Posts : 1611
Join date : 2009-10-19
|Subject: Sin of Sloth & its Manipulation Sat 21 Nov 2009, 1:44 pm|| |
I believe that the definition of the Sin of Sloth has changed its definition over time, and I further believe that this change is very significant.
It is my interpretation that the original definition dealt with the fact that we are the only ones who can destroy our own soul (our ghost in the machine
). And to do this is one of the 7 Deadly Sins. The Sin instructs us to guard against this destruction, and that is our own responsibility as individuals.
I believe that the modified definition deals with laziness; the unwillingness to do "God's work." I think this is the definition that is now mostly referred to when one uses the term "Sloth" or "Sin of Sloth."
But for me, it is the earlier definition that is of most importance, as I believe that the primary objective of propaganda today is to convince the individual to attack their own spirit (this is the objective that AJ, MSM, et. al. perpetrate). For it is a despair of heart which causes inaction which is self destructive to spirit. Further, and as Hegel said, once the spirit of a nation is gone there is no hope of turning back, and this is precisely what they aim to achieve through propaganda
. The more recent definition is one that better fits within their system, making someone who refuses to work within their system sinful. They modified the definition so that it went from one of protecting ones own soul to one of refusing to work, which is refusing to go along.
These guys don't leave anything to chance, and they get their dirty hands into every single construct that defines us and our society, modifying it for their own benefit. These subtleties cannot be overlooked.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say on Sin of Sloth:
- Quote :
- Sloth (deadly sin)
More than other sins, the definition of sloth has changed considerably since its original inclusion among the seven deadly sins. In fact it was first called the sin of sadness or despair. It had been in the early years of Christianity characterized by what modern writers would now describe as melancholy: apathy, depression, and joylessness — the last being viewed as being a refusal to enjoy the goodness of God and the world God created. Originally, its place was fulfilled by two other aspects, acedia and sadness. The former described a spiritual apathy that affected the faithful by discouraging them from their religious work. Sadness (tristitia in Latin) described a feeling of dissatisfaction or discontent, which caused unhappiness with one's current situation. When Thomas Aquinas selected acedia for his list, he described it as an "uneasiness of the mind", being a progenitor for lesser sins such as restlessness and instability. Dante refined this definition further, describing sloth as being the "failure to love God with all one's heart, all one's mind and all one's soul." He also described it as the middle sin, and as such was the only sin characterised by an absence or insufficiency of love. In his "Purgatorio", the slothful penitents were made to run continuously at top speed.
The modern view of the vice, as highlighted by its contrary virtue of zeal or diligence, is that it represents the failure to utilize one's talents and gifts. For example, a student who does not work beyond what is required (and thus fails to achieve his or her full potential) could be labeled slothful.
Current interpretations are therefore much less stringent and comprehensive than they were in medieval times, and portray sloth as being more simply a sin of laziness or indifference, of an unwillingness to act, an unwillingness to care (rather than a failure to love God and his works). For this reason sloth is now often seen as being considerably less serious than the other sins, more a sin of omission than of commission.
Note: I think this post could have also been published in the Semantic Manipulation Subforum.