godslayer (deicide) of epic
intersects heavily with morality, ethics, and
philosophy. The great moral quandaries of its intellectuals are boundless, but
outside of their towers are those in the moral trenches compelled to answer the
hard questions right now, consequences and all.
Individuals who probably did not expect to hold such deciding power are now
answering the weighty philosophical questions one way or the other, and with the
advent of encryption, federation, machine learning and digital currencies —
one of those questions is the question of evil.
We could opine at great length about the present affairs but let’s instead take
The historical Christian
Church (ecclesia) and its doctrine (ecclesiology).
explore the question of evil as answered in the past. The
The King James Version is
possibly one of the most ridiculed translations, but that probably works in its
favor. The difficult read encourages a detachment from modern
will act as the entry point to discuss a subset of the
historical answers to this philosophical question. I’m not a philosopher and
surely don’t claim to be one, consider me a layman. There be multiple dragons
Evil exists because the law exists. That was the easy answer in past
ecclesiologies; but today it is
The start of a circular argument,
but fallacies of this nature are useful for reaching interesting
and supposes an unconventional conclusion. If one
accepts that evil exists because the law exists, then it must follow that
without the law there is neither good nor evil, as there is no
Meaning that the law was made for
the evil which completes the circular argument. The evil in this context is
implicit and some call it
This idea is ancient. Paul, a
reformed persecutor and Apostle of the first–century period ecclesia, draws a
similar argument when reasoning with the Greeks in his letter to the Romans.
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Qualifying what it means to have no law is
and all of its trappings.
but first, let’s explore an implicit
conclusion that follows if there is such a relationship between the law and
evil. That conclusion is simple: To establish the law is to explicitly create
good and evil. That surely sounds asinine, but the ecclesia embraced this
summation completely. Take for example the 8th century BC prophet
Isaiah as he speaks of
Cyrus the Great, the prophet
Micah speaking of Maroth, or
Paul as he draws a strong comparison of a potter molding clay when speaking of
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
For the inhabitant of Maroth waited carefully for good: but evil came down from the LORD unto the gate of Jerusalem.
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
The implicit side effect
of establishing the law is sometimes referred to as the
Jean Bodin &
In more neutral terms: the
monopoly of force.
The paradoxical absurdity between, good,
evil, and the law (God) under specific premises is sometimes called the
logical problem of evil. For
the sake of entertaining the question of evil further, this ecclesiological view
of the law sidesteps the problem of evil as asking the wrong question.
Instead, if an
A god, government,
ruler, creator, or judge.
establishes the law, and as a side
effect creates good and evil, and thereby wields and enforces a monopoly on
violence; then what is, in essence, good and evil? That question is easier to
entertain with another question.
Why the government of course. If we can accept that a creator of the law
possesses implicit knowledge of good and evil, then who better an expert on good
and evil than the government itself. This isn’t a novel concept either, the book
of Genesis says explicitly that those who know good and evil are
An entity’s knowledge of good and evil
is not enough to convince the observer that it possesses the power of a god.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Let’s further say that relative to the government the average citizen possesses
no knowledge of good or evil, that is — until that citizen hires a lawyer or
becomes a lawyer. The lawyer adorns the government’s likeness and appears to
wield its powers. In the ecclesia,
lack of knowledge in the law
is no saving grace. Violation in any point confers punishment just the same.
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Such conjecture reveals a more puzzling problem: Governments and citizens
contemplate the nature of good and evil. This presents a set of dualisms and
controversies that unravel between contemplators of good and evil and further
expands into two opposing and
enigmatic axiom that is extended at will.
genres of good and
evil with its
definitions or specifics changing throughout the histories.
encapsulated. The knowledge of good and evil appears to differ between
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The existence of evil as we have seen is paralleled to the identification of
good and evil. However, if the creator and the observer of the law both know
good and evil — then who holds authority in knowing? Is it the creator of the
law, or the observer of the law? This higher level dualism is unavoidable and is
sometimes expressed today as apparent and absolute authority.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
One could pontificate at length about the influence of knowledge on
The idea that responsibility
exceeds authority. The one who holds the most responsiblity effectively wields
all the power at any given time, regardless of absolute power rank.
but one thing is apparent: If good and evil are opposing and
abstract, then even observers create The Law of Moses (Tribe of Levi)
The Law of the Medes and Persians
are cursory examples within the ecclesia.
for others to
follow. These observers paradoxically, become creators. This introduces the
peculiar perplexity of multiple creators — a controversy of gods among gods.
The spheres of influence from each god are in conflict continually, and the
winner sets the rules
within the sphere. The sphere of authority is sometimes called
The principle of authority spheres is foundational, with examples all throughout
the ecclesia. In short, any entity imputing good or evil, whether alive or
dead, is not just like a god — but
Knowledge and imputation as the foundational aspects of a god. The observer
considers an entity that imputes or accuses other entities of good or evil as a
god. That entity has apparent authority.
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Ideological battles are fought constantly and indefinitely within a larger
divination war with varying levels of
Force that parallels the scope of
Many observe the law but only few create due to
its paradoxical requirement of monopolized violence. Perpetual battles between
our gods and would be overlords on Earth are fought to decide the decider of
good and evil, which are
Or more, but an
observer’s natural disposition reduces all disparities into
two irreducible and opposing axioms
opposing and abstract mights. In some ancient civilizations,
child sacrifice was upheld as a moral good — Canaan’s ruler
Molech is one such example.
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
If we continue with this ancient ecclesiastical philosophy it starts to become
easier to answer the question of why evil exists. The controversy of many gods
fighting amongst each other is too problematic. A better approach requires
peeking into the very essence of evil itself. One could sneak a glimpse at the
essence of evil by removing all gods and consequently removing all laws. Paul
Many of Paul’s arguments mirror the
belief systems of his opponents. He used perhaps one of the most powerful forms
of persuasion — becoming all things to all people. See his first letter to the
the ninth chapter.
a similar point with the Greeks.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Those who have no laws are a law unto themselves, meaning observers in the face
of no external laws, create internal laws. The laws that they make are scoped to
a more natural and daresay noble
The Law of Nature (Natural Law). See
John Locke and the ancient Greek’s
line of reasoning appears to zero in on a more satisfying answer, but asking the
question of no law is to ask a final and more sinister question.
Take away all laws, by removing all gods, and we stare into the face of evil
itself. Hannah Arendt would say that evil
thrives on apathy.
is the source of fear — the primary
essence of terror. A rather anticlimactic conclusion but a circumspectual answer
in the ancient ecclesiologies.
Evil as the source of fear is a word play, but should not be taken in the sense
of fear as the absolute root of all evil. The sense is
Not exactly but this wording
to the idea that if pain is a source of fear, and
suffering a source of fear, then pain, suffering, and evil would be apparent
equivalents. To put it another way; fear becomes the source of a new evil.
The ultimate end of fear is the terror of death, preempting the final natural
law that no man has escaped; all eventually die. This axiom pervades the minds
and perturbs mortals continually. In the ecclesia, this internal law and its
derivatives guards the fear of the final evil, the king of evils, and the king
of terrors — death itself.
His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle, and it shall bring him to the king of terrors.
There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war;
In the mortal’s mind, anything that so much as points towards death is evil. If
we accept this idea, then laws are the fundamental instruments that control
fear, the essence of terror, and subsequently the propensity of death. Any
external entity perpetuating terror challenges the law directly in the most
blasphemous way. It would be trivial to usurp or gather the powers of a god
The supposition that
virtue can be derived from terror — to be terrifying is to be virtuous. See
Robespierre’s ideas of terror emanating virtue and the Committee of Public Safety’s Reign of Terror.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Evil is also mutual; one who is afraid
From a show of force, to verbal
denunciations, or even inventing powerful weapons.
remove the source of one’s fear. This is not particularly eye opening, but the
fearful within the ecclesia are considered to be some of the most dangerous and
And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.
Death, the king of terrors, additionally invites the infinite unknown. Foreign
and unknown entities become implicitly evil. The unknown imputes fear, fear
brings terror, and ultimate terror motivates death. Many civilizations have
destroyed the unknown without second thought.
Paul’s take on the conscience in a calculative sense, turns the problem of
mutual evil into multiple bounded or scoped problems of evil. The conscience
acts as a delimit, such that if the evil
One or more convergent evils.
then there is some route to
Where none, one, or two or more evils
coexist in a mutual relationship.
The greater of the
convergent evils isn’t always the target.
This is primarily the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If an
external entity attacked the Earth, peace among Earthlings would be realized
In the common hypothesis, but it’s
more complicated that that.
The attacking forces would become
Perhaps why hostile empires,
monopolies, and other coalescing powers rarely stand the test of time.
convergence of evil, but in practicality, evil as it is
perceived is mostly divergent — it cannot be pinpointed quickly or identified
Lastly, the conscience and the knowledge of good and evil appear as two entirely
different domains. Paul discusses this distinction when summarizing the
ecclesia’s laws of liberty in the context of two men’s opposing consciences.
1 Corinthians 10:29
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
The shapeless conflict between good, evil, and the law is continual, its winners
and losers painted throughout the halls of history. The technological landscape
is transforming fast and in the real world, fear appears to be increasing
steadily. What new evils are on the radar? Who will be the kingmakers? Who will
In this context, a
godslayer is a god who is
killed and then resurrected.
Those who answer such questions are possibly the ones you