Nightingale-White Darkness Lyrical waste

Demilich said:
I don't think I did... strange that you see it that way :loco: I simply meant to suggest that he may not be the perfect Christian he seems to see himself as. Believe me, I have a lot of repsect for the well-meaning believers of this world, simply not the hypocritical, judgmental, holier-than-thou (in the truest sense of the term) individuals.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
A point to remember, which some have alluded to is the "Bible" is man's interpretation of God's word. I'm sure there are those on this forum who have experienced adversity in their lives. I strongly believe that adversity reveals character, not neccesarily builds it. That being said, God may bring pain and suffering into our lives, in order to draw us closer to him. It;s been said, by some I'm full of shit, well maybe I am, but for the human race to continue to flourish, we all msut have a strong core of a belief and value system. Those of my friends who are non-christian say, "look around you man, the disease, war, sickness and horrible death, if their truly was a loving God how could he let this happen"? Some have said, "People who believe in God are weak, they need someone to cling to in their adverse times, it makes it easier to have a God." Nothin's fuckin' easy in this life. It seems that those who don't believe are the weak ones, blaming God for everything instead of having the courage to look at themselves for our plight. It is Christians who are the courageous ones, it takes much strenght to love and honor God, to walk in his words and to have faith. Point your finger at me all you want and claim I am the "weak one" I am looking past this world, to the next life realm. Everything in this world rusts and gets old and fades away and eventually turns to dust. Not in the next realm, that is where I strive to be. Peace. All that said, this is a music forum, and I a Christian thing "White Darkness" is an excellent album.
 
Bravo Bloodsword! You are still on top of your game. The bible tells us to have fellowship going to Church and be kind to others. None of it is easy, and we endure constant criticism of others and much hypocrisy. Salvation is not for free. We have to be courageous and earn it. Why would heaven accept non repenting pedophiles, murderers, drunkards, greedy, haters and selfish beings? It wouldnt make sense. Some people just want to live this life and get drunk, drugs, sex and not give anything back and make others miserable. People will always point the finger at us my friend. Some listen, some reject you. You try to help and suddenly your the bad guy. Its all in the bible. But, we are of "Royal Sainthood" and no one can take that away when we go where moth and dust will not destroy. This life on earth is only a short, temporary step.
 
Sorry, this is LONG.
(main points designated by :::'s, subpoints of such are undesignated but follow.)

:::I agree with BloodSword that people shouldn't be blaming God (especially atheists, who believe in none) for the problems and evil in the world that we, humanity, have caused. Why should God be responsible if I decide to kill someone? Why should God be responsible for human crime? Because he allows it, perhaps? But if God were to step in and strike the knife from my murderous hand, wouldn't that defeat free will, and the right to choice? The world would be meaningless because evil action would be impossible.

Choosing between good and evil when evil is impossible is insignificant. You'll always do the right thing regardless. Either you choose it or God stops you. That's not a very free world and not a meaningful one. No, we are allowed to commit evil and we are allowed to choose between evil and good, and we have free will to do so, and face the consequences of our actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::There is an argument pertaining to so-called "natural evils" such as earthquakes and floods, but a solid rebuke (without the need to appeal to religious text) consists of the following suppositions:

If no deity exists, then you cannot fault the nonexistent deity for these events.

If it does exist, and we assume it to be the benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful kind that people often wonder about (indeed objection at all relies on these suppositions, for one cannot object unless one expects such a God to be just and good) then why should He/She/It allow such catastrophe to occur? Surely He (or She or It) has the power to prevent it. Yet He does not. We can say then that He desired this to occur.

Does knowingly allowing catastrophe of that sort contradict an all-benevolent being? Not if, in seeking the greatest good and most morally significant world for humanity, He has decided to provide opportunity for courageous choice and learning about the mechanism of evil. If we are ignorant of evil, then how can we choose between good and evil?

To have a purely good world (a kind of heaven) would be morally insignificant: your choices and actions are meaningless as your life, because every choice and action would necessarily be right. No, we must have evil in the world in order to appreciate and understand good. A choice between good and good is meaningless, but a choice between good and a multitude of evils is highly significant, if one chooses good. Such situations, as I said, provide the opportunity for courage. They also, as I said, provide knowledge of what evil we are capable of. If I see a rock fall on a man and unfortunately kill him, I and anyone I tell now also knows that men can be killed by dropping rocks on them. Knowing this, and not doing it, is significant.

You could argue that I had no choice when my house (hypothetically) flooded. This represents the case for which opportunity of courage exists, and knowledge of evil (that people can be inconvenienced and killed by flood) occurs. Though I had no choice in my house being flooded, I do have a choice in what to do about it. I could sit around, bitch and complain, I could loot other houses and commit crimes in my rage, I could blame other people for the flood, or I could help people, help myself to higher ground. There are still choices between good and evil.

Even in cases for which my house and myself are completely obliterated by a tornado. Later, others may find my bones and house wreckage and come to understand the fury of tornadoes, armed with that knowledge. The only case, which would be extremely difficult to make, is that in which God knowingly allows a person to die in a way that other people will not learn from it (because they never are able to discover evidence that it occurred), and the person dies so fast that they themselves have no opportunity for choice of action. Such needless death contradicts omnibenevolence, but I challenge you to create a plausible scenario for it. I have come up with only one, and it is extremely far-fetched.

As a side note, experiencing such disasters and surviving also provides the means for which we prepare for them in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::As for the superiority of so-called christians, I do not believe in it. We, like all humans, are born the same way and we die the same way. The actions of our lives and more importantly the motivations driving them, they will be the gauge of the quality of our lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::As well, I disapprove of forcing religion on anyone. Of any kind. I can approach you and tell you something is true. You may believe me. You may not. I can punch you in the face and tell you it's true. You may believe me or not. I can tell you repeatedly, hound you about it, even put a gun to your head. Perhaps you consent to believe me now, but only because I am coercing you. That is no way to "convert" anyone because you've done nothing positive.

If instead, you became curious about the way I lived my life and what drives my positive attitude, and asked me to explain, surely I would do so gladly. I will also note here that no matter what the situation, nothing can change what is actually true. Whether you believe it or I do or I do not, the truth needs no defending and cannot be altered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::I also note here that no human being, a finite intellect, can possibly fathom the infinity necessary for understanding the full truth of any moment, event, or concept. To do so would require observation from every possible vantage point at which the event, moment, concept, whatever, can be observed from, and the number of such points is infinite. We can approximate, guess, from our shared experiences but we are not perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::I'll close by saying that I consider myself a Christian, not a very good one (I aspire to improve though I recognize that I am no better than most people and certainly not a saint of any kind), that I refuse to cast away logic and reason as powerful tools for thought, and deem anyone who does a fool, and finally that Dan Swanö, Nightingale, and White Darkness are indeed excellent. :headbang:
 
If instead, you became curious about the way I lived my life and what drives my positive attitude, and asked me to explain, surely I would do so gladly. <<<

This paragraph is entirely realistic. I myself have had positive impacts on people-People have noticed that I do not use profanity for instance and it rubs off on them and I tell them about Christian values. Some people want to be better as Christians but have gotten off course- and seeing my actions re-inspires them.
 
I'm having trouble getting the whole walking in the right path and getting the right values as Christians...

what is good and what is evil anyway? it's what the religion tells you. those values are interpretations by people of the word of people who claim it's the word of God...too many people involved...not enough God.

as for what Bloodsword said about going to the other realm and leaving this one to crumble to dust...well ain't that selfish.
if you believe in Karma or an eye for an eye thing you'd surely know that God in order to teach you a lesson will have you return here in a different body until you learn the lesson and clean up your mess. as an individual and as a part of the humanity. Dying isn't the easy way out...dying in fact isn't the way out at all. it's not the other realm you're supposed to get to...it's this one that should be made a paradise.
 
gar977 said:
I tell them about Christian values...
Click to expand...

The main human characteristic prevalent throughout your posts seems to be prejudice.

It seems not to matter much what you are prejudging either, be it art, free thinking, the opinons of others or anything else for that matter.

To me (as a spiritual person against organised religion) you just reinforce my interpretations that organised religion can never be compatible with me.
 
Ilan, I see my long post lacked more clarification.

As my discussion was a philosophical, not religious one (as I stated), "good" is termed as that which benefits you and humanity as a whole (or on a smaller scale, that which benefits you and those around you) but not that which benefits you at the expense of others. (We call that self-interest, or self-good).

Consequently, "evil" can be considered 'unnecessary suffering' of yourself and those around you. Note my previous post for the reason why I bolded that word particularly.

No religious implications are necessary to explain. Such appeals to blocking terminology and concepts purely within a religious bracket and then dismissing them because religion is not a science, I find this practice to be superficial in terms of dealing with questions of reality. The subject I brought up, which again is a response to the attack on the existence of a benevolent god, replies to the question "If God exists, why is the world shitty?" by logical premise and conclusion, rather than appeal to religious text, as I have now said three times.

Though I am a religious person, for the second time I will reiterate that disposal of logic and reason as powerful tools of thought is a fool's errand, and only fools would blindly appeal to religion in questing for truth. Conversely as well, that which may appear to reside in a non-tangible category, can often be described with tangible rigor.

The short point is, I think it's foolish to automatically dismiss science, and I think it's foolish to automatically dismiss more ethereal matters.

As for my view on "paradise": No, this world can never be paradise. The mechanisms which I explained in my last post will illucidate why. The question then is, "is there free will in paradise?" To which I say yes, though those who make it to whatever paradise there is, shall be those worthy of it, and as such, despite the full ability to cause suffering and discord, they will not. Consider it a "greatest hits" if you will. :lol:

I have several views on the idea of karma. I believe we reap what we sow, consistent with the behavioral aspect of karma. I do not believe in reincarnations, for it seems that each life must learn different lessons, and at birth we are ignorant of all, so to be reborn is to be wiped clean of whatever one learned. A life in which error is possible, yet we are unaware of our past attempts. You could think of it as rolling the dice, and you only achieve paradise if you roll the singular winning combination. All others are meaningless, so this seems extremely unlikely to me. It renders the learning process useless and all non-winning lives purposeless.

I will not claim to have some spot saved for me in whatever paradise there is. I am not nearly so bold or egotistical as that. It would be presumptuous to claim something no one can possibly be capable of earning, especially before the full sum of my life's actions are weighed. I may yet do evil or good enough to change whatever status, if there is such a temporary thing, that I may now have.

Similarly, I mentioned that no one can possibly buy such a thing with their actions or possessions. If we cannot, for we finite beings are incapable of infinite perfection, then why believe it even exists? One may believe in paradise if it is given as a gift, undeserved as all true gifts are. To live for the next world as a reward unearnable is presumptuous and pompous. Rewards are given when earned, yet so many people feel as if their actions and good behaviour should be answered by prizes and goodies. Should one not act justly for love of justice? Should one not act in compassion for love of compassion, and not some expected prize? The prize-seekers are children who never transitioned to adulthood.

That should answer the current concerns of this thread. I enjoy responding and discussing this, and again reiterate that I do not consider myself an expert or figure of any authority, but simply offer my opinion and logical arguments with which to defend it, rather than uselessly casting out opinions. Simply, if I say something, you have no reason to believe any of it at all and in fact should not unless I give reasonable explanation as to why.
 
Some say they believe in God, other in themselves but ultimately, don't they mean the same, when they just look at it from another perspective?
Those who believe in God claim that he is always with them, guiding them. Isn't that the same that when you say you believe in yourself and in what you do? To me these people do the same but give it another name.

To me things go wrong when people or organisations start telling you what you should, and should not do. How on earth can you come close to who you really are when others tell you whats good for you?

I think everyone should find out for himself what's "true" and what is not. Too many people claim living the way they think is good while they're only doing what others tell them to do.

For myself, I think the Bible holds many blueprints for what is good to me, but at least as many things that don't appeal to my way of living at all.
I take pieces from everything I hear and see, judge for myself and use or discard it.
 
mleijzer:

No, I don't think it's the same as believing in oneself. It is important to be confident in oneself, without being prideful. I also feel that should a deity exist, for it to be worthy of the title 'deity' at all, it must be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. As a subset requirement for omnipotence, it must be able to be anywhere, any time. I see no reason why it should not be capable of omnipresence, then.

About organizations telling you what to think: Yes, I agree. It does not lend itself to truth and often can be used to manipulate people. I don't think people should do anything just because someone else told them to.

And similarly, I think people must seek the truth on their own, not because some others tell them to do such. I do not believe in relativism or subjective truth. By very definition, there can be only one truth about any single event or concept. People may interpret it different ways (since again we are finite beings and each piece of the whole truth that we experience may differ from those experienced by others). This does not mean, and I find it childish, to adopt the relativist's "what's true for you isn't true for me".
 
well Ken...I agree with many things yet I still disagree with some
but to each his own really.

just to make it clear on the reincarnation thing...it's based on the past lives i've seen when under hypnosis...no one planted any thoughts in my head.
I disagree about babies being born a clean slate...it may appear so because babies are indeed innocent and under no control of their life but surely there's some emotional baggage and characterists about your(or anyone else's for that matter) personalities that you were not taught by your parents, passed through genetics or get from your environment...this is in fact what makes your personality unique.
it's true that one must learn his own lessons in life, what I'm saying that these lessons are directed by karma...and as an infant not having karma is illogical (not having karma means your life trejectory is random and randomality does not exist in the "karmic" universe)...karma is closely entwined with past lives.

as for the paradise thing...the moment people start believing that their goal is to make a paradise of this realm...this is going to be a much better world to live in...it's not really possible but striving is almost as good. In general I don't think a paradise is possible in this realm or any other(so is hell for the same reasons) simply because it contredicts the ballance(between pure good and pure evil) that sets the universe in motion.Being in a place where everything is perfect becomes hell after a while.

that's the way I see it
 
Ilan,

Firstly, your argument is not scientific, which although I respect your opinion, cannot convince me because I can't experience what you did, so I have no way to know if I believe it or not.

Second, the elements through which you claim children are not clean slates, those elements take hold as the child grows, through the environment and genetics just as you said. But we would not need those things if we had them from past lives. No, we must learn them as we grow, just as you stated, because when born we are in fact ignorant of everything.

You seem to believe in karma. I ask that you explain why you do with evidence beyond personal experience. I cannot accept that life lessons are directed by karma unless you give adequate explanation, it would be a perfect example of blindly believing what others say. I agree that the consequences of our actions are reflected in our lives, no matter how old we are. I do not believe there are such things as past lives, and again cannot unless you provide explanation. I have given several arguments against the concept.

You said it yourself about paradise. I feel the same way. We can strive as much as we can to make this world a better place, but no matter how close we come, we can never fully make a paradise in this realm. As for the nonexistence of a paradise, I again disagree with you. Being in a place where everything is perfect, after experiencing a great deal of suffering, is ideal because one is capable of appreciating how great that paradise is.
 
about the paradise thing you are applying christianity, and some elements of the classic greek tragedy. to fully appreciate paradise you don't have to suffer...you have to experience growth from which you get understanding.
it's true that you can achieve growth from suffering but you also can achieve it from learning without suffering...therefore suffering isn't necessary.
all in all paradise as all other concepts is relative to "how bad things are here and now" which is a different concept for different people. if you are thinking of the other realm as a perfect one then there will be unity of the souls...as in a perfect realm there are no disagreements so a million souls is one soul it's the same thing and you get stuck at a constant perfectness.

now about the reincarnation thing...if you want a scientiffic explanation you must know the science(ie quantum physics)...if you see god as the quantum field that binds us all(zero point field), you can see souls as quantum energy.
this field is affected by wishes intention emotions etc...that's a fact(there are cameras now that can "sense" holes in the field which translates to someone being cursed either byhimself or by someone else).
so now when a person dies just as the particles that make his body don't vanish into thin air according to the laws of matter and energy preservation(basic newtonian physics)...so the quantum energy(or soul) of this person returns to the field(god)...as we are imperfect beings all the bad thing we've done or inteneded to do and not atoned for properly(ie learned the lesson) is going back to the field also.As the field strives for a certain ballance the "bad" energy is sent back to be "fixed"(emotional baggage and lessons unlearned from past lives).

now about the hypnosis thing...it's obviously not just my personal experience but experiences of many others some that actually found the people they saw themselves as under hypnosis in the records of another country some 100 or 200 years ago.
the fact that you can't do it isn't true...you can go under hypnosis and see for yourself. During such hypnosi people's brains were mapped and the left hemisphere was very active...the memory area had very little activity which indicates that the person didn't in fact remember these events but that he tapped to the field just as telepaths, healers, psychics etc do and since the field is not time dependant(also proven)...it contains present past and future.
basicly seeing past lives is like watching the future...you look at the past of where the quantum energy within you has been before.

you said in an earlier post that a moment cannot be grasped unless you look at it from all possible directions and that it's impossible
I tend to disagree...to look at every aspect of a moment you have to look at it from one demention above(to fully grasp a square you have to look at it from the third dimention which is hight), so all you have to do to grasp a moment is watch it above time...that's what the field is for.By tapping into the field(by meditation usually) you can grasp a moment by looking at the past and the future of it(ie from all directions) and see all that has changed how and why.

if you excuse me i'll go calibrate my improbability drive to 42 degrees and hope my engine doesn't catch fire...but even if so...i got my trusty towel to put it out.:D
 
Um... again you're using your own beliefs to justify your beliefs. While I respect them, I cannot agree even the slightest because you have no argument to make here. I am not asking for quantum physics, so please spare the sarcasm. I simply ask for logical and reasonable support. See my posts for examples. I appealed to no religious text or ideal, rather to philosophy and logic.

Again, remember that relativism is absolutely false. It is one of the most famous self-defeating concepts. What is true for me is necessarily true for you, because in reality there is only a singular kind of truth. Our perceptions of it may differ or each of us may be mistaken in what we believe truth is, but the actuality of truth is and necessarily must be, by definition, absolute. Do not mistake this as me saying I am right and you are wrong and you must agree. Absolutely not at all. To be crystal clear, there exists one truth. This truth consists of all things that are, by definition, absolutely true. For them to be true, they must be true for everyone. Thus, regardless of what either of us believes, there still exists that singular truth. It has often been phrased as "your view, my view, and the truth". Relativism supposes that both your view and my different view are both true simultaneously. This is false, and even a more juvenile response can destroy the basis of relativism by saying, "If relativism is true for all of us, then it being true is itself an absolute truth, so relativism is false."

I bring up relativism because concepts such as the existence of deities, karma, and others that affect all of humanity must not include relativism in their reality, or they are false. In other words, they must be true for everyone and must be consistent among everyone. What it sounds like to me is that your basis for belief are your experiences and the experiences of others, but I have not heard a sound logical argument justifying them. When I do, I may be inclined to agree. Your use of quantum physics was not in a manner widely agreed upon by scientific experts. As a member of the scientific field, though no expert in quantum physics, I am inclined to be suspect of its validity unless detailed correlations and logical explanations are given.
 
dude I was serious about the quantum physics...everything works through that field...yes I used my own beliefs to back up my beliefs
the difference is that my beliefs are backed up by science which sort of makes them fact.

truth is indeed singular but one moment is not the entire truth
one moment on its own is singular but the different way people interpret that moment affects the next one...this is not relativism...it's simple cause and effect.
questions of existance and karma cannot exist without relativism.
a wholeness is not relative to anything that is in fact true but within this wholeness there's constant motion to maintain the ballance that makes it what it is...these motions are affected by opinions, by wishes,by prayers, be emotions and what not and none of these gives an objective point of view therefore is prone to relativism.

if you want it pure and simple so here it is
the zero point field exists and scientist are trying to use the energy from the field for long distance space travel...fact
certain brainwaves affect the field...brainwaves that stand for wishing, praying jealousy and what not...fact
as well as frequencies affecting the field...the field affects people...affecting brainwaves which causes them to make good or bad decisions,feel good or dand...fact
cameras that can show holes in the field(which affect a person negatively) exist...fact
certain brain frequencies(in meditation)(alpha beta and theta waves) allow you to synchronize(or tap into) the field...fact
once you're in sync with the field...you have access to the entire truth...this is not fact but there are enough psychic people and healers to back this up
now karma is simply the way the field works...you affect the field and the field affects you. now the question of reincarnation rises when you're reaping something that you supposedly didn't sow.
when you ask why is it so during meditation you might see yourself some 200 years ago in another body in another country doing some sowing.
you can call it imagining or whatever, but it supplies the answers and it works...I dare you to find a more logical explanation
 
I'm sorry, but I have nothing more to discuss with you on this topic. The things you are calling facts I call opinions and or beliefs. I have yet to see any scientific evidence supporting them. I am still open to discussing anything with anyone so long as:

1. They do not support relativism. (As I painstakingly explained, it's a pointless, self-defeating concept that only blockades rational debate and inquiry). Two distinct minds cannot seek truth in anything unless we throw out the possibility that we are both, in our own worlds, capable of holding different truths and still both right. If such is the case and thus relativism is true, then our quest for a singular truth through discussion is void. There's no point in even talking about it because we are essentially on a different page. It's the same as saying "everyone has their opinions, let's leave it at that." No progress is made towards finding which aspects are more correct. Because it only hinders and cannot aid constructive argument, it is disallowed in intelligent discussion. Remember also that relativism disproves itself: For relativism to be true for all of us, it must be itself an absolute truth, yet relativism defines the universe as void of absolute truth. This self-contradiction nullifies the theory as invalid.

2. They supply reason for belief. Reason for belief cannot consist of the belief itself. That is known as begging the question. For example, a bad argument for god's existence would necessarily suppose in itself that god exists. You can't believe this argument because it requires you to already agree! Another way to think of why this is disallowed in intelligent debate is that when defining a word, you can't use that same word! It has no meaning then, the person looking at the definition learns nothing to see that "Debilitated- a person in a debilitated state." It again brings zero progress to discussion and is so irrelevant.

Hard scientific facts are not always necessary to supply as "reason", instead I ask for argument based with premises that lead to a conclusion - that the belief is true. Ideally, the premises are things that can be understood by the arguer's audience. To further outline the basics of discussion of this, a philosophical matter (the metaphysical question of what "IS" there out there?), the premises of any argument must all be true and must directly lead to the conclusion for the audience to agree, and if this is the case, they must agree if they admit they agree with all of the premises. Arguments without reasonable premises or with premises that pre-suppose the conclusion (begging the question) or ones in which the premises do not directly lead to the conclusion, or finally ones that contradict themselves, are arguments for which the audience should certainly not support the given conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Akiman (Korroosio.fi)
Nightingale in Media: White Darkness
Replies
19
Views
1K
Dan Swanö
Cerebus
C
Gurgelguff
Nightingale "BOX OF ROCK"
Replies
30
Views
7K
Dan Swanö
Gurgelguff
G
BrandonS
Nightingale - Florence Would Be Proud
Replies
4
Views
9K
Metal Interviews
florencecity
F
My Hearse Your Arms
Katatonia - Where does the darkness come from?
Replies
85
Views
4K
Katatonia
KittyKatatonia
K
stizzleomnibus
WAtV: Lyrical Similarities to other works
Replies
6
Views
2K
Dark Tranquillity
Naglfar
N
Top Bottom
Back