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

[Maxmars]

The saying that keeps coming to mind in this thread is (about evil and ignorance):
The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions!

It occurs to me that any course towards hell must be surfaced with flattened, crushed, and betrayed good intentions....

Makes more sense that way....

[sahgwa]

It occurs to me that any course towards hell must be surfaced with flattened, crushed, and betrayed good intentions....

Makes more sense that way....

In my experience it's more like hypocritical, false kindness, judgmental 'good' intentions :D

[Maxmars]

In my experience it's more like hypocritical, false kindness, judgmental 'good' intentions :D

Yeah but... those were never 'good intentions' to begin with.

Returning to a point about lying being a hidden assault ... evil.

[chr0naut]

"Evil" is a word.

Metaphors and similes are not lies.

All descriptions are imagery... we can only hope to convey the message behind the image...and refine it between us...

But the hazard you speak of is very important to note.

Evil is spoken of as an object... when really we're trying to label it's nature - assuming such a thing is even possible.

In ancient texts, across many cultures, evil was seen as accumulated harms and not always with an identifiable source. For instance, bad luck, accident, or ill-circumstance was often described as evil.

An example of this is, in The Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13, the word used in the majority text translated as 'evil', is the koine Greek word 'πονηρός', which transliterates in Thayer's lexicon to either:
1) full of labours, annoyances & hardships.
2) bad, of a bad nature or condition.

Our modern understandings of 'evil' seem different to those early definitions.

[chr0naut]

Are you really bringing politics into a thread on theology, philosophy, and spirituality? 
that's really gross.

I don't see how one might broach the subject otherwise?

What I am trying to show is that the word 'evil' didn't mean the same thing that it does now. It has become highly politicized and often objectified into a person or group.

Similarly, the Crusades were clearly Christian Nationalism, causing the deaths and injury of millions (with, arguably, little positive outcome). Despite the precepts of Christianity being quite 'good' in an ethical sense, the outcomes of Christian Nationalism has historically been evil.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Another Good and Evil comment.

The devil was on God's payroll until the post exilic period. It wasnt until the admixture of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and lingering Babylonian and Canaanite myth that the roles of good and evil were more clearly defined..

The Avesta's oral version predates the Torah's written version. The Torah's written version predates the Avesta's written version.

But God (Ahura Mazda) and The Devil (Angra Mainyu), Heaven (Paradise) and Hell (Duzakh or Druj) are of a Persian Oral Tradition that is older than the language Proto-Hebrew.

During the Second Temple period, specifically in the later centuries (roughly 3rd to 1st centuries BCE), Jewish writings became more focused on the afterlife, including concepts of heaven and hell. This shift was heavily influenced by Persian and Hellenistic cultures encountered during and after the Babylonian Exile. 

Morphology of Isaiah 14:12

When this verse was composed, It read:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel ben-Shahar, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!".

O Helel ben-Shahar is the Canaanite God Shahar or the Assyrian equivalent Shamash. Which were contemporary to the composition of Isaiah in the 8th century..

Its a hopeful mocking of the eventual downfall of those empires. It is not even considering the Neobabylonians yet.

They still had to reform The Kingdom of Judea under King Josiah... and get exiled once more by Babylon.

So when Cyrus knocked Nabonidus off his literal Tower of Babel, and granted Israelites a return and a second Temple, it suddenly took on a new context for The King of Babylon. Assyria was long forgotten and Isaiah became more prophetic. The middle interpretation.

Then as more centuries passed with freedom to move around and be influenced by Persia and Greece the duality and afterlife concepts intertwined and older gods began to be literally demonized more and more. 

Through a telephone effect. And a vulgate 700 years later, we arrive at the latin name for "Shining one," Lucifer. Which allowed for a character arc separate from the Cannanite Son of Dawn. 

Only reinterpretation of Isaiah 14 (Assyrian King/King of Babylon) and Ezekiel 28 (King of Tyre) allow for Revelation 12 to have the later fallen angel context. 

Works for many devils and demons. 
 

Judaism did not originally consider the Canaanite deity Baal a demon, but rather a rival or false god whose worship was a grave transgression against Yahweh. The transformation of Baal into a demonic figure happened later, particularly during the Second Temple period (roughly 516 BCE–70 CE), due to evolving Jewish theology and influences from other cultures. 

Ba'al is the same as Shahar. 

It was a progressive shift that turned a Canaanite or Assyrian Deity into a Babylonian King and then a final time into the fallen angel Lucifer, taking the Mantle of Satan and waging a war on God, very similar to the story told by The Avesta. 

How Exalted Gods Were Demonized:

• Baal-Zebub: In 2 Kings 1:2, the Philistine god of Ekron is referred to as "Baal-Zebub" (בעל זבוב), which Hebrew readers would have understood to mean "Lord of the Flies." Scholars believe this was a derogatory corruption of the Canaanite name "Baal-Zebul," meaning "Exalted Lord" or "Prince Baal".

Which by the New Testament became:

• Beelzebub in the New Testament: The New Testament identifies this figure as Beelzebub, "the prince of demons" (Matthew 12:24). By explicitly linking the ancient deity to Satan and the demonic realm, the New Testament cemented Baal's status as a demon in Christian demonology. 

So its like the biblical version of Gavin Newscum.

Ba'al once defeated the Leviathan (Lotan), but history is written by the victors, which means he ends up in The Pseudomonarchia Daemonum, to be forever chanted by angry Christian kids that think reciting infernal names will make god see what for.. 

i feel good and evil have always been partly defined in scripture by using demonized archetypes of different or preexisting beliefs.

In Judeochristianity's case, they ripped off the preexisting religion that was nice to them to demonize the preexisting religion that was mean to then.

[DBCowboy]

Here's a good theological/philosophical discussion.

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."

At first I said ... 'nah' ... but I'm thinking about it . 

I think parasitic is a good description of evil.

Evil is not the opposite of good, it's the opposite of truth

The only thing I would add, (nice thread btw) is that "Truth" is subjective, and "Fact" is objective.

[Maxmars]

Another Good and Evil comment.....

Thank you sincerely for the post.  I find the juxtaposition of these ideas fascinating.

While mostly relevant to apply to the knee-jerk reactions prompted by tradition, or simple fear.

Associating the Christian Devil with evil misconstrues the actual inquiry into evil.

It would akin to saying if you don't know of "Satan" (or insert imagery host here) you would never know evil.

The truth is the evil question, at it's core zips right by the whole 'anthro' and dips straight into "if evil doesn't outside the human experience... then it is merely a human nature question."

Historical and traditional (aren't those the same thing?) statement of evil in common parlance are adapted to socially hated things... any minute now someone will make a celebrity name association which might irk you... in reference to evil ... hopefully not.

[chr0naut]

Here's a good theological/philosophical discussion.

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."

At first I said ... 'nah' ... but I'm thinking about it . 

I think parasitic is a good description of evil.

Evil is not the opposite of good, it's the opposite of truth

And yet, I can conceive of saying truthful things that cause great distress to another. Surely, in that case, truth causes evil.

[WallFlowerActive]

Actually evil is the perversion of good.

Calling lust love for example.

Self confidence turning into pride.

Taking good stewardship of a country and spending it into oblivion.  

And so on.