Can’t have light without dark. Can’t have good without evil. Otherwise you just have boring stagnation. God likes chaos and excitement, not boring safety.
Why can’t you have light without dark? If you sped up all the molecules in the universe to the point that they were all radiating heat, you would have light without dark.
How would you know it’s light if there was no dark to contrast it ? Light only exist because dark surrounds it, and dark only exists because light surrounds it. One cannot exists without the other.
If I show you a black circle on a white paper you would point at the black and say “this is the thing that is drawn on the paper”. If I were to show you a white circle on a black paper, you would point at the white instead with the same statement. If I showed you an all white paper and told you there is a white circle on it, you would tell me I’m an idiot and that there is nothing there. Contrast is why something exists.
I understand you want to counter this statement with physics, and we could have a rich debate about what we know of the universe and how light and it’s absence exists in it. But I think you misunderstood what we are talking about.
This statement is about philosophy, light and dark are metaphorical here. We could just as well say “up cannot exists without down”, or “day cannot exists without night”. The next step to this philosophical thinking is to realise that since one cannot exists without the other, therefore they are the same thing.
A judge might have a “right” to punish people for things they didn’t know were wrong, but this is a judge who created those people without giving them the capacity to know right from wrong in the first place and then punishing them for doing the wrong thing anyway.
And of course a Christian apologetics website is going to give the kindest possible interpretation to that passage.
I’d also note that it’s part of the Jewish half of the Bible, so maybe finding out what Christians think about what it means is the wrong way to go about convincing people of your point. Maybe consult a Rabbi’s interpretation instead.
It always complete the picture to understand that the creation myth used in the Bible was not Jewish or Christian in origin. It was an appropriation of a pagan myth of the era. Like most Christianity, it is just a syncretism to make the cult palatable to the newly recruited. “Oh yes, that thing that you already believe in was totally our god”.
I think all major religious myths, like languages themselves, are derivative of previous myths on some level. Sure, there was a proto-mythology at some point, but it expanded, changed, etc. until it divided into multiple religions. And, of course, Judaism beget Christianity beget Islam, but all of them took other religious myths that were popular at the time and wove them into the tapestry.
I think they mean more like in say Europe where Christianity came in, took cultural events etc for other religions and claimed it as their own rather to make conversion easier.
This is colonial thinking. “Civilization just happens to be the natural evolution of what I am doing. Your ways are barbarian backwards savagery”. It is the same logic.
There’s nothing natural or linear in religious belief. Catholicism itself is fragmented into hundreds of sects, and so is every single religion ever to have existed. Adapted to the particular capricious vanities of the local clergy and the established local customs. Christians taking some Jewish elements was just a manipulation tactic. I’m also sure some Islam sects would behead you for suggesting that Islam is a derivative of Christianity. The theory of a proto religion is also wrong, we know for a fact that not all of modern religions started from the same proto-belief, but ancient religions are actually quite varied and distinct.
I didn’t make a claim even remotely like that. I was not talking about superiority in any way. I’m not a Muslim and what you’re saying I’m claiming would only make sense if I was a Muslim since that was the end of the “evolution” I was talking about.
Would you make the same claim about proto-languages, that modern languages are not derived from them?
Yes, any proto-whatever theory is colonialist in essence. It’s a very heated argument in anthropology, sociology and social psychology. The current consensus is that it is only valid for the indo-european migration, and a version exist for the proto-sino-tibetan migration. But, we understand that it can only be claimed to apply thus far, and with all sorts of modern ideological biases and caveats. Both language and religion are extremely complex social phenomena that have independently appeared all throughout history. And every time they have their very unique and distinct qualities. There’s no unified tree of languages that has enough evidence to be authoritative. And there’s no such linear derivation equivalent for religion. It is all just pop-sci feefees.
Wait… you’re saying that languages aren’t actually derived from older languages and anyone who thinks so is colonialist?
Because I would look into where the ‘ist’ suffix in ‘colonialist’ comes from. Believe it or not, it didn’t pop into existence along with the rest of the English language.
I’m sorry you don’t like it that Judaism was derived in great part by Babylonian mythos which, themselves, likely were derived from a previous mythos, but I’m not sure what that has to do with colonialism or any idea of superiority and I’m sorry you don’t like the simple fact that we can point to specific stories which eventually made their way into Judaism and then on to Christianity and Islam.
As for why that is linear? Because that’s how time works. The Babylonians came first, then the Jews, then the Christians, then the Muslims. And each one derived their religion from the previous one.
Ffs, this is why I never engage with you. You’re so thick skulled, nuance is always lost on you. It’s like “bad faith argument, the person”. Enjoy your strawman, you built it, you can keep it.
Insulting me won’t change the fact that each of those religions was derived from the previous one in a linear fashion.
In fact, you have been insulting me this entire time. You claimed that I was doing some sort of colonialist superiority thing. As I said, that only makes sense if you are talking about Muslim superiority and Islamic colonialism, something that hasn’t happened in a very long time. I’m not Muslim and I also don’t think there is anything superior about any of those other Middle Eastern religions that ended up spreading around the world.
I just don’t know why you think oral history and folklore being passed down from generation to generation doesn’t happen when it’s the only way we have left to learn about many indigenous peoples’ histories. Sometimes by getting them from multiple groups and figuring out what truths can be gleaned by the similarities.
Go a step before that. Why’d God put the tree there in the first place?
God created sin, introduced it to humanity, and ensured evil would spread across the earth.
True. He even admits it in Isaiah:
Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Can’t have light without dark. Can’t have good without evil. Otherwise you just have boring stagnation. God likes chaos and excitement, not boring safety.
Why can’t you have light without dark? If you sped up all the molecules in the universe to the point that they were all radiating heat, you would have light without dark.
Plus, admitting that God cannot create light without dark or good without evil means admitting God is not omnipotent.
You win this round, science.
Only if that heat radiation would be evenly distributed - otherwise you would have a gradient which still results in duality of light/dark
There are also places that are relatively empty, which would result in a more typical darkness
Also, speeding everything in existence up to the point of luminance is kind of tricky, what with natural law and all
Pretty sure almost all the matter we can interact with does produce blackbody radiation
How would you know it’s light if there was no dark to contrast it ? Light only exist because dark surrounds it, and dark only exists because light surrounds it. One cannot exists without the other.
If I show you a black circle on a white paper you would point at the black and say “this is the thing that is drawn on the paper”. If I were to show you a white circle on a black paper, you would point at the white instead with the same statement. If I showed you an all white paper and told you there is a white circle on it, you would tell me I’m an idiot and that there is nothing there. Contrast is why something exists.
That’s not how photons work.
I understand you want to counter this statement with physics, and we could have a rich debate about what we know of the universe and how light and it’s absence exists in it. But I think you misunderstood what we are talking about.
This statement is about philosophy, light and dark are metaphorical here. We could just as well say “up cannot exists without down”, or “day cannot exists without night”. The next step to this philosophical thinking is to realise that since one cannot exists without the other, therefore they are the same thing.
I guess that shows that the real world is not compatible with such philosophies.
Christians: God is Lawful Good.
God: Actually more like Chaotic Neutral.
*Chaotic evil
God likes Nascar? For the crashes.
Calamity or disaster is a better translation. Looking at God as a judge, it’s His right to render a verdict and enact punishment.
Pretty good article on this verse and what it’s actually saying. https://www.str.org/w/does-isaiah-45-7-teach-that-god-created-evil-
A judge might have a “right” to punish people for things they didn’t know were wrong, but this is a judge who created those people without giving them the capacity to know right from wrong in the first place and then punishing them for doing the wrong thing anyway.
And of course a Christian apologetics website is going to give the kindest possible interpretation to that passage.
I’d also note that it’s part of the Jewish half of the Bible, so maybe finding out what Christians think about what it means is the wrong way to go about convincing people of your point. Maybe consult a Rabbi’s interpretation instead.
It always complete the picture to understand that the creation myth used in the Bible was not Jewish or Christian in origin. It was an appropriation of a pagan myth of the era. Like most Christianity, it is just a syncretism to make the cult palatable to the newly recruited. “Oh yes, that thing that you already believe in was totally our god”.
I think all major religious myths, like languages themselves, are derivative of previous myths on some level. Sure, there was a proto-mythology at some point, but it expanded, changed, etc. until it divided into multiple religions. And, of course, Judaism beget Christianity beget Islam, but all of them took other religious myths that were popular at the time and wove them into the tapestry.
I think they mean more like in say Europe where Christianity came in, took cultural events etc for other religions and claimed it as their own rather to make conversion easier.
This is colonial thinking. “Civilization just happens to be the natural evolution of what I am doing. Your ways are barbarian backwards savagery”. It is the same logic.
There’s nothing natural or linear in religious belief. Catholicism itself is fragmented into hundreds of sects, and so is every single religion ever to have existed. Adapted to the particular capricious vanities of the local clergy and the established local customs. Christians taking some Jewish elements was just a manipulation tactic. I’m also sure some Islam sects would behead you for suggesting that Islam is a derivative of Christianity. The theory of a proto religion is also wrong, we know for a fact that not all of modern religions started from the same proto-belief, but ancient religions are actually quite varied and distinct.
I didn’t make a claim even remotely like that. I was not talking about superiority in any way. I’m not a Muslim and what you’re saying I’m claiming would only make sense if I was a Muslim since that was the end of the “evolution” I was talking about.
Would you make the same claim about proto-languages, that modern languages are not derived from them?
Yes, any proto-whatever theory is colonialist in essence. It’s a very heated argument in anthropology, sociology and social psychology. The current consensus is that it is only valid for the indo-european migration, and a version exist for the proto-sino-tibetan migration. But, we understand that it can only be claimed to apply thus far, and with all sorts of modern ideological biases and caveats. Both language and religion are extremely complex social phenomena that have independently appeared all throughout history. And every time they have their very unique and distinct qualities. There’s no unified tree of languages that has enough evidence to be authoritative. And there’s no such linear derivation equivalent for religion. It is all just pop-sci feefees.
Wait… you’re saying that languages aren’t actually derived from older languages and anyone who thinks so is colonialist?
Because I would look into where the ‘ist’ suffix in ‘colonialist’ comes from. Believe it or not, it didn’t pop into existence along with the rest of the English language.
I’m sorry you don’t like it that Judaism was derived in great part by Babylonian mythos which, themselves, likely were derived from a previous mythos, but I’m not sure what that has to do with colonialism or any idea of superiority and I’m sorry you don’t like the simple fact that we can point to specific stories which eventually made their way into Judaism and then on to Christianity and Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
As for why that is linear? Because that’s how time works. The Babylonians came first, then the Jews, then the Christians, then the Muslims. And each one derived their religion from the previous one.
Ffs, this is why I never engage with you. You’re so thick skulled, nuance is always lost on you. It’s like “bad faith argument, the person”. Enjoy your strawman, you built it, you can keep it.
Insulting me won’t change the fact that each of those religions was derived from the previous one in a linear fashion.
In fact, you have been insulting me this entire time. You claimed that I was doing some sort of colonialist superiority thing. As I said, that only makes sense if you are talking about Muslim superiority and Islamic colonialism, something that hasn’t happened in a very long time. I’m not Muslim and I also don’t think there is anything superior about any of those other Middle Eastern religions that ended up spreading around the world.
I just don’t know why you think oral history and folklore being passed down from generation to generation doesn’t happen when it’s the only way we have left to learn about many indigenous peoples’ histories. Sometimes by getting them from multiple groups and figuring out what truths can be gleaned by the similarities.