If evil is a force then we can call it pure evil.  Religion says that if you believe in pure evil,

You are saying there is nothing there to understand. The bad person is turned into an object in your eyes.  There is no point in hearing her or him as a person.

You are saying God must have made it meaning he is evil too.

You are saying that people can be pure evil and may need destruction.

To look like it avoids these things it redefines evil.

Religion says that evil is a malfunction of good and is in no way acceptable morally.  But no malfunction is all bad.  A sore finger is still a finger.  So what you have here is we are meant to slam and condemn the moral violation as a moral violation.  It is like condemning somebody for hurting your finger and concentrating on that and not the good things, eg that your pain warning system is being put to the test, that your finger is not broken and that you are learning something and so on.

Religion says evil is the absence of a good that should be there but is not. It's a privation. 

A stone by being unable to talk cannot be said to have the absence of speech. It is not a privation in a stone for a stone shouldn’t be able to speak. If this was a person then an evil as in absence can be spoken of for the person is robbed of something they should be able to do. They have the absence of a faculty they need and that belongs to them and that is evil.

Now if I cannot talk and don't want to who says that is a privation?  It only makes sense if you assume a God of love who intended for you to talk and made you to talk.  This implies that an atheist or a person with weak faith in God is evil for failing to understand evil properly.  They must be heartless and morally blind.  They are dangerous for those who cannot diagnose a problem cannot get it dealt with properly.

So hating atheists or weak believers would be understandable in this set up. So what is the point of banning pure evil on the grounds that it leads to hate and fear and then teaching this?

Even if evil is a privation it does not follow that it is that to our minds.  We see threats and evils as real things and respond to them that way.  If that is a delusion we all have it.  Religion ignores what we are to get away with its lies.  It cannot admit to demonising a person as the embodiment of evil but that its problem not ours.  It is abusive how it tries to obscure the truth.

Some say a person can be wicked but not evil. The logic is that the wicked can listen to you and you might win them over but with evil people it’s a waste of time reasoning with them. The implication is you must simply destroy them.  So if a wicked person will not listen to you and anyway who does listen that must be a sign they are evil rather than wicked.  So the destruction option is back on.

The notion that acts are pure evil but a person, even the person committing the acts is not, sounds forced and you cannot feel that anybody saying it really believes it. If an act can be evil or if anything can be evil then you cannot rule out a person being evil.

Religion points to how Jesus said he loved sinners but he took no nonsense with their sins and called sin hateful.  If love the sinner and hate the sin is possible then how? One answer is that you need the idea of a God who hates sin and who forgives it yes but who sees it as so bad that a fine is necessary.  He fixes it by becoming Jesus so that he can pay the “fine” of loving God and to the very agonising death to make up for it. Here you have a God who is totally fair on sin but who gives us a way to be lovingly spared from having to pay for it ourselves, a way that allows him into the heart to change us with his mercy and forgiveness. But if God is able to separate the sin from the sinner so that he can love the sinner that is his experience not ours.  We cannot do it.  Love is not like that for us.  Believing we love the sinner does not mean we love the sinner.  It is an experience matter not a belief matter.  All you end up with is somebody who hates sinners and uses the right words to hide that perhaps even from themselves.

If evil is a force then it is forces.  One force is its fearfulness.  That's a thing and power in itself.  Those who say that evil is not like that but a malfunction of good still admit that it is fearful and fear is the right response.  Evil is bad and causes fear but if demons get involved and use it and embrace it then it might as well be a real force. Evil not being real is no help for it does not matter in practical terms or in how it affects us. A medicine that is 99% water or 1% water is about what it does and how much water is in it is irrelevant.

The Bible and Jesus paint a terrible picture of Jesus and they invite you do go along with it. They are to watch out for this monster that goes about like a roaring lion to see who he can devour as the New Testament says. M Scott Peck pointed out that witnessing and studying evil will do something to your soul. Some kind of damage sets in. Evil infects those who behold it. I would say that if the evil is imagined or you think you see it the same thing will happen. The evil you see in others is too much about the evil in you. Surely Jesus and his followers see that? Do they not care? Evil depends on lie and deception and that is one reason why it can have a surprising effect on the witness. That aside it seems to appeal to the bad side of the person. It corrupts and threatens further corruption.
You need reasons for regarding something or someone as evil. Otherwise the idea explains nothing and is no use. To say that if you look at evil you recognise it means you could be seeing what you want to see meaning you are wishing the evil was there in some sense. And another could look and decide it is not evil or even good or undetermined. All our relations to others says something about us for a lot of how we see others is really from how we see ourselves. Psychology would be clear that you project the evil that is in you or that you think is there to Satan. Though you say God is justified in letting the world be such a mess for he has a good plan this may be projecting too. The trait where we try to excuse or feel okay about evil is too strong. If God is indeed right it does not mean that that is why we affirm his ways as right. These doctrines can be used to corrupt people. It is understandable why nobody will tell you about how it damaged them! You never fully know that until they get the power and the chance to unleash it.

Sin as independent of God should be resistant to being healed by God. If an evil can happen though God gives you the help to avoid doing it then it is clear that there is something outside of God there.  Religion admits that and then ends up saying that time seems to fix things.  But if it is outside of God when I do it it is outside of him in a decade too.  Forgiving and healing are not the same thing. God can forgive you for a sin that won’t let him heal it.

Sin is an act based on your rebellious attitude to God.  So the attitude is the real problem.  Religion compares that to a wound or injury or illness.  Let us use the wound imagery.  1, There is healing as in making sure a wound can internally fix itself.    2, There is healing as externally fixing it.  So how does God supposedly heal? As the rebellion involves choice you would need to consent to internal healing. It's like consenting to an antibiotic.  External fixing is not about what you want.  Being stitched against your will can help.  Now if choice lets God fix there is a problem.  Sin is defiance.  You cannot choose fixing and be defying him at the same time.  He is shut out.  The idea that you reject sin and choose healing can only mean that you are getting fixed for aftereffects of the sin.  God can have no part in fixing your sin unless he is part of the sin problem as well.

If evil is real and a potent and dangerous power, it does not matter if the person chooses it or embraces it. If evil is not such a power but may as well be then there is no real difference.  If the person is the instrument of something so terrible then the person has to be destroyed. Evil is evil so it makes no sense to destroy a person who cooperates willingly with it or doing so and to spare a person who is compelled or programmed by it to work with it. That is making out that as long as an intention is good it does not matter how much harm is done in respecting it.

Evil and validation of a violent hateful response go together.  Period.   Religion may pose as good but nothing changes the fact that it is causing violence by slamming evil even as it gets praise for its "moral" stance.

C.S. Lewis has no time for liberal meanderings that say evil is horrible and unappealing.  The liberals hope that their lies will come true and put people off harming others. That childish approach does not help and they won't desist even when genocides and holocausts start.  It's an excuse for feeling they have done something when they are in fact good for nothing.  They know fine well that evil is too prevalent to be just dull.  Their approach has even bled into conservative theologies and criminal law.  Prayer is geared around trying to deny that evil can be delicious.  Lewis said evil can be fun and came close to calling it an active force.  He regarded ideas such as ,"Evil is banal and boring" and "Evil is not real but just good gone awry" as feeble.  He rejected Plato's view that evil is just ignorance or stupidity.  One thing that is striking here is now most church people and most religions water down evil.  This bad fruit is a cause for concern and how can Jesus be valid if his church could not even diagnose evil or treat it right?

No Copyright