Talk:Actual sin

message: 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)
thread_title: Oh dear

message: ===Oblivious Sins===
Oblivious sins are sins that are common and forgivable. These sins are:
(Some sins such as Avarice and Covetousness have been given other meanings.)
#Avarice (New meaning: To lie commonly.)
#Covetousness (New meaning: The desire to kill.)
#Omega (The belief that evil will conquer good.)
#Devastation (The desire to destroy.)
#Pain (The desire to bring pain to someone.)
#Steal (The desire to take whats not yours.)
#Joy (The desire to do what you want when you want.)
#Panic (The desire to fear and stay away from almost everything.)
#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)
thread_title:  No support for this entry, but it may have certain merit in the future 

message: Oblivious sins are sins that are common and forgivable. These sins are:
(Some sins such as Avarice and Covetousness have been given other meanings.)
#Avarice (New meaning: To lie commonly.)
#Covetousness (New meaning: The desire to kill.)
#Omega (The belief that evil will conquer good.)
#Devastation (The desire to destroy.)
#Pain (The desire to bring pain to someone.)
#Steal (The desire to take whats not yours.)
#Joy (The desire to do what you want when you want.)
#Panic (The desire to fear and stay away from almost everything.)
#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)
thread_title: Oblivious Sins

message: Thats pretty much it...
115.64.216.236 (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This Article is written from a Non-objective veiw-point 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Delete

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Actual sin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928013931/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0015/__P6D.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6D.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified