Judgment and Contrast
Comparison is the thief of joy. Theodore Roosevelt.
Dualism essentially consists of ongoing contrasts utilized in explaining concepts that causes a judgment. Can one produce a substance or object that causes darkness? Darkness is the absence of light. A flashlight has the capacity to produce light but when it is not operational then no light is produced and darkness ensues. Incidentally, there is no object that produces darkness without acting on an object that produces light. Then we have terms such as polarities and pairs that are not true to the dualistic concept such as a positive and negative. In a battery there are charges (positive and negative) and both are required for the battery to function and dissipate its charge and both can be defined without the other. Judgment is incorporated because we assume positive is always the good of the two but when the doctor says your test is positive for a specific disease that is not good. A pair is not opposites but simply parts that make up a whole.
The Dali Lama says love is the absence of judgment. Does love have a contrast? Is there such a thing as no love? If we understand God is love and He is omnipresent then there is not a place where love does not exist. Is hate the absence of love? Is fear the lack or absence of love? As God is everywhere then so is love and it seems not to have an opposite but simply a lack of manifestation. It is when love is not manifested that judgment is present. Without contrast judgment does not exist. Judgment only exists in duality and as love becomes dualistic rather than unconditional such as when man says do right and you are loved therefore blessed. Dualistic concepts promote judgment and non-dualistic concepts render judgment meaningless. Love is inherent in all men while fear must be learned.
Religion through duality replaces unconditional love with judgment whereas love is unconditional and nonjudgmental. Christian duality has its origin in fear and religion tries to separate and divide. Religion uses fear masked in dualist love (do right and you are loved) which causes a line in the sand as religion defines who is loved and who is feared. God is said to be feared because His perceived responses to mankind are interpreted outside of that love. In other words, His love is masked by the interpretations of His actions. This causes law to be based in fear while freedom is based in love. It is this freedom in love that causes man to see each person as a child of God and realizing love does not failno judgment necessary. But when a man sees or feels outside of the love of God which is impossible (Romans 8) or when the same man forgets he is loved then he forgets his origin in God and interprets the illusion of separation as a loss of God's love.
The Power of Contrast and its Causative Judgment
Is contrast necessary? Does it fulfill a purpose that God intended for His creation? For example, is it necessary to experience cold to know heat, to experience sour to know sweet, or hate to know love? To know God is love must I experience rejection and separation?
Linguists tell us in order to define something you have to describe its opposite to have a comparison or a reference point. Following this logic, Adam and Eve had to experience evil to know God's goodness. Good and evil only exist in opposites in the law and is defined based on acts of obedience. One can obey a command and not love the commander. The law (Duality) was the tutor that brought to light contrast but it was our placement (resurrection) in the Christ that dismissed the contrast through justification. The law simply allows discernment that the mark or target was missed and it does not produce righteousnessthe nature of God in man.
Perception is typically based on contrast and it is reasoned that light and darkness are imperceptible without the other and in this context there is a symmetry or balance to the contrasting elements. The idea of good and bad may be just a subjective labeling mechanism and while it may seem a requirement to us in our functionality and dealings with others; it is a useless method to God.
Contrast is an element that causes an apparent division or separation to show or demonstrate a difference. It tends to stress these differences in an unfavorable light in order to enlighten an opposite. Also, contrast is used in another sense to enhance or intensify a point of focus.
What was the first occurrence of contrast in the Bible? Upon first thought one might say when Adam blamed Eve as he said it was that woman you gave me. But on deeper consideration I think the first occurrence was when the serpent said did God not say... Keep in mind contrast points to variance and emphasizes differences rather than similarities. It also causes a sharpening of focus by contrasting light and dark elements. The power of variance in pointing out dis-unity is the focus that caused Adam to perceive lack and initiate blame.
Romans 8:20 discusses the casting of creation to vanity. Vanity is defined as being subjected to a vanquishing or disappearing state. The Weymouth Translation calls it failure and unreality. Being subject to vanity as the NKJV states means creation was brought to vanity by the appointment of another. Creation was placed in conflict. The etymology of the word conflict indicates a striking together. The etymology of contrast is to fight against or withstand. Did God subject man to vanity because of the appointment made by Adam? Did mankind place himself in conflict? Who subjected who?
Bullinger's Companion Bible says: 19 For the anxious looking with outstretched head of the creation waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 (For the creation was made to submit itself to disappointing misery, not willingly, but because of Him Who hath submitted Himself the same ) waiteth, I say in hope, 21 Because the creation itself also shall be set free from the bondage of corruption [ruin] into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Whoever submitted creation did so in hope. Hope is the expectation of either fear/evil or hope/good. Is God's omniscience such that He does not need hope? Hope as defined by Webster's is a desire of something good that is accompanied with an expectation of obtaining it or believes that what is hoped for is obtainable. Did God hope Adam would not fall? Did God subject creation in hope of something good coming from it? Or, did Adam have hope in remembering his walks in the garden that God could help them? They knew they were relocated as a result of their action but I believe they also had hope, they had an assurance in the love of their Creator they felt in the garden walk. They knew He could cover them and fix it.