»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Dark vs Light
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Dark vs Light |
|
|
Walter Poe Senior Member
since 1999-10-13
Posts 787 |
Ok i've been dodging around this subject for a little while now anyone who has read any of my (Recent) poems will know i love the dark and I am not a fan of 'Happy lovey poetry' so since i have been getting lots of agreement from other dark poets i'm going to throw the debate open to a wider audience. This is your chance go on defend yourselves Happy lovey people and all you dark poets making your brief visits outside of your twisted souls big up the darkness. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Paul Weatherstone - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Ok, I've been dodging around this subject for a little while now. Anyone who has read any of my (recent) poems will know I love the dark and I am not a fan of 'Happy lovey poetry'. So since I have been getting lots of agreement from other dark poets I'm going to throw the debate open to a wider audience. This is your chance. Go on, defend yourselves Happy lovey people and all you dark poets making your brief visits outside of your twisted souls big up the darkness. " A little more tidiness in the way you present your words may make a fair difference for those that read them. |
||
Nightshade 
since 2001-08-31
Posts 13962just out of reach |
Thanks Essorant. Now....Walter Poe, what is the question? |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
There is no question about it. The Dark is the best!!! It touches on emotions and feeling in a way that the happy go lucky side never can. The dark is the side that people have experienced the true side of life on. They no longer have false dreams and illusions... Yes obsiously im a dark poet and a darker soul hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Walter Poe Senior Member
since 1999-10-13
Posts 787 |
Ok essorant i am a dark poet i believe in emotion not punctuation i'm not a teacher i don't pretend to be perfect i have written some very good poems without feeling the need to put in every capital letter comma or semi colon. perhaps this is the real reason dark is better than light we don't need to be perfect because emotion is a bullet you fire it bang bang bang you don't have to think through every sentence to check your punctuation or even spelling you just do it. Do not go gentle into that good night. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Hear Hear Walter! That is what i was trying to express. Those in the dark do not hold forward a mask of perfection. We do not have a facade, we are who we trully are as human beings. Imperfect and flawed, incomplete. And by being willing to admit that we are insofar superior to the light. We write of true human emotion. Not innocent dreams and hopes but the true emotion beneath it. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I believe there is purpose for both sides of the coin, and dark being your favorite is merely prefrence, no? I've dabbled in dark poetry some, and enjoy the challenge of such...but in most of my poetry, and this is merely my own analysis, that dark and light are both present, not meaning it to work out that way, it simply does.  But, yes, totally agree, dark poetry is raw emotion, brutally honest at best, and the only way I can describe this, is, I not only love the ocean/seas for the romance and beauty, but her hautingly beautiful & sensual alliance of the dark side But I see your title for this thread is Dark vs Light, and so, I cannot say I like one above the other, but I need both entities  One thing...Digital Hell you said And by being willing to admit that we are insofar superior to the light. We write of true human emotion. But isn't light pure and raw human emotion as well, laughter till you side splits...???? And why would you say being a dark person makes you superior to the light? Now you starting to sound like a politician to me  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If the beasts of the wildest jungle could boast, I think they could boast about pursuing more than just pouring out raw emotions. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
LeeJ i would agree that the light side as you put it "pure and raw human emotion as well" but the emotion captured in the dark is more real. It is more tangible and powerfull, it speaks of the beauty of things as well as the despair involved. It is not only of how icreadible beautifull and special love is, but also of the pain and despair felt when things dont work out. But i would say that yes perhaps some light is needed in the poem. Essorant if you are going to argue your point at least be civil. Not only did you flame Walter for his punctuation, you also now stoop to implying we are lower than beast. The dark is not just raw emotion. If you have ever bothered to read some of the dark poems you will see that the emotions is oft times beautifully and carefully set out. A vague hint rather than an outright decleration. Perhaps i made you misunderstand when i said "Raw" i mean to say not directly stating "I hate you" or something as silly. But rather that it is a true emotion, expressed exactly the way we feel it. The very words throbbing with the feeling. Conveying it in more than just a image. And i still maintain that the dark is better. For the simple fact that whereas the light simply described the heart wrenching beauty of a land stepped in moonlight, with colours softened to grey, a gentle breeze blowing across the long flowing grass, the gentle whisper of a owl etc... the dark can then take that image and add to it how this is the lonelyness and empty realm of your heart. And lastly: A POLITICIAN?!?!? i might be dark , evil twisted, corrupt, sadistic and generally not good. But i would never stoop that low  hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I didn't mean my point towards you or anyone else; but against making out structure such as good grammar and punctuation as if they hinder expressions, rather than help them. You fail to prove how they hinder them. It is seldomest those poems in any forum that use those things less that stand out as careful and well written poems, but those poetries that take what is there to help the language be more stable and readable and graceful, that stand out as best. What sincerity that is behind it doesn't matter. It is the virtue of what is in the poem itself and how it stands as a poem in the end. You can be as sincere as you want, but that doesn't guarantee that your poetry shall be well written. Some of the best works are "fiction" or "nonfiction", some of the worst works are "fiction" or "nonfiction" too. That's because it is about the virtue of the work as a poem itself, not the fact of whether the writer necessarily sincerely feels it in this way or that way. But if he does say or suggest that he truly believes in this or that, then it is not the writers fault if the reader doesn't believe he truly does. It is not up to the reader to decide what the writer sincerely feels or not, or what feelings he should reveal thereof. That is up to the writer. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-30-2006 09:16 PM).] |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
But would you not agree that the writer, by glorifying an idea, feeling or an object by writing on it is attempting to convey his feelings and view of what he writes on. He is showing us the beauty or the horror of that thing.He is telling us how he feels, how he views it, and wants us to respond to that. IN poems such as "Anthem for a doomed youth", "Paradise lost" "on his blindness" (yes John milton is a favourite) we see the writer express his true sincere feelings on an object and his want for us to interpret that accordingly, To attemtp to share in what he feels. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think it is only right to give the author the benefit of the doubt. But what if the author wasn't being sincere? Would it make a difference to the excellence of those poems? What if he were just writing for money, or representing what some leader's feelings were or a ruling nobility's feelings were, and expressing something he didn't even agree with much at all? Of course I don't believe that is so. But if it were, would that take away from the excellence of such poems? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-01-2006 01:55 PM).] |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Sorry to put a dampener on your 'fires of darkness' (heheh) but I've not seen much dark poetry in Dark Poetry. Most of it is cliched, uses dead metaphors (and another heheh) therefore does nothing to *convey the obscure. My opinion of much Dark Poetry; teenage goths hanging around the village graveyard, scribbling their naive horrors. I see more scope for darkness in Spiritual...mwahahahahaha. I will agree with LeeJ's comment that suggests perhaps a contemporary darkness can be found in political poems, and also familiar poetry. It's not *all cobwebs, demons, hating yourself, musing about blood-letting, and how you feel about being abandoned, you know. (And Now, for a Bit Of Trumpet Blowing, Check My Poem Out In Dark Poetry, Entitled "Beehivoral Therapy"! Already, it's on page 2...Trapped in one big compound eye? Yeah man.) I asterisked some parts to highlight that, while these subjects are worthy, the cliched rendering of them lessens my opinion of them as 'dark' poetry. People don't look into 'cliched' remarks, just as some don't embrace darkness. A double whammy. In my opinion, you have to lead people into darkness through interest, and most poets/people here aren't interested in stock examples; they need the unique essence. I would reiterate that darkness, just as lightness, cannot be compounded into one definition (compare Plato's 'Symposium' to Herbaliser's 'Saturday Night'. I would suggest that lovers of darkness should look further from their designated forum, to see what's really *obscuring light. Ditto, for those desiring light; pop into the darkness forum, and realise there's little inky blackness! (but, I keep on searching...!) As for the argument as to whether dark is better for conveying emotion...who gave the goths the authority of conveying emotions? Heck, the opposite of Gothic's got to be Country and Western, both equally emotional. It's not about whether the dark atmosphere is better at conveying emotion as the light atmosphere. All good poems invoke an emotional, sensual, stirring response. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-01-2006 03:19 PM).] |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Essorant do you trully think that an poet would pour his heart and soul into a work he did not believe in? That he would simply pretend to feel a certain way? i do not think he could ever trully put his soul into his work if it was a fake and that yes the result would show a difference. A work that is simply written is not nearly as good as one that brings tears to your eyes and speaks to your heart. Although a lack of personal emotion does not subtract from a poem, its lack is noticable. kif kif, sorry to break it to you but nothing will dampen my 'fires of darkness'. And if you do not believe there is much darkness in dark poetry i suggest you take another look. First of all im not gothic though i do tend in that direction, and secondly my horrors are hardly naive.Everything i write on is from personal experience... "It's not *all cobwebs, demons, hating yourself, musing about blood-letting, and how you feel about being abandoned" I urge you to read what i have written and tell me if it falls into the blind list you attempt to catagorise dark poetry in. "I would reiterate that darkness, just as lightness, cannot be compounded into one definition" i would agree fully here that you cannot force it into a definition since both darkness and light can be interpreted uniquely by a person and as such cannot be forced into a single view of "light" or "dark". I do also read the the other poetry forums although i dont respond on them.I take an interest in them in view of gaining another side to my view of things. "who gave the goths the authority of conveying emotions?" rather snide and sarcastic wouldnt you say? and more than a little judgemetal, dont assume that because we write dark we are all gothic. Goths arent the only people in the world with problems you know... Yes other areas also convey emotion of that there is no doubt. I am simply stating that by encompassing the "light" and "dark" as a lot of dark poems do, that they convey a better, more accurate more truthfull view of the emotion. A deeper more real emotion if you will. "It's not about whether the dark atmosphere is better at conveying emotion as the light atmosphere. All good poems invoke an emotional, sensual, stirring response." umm, did you happen to read the title of this thread? "Dark vs Light" that rather says it all doesnt it? so yes the question here is which is better and why, since that is what this thread is about. Dont simply be caught up on the emotion, It is not the only aspect of "dark" and "light" that should be discussed here. I reiterate the question here is which is better and why. Again the title describes what we should be arguing "Dark vs Light". all the aspects of both of them. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
In all you say, 'Hell, I don't believe Dark Poetry should be all about 'personal' problems. I admit, I can be rather sarcastic, the lowest wit...excuse me. You wanna know dark?  Yet, just because the title suggests a versus, doesn't mean there really is one. Emotive release is what we need, for success in our chosen form of art-It's about what emotions are invoked by a piece of work, rather than what emotions inspired it. If everything you write is inspired by personal experience, then you are naive, in my opinion. I don't believe you have to experience something 1st hand to understand that it exists. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-01-2006 08:02 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Kif kif You begin to make it personal when you say something like "you are naive" Try to keep your claws on the argument at hand, and off the person you are arguing with! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
May you shrink that image a bit so it doesn't stick out so much? Thanks Kif Kif. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-02-2006 01:17 AM).] |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
kif kif I would agree that you dont have to experience something first hand to understand that it exists, but without having gone through it yourself you cannot understand what it is like. Without having had it happen to you all you have is a vague idea of what it is like, you think you know what that person is going through, but without having been there yourself you cannot know... i am not directing that at you, im using the wote "you" simply to speak about a person. "Emotive release is what we need, for success in our chosen form of art-It's about what emotions are invoked by a piece of work, rather than what emotions inspired it." But would you not say that the emotions evoked are going to be akin or linked to the emotions that inspired it? The poet writes his feelings to inspire a reader to a emotional result, that result is based on what inspired the poet to write the poem. If he was inspired by lost love, then sympathy is an expected response would you not say? And i must disagree, there will always be a versus between light and dark. For the simple reason that on both sides people are unwilling to accept the idea that they are wrong and as such judge the other... hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Oh and please excuse if my responses are at strange times or seperated... The time differance is killer! At the time of this post it is 2am local... whereas the server reads it as about 8pm so... hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
I'm sorry, like Digital Hell, I was using 'you' in the generic sense. No personal 'claws' intended. Purrr. (I've shrunk the image, clunk-click. Sorry.) I believe you can 'know' something without experiencing it, talking about it would bring in the idea of a priori knowledge and empiricism. Logically, even the uninducted, or uneducated can work through an equation, and come to the right answer without being 'shown' by another, which steps to take. Our memories hold patterns, and all that. A prediliction for writing dark or light poetry might just be the effects of a stronger induction. It doesn't mean to say that 'the other angle' is any less important, it just means the poet is looking in one direction. You also talk of the competition between dark and light poetry being able to truthfully express...what? I just don't get it; like Wilde says; "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written." I'd say, there's no such thing as the superiority between dark or light poetry. Poetry is well written, or badly written. Your question; about writer intention. I think the intention sparks the writer to write it, but it can be received entirely differently. It's how it's received what matters, for once you've put it out there, it doesn't just belong to you. Sometimes, the 'emotional result' is the opposite to what the writer intended. I'd say it's better to avoid writing for a desired 'emotional' result, and concentrate on the logical description of a given atmosphere. All to often, we see 'dark' poetry, or 'light' poetry falling into the familiar trap of 'end result'. Which brings me to your statement "both sides unwilling... and as such, judge each other." I repeat, a poet's not bound by sides, and judgement rests on the beauty in all aspects of conciousness, light and dark. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-01-2006 09:10 PM).] |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Dont worry there was no offence taken. Me a follower of empiricism? hardly likely. I was simply stating that without having experioenced something first hand you do not know exectly what it is like. Some things are best left alone, never to be experienced. Certain things are best left to priori knowledge. To experience then is to bring ruin upon yourself. I do not believe that you can only gain understanding of something by having experienced it, but rather that if you have experienced it you have a deeper understanding than from just priori knowledge. "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written." Ah so long since ive heard someone quote Wilde. It gladdens my heart. But To followers of certain beliefs the above would be considered monstrous heresy... I feel personally a person should do what their heart tells them, that classifies me as "immoral" and by saying that are you implying that we as society should have no morals? "there's no such thing as the superiority between dark or light poetry. Poetry is well written, or badly written." so you would say that you are completely neutral? That you do not believe one side can express itself better than the other? As to what the writer intends, My intention when writing has never been to receive a certain result, but rather to provoke the reader into the deeper meaning on what he just read and its implications in his/her life. And pay heed "logical description" is not the only way in which to do things. Something that may appear random and confused wiht no logical chain of thought can as a whole come together beautifully. "a poet's not bound by sides, and judgement rests on the beauty in all aspects of conciousness, light and dark." How can you make that statement? Surely by describing things in a certain light or by expressing certain emotions you are filed by modern society as either "dark" or "light". And by writing in the manner that you do, you thereby unwittingly choose a side... Whether we want to or not, by common consent, the manner,style and tone in which we express an idea, and the idea itself forces us into one of the classes. The world will always judge. Even holy men judge.By Light of your ideas,beliefs,religion so callled morality or the lack thereof, your attitude and the way you act you will always be forced into a group. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I'm sorry, like Digital Hell, I was using 'you' in the generic sense." That's alright. Sorry for being pecky. I just saw too many threads in the past go down the drain because of unintentional insults between people. So I thought it better for someone to say something early just in case. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Darkness is the unbrightest spark And light is yet the brightest dark. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Something that may appear random and confused wiht no logical chain of thought can as a whole come together beautifully." May you give us an example? |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Digital Hell says "writing in the manner thay you do/you unwittingly choose a side". That's my point; a poet is not unwitting; just as a painter selects a tone to shade, he is aware of the contrast. I believe the sequence to create Chaos is logical, therefore 'seemingly' random thoughts are there for a reason. I'm not neutral, I just hope to acknowledge negative capability, to allow the true essence in. I don't barricade myself up in sides. Your question about morality. I'm struggling with that one. What exactly is morality? "stand up for what's right, no matter what the risk" is dependent on what we believe to be right, and this is where society comes in. I think we invent a lot of morality...it's not really there, we just pretend it is. I think I'm implying that society doesn't understand morality. Experience is a funny thing. It can trap you and free you. Some people base their whole lives on their own experiences, and some people base their lives on what they hope to experience. I think a good writer bases their life on finding truths behind these observations of action, reaction, inertion and hope. "...judgement rests on the beauty of all aspects of conciousness, light and dark" I can make that statement, as it supports my argument here, somewhat aesthetically. You said DH, "your attitude and the way you act will always be forced into a group." Interesting, for even the 'special' person that's independent from a previous/contemporary group will likely attract followers, perhaps it's the other way 'round? The way you act will force the group? Yes, the world, ie; every person on it, always judges, but to judge the superior communicative properties of light v dark is impossible. It would be like judging whether the sea or the forest was better for the world! |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
My question; how can 'you' know that it's dark, if 'you' have never seen the light? Or, how can you know that it's light, if you have never seen the dark? A paradox, like 'how can you find something, if you don't know what it is.' I wonder what makes some people go looking, and are 'they/we' open to the possibilities of what it might be, or do 'they/we' imagine what it is, already? I have the words 'intention' and 'revelation' rapping around, now... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Light and darkness are variations of the same thing. Just like life and death, truth and lie, soul and body. One is simply a "brighter" shade and the other is a "darker" shade of that same thing. Light is the brighter shade, darkness the darker. Life is the brighter shade, death the darker, truth is the brighter shade, lie the darker, soul is the brighter shade, body the darker. Everything is thus a variation of the one and the same thing: Darkness > Death > Body > Lie = Truth < Soul < Life < Light [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-02-2006 10:14 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Those who have suffered evil first hand, know better than to say that all shades are really variations of the same thing. Am I saying that evil cannot, by God's grace, turn to a bright result? No. But that does not make them the same thing. Some things in life are not good, and never will be, even though we may overcome them. Kif Kif, Are you speaking of spiritual light primarily? I kind of felt that you were only using physical light as an analogy. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
To comment on the original question: I think "dark" poetry is fine, if the darkness gets put (to at least some degree) in its proper context. I'll give you an example. The Bible (not a namby pamby book of "warm fuzzies") has a book of poems called "Psalms", and Psalm #88 is one of the darkest poems I have ever read. And yet it starts out "O LORD God of my salvation". That's really the only ray of hope in the whole poem. God seems (from the writers perspective) to have turned away his ears negatively, and to have unleashed anger and punishment upon him positively. And yet the writer does not succumb to the temptation of utter despair, though tip-toeing to the brink. Actually I think these kind of poems can have a positive impact, because we relate to those who have been in dark places spiritually, and see that they still had hope, even if it seemed like a candle in a windstorm. We can see that if others made it out of the gloom, perhaps we can too. What I don't like, or don't think is legitimate: 1) Evil pictured in the wrong context of omnipotence or invincibility. (No matter how genuine the feelings of pain, this feeling is not a legitimate one -- light a candle) 2) Evil portrayed in crass or vulgar terms, for the sake of trivializing or glorifying evil. 3) Dark poetry becoming a way of life. Instead of a room in a house, it becomes the house itself, or even the world. (I guess this is just a restatement of #1, though here I mean that the darkness sometimes can be a thing of style or fashion, not always genuine) Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, The ord and the end of my belief about this is that the shades are all variations of the very same existance and universe. It is not at all that I believe we should not make sharpest distinctions though about those "shades". |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"how can 'you' know that it's dark, if 'you' have never seen the light? Or, how can you know that it's light, if you have never seen the dark" i have seen the light. i spent the first part of my life blindly in the light... then i swung wholly into the dark. now im neutral. So i have seen both sides. I went in search of truth and threw myself into hell... I wont stand for either side now, i have seen both. And i honestly believe that both are blinded and filled with illusions, however in a versus i must support the dark. "Light and darkness are variations of the same thing" as sad as it, Essorant you are right. Though our perception changes if we follow "dark" or "light" the simple truth remains, whether you are supporting light or dark you are still seeing the world in terms of those 2 shades. Your world is still split into black and white no matter what side you are on. I am not saying that they are samne shades of something, but that your wider world view is still broken into the same classes. "some things in life are not good, and never will be, even though we may overcome them." I have to agree here though. Some things no matter how you view them, no matter how the results are interpreted are evil. The interpretation of evil or the "dark" is interesting, it should here be noted in context with what Stephanos said about the bible. In greek mythology when pandora opened the box and let loose all the worlds evil, the one thing she managed to keep in was hope... So is hope an evil then? And does that not raise an interesting question about evil and morality. So before we go further, what exactly are we saying by refering to "dark" and "light"? hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Essorant; you say that the soul and body are variations of the same thing. I'll have to think about that. To follow your argument, good and evil would be a variation of the same thing, too. Stephen, I'm talking about spiritual light/dark, but an exact parallel can be found in the literal. Getting to evil, and the soul, it is religiously noted that evil appears when the soul is 'lost' in the dark. Your question about evil and morality, Digital (I'm floundering to see where I can link in hope). Is evil a social tool, like morality? Is hope a social tool? I don't believe that morality (abiding by the rules of society) is inherent, I think it's a learned characteristic. I'm wondering whether evil is naturally there, or whether it's a learned response to nature? Morality is a learned response. I think hope is inherent, but I'll have to think about the exact definition...anticipation of belief doesn't quite catch those butterflies. As for what *evil is; action by the lost in the dark soul keeper, listening to obscurely bent intuition, missed and wrought from translation. Ciphering through frightening echos, this holder spills his guts, and blood-lets, so his head can rest, or so he thinks. *Good; is action by the found in the light soul keeper, listening to clearly sent intuition, through language stealth, true representation. Heightened by releasing shadows, the old anchors of grief will just repress, so this keeper turns, and looks to sing what makes the shapes of Beauty. (*In humans, but also in the context of spiritually dark and light.) My interpretation would therefore be that evil is a crooked shadow of good. Not the same thing, an echo, or a sillouette that's been tampered with. Whether it(the good), is naturally tampered with, like a different genetic brain pattern, where the code has produced warped shading, or whether society has tampered with a 'normal', brain pattern, warping the code to produce tampered shading, I don't know. Perhaps both things, inherent and learned behaviour can produce evil, for both can make you lost. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-03-2006 02:34 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"To follow your argument, good and evil would be a variation of the same thing, too." I agree. I believe good and evil are variations of pursuing a need or a want. I don't believe that needs or wants are naturally good or evil in a moral sense. But the way we behave about them may be good or evil. One man wants comfort and pleasure, and he tries to make it earningly and healthily. Another man wants comfort and pleasure and he tries to make it by stealing and unhealthily. Neither man is evil himself, nor does he seek something evil overall. But it is in how he pursue that he seeks. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"Morality is a learned response" I am in full agreement here. Humans by definition are not born with a moral code. It is something that is forced upon them by society. It is a set of beliefs forced upon them by the group that raises them. "I'm wondering whether evil is naturally there, or whether it's a learned response to nature?" By nature if a man is raised without human parents, he is selfish and brutal. Taking only what he wants with no concern for the means of getting it. "My interpretation would therefore be that evil is a crooked shadow of good. Not the same thing, an echo, or a sillouette that's been tampered with." Hmmm... or perhaps good is but a shade of evil? (delving into spiritual here) Say that beings that were once evil decided that it was not right and that they could no longer stomach what was happening. That they in fact developed a conscience? This raises another interesting question, Which came first? Good or evil? So if i have you right Essorant you are saying that an act by itself is not good or evil. But rather that the means of getting to the goal, getting what we want determines if it is good or evil? The MEANS to the end rather than the end itself? Say that killing someone isnt evil say unless it was done to achieve a personal goal? hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
DH: quote: In conflict you opt for darkness. Isn't this proof that neutrality is an illusion? I think ultimately you, I, and everyone will choose either light or darkness as destiny. And I can't entertain seriously the proposal that they are essentially the same thing. I think the view that darkness/light are the same, is just another result of being in the dark too long. When things are getting dark, our eyes can "play tricks". And who isn't tempted to call good evil, and vice versa? Of course, in Eastern religion and Western Materialism, monism has lead to the inablity to make an ultimate distinction between good and evil / light and darkness. If all is "one", then any opinions based upon such distinctions are unreal. That's why the Hindu godess "Kali" is the worship of death and destruction. If all is is one, then such things must be elevated and deified as much as any other thing. Our preferences, our "holy" things are only imaginary, thus they are finally equalized and desecrated. It's a sad commentary on the nihilistic despair which such a philosophy leads to.  G.K Chesterton painted this picture by saying that that "the Cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape... The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers." So from a Christian perspective, the seemingly benign belief that good and evil are "one", is itself part of the darkness, not the light. Remember the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? It represents the refusal of God's absolutes, the assumed autonomy in deciding for oneself, and finally the inability to distinguish one from the other. It's all the same fruit, one might say. But in Christian theology, this is characteristic of the Fall, and the root of original sin. "God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4) "I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness."(Ecclesiastes 2:13) "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."(Isaiah 5:20) "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"(Matthew 6:22) "See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness."(Luke 11:35) "In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it."(John 1:4,5) "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."(John 3:19-20) "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness."(John 12:46) "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial" (2 Corinthians 6:15) "You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness."(1 Thessalonians 5:5) "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."(1 John 1:5) I was really surprised when I looked at scripture, at how often the antithesis between light and darkness is mentioned. more later, Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Digital; if we are to follow my Good as what highlights the shadows, then good must come first, for there would be no shadow without light. I'm not a Christian, I wouldn't define myself as anything, but I must agree with Stephen that there is no dark in light, rather, there are graded shades of darkness. Light is just light. I will disagree that the tree of life is 'original sin', rather, Christian theology is frightened that their blueprint will be exposed as unoriginal. To suggest that the tree of life disregards absolutes is a shocker to me...I'll be back, but for now, I'd say that the tree of life represents the universe, formed by the absolute truth of Ideas, like an echo. The tree of life is map/echo of our ultimate conciousness? Like all maps, open to misreading...and palimpsest. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
DH: quote: I'm not sure that our moral sensibility is not inbred to some degree. Just because we lack language and cognitive power at infancy, does not mean that moral conscience may not be present though latently. More incredible to me, is that there has never been a society that has not developed a moral code. And survival only begs the question, since the survival of oneself and neighbors still harbors a moral question. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, it is God who put the moral conscience within us. And though it may differ somewhat through imperfection, sin, and differing environments, it all has an overwhelming similarity, like attempted copies of the same very thing. Therefore there is a stronger argument that morality is universal in nature ... even if not in all particulars. To say that it is "forced" upon us by those who raised us, is almost like saying the interpretation of light and darkness is forced upon us by our parents in giving us eyes. quote: Have you noticed that "evil" is not very original? It is always a perversion of a good thing, never an independent idea. Rotten apples are ontologically dependent upon good apples. Murder is only anger (a legitimate emotion) uncontrolled, and physical forces set to the wrong task. Lust is only a legitimate physical desire, met in the wrong path outside of committed monogamy. Greed is only ambition grown beyond it's proper bounds. Selfishness is only self love grown to ugly proportions. Being crippled is losing one's legs. And even darkness is only the absence of light, not a thing in and of itself. Those are clues that evil is not original, but a diversion. Hence the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the Fall, which denotes a loss of something positive, or a standing position. kif kif: quote: To clarify ... I didn't suggest that at all. The Tree of the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" involved a denial of absolutes on the part of humanity, not the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life was a separate tree altogether, which represented living within the proper authority of God's absolutes. Stephen. |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Or, the proper authority within Truths absolutes. Yet, to suggest that God means Truth gives the impression that one doctrine must be followed to attain understanding of Truth, especially in the Christian faith, where it's 'Our Father'. One. Perhaps there is this one pattern of Absolute energy creating a reflection of it's life on Earth, but I can't believe it's in the shape of a man. A tree, maybe...and that holds shade for the life under it's boughs without differenciating, unless of course, the life becomes parasitic. I've heard of trees developing poisons... |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"In conflict you opt for darkness. Isn't this proof that neutrality is an illusion?" NO 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. They do not seek to judge you on how you act or what you stand for but rather accept you for the person you are.I was saying if forced to choose i choose darkness over light for that simple fact... "is just another result of being in the dark too long. When things are getting dark, our eyes can "play tricks". And who isn't tempted to call good evil, and vice versa?" 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. "God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4)" then by the scriptures own words thay were once the one and the same? and had to be forcefully seperated... No dark in light? So God in his all seing all knowing wisdom has us here for what reason. I quote "And 1000 years is as one day, And one day as 1000 years" So god exists outside of time and things such as "Alpha and omega" "beginning and end" All signify that he already knows who goes up or who goes down. Not that you are fated to go to one or the other, 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? '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". "To say that it is "forced" upon us by those who raised us, is almost like saying the interpretation of light and darkness is forced upon us by our parents in giving us eyes." But it is forced upon us, Left to our own devices, You would not have a formed picture of what is right or wrong. Society tells you these things. 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". 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. Taking more thant one wife now is frowed upon, whereas it was common practise. Same with slavery etc... The social times determines what we percieve as right or wrong. "Have you noticed that "evil" is not very original? It is always a perversion of a good thing, never an independent idea." 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? "And even darkness is only the absence of light" Or light is but the absance of darkness... "not a thing in and of itself" Believe me when i say darkness can be more real than light. Yes a single ray of light can destroy the deepest darkest darkness. But you must have that ray of light. Darkness is a very real thing, a very menacing power. not just a simple phantom lurking around the edges. 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? Truth? truth does not exist, For the moment we grasp truth we make it our perception. If 100 people witness an event there will be 100 different truthfull acounts of what happened. So there is no complete absolute truth. Oh its 2am again now so im out... respond again i dont know when. But will be asap... There is nothing like a good argument. Though i do wonder where the topic starter went... hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Without going too much into your beliefs on darkness, Digital Hell, Good does not judge, it just is. It is us that judge against it, sometimes ignorantly...bringing me to your puzzle. If 100 people witness something true, then 100 different accounts will be produced by it. That's right, but it doesn't mean there is no absolute truth, it means that something real has been interpreted by 100 unreal opinions. Those 100 people will not know the exact reasons and circumstance, therefore filling in the gaps of their knowledge with opinion on what's been communicated by the 'others'. The absolute truths appearance in the finite world has been fragmented, through how it's recieved. You say that your soul was corrupt, evil, and your saviour was another corrupt, evil soul. You also talk of Lucifer-*The Devil's Guardian Angel...pretty Gnostic to me (I wonder that the idea of 'Lucifer' is man-the carrier of light? I'm interested in what Blatavatsky says of Lucifer-the phosphorous force. The idea of Lucifer and The Devil is not evil, it's man's translation, and actions on those translations, again.) My opinion is that you're not evil, but a pessimist. (I know that's a personal comment, but you're giving personal thoughts of yourself.) Let me explain. You're in the cave, and talking about the rumour of shadows-"What? They're not real? I don't believe you. Look, I've spent my whole live finding meaning in the shades, to look away would be a waste of time. My friend, the fire-stoker, thinks I'm on to something..." It is not The Good that can 'save' you from a lifetime in a cave, it's the person, or thing that comes back from the light to show you the way out, into *Good. The 'fire-stoker' will only maintain the flames for your shadows. (But, watch out! you might confuse one for the other. My rule of thumb-good is indifferent to whether you follow it, because it's always there, albeit brighter/sharper/more accessable if you do, and evil will do anything to hold your attention, because it dissapears without it.) Like Plato's cave allegory; I say Good as The ultimate object of Knowledge (an eternal Form that sheds light, attributing forms of virtue and beauty to this finite world.) Sorry that took so long...to explain what I think Good is! [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-04-2006 06:57 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Digital Hell "So if i have you right Essorant you are saying that an act by itself is not good or evil." No, Because no act is ever "by itself" "But rather that the means of getting to the goal, getting what we want determines if it is good or evil? " Yes because it is in conjunction with the rest of the universe, and how we serve the most important part of the universe: Life, in all her needs and wants. "The MEANS to the end rather than the end itself?" The means are not just the means though. The end is too. The end is a means to another end, and another and another and another... [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-04-2006 03:42 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Of course, in Eastern religion and Western Materialism, monism has lead to the inablity to make an ultimate distinction between good and evil / light and darkness. " What do you mean by "ultimate"? "all is "one", then any opinions based upon such distinctions are unreal." Does that mean the distinctions Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "unreal", because they are all one? Does that mean the distinctions of the "parts" that make up your body are "unreal" because they are all one in you? And the distinctions of the things that make up the earth because they are all one as the earth? The distinctions of the things that make up heaven because they are all one as Heaven? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-04-2006 07:45 AM).] |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"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. "Those 100 people will not know the exact reasons and circumstance" but the seconds they interpret it, The second they grasp those exact reasons and circumstances it is changed from truth to perception. Which although they may be similar, one is warped by the persons mind and is now unique. "through how it's recieved." So again, there is no absolute truth that we as humans can grasp. For the second we do so, it changes into perception and is no longer truth. "You also talk of Lucifer-*The Devil's Guardian Angel" When i speak of lucifer, i am referring to the overlord of hell. The first angel to rebel and the one cast down by god. Here i want it noted that "satan" the "devil" are all different beings. When i am using lucifer i am refering to the ruler of hell and first angel to fall. "I know that's a personal comment, but you're giving personal thoughts of yourself" there is no need to be worried, i dont get offended. pessimist? no i prefer the term realistic. a small distinction, but a distinction none the less. "rumour of shadows-"What? They're not real?" No i say there are shades out there. But also that there are far more tangible "Shadows" out there."to look away would be a waste of time" i agree, but just dont be trapped in, It pulls you in deeper and deeper until you can no longer get yourself loose. "it's the person, or thing that comes back from the light to show you the way out, into *Good" She didnt show me into the light or "good" She didnt, she took me out of the deepest darkest darkness to a comfortable darkness. We are both not in the light. darkness saved me from deeper darkness not light. "because it dissapears without it" pretending evil isnt there is the best way i can think of to fall into it. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
I'm not saying 'pretending evil is not there (in this finite world-universe)', I'm saying 'filling in the gaps' with your imaginings of what the shadows mean creates an evil, by falling into the trap of believing evil to be a form of Truth, a thing in itself. I don't believe it is, I believe evil is an effect, not a cause. Ps; as for a person who is truly good-it's not possible. Through our finite interpretations we have fragments of what good is, but I believe the whole essence is unattainable (not only is infinity not bodily possible) but mentally, through our character, and socio-political-religious constructs. That's just a quick thought, though. I've nothing yet to back that one up! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Digital Hell "So again, there is no absolute truth that we as humans can grasp. For the second we do so, it changes into perception and is no longer truth." All you are saying is that one part of the absolute truth becomes another part of it. Perception is not a "vacuum" detached from the universe or "reality". It is "attatched" to the absolute truth of it, just as much as the ground under your feet. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
DH: quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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? quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: 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. quote: Are you sure that is true? That statement is hopelessly self-refuting, being a truth-claim itself. Truth does exist. quote: 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. quote: "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!" quote: 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. Essorant: quote: 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. quote: 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. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But they may say that your opinion or argument is "unreal" too for not being based on the distinction(s) they make. To them, I think, outlining an "impersonality" is a distinction, just like outlining a "personality" is a distinction that you make. And if they make out individuality to be an "illusion" so do you seem to make out all things being one thing to be an illusion. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"Of course you must also ask yourself who you surround yourself with" the sad thing is, the first person i went to see was my local priest and i quote him verbatim "We of the church of god do not help you hethen heretic sorcerers, your path is your own. For your folly you will burn in hell. May god have mercy on your soul" Nice hey? thius was more or less the same general response i got from all of them... I tried finding help in the light and i got nothing. "Unkindness, lack of concern, disregarding needs, are all forms of the darkness" Ah but she didnt care. She didnt save me from caring, she saved me for her own reasons... None of which were "good" or because of emotions she had... "since you may avoid people of "light"" my avoidance of them springs from the day they scorned me, and my almost total lack of contact from when i was told i was going to hell... I had contact with them before i was in that hell hole. I only cut all ties afterwords after i saw how uncaring they were. "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?" Ah but i do you see. That is the point. I Feel if a man chooses to murder someone i may not judge him. For in his situation what would i have done? It was his choice and he has to live with the consequences of that. I have no right to tell him what he did was right or wrong. I am no better than he, How can i presume some "Divine" knowledge that allows me to say what is right and wrong? While i may not approve of some things, That is my personal belief and i have no right to force it on another. What each person does is their own business and no one else should intervere with that too deeply. In the end that person has to deal with the consequences of what he ahs done and his conscience. That is punishment enough. The perfect world is one of complete anarchy. For from a state of complete anarchy a naturally balanced society emerges, from those that survive. history has proved to us the truth of this statement. "Darkness is not like a particle or a wave, it is emptiness" Perhaps not in the physical word, But i am refering to the metaphysical where darkness is a very real substance. I speak of darkness that stands in the light and fights it as an equal. Of shadows that can push back light. Of the essence of it. Of a real and true power, not the simple lack of light that science describes But of a palpable tangible darkness with life of its own. "We are charging God with something he didn't directly do" Ah but to simply watch a murder take place and not do anything about it makes you almost as guilty... You see my point? Though not directly responsible for it, By creating it he has to take responsibility for it. If i start a war, then turn my back on it while millions get massacred i am still responsible for it. "Truth need not be comprehensive to be true" Correct, but i was speaking about absolute truth. And that in itself must be comprehensive and complete to be absolute. "looked into evil to deeply" Very true, i made this self same mistake... hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
LeeJ i would agree that the light side as you put it "pure and raw human emotion as well" but the emotion captured in the dark is more real. It is more tangible and powerfull, it speaks of the beauty of things as well as the despair involved. It is not only of how icreadible beautifull and special love is, but also of the pain and despair felt when things dont work out. But i would say that yes perhaps some light is needed in the poem. Consider this, if you will imagine, one could not be without the other, amidst the dark, and from the dark, comes beauty…more tangible and powerfully speaking on a spiritual level, as well Yes…I tend to agree but disagree in so much as like finding missing pieces of a puzzle, so to speak…ethereal, soulful and sultry, optical beauty of finding soul…perhaps just being on human values (to each his/her own) or a musical event as well as a visual… I suppose whatever prompts emotions…the entire body, mind, heart spirit, wants to prompt a discernable description…yet from the deepest of despair comes a gravity of awaken ness….even if an instance of intellectual properties, serving comparison A nuance of it’s own bereavement, becoming, pure????? Tears of joy….. I don’t think, and this is simply my own perception, dark vs light, but I do believe they conjoin as one…however…like a recognition preserved, attribute igniting tangible essence, waning??? |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Hey Digital Hell LeeJ i would agree that the light side as you put it "pure and raw human emotion as well" but the emotion captured in the dark is more real. It is more tangible and powerfull, it speaks of the beauty of things as well as the despair involved. It is not only of how icreadible beautifull and special love is, but also of the pain and despair felt when things dont work out. But i would say that yes perhaps some light is needed in the poem. Consider this, Regardless, one could not be without the other, and amidst the dark, and from the dark, comes beauty…more tangible and powerfully speaking on a spiritual level Yes…I tend to agree but disagree in so much as like finding missing pieces of a puzzle, so to speak…ethereal, soulful and sultry, optical beauty of finding soul…perhaps just being on human values (to each his/her own) or a musical event as well as a visual… I suppose whatever prompts emotions…the entire body, mind, heart spirit, wants to prompt a discernable description…yet from the deepest of despair comes a gravity of awaken ness….even if an instance of intellectual properties, serving comparison A nuance of it’s own bereavement, becoming, pure????? Tears of joy….. I don’t think, and this is simply my own perception, dark vs light, but I do believe they conjoin as one…however…like a recognition preserved, attribute igniting tangible essence, waning??? |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Digital; I'll say this. Truth/God does not watch, it just is. God, for want of another word to describe the infinite Form of Being, does not 'see', 'decide' or 'judge' anything called 'morality'.. These are things we apply to It, and use as God's words. I feel slightly out of order saying this, but it strikes me that you went to the most intolerant preacher you could find...for effect? It's not personal, and there's no 'us' and 'them'. "People are people, wherever you go, when you meet a good 'un, then you feel their glow" (Wildflower.) |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"I feel slightly out of order saying this, but it strikes me that you went to the most intolerant preacher you could find...for effect?" No, i actually went to several different ones and got more or less thew same response. While some simply turned away and refused to help. Others heaped scorn on me. That was simply the worst response i got and i quoted it to give an example of how i was treated by the "good" and "light" people. "does not 'see', 'decide' or 'judge' anything" and yet if you do not follow the bibles way you go to hell... So taking from that he 'sees', 'decides' or 'judges'. Since he has to know if hes right in sending you down or not. "and there's no 'us' and 'them'." For as long as people continue to judge others on what they believe and stand for there will always be a "us" and a "them". For as long as people consider me different or "evil" etc... there will always be a distinction. even in this argument and "us" and a "them" has been created. Although luckily none of us believe we are superior to the other side i hope?hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Personally, none of us is more superior, although I do believe certain ways of thinking are (not neccesarily ours, Digital, I'm talking universal, thinking that can be found within many faiths, all over the World). Ways of thinking achievable by everybody, us and we. 'Them' is a creation by those of us who want to sell something, take something, or keep something, to and from somebody else. I can't really comment on the *Bible, although I was raised a Catholic, I rebelled. I know more about Crowley's 'Magick' than I do 'The Christian Scriptures', but I will say that it's a gamble when you go to any one for help. Most people have their own agenda for helping you, or the agenda of their group. The action of reaching out and communicating with anybody helps yourself. I believe it's what you notice yourself in life that makes a full spirit, not what somebody else notes for you. Faith is a very personal thing, like emotions-only you know what you're feeling, and nobody can tell you. I wrote a song...which I'm having trouble linking to...it's called The Art Of Risk, and it's in critical. *On the Bible; somebody else wrote that...just like the Quoran, and just like Crowley wrote Magick, to name a few. If you read the Purpose thread, here in Philosophy, you'll see different, but similar views on the Idea of God. Yes, I've been likened to Satan, "but traditionally, The Devil is the God of another people one personally dislikes..."(Crowley). In myself, I believe God to be like an Infinite Vibration, from which all vibrations are produced. A Vibration doesn't love, hate, care or feel happiness or sadness, in It's perfection, it just is. We humans have got it all wrong, in my opinion, because we've personified Perfection/Truth. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-06-2006 11:59 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Kif Kif It seems strange that you should choose the word "God" at all then. If what you mean is only perfection or truth, or a "vibration", why not just call it perfection, truth or a vibration. Or do you just like the connotations and contraversy that may come with using the word "God"? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Essorant you are missing the point. Distinctions are themselves a result of individuality. So it's not a matter of disagreeing about this or that particular distinction ... but a larger question of how real distinctions can even exist within a framework which denies individuality. And by the way, I'm not sure I even understand your last sentence. It is Eastern Philosophy / religion which declares that all things are one ... not me. quote: Well I've always felt that it is unloving to tell a man that he will go to hell and unloving to not tell him that he may. I guess all I can say is, if what you say is true, perhaps this priest was far from the spirit of the God he professed. In which case, like kif kif, I would say that that's not the best thing to base your opinion of "light" upon. On the other hand, some people I know call all moral censure by the Church (or anyone else for that matter) uncharitable, unloving, and mean. But I disagree with that notion. Some things are wrong, and sometimes it needs to be told that they are wrong. And yet ... when and how and what spirit in which such a thing is shared, has a lot to do with whether such a rebuke is right or wrong. Case by case it has to be when we consider such things. But one thing for sure, you can't expect the saintly not to preach the reality of sin, or the necessity of repentance. Though I'll agree with you that they should also be willing to reach out and help those in darkness. Chesterton summed it up nicely (forgive me from quoting him so much, but I've been reading him much here lately. "A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive, and some one couldn't: a slave who stole wine could be laughed at; a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed, and cursed even after he was killed. In so far as the act was pardonable, the man was pardonable. That again is rational, and even refreshing; but it is a dilution. It leaves no place for a pure horror of injustice, such as that which is a great beauty in the innocent. And it leaves no place for a mere tenderness for men as men, such as is the whole fascination of the charitable. Christianity came in here as before. It came in startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal. The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. It was not enough that slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly kindness. We must be much more angry with theft than before, and yet much kinder to thieves than before." (From Orthodoxy) quote: The light is not limited to what people may have disappointed you, I assure you. Be open to further possibilities. quote: Did you know that we can easily confuse "punishment" with merely speaking truth? To say "I have no right to punish anyone" is true humility. To say "I have no right to even know what's right and wrong" is a false humility. For one it's dishonest. You just plainly declared to me that some religious folk were "cruel" to you. And I might even agree with you. But you do hold moral standards, and there's nothing wrong with that. Don't give in to the relativistic fog of this age, that always resorts to philosophical statements which don't even line up with their own minds and hearts. Yes, I am urging you to have mercy on that priest who wronged you ... But mercy implies that there was a real moral wrong done. I'm certainly not asking you to question your own ability to know what cruelty itself is. Forgiveness is different than exoneration. So again, I am not asking you to punish anyone's sins. But if you hold the philosophical position that morals are arbitrarily imposed by "society", and have no further basis than that, you do end up exonerating more than just ignorant cannibalism. Because the moral precept to "keep the rules of society" is itself a moral question that cannot be answered by society. You have to go deeper ... or higher. Why is a baby torturer really morally wrong ... only because society says so? quote: The pattern in history has not been that at all. Anarchy comes in to tear down one system of government and order. But they always end up establishing their own government and order. Anarchy is transition not destination. No one can camp there for long. I'm wondering, do you have children? Is anarchy a good way to manage your own life and household? Does it work? quote: Darkness only uses the usurped tools of the light. How can it be equal? Also we are told of the ultimate victory of "light". Though we are in a civil war (not the war of two Sovereign powers as you suggest), we have already been told the outcome of the war. To use Tolkien's parable again for a moment ... Didn't Sauraman lie to Gandalf when he said "We must join with them ... There are none who can contend with the will of Sauron (Darkness)?" With tenderness (not in contention), I want to encourage you too, not to give in to such a false propostion. quote: But the brunt of your argument is in saying "If I start I war, and turn my back on it ...". God didn't start the war at all. The Bible doesn't tell us that humanity is innocent, but sinful and rebellious. Therefore ANY mitigation is mercy on God's part. It could be alot worse. I am not minimizing the ugliness or seriousness of evil. But it's not like our hearts are undeserving of much of the evil we see. Secondly, God didn't "turn his back". He sent Christ into the world, as a ransom to buy us out. There is the promise of a future redemption as well. What would you think of a King who allowed two sovereign nations to their own war (of their own choosing), and then ressurected the dead bodies in the end, out of love and mercy? God has chosen to let the results of our sinful paths play out in much earthly sorrow. But he is exonerated for several reasons. 1) We were warned. 2) He has not treated us as our sins have deserved. 3) He has given us comforts and blessings, in spite of the war. 4) The story isn't over, and there are rumours (and promises) of a great restoration beyond our imagination. quote: But you were talking about the imperfection of "descriptions", not the absolute truth. You can't malign absolute truth as a reality, simply because we can only be partially right in our observances / descriptions. You seem to be playing bait and switch. Are we talking about absolute truth or descriptions? quote: Ever watched "The Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King? It's a great movie. There's some terrible violence and language, in the prison setting, but the theme of the movie is awesome. If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to watch it. There's a very poignant part in the movie where an old man named "Brooks" was paroled from prison after a long long time. He couldn't cope with life on the outside and lost hope. He hung himself in a boarding house. The story also concludes with a guy named "Red" who gets paroled and goes to the same boarding house. He nearly succumbs to the same hoplessness, but his friend Andy Dufresne (pronounced Do-Frayne) who suffered innocently in prison for a crime he didn't commit, and had already escaped, helped him regain a sense of hope and destiny. Up on a dusty rafter in the little bedroom of that melancholy boarding house, were the words "Brooks was here" scrawled years ago by Red's friend who committed suicide. Red mounted the same little table, took a small knife and carved "So Was Red". Then he left immediately for a little Mexican town on the Pacific Coast to be with his friend Andy, and help him get a charter fishing business and hotel started. Let's just say that there's another person who suffered innocently for crimes he didn't commit, that can give you hope back. You don't necessarily have to be like Brooks, just because you're in the same drear situation. Red was too. kif kif: quote: Then how are you assured that there even is a "truth"? Which brings us right back around to morality, purpose, and all the rest. How do you avoid the nihilism of Nietzsche (and others) if God (to you) is "dead"? Your equating of ultimate reality with the words "truth" and "perfection" and "god" is romanticizing something that for all you know, is anything but those quaint and warming qualities you describe. I'll also bring out the problem of the source of personality ultimately being impersonal. Even your thoughts about what is right to believe, comes from personal discernment, and individuality. But you are choosing an ultimate reality which swallows up all individuality into non-personhood. Why not go as far as the Eastern mystics and judge that all your judgements, beauties, thoughts, discernments, are really meaningless and a part of the disease of existence. The goal (for Hindu-Buddhist philosophy) is to let go of individuality and get off the wheel, stepping into oblivion. Of course the other option, after coming to such a conclusion as you have, is to personalize the impersonal ... to dress it in ontological terms like "perfection", or sensational terms like "vibration", or epistemological terms like "truth". But awareness of being, sensation, and knowledge are all within the realm of personhood. You're stealing in the backdoor, from a theistic view of things. Or maybe they've been put there on purpose by someone bigger than you?  Actually I don't disparage them. I know they stay the madness that brims under the surface of us all. I just have to insist that they aren't consistent with the view you're taking. They are clues for you to follow, despite your philosophy at the moment. "Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?" (Psalm 94:9) As Essorant suggested, even your affinity with "God" is based in something very personal ... The heart doesn't always want to let go of what the head has already dismissed. But there are times when we're "wrongheaded" and our heart is actually the right one steering. quote: But do you notice that I could just as easily say: Ultimate truth doesn't distinquish vibration from stillness, perfection from imperfection, or truth from error, it just IS. You need to either change outlooks or keep on going in the stripping process. More later, This is a great thread. (Oh and Digital H. ... I want to assure you that I don't think believing one has truth, or is right means that anyone is better than anyone else. This is actually an enjoyable time, and I'm enjoying all of your participation) Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Essorant you are missing the point. Distinctions are themselves a result of individuality. . So it's not a matter of disagreeing about this or that particular distinction ... but a larger question of how real distinctions can even exist within a framework which denies individuality. " But there is more individuality than just each individual part Stephanos. There's the individuality of the whole, as the examples of the each constituent of the holy trinity, of each constituent part of a human body, each constituent of a planet, etc. If you may accept those, what shall set you against each thing being constituent of the same overall oneness? Being part of a body doesn't deny the nose its nosehood, being part of the earth doesn't deny a tree its treehood, so why would being part of the the same overall oneness deny anything its individuality and uniqueness? Trying to set the belief of universal oneness into stationary place against individuality, is mistake, by both the Eastern religions and Christianity. The two beliefs may truly befriend each other. And when they do, I think they are much more strong and wholesome. Why argue and say it is only one or the other, when both universal oneness and individuality of parts of that oneness, may work together in wholesome agreement? |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Essorant; I use the word God to describe Perfection and Truth because everybody else does. The Sumerian Gods are not what the Christians would call God, but we do. It's a word that's used to express the ultimate Truth. I enjoyed your description of being part of the whole..."nosehood!" Brilliant. Stephen, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't believe that Truth, the infinite vibration of Good is a void, or the abyss, or emptiness. It is fullness. Truth is impervious to error, inperfection...and it cannot be added to. As for personality. Remember I said earlier that I believed free will to be as valid as cause and effect? Some might say that free will is 'a gift from God', and as we understand God is knowledge, perhaps it is this that can offer enlightenment-quite the opposite of what I imagine the faith of 'emptiness' to mean. God, to me is not dead...it is the infinite vibration. I believe that the Truth is there through the logical communication of Forms, ie; our ability to access abstract knowlege and apply it to our universal understanding. I believe that my understanding of Good is not just an effect of the decaying universe, but, Like the echo idea, it's warped by it. Perhaps the biblical rendering of the Truth is just as "warmingly romantic"? A swashbuckling adventure to capture the imagination of the World? I don't understand why you (Stephen) think that I am choosing a thinking that swallows up the concept of personhood. I don't believe that God is a dog, but it doesn't make me love them any less. Everything's individually part of the whole. I can equate the universe to the Wheel (of Fortune), but I don't believe that when our souls achieve 'fullness', we step off into 'oblivion', I believe we step up to the creator. I'm not educated at all, but I think my opinions are Platonic. I'm not into deconstruction, but many faiths, including Christianity are seeded in Platonic thought. Of couse, my affinity with God is based on something very personal, I've already said to Digital that I liken it to emotions-nobody can tell you what you're feeling, but as for thinking; I plump for a musical logic, not a day of judgement parable. In personifying God, by default, we create 'others'. In my logic, I can see Good parallels in all faiths, but unfortunately, society makes the Idea of God political, and although I am a great believer in individual personality (something made up from various elements), I am not a great believer in applying that human condition to the concept of Truth/God. (a thing in itself, the essence). Which brings me to morality...something made up from various elements gathered universally, constantly changing, added to, and taken away from, throughout time. Not a thing in itself, therefore, not Godlike, but there to direct a love/desire for God (because we believe God to be Good, moral values are constructed in our opinions and knowledge of how to be good in society.) God Knows! Which brings me to the quote of the day, from Miles Kington from The Independent(uk), loving those Albanian proverbs! "God only knows. That's it-that's all He does. He does nothing else. God only knows." It is us that do things. God is let. [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-07-2006 10:57 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, The doctrine of monism is a statement of oneness beyond which there exists nothing else. If this "unit" is itself impersonal, it begs the question as to whether our individual personalities are only illusory. The Judeo-Christian view of the universe is not caught in this dilemma, since the author of the universe is a person ... making personality sacred, and an intrinisic quality in the universe. If the "all" of monism, is mostly impersonal, and we all die, there is no guarantee that personality is not illusory and temporary ... something which appears for a moment as coherence, then fades away into that system which cares nothing for coherence, personality, beauty, or order. quote: Because individuality and uniqueness are observances of personhood. And the "meaning" of personhood beyond mere mechanics is the very thing we have been questioning. You "feel" it has purpose, in spite of your impersonal framework, but that is either 1) an appropriate feeling which is smuggled from a very different worldview than metaphysical monism, or 2) irrational and pulled from the realm of non-reason out of sheer will, content to be at odds with its overall framework. And the whole point I am trying to make, is that those who espouse metaphysical monism, with no God who stands over and above the Cosmos (not a mere part of it), have feelings and assumptions on a daily basis which deny their worldview, because they are "smugglers" of a Christian optimism and idealism. I am not in agreement with existential philosophers like Nietzsche. I say your optimism is correct, and your framework therefore is wrong. Nietzsche says your framework is right (there is no personal God) therefore your optimism is wrong. quote: How can it be a mistake by Christianity, since the Christian view is not one of metaphysical monism?? Christianity does not make the mistake of the Eastern Philosophers, which is my whole point. Of course a secondary point is that non-Christians who were raised in a "culturally Christian" environment, where the warmth and beauty of theistic assumptions are still felt, make the mistake of NOT going as far as the Hindus and post-enlightment philosophers. They are like the bystanders in Nietzsche's "Madman", who have not yet come to terms with their atheism. Sure the Christian believes in a wholeness and oneness of "creation". But that oneness and wholeness is provisional, and contigent upon it's relationship to God who is over and above the created realm. quote: Your language is that of a theist, not a metaphysical monist .... "work together ... in wholesome agreement". What happy teleos I see. No doubt a vestige of the remaining assumptions trailing from the Christian-West. It's right, well enough. It just doesn't fit with metaphysical monism. kif kif: quote: No, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Truth, perfection, and goodness are all anthropic words, in antithesis with your view of God as impersonal. I'm calling to your attention, that this seems inconsistent. And hoping that you might be open to consider that God may be more personal than your philsophy allows. I'm just saying that your language belies the position of your heart. Because YOU are personal, including your values of truth, beauty, etc ..., your view of ultimate reality invariably includes those kinds of things. But wouldn't it be awesome to discover that there's a real basis for that tendency? If I am to take your world view seriously, then even your noble descriptions of truth and perfection, are remaining symptoms of "personifying God". Might even a doctor may be touched some by the diseases he diagnoses in others? Or, more wonderful is thought that maybe it's his diagnosis which is wrong. I wonder how many times pregnancy has been misdiagnosed as gastritis or something else? quote: Given the worldview I've been describing, then yes it would be. But I'm saying the romanticism is true, rather than the framework which would make it mere romanticism that has no basis in reality. Some swashbuckling adventures are real! quote: Truth, love, and knowledge, are all anthropic words, and they make no sense apart from asserting that the ultimate reality is "personal". One thing which may help you, is the understanding that God is supra-personal, which is a personality not limited to the imperfections and bufooneries of what you norally associate with "human". I understand, even in the idea of worshiping God as holy and perfect, to shy away from his identification with us. In this tendency, we make the mistake of imagining that he is sub-personal. But if we were created in his image rather than us "projecting" our image upward, he may still have qualities, or perfections of qualities, which are worthy of awe and reverence, in spite of real personalilty. God is like your neighbor, in that he is personal. God is unlike your neighbor, in that he is superlatively better than your neighbor. Stephen. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"The light is not limited to what people may have disappointed you, I assure you. Be open to further possibilities." I have yet to find a single priest who is open to my side of things. I have been to quite easily a hundred and all of them scorn you. And the faithfull all share their views. Further possibilites? there arnt any. "To say "I have no right to punish anyone" is true humility. To say "I have no right to even know what's right and wrong" is a false humility. For one it's dishonest" Do you honestly feel you have the right say what is right and wrong? Are you so pure of heart that you can tell another that he may not do something? I was not stating that i have "no right to even know" We may know what is right and wrong, but that is our personal opinion and we cannot tell another that one thing is right and another wrong. Who are we too preach to another what is right and wrong? "Yes, I am urging you to have mercy on that priest who wronged you" But i do, I dont hold antthing against him personally. I dont hate or despise him. In fact i pity him and his brothers, their faith has made them blind. Has made them close minded. I forgive him for condemming me to hell, i forgive them all. its not their fault. They are doing what they believe is right and just. I cant judge them on that since it is their own personal view. However that they are unwilling to help their fellow man in his time of need simply because he is different i can judge. On that i disagree with them and dont like that view of them. I Do not have a grudge agaisnt them, i now simly avoid contact with them. "Why is a baby torturer really morally wrong" well i could say that he is wrong because he is cruel to his fellow human, That he is being sadistic etc. But on the other hand, i do not know what is going on in his mind, perhaps he is insane. Or he was raised this way and does not know it is wrong. So not knowing this persons mind or past. I do not know if he is doing it deliberately or doing it because of something outside of his control. And because of that fact, i cannot say he is wrong in what he is doing. The act itself might be wrong from personal view, but By the man doing it, it might not be. "The pattern in history has not been that at all. Anarchy comes in to tear down one system of government and order. But they always end up establishing their own government and order. Anarchy is transition not destination" But the pattern is there, one needs just to look at the french revolution to see this. "always end up establishing their own government and order" I am in full agreement. But that is what i was suggesting. That a complete state of anarchy is achieved untill it establishes the new rule of goverment thet is ordered and fair. That the state of complete chaos and moral disregard is used to set up a state of order and moral truth. Anarchy in itself is a contradiction since the only rule of anarchy is, there are no rules... "Darkness only uses the usurped tools of the light. How can it be equal?" I am in full disagreement. Please dont take this statement personally, but that is ignorant. The darkness has its own tools, things the light would never think of. They do not only use the lights way though it does play a large part of their arsenal they also have their own devisings. We may have been told the outcome, but i for one do not believe that outcome in the slightest. I see the two forces not as one huge almighty power and the other a lowly worm using only usurped tools that is allowed to exist only by the grace of the stronger one but much rather a evenly matched battle in which we can never trully know the outcome untill it occurs. "God didn't start the war at all" By allowing lucifer to fall ( He surely knew it was coming since he has foresaw the end of the war...) he allowed the war between good and evil to begin. And by casting lucifer down rather than destroying him he again allowed what was to come to happen. And you say he is not responsible? "Secondly, God didn't "turn his back"" Yes he sent his son, But he could have done so much more. He could end it at any time he wants since by your own words he already knows the outcome. "What would you think of a King who allowed two sovereign nations to their own war..." That he has great love for allowing them their own choice. But that he is a fool, that he rather should have sat down with them and explained and shown to them their folly and braught them to their senses. That he should have rather brought the two nations to an agreement. "dead bodies in the end, out of love and mercy?" But by allowing them to die first he is allowing for great suffering and pain whereas he could have prevented the war in the first place and saved everyone their suffering. Yes i see you refer to god by that but do you see my point? "You seem to be playing bait and switch" im sorry i agree by my descritions it seems that way. I was talking about absolute truth and how we as humans cannot grasp it. "if God (to you) is "dead"" I know this is not to me, but i would like to say here that i do believe absolutely in gods existance. But that i disagree with the bible and do not follow God as such. I know he exists as does lucifer, but i do not follow either of them. I prefer the middle ground where i can show both sides the close mindedness of both sides or the side they are on. "(Oh and Digital H. ... I want to assure you that I don't think believing one has truth, or is right means that anyone is better than anyone else. This is actually an enjoyable time, and I'm enjoying all of your participation)" glad to hear it. Im sorry but there is nothing like a good argument. I am enjoying myself so much! and want to thank you all for your involvement and sharing of views!"can equate the universe to the Wheel (of Fortune), but I don't believe that when our souls achieve 'fullness', we step off into 'oblivion', I believe we step up to the creator" kif kif here hass a point. Once we have achieved fullness, we join the creator. It is where the term enlightment would spring up wouldnt you say? "Christianity does not make the mistake of the Eastern Philosophers, which is my whole point." Mistake? i take it you do not agree with easter philosophers? But who are you too say they are wrong? Buddist monks etc show a much greater commitment to their faith than westeners do. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
I'm enjoying this exchange of views, too! I have to say though, that I believe Truth to be mental, instead of personal. I don't believe love to be a Form. Love is desire, can die, and be reborn. The union of poverty and plenty is not Godlike, but I can see it as a cheeky spirit, the ultimate groupie of Truth/God, camping out at the gate of understanding. I think our human qualities, like the ability to feel love, compassion, empathy and righteousness rest on our desire to be the 'best' humans we can be, within a society that has a universal understanding of Good. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that God created us in 'his' image, it just means that we must vibrate our humanness gracefully in order to achieve a unity that will hopefully take all of us, as individuals, to complete understanding. It's difficult to express without sounding like some sort of bell jangling chantress...I'll be back with some weekday sensibilties later. I don't think, on 1st musing, that a God that does not feel is sub-personal. Perhaps supra-personal is just another word for getting over yourself? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Kif Kif But the historical and etymological roots of the word God don't support at all your saying that people use it to refer to a nonperson Foreign words that the word God translates such as Latin Deus and Greek theos refer to a person-being as well, not an object. Why would you try to set it out that people use the word God/god to refer to a nonperson, when their lore says and means quite otherwise? [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-08-2006 06:57 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: You expect a priest to be "open" to your beliefs? I thought we were talking about whether or not the priest treated YOU respectfully. If he didn't, then he was wrong in how he related to you. But I maintain that it's possible to treat someone respectfully, and yet tell them they are wrong. And despite what you say, there are still other possibilites out there. quote: Saying that something is really wrong is not to be confused with telling someone that they may not do something. And also, I'm only pointing out that you have told me that these religious people have done you a real wrong. At least when you said they "scorned" you, and "condemned you to Hell", you didn't sound like you were merely sharing your opinion. It sounded like you were offended by a real moral trespass. And if you don't see the contradiction in your estimate of the priests, let me quote you on your view about telling others about moral wrongs: "... we cannot tell another that one thing is right and another wrong." So, do the wrongs which we can't tell others, include the wrong of telling others? Because you've just told me that was wrong. Also does the "WE" in your sentence mean just you, or someone else? If someone else, you've just done what you are forbidding others to do. It's much better to recognize this contradiction. Once you see it, you can proceed to argue why any particular claim of moral wrong is accurate or not, rather than discrediting ALL claims. If you don't see this contradiction, you only end up condemning the very thing you keep doing ... even those who say "It's wrong to impose morals on others" are caught in the trap, for they are telling someone else what is wrong. So now that I'm willing to admit that these priests may not have treated you right (though that doesn't mean that they were doctrinally wrong), why are you trying so hard to convince me that that's only your opinion? quote: Doesn't forgiveness presuppose a real moral wrong? quote: Ah. So you aren't as much of a moral relativist as I thought. There are non-negotiables evidently. quote: But that begs the question. The very fact that he thinks it is somehow justifiable in spite of his own inner conflict, IS the wrong. I just watched Schindler's list, and I can't imagine that all those who tortured and killed Jews (including children) were insane and therefore morally unresponsible. You should read "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky, for an amazing consideration of these kinds of questions. quote: Oh, well if that's all you're syaing then I agree that that's how it has been. But anarchy is never a destination. It is a transition. And if the original system of things had been "right" then anarchy has no place. It is a wasteland traversed to reach the right city. And in that sense it is only a secondary matter. There are anarchists who vaunt the concept of anarchy, for its own sake, just because they are rebellious in heart and hate rules and authority of any kind. That is what I thought you were getting at. But if you mean that anarchy is like a mud puddle which may sometimes have to be crossed like it or not, to get to greener grass, then I'll accept that. However, I think rebellious and sinful human nature is all too willing to tread through the mud sometimes, when there may be better ways of getting to the grassy hill. quote: God made all things. What "tool" is it which evil uses that is original? Evil and darkness represents a perversion of lawful things. Every representation of evil is a twisted and ill-used good. I challenge you to give me an example. quote: But that is part of the darkness. Truth, in itself, is of the light. God has told us the truth, knowing the beginning from the end. If you deny this, how can you claim to be even seeing what is true, if you are upholding "darkness". By very definition, darkness means the inability to see things right. quote: I'm not saying that he didn't "take responsibility". That is evident in the incarnation and suffering of Jesus Christ. But he is not blameworthy of the evil which has been done, simply for the fact that he didn't do it. And if he can bring an unimaginably greater good, even out of the fall and devastation caused by sin which was not his own, then he is certainly justified in allowing it. You're pretending to know that the evil will somehow outweigh the good in the end, which you have no knowledge of. So God is justified in several things: 1) He didn't directly commit evil, but even warned against it with clarity. 2) He has mitigated the effects of the fall, and mingled much mercy and kindness with judgement. 3) He has taken on the darkness and suffering of humanity upon himself exponentially on the cross (a darkness even you cannot fathom). 4) He has promised to ressurrect the dead, and bring about a situation even greater than the pre-fallen world. quote: Someone would be upset, no matter what was chosen by divine authority. Are you ever glad to be alive, in spite of life's problems? Then you might be able to understand that there is good to be obtained and realized in the "in between". There is a redemptive process involved walking through a world where suffering is mingled with comfort. But don't get me wrong, I'm not making light of the pain of this world. quote: Whether the day is dawning, or the deep night is coming for you ... twilight is a transition. Neutrality as an extended position is an illusion. I really think that to refuse to worship God, is ultimately to be in league with Satan, regardless of how you feel about him. But at the same time, it's exciting to think that you are still in a place of possibility where you could walk into more light, glory, wisdom, peace? It excites me, anyway. I only want what's best for you. I'm not trying to belittle your thoughts. quote: But that's only ad hominem. Should you judge a belief system merely by its abuses or failures? Or should you necessarily praise a system because of it's admirable traits. Islamic terrorists are devoted and well disciplined in many ways. That doesn't make their philosophy right. I'm not comparing Eastern religions with Islam, but only making a point. It would be different if I said "Eastern philosophy is wrong, I'm right, and that's that." But I have been explaining why it is mistaken. If you want to respond, then respond to those things I've said. Don't keep telling me that thinking I'm right, is intrinsically wrong. Dogmatic belief without good reason, is deplorable. But I don't think I've been guilty of that. More later, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-08-2006 08:03 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"If the "all" of monism, is mostly impersonal, and we all die, there is no guarantee that personality is not illusory and temporary ... something which appears for a moment as coherence, then fades away into that system which cares nothing for coherence, personality, beauty, or order. " But I don't see why that should be a problem. Many best and truest are rarest things. The majority of the universe doesn't seem to be "personal". We seem to be enveloped in many conditions that don't care a whit about us or what we wish or feel. But I don't think that takes away from our personality. But rather it further outlines it and shows its uniqueness against that cloudy background. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"You expect a priest to be "open" to your beliefs?" Perhaps open was the wrong word. What i meant was understanding and accepting. To be the way jesus was, to accepth that that person is different and holds beliefs you agree with and love them despite of that.I expected these holy men who devote their lives to gods work to at least try and follow what god set down in the bible. To love your nearest like yourself not just to love your nearest if hes cut from the same cloth. "priest treated YOU respectfully" No he didnt, but that is despite the point. I do not need his respect or acceptance. Yes it would have been nice to have his respect, but that i dont have it does not make a large difference. What we should be discussing is that this man of god, who follows the holy book is wholly unwilling to sit with the sinner as jesus did. Wholly unwilling to accept another human being on the for the simple fact that he is diffent. "But I maintain that it's possible to treat someone respectfully, and yet tell them they are wrong" I would agree, this can be done. But to say "you are a hethen etc..." is not saying you are wrong, it is judgemental and condemming. "Saying that something is really wrong..." that is my exact point, can we ever trully decide what is wrong over another? Do we have the right to say This is wrong with absolute conviction? "you didn't sound like you were merely sharing your opinion. It sounded like you were offended by a real moral trespass." Not offended at a moral trespass but offended at these men of the cloth who dont follow the words of their own god. But i do find judging a person on their beliefs a moral trespass yes, but in this situation i was offended by the lack of compassion in them. To be unwilling to soften your heart and bend down to pick up a broken man simply because his view differs from your is almost unforgivable. The unwillingness to help your fellow man when he is in need is wrong in the extreme. Well i have to hand it to you, i did horrible contradict myself there (forgive, its a character trait... im most hypocritical and contrary ) What i was trying to argue is exactly what you said in a way."why any particular claim of moral wrong is accurate or not" but id like to ammend that. What i would like to argue is not why a particular moral claim is wrong but why all moral claims are wrong. "though that doesn't mean that they were doctrinally wrong" no they were not incorrect in what their doctrine states. But the fact that they would ignore the greater message in the bible and rather rest treir morals on a small claim is wrong. They arbitrarily decide to follow one part of their belief but shun a greater part of it. You cannot tell me that a priest who refuses to love his fellow man because he is a sinner is not wrong? Isnt that the whole message behind the bible? To love your fellow man despite his sin and wrongdoings? "Doesn't forgiveness presuppose a real moral wrong?" Yes but like i have stated, To be unwilling to help your fellow man is wrong. Not morally, but in following with any ounce of humanity in you it is wrong. Simply despising someone because their view is different and they have done what you believe to be wrong is a great wrong. Before we continue let me ask you this, What would you say is a moral, or what are "moral values"? Im would say am am i bit of both. While i would say there is no single standard i would say that some things are absolute. There most definately are non-negotiables. "The very fact that he thinks it is somehow justifiable in spite of his own inner conflict, IS the wrong" If he has inner conflict then yes. But i raise the question, if he believes he is wrong and has NO inner conflict or qualms, is he still wrong then? That is the question i wanted to raise. I have seen Schindler's list and i would agree. I did not say that all people who commit so called "evil" are innocent and insane. But rather that some of them are, and what of them? I refer to the people that commit evil but are wholly unaware that what they are doing is "evil" "But anarchy is never a destination. It is a transition" I am in full agreement here. It is impossible to exist forever in a state of anarchy. "But if you mean that anarchy is like a mud puddle which may sometimes have to be crossed like it or not, to get to greener grass" That is exactly what i meant. Anarchy for its own sake is silly. However if used for the overall betterment of mankind then it is good and justified. "I think rebellious and sinful human nature is all too willing to tread through the mud sometimes, when there may be better ways of getting to the grassy hill." Yes but treading through the mud is often the fastest and most effectinve way of getting to the right place. It solves questions of what should be done simply and easily. Give an example? Let me ask you, have you seen true horror? the horror that paralyses the mind and sears it with nightmares, the horror that never trully heals? Tell me things that bring about such an event are twisted from light and i would yield. I speak of creatures so foul their very existance makes your mind shrink away in fear. What is that twisted from? Not angels etc that fell. But rather whole new beings that are beyond comprehension. Or say making another person kill another out of mercy. Tell me what is that? Yes killing is simply taking away life. But out of mercy a thing good and just? Not simply a corruption of purity, but rather the creation of pure evil. Is that simply a twisting of nature? a corrution? "If you deny this, how can you claim to be even seeing what is true, if you are upholding "darkness". By very definition, darkness means the inability to see things right." Yes i simply deny that light will truimph. I do not uphold the darkness, but rather say that it is an even match and that darkness or light might win. Let me pose you this question. You say darkness is the absence of light. But then by that reasoning by standing in the light you cast a shadow and thus create darkness? "You're pretending to know that the evil will somehow outweigh the good in the end" No i simply said that either side might win. I did not say that darkness will win, but rather that either side stands a chance and that the outcome is unpredictable. "Are you ever glad to be alive, in spite of life's problems?" Yes i am glad to be alive sometimes. At times like these, when i can engage in a though provoking argument, or when i hold the woman i love in my arms and see her safe. When i spend time with her and we in our darkness (Yes its the self same person that saved me out of deepest darkness and despair and took me to comfortable darkness) are happy and content. Fufilled, safe in each others arms. Then yes i am happy. But i would any day give up this life without regrets, I do not fear dying. I know i will see her in the beyond so i am not bothered. If i am to die, so be it. "There is a redemptive process involved walking through a world where suffering is mingled with comfort" Again i say true horror etc... Is that a redemtive process? "is ultimately to be in league with Satan" Ah but the question remains, what if you work harder against satan than you do against god? If you exorcise his demons and save people that serve him? "where you could walk into more light, glory, wisdom, peace?" Perhaps... who can tell what the future holds? i tried once after my fall, but i had lost my faith. Belief in god does not work if you are in desperate need, beg for help in desperate angst stricken prays with darkness again claiming you and the prayers just hit the ceiling and fall to the ground and are dashed faster that your hope. "I only want what's best for you. I'm not trying to belittle your thoughts." Dont worry, im fully aware of that. I get enough bellitling daily to be able to tell the difference between and argument for what is best for me, and an attack on my beliefs. "Should you judge a belief system merely by its abuses or failures? Or should you necessarily praise a system because of it's admirable traits." No it should be done on a basis of having examined both. Take the good with the bad and make your judgement based on having seen the best, worst and all in between that it has to offer. I would agree that because of their fanatacism thay are not right. But i did not say that. What i said is that they are so fannatical in their belief is admirable rahter than the belief itself being admirable. That devotion to the cause is great whereas the cause itself might be wrong. But by thinking you are right over another is wrong. I say it again. For the simple fact, you can tear something down, expose it as a farse and wholly untrue and show why what it believed was wrong. But that does not make you right. As long as the other person believes in what he follows, he is right in that no matter what reasoning you have. You can disagree wiht him and prove yourself by exposing what is false. But you still are not right in your views, you have simply made that person aware that what he believes is false. I do not accuse you of dogmatic belief since you have very relevant points. But rather that even with your arguments you are not right as the other side can raise as good counter arguments. You are right in yours eyes, but in the eyes of another you are wrong again... More at another time. Its now 3:15am local time... I will propably be able to respond in 8 hours time. The local time would be around 9pm. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? [This message has been edited by Digital_Hell (07-09-2006 04:12 PM).] |
||
|
kif kif Member
since 2006-06-01
Posts 439BCN |
Essorant. Will Self has written a short story (I can't remember the title) about a London taxi-driver (with The Knowledge) called Dave. Now Dave is the vilest, most bigotted, racist misanthropist one could ever meet. Dave writes his thoughts down. Years later, AD (After Dave), Dave's writings are found, and taken as Gospel. Plato hinted that God was not a person, with his sun analogy. I've not read deeply enough into your discussion about morality, Stephen, but I have to ask why you are placing the words 'love' and 'personality' with Beauty and Order. These words are not the same, rather conduits to express the Forms. Digital; I like your question about standing in the light produces shadow. As above, I've said that the Truth/light is warped by the finite. Incindentally, if you stand out at mid-day, the shadow is tiny, and at your feet...but remember, that depends on how close you are to the equator! [This message has been edited by kif kif (07-09-2006 06:21 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Sorry this took me so long, guys ... I'm back. I hope the momentum of this thread is not gone yet. DH: quote: I totally agree. But don't you think that sometimes people think that Jesus was an "accept you as you are" kind of person, rather than a "love you as you are, yet challenge you to higher things" kind of person? C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" once wrote: "Christianity doesn't demand that you be good; it demands that you give your life to Jesus Christ so that He can be good through you. Surrender yourself to Him, and He will replace the selfish sinner with a Son of God. It doesn't happen instantly anymore than a toddler learns to walk in a day, but Christ doesn't stop working on you until you become perfect. As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald) pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby's first attempt to walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he said, 'God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.'" I think that's a good assessment of Jesus. It's also what "men of cloth" should be following as well. Do they fail? Yes. Do they always fail at this balance between giving acceptance and spiritual challenge? I don't think so. quote: Yes. As you yourself have done. quote: Could you explain why "all" moral claims are wrong? quote: Yes that IS the whole message behind the bible. But the Bible's conception of "love" and the popular conception are at variance. Does love mean always telling people what they want to hear, almost in a coddling way, or does it mean to sometimes warn them, confront them, or talk about "sin"? Some people I know who love me the most, have told me painful things sometimes. But yes, I can tell the difference when there is true love and concern behind the rebuke, or if it's just someone's favorite pasttime. And I think that's what you're getting at. quote: I think all moral codes of ancient civilizations, right up to our present, do a good job of summarizing what is "moral" and "immoral". But for the sake of chosing what I believe is the best, both in brevity and clarity, I would say the 10 Commandments is a good place to start. The decalogue is what I believe to be essentially the plumbline of human morality. quote: If there is "no single standard" then there can be no absolute, and everything is negotiable. It sounds to me like you DO believe in a final standard as arbiter of what is moral. Maybe this conversation is helpful for you to realize something about yourself you've never really seen or considered before. I think that such discoveries can be "clues" to lead us on to greater, even liberating truths ... to a whole new way of looking at ourselves, our neighbors, and God. quote: I think that would depend upon whether a person was born with or aquired some condition which rendered him truly incapable of moral judgement ... or if a person merely has a "seared" or "calloused" conscience, where the natural function of conscience has been injured due to repeated violation. I believe that some people who don't "hear" the moral voice of God-given conscience any more, are in that place after a long time of abuse and transgression. A serial killer may have felt much different about his first murder, than his fiftieth. What was once screaming as a voice of concience, may only whimper now, or even sigh in almost inaudible tones. I think that distinction has to be made. quote: We can talk about those "innocent" ones who "do evil" if you wish. But you admitted that some are not in that category. And by conceding that, you've confirmed my original point ... that there IS a real right and wrong, and that people can commit real good or evil actions in this world. An innocent offender, or a thousand innocent offenders, do not invalidate what I'm saying. My only question to you was whether men could ever really commit moral or immoral acts. And you've answered "yes". quote: The question of whether you should get your clothes splattered and get to your girlfriend's house quicker or take the longer road and be a little late, is not a simple or easy question. And neither is the question of anarchy. And blood rather than mud, complicates the question a little bit more. No ... Anarchy, even as a means to an end, is not a given. quote: Horror ... Healthy fear twisted. Paralysis ... An twisted version of anesthesia physical or psychological. nightmares ... imagry, memory, mysticism are all good and healthy in their original state. Such things ARE twisted from light. Believe me, evil has nothing original. God who is light created ALL things. quote: I never suggested that "twisted good" is not a horrible thing. It may be all the more terrible for the very fact that it was once good. See which mangled face in an auto accident hurts you the most, a stranger, or a loved one? See which betrayer hurts the most, a mere aquaintance or an old friend, or a spouse? The Bible says that all non-human dark spiritual beings ARE fallen angels, or demons. Their terror is no indication of their original state. By saying that evil is only twisted good, I am not trivializing evil, or euphemizing it. Rather I am painting it's colors in the worst possible tone, and prophesying that it has nothing which will not be required of its hand. There is a day of judgement even for angels. quote: Absolutely ... Let me tell what "good" things are twisted here: 1) Mercy 2) urging someone to sacrifice something good for something "better". 3) giving one's life in order to accomplish good. 4) A desire to see suffering end. 5) A willingness to deny even social expectations in order to do what is "right" and "just". I'm not saying the above descriptions fit assisted suicide or euthanasia at all ... But these ideas are certainly the bait. This too, is a twisting of good things. Give me the same ingredients as my wife, and I can make something for you that you wouldn't call a cake even on your worst day! Give them to my wife, and you'll be a happy camper. Same ingredients, wrong order, wrong approach, wrong thinking. quote: Shutting out the light creates darkness. But standing in the light usually creates shade. And sometimes the shade can be nice. It has to do with heart motives I think. quote: Love, safety, salvation, reversal of despair, happiness, contentment, touching, assurance of life beyond the grave. This is a summary of things mentioned in your description. Those things are of the light, NOT of the darkness. That is still light in spite of dark shadows, not the darkness itself. That's my point. quote: It can be, if it causes us to flee to the light for refuge ... to seek the light. Read the psalms again. Read psalm 88. That, believe it or not, is the poetry of a saint not a hopeless soul. quote: If that's true, then you're partial to the light, not neutral as you say. quote: But even this has been the experience of many saints. Psalm 137 talks about hanging harps upon willow trees in Babylon, a place of captivity, of woefully "remembering" Zion. Many of the other psalms ask God "How long, O Lord?" "Will you hide your face forever"? Elsewhere in the Bible it is said "Surely you are a God who hides himself". Even these dark experiences may be turned to faith. Don't give up! C.H. Spurgeon, in his "Treasury of David" commented on Psalm 77 where the psalmist asks "Has God forgotten to be gracious. Has he in anger shut up his tender mercies?". Spurgeon writes: "Are the pipes of goodness choked up so that love can no more flow through them? Do the bowels of Jehovah no longer yearn towards his own beloved children? Thus with cord and cord unbelief is smitten and driven out of the soul. It raises questions and we will meet it with questions; it makes us think and act ridiculously, and we will heap scorn upon it. The argument of this passage assumes very much in the form of a reduction ad absurdum." quote: Really, you must quit contradicting yourself like that. . You just did the very thing you are speaking against.quote: But you just admitted that a terrorist's devotion may be admirable, and yet his cause still be wrong. May it not therefore be wrong, even though he believes in it? Subjective "Belief" is not the determiner of truth. quote: Are you saying that I am not right in my views, or merely that I may not be right? Of course that possibility exists, but mere possibility doesn't prove or disprove anything. Why do you think I'm wrong, or why do you think I'm right? quote: Saying that since "the other side can raise as good counter arguments" does not tell us anything except that people may always disagree. But I maintain that people may disagree even in the face of good logic, or evidence, or even persuasion. You've told me that I have relevant points. And you've agreed with me, more often than not whenever I have pressed you. So, the question still remains, what are those counter arguments? Mostly I'm just trying to get you to "think different". I use a Mac, and I like that slogan. I am not insulting you here. And again this interchange has been great. quote: Again, eyes are instruments of perception. But truth is more determined by what is oberved by the eyes. Jesus did not say that the eyes determine truth, but subjected the spiritual "eyes" to truth itself. "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6:22). More later, Stephen. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
""love you as you are, yet challenge you to higher things" kind of person?" Well i would say that Jesus was this kind of person. That he loves you despite your faults and tries to help you on a better path. That is what jesus did. "Do they always fail at this balance between giving acceptance and spiritual challenge? I don't think so." Show me a priest that will accept me for who i was back then and i will stand with you. Untill the day however that i meet this man who is willing to lower the prejudiced defences his beliefs have blindly installed in his mind i maintain that the men who serve God are often furthest from him. "Yes. As you yourself have done." Yes i say so with conviction, but not quite absolute. Once you accept you are absolutely correct on something you close your mind on it and i cannot do that. I might say This is wrong. But that does not mean i am not open to considering the possibility that i may be mistaken in that belief. While i stand on my points, if i am shown to be extremely mistaken i am more than willing to reconsider my point of view. "Could you explain why "all" moral claims are wrong?" Because of the fact that we all interpret things differently and as such can all have different moral standards. I say this because i do not feel that any one person can judge another on so called "Morals" and tell him that what he is doing is wrong. By christian morals the practise of sorcery is strictly forbidden and as such i would be commiting against a true believer a moral wrong. However in my eyes it is simply another branch of study that was forbidden because of very good reasons. I do not see conversing with spirits etc... as wrong or sinfull or immoral but simply as a door that can be opened at will if you so wish. So in light of that a moral claim that witchcraft is wrong is right on one side of the coin and wrong on the other. Therefore since what is for some a moral wrong is not for others. Thus any moral claim by a particular group against another of against an act is wrong because a difference of views exist. "But the Bible's conception of "love" and the popular conception are at variance" Well yes i agree with you. I did not expect them to simply help me and comfort me. I expected rebuke. But too show no love and simply condemn an act... "I would say the 10 Commandments is a good place to start" Perhaps a good place too start but this is your oppinion. In my eyes while some of the commandments are relative others arnt. So i have a different set of morals from you. So i ask again what exactly is a moral? is it a popular held point of view? a religously enforced principle? Something our conscience warns us against? "If there is "no single standard" then there can be no absolute, and everything is negotiable" Not nescecarrily. I am simply saying that there is no base line of this is wrong and that is right. But rather that While some things should be taken as absolute, others are negotiable. Not a single standard but that a single act can be "wrong" or "right" while others can be both. And no not a final standard, while i feel some things are absolute while others are negotiable. However i am more that willing to accept that my belief in both of the above can be incorrect and as such i am most willing to change them. Since i dont have a set belief because they may change... "I think that would depend upon whether a person was born with" Yes this is what i was saying. Not if circumstrances and enviroment effected his mind set but rather if he was born that way. Yes a conscience can be beaten into submission by repeated exposure too some horrible fact. But what if it is natural, inborn not simply some defect? "that there IS a real right and wrong" Yes in a way i confirmed it. But remember that that is my point of view which rests on morals and beliefs that can change at any time. So while i say now that it might be wrong or right by the time of my next response i can have changed my point of view again. Therefore your point that there is real right and wrong is insubstantial since our ( yes your view might still change as well) view of what right and wrong is might change... "Horror ... Healthy fear twisted." I disagree here. Horror and fear are two different things completely. You would say experience horror at seeing a child mercilessly slaughtered for enjoyment but would not have fear in that circumstance. Whereas when faced with a creature from your worst nightmare you will be overcome with fear and not horror. They can become the same thing if the fear is that great but they are very different things. Horror is not fear twisted it is a thing on its own. "The Bible says that all non-human dark spiritual beings ARE fallen angels, or demons" Not all other beings are dark or fallen angels. What you must take into account here is that the bible takes but a single point of view. the view that there is but one god and the devil his one enemy. It does not account for elemental beings and such. these are not fallen angels but creatures wholly created on their own aside from god. "giving one's life in order to accomplish good" This is a good thing twisted? Then i assume the sacrifice of christ is included and that this was not a good thing? "urging someone to sacrifice something good for something "better"" Again you would tell me that say to kill one innocent in order too cure the worlds ills is not acceptable? That you would have billions suffer in order so that one may live? "It has to do with heart motives I think." Ah but then you agree wiht me. That in order for you too be standing in the light, there has too be a darkness. that good cannot exist without its counterpart evil because then it would not be good because there would be nothing too compare it against. "...reversal of despair..." You misunderstand. We both still suffer these and take it because we are in the dark. and happiness is not always a good thing neither is love. "That is still light in spite of dark shadows" No you would not recognise what i call love etc as too what you know it as. It is rather a twisting of these light things so that they fit in the dark rather than that they are light despite the dark. "If that's true, then you're partial to the light, not neutral as you say." I was using that as an example. If truth be told then i would have too add that i have banished as many angels as demons, and led astray more than a few believers by pointing simple reality out too them... Quite a loving kind god that leaves us in our hour of need dont you think? "But by thinking you are right over another is wrong. Really, you must quit contradicting yourself like that. . You just did the very thing you are speaking against." quite shrewd. But no, i must rephrase, not that you are wrong. But rather that the act of believing that you are right over another person is wrong. The idea behind it is wrong. "May it not therefore be wrong, even though he believes in it?" It may, but only in my eyes. I might feel because of my convictions that he is wrong, while he feels similarly. So Whilst i might believe he is wrong. In his eyes and belief he is right, so in the end, which of us is correct since by both of our standards we are correct? "or merely that I may not be right?" Yes this is what i was saying, not that you are wrong. But merely that it is entirely possible that you are wrong. "So, the question still remains, what are those counter arguments?" Unfortunately im not a great follower of what you are arguing against so my arguments would be feeble at best. So hows this, if you will bear with me i will put some time into it and then raise objections? (yes i love a good argument. I am contrary simply because i love engaging in a stimulating argument much rather over any particular belief) "You are right in yours eyes, but in the eyes of another you are wrong again..." I do not mean eyes literally here. but rather in the sense that they are your point of view. That you are right in you point of view while from another you are wrong. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"So i ask again what exactly is a moral?" Basically a moral is a custom or habit or manner. But just like the word worth came to imply goodness, the word moral came to be used more to mean a good custom, good habit or good manner; a virtue; a goodness. Why is a moral good? Because it includes doing what is better for life, not what is worse. That helps life and people, not hinders them. There is a native English word for "moral" as well, That is thew, that was used widely before the word moral became so predominant. Likewise thew meant "manner" or "virtue" |
||
|
Walter Poe Senior Member
since 1999-10-13
Posts 787 |
Well i suppose i started this me and my little question i best throw my suggestion in. Moral is what you believe at the time of the doing is the right thing of course the right thing is dictated by those in power. Personal morals although may vary after all during WWII it was perfectly aceptable to stone Jews in the street because they were considered less than human much the same as swatting flys is acceptable to a christian but wouldn't be to a buddhist or a pantheist. Personal morals are reached through looking at everthing you have learnt and deciding what boundaries you believe you should not cross. Morals are set more by what others think. Thou shalt not kill is a good one and pretty universal but i have met soldiers who have killed for many, what may be termed, morally acceptable (at least to them) reasons. Morals are subjective to the person its what makes life so interesting everything is variable. Do not go gentle into that good night. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Personal "morals" may be mistaken and based on false assumptions. Just because there existed a certain hateful attitude toward Jews does not make that view "moral" (that view still exists BTW). Nor does it prove that morals are only subjective. It rather proves that we may be wrong about them ... or more than likely, that we may act against our real moral knowledge for some other selfish reason proffered as justification. Did any of the murderers of Jews feel moral guilt for stoning Jews, despite the official dehumanizing policy? Certainly. If we really thought they had no inkling it was wrong, then why the war crime trials? So you cannot argue that it was once "moral" to kill a Jew, and now it isn't. If that's the case, then morals are no more than what we decide ... which amounts to custom and convention. But since the question has always been asked whether or not particular customs are moral or not, then the question of morality always transcends practice. Stephen. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
This is what i was saying earlier, that a moral can be based upon current social and political beliefs and override personal beliefs due o the fact that they are percieved as right. Although deep down the person might feel that it is wrong this can be repressed. But do not consider WW2 as so wrong. Though it may sound strange, thanks to the massacre of jews in WW2 we have solid human rights today. So although wrong in what he did, we have Hitler and his NAZI regime to thank for what is now the Geneva convention and solid human rights as well as trials for warlords and dictators. So although his means were wrong the consequence of them is amazing. Does this mean that evil acts have a greater power for good than good itself? hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I think more often than not, your last observation is true. That would make such standards "immoral" rather than moral. Though I don't deny that moral ignorance may exist in varying degrees. My point remains that this does not point to a variable "morality" ... but a fluctuation in adhering to a common morality already present and generally known. quote: That's like saying that since starvation results in feeding programs, that famine must be a desirable state of affairs. There would be no need for the Geneva Convention or manifestos of human rights if evil were absent. Really such examples of "good" resulting from evil, only underscore the grace of God. That he still consoles and rains upon the just and the unjust. But again, that glorifies the good all the more, that in spite of evil it shines. Stephen. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Evil prevails when good men fail to act. Those words are very true. But it has a deeper meaning. If you think on it, then Good cannot exist without evil because nothing would be evil. If there was nothing too compare good against it couldnt be good. And the existance of evil drives good men to great things. It forces them to act in a good manner, forces them to be the best they can be. The presence of evil INSPIRES good men to commit good deeds and not just to sit idle. "There would be no need for the Geneva Convention or manifestos of human rights if evil were absent." Then good would not exist. Good is only good because evil exists. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Cool beans. I've always wanted to fly unaided and now that you've proven that gravity can't exist in the absence of anti-gravity, I think I'll go soar through a cloud or two. I think you're in danger of confusing semantics with reality. If evil did not exist we might not need a word to describe good, but good would still exist (just as gravity still very sadly constrains me to a life on the ground). Similarly, throughout this thread, there seems to be a lot of confusion between metaphor and reality. Light and dark are physical phenomenon that can be measured, manipulated, and even explained. While the scientific concepts might make a nice romantic metaphor for the human condition, any metaphor can be carried to an extreme. In my opinion, people make good decisions and reap the benefits or they make bad decisions and reap the consequences. You can call one light and the other dark all day long, but that kind of romanticism only masks the responsibility of the individual, it doesn't absolve it. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"gravity can't exist in the absence of anti-gravity" but the fact that gravity exists means that its opposite anti gravity exists... and it also doesnt mean that anti gravity exists right here on earth. But it certainly exists. "but good would still exist" Ah but then it wouldnt be godd would it? It would simply be the expected norm. Without evil good would simply be the normal way to behave. There wouldnt be a distinction as there exists when evil is present. "people make good decisions and reap the benefits or they make bad decisions and reap the consequences" Good decisions dont always lead to benefits. Sometimes doing the right thing leads to pain and suffering aswell. Similarly bad decisions dont always lead to horrible consequences. Great things can come from making a bad decisions. But you are fully correct in saying that it does not absolve the person from his responsibility. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Einstein would probably disagree. If you "bend" space/time, as happens in the presence of mass, the curvature results in this thing we call gravity. Falling towards the ground is essentially the same as "sliding" down the side of the curved space. The classical two-dimensional analogy is to put a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline and watch everything on the now curved surface slide towards the ball. What happens if you "unbend" space/time? We then perceive a flattened surface as the absence of gravity. There's bent, there's not bent, but there's no such thing as anti-bent, and mathematically, there's no way to get there from here. Indeed, anti-gravity, when expressed as an equation, is exactly the same thing as traveling faster than C. Space and Time cease to have any physical meaning. Of course, the General Theory of Relativity is, after all, still just a theory, so you might well still be right. In 91 years, however, no scientist has EVER found even one instance where Einstein's equations failed to reflect reality. Arguing with that kind of track record takes a lot of guts. There is, without question, a symmetry to our Universe, just as you postulate. That doesn't mean, however, that symmetry is necessarily Universal. There exists countless phenomenon in physics that are unique and NOT symmetrically balanced, gravity being just one example. quote: LOL. In my world, it's already the expected norm. quote: Exactly. The semantic distinction disappears. Good, however, remains and remains unchanged. quote: Then, by definition, it wasn't a good decision. quote: Then, by definition, it wasn't a bad decision. Do you see, perhaps, the kind of trap into which you inevitably lead yourself when you argue semantics? While Heisenberg allows for some ambiguity in cause and effect, I personally think the amount allowed is small. In other words, I generally ain't buying it. That doesn't mean tragedy doesn't exist, because clearly it does, but I think when we see a good decision lead to less than an optimal outcome, most of the time we are simply not looking past the short-term to see the bigger picture. I believe that doing the right thing is always the right thing to do. Indeed, ethics and morality are guidelines laid out to help us see what is "good" in the long run, when our own judgments are oft too skewed to make the right choices. There are, of course, whole branches of philosophy devoted to exploring ethical dilemmas. quote: I found this statement particularly interesting, because I think it demonstrates a prejudice that I suspect runs contrary to much of what else you have said in this thread. You are assuming, in this statement, that "pain and suffering" don't constitute a benefit? By extension, then, you are suggesting that benefits are only those things which avoid pain and suffering? Personally, I don't believe pain, in and of itself, is evil or even bad. I believe that because, in small part, pain is transitory and lasts but a brief time, and in large part, pain is a self-regulatory mechanism that "should" ultimately lead to benefit. Unfortunately, that "should" doesn't always happen. Pain only becomes "bad" when people turn around and continue doing the same thing that caused their pain, expecting a different outcome the next time. Sadly, we see that all too often in the world. Doing the "right thing" is no guarantee that pain will be avoided. On the contrary, the right thing is very often marked by self-sacrifice and pain. Personally, I think doing the right thing ultimately leads to growth, which is far more beneficial, far more good, than simply trying to avoid pain and suffering. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
"Exactly. The semantic distinction disappears. Good, however, remains and remains unchanged." Ah but then it isnt good is it? Then it simply is. Good would be doing some act of charitable and loving gentle nature to your fellow man. Stepping outside of prejudice and loving him as a brother. However if that is all there is, then its no longer good is it? "Then, by definition, it wasn't a good decision." Telling the truth in a situation can lead to great pain and trouble for you. But it would be a good descision in keeping with moral standards and personal beliefs yes? Althoughn it might have an adverse effect in your life it would be a good descision wouldnt you say? "Then, by definition, it wasn't a bad decision." Again you can decide to end a relationship etc. that leads to great pain and so forth but leaves you as a better happier person. "I found this statement particularly interesting, because I think it demonstrates a prejudice that I suspect runs contrary to much of what else you have said in this thread. You are assuming, in this statement, that "pain and suffering" don't constitute a benefit? By extension, then, you are suggesting that benefits are only those things which avoid pain and suffering?" NO!!!!! not at all. That is definately not what i am saying. What i say is that pain and suffering on their own are not good or bad. neither detrimenatal nor benificial. It depends on how we handle them. Pain that shatters the body, breaks the spirit and destroys the mind is of no use. But pain that teaches you a needed lesson and makes you a better person is good. So i would agree with you that it is neither good or evil, but it should noy simply be accepted. If possible it should be avoided. The reason for that is that it can become addictive as an easy release for much greater pain and suffering. Take the case of cutting, You start with a simple small cut to ease your mind. it gets better and better. Eventuallyu you need to cut more often and deeper for it. And it doesnt solve the problem. This kind of pain is obsessive and bad. "than simply trying to avoid pain and suffering." some pain and suffering should be avoided. My best friend called me before he commited suicide. Is the pain and suffering i went though good and usefull? No never. I will never let another friend as close as we were, is that a benefit? So while i definately do not say we should avoid pain and suffering i do say it should be avoided if possible. Pain is a drug, you get addicted to it, high on it, it takes over your life. You end up living by the words (Forgive a misquote) Castigo corpus meum: PAIN IS GOOD. And that destroys your life. Doing the right thing might lead to growth, but in the end it depends on the character in question. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're still just arguing semantics. Wipe out the English language and, by your logic, there again would be no such thing as Good? You're conflating the word with the concept for which it stands. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Not semantics no. Im saying if evil itself, the act of wrongdoing. Of sin, immorality. call it what you want didnt exist, then an act could not be good as it would simply be all there was. If you removed "evil" as all the wrong, immoral, decadent, sinfull etc... Things that humanity can do to another from existance, then good as we see it does not exist does it? We see something as good because we are use to people being cruel, heartless cold. Therefore kindness etc is "Good". hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"it would simply be all there was." Good and evil are the only things that exist in the universe? |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Most acts can be bundled into wha twe have defined as "good" Or "evil" so yes from our perception an action or belief can be broken down into that basic idea. Although i must add that i dont agree that they are all there are. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I'm confused at what you are trying to say. Good is basically doing what is better. You don't need to know you are doing better in order to do better at all. For example, someone may not know spinach is generally a good and healthy part of a diet because it tastes terrible. Not knowing it is a healthy food or believing it is not because one doesn't like the taste of it, doesn't remove the truth though that it is still good and healthy for you to eat. Likewise if all foods that were bad and unhealthy were no longer around , such foods that are good won't cease being good anymore. Therefore good doesn't cease to be present just because evil is absent nor because one doesn't know the difference. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
On further thought perhaps it is wiser to say good is basically doing well instead of doing better. "Better" implies something in comparision with something that is worse, which I think may be good too, but not neccessary to be good. You could still eat healthy and live healthy if somehow there were no possibility not to eat healthy and live healthy. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
"Beware you who seek first an final principles, for you tramp down the garden of an angry god." The so-called darkness of poetry does not exist. It is mearly people trying to express themelves behind a veil of self-apathy. No ofence is meant to all those who write, but honestly who has heard of such a thing as "Dark" poetry... Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
The so called advent of this dark poetry, does not exist. All it depends on is the facade that the writer - persay - develops. Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life. |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
How amusing... i have a poem here written by Kitherion. Its rather um "dark"... hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
here is the poem[Edit - Sorry, but if you didn't write it, you can't post it. Feel free, however, to provide a link to any poem in the forums. Ron] quote:Welcome to this club... hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? [This message has been edited by Ron (08-01-2006 02:01 PM).] |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Amusing is it Digital? If you actually look at the contents of the poem, you will realise that it is actually about a journey from the darkeness wihin human nature to a lasting and hopefull end... in the poems case death (I realise that this is considered dark) but honestly that is in youir opinion. Blessings Digital. Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life. |
||
|
Slater1987 New Member
since 2006-08-02
Posts 2 |
the message within us all is not to consider the fact if we are dark or light but to consider who is , why must we subject ourselves to thinking poorly and unjustly to our own existence. damm those around us and consider their darkness |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Yes i find it amusing. quote: Really? i find that interesting. Here is the last stanza of your poem quoted. Please explain to me how this is a hopefull end quote:That is the hopefull end? quote:If you would read the rest of the thread you would see that what started out as an debate on if light or dark is better has turned into a discussion on morals and semantics. And the nature of good and evil, and how we determine how we place acts in these classes. What morals are, if they are finite and resolute. quote:But this is what i am saying Essorant, If there is no bad. Then the good isnt really good anymore now is it? You cant eat unhealthily if healthy food doesnt exist now can you? The food might not be ideal for consumption but if its all that exists then it is not unhealthy is it? Then it is simply what is the accepted norm. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That is true. If the only food that existed were a greasy hamburger from McDonalds and the only drink Pepsi, those would be not just good foods, but the best! |
||
|
Digital_Hell Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202Amidst black roses |
Exactly. Now take the same principal with good and evil. Then you see why i said that without the one, the other does not exist in its own right. hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here shall we go? the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Will you walk with me? [This message has been edited by Digital_Hell (08-02-2006 04:21 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. If you think about that for even a moment, I'm sure you'll see the flaw in your logic. The analogy Essorant presents, of course, suggests no such thing. Instead, it says that if all good were eliminated, then some parts of evil (McDonald's) would start to seem good to us. The analogy essentially addresses the relativity of good and evil, and certainly not any imagined dependency of one on the other. Let's see if I'm still following your semantic arguments? Everything, you claimed, is either good or evil. If evil didn't exist, you said, then good could not exist either. Ergo, with the elimination of evil and the subsequent elimination of good, then clearly nothing could exist. That's certainly an interesting path to nihilism. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Hey Digital: I agree completly with you. But unfortunatly if you actually read what I said, the poem was about death but not the darkness that it is normal associated with. I do actually see the flaw that Ron speaks about, but it isn't as obvious as he claims it to be. Blessing Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
