On Jun 12, 2020, funsway wrote:
I offer some thoughts not meant in any way to suggest this would not be an effective presentation for most audiences today.

I like the simplicity and attention=getting qualities.

The issue is representing truth versus popular imagery - always a problem in educational and religious settings.

The use of Black as evil and White as good is a fairly modern invention (15th century) and certainly not Biblical.

Before that Black color was often a divine representation since it is a combination of all colors, where white is the absence of color.

Yes, white was used to represent purity, but in contrast to any die, with dark colors reserved to the wealthy as they took a lot of expensive die in the cloth.
Thus, Black represent mans' obsession with earthly objects: greed, coveting, lust, etc - and calling those sins "ungodly" might be OK - but "evil" may be too strong.

The shift to Black being "bad" came from the Crusading Orders shifting to piracy, Templars founding the Masonic Order and later Hollywood mangling history to its own ends.

Several monastic orders at that time changed their garb to avoid being associated with the Masons, not that Black was bad/evil in itself.
Only the Knights of Saint John came to represent "good" as the red cross on white was adopted by Hospitals and the Swiss.

Probably Ok to say, 'White is the representation of total purity and absence of sin, and black is life without purity and enlightenment."
But to say that Black represents evil is not correct representation. In fact, a man filled with sin is a cause for celebration as he can be led to purity and salvation.