Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter
But I still think this.... Quote: |
I like the term calamitous better than evil. Evil is so attached to wickedness and morality that I think it confuses the issue now days. The way we are using the word evil here is archaic, and ruinous or calamitous is a better description IMHO.
|
This has been a great thread. | The way I'm using the term fits with most contemporary philosophy and theology books. See Helm's The Providence of God. Frame's The Doctrine of God. As well as various philosophy of religion texts which deal with goodness and the problem of evil.
I also defined how I was using the term on p.1 |
I know how you defined it. I didn't see anything wrong with that. I totally agreed with you. Remember I read the KJV so I know how you were referring to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil That almost every contemporary theologian and philosophers uses the terms the way I am, referring to natural and moral evils, implies that it isn't "archaic."
So, you can term it what ever way you want to. It's a free country. It's just out of touch with almost everyone I've studued (and by implication, the people they've studied too). |
I am not referring to scholars and theologians. I am referring to the term being archaic (the way you are using it) with the general population. If you were to ask most people they would define evil with a moralistic definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil Anyway, I don't want or desire to get into an extended semantic squabble.
Glad you enjoy the thread. |
I don't either. But we agreed on this mostly..... I think. That is cool. And you have convinced me. Death is inherently evil the way you are defining evil. And it is a correct definition of evil.
