• 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!

Differentiation between the light and the dark?

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
In reality, there isn't really any such thing as "dark", it's just an abstract term we use to refer to there being relatively little or no (visible) light. Physically and psychologically though, we need both "light" and "dark", with too much or too little of either generally not being very good for us.

I think that gives the metaphor in an interesting context. :cool:
"In the beginning", there was darkness, as in no "light" (Genesis 1:1-3). One needed the combination of light/good and darkness/evil for the creation of matter. Much like you have to have equal and opposite forces, or sour to appreciate sweet. That applies to this "creation". The "new" "heaven and earth"/creation, will not require "darkness", as the "light" will be ever present, with no night. (Revelation 21:23-25)

Revelation 21:23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I would say that ideally, humans come to understand that there is no universal and external standard by which the concept of good and bad can be measured,

Ideally? not real. Reality does not deal with the ideal. This post rambles a little bit, and has an anarchist slant.

When taking the whole of human history of the different cultures there are consistent patterns of what is good and bad, not measured, but understood with the necessity of social order of morals and ethics for the survival of the family and tribal units that evolved into nations for human survival. The basic commandments of Judaism and Christianity are found in various versions in the history of human cultures. Of course, there is consistency, but not uniformity. There is abundant evidence these standards of good and bad evolved into the such things as common law, civil laws, and the statute laws. The problem remains tribal barriers still exist today with dual standards of codes of those in the tribe and outside the tribe. The brutal violence of wars, ethnic cleansing, and persecution of those not part of the tribe are common examples of the inconsistency of good and bad in cultures.
that each of us is unique, a product of our specific biology and unique set of experiences, resulting in differing needs, wants, and subjective values.

Does not represent what our biology represents in the behavior of individuals and collective cultures. Our evolved biology is more universal concerning the behavior and experiences of individuals within cultures and humanity in general as we evolved to develop family and tribal units over the millennia in the history of humanity, We are more alike than different.
What constitutes good, bad, and neutral then, is derived collectively through negotiation and compromise to reconcile and accommodate our differing needs, wants, and subjective values as fairly as possible.
This closer to the reality of human behavior and the nature of our family and tribal relationships, but may need more clarification.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
...... and those of @Link tend to be rather long and rambling.
It's like seeing a zombification of the mind completely engulfed by the words in a book for which no language applies except for what is written inside a book that needs to be repeated over and over and over again with no individual input going outside the parameters of what that book is saying.

Another way of looking at it is robotic texting, the repeating of verses and the like as if it's actually going to mean anything by doing so.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
"In the beginning", there was darkness, as in no "light" (Genesis 1:1-3). One needed the combination of light/good and darkness/evil for the creation of matter. Much like you have to have equal and opposite forces, or sour to appreciate sweet. That applies to this "creation". The "new" "heaven and earth"/creation, will not require "darkness", as the "light" will be ever present, with no night. (Revelation 21:23-25)
I understand how the religious metaphor works, my point is just that it doesn't actually reflect the practical reality of how light and our perceptions of it actually works. The very fact that you're presenting "light" and "dark" as equal and opposite representations of "good" and "evil" is ironic given that "dark" doesn't actually exist in the same way "light" does.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
I understand how the religious metaphor works, my point is just that it doesn't actually reflect the practical reality of how light and our perceptions of it actually works. The very fact that you're presenting "light" and "dark" as equal and opposite representations of "good" and "evil" is ironic given that "dark" doesn't actually exist in the same way "light" does.
"Dark" does no work at all, it is the absence of light. Darkness is used as a metaphor for evil, which in fact is required for the balance between matter and energy, and the fact that every force has an equal and opposite force. You start with nothing/dark, add energy, and the speed of light, and you get matter, such as that E=mc*2, or m=E/c*2.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"Dark" does no work at all, it is the absence of light. Darkness is used as a metaphor for evil, which in fact is required for the balance between matter and energy, and the fact that every force has an equal and opposite force. You start with nothing/dark, add energy, and the speed of light, and you get matter, such as that E=mc*2, or m=E/c*2.
, , , and the sciences of evolution. You cannot selectively separate different sciences accept physics amd reject evolution to justify an agenda ALL sciences are based on the same methods and principles.

Radiometric dating is based on Einstein's principles.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The dilemma is that "truth" isn't what many believers think it is. To them it is false and untrue ideas that they end up believing due to social influence. These are ideas they learned as they developed and never had to reason through to a sound conclusion.
I agree that "truth" isn't what many believers think it is. To them it is false and untrue ideas that they end up believing due to the Bible.
These are ideas they learned as they developed and never had to reason through to a sound conclusion.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ideally? not real. Reality does not deal with the ideal. This post rambles a little bit, and has an anarchist slant.

Interesting you felt it necessary to make this point here regarding the word 'ideally'. I agree that there is no objective or platonic ideal that exists in reality outside of peoples minds. The use here is a figure of speech, one that I carried over from it's use in the post I was responding to. In both cases, I think we are expressing subjective preferences, not referring to any universal concepts.

When you say that my post has an anarchist slant, what exactly does that mean? Is that a good thing, negative thing, neither, just neutral?

When taking the whole of human history of the different cultures there are consistent patterns of what is good and bad, not measured, but understood with the necessity of social order of morals and ethics for the survival of the family and tribal units that evolved into nations for human survival. The basic commandments of Judaism and Christianity are found in various versions in the history of human cultures. Of course, there is consistency, but not uniformity. There is abundant evidence these standards of good and bad evolved into the such things as common law, civil laws, and the statute laws. The problem remains tribal barriers still exist today with dual standards of codes of those in the tribe and outside the tribe. The brutal violence of wars, ethnic cleansing, and persecution of those not part of the tribe are common examples of the inconsistency of good and bad in cultures.

All of this above seems to be in response to my saying, "there is no universal and external standard by which the concept of good and bad can be measured". Was all of the above to say that there is an objective external standard by which to designate things as being good or bad?

Much of what you seem to be talking about refers to human instinctual behavior, which simply amounts to pre-programming. Our instinctual rules for interaction are not much different than those of other social and pack mammals. Our instincts evolved to meet the needs of pre-verbal, small groups that compete with other such groups. As group size and technological abilities grew, we could no longer simply rely on instinct, and in fact, have come to the point where we must actively downplay or suppress what might be reflexive instinctual responses in social interactions and instead rely on more complex abstract systems we have created to meet the needs of our larger, more complex societies.

The rules for social interaction then, can be said to have begun out of inherited biological instincts which we have abstracted into moral and ethical systems that continue to evolve to meet the needs of our every growing and changing societies. All this to reiterate that there is no universal standard, we are just making the rules up as we go along.

Does not represent what our biology represents in the behavior of individuals and collective cultures. Our evolved biology is more universal concerning the behavior and experiences of individuals within cultures and humanity in general as we evolved to develop family and tribal units over the millennia in the history of humanity, We are more alike than different.

As is true for all species that share the same pre-programmed algorithms of behavior.

This closer to the reality of human behavior and the nature of our family and tribal relationships, but may need more clarification.

Hopefully I've clarified my position that there is no objective moral standard outside of our instinctual programming. We make up the rules ourselves.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Interesting you felt it necessary to make this point here regarding the word 'ideally'. I agree that there is no objective or platonic ideal that exists in reality outside of peoples minds. The use here is a figure of speech, one that I carried over from it's use in the post I was responding to. In both cases, I think we are expressing subjective preferences, not referring to any universal concepts.

When you say that my post has an anarchist slant, what exactly does that mean? Is that a good thing, negative thing, neither, just neutral?



All of this above seems to be in response to my saying, "there is no universal and external standard by which the concept of good and bad can be measured". Was all of the above to say that there is an objective external standard by which to designate things as being good or bad?

"The idea we make up rules ourselves" or "All this to reiterate that there is no universal standard, we are just making the rules up as we go along,".has an anarchist bent.

Our morals, ethics and laws are not made up as we go.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"The idea we make up rules ourselves" or "All this to reiterate that there is no universal standard, we are just making the rules up as we go along,".has an anarchist bent.

I don't think anarchism means what you think it means, or you are misapplying it here. Anarchism advocates a particular political position, I am simply describing what occurs.

Our morals, ethics and laws are not made up as we go.

Then it seems we disagree.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Your posts are wandering a bit around the mulberry bush and back again.
Awaiting your coherent response.

Sorry that you find my queries incoherent. I am unsure as to whether I will be able to make them more coherent to you.

Yes, something being "true" is different that claiming "truth." Clarification needed. Careful getting too esoteric and vague as to what we may consider as true referring to objects like the earth that obviously physically exist as true.

This was what I was trying to tease out, a better understanding of what you mean when you use the words 'true' and 'truth'. It seems that you agree that there are events and phenomena in the world that can be consider to be true.

What I am struggling with is the notion that a true thing does constitute a truth. What is a truth other than a statement that is true? What are truths other than a compilation of true statements?

You say that "science does not claim to have the truth", but isn't the whole point of scientific inquiry to establish what is true regarding the questions it seeks to answer? If, in the course of this endeavor to find out what is true, it has indeed established some things as true, can it not be then said that science can claim some truths?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sorry that you find my queries incoherent. I am unsure as to whether I will be able to make them more coherent to you.
Well go first with understanding how terminology has been used here concerning religious beliefs, and science.
This was what I was trying to tease out, a better understanding of what you mean when you use the words 'true' and 'truth'. It seems that you agree that there are events and phenomena in the world that can be consider to be true.
Yes, in the generic context 'true' and 'truth' are used and in law are related, which are not how they are most often used here in terms religious belief as in RF

Please review this thread and RF in general concerning how true and truth are used in the religious context. The use of 'truth' has most often referred to in terms of absolutes that certain religious truths are true in the absolute sense.
What I am struggling with is the notion that a true thing does constitute a truth. What is a truth other than a statement that is true? What are truths other than a compilation of true statements?
In the generic and legal conclusion context yes, but as used in religious context as in RF they have absolute connotations of absolute meaning.
You say that "science does not claim to have the truth", but isn't the whole point of scientific inquiry to establish what is true regarding the questions it seeks to answer? If, in the course of this endeavor to find out what is true, it has indeed established some things as true, can it not be then said that science can claim some truths?
If you look at scientific literature you will never see true or truth used, because as above these words are often used to have permanent connotations in terms of religious beliefs as in the following:

@Marwan - "God has many Messengers. All religion is Truth. They all proclaim and testify and praise God and pray to Him. Religion is Religion is inspired by God. The Quran is from God. Mohammad is certainly a True Messenger of God. The Quran did not come from a human."

In academic history religions and religious beliefs are not considered 'true' or represent 'truth' as believers claim. Mohammod or Jesus would not be considered as 'true' messengers of God, nor what they teach as 'truth.'

Yes, objective facts may be considered true, but as more information is discovered over time the true value of old facts may not be considered true. The terminology preferred is objectively verifiable evidence that may be used to verify theories and hypotheses. This knowledge may change over time with new information, therefore it does not represent 'truth.'
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well go first with understanding how terminology has been used here concerning religious beliefs, and science.

Yes, in the generic context 'true' and 'truth' are used and in law are related, which are not how they are most often used here in terms religious belief as in RF

Please review this thread and RF in general concerning how true and truth are used in the religious context. The use of 'truth' has most often referred to in terms of absolutes that certain religious truths are true in the absolute sense.

In the generic and legal conclusion context yes, but as used in religious context as in RF they have absolute connotations of absolute meaning.

If you look at scientific literature you will never see true or truth used, because as above these words are often used to have permanent connotations in terms of religious beliefs as in the following:

@Marwan - "God has many Messengers. All religion is Truth. They all proclaim and testify and praise God and pray to Him. Religion is Religion is inspired by God. The Quran is from God. Mohammad is certainly a True Messenger of God. The Quran did not come from a human."

In academic history religions and religious beliefs are not considered 'true' or represent 'truth' as believers claim. Mohammod or Jesus would not be considered as 'true' messengers of God, nor what they teach as 'truth.'

Got it. I see where you are coming from now. I think for me, my preference would be to not abandon a word simply because others misuse it. That being said, I agree that sometimes if a word has a strong association that triggers a whole host of preconceptions with those whom you are communicating, especially if the preconceptions are incorrect or misleading, then it may simply be best to avoid using the word altogether and use phrasing that avoids triggering problematic preconceptions.

Yes, objective facts may be considered true, but as more information is discovered over time the true value of old facts may not be considered true. The terminology preferred is objectively verifiable evidence that may be used to verify theories and hypotheses. This knowledge may change over time with new information, therefore it does not represent 'truth.'

Hopefully what we determine to be objective fact doesn't change over time, but as I am sure you agree, science does its work beyond established fact in an effort to resolve both what is not yet completely understood as well as discovering and making the unknown known.

In this arena beyond established facts, I would agree that science does not claim truths, rather it expresses degrees of confidence in its explanations for what we observe but do not as yet fully understand. Yet the confidence that is generated is founded upon, supported by, actual facts or truths, if you will. I think this is why I found your statement, "science does not claim to have the truth" as misleading or inaccurate when regarding the word "truth" in a generic way, as you would say.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
"Things" require objective evidence. In this case science takes the cake with objective verifiable evidence and science does not claim to have the truth.
If science doesn't have the truth, why take it seriously? I think science can be truthful, if it remains in what can be observed.
The problem with subjective religious claims of truth is there are to many diverse and conflicting claims of "Truth" that for anyone to be a reliable claim. What is the objective basis for choosing one over all the others?
It would be nice if all people would know the truth. Unfortunately it seems many don't want to know it.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Those of the light go to the light, and those of the dark go to the dark.
John 3:20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, so that his deeds will not be exposed.

What is the "light"? Is it the Word of God, the Law and the prophets, who will return to rule the nations/Gentiles with a rod of iron (Revelation 19:15)? Is it the encapsulated in the Commandments as the way to enter into life (Mt 19:17-18). Are the Progressives who lust after someone else's wife or some else's ox or ***, or his house/goods, or willing to make false witnesses against their neighbor, and steal whatever he can get away with, willing to abide with in the Law? If one actually believes in the "Word", the Law and the prophets, are they able to be swayed toward lawlessness. Apparently, even the "elect" can be deceived (Mt 24:14), but to regain their health, escape the "plagues" of "her", the daughters of Babylon, they will have to "come out of her" (Revelation 18:4). No one dies for the iniquities of another (Jeremiah 31:30). Making sacrifice of a son of man, nor of an unblemished sheep, does not heals one, nor does it make them whole and become healthy. If you don't believe that, go to your local hospital and or morgue. "Every one dies for their own iniquities" (Jeremiah 31:30). Everyone will die. It is best to believe in the message of the son of man, and keep the Law, and forgo the "message" of the "enemy"/"devil" (Matthew 13:25), which are both planted in the same "field" (NT).

Matthew 13:24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25“But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.
As far I can make, the ONLY place in the bible where we're told the wages of sin are death is in the writings of Paul ─ otherwise not anywhere in the Tanakh, not anywhere in the gospels, not in any sayings of Jesus.

My own view is that it's a very silly idea anyway. Death is what made evolution effective, hence made humans possible. For animals our size, to live is to die.

Please correct me if you can quote some part of the bible not by Paul that spells this notion out.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If science doesn't have the truth, why take it seriously?
You teke science seriously, because it does NOT have the truth. The knowledge of science changes when new objective verifiable evidence is found to improve science.

You do not take ancient tribal religions seriously because they claim to have the truth without objective verifiable evidence to back up their claims.
I think science can be truthful, if it remains in what can be observed.

Science does remain based on the objective verifiable evidence as to what can be observed,
It would be nice if all people would know the truth. Unfortunately it seems many don't want to know it.

The problem remains that many of the diverse conflicting ancient tribal religions and their divisions claim to have the truth, and they do not agree what the truth is. What independent criteria would you propose to believe one over the others when you lack verifiable evidence, only subjective claims that your version is more true than others?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
And you know the truth? How do you know it is not just your wishful thinking?
Well, ah . . . it is the many diverse conflicting religions and their divisions that claim the absolute truth based on wishful thinking.

Again . . . What independent criteria would you propose to believe one over the others when you lack verifiable evidence, only subjective claims that your version is more true than others?
 
Top