Talk:Actual sin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Theology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Untitled[edit]

Mike, not sure why the article was reverted. Please let me know.

- NW

Oh dear[edit]

This article is rather hilariously neo-con. Puhlease- someone work on it! It needs some contemporary Catholic and Christian theologizing ...instead of simply trotting out Tridentine neo-scholasticism (I'm not even sure it is modern enough to be Thomistic- but maybe scrapes in)....oh dear

Cor Unum 11:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This article only has one outside link for the whole thing, and in general needs to be rewritten. It strikes me as lacking any sort of objectivity, and just describes elements of religion as facts. I think the neutrality thing would be mostly resolved if the contents of the article were rewritten in a way that makes it clear that these guidelines are the beliefs of Christianity, rather than how it currently is just thrown up as "The way things are." Maybe I'm just being overzealous here, but it practically screams to me that this was written by a fervent believer in this faith who accepted it all as fiat and was just writing it up from personal knowledge. Shikitohno (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No support for this entry, but it may have certain merit in the future[edit]

Oblivious Sins[edit]

Oblivious sins are sins that are common and forgivable. These sins are: (Some sins such as Avarice and Covetousness have been given other meanings.)

  1. Avarice (New meaning: To lie commonly.)
  2. Covetousness (New meaning: The desire to kill.)
  3. Omega (The belief that evil will conquer good.)
  4. Devastation (The desire to destroy.)
  5. Pain (The desire to bring pain to someone.)
  6. Steal (The desire to take whats not yours.)
  7. Joy (The desire to do what you want when you want.)
  8. Panic (The desire to fear and stay away from almost everything.)
  9. Loyalty (The desire to be loyal to someone that is not god. To be loyal to someone of mortal flesh.)

This material is unsubstantiated OR, but it may have a context in the future.--Drboisclair 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This Article is written from a Non-objective veiw-point[edit]

Thats pretty much it...

115.64.216.236 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In what way? It is just stating Catholic theology. Is it that it has been corrected since 2009 or that you find it non-objective for a religion to differentiate between original and actual sin?ThePepel-Eterni (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

This article is wp:original research, wp:unsourced, and is encyclopedicly covered on articles such as Sin, Original sin and Seven deadly sins. Also, this page is obviously a wp:povfork from the Sin articles mentioned above as ThePepel-Eterni (talk · contribs) states above, " It is just stating Catholic theology" in Talk:Actual sin#This Article is written from a Non-objective veiw-point. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 02:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


  • I have removed the {{prod}} tag which proposed that this article be deleted, because I think that this article has merit and so should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here as notification. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article as that process is only to be used when there is no opposition. Warden (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Without comment on the idea that the Colonel believes the article has some sort of unstated "merit" of some kind or another, this article is a vague regurgitation of segments of Roman Catholic thought dredged out of the previously mentioned encyclopedic articles and given a name. The Colonel removed the prod. Nothing notable there or in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)