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

[Bootless]

I could go on, but the thing in common with all these definitions, is that none of them (except Wikipedia) make any specific reference to 'truth', or its absence.

I think gaslighting is evil.
Gaslighting is manipulative lying; telling someone that what they know is true is not-true.

[Astyanax]

Judas Iscariot was the very first Christian Nationalist.

Nifty line, but inaccurate. The gospels list Simon Zealotes (just) before Judas.

[Astyanax]

A little 'Saint Augustine' for you all to ponder ... 

The article says - "evil has no true essence of its own. Rather, it is purely parasitic, existing only as the distortion of truth."

St Augustine didn't write the article. St Augustine didn’t say that evil is the opposite of truth. Why don't you read the Confessions, in which he expounds his thoughts on the subject, and find out what he actually said?

I read it earlier this year. Although I am not in the least religious, I found it both enjoyable and thought-provoking; Augustine himself I thought a lovable and honest fellow in addition to being a marvellous writer and – to the degree that he was not hamstrung by religious doctrine – a very great philosopher. I recommend the Confessions to anyone interested in moral philosophy and the problem of good and evil. There are no answers to be found in it, obviously, but it is enormously illuminating on the questions themselves.

The idea of evil as the absence of good is a purely logical conclusion based on the premise that if God is all good, then He cannot, by definition, create anything that is not good. The argument is a lot more complex than that, of course, and ultimately fails because it is forced, like all religious arguments, to abandon logic for faith at the moment of truth. But since you are a believer, you may find Augustine’s arguments good enough; your Church certainly has, for some 1,700 years. 

Here is Book VII of the Confessions, which deals with the origins of evil. It's actually a chapter, not a book at all, and it is not very long. Even so you will find more nourishment in it than in any amount of internet slop.

The assumption made in that article – that if evil isn’t the opposite of good it must be the opposite of something else – is blindingly stupid and totally anti-Augustinian. There is nothing Catholic about it at all.
 

Truth can exist without falsehood.

Truth can no more exist without falsehood than man can live without air to breathe. Even God cannot be good without evil to contrast Him against.

“But would you kindly ponder this question: What would your good do if evil didn't exist, and what would the earth look like if all the shadows disappeared? After all, shadows are cast by things and people. Here is the shadow of my sword. But shadows also come from trees and living beings. Do you want to strip the earth of all trees and living things just because of your fantasy of enjoying naked light? You're stupid.”

That’s not St Augustine, but an early critic of Soviet Communism named Mikhail Bulgakov. The leaders of the Soviet Union – Lenin, Stalin and their lieutenants – were seeking to create a perfect world, a Marxist Utopia, in which evil would cease to exist because all human wants were satisfied. What they created instead was a moral desert in which their efforts to suppress evil naturally ensured its triumph – as is always the case.

[Astyanax]

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

Absolutely. It’s like saying oranges are the opposite of skydiving.

[FlyersFan]

St Augustine didn't write the article. Why don't you read the Confessions and find out what he actually said?

I didn't say St. Augustine wrote the article.   That would be absurd.
And yes, I've read Confessions.
The article claims to be in the flavor of St. Augustine.
The essence of the article is that Evil is not the opposite of good, which everyone 
usually believes, but is the opposite of Truth.
I said it would make for a good discussion.   
10 pages later .... I was right.

[FlyersFan]

Truth can no more exist without falsehood than man can live without air to breathe. Even God cannot be good without evil to contrast Him against.

The conclusion of the author of the article is that evil is parasitic.   Good is truth.  Good can exist without evil, but evil can not exist without good.   At first I thought that was not true.  Now I'm rethinking that.   The purpose of evil is the perversion of Good (or Truth) so it needs good (or truth) to exist.   But good (or truth) doesn't need evil to live off of, it exists all on it's own even without evil present.   So I think the author is probably right about evil being parasitic, but good (or truth) is not.

[andy06shake]

Did someone say it was?
 
Yeah I kinda figured that out, when I figured out the cycle of life.
 
While some lies might not meant to be evil or cruel. Such as no honey that dress doesn't make you look fat. Go ahead and wear it to the high school reunion, so they all think you look fat.

I have never have had anyone say. Hi I am hear to do evil. While that may have occurred for some people. Evil is still always the opposite of truth. 
 
Like I said the first time.⬆
 
 Quite right you are. What you may or may not know is. Both side have their self proclaimed truthers. And none piss me off more than the one's peddling ludicrous ideas in stark and direct contradiction to the cycle of life.

Tell us more about "the cycle of life" and how it pertains to evil?

[Sirius]

Whereto with speedy words th' Arch-fiend reply'd.

Fall'n Cherube, to be weak is miserable
Doing or Suffering: but of this be sure,
To do ought good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to his high will
Whom we resist.   If then his Providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
And out of good still to find means of evil;
Which oft times may succeed, so as perhaps
Shall grieve him, if I fail not, and disturb
His inmost counsels from thir destind aim.

-Paradise Lost iJohn Milton

[andy06shake]

Whereto with speedy words th' Arch-fiend reply'd.

Fall'n Cherube, to be weak is miserable
Doing or Suffering: but of this be sure,
To do ought good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to his high will
Whom we resist.   If then his Providence
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good,
Our labour must be to pervert that end,
And out of good still to find means of evil;
Which oft times may succeed, so as perhaps
Shall grieve him, if I fail not, and disturb
His inmost counsels from thir destind aim.

Is that not from "Paradise Lost"?

[chr0naut]

Nifty line, but inaccurate. The gospels list Simon Zealotes (just) before Judas.

The Apostle Simon called "zelotes" was mainly named so, as to identify him as being a different apostle to Simon-Peter.

There are historians who doubt that there was any cohesive political group called the Zealots until the AD 66-70 war. However, Josephus notes that the Zealots allegedly started with Judas of Galilee (also called Judas of Gamala) in 6 AD, so, it's not impossible?

If the name was given to indicate that he was nationalist, rather than just simply devout, then he would more likely have been named so as a specifically Jewish nationalist, wanting freedom from the Romans and their Idumean puppet, Herod, rather than being named so for wanting a specifically Christian theocracy.

Although I don't really know what Judas Iscariot's full motivations were, I can surmise that he wanted Jesus to respond to the catharsis of arrest by assuming His kingship over Israel and defeating the Romans and the sycophantic Jewish religious leaders that were bending to Roman rule.

Judas Iscariot's dismay over what he has done when Jesus was instead tried and tortured to death would lead me to believe that wanting Jesus to assume national kingship would be the most likely mindset behind Judas' actions.

Hence, Judas was likely (one of) the first specifically 'Christian Nationalists'.

And it is also worthwhile to expose the rational implications of the ideology, for the sakes of those caught up in the emotion of it all.