Re: Salinger turns to the Dark Side

Thor Cameron (my_colours@hotmail.com)
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:02:45 -0700 (PDT) 

Appreciate the response, buddy.
The only point of contention that I still have with you though, is the idea 
that Satan is a God.  From your own point, I do let the texts speak for 
themselves.  Please, tell me, in Christian texts and common mythology, how 
is Satan NOT a 'god'?  In name only, my friend, in name only.
Thor


>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.
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com