In Genesis 11:4, the people said, *“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves...”* God saw this as an act of pride and rebellion, and responded by confusing their language and scattering them. Today, space agencies and astronauts aim to explore or even colonize outer space—what the Bible might refer to as "the heavens." This raises a spiritual question: Are there theological or biblical interpretations that suggest modern space travel could be a continuation of the same spirit of pride or rebellion seen in Babel?

As stated above. I know the out-of-pocket answer is "pride", but I'm curious. The angels all had full knowledge of the choice and the resultant consequences, yet a third rebelled. Was it exclusively pride that led them to this decision, or something else? It seems a remarkably unwise decision for a being that knows unequivocally that it will result in eternal torment and separation from God. We can make the obvious argument that this is an awful lot like us, but the angels all had far more information than us. Angels don't need faith, they've all personally met God and know who He is without any doubt. They're timeless and never experienced moments of weakness. They made the decision in utterly ideal circumstances. Was it truly pride and pride alone that led to this?

If you want to be confused and stay confused, you've come to the right place. It seems that practically all the answers on any topic are answered as follows: Question- Should you come to a complete stop at a red light? Answer - It depends on whether you're translating from Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin or some other translation e.g. Substitutionary locomotion. Those sound good on paper, but they're just another way to say "I don't know". So if that's the truth, it won't hurt to just say so.

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

The Bible has much to say about hope, especially in Romans chapter 8. The Old Testament has much to say about pride, which God hates (Proverbs 8:14, for example). As for despair, Christians are encouraged not to despair even when perplexed (2 Corinthians 4:8). ___I can readily understand how despair can destroy hope, but how would pride be the enemy of hope?___ I found this expression in a novel set in the republic of Ireland, where the main characters are educated by Catholic nuns. Pride and despair are both viewed as sins. Initially, I would like to explore the views of Catholics to establish if this is part of their beliefs. ***In what way, spiritually speaking, are pride and despair the twin enemies of hope?***

Why did the disciples, and the mother of James and John, seem so concerned about their status within the group of disciples? eg Mark 9 - but others too. I am wondering if there is more to this than pride - which is surely part of the answer. However, though as adults we are definitely concerned about our status, arguments between adults about 'I am greater than you' are far from common - in my experience. Is there some detail about the rabbi-disciple relationship here that is missed by a simple discussion of pride? Was there something at stake that is more significant than just 'I am better than you'?

When I was younger it was quite common to hear that the crimes of Sodom had nothing to do with gayness, but was about pride, and they would quote Ezekiel 16:49. > Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of > bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, > neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Has any liberal theologian commented on that verse and the change, for example, of "gay pride" month becoming simply "pride" month?

1 Peter 5:5-7 (ESV): > 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for **“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”** 6 **Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you**, 7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. James 4:6-10 (ESV): > 6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, **“God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”** 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 **Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you**. - First of all, what do Peter and James mean by being *proud* and *humble*? What are the Biblical definitions of *pride* and *humility*? - Why does God oppose the proud but give grace to the humble? What is the logic behind this principle/law? - Is there something inherently wrong about being proud? Why is pride a bad thing? - Is there something inherently good about being humble? Why is humility a good thing? ______________ ***Note**: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that.* _____________ ***Note 2**: I reworded this question to match the style of this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83011/50422*

Reading [Daniel 4:29–33](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+4%3A29%E2%80%9333&version=ESV) , I understand that Nebuchadnezzar was punished by God due to his pride. During his punishment, did his kingdom cease to exist or was there a new king? Who was in charge of his position during his madness?

Galatians 6:4 NIV says "Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else," What is the nature of this pride he speaks of or is the use of the word pride a loose translation of another concept? My understanding is that pride is not spiritual and I can't really think of how to mold this statement into my current understanding of spirituality vs the flesh and selfishness.

We are proud of our son for being able to write his name, and my wife was boasting that she helped him learn to write it. Ultimately, we both know it's from God that he is able to learn this skill and my wife has the ability to teach him. I know that pride and boasting in ourselves is not good (see verses below), but as long as we ultimately acknowledge God in our pride and boasting, is it acceptable to do this? Jeremiah 9:23–24 (NIV)

<b>23</b> This is what the LORD says:<br /><br /> “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom <br /> or the strong boast of their strength <br /> or the rich boast of their riches, <br /> <b>24</b> but let the one who boasts boast about this: <br /> that they have the understanding to know me, <br /> that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, <br /> justice and righteousness on earth, <br /> for in these I delight,” <br /> declares the LORD.

James 4:6 (NIV)

<b>6</b> But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:<br /><br /> “God opposes the proud <br /> but shows favor to the humble.”