Hello out there in internet land.

Just popping in to comment on something I consider to be very important: a perpetuation of misinformation that has existed for a very, very long time. And that misinformation is: conceptualizing of good and evil.

There was recently a contest ([link]) where artists were asked to consider the theme "Good Vs. Evil". WOW are there some talented artists out there! I got quite a few faves and watches added to my lists just from this one contest alone. Pretty amazing!

But as good as the instances of talent are in this contest, I saw very few, if any at all, instances of the art depicting what I have fully understood to be the realities of "good" and "evil". Now, before I begin, I am already going to let you know: there will be many who will disagree with what I am laying out as the "definitions" of good and evil. That's fine. People have been disagreeing with these definitions for a very, very long time. And that's because God is intrinsically involved in their definitions.

I essentially understand "good" and "evil" to be defined as such:

Good is the presence of, effect of, or something related to, God Himself or something that He made.

Evil is the absence of God, the absence of something related to God, or the absence of something that He made.

I find that it helps to think of this relationship between good and evil in terms of "light and dark" and "heat and cold," because they help illustrate the main point: there is no such "thing" as "dark" -- there is only the absence of the thing called light, and we CALL the absence of light "dark."

Likewise, there is no such "thing" as cold -- there is only the absence of the thermal energy we call heat, and we CALL the absence of heat "cold."

See how that works?

So, here's a classic example. Let's portray two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A child is born into a family that does not want him and views him as a burden and an obstacle to their own personal fun levels. This child grows up feeling unwanted, unloved, unworthy, and generally worthless. Let's throw in mental depictions of the sluggardly stepdad stereotype, reclining in his ancient mildewy la-z-boy and yelling at this little boy to bring him another beer while he watches the cheerleaders in the halftime show on the TV. Boy drops beer, doesn't know any better and brings said beer to said stepdad, stepdad opens beer, gets sprayed by beer because it was dropped earlier, stepdad now commences to beat boy with belt or whatever, yelling and screaming and hollering whatever things that you shouldn't say around children, etc etc.

Now, let's compare that mental depiction with another depiction:

Scenario 2: A child is born into a family that not only very much wants him, but actually planned for his birth, and saved a lot of money so that they would be prepared for making his arrival into this place as wonderful as they could, making sure that their own personal finances were no obstacle. This couple that gives birth to this child love him intensely, spend time with him every day, show him affection whenever they can, and the child has no doubt that his mommy and his daddy love him. When this child makes mistakes, rather than beating him because he got on their nerves or made them angry, they discipline him in the way that is most appropriate, helping him to learn what is good, what is bad, that it's okay if you make mistakes and that mistakes teach us many things, etc etc. You get the picture.

Now these are supposed to be stereotypical, so don't get hung up on the accuracy of these depictions. Most everyone I've met has come into contact with the negative stereotype, and not nearly enough people that I've met have come into contact with the positive stereotype. But some have.

Now, the point. While it is difficult, and perhaps even impossible, for me to put into words what is PRESENT in the positive stereotype and what is ABSENT in the negative stereotype, in these mental depictions we definitely sense that there is such a thing, and that it IS present in the one and that it IS absent in the other.

Now just take that idea of there being something invisible and it being able to be "sensed" in situations, and apply that to varying situations that you've seen in real life. It's there. It's real. But it's not so much tangible. We can't put it under a microscope any more than we can put a "thought" under a microscope. Microscopes are wonderful things, but they're useless when it comes to many things.

So back to the contest now.

I see things like angels versus demons or devils. First of all, those depictions are probably seen to be attributed to Judeo-Christianity. That is very much false. If you look through the bible, the "messengers" that God sent did not have wings, people often mistook them for ordinary male human beings. Cherubim, which are depicted in gold on the Ark of the Covenant, have wings, but they are not, as far as I know, ever called "angels" in the bible. By the way, Angel is the english translation of the hebrew word, that just means "messenger." In summary, angels do not have wings and never have. There is an interesting history of why wings were painted on them by artists centuries ago, but that is a story for you to look up and for me to not type (it's late and I really need to go to bed.)

If I had the kind of artistic talent that I would like to have, and entered into this contest, with the goal of portraying actual good and actual evil, my first idea would probably be showing Christ crucified. I mean, really, you can't get a better image of good versus evil than that. The evil is all there in the crucifixion, the good is all there in who is on that cross and why they are on that cross. The more you learn about it, the more you apply your mind to it and think about it, the more you'll see that "good" and "evil" are almost perfectly represented in that image.

Anywho. I gotta go to bed. I hope these truths that I've typed about here will help you in some way.

God bless.

~Brandon