Would it not be difficult to assume that good will overpower evil without that annoying thing that I find very impotant-- defining terms?

What is Good? What is Evil? In fact is there any such thing in an absolute as good or absolute evil? It is interesing to reflect always that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. When I was little more than a baby my country was involved in a war and the order was given to firebomb Dresden. Thousands of people, including innocent little children, as I was then, died that night. The whole thing was seen as a reason for rejoicing, it was "right" and "good" ---- now, 60 years later, I have seen it described as "evil".

Because eventually we often seem to come to our senses I agree with KarmaMagnet when he states:

"The notion that the nature of humans intrinsically evil is one I directly oppose, in fact I think the opposite is true; that our basic nature is intrinsically good."

Quite honestly I don't know how you would keep going if you did not feel that this was true. However I do not think that it is good overcoming evil, I think that we would prefer to make a choice on the assumption that good will come from it. Unfortunately though that is the rationale for firebombing Dresden. Philosophically it is a circular debate!

How do you deal with this paradox TT? I suspect you will say that it is a reflection of the ego not the absolute. But would not the absolute have to include all the contradictions? Are they not part of the true reality?