor illogical. There's no reason why she shouldn't be treated as well as she expects to be, by modern thinking. Except that by not submitting, she knows that atrocities will befall her children. How much is her own personal happiness worth? In this story, she believes it is more valuable than one hundred lives a day, from that first day until the end of time.

Stormcrow wrote:

Anyway, I still think that Satan, or whatever label is attached to the fallen angel, would still be the best choice to represent pride. Pride seems to have been the sole motivating factor for his actions, while Lilith was fleeing from an unhappy marriage. Certainly pride has its place in her actions, but the same could be said of almost all so-called "sins".

If I put Satan in as any Sin I would feel the need to include God as the countering Virture. Although the idea is to 'defeat' the Sins by following the Virtues, the reality is that a balance between the two is the optimum human condition. Give what you can, take what you need. Help others without sacrificing yourself. Don't boast, exaggerating your own worth; yet neither allow yourself to be told you are less than what you are. I can't concieve of "absolute evil" being relegated to a single sin, nor do I presonally view Pride as the source of all other earthly woes. I couldn't counter the most prominent, powerful, evil, vile entity with anything less than the most prominent, powerful, good, wholesome entity. (To say nothing of the impossibilities for these two entities to exist.)

Satan supposedly rejects God's will with the conception of the human race. His pride is based on the logic that God is most superior, then angels and lastly mankind. First God commands that the angels should bow before him alone. Then with Adam, God says that the angels should bow to both himself and humans. Satan, by being loyal to the original decree, is seen as being too proud to follow the new one. It isn't at the cost to anyone else that he makes this decision, he's just using his own judgement. Satan's domain is usually depicted as temptation and corruption. He offers people their most base desires at the cost of their innocence. Is he doing this because of pride? Or is he just trying to prove his point; that humans are the lesser beings after all?

Stormcrow wrote:

I guess this is one of the places where I part ways with conventional morality, because I don't find any fault at all with her choice. Really, god gave her a choice between dignity and a noble sacrifice. If god chooses to kill her children, that's not her fault. She can't control god's actions, he's the one choosing the murder. On the other hand, if she returned, she would be sacrificing herself for the sake of her children. In my book, she comes out on top either way.

Not that I'm trying to start a moral debate*... in this scenario, Lilith can control God's actions. (Or rather affect them.) If she agrees to return to Eden, her children won't be killed. I'm not blaming her for their deaths, but she does have the ability to save them at the cost to herself. And the price isn't her life, it's her freedom. Acknowledging that not everyone agrees with it, my opinion is that life is worth more than integrity. And many lives are worth the price of one.

On the other hand, though, the whole story is dated, sexist and terrible. I actually love the incarnations of Lilith that I've read about, and the version of her as Adam's first wife is a tale which depicts strength and conviction in women as a bad thing; which is rediculous. All the other characters are, by modern thinking, chauvinist jerks with no moral ground to stand on. You say Lilith comes out on top either way, and I agree with that when it comes to morality. In terms of 'reality' I'd say it's closer to her losing either way.

Stormcrow wrote:

Here's another place where I go a different way from tradition. To sum it up as simply as I can, I believe in only two virtues: Respect and Charity. It is my personal belief that these are the only two qualities that are good in themselves. And I do not believe in Sin. I don't really approve of gluttony, but to me, envy looks like ambition, sloth looks like serenity, pride looks like dignity, lust needs no redemption, and wrath is merely an emotion. I don't acknowledge emotions as having moral character in themselves. Does fear have moral character in itself? Sadness?

Which one did I miss? Is covetousness a cardinal sin? I guess you can tell I'm not Catholic. Oh, right, greed. OK, I'm not fond of that one either, it looks a lot like gluttony to me. I guess those two together could be a Sin, except that I could imagine a scenario where either one were beneficial somehow. Anyway, I think you get the idea. Oh, just so nobody misunderstands, when I say Charity, I'm not talking about money.

I favour moderation myself, so I think any emotion in excess is bad, because it has a high potential to do harm. That's how I look at the seven deadly sins; as extremes. In that manner of thinking:

Lust isn't simply wanting something, it's becoming obsessed over it.
Gluttony isn't about satiating hunger, it's unhealthy over-consumption.
Greed is wanting/taking/holding more than needed and more than could ever be required.
Sloth is a complete lack of productivity, to the point where the practicer thereof cannot even sustain themselves.
Wrath is unbound, unjustified violence.
Envy is a loss of personal worth, a massive inferiority complex.
And Pride is an unwillingness to make any concession or compromise, period.

Even with this, I know not everyone would agree that all of those are necessarily bad, let alone sinful. The problem with simplifying things is that life isn't simple.

Stormcrow wrote:

Does fear have moral character in itself? Sadness?

An excess of fear (let's call it the pseudo-sin Terror) paralyzing a person. It keeps them from performing any action, including saving themsleves from what they fear. Or it can cause a person to act illogically in a time of crisis, doing the opposite of what their rational mind would suggest.

Take a person who can't swim falling from a boat into the ocean. Is fearing death by drowning a sin? No, of course not. Is flailing about wildly in a desperate attempt not to sink a sin? Rather than saving themselves, this is going to tire a person out, when simply leaning their head back and floating conserves strength. If a rescue is attempted by a swimmer, flailing at them will put both people at risk.

(I'm aware that "sin" is a loaded word,  I'm using far to freely for any discussion other than one which centers around the seven sins and virtues.)

I could write another example for extreme sadness, but it's far past time I stopped typing! Just... one more... one more concept...

Playing devil's advocate: If you consider Respect to be a virtue, is not Disrespect a "sin?" The opposite of something good is logically something bad, right?

* I really, really wasn't trying to start a moral debate. It's just so interesting!

I've been sitting here thinking of what I can possibly say to add to this. Aside from that your system of morality sounds great. It's beautiful in its simplicity, allowing it to apply so easily to life. And it's also really positive, which is a nice change from what I've been focusing on for the past week. I don't think you need me to gush about this, though.

I thought I had something to add to the thread... About religions basing their rules around their present day and how corrupted that becomes thousands of years later. It seems too obvious to write about now.

Stormcrow wrote:

Thinking this through now, I realize that the study of mathematics has thoroughly corrupted my soul.

011110010110010101110011

satyreyes wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:

011110010110010101110011

0111011100110000001100000111010000100001

OK, please, for the ignorant ones, are this binary "words/sentences" expected to make any sense? (lol, if it's a secret code, then you're totally explaining)

I realized I should focus my attention to determinate the system of ethics that works for me... I assume it would be like putting in order something that's already in my mind [really? is there anything in my mind? certainly not at 1:00 am].

I quite like yours, Stormcrow. It's simple, but only simplicity is able to develop itself when facing complexity (yes, that's one of my current-year discoveries; don't tell anyone ). I'd like to point out, though, that I don't think it's that far from conventional morality, but that's mainly because I've never known what this morality consists of.

Ragnarok wrote:

About religions basing their rules around their present day and how corrupted that becomes thousands of years later. It seems too obvious to write about now.

It's not that obvious, and it's worth writing it

Ragnarok wrote:

Lust isn't simply wanting something, it's becoming obsessed over it.
Gluttony isn't about satiating hunger, it's unhealthy over-consumption.
Greed is wanting/taking/holding more than needed and more than could ever be required.
Sloth is a complete lack of productivity, to the point where the practicer thereof cannot even sustain themselves.
Wrath is unbound, unjustified violence.
Envy is a loss of personal worth, a massive inferiority complex.
And Pride is an unwillingness to make any concession or compromise, period.

Quite a lightening explanation! It's certainly a good way to make them work in today's world. I still don't like the universal division between sin and virtue, but turning it into a matter of grade makes it a little more acceptable; it's just not so simplifying.

PS. Everybody loves moral debate! And even more if it serves to complete the exposition about virtuous angels and sinful demons!

Stormcrow wrote:

I guess what I mostly mean by conventional morality is things like "Don't have sexual feelings for this person or that person or that other person." and "Don't touch yourself in impure ways." or "Drugs are bad (unless we're the ones selling them to you)." I most definitely am not a part of the "Get down on your knees and repent!" crowd, nor do I approve of "Kill those people because they don't do what I say!" I wish people could relax a little.

God, then I hope I never meet anyone with that conventional morality!

Stormcrow wrote:

Nietzsche teaches that good and evil have not yet been discovered, and that we have much work to do.

That was not my view on Beyond good and evil, but again mine was a high school student's one. I should re-read...
I don't know if anybody might have felt offended, but certainly I don't

Asfalolh wrote:

OK, please, for the ignorant ones, are this binary "words/sentences" expected to make any sense? (lol, if it's a secret code, then you're totally explaining)

011110010110010101110011 is binary for "yes" at least according to certain websites that I checked. I don't read binary myself.

Though I believe I know what satyreyes said, I'll let him explain it in case I'm wrong.

Asfalolh wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:

About religions basing their rules around their present day and how corrupted that becomes thousands of years later. It seems too obvious to write about now.

It's not that obvious, and it's worth writing it

I was mostly wondering if the people that came up with a lot of the rules in religions would be pleased to have their mores being taught thousands of years later. Both in that their original meanings will have been altered over time and that the society itself is going to be much different than the one for which the system was devised. Even though there are some hard and fast rules which should be applied to most situations, there's lots of others that should not. "Thou shalt not kill" is probably the best example of a concept that's most likely to survive indefinitely. Even though there's lots of exemptions which can be listed off, not to mention times when people practicing a religion that has that rule or a similar one in place will ignore it. (Hello crusades.)

Other ideas have deteriorated over time. The Seven Deadly Sins have existed from at least the sixth century and the biggest change has been switching Luxury to Lust. (And this is assuming Luxuria was originally meant to be Luxury rather than something of the more sexual nature Lust represents.) As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, there are far worse actions a person can perform than any of the seven sins. The concept is that these emotions/wants are what cause all the problems in the world and by my opinion that's outdated. What makes sense to me is that, at the time of their conception, these were the things which had the most negative impact on society (at least as viewed by the religious officials whom created and taught their views.)

Rather than reissuing the Ten Commandments, for example, the urges assumed to catalyze crimes and social mishaps were attacked instead. A sort of preemptive strike, by telling someone that Wrath is a bad thing and that you can calm it with Patience (Forbearance and endurance through moderation. Resolving conflicts peacefully, as opposed to resorting to violence. The ability to forgive; to show mercy to sinners. -Wiki) this should essentially keep people from reaching the point at which they woud strike out in anger.

To get back on track, sort of, this means that normal human emotions and reactions have become demonized. Probably they were taught to be Satan's influence, which is certainly what could have prompted Peter Binsfeld to have equated each sin with a particular demonic entity. In modern Westren society, even though it's still possible to recognize anger as a negative emotion, I feel things are reaching a point where it's not "bad" in the traditional/religious way. More so with Pride or Lust, gradually these are becoming neutral or even positively viewed. At the same time, Zeal (a subcategory of Diligence) is becoming negatively viewed due to acts of religious based violence.

There's also concepts which sound good but don't work in practice. The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or some variation) is great as long as everybody likes all the same things. satyreyes mentioned this in another thread recently. I personally have had experiences where people have done something for me which I didn't want. Even though they meant well, based on that in my position it's what they believe they would like to have happen, I don't have the same values or wants that they do. There's also the saying "The path to Hell is paved by good intentions" and I think that's been the case many times in human history.

Sooo, that's my take on that. I hope this is all coherent, I may have gone into a stream of consciousness and ranted like a crazy person.