The nature of evil is subjective. In this, I mean that what one man may consider evil,           another considers just, true, and right to his cause. When one man commits genocide or murder, the nature of his soul may never be in question if his belief tells him that he is doing what his soul tells him it must do. There is no wrong if the action is guided by purity of spirit. If a man does evil deeds is there an objective judge for his actions or a subjective well-respected and understood and accepted moral compass that everyone “knows” is absolutely correct? How often have religious texts been interpreted as meaning that the actions of those that follow them give them free reign to act thusly? How often have those same texts been interpreted in exactly the opposite and equally diametrically opposing viewpoint by those whose belief system is also diametrically opposite and use the same text to support their beliefs? Who is the final arbiter of such force of wills? Who is to say that one is not the correct and the other also not correct? If history is written by the victors are the losers incorrect? When evil triumphs does it make it good by its very nature of victory over its opposing viewpoint? What of those that rewrite history to their liking long after the witnesses have all vanished into dust? Does this new retelling mean that the history of today is the evil of yesterday?

More things may be interpreted as one thing or another, yet can they be interpreted as both? The act of understanding is the act if being able to hold two opposing and conflicting viewpoints and being able to see both as valid and correct. When one becomes evil and the other good, nothing more than human interpretation of the original unknowable action is taking place.

What is the purpose if religion but to teach morality? However, whose morality is it? Is the objective or subjective reality? Does truth have objective natures or is it all biased and blessed by those who understand its will of force to be thus or this? In every religious ideal there is the ability to be misinterpreted. Is this a problem of the original text or the limitation of the interpreter?