juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sin is anything not inthe Expressed Will of God.
Evil is a malicious intent to commit sin.
Not all sin is Evil, but all Evil is sin.
The wages of all sin (Evil or not) Is eternal death.
Problem with that is if free will in the truest sense is the capacity to go outside of what is right, as you put it, then it appears we weren't created with free will in mind to begin with, or if we were, it was a neutered form that had no real significance, since you'd only be able to choose from a limited set of possibilities based on the notions of God's idea of what is right.
We didn't willfully make the world 'unfair' by this alleged fall, because technically we couldn't have willed it. No more than a child wills for the house to burn down because they play with matches. The world is unfair by perspective, not in and of itself. The world in and of itself is benign.
Some of it, yes. Egyptians had no problems with having slaves. Americans however had a civil war to terminate that practice.So American morality is different from Egyptian morality?
Have you elaborated it too much? What is an example of that?
I don't know what you mean by me elaborating it too much..
An example of Evil is premeditated murder.
An example of sin not being evil is a thief stealing to feed his family. The thief steals out of necessity not malicious intent. Never the less it is still a sin.
Some of it, yes. Egyptians had no problems with having slaves. Americans however had a civil war to terminate that practice.
If you are talking about modern Egyptians, then they are different both than Americans and ancient Egyptians. They will find it immoral if you serve them pork for dinner.
OK, thanks. It is interesting.
So a white lie is still a sin, but is not evil. Right?
Then what is evil? (evil + ??? = sin)
Without a doubt gauging Evil in the Heart of another is a slippery slope, but as far as my definition of a white lie goes, it is not evil. But still a lie, which makes it still a sin. (Because it is outside of God's expressed will/The Written Law of God) And Again the wage for all sin is Death.
Evil= Malicious intent to be outside of God's expressed will/law.
Sin= anything not in the Expressed Will of God/law.
Sin + Malicious intent= Evil
Here is the problem.
Without referencing to God, there is no such thing called malicious. So, the definitions of evil and sin are essentially identical.
This is why I suggested that it is over elaborating by separating sin and evil.
Give me an example of malicious intention without having God in the background.
We can have a better discussion if we first recognized the circularity in our thinking the moment we say that sin is bad, evil, malicious, etc etc for then it now begs the questions what is bad, evil, malicious etc. And it is bad discussion because we get nowhere.
On the other hand if you say sin is not measuring up to a standard or missing the mark, or breaking or disobeying a rule or a law, that will be fine, if you can say at the same time what these reference is, and specify how you can know whether you meet the requirements of this reference.
For example you may say everyone knows or can feel what is bad, evil, malicious etc, then you are making the whole thing subjective, ie what is sin to me may not be to you, but that is a sound concept - though not necessarily true - namely that sin is a relative thing. Then we can go on to discern if this is indeed the case, ie establish its truth.
But if we cannot even get beyond knowing what we are talking about, then how are we ever to even start to know if this thing is true or not.
Here is the problem.
Without referencing to God, there is no such thing called malicious. So, the definitions of evil and sin are essentially identical.
Why do you presuppose that having a malicious intent of being outside the expressed will of God does not have the standard or a reference of God in the background?
If there is no malice without God, then maybe it is time to get rid of God.
But no, even atheists can be malicious.
We can have a better discussion if we first recognised the circularity in our thinking the moment we say that sin is bad, evil, malicious, etc etc for then it now begs the questions what is bad, evil, malicious etc. And it is bad discussion because we get nowhere.
On the other hand if you say sin is not measuring up to a standard or missing the mark, or breaking or disobeying a rule or a law, that will be fine, if you can say at the same time what these reference is, and specify how you can know whether you meet the requirements of this reference.
For example you may say everyone knows or can feel what is bad, evil, malicious etc, then you are making the whole thing subjective, ie what is sin to me may not be to you, but that is a sound concept - though not necessarily true - namely that sin is a relative thing. Then we can go on to discern if this is indeed the case, ie establish its truth.
But if we cannot even get beyond knowing what we are talking about, then how are we ever to even start to know if this thing is true or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?