"Rock-a my so'l in de bosom of Abrah'm
  Rock-a my so'l in de bosom of Abrah'm...

        Those who claim that good and evil are only misguided concepts and that in true reality, there is no good or evil, have not thought the evidence through very carefully to the obvious logical conclusion.  If there is no good and evil, where did the concept come from?  If this idea is a lie, then by definition, there is evil, for how could and would a good individual pass along a distortion of the truth?  To distort the truth is by definition evil, for no man or woman who knew what is true regarding his or her neighbor and his or her self would commit murder, perhaps the ultimate personification of evil.  If this is not true and we would commit murder anyway, even if we knew the entire truth about our neighbor and ourselves, then murder by definition must be good; i.e. in favor of the survival of our species.  Thus, those among us who strive for Human and Civil Rights instead of murder and mayhem would by all known logic, be promoters of evil, as doing so would be against the survival of our species.

        The idea of treating our fellow sojourners on this planet as we ourselves would like to be treated is found in a great many diverse cultures scattered throughout the historical page of time (see Revolution, FootNote III for more information), thus by default there must be "evil".  If there is no evil, why do so many diverse cultures find the need to be taught to be good; i.e., to love our neighbor as our self?  Why do nations, both small and great, find it necessary to create laws and legal systems? Why are individuals such as Moses, Confucius, Lao Tsu, Buddha, Jesus and others considered great teachers of good?  Why is it necessary for our species to be taught by instructors of ethics and conscience?  If loving our neighbor as ourselves is how we define Human and Civil Rights, how we define our humanity and thus, how we define "good", then why do We The People of Planet Earth need to strive so hard to achieve such a seemingly simple and logical solution?  Why do we not do so automatically without any necessary life-sacrificing endorsement from historical activists such as Jesus, Gandhi and King?

        If helping the sick and poor, protecting the environment, striving for personal and collective freedom, promoting peace and goodwill toward all and the other basic tenants of Human & Civil Rights are preferable to the current situation of war and rumor of war, global inequality, prejudice, hatred, strife and mass pollution, then by definition, striving to overcome what we perceive on our planet to be inequitable must be "good".  If it is not good, then why are we universally striving for such and if it is good to do so, then there by all known logic must be evil; i.e., what we are trying to overcome would by definition, be "evil", that which is not healthy and beneficial for our species.

        If we define evil as sin and there is in reality, no such thing as sin, then why do we universally find the need to teach our children to be good?  How could a good parent deliberately teach their child to be bad?  And if no good parent would ever do such, then why do we find so much hatred, strife, prejudice, murder, war and rumor of war within our current civilization; i.e., from who or where does it originate?  If hatred, strife, prejudice, murder, war and rumor of war are natural to the survival of the fittest, then why do many of the most intelligent and revered members of our species strive to promote peace and goodwill?  If this is against natural human evolution and against the survival of our species, then individuals such as King, Gandhi, Einstein and Jesus were guilty of promoting evil.  If they did not promote evil, then by default, evil must exist or else, why was their message of peace and goodwill necessary at all?

        Why do we have to teach our children to be morally good?  Why do we find it necessary to reward them when they behave and to punish them when they do not? Why are children not automatically good on their own?  Do we try as hard to teach our children to be bad as we try to teach them to be good?  If not, then why is it so hard to convince them to behave and why does there continue to be hatred, strife, prejudice, murder, war and rumor of war within and among our species after more than 5,000 years of educational, cultural and moral instruction to the contrary?  Why do many educated adults continue to promote the opposite of peace and goodwill---that is, why do they continue to do evil?

        I have attended the meetings of Unitarians, Humanists, Christians and various other religions, Educators, Scientists, Environmentalists and Social Activists. Virtually all of the people in attendance at these meetings share in common the opinion that the basic teachings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are fundamentally morally and socially correct, a good idea and healthy for our species. Similar ideas of treating others as we ourselves would like to be treated are found in many diverse cultures with no knowledge of Jesus, thus indicating that the foundation of Human Rights is universal to the human conscience and of paramount importance to the health and survival of our species.  (Again, see Revolution, FootNote III. )

        If this is not true, then we are left with the following difficult question:  Why do so many diverse members of our species think that it is true; i.e., if what Jesus taught is not good and correct, then who lied so well and so often and why would someone go to such great length to spread falsehood if there is no evil?  If it is true that the basic moral and ethical teachings of Jesus are correct, then we are left with these other difficult questions:  1) How did an apparently uneducated son of a probably largely uneducated common Jewish laborer, without the benefit of modern historical, moral, intellectual and scientific education, evolve into such an all-wise human being by the age of thirty?  2) If Jesus was so fundamentally correct about morality and ethics, how is it that he was he so entirely incorrect about good and evil; likewise, if there is no God, why did someone as intelligent as Jesus strongly believe that there is---and if his claims of the existence of God and evil were only a sham to deceive the simple masses, why would someone so correct about Human and Civil Rights deliberately deceive us about evil and God?  3) If it is correct that we should treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated, then why did members of our species jam a crown of thorns on the head and drive five-inch nails through the hands and feet of our greatest teacher, hanging him on a Roman cross to suffer a most horrendous and painful death?  How can such an atrocity rationally be defined as anything other than evil?

        How could we possibly crucify our greatest rabbi of positive political and social activism if there is no evil and why would anyone regret doing such if there is no opposite of evil, i.e., good?  How is it that we posses something we call "conscience" at all if both evil and good are not distinct and separate realities?  Where did the idea of conscience originate and why is there a continual war within our own selves against our individual conscience as to what is right and wrong, correct and incorrect, good and evil?  Truly it is a most irrational and foolish individual who would claim that there is no evil!   Calling evil "sin" or sin "evil" or using other terminology such as "improper motivation", "negative thinking" “unhealthy thought and action toward the greater community” and "psychological mal-adjustment" does not change the basic reality of the problem.  And if there is evil, there must also be good as a distinct and separate reality, otherwise there is nothing to define evil as such.*

 ...Rock-a my so'l in de bosom of Abrah'm
    O, rock-a my so'l"

American Association for Nude Recreation

DEDICATED TO:  American evangelist Billy Graham, who in spite of his narrow and twisted religion, seems to be a lot brighter than the average scientist and educator; i.e., at least he acknowledges the overwhelmingly evidence for both good and evil as distinct and separate realities.

*FootNote:  Still not convinced that modern science might be wrong about the existence of evil?  Suppose you were living in a house with two small boys and two teenaged girls.  Sup- pose an admitted serial rapist and a self-confessed pedophile both escaped from prison and rented the houses next door, one on each side of your own home?  Would you:  a) Send your four children over with a plate of cookies to greet them into the neighborhood?  b) Either have them removed from your neighborhood by police or other force or else, move away yourself, taking your four children with you?  If your answer is "a", then most sane people would conclude that you, yourself should be locked up because you are a danger to both your children and your own person.  If your answer is anything but "a", then you are admitting that these two individuals just might do some harm to yourself and or, your four children.  Evil, by definition, is that which is harmful to people (as well as that which is harmful to the rest of Creation). The fact that our society locks up these types of individuals in prison in the first place plainly evidences that either these people have been judged to have committed evil or else, our society by default, is evil for imprisoning them in the first place; i.e., if they have done no harm, what right do the rest of us have to take away their freedom?  Are we not defining a morality of good and evil by upholding legal order within our societies and if not, what right do any of us have to take away the freedom of anyone else?  And to the ultra 'liberal' who might argue that we do not have any such right, then let the admitted serial rapist and pedophile move into his or her neighborhood---please keep the three of them far away from myself and those I love!

** FootNote II: Biblical Geneology Timeframe from Jesus to Adam Confirmed by Recent Modern Science Research.


'Click Here' To Purchase This Book

'Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.

       No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.