The question posed by the creator of this thread is childishly provocative and contemptously obscene. It's like asking what is the meaning of slowly torturing a child to death? Pay no heed to it.
yada, to your comment i will say while 'evilishly' pointing your rat's bazooka on you, (lol) go to 'hell'...
on to a more intelligent and constructive response...
Bad simply put is the combination of two things. One is the processes of nature that deconstruct like decay and the other is tied to sentience and consciousness that can experience such things. Evil on the other hand is tied to motive when related to the context of law and social cooperation and comes from sentience and consciousness. It’s what happens when the physical clashes with that which is not physical. The same is true for good and one step above good which English doesn’t really have a word for that I can think of.
Bad is what can happen to a sentient consciousness and evil can come from a sentient consciousness. So the meaning and purpose of evil is itself, or rather his or herself. Purpose and meaning can only become real where people exist, particularly in the context of evil.
seraphim,
yes, i agree very much with you here. it is a very good and logical explanation for the definition of 'evil'. If evil is ultimately 'his' or 'herself', is there a possibility then that it can be done away with? are we not the masters of our own thoughts and conscioussness?