Re: Salinger turns to the Dark Side

Jim Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:35:13 -0400 

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Thor Cameron
<my_colours@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>
>>We do have to be careful when we're talking about the beliefs of 
>others
>>:)  I think that's one point that we both need to learn...
>
>You are so right.  I'm pretty arrogant, I know....
>

No more so than I :)

>
>>
>>If you define "gods" as "one possessing supernatural powers" then I
>>suppose you could say that.  But the Christian church rejected 
>dualism a
>>looooong time ago.
>
>Just because Christians don't want to use the word 'god' to define 
>Satan, 
>doesn't mean that he isn't one.  Look at Christian mythology & 
>literature 
>and tell me in what way he is NOT a 'god'.  He fits all the criteria, 
>and 
>has amazing powers & attributes that even many Norse, Greek, & Roman 
>gods 
>could not attain.
>

Well, that's the point.  If you import Christian figures into OTHER
mythologies they can well be called "gods."  But if you stay within
Christianity, then it just don't work.

If we're talking about Christian belief and the content of it, then
that's what we need to do, tho...

>>What you describe sounds more like Manicheaism than
>>Christian orthodoxy.  Evil beings aren't "separate" from God and
>>self-existent.  They're running on God's energy, so to speak, just
>>running in their own direction.
>
>Semantics, my friend.
>

Semantics are the basis of meaning.  It's a tendency of believers in
Vedic theology to downplay differences in theology, and a legitimate
expression of their own belief.  But if you want to honestly talk about
the content of other belief systems, you need to let them speak for
themselves :)

>
>Actually, if I'm reading you right, you're contradicting yourself.  
>First 
>you criticized the light side & dark side being the same forcve, now 
>you're 
>saying Lucas makes mutually exclusive.
>

HERE'S THE MISUNDERSTANDING :)

1. I never criticized the light and dark side being the same force.  I
said from the beginning that to argue that point we'd be talking about
first principles.  And that we'd have to establish some common ground
before we did so.  Otherwise, we'd just be saying, in essence, My
revelation is better than your revelation, nanny nanny boo boo.

2. I am criticizing Lucas' inconsistency.

>>I have a lot more respect for the Vedas.
>>
>
>Me, too.  At least they're more consistant than Lucas.
>

Well, then we've agreed all along :)

>Jesus, why am I defending Star Wars?  I'm not even a fan.
>Jim, one more: What's your view of the force in the light of the 
>Upanishads?
>Thor

I think it goes half way.

Jim

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.