"Before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right..." (Isa. 7:15). Even Jesus' mind had to develop and as Christians, the writer of Hebrews says that mature Christians are those who are "trained to distinguish good from evil" (Heb. 5:14). We don't see clearly right from wrong just because we are born again--we must mature and grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18).
[I'm not going to be definitive and answer all the questions, but many may be raised and I hope this doesn't just open a can of worms.]
It is a loose use of the word (people today have watered down its meaning by overuse) that gets people in trouble and we must define terms to continue, so you know what I mean. According to R. C. Sproul, "Augustine sought to define evil in purely negative terms. Evil is a lack, privation or negation of the good. Only that which was first good can become evil... Evil depends on good for its very definition." In other words, evil is a corruption of good or masking of it for the wrong reason or motive. Doing something that is moral consists not only of the right motive but a right end. Doing the right thing in the right way, for example. Case in point: claiming to do good or saying it is good when it is really evil. Evil is basically anything that is wrong and not according to God's plan or economy: e.g., homosexual matrimony masked as a good thing. ("Woe unto those who call evil good, and good evil," says Isaiah.)
Evil usually masks itself, like the so-called "nanny-state" that some people think is "good." They say sincerely: 'Let us help you" (like putting you in the hospital and "curing' you of your illness). The government has rights, responsibilities, and duties just as individuals do and God sets those limits. The communists believe, for instance, that the end justifies the means and they are only seeking the "higher good" at the expense of the individual. Another fallacy is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number and doing it by any means possible.
We, Westerners, believe in the inherent worth of the individual and of personal rights which are paramount and trump the states rights (this goes back to the Magna Charta he signed by King John in A.D. 1215). Sproul cites an example: the Antichrist depends on Christ for his identity, he says. When we call someone evil (and many people rightly think of Hitler as the paradigm of evil if there is such a beast), we are making a "value judgment" that refers to our standards of right and wrong.
There are many less strident and innocuous ways of speaking without being inflammatory or alienating. We hear of partisans "demonizing" each other and by this, they mean that the blame the other side and think they are right and the other is wrong and they won't compromise with "evil." The Bible says to "put away the pointing of the finger" (cf. Isa. 58:9) and to realize the "we" are the problem: start humbling ourselves is the exhortation of 2 Chr. 7:14 saying, "If my people shall humble themselves ... I shall heal the land." We should be "delicate" in our talk and not offensive if we can help it because words not only have denotations from the dictionary but connotations that we may not intend and imply something else. What you call evil, I may say isn't.
To solve the problem, in politics, I think it is more tactful to say they believe some politico is "wrong" and not "evil." If you say a leader is evil (and I admit some are, Adolf Hitler, for example) you are labeling those who support that person as evil by the "guilt of association." I'd more readily and much rather admit I was wrong than evil, and there is nothing inherently bad about admitting we are wrong-no one has a monopoly on the truth and is right about everything, including the pope, who claims "infallibility."
We shouldn't "jump to the conclusion" that a leader (and our duty is to pray for them and honor and obey them in the Lord as much as possible) is evil just because we disagree with part of their agenda or policies. Name-calling and labeling are uncalled for and un-Christ-like--since we are to be examples in our behavior, speech, and views. We mature believers may have a more sensitive awareness of good and evil, and we have all tasted of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and we should be patient with those "less enlightened" ones that need to be edified about a Christian worldview: We not only need to do like Christ would, but talk, think, and believe the way we ought-- having a sense of "ought" you could say. I am appalled at the evil in the world and deplore the fact that most Christians can't even pray, but they sure can judge, condemn, complain, and criticize--this ought not to be so. Soli Deo Gloria!
[I'm not going to be definitive and answer all the questions, but many may be raised and I hope this doesn't just open a can of worms.]
It is a loose use of the word (people today have watered down its meaning by overuse) that gets people in trouble and we must define terms to continue, so you know what I mean. According to R. C. Sproul, "Augustine sought to define evil in purely negative terms. Evil is a lack, privation or negation of the good. Only that which was first good can become evil... Evil depends on good for its very definition." In other words, evil is a corruption of good or masking of it for the wrong reason or motive. Doing something that is moral consists not only of the right motive but a right end. Doing the right thing in the right way, for example. Case in point: claiming to do good or saying it is good when it is really evil. Evil is basically anything that is wrong and not according to God's plan or economy: e.g., homosexual matrimony masked as a good thing. ("Woe unto those who call evil good, and good evil," says Isaiah.)
Evil usually masks itself, like the so-called "nanny-state" that some people think is "good." They say sincerely: 'Let us help you" (like putting you in the hospital and "curing' you of your illness). The government has rights, responsibilities, and duties just as individuals do and God sets those limits. The communists believe, for instance, that the end justifies the means and they are only seeking the "higher good" at the expense of the individual. Another fallacy is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number and doing it by any means possible.
We, Westerners, believe in the inherent worth of the individual and of personal rights which are paramount and trump the states rights (this goes back to the Magna Charta he signed by King John in A.D. 1215). Sproul cites an example: the Antichrist depends on Christ for his identity, he says. When we call someone evil (and many people rightly think of Hitler as the paradigm of evil if there is such a beast), we are making a "value judgment" that refers to our standards of right and wrong.
There are many less strident and innocuous ways of speaking without being inflammatory or alienating. We hear of partisans "demonizing" each other and by this, they mean that the blame the other side and think they are right and the other is wrong and they won't compromise with "evil." The Bible says to "put away the pointing of the finger" (cf. Isa. 58:9) and to realize the "we" are the problem: start humbling ourselves is the exhortation of 2 Chr. 7:14 saying, "If my people shall humble themselves ... I shall heal the land." We should be "delicate" in our talk and not offensive if we can help it because words not only have denotations from the dictionary but connotations that we may not intend and imply something else. What you call evil, I may say isn't.
To solve the problem, in politics, I think it is more tactful to say they believe some politico is "wrong" and not "evil." If you say a leader is evil (and I admit some are, Adolf Hitler, for example) you are labeling those who support that person as evil by the "guilt of association." I'd more readily and much rather admit I was wrong than evil, and there is nothing inherently bad about admitting we are wrong-no one has a monopoly on the truth and is right about everything, including the pope, who claims "infallibility."
We shouldn't "jump to the conclusion" that a leader (and our duty is to pray for them and honor and obey them in the Lord as much as possible) is evil just because we disagree with part of their agenda or policies. Name-calling and labeling are uncalled for and un-Christ-like--since we are to be examples in our behavior, speech, and views. We mature believers may have a more sensitive awareness of good and evil, and we have all tasted of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and we should be patient with those "less enlightened" ones that need to be edified about a Christian worldview: We not only need to do like Christ would, but talk, think, and believe the way we ought-- having a sense of "ought" you could say. I am appalled at the evil in the world and deplore the fact that most Christians can't even pray, but they sure can judge, condemn, complain, and criticize--this ought not to be so. Soli Deo Gloria!