Hello to you,

I hope you don't mind a longer comment.

I think it can be misunderstood if, in the case of the seven deadly sins, the terminology is watered down and framed in such a way that they become helpers without finding their way there at a moderate pace. And to use philosophical or even spiritual aids to do so.

The definitions help to see the difference. Greed, when connoted positively, can be described simply as "wanting to have something", but it is precisely the extreme form of wanting to have. Greed is, so to speak, the contrast to less strong forms of desire, which are then no longer described as greedy, but perhaps as goal-oriented. You can also let a desire go if it is not characterised by greed. How easily one can let go of a desire then describes the degree of maturity of a person. To use a conceptualisation in a field where there is no agreement on a philosophical or religious form of understanding is marked by conflict. Which does not have to be a bad thing per se, because in a conflict lies an opportunity for clarification. But it can also be the case that one person tries to impose his definition on another by all means, and the very attempt of the other to offer a less final view is itself perceived as sinful.

Terms can be as annoying and confrontational as they are helpful and clarifying. I find it helpful to apply the concept of the four-values-square, in which I summarise a feeling that is difficult for me personally in a term and then expand it towards three other sides in order to find a suitable direction of development for me.

An example: I choose tension/stress as a difficulty. The less exaggerated form is the simple "doing", the state of natural tension, such as when running, compared to the natural state of relaxation, such as when sleeping (resting).

By doing this, I have identified what I call a positive quality by cutting back on the exaggeration and looking at what actually corresponds to the exaggerated state in its original form.

So here I have determined the concept of "creative energy". Now I consider the positive sister quality. As already indicated here, this is "resting".
Then I place both next to each other in a horizontal way; with space in between. There is a positive field between creative energy and resting, there is a balance between the two. So if I go down vertically from both terms and recognise the single term in its exaggeration, with the word "creative energy" I see the "restless doing" (the urge to always have to do something, not really being able to rest even when I am already lying in bed, etc.). So I end up with the negative quality of "restlessness" ( compulsive creating). The "evil" sister of the constantly active is then easy to identify. One goes back up to the concept of resting and finds its exaggeration. That would be complete slackness, total listlessness or inertia.

Now we have also identified the negative field of tension: Here restlessness and inertia look at each other.
Everyone knows this, don't they? After a very stressful day full of nervous activity and continuous performance, you collapse in the evening and don't want to see anything more of the world. (This can also last for weeks, months and years, people are tough, sometimes for a whole lifetime until having a heart attack, for example).

I could write a lot more, but leave it at that. I find it remarkable how you have reflected on the reactions in the comments and scrutinised your formulations to the extent that you mention the explosiveness in them. I found it very interesting and welcome the topic as a whole, although on the other hand I think I also recognise the danger of counter-productivity.

Greetings to you.