Post by Bret Walker on Jun 12, 2003 12:04:47 GMT -5
There is talk of a battle between Good and Evil. I don't understand this way of thinking. On the one hand you have Good (which begs the question, "Good by who's standards," but that's a topic for another discussion), and on the other, Evil. Let's say for the sake of argument that Good won this supposed "war," what happens then? If Good is all there is, where is choice? Where is freewill? After all, what makes Good good is that the entity practicing it has made the choice to be good and not evil. Without evil, no such choice is made. Doesn't that dilute the potency of the good that had once been the victor in this battle? Or does there arise another level of evil, say "Not-so-good?" It seems to me that such a dichotomy MUST exist, for Good CANNOT exist without Evil, and vice versa. Think of the balance represented by the Yin and the Yang. Without the Yang, the Yin is unbalanced and not whole. The Yin and the Yang combine to form the pefect circle, the circle of existence. It's the same with Good and Evil, there can never be more evil than good or more good than evil. They will always be in equilibrium, forming the whole of existence. Without one, balance is gone and the other crumbles unsupported.
So rather than think of a "Battle" between good and evil, I like to think of a balance between good and evil, with each and every one of us as the fulcrum of the scale. Each of us makes the choice to be good or evil at any given time, and our decisions keep the scale in balance.
So rather than think of a "Battle" between good and evil, I like to think of a balance between good and evil, with each and every one of us as the fulcrum of the scale. Each of us makes the choice to be good or evil at any given time, and our decisions keep the scale in balance.