Evil is not the Opposite of Good, it's the Opposite of Truth

[Compendium]

So a society that isolates its population from the pain needed to support their lifestyle, while simultaneously drugging them into analgesic complacency, that is a society that is protecting from evil?

There is something there that doesn't seem right.

It seems like the same kind of abeyance that says there is no such thing as aesthetic quality in art, only that which generates engagement.

Protecting from evil? How, if it doesn't exist? 

You are confusing the administration of fear and danger, with a defined perception of what constitutes "evil"

This is pointless, as such definition will always be localised to the perceiver as an individual

And all "commonality" within that perception, regardless of how warranted it may be (by actions that could be agreed as being defined as "evil") will only ever amount to the establishing of lines of division within the collective 

It is no different to those who define things which they cannot possibly know, within things such as determined will and "belief", as being "truth"

It doesn't matter how right they could possibly be, the act of the definition betrays the nature of the very parts of them that they seek to adorn and affirm within themselves, in a way that is selfish to the collective

When we assert something we "believe", or that which cannot possibly be known for certain as being "truth", what we effectively do is deny others their right to their own beliefs within a projection of our own infallibility (be it intentional or otherwise) and reduce the integrity within the very collective meaning of such words and concepts

It's a simple concept that cannot be reconciled within the various theological models, without an understanding of the need for personal humility within "belief", that all "possibility" need always be held as a greater "truth" than individual certainty and determined will

That though there may very well be a "truth" within that which you believe, this does not make your beliefs themselves "truth"

This is the intended meaning of the older biblical teachings that "none can know the name of God" and "none should speak the name". It is not referring to the nominum aspect itself, but rather the defining essence of the name. In much the same way that you could not assume to speak to how I would think in my name. Therefore you should not assume to try

The simplest understanding taught within the mysteries, is that the only definable and irrefutable "truth" that could ever be known in the world, is that "you are", and "you exist"

In the Biblical context, "I am that which I am"

What actually translates more accurately to "the question answered question (YHWH)"

The intended meaning behind this, is to illustrate that the search to "define God" is pointless

You could speak with an entity unknown. You could consider it to be God. But you can never know for certain

It could be intimately connected to the source of all known things. It could tell you everything that is going to happen in this world before it happens. It could violate laws of physics. Show you amazing, beautiful and impossible things

But you can never know for certain that it is God. No matter how perfect it is. No matter how much you believe it, or want it to be, you cannot possibly know

Because you are not it, and it is not you

Because none can ever know the name of such things. Therefore they should never speak as if they do

Going through initiation into the mysteries, I have been in communion with entities that are very likely those that created this world. They show me things years before they happen. They do impossible and amazing things. Things that could likely only be done if you were at the very least intimately connected to the creation of this world

But I cannot know they are the creator or God

And for me to believe they are, not only destroys the essence and beauty of possibility within the mysteries ...

But also carries with it the possibility of disrespecting the true source or creator, by honouring something which may not be them

Like Jacob receiving the gifts of Esau

Certainty in "truth" for things you cannot know, is the death of possibility 

And honestly, a disgrace to the wonders of the creators complexity, within our ability to know and explore their creation

Such is the nature of the mysteries, and the illuminated that seek them

"Evil" as a term is a similar perceptive trap

A way to close our eyes to the nature, depth and complexity of pain within this world, so we do not have to deal with it

It is a perceptive trap that is difficult to escape from, because most are conditioned in such a way that they cannot even see, that which they cannot see within such a term

I get called evil just for questioning accepted theology

Because it is easier to define our fears and pain as a concept like evil, than it is to face the uncomfortable nature of the unknown, or the greater depth of possibility within the mysteries

One of the first stages of initiation involves the exploration of the darkest parts of not only yourself, but the world around you

We are confronted by the darkest and most horrific things you can imagine

We feel what it is to experience these things, from both sides

Through such, we become awakened not only to the nature of pain itself, but also every pain we have ever caused in our life

So that we can seek to pay back a balance to this world, for all we have taken

This is what it often referred to as "the underworld journey", which is both a dimensional and physical experience that takes many years

Because you cannot truly understand light, without having experienced darkness

Within the many years that I was attacked and tortured by entities and things darker than most could imagine, I never once encountered anything that I would call real "evil"

Behind every single one, all I found was pain 

Deep within the eyes of the most hated and horrific of all the named entities, I found one of the most beautiful lights I'd ever seen

A light so beautiful, who loved this world so much, it was willing to let everyone hate them unfairly, and take all the pain of this world, just so that people can believe in something beautiful

... So that people had someone to blame

There was a sadness so immense within them, that it felt like the void of a black hole 

Where they had convinced themselves that they deserved all the pain of this world. Like it was the only way to prove themselves beautiful enough to be loved by God

These are concepts that are hard, if not impossible to put into words, let alone understand unless you have experienced them yourself

There are decaying cycles of pain within this world, that manifest within actions, choices and incidents that can be "perceived" as what we would call "evil"

But to do so, is to close our eyes to the depth of pain, or innocence behind it 

We do little more than define our fears of what we could find, with a term that makes it easy for us to justify closing our eyes to that which is behind such a term

People may do that perceived as "evil'. But within all that lays behind that which they do, "evil" itself does not exist

[Maxmars]

I would suggest that the quality of the inquiry would resolve our discussion towards, can there then be such a thing as an opposite of evil.... (I propose love vs. truth) 
the assertion claims it's the obliteration of truth which manifest it's foundational effects.

I can't defend the proposition exactly, but I find the question raising more questions about how we meter such things as evil and love... and without such a meter how can they even be considered scalar opposites.  

Is their a spectrum of evil... (or love for that matter?)
how is the dimensional metaphor of opposite really agreed upon in discourse?
Are we not often catching ourselves using the same term for a different thing, or using two terms for the same thing?

Difficult deliberations... you guys rock...

Truth is the question I think on now... because are truth and fact not connected?

"He killed a man... that's a fact!"
"It was in self-defense... that's the truth."
Is the truth actually evil?

Juxtaposition accomplished....

[UltraBudgie]

This is pointless, as such definition will always be localised to the perceiver as an individual

Are we not often catching ourselves using the same term for a different thing, or using two terms for the same thing?

Thank you that is insightful.

That though there may very well be a "truth" within that which you believe, this does not make your beliefs themselves "truth"

This is where perhaps capital letters would help, "truth" vs "Truth". With Truth indeed being as you describe, eternally applicable and irrefutable, objective and incontrovertible. A thing that cannot exist in this world, where all attempts to cast the subjective or even the empirical as "Truth" become, at best, widely-held "truth", and at worst, distorted reflections.

And perhaps the same to Evil, the absence of Truth. In this world, the evils we experience are as you describe: some perhaps widely-held to be "evil", but in no demonstrable absolute sense, composed in perceptual and describable manifestation as pains and suffering. There does indeed appear to be irremovable subjectivity.

As science attempts to close the gap between the understanding of "truth" and "Truth", so ponerology attempts to close the gap between the understanding of "evil" and "Evil". That neither may ever succeed does not make them useless, however. Nor does that eternal insufficiency disprove any transcendent.

Within the many years that I was attacked and tortured by entities and things darker than most could imagine, I never once encountered anything that I would call real "evil"

There we are then. I accept your testimony.

A light so beautiful, who loved this world so much, it was willing to let everyone hate them unfairly, and take all the pain of this world, just so that people can believe in something beautiful

Even your description is beautiful.

Difficult deliberations

These are concepts that are hard, if not impossible to put into words, let alone understand unless you have experienced them yourself

QFT

[Compendium]

Thank you that is insightful.


This is where perhaps capital letters would help, "truth" vs "Truth". With Truth indeed being as you describe, eternally applicable and irrefutable, objective and incontrovertible. A thing that cannot exist in this world, where all attempts to cast the subjective or even the empirical as "Truth" become, at best, widely-held "truth", and at worst, distorted reflections.

And perhaps the same to Evil, the absence of Truth. In this world, the evils we experience are as you describe: some perhaps widely-held to be "evil", but in no demonstrable absolute sense, composed in perceptual and describable manifestation as pains and suffering. There does indeed appear to be irremovable subjectivity.

As science attempts to close the gap between the understanding of "truth" and "Truth", so ponerology attempts to close the gap between the understanding of "evil" and "Evil". That neither may ever succeed does not make them useless, however. Nor does that eternal insufficiency disprove any transcendent.


There we are then. I accept your testimony.


Even your description is beautiful.


QFT

Well yes, to a mind such as your own that is able to differentiate such things within the context of its offering

The problem is for the most part though, that most cannot differentiate between the perception of the concept, and the concept itself

They believe something to be true, so it must be so

They see something as evil, and so it must be

It's a term of measurement and limitation   
   
Many see nothing beyond the perception of these terms, because nothing is permitted when nothing is asked

And to that end they can be some of the most destructive illusory states of knowing there is 

This is not to say that belief in truth or evil does not have its place within the constructive rationalisation of being. Only that to examine it subjectively without acknowledging the nature and structure of its source, is like seeking to mitigate an issue rather than extricate it

For the most part we are conditioned within this world in this way intentionally, as a type of survival mechanism built into our modern sociological and theological structure

We seek to avoid pain to whatever extent possible and keep moving forwards

And within such, concepts like truth and evil are essentially towards deduction within maintaining a societal psychological balance

Such as with "confession" within the Church

But these systems do not integrate us to a greater inclusion of our higher self within "ascended" systems

Only relate us to a common good, which is situational and determined within the limited individual perspective

"Evil", as we perceive it on all levels, is thus based on, and limited to our individual perspectives

But this will never work within the collective minds 

There will always be dissent and contrary policies. There will always be a disparity between forces, wherever individuals differ on any and all things (as they do, and will)

It is, as I said, a perceptive trap. Designed to keep you chasing your tail within an argument that can never be won, even within the sum of any perfect varying reason

Like a great majority of the most popular theological topics, the conversation itself and any arguments within it are pointless

They do little more than keep a great deal of the masses from looking deeper into what is behind such topics

The idea is to learn to recognise these perceptive traps, in order to free yourself from reductive cycles

You can spend your entire life swimming in such waters, and never have it bring you any understand of real value

The waters of the Piscean fisherman are designed in this way intentionally, to let you spend your entire life swimming in the waters without ever getting anywhere. Or even to let you drown in the waters if you so wish to

We are supposed to learn that we can get out of those waters any time we choose. To instead carry the essence of the waters forth for others. As with depictions of the Aquarian water-bearers / Anunnaki carrying forth the a bucket of the Piscean waters. The same water-bearers which Jesus said to follow into the house (astronomical aeon) during the Passover 

The changing of the Aeon, is little different to a change within personal apperception

Both are intimately aligned within the same source

We open ourselves to the expansion of the cycles within creation

Or we hold on to the older aeons within the contraction of the cycles to become the stone

We need merely realise that the same coding of "the word" that is designed to empower us, is also the very same one that keeps us a slave to our own alignment

Within such we pull the sword from the stone, and within such we earn the right to rule

[sahgwa]

if Evil is the opposite of Truth, that means In every conscious moment, every choice made that doesn't align with one's authentic truth is a sin and the wages of sin is death

Maybe not physical death but rather the experience of being trapped in this death cycle we call "Life"

I think this is a good way of thinking about it.
In the realm of spiritual 'power' we often say that you are weakening yourself the more you lie.
And not only in realms of 'power' but also in realms of harmony, the more you do what you say, and say what you do, and not lying, or twisting, the more harmonious your inside and outside will be.
This even includes 'white lies' or procrastinations, like 'I will do the laundry tomorrow' 
Everything counts.

[sahgwa]

Well yes, to a mind such as your own that is able to differentiate such things within the context of its offering

The problem is for the most part though, that most cannot differentiate between the perception of the concept, and the concept itself

They believe something to be true, so it must be so

They see something as evil, and so it must be

It's a term of measurement and limitation   
   
Many see nothing beyond the perception of these terms, because nothing is permitted when nothing is asked

And to that end they can be some of the most destructive illusory states of knowing there is 

This is not to say that belief in truth or evil does not have its place within the constructive rationalisation of being. Only that to examine it subjectively without acknowledging the nature and structure of its source, is like seeking to mitigate an issue rather than extricate it

For the most part we are conditioned within this world in this way intentionally, as a type of survival mechanism built into our modern sociological and theological structure

We seek to avoid pain to whatever extent possible and keep moving forwards

And within such, concepts like truth and evil are essentially towards deduction within maintaining a societal psychological balance

Such as with "confession" within the Church

But these systems do not integrate us to a greater inclusion of our higher self within "ascended" systems

Only relate us to a common good, which is situational and determined within the limited individual perspective

"Evil", as we perceive it on all levels, is thus based on, and limited to our individual perspectives

But this will never work within the collective minds 

There will always be dissent and contrary policies. There will always be a disparity between forces, wherever individuals differ on any and all things (as they do, and will)

It is, as I said, a perceptive trap. Designed to keep you chasing your tail within an argument that can never be won, even within the sum of any perfect varying reason

Like a great majority of the most popular theological topics, the conversation itself and any arguments within it are pointless

They do little more than keep a great deal of the masses from looking deeper into what is behind such topics

The idea is to learn to recognise these perceptive traps, in order to free yourself from reductive cycles

You can spend your entire life swimming in such waters, and never have it bring you any understand of real value

The waters of the Piscean fisherman are designed in this way intentionally, to let you spend your entire life swimming in the waters without ever getting anywhere. Or even to let you drown in the waters if you so wish to

We are supposed to learn that we can get out of those waters any time we choose. To instead carry the essence of the waters forth for others. As with depictions of the Aquarian water-bearers / Anunnaki carrying forth the a bucket of the Piscean waters. The same water-bearers which Jesus said to follow into the house (astronomical aeon) during the Passover 

The changing of the Aeon, is little different to a change within personal apperception

Both are intimately aligned within the same source

We open ourselves to the expansion of the cycles within creation

Or we hold on to the older aeons within the contraction of the cycles to become the stone

We need merely realise that the same coding of "the word" that is designed to empower us, is also the very same one that keeps us a slave to our own alignment

Within such we pull the sword from the stone, and within such we earn the right to rule

In this way to sum up a large part of what I think you are saying, is that everything is subjective, because everything is based on perception. 
And I alluded to it previously but I will say it again, the biggest 'evil' is ignorance.

[chr0naut]

One can do evil utilizing both truth and falsehood.

So, clearly, evil is something other than both truth and falsehood and evil, while it can be as a result of a perversion of the truth, it can also be effected via the absolute and un-perverted truth.

So, the idea that evil is the opposite of truth does not stand. It is disproven.

[Unknownparadox]

So, the idea that evil is the opposite of truth does not stand. It is disproven.

No you have disproven nothing. Evil is the opposite of truth. there is no disputing that, period, end of story. 

Now is evil only the opposite of the truth? Probably not.

[Maxmars]

One can do evil utilizing both truth and falsehood.

So, clearly, evil is something other than both truth and falsehood and evil, while it can be as a result of a perversion of the truth, it can also be effected via the absolute and un-perverted truth.

So, the idea that evil is the opposite of truth does not stand. It is disproven.

I was with you...

Until you remarked, "It is disproven."

I felt that was out of place.

Evil is not the opposite of good... is a bit more tricky to disprove than a logical equation... although your logic is sterling.

I lean towards specificity in these topics... because generality is the challenge...  it's easier for me to reduce to end points, and work back towards the first hiccup first.

In this being disproven, we have to make the same assumptions as we proposed in the first place.  That evil is a natured thing, with qualities that can be discerned... frankly, I didn't know how far we'd get... I suspected lot's of trash about politics and such to take hold and destroy my chance at learning something, or finding something new to ponder.   But it didn't.

"Evil" could have been used to characterize those who disrupted the conversation with mischief and obtuse proclamations - supported with silence... assuming we were taking ourselves as seriously as some of us used to.  It isn't evil... it's not even deliberate sometimes... but I promise the characterization that such a thing was just 'evil' is high on list.

We call many things evil - that simply can't be... many objects, events, and such things as coincidences always are open for the notion...

So it is implicitly accpeted within the framework of the question that their is an OPPOSITE of evil....

How can any thing you can think of have an actual opposite?

There's got be a scale ... a metric... mental or otherwise... that defines the space between the two?
Or are the juxtaposed, pressed up against each other in a conceptual embrace, "it's either evil or ......" ?

Hard to argue for me.

I would offer, with the exception of the declaratory ending, that your assertion is valid...

But then the question is begged.... still....

What is it, or what dose it mean, to be "opposite" of some "thing" we can't actually define?

I would say the assertion requires a preliminary debate or two... but that's just me...

We host real debates here... not "social media" debates.

you're fingers are soaking in it right now...
moisturizing... no?


please do think on debate.... this topic is worth it... you're never gonna find a genuine dialogue in bot-land.

[Maxmars]

Curse my verbosity....

that last comment applies still though...

Arguments like this don't have proofs... this isn't geometry...

more like...

Algebra.

Check your functions.