Throughout history, certain characters have always been cast as the antagonist, the bad guy in the classic 'good vs. evil' struggle, and with good reason. We've all seen the classics.  Witches are wicked; vampires and werewolves, soulless monsters that prey on the innocent.

Lately, there seems to be a trend in movies and in print to turn all of these traditional enemies into just the opposite. I'm assuming this is done in the spirit of inclusion, or breaking stereotypes, as if we just understand the main character's point of view, we'd 'understand'. This is not good! It is desensitizing us to evil.

It's as if the media moguls, writers and producers are trying to push the idea that all things are acceptable and nothing is inherently evil. As a mom, trying to teach moral absolutes to my children, and as a Christian, I find this trend deeply disturbing. Instead of teaching that every person has value, it instead instills the subconscious acceptance of 'anything goes'.

I also feel as if I'm the only one who can see that the hole in the life raft is going to sink us all. Meanwhile everyone around me is telling me I'm crazy, or stupid. While I'm pointing out the hole and trying to patch it, everyone else is tearing off the tape and telling me that a little water isn't going to hurt us; it's healthy, they say. 

It is not healthy, nor should it be acceptable to anyone! Let's pick on one genre, just as an example, because I see a lot of similar stories on my homepage here on WP lately. Vampires have been a traditional evil entity for a variety of reasons. 

The back story behind Vladd Tepes (pronounced Tepish) Count Dracula (that was his title,) the savior (or butcher) of Transylvania (depending on your point of view) is an interesting historical struggle, and I honestly side with the count in my thoughts, because I have this thing about rooting for the underdog.

Tepes, feudal lord of the area, was under attack by enemy soldiers. He repelled the attack, so the story goes, and impaled the dead, enemy soldiers on spikes as an example to future would-be attackers. (The were over a thousand.) The ploy worked for a time, and sparked rumors that eventually led to the current-day legends. Sadly, Tepes lost control of his county and eventually fled. He ended his life in exile, never seeing his home again.)

Enter the blood-sucking legend. The Bible says that the life is in the blood (which is why OT dietary law requires that animals killed for food 'hang' so that the blood doesn't stay in the meat.) Medieval people believed that the soul resided in the blood, so that, when a vampire was said to suck the blood from someone, they were actually stealing that person's soul. Suck enough blood, and the person became a soulless monster, neither alive nor dead, incapable of attaining Heaven, ever. In the view of a mostly-illiterate, deeply religious people, the threat of vampires would be enough to keep any teen from sneaking out at night!

Now, look at the modern 'take' on them. The general consensus/ running theme about them seems to be, 'most of them are bad, but this one is (or will be at the end of the story) okay.' So . . . a little evil is okay? Check out Proverbs 24 to see what 'a little' evil leads to!

(Proverbs 24:33-34 AMP) 'A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest [and daydream]," Then your poverty will come as a robber, And your want like an armed man.' This is a metaphor, obviously. The poverty is representative of evil. 

Let's consider the musical 'Wicked'. On it's face, it seems to have a positive message, but consider this; what is a witch? Witches were, and are, worshippers of the enemy of our souls! They 'work magic' at the behest and by the ability of one who ought not be given any quarter! At no time, is any witch, wizard, or warlock ever 'good', because their power, abilities, magic or whatever comes from pure evil. Note that wizard/ warlock is the masculine version for witch.

There is one exception to the witch/wizard/warlock thing. In J.R.R. Tolkien's world of LoTR, Gandalf and his fellows (Radagast the Brown is another, as was Saruman the White) were called wizards literally for lack of a better term, but were not actually wizards( ref. Silmarillion.) They did not use magic, Tolkien took pains to explain, but, like the Elves, used innate ability to do what seemed magical to those who didn't understand how they did it.

I leave you with the words of Isaiah 5:20 (AMP). 'Woe (judgement is coming) to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!