There can be no light without the dark.....right?

[blackout]

Evil doesn't depend upon the existence of 'good' in order to give it meaning. Murder is evil, but not murder is simply the former possibility not enacted: there isn't a state or condition of not murder. However, the term 'good' is dependent upon evil. Conceive of the non-existence of evil. What would the state of 'goodness' comprise? How could one be good when it is impossible to be bad? And now if we reverse the situation, where we have only an evil existence, we find we don't need the correlative 'good' to distinguish this negative state. In sum, the state of evil and badness, eg hurt, injury, disappointment, death or distress of any kind, exists as a proper state, but 'goodness' is merely a descriptive term for the theoretical absence of that negative state; it is not a state in itself.

What about
going out of your way for someone who desperately needs help,
and
not going out of your way for someone who desperately needs help.

 

[cottage]

I am not going to drag this out. Again, you are arguing from the perspective that words have substance in and of themselves. You say that the meaning of the word "good" is relative to the meaning of the word "evil," and that therefore good itself, separate and apart from any words we use to describe it, has no independent substance. That's pure crap. Semantics is not reality, and meaning exists apart from the words we use to attempt to convey it. You don't see that, and that's the problem with your argument and your point of view.

From the viewpoint of at least some folks who believe that there is more to life than the words we use to describe it, and that we can know life without those words, it is evil that is relative because "good" describes that which is eternal. However, separate and apart from whether you believe good exists independently or not, your point of view is fundamentally semantic in nature and that is why it fails.

I don't care whether you admit it to me or not, publically. I sort of doubt you will. But, someday, I hope you come to admit it to yourself.

Forgive me but that last sentence of yours is rather patronising and adds nothing to the discussion. And I’m sorry but it seems slightly absurd to dismiss words, when words are the only means by which anybody can argue for anything.

But anyway my argument is concerned not simply with mere terms but with the logical relationship between states and actions and their evident existence/non-occurrence. Conceive of a world without evil, a conception that is logically possible. So now what do we have? We don't have evil, and nor do we have 'good', that is to say a state that exists in relation to evil, because evil doesn't happen to exist. What we have is a state where the terms 'good' and 'evil' have no meaning. But to demonstrate why this is about more than words we might conceive of another possible world where there is only evil; in fact we will consider ourselves the creator of this possible world. We have created this evil world at the flick of switch. To be fair to both sides of the argument, as with the previous state of ‘goodness’, the term 'evil' would of course have no meaning to its inhabitants. But now, at the flick of a switch, once more, we could put a stop to the evil. Those who did the killing would stop killing; those who did the robbing would stop robbing; and the volcanoes would stop pouring molten larva over the inhabitants. We've simply stopped the evil; we haven't introduced something called 'good'. The inhabitants didn't suddenly become 'good' to one another but simply ceased doing what they were doing previously. ‘Goodness’ is overcoming adversity, ie standing in relation to what is bad, harmful or negative.

Oh, and by what argument are we to understand ‘good’ as being eternal?

 

[Tom Terrific]

Forgive me but that last sentence of yours is rather patronising and adds nothing to the discussion. And I’m sorry but it seems slightly absurd to dismiss words, when words are the only means by which anybody can argue for anything.

My expression of hope for you was sincere. Sorry if you were offended, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that I find your point of view deeply flawed in a way that mine is not.

But anyway my argument is concerned not simply with mere terms but with the logical relationship between states and actions and their evident existence/non-occurrence. Conceive of a world without evil, a conception that is logically possible. So now what do we have? We don't have evil, and nor do we have 'good', that is to say a state that exists in relation to evil, because evil doesn't happen to exist. What we have is a state where the terms 'good' and 'evil' have no meaning.

So what? Just because the terms have no meaning doesn't mean that one or more of their referents don't exist, don't influence our lives in profound ways and can't be known. Incidentally, the world you hypothesize here would be like the Judeo-Christian Eden prior to the Fall. Adam & Eve may not have been able to define "good" or "evil," but they nevertheless experienced the former.

But to demonstrate why this is about more than words we might conceive of another possible world where there is only evil; in fact we will consider ourselves the creator of this possible world.

I don't know how to do this, because evil, as I conceive of it, is the absence of good. Since existence is an expression and attribute of good, there can be no such thing as evil existing independently of good.

Oh, and by what argument are we to understand ‘good’ as being eternal?

No argument. I simply stated that it's my conception. It does, however, seem to follow from the postulate that existence is good, unless you're predisposed to think of existence itself as finite.

You do realize that argument and proof are nothing more than highly-refined pleading? What's the point, really?

 

[glyphkenn]

The part of loving oneself is not in a selfish way but rather one where one

is at peace with oneself.
Being at peace with one self is having the peace of God enabling us to give of ourselves out of love.
Jesus demostrated it for us. Because He had the peace of God in Him, He could forgive His enemies. Otherwise, not.
Don' t get hung up on " as thy self" meaning. When you have the peace of God in you, it will enable you to love as God has loved you.
Blessings, AJ[/


the commandment had nothing to do with to do with anything you just said . You answer everything with meaningless slick talk.

 

[glyphkenn]

The part of loving oneself is not in a selfish way but rather one where one

is at peace with oneself.
Being at peace with one self is having the peace of God enabling us to give of ourselves out of love.
Jesus demostrated it for us. Because He had the peace of God in Him, He could forgive His enemies. Otherwise, not.
Don' t get hung up on " as thy self" meaning. When you have the peace of God in you, it will enable you to love as God has loved you.
Blessings, AJ

show me the progression from that command (love thy neighbor as thy self the peace of God. And I get the the dark light metaphors . I'm just saying they are bad ones. The bible only talk of a few things that was not mentioned as being created .1 - in the beginning God. 2 - And darkness was . 3- And the in john - and the word was. Everything else was created , made , spoken into existence . Darkness is ,was ,and will be. Light , spoken into exsistance or man made , even stars are all temporary . Dark was on the face of the deep. No mention of its beginning . I get the metaphor . But as far as a power struggle no. Darkness has the advantage .

 

[look3467]

The part of loving oneself is not in a selfish way but rather one where one

is at peace with oneself.
Being at peace with one self is having the peace of God enabling us to give of ourselves out of love.
Jesus demostrated it for us. Because He had the peace of God in Him, He could forgive His enemies. Otherwise, not.
Don' t get hung up on " as thy self" meaning. When you have the peace of God in you, it will enable you to love as God has loved you.
Blessings, AJ[/


the commandment had nothing to do with to do with anything you just said . You answer everything with meaningless slick talk.

If one has the peace of God is what it means to be at peace with one self, also means that the self issue is second to the spiritual issue again meaning that self would be willing to sacrifice self for another if called to do so.
Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

show me the progression from that command (love thy neighbor as thy self the peace of God. And I get the the dark light metaphors . I'm just saying they are bad ones. The bible only talk of a few things that was not mentioned as being created .1 - in the beginning God. 2 - And darkness was . 3- And the in john - and the word was. Everything else was created , made , spoken into existence . Darkness is ,was ,and will be. Light , spoken into exsistance or man made , even stars are all temporary . Dark was on the face of the deep. No mention of its beginning . I get the metaphor . But as far as a power struggle no. Darkness has the advantage .

Lets look at the spiritual end of those samethings you spoke sbout.
1. In the bevining God........was
2. Darkness was....meaning a lack of knowleadge of who He was.
3. Light came.....meaning that knowleadge came of God' spiritual nature dispelling the lack of knowleadgee ( darkness).
Being at peace is having the light of God' spiritual nature in us, accepting His gift of life via Hos Son Jesus and then living it by His example....love God and neighbor as He loved us. ( thyself)
Blessings, AJ

 

[connermt]

Does anyone else feel that there should be some sort of "bad" religion to equal out all the good? It seems to me that there should be a dark side, to counter the light, even with the Yin Yang symbol there is a dark and a light. Who represents the dark? Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

I say all religions are bad, and the act of not entertaining the "rules" of a religion is the good, as it were.
As we understand life, there needs to be a good and a bad. But that only pertains to humanity: there is no good animal or bad animal; no bad or good plant; no good or bad weather; etc. These things just exists. Humanity labels good and bad for humanities sake only.
Kinda' selfish really....

 

[glyphkenn]

Lets look at the spiritual end of those samethings you spoke sbout.
1. In the bevining God........was
2. Darkness was....meaning a lack of knowleadge of who He was.
3. Light came.....meaning that knowleadge came of God' spiritual nature dispelling the lack of knowleadgee ( darkness).
Being at peace is having thef light of God' spiritual nature in us, accepting His gift of life via Hos Son Jesus and then living it by His example....love God and neighbor as He loved us. ( thyself)
Blessings, AJ

the bible does not say any of that just you . You should start your own bible. Your definition of what the bible is saying is actually better than what the bible is actually saying. At the time God said let there be light who was there lacking understanding of God?

 

[look3467]

I say all religions are bad, and the act of not entertaining the "rules" of a religion is the good, as it were.
As we understand life, there needs to be a good and a bad. But that only pertains to humanity: there is no good animal or bad animal; no bad or good plant; no good or bad weather; etc. These things just exists. Humanity labels good and bad for humanities sake only.
Kinda' selfish really....

Because we are made in God's image "as gods" we are subject to all the vanity in the world.
Now, religion is a quest to reach God with whatever means are available at the time, be it the stone henge age, the biblical age and today's variety of religious beliefs.

The good religions can only be infiltrated by the vanity of mankind, thus the problem addressed as to the bad religions.

Evil potential will always be with us while in the flesh, but afterwards, none.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

the bible does not say any of that just you . You should start your own bible. Your definition of what the bible is saying is actually better than what the bible is actually saying. At the time God said let there be light who was there lacking understanding of God?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form....darkness was upon the face of the deep
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

One two three in that order.

That spoke to us about the physical in terms of billions of years and yet it speaks to us in spiritual terms as well.

Meaning, in the beginning, God, came to us in a world as one of us, a world void of His true being (darkness) coming as a light dispelling, revealing His true nature and to save His creation.

That is the sum of it all. From that is all things made up in the struggle to achieve it.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

The part of loving oneself is not in a selfish way but rather one where one

is at peace with oneself.
Being at peace with one self is having the peace of God enabling us to give of ourselves out of love.
Jesus demonstrated it for us. Because He had the peace of God in Him, He could forgive His enemies. Otherwise, not.
Don' t get hung up on " as thy self" meaning. When you have the peace of God in you, it will enable you to love as God has loved you.
Blessings, AJ[/


the commandment had nothing to do with to do with anything you just said . You answer everything with meaningless slick talk.

Slick talk? Hmm.....you mean you have no rebuttal?

I have the peace of God because I have accepted His offering and thus I am enabled to offer my forgiveness as He, as the light rests in mt spirit dispelling all darkness.

Blessings, AJ

 

[glyphkenn]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form....darkness was upon the face of the deep
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

One two three in that order.

That spoke to us about the physical in terms of billions of years and yet it speaks to us in spiritual terms as well.

Meaning, in the beginning, God, came to us in a world as one of us, a world void of His true being (darkness) coming as a light dispelling, revealing His true nature and to save His creation.

That is the sum of it all. From that is all things made up in the struggle to achieve it.

Blessings, AJ

again u add things that the bible does not say so u can give it your own meaning . The bible does not say in the beginning God came to us as anything. It just said in the beginning god created . Are u willing to admit that according to the bible , God,Darkness,and the word may be the same? All three predates everything else . All three just was in the beginning .

 

[glyphkenn]

Slick talk? Hmm.....you mean you have no rebuttal?

I have the peace of God because I have accepted His offering and thus I am enabled to offer my forgiveness as He, as the light rests in mt spirit dispelling all darkness.

Blessings, AJ

I'm just saying that if you quote a verse as your subject. Don't ramble on about things that has nothing to do with your subject.

 

[look3467]

I'm just saying that if you quote a verse as your subject. Don't ramble on about things that has nothing to do with your subject.

You mean light without the dark?

Darkness was until the light entered the picture.

Spiritually speaking is all entirely different than the physical yet both accomplishing the same ends.

Matter of perspective.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

again u add things that the bible does not say so u can give it your own meaning . The bible does not say in the beginning God came to us as anything. It just said in the beginning god created . Are u willing to admit that according to the bible , God,Darkness,and the word may be the same? All three predates everything else . All three just was in the beginning .

it is the same picture in both the physical creation and the spiritual introduction of Jesus.

The world prior to Jesus, and before Abraham and the prophets had no spiritual knowledge of who or what God was. hence all the man made images of imagined gods.

So, in that case the world was in the dark.

God's spirit hovers over as in Genesis,and descends as Jesus on the spot as the light of the world.

Can you not see the correlation between the the two. It is a picture of the central figure of the whole creation Jesus.

Life in the hereafter begins not at our birth but at our rebirth with Jesus being the vehicle by which the means is accomplished.

Are we in the light (Knowledge of) who Jesus was or are we still in the dark (Lack of knowledge) of who Jesus really was?

We can not have light with out first being in the dark, other, why be here at all?

Blessings, AJ

 

[glyphkenn]

You mean light without the dark?

Darkness was until the light entered the picture.

Spiritually speaking is all entirely different than the physical yet both accomplishing the same ends.

Matter of perspective.

Blessings, AJ

u r still adding to the script . The bible only speak of three things that were not created , made , or spoken into existence . Three things that just were in the beginning . Here they are without any added perspective . In the beginning God, Darkness was , the word was . Now I don't believe in any of it . But Ian willing to read it like it says . Why do you feel the need to add to it your perspective . Is it so u can continueth to believeth.

 

[cottage]

My expression of hope for you was sincere. Sorry if you were offended, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that I find your point of view deeply flawed in a way that mine is not.

No offence taken. But seeing that we don’t know one another it’s probably best to keep personal remarks out of the discussion, because even if sincere they are likely to come over as disingenuous.
You say my argument is ‘deeply flawed’ and yet offer no real argument to the contrary! You said in reply to another poster that good and evil are not opposites, and yet what is ‘good’ if it doesn’t stand in opposition to evil as ‘no evil’?

So what? Just because the terms have no meaning doesn't mean that one or more of their referents don't exist, don't influence our lives in profound ways and can't be known. Incidentally, the world you hypothesize here would be like the Judeo-Christian Eden prior to the Fall. Adam & Eve may not have been able to define "good" or "evil," but they nevertheless experienced the former.

It seems you’ve missed the point here because you’ve cut in halfway through the argument. I’m saying both concepts exist, but, as I went on to show, evil is a state of affairs that has independent existence whereas ‘good’ is contingent upon evil in order for it to be explicable. And A&E are characters in a doctrinal belief, and I don’t see how they can be an argument for anything unless their existence is first established as true. But in any case, if they experienced ‘good’ then it was because they experienced no evil. Things can only be ‘good’ when nothing is bad, ie when there are no adverse conditions; therefore ‘good’ has no meaning when it is divorced from the notion of evil.

I don't know how to do this, because evil, as I conceive of it, is the absence of good. Since existence is an expression and attribute of good, there can be no such thing as evil existing independently of good.No argument. I simply stated that it's my conception. It does, however, seem to follow from the postulate that existence is good, unless you're predisposed to think of existence itself as finite.

Actually I wasn’t referring to the way that you want to understand the notions of good and evil but to a logical concept: no contradiction is implied in conceiving of a possible world devoid of evil. Thus evil existing independent of ‘good’ is logically possible, whereas the contrary merely implies a state of no evil. But I’m interested to know why you believe existence is ‘an expression and attribute of ‘good’? I’ve yet to see a defining concept of ‘good’ that allows it to stand as an independent concept, rather than in a necessary relationship to what is bad or negative.
We’ve seen that it makes no sense to say evil cannot exist independent of goodness, because self-evidently it can, whereas with the opposite situation the term ‘good’ becomes unintelligible. What we call 'good' exists because of possible evil. A world without evil is just what it is; it isn’t ‘good’ but simply a state where evil acts and thoughts are entirely absent or impossible. You can't be generous where there is no selfishness, and you can't heal when there is nothing to be healed. And you can't overcome adversity when there is no adversity to be overcome.

You do realize that argument and proof are nothing more than highly-refined pleading? What's the point, really?

Isn’t that comment itself a special plea? And obviously there must be a point or you wouldn’t have responded to my post, or I to yours?

 

[look3467]

u r still adding to the script . The bible only speak of three things that were not created , made , or spoken into existence . Three things that just were in the beginning . Here they are without any added perspective . In the beginning God, Darkness was , the word was . Now I don't believe in any of it . But Ian willing to read it like it says . Why do you feel the need to add to it your perspective . Is it so u can continueth to believeth.

A matter of perspective only means which view you happen to hold.
There are two conponents to world:
One, the physical and two the spiritual.
There are also to creations: physical and two, spiritual.
The first has them both but because of our seperate entity status as gods, ee have necome aianated from God meaning death to our spirits.
Thetefore, in order for God to save His creation by necessity the creation must have a rebirth.
Enter Jesus by whom all things were created, as God, the first and the last, the alfha and omega.
Now, if you can believe it you and I will share the benefits of His kingdom while still alive in the flesh.
Blessings, AJ

 

[Tom Terrific]

Isn’t that comment itself a special plea? And obviously there must be a point or you wouldn’t have responded to my post, or I to yours?

My point was to point out why and where you are wasting your energies. I have nothing to gain from this; it was done, believe it or not, for your benefit.

I don't play idly with concepts anymore. Concepts are not reality. Also, it's plain from your latest post that you've either ignored or misunderstood what I posted; and someone as bright as you seem to be doesn't misunderstand unless he wants to. So, I'm wasting my time.

Good luck to you.