Talk:Sin of omission

Can someone please clarify this?

I just added a tag to this sentence: "A person may be guilty of a sin of omission by failing to do something which he is able to do and which he ought to do, by reason of a cause for which he is entirely responsible, as when a person knows that drinking to drunkness will incapacitate him, and yet drinks." What exactly is the point being made here? That a person commits a sin if he drinks to excess with foreknowledge that it will prevent him from doing something he ought to, or that to avoid sin a person should never knowingly incapacitate himself in such a manner just in case he may be required to help another? On first reading I thought it might be meant to imply that drunkenness itself is a sin, but of course that would make no sense because if that were the case then the sin would be one of commission not omission. Can the author of the above sentence or someone else who knows what it's getting at please clarify? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is Dracano Sapien?

We need to find reliable sources for both of those quotes. The MLK one is well knows, but stills needs a source. But Dracano? Google Search shows nothing serious for that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinarpe (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed quote

I took out the quote by Dracano Sapien as I can not seem to find any reference to this person as besides this page. If someone can figure out who this person is I'll add it back. I also tried to clarify the example of drunkenness.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Omission (Catholicism) → Sin of omission – This concept applies to more than just Catholicism - it is used in other Christian theologies, as well as being used metaphorically in literature. StAnselm (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Leviticus

There is no mention of Leviticus 5:1. Should there be?

"When he has heard a public imprecation and - although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter - he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment."72.214.242.143 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In principle, not a bad thought, but what is needed is someone else discussing this (and not us doing WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH about biblical texts. 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Need for followthrough for earlier move

This article was moved, so that it would no longer be a Catholicism-only article (which was a correct choice, as theologically, it is broader than just Catholic). But, in followup to that move, no work was done to broaden it. I call on WikiProject Christianity to begin to address this. 2601:246:C700:558:E8D7:8CA7:35D3:40B6 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up done. Veverve (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)