They can be overwhelming, though.Absences can't have colour or magnitude.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There can be no light without the dark.....right?
- Thread starter Rigaletto
- Start date
It is not so much intended as trivia as it is contrast: the points about light are equally the points about dark.
(It's a yin/yang thing.)
Last edited:
Obviously, as a believer in the biblical account.
Well......without those two, you have nothing to prove your own existence, other than....well, at the choice of your parents.
After that, your only hope is in your present existence because without hope in any after life, your existence is limited to this one.
Convenient? NO, a matter of choice!
Your choice is not to believe!
Blessings, AJ
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
First you have to believe something is good to make a bad. Then you have to bypass the fact that there is no bad, only not-as-good
Since morality is subjective it depends on the goal of the person or persons involved. Often times the ends justifies the means. For example if someone wanted to make the planet healthier they could lower the population of species that show signs of severe over population and it would be deemed moral for the objective of cleaning house. Once there is an objective established is when we can say whether there is a better or worse way of achieving it and some of those methods may actually be "bad" in that they will not produce the desired result as with the chess analogy.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I understand this, in fact I have been preaching it on here long before I heard anyone make claims of this
That's why I said "First you have to believe in a good". Create your own "good" from personal reasoning and then you must get around the fact that there is no bad, just a "not as good".
Yes I've seen you say similar things and I've read similar ideas from Harris. However there is a "bad" if it is adverse to what your trying to achieve again like in the chess analogy someone posted. Sure there are several ways to achieve checkmate but there is also several ways to be checkmated and any move leading to a loss would be deemed bad. What was interesting in the analogy is that you could do a "seemingly" bad move but that isn't what I'm talking about since I said "the ends justify the means".I understand this, in fact I have been preaching it on here long before I heard anyone make claims of this
That's why I said "First you have to believe in a good". Create your own "good" from personal reasoning and then you must get around the fact that there is no bad, just a "not as good".
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Ah, that makes sense. But is there an end that will justify the means for religion?
Depends if God has some sort of master plan that makes all the nonsense in between justifiable.
All well and a good view but...........it is all humanity thinking and nothing to do with the spirituality of mankind which is not of this world.
The standard is set by what is not of this world, via the words of God and by example set forth by His Son.
Blessings, AJ
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Compared to whatever you think is a "good" religion
Yes, because religion is mankind's attempt to reach God, to enslave the masses, to lord over and for many other reasons.
It is a very simple matter to believe in God in the simplest of terms.
1. love God
2. love your neighbor as thy self.
How you worship God is a matter of choice.
Blessings, AJ
Good religion is a good answer. But that does not say what God wants.
Blessings, AJ
Given that mankind was made in the image of God, meaning the power of choice, mankind thus becomes it's own entity apart from God.
That makes mankind in opposition to God with respect to His sovereignty. Therefore, the only resultant for mankind created in such a state would be death by separation.
God remedied that by by sacrificing only one soul verses all of creation.
That makes us all as brothers and sisters in His eyes, thus making the statement that we should love our enemies as we love ourselves.
Demonstrated by Jesus at the cross when He asked that the Father forgive them.
Blessings, AJ
That makes mankind in opposition to God with respect to His sovereignty. Therefore, the only resultant for mankind created in such a state would be death by separation.
God remedied that by by sacrificing only one soul verses all of creation.
That makes us all as brothers and sisters in His eyes, thus making the statement that we should love our enemies as we love ourselves.
Demonstrated by Jesus at the cross when He asked that the Father forgive them.
Blessings, AJ
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Although, you'd need to know what religion is right to make a bad one
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Nobody can agree on what God wants
That is the beauty of it all!
By not being able to agree, we have to make an effort to love one another despite our differences which is the greater good.
The evil that can arise from it is condemnation of one another.
Blessings, AJ
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
If nobody can agree on what God wants there can be no bad religion
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Bruce, it is not a reversal, it's a statement of the complementary opposite nature of the conceptual duality of Light and Dark.
Btw, that's the reason I posted the quote of Isaiah 45:7 as it is meant to show the reader that God/Cosmos is the underlying true nature and source of the apparent/relative duality of Light and Dark.
Your statement above doesn't change the relative nature of the complementary opposite nature of dark/light. So while there is nothing false about your statement "You CANNOT bring dark into a light room without removing the light, there is also nothing false about my stating the complementary opposite, ie. "You CANNOT bring light into a dark room without introducing a light.
PolyHedral said:
PolyHedral, the absence of an illuminating light source may prevent colour, but there is still a light magnitude that can be seen with night vision glasses. What's more, with ordinary matter, there will always be present, random electron/photon excitation that can be measured as relative magnitude. IOW, there will always be a relative magnitude of light in the room, though due to the lack of sensitivity of the human eye, what appears dark to it may be light to say, an owl.
An interesting aside to this subject of relative light/dark, is the new use of the term 'Dark'.
I'm sure you have heard of the scientific terms Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and now lately Dark Flow. These aspects of Cosmic existence that go to form the Universe are postulated to exist in absolute terms, not just relative due to an absence of some illuminating light source. On the other hand, the electrons of the atoms of ordinary matter, although also normally dark, will emit and radiate photon light according to those frequencies of the light spectrum which are not absorbed when sufficient photon energy from the light source is presently imoacting upon them. On the other hand Dark Energy is ubiquitous.
Link...Dark Energy Is Everywhere!
:namaste
Last edited: