george@sysvis (09/17/85)
[...] A new "damager-god" you have? (To the tune of jewish mothers)
The "Damager-God" about which so much has been written of late: Is this
not the concept of "Shiva" in Indian Bhuddism? The "Yin" of Yin/Yang?
Why is this old concept being exhumed? Is it truly an old concept? Please
give some information on this ... (that is, someone who actually knows.)
Doesn't the "Yang" principle build, while the "Yin" principle tears down?
(destroys/damages?) Why is this concept, stated in this manner, alien to
"classical" Judaeo-Christians? Is this not basically the same as God/Satan?
What gives here? Where am I missing this? Metaphysicians to the rescue!
Paul Zimmerman needs to explain more about the totality of this rehashed
concept. Or do you, Paul, just pretend to believe in it? Can you summar-
ize the rest of your tautology and share it with us? Its certainly an
interesting idea for conjecture. I was not aware that the personal feel-
ing of being embattled or on-guard was so much a part of it, after some
earlier study that I did.
...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!georgepez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/20/85)
George, You attempt to relate concepts from eastern religions (Shiva from Buddhism and Yin from Yin/Yang) to the nature of the Damager God Himself. What you seem to miss is the erroneous assumption that evil is ``naturally'' coupled with good, that for every evil force there is a natural equal opposing good force. Rosen has beaten to death the term ``wishful thinking.'' But it certainly applies when we see people looking at the willful evil present in the world, and hypothesizing not only that there is another willful force respresenting good, but also that that good force is the ``God'' that they whorship. You ask if my ideas are basically rehashes of old ones. In a way, they are, as you have pointed out by showing examples of evil deities and forces. The big difference between my ideas and theirs (and also gnosticism) is that I choose not to make the assumption about the existence of a benevolent God that others do. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez
baparao@uscvax.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (09/22/85)
In article <-145727676@sysvis> george@sysvis writes: > ... > >The "Damager-God" about which so much has been written of late: Is this >not the concept of "Shiva" in Indian Bhuddism? The "Yin" of Yin/Yang? ^^^^^^^^^ ... Allow me to correct a factual error in the above posting: The deity known as "Shiva", is the third member of the Hindu Trinity, having no bearing on Buddhism, which latter I understand to ^^^^^ have been an atheistic (non-theistic perhaps?) path at the time of its origin in India. Shiva has no conceptual relationship with the anthropomorphic Christian "Damager-God" being discussed in this newsgroup. He does, however, represent destruction (not regarded as being inherently evil or good), which is considered to be the third of the three phases that Life is said to undergo (the other two being Creation and Growth, represented respectively by Brahma and Vishnu, the other two Gods of the Trinity). Shiva is also considered to be the masculine principle (Purusha) in creation, the feminine being Nature (Prakriti). Unfamiliar though I am with the intricacies of the Yin/Yang notion, I would conjecture that the Purusha/Prakriti interpretation is conceptually similar to Yin/Yang. I hope this clears up some of the confusion and misinformation about similarities between Judeo-Christian concepts of God/Satan and the Hindu religio-philosophical concepts. --Bapa Rao.
george@sysvis (09/24/85)
> What you seem to miss is the erroneous assumption that evil is ``naturally'' > coupled with good, that for every evil force there is a natural equal > opposing good force. Rosen has beaten to death the term ``wishful thinking.'' > But it certainly applies when we see people looking at the willful evil > present in the world, and hypothesizing not only that there is another > willful force respresenting good, but also that that good force is the > ``God'' that they whorship. You ask if my ideas are basically rehashes > of old ones. In a way, they are, as you have pointed out by showing examples > of evil deities and forces. The big difference between my ideas and theirs > (and also gnosticism) is that I choose not to make the assumption about > the existence of a benevolent God that others do. I understand what you have written here. You have also just told me that the universe itself is an "open system", rather than a "closed system". Are you ready now to take on the "big-bangers"? If not, then you need to let us all in on how "unipoles" exist in a closed system. Please advise. ...!ihnp4!sys1!sysvis!george robertson
pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (10/01/85)
George (Robertson), Could you explain why my beliefs imply that the universe is an ``open system'' rather than a closed one? It sounds like you assume that there must be some sort of definitive balance between good and evil, but this is not necessarily so, and there is no need to assume this. Nor is there a reason to assume that ultimately there is some balancing or good force. Be well, -- Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories pyuxn!pez