Let's abandon the concept of good and evil

Let's forget the good and evil

All the three big monotheistic religions work with a text which clearly promotes an understanding of the world primarily in terms of good and evil. The good is the desirable, the rewarded, the blessed. The evil is the unwanted, the painful, the punishing.

God presents man with a choice between good and evil, allegedly depending on the man's behaviour. This choice is imposed on man, as if man agreed to choosing between good and bad. As if the world had to be created with these 2 categories. But surely god is not limited by design constraints. Then why not choose between good and neutral instead of good and bad? I can imagine a world in which, instead of good and bad, there would be good and neutral. I think I would like such a world better.

Perhaps you say, "But the new neutral is just another name for the old bad", or, "The neutral would soon become the bad, bad just by comparison to good", or, " Maybe the bad used to be neutral, we just call it bad today". So what's the difference between bad and neutral? Bad is something I do not want. Neutral is something I don't mind. That's a pretty simple distinction.

The Bible does not explain or justify why these categories are imposed on man and we have a possibility to stop interpreting the world in terms of good and bad, just because it is perhaps not the best model.

Why did God choose text?

Given that TEXT is a highly unreliable and corruptible medium of communication, why did god decide to use TEXT as the primary means of conveying his message?

(He did not? He's chosen verbal means and man chose to scribble it down? Not quite; he commanded Moses to write it down, see here or here. And if he did not command any note taking (in Christianity or Islam), how else was man supposed to keep the communication for future generations? By oral tradition? They work real bad - they get distorted much quicker than text. We'd have as many versions of oral tradition as there are Bible interpretations today. If someone tells you and only you something crucial, you write it down. Effectively, god chose text.)

Problems with text:

1. It ages. Scribes have to (or had to) copy it over and over while making mistakes. (There are almost no two same hand-written Bibles in existence.) This corrupts the text.

2. Text implies language. Languages change (nobody speaks ancient Hebrew), meanings change. Requires translations into other languages which sometimes necessarily alters meaning.

3. Text is always ambiguous to some degree. Scientific papers are very good at not being ambiguous. (Any scientific paper which would allow for such a varied interpretation as the Bible does would be considered of unsatisfactory quality.)

4. Requires people to DECIDE which text is true.

5. Requires people to DECIDE which interpretation of the text is true or correct.

As a result of 4. people who believe in god do not agree on the correct text. As a result of 5. people who believe in particular text do not agree on the correct meaning.

Now, considering the immense possibilities god has, why not pick a better medium? Text is unreliable, corruptible and a text that allows for such a varied interpretation as the Bible does is useless.