Welcome to Gaia! ::

"Maybe. But I am sure she's aware that without Chaos there would be no need for Sailor Soldiers. It would disrupt the balance of light and dark. Even if THAT had been the case, another Chaos would rise.."

Assuming that such a balance needed to be maintained in the SM universe in the first place. As it is, there is no evidence for that. If anything, I believe Chaos is evidence against it, as StarS presents Chaos not as a being that was created evil, but rather one that became evil.

(Also the "balance between dark and light," in just about every case I've heard of, never refers to good and evil in and of itself, but rather traits, things, and behaviors that must be kept in balance to live a good and productive life. See Yetzer Hara/Yetzer Hatov to see what I mean.)

Light and darkness doesn't necessarily refer to good and evil. (Darn you, Star Wars!)

Also, I'm pretty sure that even without Chaos to mess things up, there would still be people who would do "evil" things. Professor Tomoe, at least in the manga, was messed up even before he got involved with the Death Busters.

Well, there's certainly no indication that Chaos must be evil in order to preserve some kind of cosmic balance.

I got the impression that the point was that you couldn't have good without evil not because evil must happen in order to maintain a balance, but rather because evil was inevitable.

Yeah... I don't go for that original sin explanation.

Just watching people, I've come to the conclusion that what we call "evil" is typically the result of a survival instinct gone too far. Greed? Our natural instinct to hoard for a rainy day. Lust? Part of our instinct to procreate and perpetuate the species, just like any other living creature. Anger? A defense mechanism. Power-hungry? We're social animals - it's natural to want to become Alpha.

"Evil" is therefore inevitable not because humans are infected with some kind of invisible fleas that tell them to do bad things, but because one day someone's animal instincts will go too far, and result in behavior with hurts him/her and/or society. And as social creatures, we don't like things that perceive will threaten society, and so we label them "evil."

But there's no point in encouraging it by believing in it, is there? razz We're good enough at being bad without pesky little things like that. xd

Not exactly what I meant by original sin...it's not exactly "invisible fleas that tell us to do things."
More like that we do have these animalistic tendencies pre-programmed into us, you know? But the original sin thing gives us an explanation as to why this has happened.
Then we get into ethics, and which things are inherently wrong, such as murder and such...and the conscience...
And nature vs. nuture.
It's all very complicated.
Anger is not a sin, or evil, it is what we do with that anger. Say I'm angry and I release it in a healthy way like singing about it or writing about it, or exercising. But if I murder someone, then that is evil.

I honestly hate debates like this, especially because oftentimes I end up getting upset, and there is no point in talking about my beliefs with someone who will never think the way I do, because we'd be arguing forever.