I think it is benificial to define evil. Biblically, what is evil? Evil is merely lack of faith in the word of God. It says in the Bible that whatever is not of faith is sin.
First, I see no reason to think that evil is "merely lack of faith in the Word of God." No offense, but that definition seems very contrived. It is completely different than any normal use of the word 'evil.' Moreover, we have a very good word for the definition you offer. It's called 'disbelief.' We must be careful with words. If we redefine things in unorthodox manners every time we need to get around a philosophical dilemma then our language loses its meaning.
As evidence of this very practice we need only look to the first page of another nearby thread entitled "if there is no evil then how do you know good?" There you define evil several different ways according to what seems to benefit you in the discussion.
Originally posted by whodey
Goodness exists as where evil does not. The term evil is used to denote the absence of God's love in ones heart.
Originally posted by whodey
As I said before, evil is a term to describe the absence of good.
So now we have three versions of evil. Evil is
1) merely lack of faith in the Word of God
2) the absence of God's love in ones heart
3) the absence of good
Can we harmonize all three of these definitions? Let's see. By (3) evil is the absence of good, and by (2) it is the absence of God's love in ones heart. Therefore good must mean the presence of God's love in ones heart. However, evil is also lack of faith in the Word of God. Good then must mean the absence of lack of faith in the Word of God or not lacking faith in the Word of God. Thus "the presence of God's love in ones heart" and "not lacking faith in the Word of God" must mean exactly the same thing. But clearly this is not true. While one may contend that "having God's love in ones heart" and "not lacking faith in the Word of God" go hand in hand, they are not the exact same thing. They are two seperate conditions, one concerning the whereabouts of God's love, the other concerning the state of a humans belief.
Another problem which arises from this strict definition of good is that it doesn't make any sense in other contexts. For instance when God looked upon the second day of Creation and said to himself, "It is good," he surely did not mean that the Sky and the Water have God's love in their hearts or Sky and Water do not lack faith in the Word of God. No. Good here means that it was well-made. When a believer proclaims, "Yea, God is good!" he is not merely saying that God has his own love his his heart or that God does not lack faith in his own Word, he means that God has a benevolent character.
So even if, as you say, it is beneficial to define evil, I think your attempt is a non-starter. As I have detailed here, your definition leads to a dual identity which is illogical, and it is completely at odds with the context in which the word 'evil' is normally used, even in the Bible itself.
In other words, when they partook of the fruit they forsook the warnings given to them by their creator. They no longer recognized the Lordship of their creator, and decided to be their own god. God gives his creation this choice because he is a God of love. Love involves relationship and to have a relationship you must have free will to love someone back. You therefore must either have the option of choosing him or rejecting him. Thus, choosing evil must be an option in regards to free will
Whoa. Now evil has another implicit definition. The way you use evil above is best described as 'rejecting the Lordship of God.' Again using the definition (3), good must be 'accepting the Lordship of God.' Is it true that when a believer proclaims, "Yea, God is good!" he simply means that God accepts the Lordship of God? Of course not!
I think your narrow use of the term free will is nonsensical. Free will is essentially the 'freedom to choose.' My definition captures this, and does not restrict free will to mean 'only the freedom to choose between good and evil actions.' Being able to choose any flavor of available ice cream in the exact same state of nature means having the freedom to choose. My definition also fits in very well with the idea of determinism which contends that the state of nature restricts your choice set to one option.
Finally, once again, all that you write here about love necessitating free will and free will necessitating evil is "God in a Box." If these necessary relationships hold in Creation, it is because God chose to make it that way, not because these were universal laws that God had to respect when creating. You are using the Creation to constrain the Creator.