It's an intangible term really. Something like mercy killing. Sometimes you just have to destroy an entity to save a different and better entity. It is considered evil but it isn't.
Change your definition of evil to change your perspective.
capital (E)vil - actual evil, like moral and ethical evil, waste for wastes sake, destruction for destruction sake, decay for decays sake.
(e)vil - the exchange of one thing for another deemed or judged as equal or greater value. see - 'sacrifice' for another definition.
"Evil" is the equivalent of sacrifice. When a man goes to war to protect his country and family, and his family suffers the loss of him, thats evil.
Likewise when a shepherd takes from their flock for a feast, it is evil to the flock. The sheep does not distinguish between the shepherd and the wolves because the outcome is effectively the same for them.
etc, etc.
It's why the hindus say when you murder one person, its the same as murdering the world. evil doesn't have a scale about 'greater or lesser', which is why choosing the 'lesser of evils' always still leads to 'greater' evil in the long run. The outcome proves the premise. Evil doesn't have a scale, only a magnitude. And magnitude only tells us the immediacy and level of damage/consequences, not the wrongness of the events.
Evil is not the 'opposite' of good. It is in fact a completely different 'moral sphere' or system of decisionmaking, with its own internal logic. Its why it's said sin separates us from god. God is essentially Good, or what is objectively Good materially and spiritually.
Evil makes us choose what is subjectively good, it requires us making decisions and passing judgements, which is why it REQUIRES the knowledge of good and evil. It's why, even before mankind sinned, in the old testament, mankind was nevertheless separated from god. Just the knowledge, that let us cross from the one world, to the next, was itself a sin. Because it presented us the CHOICE, when judgement was reserved to God alone. E.x. you can't do evil, when you are ignorant that you have a choice (moral knowledge). In other words, assuming any of this is true, God was, like a parent, taking moral responsibility for us, in the same way the voice in the whirlwind was quoted as saying "I make the light, and form the darkness." Eating the fruit, or gaining moral knowledge, made us responsible, because it became our choice. Which is why, supposing you're christian, jesus "died for our sins". It was to say "you can reject that choice" or "choose to embrace good willingly."
I'll repeat for emphasis: Evil is not the 'opposite' of good. It is in fact a completely different 'moral sphere' or system of decisionmaking, with its own internal logic. Its why it's said sin separates us from god. God is essentially Good, or what is objectively Good materially and spiritually. Its why, in our 'fallen' state, we can only choose between material and spiritual good. Spiritual good promises the potential for material good, but material good by itself, separates us from spiritual connection to god.
Evil makes us choose between material good OR spiritual good. Before, we didn't realize we had a choice, which is why the garden was paradise to begin with.
You can't reward people for good behavior, when it isn't based on a willful choice. Therefore depriving them or punishing them is likewise meaningless.
It was only after we made the choice, that we were deprived.
The salvation began not at the cross, but from the moment we were kicked out of 'the garden' (the fruits of the spirit).
This knowledge PSA sponsored by..
SATAN (and ovaltine!).
"Remember, it's not gnotistic revelation without SATAN!"
(post is archived)