# Is pride a sin?



## scotu

One of the things I was taught in my youth was that "pride was a sin"
Later I asked "Why should being proud of something be a sin?" So I wonder is this "pride is a sin" thing a christian idea that nobody pays attention to anymore or does the ideal have a home in a "universal morality"

PS: I don't have the slightest idea what a "universal morality" is but maybe _ya know what I mean?_

_I value your input._


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's say, it all depends on which sense of pride you refer to.

Here's what our English dictionary offers:



> *pride* *A *_noun_
> *1 **pride*,
> 
> _unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem (personified as one of the deadly sins)  _
> 
> *2 **pride*
> 
> _the trait of being spurred on by a dislike of falling below your standards  _
> 
> *3 **pride*,
> 
> _a feeling of self-respect and personal worth  _
> 
> *4 **pride*
> 
> _satisfaction with your (or another's) achievements; "he takes pride in his son's success"_



The notion of error as 'sin'  (WR English dictionary: _an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will) _is based in theology.  For people who do not practice a religion that uses this or a similar definition, 'sin' is not meaningful.


----------



## mora

Hello

There are several definitions of pride. When it has the meaning 'an unduly high opinion of oneself, haughtiness' it is considered a sin. When it has the meaning 'dignity and self-respect' it is not considered a sin. When it has the meaning 'satisfaction in something done or owned' it is not considered a sin, unless it is undue or excessive self-satisfaction, and then it falls into the first definition, and can be considered a sin. When it means a group of lions, then it has nothing to do with sin. 

Mora


----------



## tvdxer

scotu said:
			
		

> One of the things I was taught in my youth was that "pride was a sin"
> Later I asked "Why should being proud of something be a sin?" So I wonder is this "pride is a sin" thing a christian idea that nobody pays attention to anymore or does the ideal have a home in a "universal morality"
> 
> PS: I don't have the slightest idea what a "universal morality" is but maybe _ya know what I mean?_
> 
> _I value your input._



Pride is certainly a sin, and one of the seven capital sins, but the type of pride you are thinking of is not necessarily a sin, and can actually be a good thing.  Being proud of one's country, religion, family, etc. is not wrong; the "pride" that is sinful consists in "excessive love of one's own excellence", as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it.  It leads one to disobedience of God, the moral law (note: fancy term for "right and wrong") and one's superiors, in thinking oneself so self-worthy as to be above these things.  In this way it can be considered the chief vice.  

Also classifiable as "pride" is vainglory, boasting, etc.


----------



## scotu

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Let's say, it all depends on which sense of pride you refer to.Here's what our English dictionary offers:
> The notion of error as 'sin' (WR English dictionary: _an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will) _is based in theology. For people who do not practice a religion that uses this or a similar definition, 'sin' is not meaningful.


 
Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?


----------



## cuchuflete

scotu said:
			
		

> Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?



Let's divide the overgeneralizations into two buckets:

As perceived by those who accept the notion of sin as an affront against a deity, anyone can sin.

As perceived by those who do not accept the idea of the existence of a deity, or those who do, but don't have a theology that allows for human acts to be an affront to that deity, there simply is no such thing as 'sin'.  However, most people who do not accept the notion of sin, do still believe that there are such things as severe defects of character, and gross errors in behavior.  They just leave out the god part, or the human offending god part.


----------



## scotu

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Let's divide the overgeneralizations into two buckets:
> 
> As perceived by those who accept the notion of sin as an affront against a deity, anyone can sin.
> 
> As perceived by* those who do not accept the idea of the existence of a deity, or those who do, but don't have a theology that allows for human acts to be an affront to that deity**, there simply is no such thing as 'sin'. However, most people who do not accept the notion of sin, do still believe that there are *such things as severe defects of character, and gross errors in behavior.* They just leave out the god part, or the human offending god part.


 
*I fit somewhere in this category and did not know, until now, that what I thought was sin all these years required an affrontable deity. *severe defects of character, and gross errors in behavior* seem like such cumbersome terms. Isn't there a better term to describe what I can no longer can call sinning?
Would "defects in character" and "gross errors in behavior" apply as sins for those who have an affrontable deity?


----------



## tvdxer

scotu said:
			
		

> Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?



No.

Sin is essentially a transgression against the moral law.  It can be committed by anybody, and in reality is committed by everybody, some more than others.  Most of us have an idea of "right and wrong"; and all of us choose the latter at least once in a while.


----------



## cuchuflete

If you don't believe in a deity, and sin is a 'transgression of god's will' or 'disobedience of God', then for you, sin does not exist.  Just call it whatever you like.  The idea is that it is something seriously bad, either as a character defect or very wrong behavior.

Take murder, for example.  Call it whatever you like.  How about an extremely serious crime?  For a person who follows a religion whose theology includes the idea of sin, it is both a very serious crime, and a sin.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tvdxer's answer is accurate,* for him*, because he obviously believes in a deity, and a theology which includes sin.

For a person who does not believe in a deity, the answer is the contrary: No deity, hence no possibility of trangression against a deity, therefore no sin exists, but egregious error does exist.


Note also: The notion of sin is absolutely absent from Buddhism.


----------



## fenixpollo

scotu said:
			
		

> Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?


 That's correct.  Therefore, pride (definition #1 above) is not a sin.  It's just a character flaw.  The other definitions of pride are neither.


----------



## scotu

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> That's correct. Therefore, pride (definition #1 above) is not a sin. It's just a character flaw. The other definitions of pride are neither.


 
I don't believe that the things that I have been calling _sins are an affront to any deity, but too frequently they are affronts to a fellow human being or to my self-being. When I am aware that I have committed one of these affronts I am uneasy until I obtain forgiveness from the being (in this case human) that I affronted or myself if it was a self-affront. Maybe if I altered the definition a tad and substituted the word "being (human or otherwise)" for the word "deity" I could still get away with using the "s" word?
_


----------



## cuchuflete

scotu said:
			
		

> I don't believe that the things that I have been calling _sins are an affront to any deity, but too frequently they are affronts to a fellow human being or to my self-being. When I am aware that I have committed one of these affronts I am uneasy until I obtain forgiveness from the being (in this case human) that I affronted or myself if it was a self-affront. Maybe if I altered the definition a tad and substituted the word "being (human or otherwise)" for the word "deity" I could still get away with using the "s" word?
> _



That discomfort, uneasiness, remorse, is a common feeling among people, religious or not, who have a sense of right and wrong.  It can be, exactly as you have said, alleviated by forgiveness, or by a sincere effort at amends on your part.

_From a linguistic standpoint_, if the things that trouble you are not an affront to a deity, they are not sins, but you are welcome to think of them as you wish, and call them whatever you please.  Probably more important than the naming conventions are the recognition that something is amiss, and your efforts to make things right by earning forgiveness.


----------



## scotu

Well said, and thank you. Now can we go back to the original question?
Is pride a sin ? But to avoid linguistic incorrectness; let me rephrase the question: _Is pride (chchu's definition #1) something to be proud of or something to be ashamed of?_


----------



## danielfranco

I think that the early Christian philosophers (like St. Agustine) had a more "Greek" outlook about their Christianity than we do today, and so many of the early philosophical teachings of the Greek filtered into the Christian perspective of the universe. Perhaps one of the biggest influences were the Stoic teachings of avoiding passion and embracing "apathy" as the correct emotional response. So, if you had any commendable achievements, you were supposed to think: "well, what else was expected? It was my duty...", and to be proud of such achievements was a sin.
Perhaps...


----------



## scotu

danielfranco said:
			
		

> I think that the early Christian philosophers (like St. Agustine) had a more "Greek" outlook about their Christianity than we do today, and so many of the early philosophical teachings of the Greek filtered into the Christian perspective of the universe. Perhaps one of the biggest influences were the Stoic teachings of avoiding passion and embracing "apathy" as the correct emotional response. So, if you had any commendable achievements, you were supposed to think: "well, what else was expected? It was my duty...", and to be proud of such achievements was a sin.
> Perhaps...


 
Wasn't pride a sin in the theological sense because the prideful person instead of giving god credit for the object of pride, was _stealing _the credit for himself?


----------



## mora

Hello

There is no absolute objective determination of what is a 'sin'. Various religious and other groups define 'sin' for their followers, but it is the individual who defines it. 'Pride' isn't a sin for fenixpollo for example, but it is for followers of some religions. There are many things that fall into this category. So the question must be posed in a context, such as, 'in your personal beliefs, is pride a sin? or 'in the religion you follow, is pride defined as a sin? or as you rephrased it, is pride something to be ashamed of or not, impling that you are seeking personal opinions, rather than theological definitions. 

In my opinion, pride, as defined as a 'deadly sin' is not a good thing, it is something I assiduously seek to avoid, yet do not adhere to the concepts of sin, much less deadly sins. It's just my personal belief system...heard it somewhere....  that pride goeth before a fall....  and  I am trying to stay  vertical  

Mora


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Sin is essentially a transgression against the moral law.  It can be committed by anybody, and in reality is committed by everybody, some more than others.  Most of us have an idea of "right and wrong"; and all of us choose the latter at least once in a while.



Surely you mean "sin is essentially a transgression against a perceived moral law"?

You persist in imputing your beliefs as universal. Your moral certainties are not everyone else's. Some might argue that you are deluded in your belief in these things, as you cannot prove the existence of your deity, or your moral law.


----------



## Brioche

scotu said:
			
		

> Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?


 
From the point of view of _traditional Catholicism,_ a sin in a act of the will.
The sinner must *know* that what she is doing is contrary to the law of God, and must *choose* to do it.

So if you don't know it is a sin, it isn't.

This is not like the civil law, where ignorance is no excuse.


----------



## GenJen54

scotu said:
			
		

> Well said, and thank you. Now can we go back to the original question? Is pride a sin ? But to avoid linguistic incorrectness; let me rephrase the question: _Is pride (chchu's definition #1) something to be proud of or something to be ashamed of?_


 Hi Scotu, 

Please be patiend.  We are trying to come to a conclusion using our individual backgrounds and beliefs. Depending upon one's perspective, there may or may not be an absolute.

Think in matters of opposites. In a spiritual philosophy I follow, "sin" is considered a "lack" of something, usually its opposite. In this case, sinful "pride" is pride that lacks "humility."

This is the type of pride that is filled with self-righteousness or vanity.  Pride that is also humble (yes, they can co-exisit) is not sinful, because it does not "lack."

 If I just finish writing a novel, and manage to get it published (or heck, just finish the darn thing), then that kind of "self-satisfaction" in having accomplished a well-established goal without letting it "get to my head" cannot be considered "prideful," even I would guess, by most religious followers. That's not to say one cannot be proud of one's accomplishments, or the accomplishment of others. It is how you let pride affect you and the way you carry that pride.

Sinful pride would occur (I believe) if person who finishes that task becomes so self-absorbed in their accomplishments that they become vain, then use their accomplishment as a way of showing they are somehow "better" than other people. Again, lack of humility.

Using this definition, one could argue that many fundamentalists - those whose sense of "righteousness" deters them from seeing or trying to understand others' views or viewpoints - are acting in a sinful manner (assuming their denomination believes pride is sinful). Not all Christian denominations believe this way. 

 Much has to do with "pride of the ego" (also called "hubris") vs. "pride of the id."  



			
				Brioche said:
			
		

> So if you don't know it is a sin, it isn't.


 This is an interesting point. So, how then does one know when one sins if "sin" can only exist when one recognizes sin? Does someone else have to tell the sinner?  Is it a case of "'when the student is ready, the teacher (lesson) will come?"


----------



## cuchuflete

Good morning Scotu,

More thoughts:

Your very specific question was,


> Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?


 and the answer*s are*
1. _Yes_, for those  who have a religion whose theology includes sin;
2._No_, for other religious believers whose theology does not include sin
3. _Maybe_, for those who are not religious.
a. *IF *they don't believe in a god, there is no sin
b. *IF *they believe in a deity, but do not believe in sin, there is no sin;
c. *IF* they are not religious, do believe in a deity, and do believe it is possible for human thought, emotion, or action to be an affront to that deity, then there may be sin. 

A believer in the possibility of sin may make a personal judgment that another person is sinful or has sinned. That judgment may be an example of sin in itself, if the person doing the judging has arrogated the right to judge from their own god. The person calling others "sinners" may even believe that their judgments are divinely inspired. You may decide _for yourself_ whether this is a case of morally correct thinking, petty human error, or an arrogant usurpation of a god's authority.


_"unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem" is not "chuchu's definition #1". It is, as stated, a citation from the WR English dictionary, which is _Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University.


----------



## lizzeymac

A reasonable statement, even if one is not "religious"?

"Inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin..." 
         Thomas Aquinas on Pride (1,77)​


----------



## scotu

Fernando..your deleted Post displays much humility, you should be proud of that!


----------



## scotu

Good afternoon cuchu,



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> More thoughts:
> 
> Your very specific question was,
> and the answer*s are*
> 1. _Yes_, for those who have a religion whose theology includes sin;
> 2._No_, for other religious believers whose theology does not include sin
> 3. _Maybe_, for those who are not religious.
> a. *IF *they don't believe in a god, there is no sin
> b. *IF *they believe in a deity, but do not believe in sin, there is no sin;
> c. *IF* they are not religious, do believe in a deity, and do believe it is possible for human thought, emotion, or action to be an affront to that deity, then there may be sin. .


I can't find myself in any of the categories you've suggested, If you will permit I'd like to suggest one more so that I might fit in? 
3.d. *IF* they are not religious, believe that a human being can never know whether or nor there is a_ whatchucallit,_ but also believe that there are thoughts, emotions, or actions that would be an affront to that _whatchucallit_, (if it exists) then there may be sin. It's kind of like; If I were _whatchucallit_ would I be offended by this particular thought, emotion, action?


> A believer in the possibility of sin may make a personal judgment that another person is sinful or has sinned. That judgment may be an example of sin in itself, if the person doing the judging has arrogated the right to judge from their own god. The person calling others "sinners" may even believe that their judgments are divinely inspired. You may decide _for yourself_ whether this is a case of morally correct thinking, petty human error, or an arrogant usurpation of a god's authority


.
There you go again, displaying your characteristic sagacity! But again I don't find a fitting choice: how about "arrogant, egregious, morally incorrect, human error"? 



> _"unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem" is not "chuchu's definition #1". It is, as stated, a citation from the WR English dictionary, which is Adapted From: WordNet 2.0 Copyright 2003 by Princeton University._


_Hope I didn't offend. I try to be more careful next time. _


----------



## maxiogee

scotu said:
			
		

> 3.d. *IF* they are not religious, believe that a human being can never know whether or nor there is a_ whatchucallit,_ but also believe that there are thoughts, emotions, or actions that would be an affront to that _whatchucallit_, (if it exists) then there may be sin. It's kind of like; If I were _whatchucallit_ would I be offended by this particular thought, emotion, action?



Then you are (vicariously) taking offence on behalf of 1 in cuchuflete's list.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello again Scotu,

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are among the very many thinking people who wrestle with the entire _whatchucallit_ subject.  You have a strong sense of morality, and can envision a human error which might also be an offense against a possible whatchucallit.

If that's where one is, and the word "sin" seems like a good way to describe the bad conduct or thought, then I can only ask, "Why not use it?".  I don't know of a specific word that covers this combination of circumstances any better than sin, even if it may be a little more certain in its implications than the status of the person who is questioning whatchucallitdom.   As I see it, the only downside of your possible use of the word 'sin' is to ruffle the feathers of a strict theologian, and they are generally a pretty unflappable bunch. 

 Oh, one more possible source of upset: strict atheists may wince a little. In these politically kerrect days, I suppose it's hard to come to any decision without running afoul of some
"special interest group".   If there is a Loving Whatchucallit, 
I'm sure your sincere ponderings and all of our linguistic imprecisions will be granted a touch of tolerance.


----------



## cuchuflete

Still thinking.... What if there is a _whatchucallit, _and she/he/it created us all with the assumption that we are going to act...well......human, and therefore cannot possibly do anything unforseen by, or offensive to, the _whatchucallit?

_In that case, you could simply say, "Oooops! My bad. My very serious bad." and be done with it. Elevating all of this to the level of assuming that mere humans are able to transgress against the sense of propriety of a genuine _whatchucallit _might be an example of human pride run amok!


----------



## scotu

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hello again Scotu,
> 
> Oh, one more possible source of upset: strict atheists may wince a little. .


Seems to me that strict atheists and strict fundamentalists are two of a kind...they are both stubbornly positive about something they can't possibly know anything about.


----------



## cuchuflete

scotu said:
			
		

> Seems to me that strict atheists and strict fundamentalists are two of a kind...they are both stubbornly positive about something they can't possibly know anything about.



One can only hope that they keep each other gainfully --or otherwise--distracted, such that mere questioning mortals be allowed to ponder and discuss questions without having absolutist answers shoved down throats.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> One can only hope that they keep each other gainfully --or otherwise--distracted, such that mere questioning mortals be allowed to ponder and discuss questions without having absolutist answers shoved down throats.



The whinge of the perpetually misunderstood —> I thought I was shoving absolutist questions down people's throats!


----------



## scotu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Then you are (vicariously) taking offence on behalf of 1 in cuchuflete's list.


I'm not sure that I understand your question. 

Cuchuflete's answer #1 to the question "_Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?_"  is: "_Yes, for those who have a religion whose theology includes sin"_

No I don't take offense at this answer but I not willing to agree that religious people have exclusive right to sinning. I think the rest of us have a right to sin also. I'll go one step further I think sinning should be elevated to a basic human right wrong.


----------



## scotu

Exploring the world of sin has been a delightful thread deviation and I thank you for that but I would still like to get your thoughts on whether *pride* is vice or virtue and how about humility?


----------



## cuchuflete

Humility is obviously a vice:  "_Keep a sufficiently humble, open mind, and hold the assurance that people will throw lots of garbage into it_."

For pride, I assume you mean the first Wordnet definition.
Is it a vice?  I really don't know, until you tell me your working definition of vice.  It's not the most attractive attitude, but there are gradations of pride.  Please help a little with your own definitions.


----------



## maxiogee

scotu said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I understand your question.
> 
> Cuchuflete's answer #1 to the question "_Does this mean that "people who do not practice a religion" cannot sin?_"  is: "_Yes, for those who have a religion whose theology includes sin"_
> 
> No I don't take offense at this answer but I not willing to agree that religious people have exclusive right to sinning. I think the rest of us have a right to sin also. I'll go one step further I think sinning should be elevated to a basic human right wrong.



I wasn't asking a question.
You said "It's kind of like; If I were whatchucallit would I be offended by this particular thought, emotion, action?"
It's like someone sitting watching a comic telling an XYZ-joke, and an ABC person in the audience saying "If I were XYZ, I'd be offended by that, I think."
Your instance is an extension of cuchuflete's 1 scenario.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Humility is obviously a vice:  "_Keep a sufficiently humble, open mind, and hold the assurance that people will throw lots of garbage into it_."



I would hold that Pride and Humility are two sides of the one coin, and that the only problem with either of them arises when there is excess of them.
I have never understood the concept of people saying "It makes me proud to be Irish" (or whatever nationality you wish) when some sporting or other distinction is achieved by a national team. I'm Irish because I was born here. I cannot be proud of that fact. Equally, I cannot be ashamed of the fact either - no matter what other Irish people do. How humility might enter into nationality I haven't yet figured out.


----------



## scotu

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Still thinking.... What if there is a _whatchucallit, _and she/he/it created us all with the assumption that we are going to act...well......human, and therefore cannot possibly do anything unforseen by, or offensive to, the _whatchucallit?_
> 
> In that case, you could simply say, "Oooops! My bad. My very serious bad." and be done with it. Elevating all of this to the level of assuming that mere humans are able to transgress against the sense of propriety of a genuine _whatchucallit _might be an example of human pride run amok!


 
You're right, surely a _whatchucallit _that would have had the ability to create man would have done it just the way you suggest, warts and all and therefore could not be affronted. That would mean that there's no sin for anybody christian or otherwise.


----------



## scotu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I would hold that Pride and Humility are two sides of the one coin, and that the only problem with either of them arises when there is excess of them.
> I have never understood the concept of people saying "It makes me proud to be Irish" (or whatever nationality you wish) when some sporting or other distinction is achieved by a national team. I'm Irish because I was born here. I cannot be proud of that fact. Equally, I cannot be ashamed of the fact either - no matter what other Irish people do. How humility might enter into nationality I haven't yet figured out.


 
Well said! My original question was prompted by someone saying "I'm proud to be an American" so I got to thinking about this pride thing and why someone should be proud of something that is essentially an accident.
Then the sin part of it came when someone said "I am proud to be a christian" but I thought christians were supposed to be humble; isn't "proud christian" an oxymoron?


----------



## cuchuflete

scotu said:
			
		

> You're right, surely a _whatchucallit _that would have had the ability to create man would have done it just the way you suggest, warts and all and therefore could not be affronted. That would mean that there's no sin for anybody christian or otherwise.



Scotu,
I am really beginning to worry about you.  

Your last comment is so redolent of common sense that it's bound to seriously offend all those who use sinsability as a cudgel to smack other people.  Further, you may have jeopardized the livelihoods of mobs of theologically inspired radio and television preachers, who depend on sin to titilate their audiences.


----------



## scotu

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Scotu,
> I am really beginning to worry about you.
> 
> Your last comment is so redolent of common sense that it's bound to seriously offend all those who use sinsability as a cudgel to smack other people. Further, you may have jeopardized the livelihoods of mobs of theologically inspired radio and television preachers, who depend on sin to titilate their audiences.


 
Hooray, Hooray now we can all be the first to cast a stone.


----------

