[i]In Christianity, terms that are synonymous with "Satan" include:
The most common English synonym for "Satan" is "Devil", which descends from Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, that in turn represents an early Germanic borrowing of Latin diabolus (also the source of "diabolical"). This in turn was borrowed from Greek diabolos "slanderer", from diaballein "to slander": dia- "across, through" + ballein "to hurl".[10] In the New Testament, "Satan" occurs more than thirty times in passages alongside Diabolos (Greek for "the devil"), referring to the same person or thing as Satan.[11]
* Lucifer is sometimes used in Christian theology to refer to Satan, as a result of identifying the fallen "son of the dawn" of Isaiah 14:12 with the "accuser" of other passages in the Old Testament.
* Beelzebub is originally the name of a Philistine god (more specifically a certain type of Baal, from Ba‘al Zebûb, lit. "Lord of Flies") but is also used in the New Testament as a synonym for Satan. A corrupted version, "Belzeboub", appears in The Divine Comedy.
* Satan is identified as the serpent who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; thus, Satan has often been depicted as a serpent. This interpretation goes back at least as far as the time of the writing of the book of Revelation, which specifically identifies Satan as being the serpent (Rev. 20:2).
* "The dragon" and "the old serpent" in the Book of Revelation 12:9, 20:2 have been identified with Satan. The Book of Revelation also refers to "the deceiver," from which is derived the common epithet "the great deceiver."[12] Other terms identified with Satan include "the prince of this world" in the Book of John 12:31, 14:30; "the prince of the power of the air" also called Meririm, and "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" in the Book of Ephesians 2:2; and "the god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:4.[13]
* Leviathan is described as "that crooked serpent", which is also used to describe Satan in Revelation 12:9. 'Sar ha Olam,' a possible name for Metatron, is described as Satan by Michael, Jehoel and St. Paul.[/i]

This is taken off the English Wikipedia from the article named Satan. As you can see, many of the names have very little to do with what people today consider to be the devil. Lucifer means bringer of light, and it is now considered that it might be a reference to morning star, and there's nothing that necessarily connects the serpent in Eden to be Satan. Same goes for the dragon. If anything, I would ascribe the serpent a sexual symbolic value, maybe even as a phallic symbol. I have no doubt in my mind why it was Eve (a woman) that was seduced by sexuality, and that it was because she was a woman that the original sin occured. It all seems to boil down much to such things as menstruation and blackmailing older pagan religions that hailed female fertility, since it was a symbol for the earth. This is why you will find many female fertility goddesses but very few male ones. So what I am trying to say is that Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer among others have nothing to do with each other, as once you start looking into their origins they seem to be completely unrelated.

And it is more likely that Sheol in that case would've been translated into Greek since Sheol refers to something completely different than Hades, although most underworlds in pagan mythologies bear many similarities. So even if Sheol would've been translated into Greek and then into English, it seems very unlikely the Greek translation would sound anything similar to "hel" or "hell".

Additionally, I hold the view that everyone has their own particular continuum of what is "right/wrong" "good/evil" "better/worse" behaviors, so while one is able to judge and rank a behavior according to his or her own scale, they are incorrect in assuming that scale applies to anyone else.

"Methods & acts of doing are part of the act itself…not a driving presence of the desire to carry it out. "

You obviously missed what I was hinting at. By "presence", I was referring to a more abstract notion in terms of these opposites: "present / absent" , "positive / negative" "substance / no substance". Your argument was based around these opposites as well– that one term is actually is the absence of another presence. My assertion is that what one might call "evil" is its own autonomous concept, not simply the absence of another concept.

The reason I included "the act of DOING" specifically is based on the emphasis in that phrase: DOING. Action is the opposite of passivity, and were "evil" simply an absence, there would be no action; no DOING.

Ok so how do you view the concepts of right & wrong? Do you see them as relative? Or do you see them as absolute?

“For example, murder is an ACTIVE behavior, not a passive one; its not an “absence of good” that leads a person to commit such an action, but the PRESENCE of something else. That active presence includes motives, methods, and the act of DOING ”

Methods & acts of doing are part of the act itself…not a driving presence of the desire to carry it out.

As to your second point, I would have hoped you to derive from my essay that I do not believe in the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" at all. I believe it is a false duality and ultimately the two sides are relative, not absolute. However, this leads to the fact that the only way your point of "evil = absence of good" to be definitively true is if they WERE a duality, absolutes, and completely passive. Additionally, the definition you mentioned would only cover Evil-By-Omission, such as not speaking up when something wrong is happening, but it does not cover ACTS OF "EVIL". In order to commit an ACT OF "Evil", we're not talking about an absence but a PRESENCE of action.

For example, murder is an ACTIVE behavior, not a passive one; its not an "absence of good" that leads a person to commit such an action, but the PRESENCE of something else. That active presence includes motives, methods, and the act of DOING. You can't just remove "Good" and expect "Evil" to remain–frequently "Evil" requires an act of it's own.

So far as "Evil" goes…First, how does one define evil? Evil is not a free standing, intangible notion. Its like asking if theres such a thing as "Cold", or is there such a thing as "darkness"? The answer to all of these is no….Cold is nothing more than the absence of heat, whereas darkness is nothing more than the absense of light….The same goes for Evil; which is nothing more than the absence of all things we see as "Good"…i.e. Love, kindness, mercy, compassion etc…