Thread title is misleading; "light" suggests superiority in stance, which is undecided at the moment. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say "another one changes theological position"
I think this is the first and only time Norsefire is actually right. The guy just changed theological position; in response to emotional life problems, no less. Not that big a deal, really.
Another becomes blind.. He he he at least some of us know we cant know and admit to being blind. Well I hope that the light does not burn. I would rather be a blind moth amongst a thousand hot lights, then spiral down to eventual pointless demise.
you know whats the worst pointless thing imo? the awful waste of time people spend praying and daydreaming about some imaginary deity,rather then doing something productive. you probably wouldnt admit god dont exist even if he told you so! it does happen you know Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.jhuger.com/mat_enlight.php
Not at all. Christians often use the phrase 'see the light', ignoring the fact that Lucifer, a name for the Devil, means 'Light Bringer'. Religion, it's all hypocrisy and double think. So anyway, you were talking bollocks, the word 'light' implies nothing.
Actually if you look at the posts above in this thread Norsefire is being more cautious and making less assumptions. His position is much easier to defend.
He is absolutely right. The word 'light' in a religious context and in the phrase 'sees the light' means a shift from ignorance to greater knowledge. If it is part of a move between two traditions of course it implies that the newly acquired one is superior. And note that neither Norsefire - who I tend to disagree with to a frighteningly high degree - nor myself are saying that the use of light is correct or founded in the title or OP.
No, you are wrong. 'Lucifer' means 'light bringer'. So deal with that dichotomy, don't just make an unsubstantiated claim.
That's all very nice about Lucifer being the light bringer, but the person, Scorpius, who uses the phrase in the title of the thread is an atheist. He links to an article where someone leaves religion to atheism. He is clearly using a phrase 'sees the light' in its usual sense of realizing the truth. He is clearly talking about someone he sees as having moved to a superior position. Norsefire's interpretation of Scorpius' use is correct. Christians, unlike me, may have to 'deal with the dichotomies' of the metaphor - or is it literal? - of light in Christianity. Perhaps you could start a thread.
but then he would definately exist,was that you point?i looked at the article but its long and im too stoned.
What like this one, Wrong: to see the light, a. to come into existence or being. b. to be made public. c. to begin to accept or understand a point of view one formerly opposed Sorry this is wrong, and is not an easily defended position as it is not possible, an atheist cannot change theological positions as he is moving from a theological position to an a-theological position the two are mutually exclusive. So Simon he isn't doing to well, however, my reply was sarcasm, for the mere reason that belief in a god/gods is pure assumption, or didn't you understand that.
What groundless assertion do you think I am making? Do you really think an atheist referring to a person who shifted from theism to atheism is not indicating by the phrase 'sees the light' that the person made a positive shift? Do you really think scorpius 'might' have been referring to Lucifer? Can you find someone using 'sees the light' to refer to someone listening to Lucifer? Have you ever heard that phrase used in that way? I can see where my wording was poor above implying that 'light' is always positive in religious contexts. I meant in that phrase light is always positive in religious, and for that matter secular contexts. Do you really differ on that one?
Obviously the only possible one in the context is c. I disagree with dictionary.com's neutral definition. Common usage means to move to a better viewpoint, behavior, etc. Further given the fact that you are an atheist talking about someone who moved from theism to atheism, I cannot see why I should take the title any other way than common usage. Only the latter part of your post is sarcasm. The first part is assertion This is not sarcasm, this is your belief. If not let me know. And the part in bold below was also not sarcasm. Snide perhaps but not sarcasm. Again you are making an assertion. You do think that the person in the link has improved his beliefs. You do think he has reached a superior position. Norsefire's interpretation is absolutely correct, especially in context.
lucifer is the latin word for venus, the morning star. thats all. the hebrew bible doesnt use the word lucifer. they didnt speak latin they spoke hebrew.
And why should you, "C" is correct ( to begin to accept or understand a point of view one formerly opposed) the common usage is correct,(to move to a better viewpoint, behavior, etc.) it was Norsefire interpretation that was incorrect, here it is bold Where in the common usage and dictionary versions does it suggest superiority. It just implies you have a better understanding. I would not know! the above quotes weren't stated by me, my sarcastic quote was this -- "LOL, and believing in a god is not, LOL. You people are so funny." The above quotes your replying too were made by Scorpius. Mine however was and is sarcasm.
