So, you'll forgive me if I can't thread the idea you gave above through the eye of any scriptural needle.
OK, let's say that again just as a refresher:
"Not all evil is wicked and dark".
Oh, I see.
That's like saying:
Not all poop smells.
And, even if it does, it can make excellent fertilizer.
Not all rotten apples are rotten.
But if you crush 'em an' add a bit of food coloring, you can sell 'em as pure apple juice.
All the same, poop does smell and rotten apples are just that: rotten.
We have Christians today accusing God of every kind of evil. They say that God killed that person or caused that hurricane or gave a disease to someone. Then they happily knit it together and justify all the misery and pain because it all supposedly works for the good.
Some even say that God heaps calamity and disease on people to bring them closer to Himself; they have God acting as an abusive spouse using the demented pretext that one is more likely to appreciate Him when He loves.
Somehow we expect more from humans than God Himself.
Why is it that the evil some accuse God of doing, we would never excuse with our fellow human beings?
Would anyone befriend someone who might purposely harm you one day and embrace you the next?
Would anyone boast of having physician who both creates disease as well as healing them?
Thanks for your honest imput. The poop and apples comparison is not the same as the one I was making, namely, that all wickedness is evil, yet all evil is not wickedness. It is an apples and oranges comparison.
To use an obvious example, all German Shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German Shepherds. The problem that hangs us up is that we have a definition for the word evil that is not inherent in the word itself. What has become attached to it has replaced it in meaning.
The word in Hebrew simply means something that does not function the way it was intended. Conversely, the word for good in Hebrew means something that functions the way it was intended. For example, when God looked at what he had made during the days of creation, he did not call them good because they looked cool, but because everything at that moment was doing what he had designed it to do. It was functional.
The idea of wickedness is an added condition to that, but it must not replace the primary meaning.
This understanding is why Job could say:
Job 2:10 But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. What? Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?"
Job credits God with the evil (dysfunction) that occurred in his life. And Moses, who wrote the book, was inspired to say:
Job 42:11 Then came there to him all his brothers, and all his sisters, and all those who had been of his acquaintance before, and ate bread with him in his house. They comforted him, and consoled him concerning all the evil that Yahweh had brought on him.
Everyone also gave him a piece of money, and everyone a ring of gold.
The death of his children, the loss of his wealth, and health, was surely done by Satan, but who was it that initiated it? According to Job 1, God did. He is the one who asked the question: "Have you considered my servant Job?" He is the one to gave Satan permission to do what he did.
From a passionate purely human standpoint, that sounds so cruel of God to do such a thing, yet again, what happened, while evil, was not wicked, because God is not, and does not do wickedness. Also, from a purely human point of view, if I did not understand God as I have come to understand him, would the replacement of all that I lost REALLY justify the loss in the first place? In other words, if God sent Satan to take the life of someone you love, then gave you someone else a bit later, wouldn't you, in your humanness, still be upset at the loss of the first one you loved? Can the replacement truly "make it all better?" Again, thankfully, the loss of Job was not a permanent one, for I believe God has reconciled them all, and now they fully understand why it all happened.
As for why I would not excuse evil that I would excuse God for, that would depend again on what you mean. For example, for someone to just up and kill someone else, I would not excuse. That is evil, and wicked. However, such as in the case of the Israelites, when God TOLD them to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in the places where they conquered, that also was evil, but NOT wicked. God is the one who told them to do it, as is his right. There is something much greater than the mere physical death of a person.
Every time I spank my son if he is rebellious, I am doing evil to him, simply because I am bringing calamity to his behind. It is not what his buttocks was created for, if you will. But what I am doing is not wicked, but ultimately, that evil works for his good. That is why I do that in love, because someone who does not, the Bible says "hates his son."
Again, it ultimately comes down to understanding what evil is, because if God has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical definition of evil, "rah", then I have to cut out several portions of scripture or simply ignore them. To me, this shows the harmony in them concerning this.
And just want to make it clear that I am not trying to "convince or change" your viewpoint. I just am hoping you can at least understand why I believe the way I do, whether you agree with it or not. To me, we are still brothers in Christ, united in spirit, and I trust that if what I understand is off, God will reveal it for me to know what is true.