Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MysticKnight

  1. That's my religion. I hold on to Imam Ali. Don't ask me why. I don't want to misguide or try to guide anymore. I recite Suratal Fatiha time to time and believe in 12 Imams. I ask admins to ban my account. This forum has been unhealthy experience in my life. Don't let me come back.
  2. Objectively, you are suppose to say nothing. You aren't suppose to talk to me.
  3. The reason I feel the argument of evil is so strong, it's not that it's intellectually a valid argument (it's an argument from ignorance) but that we are all emotionally convinced. We all don't want suffering at least major suffering and we also feel we should not want such suffering. We are naturally like that. This argument hits to the home of our empathetic feelings. When we see someone tortured, we wish it did not happen. When we see a child striving, we wish that child didn't go through that. When a girl or women is raped, we wish it didn't happen. When naturally disasters hit, we wish it didn't happen. We are emotionally against suffering. So this argument hits to our natural feelings. However, it is at the end an argument from ignorance. Despite our feelings, for all we know, there is higher purpose that is benevolent in nature, behind all this. And whether we can articulate one or not, is another matter. Remember the argument from design from biology was perhaps the strongest argument in appearance for a Creator. It seem the most strongest. However once a person came up with evolution, this argument from ignorance, was no longer strong. Intuitively we see design, so there must be a designer. Of course, no educated person thinks this is obvious anymore, even if it is true, it's not an obvious fact anymore because of the theory of evolution. The cosmological argument is also "we cannot think of anything that would start the universe except a sentient super powerful being" therefore "God". They are strong for similar reasons. But the argument of evil is even stronger because it hits to our emotions.
  4. Because I hate you and I'm evil (being a kaffer ofcourse), and would love to hear that you're doing miserably :P
  5. I know this makes people a bit uneasy, because they don't want to say God needs his creation. But the truth is, if God decided not to create, he would be going against his morals of grace and love, and would cease being ultimate love/grace/generosity. And if he did that, he would cease to exist, because he would no longer be the ultimate existence or the ultimately greatest possible being. God needs to be good more than we do. In the case of God, not only would the greatest being worthy of existence cease to exist, but nothing would exist. He needs to love in perfect way. While if we do evil and change, we only harm ourselves. In the case of God, if he ceases to love, he would destroy himself as well as all of creation.
  6. Well nothing but God can exist on it's own but needs to be given existence constantly. God is the ultimate being. Whatever he is, is the only thing that can exist on it's own. If God ceases to have power, then he would cease to exist. But in the case of God, being ultimate, he is ultimate love, ultimate power, etc...His benevolence, wisdom, knowledge, is not separate divisions making him up. It's all him. If he ceases to be whom he is, for example, as he is ultimate love, then he would cease to exist. This is because God is the Necessary Being. As he is the greatest possible being, his attributes must be perfect/ultimate. To be ultimate/perfect, they cannot lack perfection. Therefore ultimate love at it's ultimate is also ultimate power and ultimate life force. If his love was part of him, it would not be at ultimate, but rather he must be ultimate love. Therefore if he ceases to love, he would cease to exist.
  7. How you been? Hows raising a baby going for you? Are you happy?
  8. So God can torture a baby for eternity just for fun or the heck of it, and it would not be evil?
  9. I brought the Palestinian issue because it's inconsistent to take oppression/worldly state of Israelites to be divine punishment, but not that of others oppressed. And Jews don't believe they rejected a true Prophet...it hardly makes sense generations later should be punished for crimes of ancestors. The miracles of Jesus is not amongst the people now and there is no historical evidence of such miracles and even arguable no historical evidence of Jesus existing. Why should Jews be punished all because one generation rejected miracles shown to them? It doesn't make sense at all....
  10. As for belief in God, if God is defined be the Creator or the Greatest Being, then most of humanity has believed in in this concept. It's similar to how most of humanity believes in (objective) morality. Humanity differs on the details of (objective) morality but also agree upon key points. In fact, as far as belief in what type of God, it's all linked to our view of morality. Unfortunately most of humanity get's their view of morality distorted by culture and religion as well as other factors. It doesn't make sense to say humans haven't believed in morality just because they were wrong on some of it's details or rejected some it's objective commands. In the same way, it makes no sense to say someone doesn't believe in God just because their idea of the Creator/Ultimate Being differs.
  11. You know it took me 5+ years to realize the words "nothing prevented us from sending signs except that the former people rejected them" means exactly that, and doesn't mean "nothing prevented us from sending the signs but that we would have punished them but out of our mercy didn't want to do so". It will take time to realize what the phrase says. 1) There is only one reason that God didn't send signs up to that point. 2) That reasons is nothing else but that former people rejected them. Adding all sorts of reasons and factors won't do away with the problem of the verse. Even if this was stated to be the reason as you say, it would be inconsistent and enough to raise eyebrows, because all in the past people were sent signs and God's mercy never prevented him? What is he a special God towards Arabs? He is merciful towards them but not towards others? If he can stop his ways of sending signs out of mercy, he can also stop punishing those who reject his signs.... At any rate, on top of that, he ends up sending a miracle (moon miracle).... On top of that, it's saying Quran miracle was not clear enough to warrant punishment, which shows it's not a decisive proof. Yet they are going to be tortured eternally forever in hell, due to rejecting Quran.... All this is inconsistency. Imagine a modern day Prophet comes along and says he confirms all the Prophets of the past. When asked why he isn't sent with miracles, he says it's out of a mercy...previous people were sent miracles God's mercy didn't prevent that from happening....but now God wants to be merciful for a change. Three questions people can pose: 1) Why isn't he merciful to past people and sent them miracles when he knew they would reject? 2) Why is he specially merciful towards us now, what makes us special? 3) Why God can't be extra merciful and send signs and not punish for rejecting? But imagine a modern day Prophet comes and doesn't even say "it's God's mercy I am not sent with signs..." but instead says "it's because it was always rejected in the past by majority of the people!". Would it make sense at all? No. It would like the worse reason you can come up with. But this exactly what Quran states.
  12. I think this question ultimately relates to two debatable parts: 1) Is disbelief in God enough to make someone unrighteous/bad/unjust/evil? 2) If you are unrighteous/unjust/bad/evil, should you be tortured? The answer in Quran seems to me to be yes to both, if you disbelieve in God, it makes you unrighteous/unjust/evil. And if you are bad/unjust/unrighteous, you should be tortured forever (there is verses that show it's forever contrary to what Muslims often claim and contrary to what hadiths say, and I'm not talking about the words "khaleedon" or "Abada", but rather phrases like "and they will never come out of the fire""we will not decrease the punishment"). I believe however these answers are in the negative. Torture is just cold, and there is all sorts of others way to punish that are more reasonable. And should a punishment be eternal is another question. It's different to state it's just, as everyone will argue the other side is the one stuck in plato's cave and there idea of justice is distorted, but should justice in this instance override mercy and compassion? That is the other part of the question to number 2. My honest advice would be once you actually know the answer to these questions, it will be very clear. And my honest opinion is that Muslims believe yes and yes to both these questions simply because their religion teaches so and that they believe their religion is correct. And these questions are existential questions about what it means to be a human. Why? Because our concept of ultimate greatness and ultimate morality is linked to what we believe makes a human great or moral. Ask yourself what you sincerely believe deep inside your heart and listen to the inner messenger of God within the soul. What do you believe about love? What you believe about justice? What do you believe about your fellow humans whom don't believe in God? What do you believe about compassion and mercy?
  13. NadM, I feel you don't address my points and are just making up your own sentences where-ever you want. You can always says "this means this and that" , and say it to mean what you want, but the phrase won't imply it, if the words don't mean that. Case in point for example, you are emphasizing it's God's Mercy that made him prevent sending signs to Mohammad up to that point, but the verse states a completely different statement. All the other factors you mention are also not stated in the phrase. In other words, I can't really argue with you when you are going to say "this means this and that" and put any phrase you want. Doing good has a practical meaning every society has been aware of for a very long time. If are you going to change it to "it's only good when this and that", sure you can solve the contradiction, but it doesn't convince me. It might convince others, I don't know, but I do believe everyone including those whom reject Islam are capable of doing good deeds. This is different then stating they are righteous and not unjust, and I do believe that they can be righteous and not unjust as well, but that's a different topic. If it says "those whom believe not in our ayat", doesn't mean "whom willfully reject our ayat"..sorry but I can't see the conversation going anywhere where you simply make every sentence mean what you want it to mean. Also why are future generations punished for past generations in the case of Bani-Israel example? The point is that generation was not punished. And since when did oppression of others consitute a punishment of God upon a nation? Is God punishing the Palestinians now?
  14. When the disbelievers make such requests, it is only because they are seeking excuses for their disbelief, or to side-track the issue of worshipping only One God and rejecting their false gods 6:36"Only those accept who listen". In the NT, Jesus is reported to have rejected his taunters' request to perform a wonderous sign, precisely due to that reason Mk8:11-13. When a warning sign is manifested through a prophet and the people reject it, their time of respite during which they are given opportunities to mend their evil ways expires and they are destroyed because such manifest sign leaves no more room for speculation.
  15. I don't think burden of proof lies on anyone. You can always state a belief/opinion, without needing to prove it. Just don't get upset at others not accepting your claim if you don't have proof for it.
  16. Friend or Foe? Another issue is that it said in one Surah not to befriend/love your enemy and enemy of God. Then it is also said in the same Surah that God only forbid you from befriending/loving those whom fought them and drove them out of their homes, and that he doesn't forbid you from those whom have not fought them. The logic conclusion would be only those whom fought them are enemies of God. However this is contradicted in Suratal Baqara where it is said God is the enemy of disbelievers. Moreover in Suratal Fatir, it is stated that God hates disbelievers with a strong hatred (the word maqtan denotes a strong type of hatred). Naturally whom God loves people should love, and whom he hates people should hate. Then you also have verses in Suratal Maeeda that although can be argued to mean other then friendship, context as Tabatabai shows, shows it to mean friendship, and it was forbidding it with people of the book. At any rate, those verses are not necessary to show the contradiction, what has been stated previously is enough.
  17. Suppose Quran has contradictions. Suppose this is true. If a person can always change the sentence into what they want it to mean, for example, in verse 17:59 add all sorts of reasons and factors, that has vague support from Quran, and then argue the verse is stating all these reasons, sure you won't have a problem with anything. You can change every sentence. But if that's true, whether the Quran is from God or not from God, you won't find contradictions in it because everyone can change sentences. If this is true, then this alone refutes the notion in Quran that if it was from other then God, you would find in it much contradictions. Rather, if all sentences are up to subjective interpertation and there can't be any objective analysis of any of the words, then whether it was from God or not, people would not be able to find in it any contradictions. It would unfalsifiable. I don't think it's as subjective as you may think it is. The structure of the language here is very simple, and the sentences can be broken down to: a) Desire the life of this world. B) Will having nothing in hereafter but hell fire and will not be given from the next world c) Desire the next world d) Will be given from next world. a -> b c -> d Desiring both: a and c -> b and d b and d contradict, and hence we have a contradiction. a and c don't contradict and is the norm of most people.
  18. "Desires the the life of this world" (a) "Will have nothing but hell-fire in next world"(B) a ->b This is what I understand from the sentence. Anyone with property (a) will have property (B). Desires the next world © Will be given from next world(d) c -> d What I'm saying is that a and c are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to desire both. Your sentence more resembles like this.... "Desires the the life of this world" (a) "Will have nothing but hell-fire in next world"(B) "Are devoid of God consciousness"(e) "Neglectful of the hereafter"(f) a and e and f ->b But that is a whole different sentence from the original. The original sentence simply said whomever desires the life of this world will have nothing but hell fire in the next. But even if this is true, even if they must be neglectful of the hereafter, and devoid of taqwa, it's still possible to desire heaven. And in fact, most people whom don't concentrate on the next world and often do things to God's displeasure (per their religion) and are sinful, still believe in God, do some good deeds, and desire heaven. They don't desire to become nothing, nor do they desire hell, which shows logically they desire a good life in the next world. So this would not solve the issue anyways. The contradiction will still remain. Here are three more issues not covered in 28 issues: 1) Signs only sent to cause fear: [shakir 17:59] And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the ancients rejected them; and We gave to Samood the she-camel– a manifest sign– but on her account they did injustice, and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear. [Pickthal 17:59] Naught hindereth Us from sending portents save that the folk of old denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel – a clear portent save to warn. [Yusufali 17:59] And We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil). This verse was already brought up before. However what was discussed was the issue of why signs were not sent. Right now the focus is on why signs are sent in the first place. And here the reason also seems not to make sense. It is said signs are only sent to make people fear. But does that make sense? Let’s think about. Signs by definitions are proof. So this would mean the only thing God desires to do with proving Messengers are causing people to fear. As opposed to causing people to believe and that belief to be followed up by loving the virtues taught by God and following the right path, the motive is simply to make them fear. Not to hope, not to love, not to be good out of love, but to make them fear? Such a reason is absurd. Obviously signs are proofs and should make people know the truth. The purpose of showing the truth shouldn’t be simply to make people fear and live in terror. Perhaps this can a be a purpose, but not the only reason. Moreover such a notion is contradicted by Quran. In other places it said Messengers are sent so people rise up with justice, and to bring them from the darkness to the light. “Signs” are automatically proofs and evidence of a Messenger, and is connected to God wanting people to know the Messengers are telling the truth, which is connected to the purpose of God sending Messengers. So this cannot be the only reason of sending Signs per account of Quran as well. The premises are as follows: 1) God sent signs to prove Messengers are true... 2) the purpose of proving them to be true is not simple to cause fear but to guide people from darkness to light, and to teach justice and virtues, and such a motive cannot be simply out of fear. 3) Therefore the notion that signs are only sent to cause fear would contradict Quran. 4) The Quran states signs were only sent to cause fear. 5) Therefore Quran contradicts itself. The syllogism is as follows: Signs are sent to provides proofs for Messengers. Messengers are proven to be followed. They are to be followed so that people can rise up for justice, be brought of darkness to light, and embody virtues. Therefore Signs are sent for more then causing fear. Now for it be only sent for fear....either the purpose of rising up for justice, being virtuous, moving from darkness to light, is all for fear or that fear is suppose to be the underlying motive for all that. It cannot simply just be a factor, but must be the motive. But both of these notions are absurd and contradict Quran. For example, hope in God, wanting to please him, love of God, these are suppose to be motives not simply out of fear. Also, the Quran has the goal of being purified and completing his favor is to be make it to the state of appreciation. Is appreciation something that should be motivated by simply fear? Can non-believers be guided? 1) Those whom don't believe in God's Ayat, God will not guide them (16:104) 2) God guides to faith.(49:17) 3) To be guided to faith, one must leave state of not believing to believing. 4) Therefore to be guided to faith, one must be guided while they do not believe in God's Ayat. 5) God says he doesn't guide people in that state. 6) God says he does guide people in that state. 5&6 contradict. Believing in God and doing good enough to enter paradise? íóæúãó íóÌúãóÚõßõãú áöíóæúãö ÇáúÌóãúÚö ۖ Ðóٰáößó íóæúãõ ÇáÊóøÛóÇÈõäö ۗ æóãóäú íõÄúãöäú ÈöÇááóøåö æóíóÚúãóáú ÕóÇáöÍðÇ íõßóÝöøÑú Úóäúåõ ÓóíöøÆóÇÊöåö æóíõÏúÎöáúåõ ÌóäóøÇÊò ÊóÌúÑöí ãöäú ÊóÍúÊöåóÇ ÇáúÃóäúåóÇÑõ ÎóÇáöÏöíäó ÝöíåóÇ ÃóÈóÏðÇ ۚ Ðóٰáößó ÇáúÝóæúÒõ ÇáúÚóÙöíãõ {9} [shakir 64:9] On the day that He will gather you for the day of gathering, that is the day of loss and gain; and whoever believes in Allah and does good, He will remove from him his evil and cause him to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide therein forever; that is the great achievement. [Pickthal 64:9] The day when He shall gather you unto the Day of Assembling, that will be a day of mutual disillusion. And whoso believeth in Allah and doeth right, He will remit from him his evil deeds and will bring him unto Gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein to abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph. [Yusufali 64:9] The Day that He assembles you (all) for a Day of Assembly,- that will be a Day of mutual loss and gain (among you), and those who believe in Allah and work righteousness,- He will remove from them their ills, and He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that will be the Supreme Achievement. According to this verse, all one must do is believe in God and do good to enter paradise. However many verses show you cannot disbelieve in God's guidance (ie. his Messengers/revelations/books/Guides). It's also possible to believe in God and associate with him per this verse: æóãóÇ íõÄúãöäõ ÃóßúËóÑõåõãú ÈöÇááóøåö ÅöáóøÇ æóåõãú ãõÔúÑößõæäó {106} [shakir 12:106] And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him). [Pickthal 12:106] And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners (unto Him). [Yusufali 12:106] And most of them believe not in Allah without associating (other as partners) with Him Now the contradiction is 1) You can believe in God and deny Islam/Quran/his revelations. 2) You can believe in God and still be a Mushrik. Per the verse 64:9 if you do either of these, and you do good, you will enter paradise. Per other verse, you will be in hell. This seems to be a clear contradiction.
  19. NadM, I would respond but it's getting repetitive. Perhaps it would be better to move on to another issue?
  20. Lanat I agree that there are verses that teach to take the life of the world as a means to the hereafter, but I also see verses that teach the life of this world is only certain things like money, women, etc, and there are other verses that state the life of this world is only means of deception. If you look at the sermon I posted in Nahjul balagha, it teaches the world is not just means of deception, but in fact, the opposite, a lesson and means towards an honorable life that brings fruits in the next world. What I am seeing through all this is a contradiction along with the verses that forbid desire of the life of this world. You and others keeping saying "The Quran doesn't forbid desiring the world but only if you take as this and that", in your case, your stating if we take it as end. Others have different opinions, and don't have a problem of taking wordly things as an end, just as long as you don't prefer it over God or trade this world for religion or causes you disbelieve in the religion. At any rate, everyone is coming up with their own sentences, but at least your modification has support in other verses, it's just that while you see "aha this is what the verse means", I see a contradiction. Anyways, even if we go by your modification of the sentence "as an end", isn't it possible people both desire this world as the end, and still desire the next world? I mean think about this. In the west, people live for this world. Yet at the end, they still believe in God and the next world. They want to live for this world and work hard to achieve in it, yet they also want to be in heaven. And this is the other side of the equation. People can desire the next world, and be bad people. They can be people of other religions then Islam whom have even rejected Islam, but still desire to make it to heaven. I'm saying even if we go by your interpretation, it still doesn't solve the issue. When I wrote the problem I had in mind the interpretation you had anyways. I just suggested the fact we desire it as a means to an end, doesn't mean we don't desire it. I said this added to the problem already there. Anyways there is no need for insults and personal attacks.
  21. When I was a Shiite Muslim, there was a lot of things I couldn't see or rather what my mind would do, is substitute another sentence for the sentence there. As far as desire of dunya was concerned, I had a similar understanding to that Lanatin. That desiring it as a means is fine, but not as an end. When it came to the sentence of "except that the ancients rejected them", I made a complete different sentence in my mind. What is happening is that we are realizing the words themselves are absurd, so we must make a different sentence to replace it. In this case, Wing has replaced it already with three different reasons, none of them which are stated in the verse. The verse gives a very clear reason, in clear words, it's just that it's absurd. The same is true of desiring the life of this world. There is one verse that talks about the "harth of this dunya", but the other two verses use different words, and the one Suratal Hud says "hayatal dunya". The Quran also describes the adornments and the life of this world in in a very narrow sense which I disagree with. But what it comes down to the verse, I'm hearing this: "It's ok to desire the life of this world BUT don't... etc" and then we get various things like "don't neglect the hereafter" "don't desire it as an end" "don't prefer it over God/religion". The thing is, in "It's ok to desire the life of this world BUT...", the same words are used in bold in Quran, but it states whomever desires it, will have nothing in the hereafter but the hell fire. It's the same words people are saying except they are saying it's ok to desire it. And I feel there isn't too more to be said about that. I also posted how even if we assume this, it doesn't solve the issue (I went through why). Going back to the sign asked for, if you read through out Quran, it was all red herrings except for the one place it actually answered why God didn't send signs. And that for that, people make up their own reasons to why God didn't send signs other then what is stated. Stating he didn't feel like it then also doesn't do much justice, because obviously there has to be a reason as to why God doesn't feel like sending it then. And factor in that Moses was sent with signs from beginning, there should be a reason for inconsistency. At any rate, making up your own reasons, as opposed to what the verse states, leads no where. The best attempt at a solution was what .Inshallah. stated in another thread about this issue. I analyze the reasoning here: A person once mentioned that perhaps the verse is saying somehow people in the past rejecting signs caused signs to become ineffective to the future. The first problem I have with this, is that it being ineffective is not the cause stated, and it makes no sense God wouldn’t just state this at the cause. The next problem is to be a direct cause, it has to imply it will be ineffective in the future. But if this was the case, they would’ve been ineffective in the past, and hence not sent for the same reason. Another problem with this, is that it implies people don’t have free-will to decide to be logical and accept proofs. People actions in the past can’t force people in the future to be illogical, at most it can be a factor and influence. Also God not giving them excuse and making it look towards future readers that miracles were sent, is a good reason for God to send miracles. God sending miracles would show consistency in his way of Prophets. Also he can strengthen faith of believers by miracles so this provides an alternative purpose. Another thing to consider is that Quran being a binding proof is not even a factor stated in all this. Why is this important? Well because there needs to some evidence of Islam being true. Whatever it is, be it Quran or Mohammad’s character, or anything, it has to be a factor as to why God would not send miracles. There being already evidence would have to be such a factor. Because in absence of this factor, it would imply that God doesn’t care if there is “evidence” or not. So it must be a factor. It cannot be the cause, because revelations in the past were sent to be guidance as well, yet their Prophets were sent with miracles/signs as well. This is a missing factor. In other words Quran should definetly be part of the equation as to why God would not sent miracles. There being evidence of Islam being true should be a factor. Discussing with Muslims, about the issue of not being sent with signs, they always mention how Quran was a sufficient proof. Of course, there needs to be proof in absence of miracles, as a factor as to why God would not send signs, although it would not be a sufficient reason it self.
  22. Sure you do. You have to follow Sunnah. To do that you have to follow hadiths narrated by companions. To do that you have to follow Tabieen whom narrated from companions. To do that you have to follow people whom followed Tabieen. To do that, etc, and the end...when you start questioning people your community has chosen to trust...your whole foundation breaks down. Because if you can't trust whom your community chooses to trust due to various factors, then your whole foundation falls. This is why many Sunni scholars realize Mauwiya is a door, if you don't protect him, but rather, If you chose to distrust him, then you are going against the verdict of the community on whom is trustworthy or not. And if you do, that, like a house of cards, it all falls down. Why? Because if you can't trust Mauwiya and Aisha...then your community was wrong on whom is trustworthy and whom is not. Whatever few leaders you followed that said they were trustworthy were wrong. And if they are trusting people not on knowledge and distrusting people not on knowledge, your as basically relying on their fallible opinion which can be no more then what they WANT to be true. Whom they WANT to trust, they will trust. And whom they want to distrust they will distrust. Case in point, one man narrates tons on virtues of Abu Baker and Umar, want to trust him, as long as we see nothing wrong or strange in what he narrates. One man narrates virtues of Ali that favor Shia Imamate, don't want to trust him, because he goes against our school. Don't you think this is kind of what happened? You really don't know whom is trustworthy and whom is not, it's rather, people whom were narrating what is consistent with one's school, despite what school he followed, that were deemed trustworthy? Or at least, in the narrations people knew about him.
  23. Wing, I replied to your post. I just don't know whether it's going to get accepted or if it's been rejected.
  24. If non-existence is taken literally, then things were non-existence at the same time that God exists and there was never a period when nothing didn't exist (God always exists) nor will there be a time when God doesn't exist (so non-existence hasn't come about yet). However if you take creation has non-existence aspect to it, then this line would make sense. I thought about this line a lot while a Shia Irfani/Sufi WF type. The only thing is what does it mean to have non-existence aspect? This to me only made sense that the negative qualities, that exist only as polar opposites towards the true living qualities of God. Darkness and light are problematic, in that darkness is only the absence of light. Therefore a better analogy would be that it's the negative existence, like negative numbers towards positive numbers. It's not simply zero (absence of light), but -1, -2, -3. It exists in a imaginative reality, in our conscious, in polar opposite to the positive existing reality (positive qualities). In other words, evil exists within in our minds, in polar opposition to the existence of good. Goodness however is not just imaginative, but has a substance, a positive existence. We feel "less" as living beings when we do evil, because it's negative, while "more" when we do "good" because it's positive. But evil has no "real" existence, it's a polar negative towards the positive qualities which in fact do have a real existence that are being constantly created. I took this to be the "face of God" that "remains". Perhaps it can even be said the positive and negative is like an equation, you can either be more negative then positive (objectively evil) or more positive then negative (objectively good).
  • Create New...