Statesboro, GA, USA
I only opt for darkness because in my experiences of both light and dark i have sadly found the dark to be more accepting and understanding of a persons faults.
I'm sorry, I understood you to mean that you really preferred "darkness". But what you are describing here, it seems, is mercy which is certainly a part of the light, not the darkness ... even though it may seem more common in dark places.
However, there is something which is called "acceptance" or "mercy" which is really misnamed. Being merciful toward someone despite their faults / sins is one thing. Never speaking a truth that hurts, never speaking a needed criticism, never underscoring the need to repent or turn around, is another thing entirely. It's not always merciful to "accept" everything about a person, is it? Some of the greatest friends I've had, have inflicted needed "wounds". Is there a hyper-critical, unloving, self-righteous counterfeit of what I'm describing? Sure. But that doesn't negate the real thing. And I do recognize that for some, this has been little seen in practice.
I say that good is evil, because i have been in despereate need, and who came to save me? a saviour enrobed in white and spreading love and peace? No, rather a soul just as dark as mine, just as corrupt, just as evil. So by not helping the poor,the weak, the innocent the light is evil.
You are still praising the "light" by saying that these people are helpful. This is light in darkness, or in spite of darkness. But if they were in total darkness, they wouldn't care about you would they? Unkindness, lack of concern, disregarding needs, are all forms of the darkness, not the light. But you're right in saying that professed light becomes evil when it doesn't live according to the knowledge it has. Saying "I'm light" and being light are different matters.
Of course you must also ask yourself who you surround yourself with. I don't think many people of "light" would have refused to help you, had there been some measure of contact. Try asking for genuine help from a Church, or professing Christians, and I'll bet there will be some help. I'm just asking you to analyze whether or not your assessment is fair, since you may avoid people of "light" and not really want their help ... even if subconsciously. There was a time in my life when I didn't want the help of any Christians, because though I was fine with "help" I didn't want to hear about "holiness". If you avoid someone like the plague, and are still offended that they don't come around, some of the problem may rest with you as well. Not saying that that's your approach, but I do raise the question, because I've seen it before.
by the scriptures own words thay were once the one and the same? and had to be forcefully seperated...
Not exactly. In the initial creation there was a formlessness and void, in which natural darkness and light had to be winnowed. The spiritual "light" of God, which marked the ultimate distinction was already present from eternity.
i am not implying pre destination, but rather thatn he can see the "end" if you will. So having seen this end the point of watching us suffer meaninglessly towards that end would be?
But there is another "end" for which all things were created. Though sin was our choice, God still allows temporal evil with the promise of a restoration that supercedes even the original glory of things. In spite of "evil" things in your life, don't you have moments when you are glad in heart to be alive? There is something (in hope) which is still worth waiting for. And I'm glad God didn't grind the universe to a screeching halt simply because he foreknew that there would be sin, pain, and suffering.
'original sin' This is not the tree of life, Original sin started in heaven with the fall of lucifer. When he first bade a desire for gods power that would be oiginal "sin".
You're right, it's not the "Tree of Life", it was the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". Two different trees.
But in Christian Theology, "orignal sin" has always referred to the world of humanity, and thus Adam's fall. But if you want to be technical, Lucifer represents the most original form of rebellion. Either way, we were tempted by him, into a state of mind which is essentially the same.
Take for example people of old laid to rest the dead, While in certain tribes they were burnt. For the other group, Burning was a heresy as was burying likewise. So is either of these "evil" or "wrong".
What I find more striking is that both groups believed that there should be done something sacred and honoring to the dead. The external particulars as to what that might be are indeed different. But this is like two imperfect attempts to express the same "vision" if you will ... the convictcion that there is much more to death than just an end of doing things on Earth.
Cross cultural morality is much more defined by similarity than by difference. In fact the similarities are so prevalent, that we don't really even notice them. This backdrop is perhaps the very reason we see the differences as so striking, forgetting that the backdrop is the more important question when it comes to universals. It's kind of like forgetting that there is a sky because it's always there.
Or cannabalism, considered abhorrent by western society it was commomn practise among tribes in souther america. These tribes were then hunted down as "Savages" and "demon Worshippers" therefore society determines what is wrong.
Cannabalism has certainly not only been considered abbhorrent by Western society. Even among tribes, it has been a marginal occurence. There is also little doubt in my mind that for a culture to get to the point of widespread acceptance of such a practice, many lines of individual conscience had to crossed and violated ... until the common abhorrence was numbed by repetition. So even among tribal societies, there may be moral evil and a falling away from their own sense of morality. And the fact that such practices were connected with demon worship is a clue that they slipped into the dark side of things.
If I am to take you seriously, it sounds like you're saying that cannabilism is not really wrong ... that we've only been preconditioned to think that it is abbhorent ... that it might be as innocent as drinking grape soda. Aside from the fact that there's little evidence to support such a view, I will say this: If that's really your view, you mustn't stop at tribal practices. You must exonerate all the intelligent crimes of Western society as well, from Chain Saw Massacres to Child abduction and molestations. Are these preconditioned notions as well, with no basis in any real morality?
And what about true evil? Noy just simple minded cruelty But real evil, the will to drive others to destruction for no reason other than a whim. To destroy their lives simply because you can? What is that? A pervrsion?
It's a progression for sure. But yes, all the original motivations ... the desire for power, significance, recognition, respect, and authority, are all good things gone awry. Even the physical ability to kill, and the technology to do it with, are not "bad" things in and of themselves. They are good things usurped and devoted to ill purposes.
So the most horrid evils, are not originals but copies. Desecrated masterpieces.
"And even darkness is only the absence of light" Or light is but the absance of darkness...
Actually light is just the presence of light. Darkness is not like a particle or a wave, it is emptiness. This natural fact, only illustrates my point that darkness is defined by the light, and is ontologically dependent upon it.
And as to the fall, Both of lucifer and of man. The angels created as pure beings by god, how is it that one of the fell? Surely god is his omnipotence would have seen this coming? And man was created in gods image, so to have them be evil and willing to do what they know is wrong, puts god in the same class would you not say?
Not necessarily. If God put the seed of possibility there to fail and turn away from good, in the free choice of man and angel, then that only tells me that he thought there was a value in doing so. For one, those who choose good cannot be called automatons, and their choice becomes more meaningful. Secondly God has promised that a greater good would be brought on the other side of the fall and redemption. We don't have all of the information, therefore we cannot judge God as incompetent for what he allows. Lastly we are sinners ourselves, so our own judgement is askew. We are charging God with something he didn't directly do, and yet we are directly doing the same thing day by day. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Truth? truth does not exist.
Are you sure that is true?
That statement is hopelessly self-refuting, being a truth-claim itself. Truth does exist.
If 100 people witness an event there will be 100 different truthful acounts of what happened. So there is no complete absolute truth.
In your first sentence, by saying "truthful", you are making a distinction between true and untrue ... and with good reason. There may have well been someone watching who is dishonest, or mistaken. Your statement still underscores the concept of truthfulness.
Your second sentence tells me that you might be making the mistake of confusing partial truth with untruth. Truth need not be comprehensive to be true.
Also what of the event iself in space-time, and God's omniscience? Though you remind us of the imperfect nature of descriptions, you aren't acknowledging the whole nature of the thing described.
"Good does not judge" I have to say here that this is untrue, I have yet to find someone who sees themself as trully "Good" who has not when i tell them what i do, instantly judged me.
"who sees themselves as truly good" and "truly good" are still separate ideas.
What kif is saying is that true goodness does not judge in the way you describe. I agree, and encourage you to make that distinction. But I would also say that someone shouldn't be automatically called evil, just because they offer criticism.
I like the attitude Coleridge describes in his poem "Forbearance":
"If a foe have kenn'd,
Or worse than foe, an alienated friend,
A rib of dry rot in thy ship's stout side,
Think it God's message, and in humble pride
With heart of oak replace it ;--thine the gains
Give him the rotten timber for his pains!"
"because it dissapears without it" pretending evil isnt there is the best way i can think of to fall into it.
Now this I can agree with, with absolutely NO hesitation.
The only I would add, is this truth: Denethor's demise in "The Two Towers" was that looked into evil to deeply (through the seeing stones), and was therefore decieved by it. So there are two opposite dangers I suppose, ignoring evil and deifying it.
What do you mean by "ultimate"?
I mean that their view of ultimate reality is devoid of any distiction between good and evil, and therefore they view the distiction now as transient and without true significance.
Stephanos: "all is "one", then any opinions based upon such distinctions are unreal."
Ess: Does that mean the distinctions Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "unreal", because they are all one?
Of course not. Eastern religion holds that ultimate reality is impersonal. To them, individuality is an illusion and a part of the problem, rather than a gift from God (as in Christian Theology). So of course there may be distiction within the Trinity, because God (and therefore the basis of reality) is personal not impersonal.
And the distinctions of all your other questions run the same. Of course there are distinctions within my body even though I am one. That's because there is a real and significant personhood to make those distinctions. But we are questioning the very significance of our personhood, when we ask whether consciousness itself is an illusion ... only a byproduct of an ultimate reality which is itself impersonal.
I'm not denying that distinctions exist.