No drich, what you're doing is ignoring my definitions of sin and evil for your definitions. You say:
Sin = ?? IDK, you don't state, but from your exegesis I'll assume you define sin as doing something against God's written law
Evil = a subset or type of sin "Evil is a deep desire to be in sin or a heavy act of sin/knowing doing something God does not want"
Where I define the 2 as
Sin - is either violating a law/revealed divine truth from God or not applying a law/revealed divine truth from God.
Evil - As classification of a whole, the opposite of good; thinking that consistently opposes divine truth either in belief and behavior
God can not sin, nor be evil because He can not be other than Himself. Man can sin or be evil, both or neither. Sin is about a particular action, evil is about a thought or judgement on a behavior. I also agree with Jor that I don't believe man can be 100% evil as a whle being. Due to the sheer amount of effort at least some amount of time would be spent being neutral. Man has the potential for sin and evil, and I believe a propensity towards evil, due to inherited nature.
With regards to Abraham and Lot's wife, et all. They sinned, sure. But we can't really judge if they were evil or not as a whole, just that during certain times they did sin which was evil at that moment.
The point you make I disagree with is " it is possible to sin and never be evil." Sin is evil. We can discuss venial sins, willful sins, mortal sins, and classify different levels of sin, but all are in opposition to God and if God IS good, thus the opposite of good is evil. ie. all sins are evil. That evil may not condemn you due to the grace of God, but I can't say it's not evil, and us mortals don't have the propensity for sin and evil.
I've derailed the Bible study enough though. To grandizer's point. Yes polytheistic Canaanites and the Jew orthodoxy consider atonement through rituals as a way to atone for sins. atonement in the modern Christian clarity would require citing other books, so I'll stay there for now and let the conversation continue, while I get back over to morality on a different thread.
Sin = ?? IDK, you don't state, but from your exegesis I'll assume you define sin as doing something against God's written law
Evil = a subset or type of sin "Evil is a deep desire to be in sin or a heavy act of sin/knowing doing something God does not want"
Where I define the 2 as
Sin - is either violating a law/revealed divine truth from God or not applying a law/revealed divine truth from God.
Evil - As classification of a whole, the opposite of good; thinking that consistently opposes divine truth either in belief and behavior
God can not sin, nor be evil because He can not be other than Himself. Man can sin or be evil, both or neither. Sin is about a particular action, evil is about a thought or judgement on a behavior. I also agree with Jor that I don't believe man can be 100% evil as a whle being. Due to the sheer amount of effort at least some amount of time would be spent being neutral. Man has the potential for sin and evil, and I believe a propensity towards evil, due to inherited nature.
With regards to Abraham and Lot's wife, et all. They sinned, sure. But we can't really judge if they were evil or not as a whole, just that during certain times they did sin which was evil at that moment.
The point you make I disagree with is " it is possible to sin and never be evil." Sin is evil. We can discuss venial sins, willful sins, mortal sins, and classify different levels of sin, but all are in opposition to God and if God IS good, thus the opposite of good is evil. ie. all sins are evil. That evil may not condemn you due to the grace of God, but I can't say it's not evil, and us mortals don't have the propensity for sin and evil.
I've derailed the Bible study enough though. To grandizer's point. Yes polytheistic Canaanites and the Jew orthodoxy consider atonement through rituals as a way to atone for sins. atonement in the modern Christian clarity would require citing other books, so I'll stay there for now and let the conversation continue, while I get back over to morality on a different thread.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
