• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Semantics

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
One denotes lack of light and implies lack of understanding, the other denotes a class of action.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
lack of understanding

I'd argue that. What if light is perception created by an evil deity, and darkness is a natural energy of God? Even the Bible says that evil (Satan) can disguise itself as light, although, (most) Christians are light-seekers.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What are the differences between "darkness" and "evil"?

Me? I go by the dictionary definition of words so this one has me stumped

Darkness :
1/ the partial or total absence of light. (What i recognise is darkness)
2/ wickedness or evil. (I have a problem with this as in the 2 definitions do not remotely relate to each other)

I have the same problem with "truth"
Truth :
1/ that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
2/ a belief that is accepted as true.

To me these definitions are contradictory. There are a few other words that, over the years, been taken and bastardised to mean something different and have now become accepted. It dilutes language.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Me? I go by the dictionary definition of words so this one has me stumped

Darkness :
1/ the partial or total absence of light. (What i recognise is darkness)
2/ wickedness or evil. (I have a problem with this as in the 2 definitions do not remotely relate to each other)

I have the same problem with "truth"
Truth :
1/ that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
2/ a belief that is accepted as true.

To me these definitions are contradictory. There are a few other words that, over the years, been taken and bastardised to mean something different and have now become accepted. It dilutes language.

The world's fuzzy thinking of concepts like "darkness", "evil" and "truth" and in the theist community... is slowly leading me toward atheism in the pursuit of reality, I fathom.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@wellwisher, in my opinion, has answered your question.

When the box is closed, we are in the dark. Because we are in the dark, this allows speculation and debate to rule the day. The debate allows either state to be assumed possible, therefore, even contradictory theory is allowed. This black box approach is fundamental to statistics, which assumes all results have finite odds and therefore all states have odds that exist, simultaneously.

Once you open the box, we move from the darkness of infinite speculation and tiny odds, to the light of tangible observation.

Comparing Darkness to Evil...

Darkness is endless possibility. Ignorance.

Evil is not ignorant. Evil is intentional deception or intentional harm.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Me? I go by the dictionary definition of words so this one has me stumped

Darkness :
1/ the partial or total absence of light. (What i recognise is darkness)
2/ wickedness or evil. (I have a problem with this as in the 2 definitions do not remotely relate to each other)

I have the same problem with "truth"
Truth :
1/ that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
2/ a belief that is accepted as true.

To me these definitions are contradictory. There are a few other words that, over the years, been taken and bastardised to mean something different and have now become accepted. It dilutes language.
To we humans, who survive and thrive by knowing how to control and manipulate our environment to our own advantage, the 'unknown' poses a dire threat, and causes deep fear. And so is often viewed as being 'evil'. (Evil, in most cases, being whatever we consider to be 'bad' to, and for, us.)
 
What are the differences between "darkness" and "evil"?

Depends on the context. They can be synonymous.

In certain contexts, darkness is a metaphor for evil, ignorance, depression, etc. so has a wider range of application to negative states.

To me these definitions are contradictory. There are a few other words that, over the years, been taken and bastardised to mean something different and have now become accepted. It dilutes language.

Don't you think that metaphor and other forms of figurative speech significantly enhance language?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Me? I go by the dictionary definition of words so this one has me stumped

Darkness :
1/ the partial or total absence of light. (What i recognise is darkness)
2/ wickedness or evil. (I have a problem with this as in the 2 definitions do not remotely relate to each other)

I have the same problem with "truth"
Truth :
1/ that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
2/ a belief that is accepted as true.

To me these definitions are contradictory. There are a few other words that, over the years, been taken and bastardised to mean something different and have now become accepted. It dilutes language.
Dictionaries report common usage. The words just happen to be commonly used in ways that contradict when they are taken out of context. As long as the word communicates meaning in context it's not a problem.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
What are the differences between "darkness" and "evil"?
I feel like the term "darkness" was hijacked poetically, for the purposes of representing "evil." I don't feel the word itself should have any such connotation in common language use. It should represent the state of something lacking light. I believe you can only use "darkness" to represent "evil" if you are speaking metaphorically. To drive home that point, I would state that it is not as if something becomes "evil" when it is cast in shadow, or when there is no light present. Claiming that would just be complete and utter silliness.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
What are the differences between "darkness" and "evil"?

This goes back to common collective human experience, starting from before civilization, when the secondary center of consciousness; ego, was beginning to appeared. The pre-humans were starting to become modern human.

If you went camping, on a nice warm sunny day, the forest is a beautiful place, full of sounds, smells and sights. When night comes, the forest starts to becomes spooky to many people. The darkness of night, cuts off your sensory systems; especially sight, so one has to rely more on imagination and memory, to define the forest around you. The darkness makes the forest less conclusion, than the day. This can lead to doubt and uncertainty, which can make some people afraid; darkness leads to evil spirits. Evil has a connection to the fear stemming from our imagination within the darkness.

The earliest ego or secondary center became first self aware, at night, due to the fear. The tradition has God forming Lucifer, who would become Satan. He was the bringer of light. Lucifer was not initially evil, since the fear within darkness, had a purpose, which was to awaken a secondary layer of awareness.

Light dispels darkness. Say we survive the scary night in the woods, living among the scary sounds and imaginary images within the darkness, The sun rises, now we can see everything clearly once again, through our sensory systems. The brain becomes more saturated with sensory input signals. During the day there is less unconsciousness stemming from sensory deprivation. Instead the input into the eyes, fills the brain with sensory awareness. The early pre-humans would return to instinct during the day or the primary center; the Sun God. Lucifer was the morning star, who was conscious up to the transitional time between night and day; dawn, as the brain is shifting gears.

What was once a real observational distinction, between how the brain reacts night and day, is now more or less considered figurative. The reason is, we live in security, based on being able to control the darkness of night with electric lights and high definition TV. Artificial light; manmade theory, allows us to see better, when the natural cycles of day, makes it dark.

Since we can control the natural darkness, we feel that we can control the evil spirits of night, so they appear more relative to choice. But the ancients, who were subject to the natural cycles of nature, saw the cycles; distinct spirits of the day and night. These were connected to human DNA and collective human propensities. It was more clear cut to them in terms of the workings of the natural brain. Religion is about the natural brain, that predates civilization, and how this evolves with time due to controlling the night; evil spirits. .
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Depends on the context. They can be synonymous.

In certain contexts, darkness is a metaphor for evil, ignorance, depression, etc. so has a wider range of application to negative states.



Don't you think that metaphor and other forms of figurative speech significantly enhance language?

I agree that its metaphor and has to be considered in CONTEXT.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Time for me to can of worms this thread up...

Christianity has a focus of light. On the internet, there are articles showing the Bible to be a great deception. In such articles, they show links between ancient evil practices and the book. If said deception were true, it may be possible those "protesters" of it have to act dark, and defy everything built up to be true, yet are moral in doing so. What if such protesters do act dark so as not to be a part of the Light system? What if light is a form of fakeness? What if the only way we find ourselves is in the process of flirting with our own dark side until we are cool with it, without actually being evil, disgusting, overly miscreant human beings? What if the path to human morality is acting our lower, morbid, raunchy self?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Time for me to can of worms this thread up...

Christianity has a focus of light. On the internet, there are articles showing the Bible to be a great deception. In such articles, they show links between ancient evil practices and the book. If said deception were true, it may be possible those "protesters" of it have to act dark, and defy everything built up to be true, yet are moral in doing so. What if such protesters do act dark so as not to be a part of the Light system? What if light is a form of fakeness? What if the only way we find ourselves is in the process of flirting with our own dark side until we are cool with it, without actually being evil, disgusting, overly miscreant human beings? What if the path to human morality is acting our lower, morbid, raunchy self?

What evil practices are you referring to?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
God dwelt in the darkness
before He created light

and there was nothing to know.....
so He was ignorant
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Yes. And that is just one theory of how the Bible was a "great deception", made by me, and it's not even the best one out there. I have witnessed about 10 different theories, and some go on for 40-50 pages.

http://www.codexgigas.com/

This is worth a quick look.

I don't think the Bible was a great deception .. Lots of writers and translators involved over time as political agendas changed. More like it was fiddled with rather than any sinister motivation.
 
Top