# The 7 Deadly Sins vs. 9 Passions: Are they the same?



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

*TL;DR version*: 

How are the 7 deadly sins related to the enneagram passions (+2)? 
More importantly, how do the enneagram fixations differ from the 7 deadly sins? 
How can one enneagram passion be mistaken for another (i.e., both 2, 8 and 5 are power-seekers, so can Lust, Pride and Avarice be mistaken for one another?) 

obviously a shitty title for the thread, since how can they be the same if Vanity and Fear aren't among the 7 deadly sins???

I've noticed on the forum a tendency to say "focus on the core motivation" which, while important, becomes problematic when we extract the core fixation out of its real-world context (i.e., traits, behavioral patterns and defense mechanisms count for something... while it "starts from within" it also extends outward). What is meant by Wrath or Anger, for instance? Can Lust be mistaken for what is more accurately Avarice? To me, the problem arises that any enneagram passion can "look" like another, so the problem with focusing purely on the core motivation is that suddenly, I can slap the label of Avarice onto every little thing, and voila, I am a type 5, for instance.

The problem with enneagram typology and typology in general, I've noticed, is that semantics is the perennial thorn in my noggin. Everybody has different definitions of what Lust, Envy, Pride, Avarice, Vanity, Wrath, Gluttony, Pride, Sloth, and Fear are.

The Tower of Babel, in the Book of Genesis, describes a structure that was built by a united humanity, where all mankind spoke the same language. God looked down upon this structure and saw that nothing would be out of mankind's reach and as a result, he confounded the language, and scattered the people into disparate languages. 

The parable is used as an instance of the confusion of languages, and I believe that God vs. Man represent twin aspects of nature... both creative and destructive forces. Of course, I am not suggesting that one is "better" than the other, but the intertwining of these two aspects I consider as representative of the process or chemical reaction between creation vs. destruction, similar to how language and communication is a process of building an argument, then deconstructing it (i.e., debate).










Confusion of tongues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, The 7 Deadly Sins, according to Dante's Inferno (which I have not read, but I have Google, your future Overlords and Masters, which will have to do) 7 Deadly Sins :



> The First Deadly Sin: Lust
> - The first deadly sin is the sin of *Lust*. Lust is usually thought of as involving obsessive or excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature. In Dante's view lust led to "excessive love of others," which therefore made love and devotion to God secondary. .
> 
> Gluttony - The second deadly sin is the sin of *gluttony*. Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste. It can refer to over-eating, which is a sin because it witholds food from the needy and also debases the glutton by making him a slave to base, animal desires, such as his appetite. As such gluttony distracts the sinner from the spiritual life.
> ...


Summoning with my magical BBCode powers @_Animal_ @_kaleidoscope_ @_mimesis_ @_Veggie_


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Apparently there used to be 9 deadly sins somewhere in the Bible, but vanity and doubt/fear were left out somewhere along the way.
(Sorry I cant cite my sources- maybe Ill do a quick Google) .

I agree that semantics is very annoying- but we need to develop a language if we're going to talk about this efficiently, and have everyone agree on what certain terms mean in "enneagram speak." 

And I think most Enneagram scholars would argue that yes, the 9 passions do correspond to the deadly sins, and the rational behind that is that Enneagram wisdom permeates every culture and civilization, even if they dont all label it as such- because this body of wisdom really does describe humanity as it is. So naturally it would be found in multiple forms in multiple cultures. (It is definitely a leap of faith you have to make)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I would say that the great divide is between how Jungian Se/Ni types and Ne/Si types approach it.

Regardless such a convoluted system as the Enneagram can never be agreed fully on.
Not that there are more agreement in the Jungian camp...
And there isn't any real way to track it down to a single definite origin, 
that actually represent more fully and accurately what the problem that confront us is.

The frameworks you have to work with does however make sense.
These patterns are here, I'd say that the deadly sins can't really help us gain much understanding.
Maybe if we had some Jungian figure who decided to spend his life making it all fit.
But we don't and we are left with this weird puzzle.
Personally I like to fieldtest this stuff hard, either it works or breaks in field.
So far it seems to hold up well as a framework to deal with motivation/neurotic behaviour.

I went down the path of tracking it down earlier.
If you want more answers I suggest you take a long hard look at Kabbalah.










You could say that in Kabbalah we are cut of from heaven/kether and have only the 9 others left to live out.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

hornet said:


> I would say that the great divide is between how Jungian Se/Ni types and Ne/Si types approach it.


I'm curious, can you say something more specific about this?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Simply put, I find the labels are mostly the same between the sins and the passions but the meanings are different and/or more specific for the passions (except of course types 3 and 6 that are the two added beyond the 7 sins).

For example, the type 7 passion is often called "gluttony of the mind" and expanded on from there (in contrast to the traditional meaning of the sin gluttony - which is often associated with over-eating, over-indulgence, etc.).

I prefer to use words for the passions that fit better but that often just leads to debate about which words are most appropriate or disagreement from people who want to hold on to the traditional words. I think I may have started a thread about that some time ago either here or on another forum.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

charlie.elliot said:


> I'm curious, can you say something more specific about this?


Ne/Si is what I like to think as iconicaly oriented.
Hence everything they experience are icons or mixed up icons.










Like in this image where the fire is not only fire, but have a face mixed in.
Ne likes to mix stuff up.
Especially when dealing with forces, there is a feeling that it is a spirit.
As opposed to Se who don't view force as needed to be explained that way.

Si also have a very clean no nonsense approach to everything, where every icon is clearly delimated.
No object chaos if you will.









As opposed to Se who can be yeah whatever on object placements.









Ni's tracking being in the abstract are very symbolic.
And can get a lot out of stuff like this.










Ne of course can relate to such symbols also, but can't help to treat it as just another icon.
Pass over it quickly and mix it with some other icon.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

A while ago I started a similar thread, it's an interesting concept to me...the dark side of the enneagram! Here's the link if you care to read people's comments: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/157616-enneagram-sins.html

I listed the enneagram's list like this...

1 - Wrath
2 - Pride
3 - Vanity
4 - Envy
5 - Avarice
6 - Cowardice
7 - Gluttony
8 - Lust
9 - Sloth


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

charlie.elliot said:


> Apparently there used to be 9 deadly sins somewhere in the Bible, but vanity and doubt/fear were left out somewhere along the way.
> (Sorry I cant cite my sources- maybe Ill do a quick Google) .
> 
> I agree that semantics is very annoying- but we need to develop a language if we're going to talk about this efficiently, and have everyone agree on what certain terms mean in "enneagram speak."
> ...


From what I understand it's not so much that there used to be 9 sins in the bible, but that these 9 sins preceded the bible (which is a collection (canon) of books rather than one book anyway)


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Perhaps interesting to compare with the eastern tradition, where it's not so much considered a sin or even a personalilty 'asset', but rather a 'hindrance', which corresponds more with ego-distortion. 



Five Hindrances said:


> The five hindrances are:
> 
> 
> Sensory desire (_kāmacchanda_): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling.
> ...


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

charlie.elliot said:


> Apparently there used to be 9 deadly sins somewhere in the Bible, but vanity and doubt/fear were left out somewhere along the way


I read something similar. I read that cowardice/fear was removed because it's prized in religion to be fearful and to put your trust in something external like god or whatever. However I think it was written by a person biased against religion. I don't have any sources.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@hal0hal0 - Okay, I'm going to halfway (or completely ) talk out of my butt. The list by @He's a Superhero! sounds about right.

You know that I put stock in the RHETI, and in a more outside-in approach. We all struggle with all of these to likely some extent, but assessing behavioral patterns is what's going to unearth where the majority of a person's issues lie - where an imbalance is present (which is really only when I could see these "sins" as being problematic - they're more just kind of...human). The 7 stuff on gluttony and excess has been interesting to me, for example, because the majority of my struggles throughout life have been with alcohol, drugs, optimism (at a cost at times), and food (eating disorders - namely bulimia in the past). Then you could start stamping those surface issues onto everything else too, yea, just as you could with core motivation. (Wouldn't eating disorders also point to 1? Isn't excess also avarice?) That's where I think the enneagram has kind of already overthought that for us, lol, to an extent, because those are where 7's (as an example) arrows lie. Couldn't you dig really deep though and determine that these issues stem from fear? Well, sure, but isn't that probably at the root of us all? Then we all become sixes (this type just gets so ambiguous imo when you take it straight here) and the point of typing is null. 

I guess I like outside-in better for tackling pre-existing issues because I see inside-out as more about rebuilding from there. If you go straight for the core you may be building without adequately stripping and I guess I believe in a clean house first. (See? Nonsense  I might make sense on some level though). I thought the point of the enneagram was to kind of move around with it. That's why I like wings and tri-types too. Otherwise I go into this outside-in/inside-out mind stupor, and I think the point of the system is that it's more linear (even if also somewhat spatially so?), allowing for discoveries to..._unravel_...a little more or something. I've liked that it's saved me of some of this...attempting fourth dimensional thinking  that I can sometimes get caught up with when it comes to understanding how the functions are working simultaneously and loops and what not.

Oh, btw, I found an enneagram-esque chart for the sins, LOL:










I thought you might enjoy this too:






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Veggie said:


> @_hal0hal0_ - Okay, I'm going to halfway (or completely ) talk out of my butt.


Aren't we all?



Veggie said:


> I guess I like outside-in better for tackling pre-existing issues because I see inside-out as more about rebuilding from there. If you go straight for the core you may be building without adequately stripping and I guess I believe in a clean house first.


And what came first, systole or diastole? Inhaling or exhaling? 



Veggie said:


> You know that I put stock in the RHETI, and in a more outside-in approach.


I see the RHETI as more data. I know I can seem "anti-test" but that's only because I am aware of how misleading data can be. Even science is not free from bias, and there is plenty of controversy and disagreement concerning literature published within the sciences. My suspicions towards test results are adopted from how I've been taught to read articles (i.e., just because it's a randomized controlled trial or just because it's a meta-analysis or just because it's been published in the New England Journal of Medicine doesn't mean it's free from reproach).

I guess I'm just a suspicious, doubtful jackass (uh oh, must be a 6! :laughing.



Veggie said:


> We all struggle with all of these to likely some extent, but assessing behavioral patterns is what's going to unearth where the majority of a person's issues lie - where an imbalance is present (which is really only when I could see these "sins" as being problematic - they're more just kind of...human).


I think I've told you before that I don't view the Sins as "sins" and I certainly do not see these as "bad." That's why I disagree with people that say enneagram is "dark" or "negative." IS A ROADMAP negative??? That's semantics, again. Just like I believe demons needn't be vanquished or exterminated from one's conscious, I don't take a puritanical view of abstinence towards the Sins (although similarly, abstinence can be a worthwhile challenge in its own right, so if someone chooses that path, I see no reason to tell them they are "wrong"... maybe I wouldn't choose an ascetic life, but I think it comes down to individual choice). 



Veggie said:


> I thought the point of the enneagram was to kind of move around with it. That's why I like wings and tri-types too. Otherwise I go into this outside-in/inside-out mind stupor, and I think the point of the system is that it's more linear (even if also somewhat spatially so?), allowing for discoveries to..._unravel_...a little more or something. I've liked that it's saved me of some of this...attempting fourth dimensional thinking  that I can sometimes get caught up with when it comes to understanding how the functions are working simultaneously and loops and what not.


The enneagram is a roadmap and, like a roadmap, its value is up to you. Either you can create movement or create stillness and I don't see any as being better than another (although sure, the context can make one more desirable). You can sample what a variety of terrains have to offer, or you can familiarize yourself with the same road again and again. 

Perhaps stillness is the ultimate movement in the same way that perpetual motion can become a sort of suspended animation.

Moreover, just because you are in a climate different from what is ideal for you doesn't mean that experience is valueless (i.e., mistyping in its own right is a learning experience). I view "type" as a sort of costume, I guess. I can put on the mask of a 6, for instance, and step inside that role, just as a method actor might or more generally, the vicariousness of fiction in general.

Going with our roadmap method, there are of course differences between the types (have I argued otherwise? I may look for similarities, but to suggest a 7's issues are the same as a 4's is like saying Ecuador has the same climate as Siberia). There may be similarities, such as an imbalance or extreme to their particular traits (and overidentification/ego-distortion is the common thread to enneagram in general), but sure, the traits themselves are quite different. 

The rebalancing process of a 4 is quite different from a 7 or 8.



Veggie said:


> Then we all become sixes (this type just gets so ambiguous imo when you take it straight here) and the point of typing is null.


Everybody is a 6, didn't you get the memo?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

hal0hal0 said:


> I think I've told you before that I don't view the Sins as "sins" and I certainly do not see these as "bad." That's why I disagree with people that say enneagram is "dark" or "negative." IS A ROADMAP negative??? That's semantics, again. Just like I believe demons needn't be vanquished or exterminated from one's conscious, I don't take a puritanical view of abstinence towards the Sins (although similarly, abstinence can be a worthwhile challenge in its own right, so if someone chooses that path, I see no reason to tell them they are "wrong"... maybe I wouldn't choose an ascetic life, but I think it comes down to individual choice).


The Enneagram can be both positive or negative.
It depends on what direction you focus on.
It is very easy to get locked down and fixated on the disintegration of your type.
However you can just as easily be focused on the integration aspect.
A lot of people involved with the Ennegram falls into the trap of focusing on the negative.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Personally I would love cowardice to be added to the deadly sins because it fits. Courage would be the virtue that goes with it.


----------

