No, Baraonda. It is not a question of whether evil is "inseparable from the good." On first inspection, it might seem that way. But the more truthful way to put this proposition is to say that evil is, not some kind of siamese twin of the good, but that evil is the pure absence of the good.
To say that evil and good can somehow be equated is the project of our "post-contemporary innovators" (e.g., Marx and his followers, who are legion). The problem of "absence" vs. "presence," however, is an entirely different sort of question.
Granted, it's a subtle point. But I do note a distinction worthy of our attention there. FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing, Baraonda.
but that evil is the pure absence of the good.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that for me. It is not only true what you wrote above, but beautiful as well. I'll try to remember it as one of my favorite quotations.
Now I'll just stay in the background and continue reading the rest of the posts as they come along.
Again, thanks for responding and enlightening me.
But it's not because good cannot be separated from, or exist apart from, evil but rather that we can understand what good is (or better yet, Who Good Is) more fully by observing what evil is.
How would you ever know courage if you had never seen fear, health if you had never seen sickness, joy without sorrow, love without hate, etc. The contrast informs us when we observe it and can become part of us if we experience it.
An interesting meditation is that the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". It could be observed, but not experienced.
IMHO, evil and good is like black and white. Once the black has been mixed into the white - no matter how much white you add, you only get another shade of grey. That's why we Christians must be born again.