.: any difference :.

This post is coming from an office that I have locked myself into in the hopes of researching enough material to write at least a half decent Systematic Theology paper. The topic I have chosen is the discussion of the existence of a holy God in light of the existence of evil within the world. This was the one subject of all the others suggested that I found to be the most pertinent to where I am at in my journey of faith. This morning, I have been blazing through Strong's work on the topic of God and sin, which has brought me to an issue that I am posting here in the hopes of working through this issue by discussing it with you as fellow readers and thinkers.

Here is the issue, stated in the form that my mind has initially presented it to myself: I believe there to be no difference between a simple mistake (a small offense in terms of our own perspective) and a seemingly intentional, blatantly dark act of evil (a contrasting example being a small fib versus committing murder). I believe this to be true on the basis that both of them equally cause the offender to sadden the heart of God, whose desire it is for that person to be healthy and whole as an individual within their community and world. Now granted, there are sins that impact no one other than the one choosing (intentionally or unintentionally) to commit such an act, as well as sins that impact an entire group of people... or even the world at large. Some sins only affect one person while others affect a wide range of people. My question lies at the heart of if we are able to seperate (for lack of better terms) "acts of sin" from "acts of evil" (I hope you too perceive the tones carried in each term), as well as if we make a grave error by minimalizing certain offenses by giving them such terms as "a mistake," "an error in judgment," or even "no biggie".

I am wrestling through how to represent the element of "evil" in my paper, realizing that the term can range anywhere from an activity that is contrary to the (good) will of God, all the way to a perceived and distinct characteristic or quality of actions, attitudes, people, or even "generations" (this last concept being especially pertinent to the people of Israel in sections of the Old Testament). It seems to me that to sin is to take part in evil as a quality or type of human action and behavior. It is to do evil things. And it is those acts that are an offense against God, which exemplify the antithesis of good and righteousness. Maybe I am the only one not seeing this clearly, but I am beginning to sense the element of evil in such a way that it is to be depicted as not only a way of behaving (even in terms of a general lifestyle, exemplified by historically recognized mass murderers), but evil seems to be an actual presence in our world, which Christians would regard as the very works of Satan and his angels throughout the world today.

But are we right in labeling all offenses against God as acts of evil, or do we simply reserve that term for actual offenses against other people or entire sections of humanity? Your feedback would be much appreciated, no matter how much you feel yourself adequate to wrestle with and comprehend the issues previously discussed.