From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<root.726157205@spssig>
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:14:08 UTC

In article <root.726157205@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>>>In article <78714@hydra.gatech.EDU>
>>>>rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>>>>>You know I consider the OT and NT vaild.  And the NT shines light
>>>>>on the OT, but yet too the NT comes from the OT, for the NT tells us
>>>>>what Jesus did, but the OT tells us he was coming.
>>>>You think what you know is the absolute right, the absolute truth. 
>>>Almost every religion makes this claim, implicitly or not.  That it holds
>>>the one, true way, and is the sole possesor of God's truth.  Christianity,
>>>Islam and Judaism sure do...
>>This statement is not correct. This kind of dogmatic thinking is largely
>>limited to the two great conversion religions: Christianity and Islam.
>Hardly 'not correct'...first of all, I said 'most,' and secondly, all three
>of the ones I pointed out fit the bill (ie those that make up >95% of
>western religion.  In any event, a religion is basically a system of
>truths, which generally rejects other systems of truths.

Judaism does not reject other religions or Gods. The LORD of the Hebrews
is the only LORD - of the *Hebrews*. Judaism is not a conversion religion
and there is no after death penalty or reward.

And, I find your definition of religion to be an insult to the word.
[Webster's II]:
religion: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted
as the creator and governor of the universe. b. A specific unified
system of this expression <the Buddhist religion>. 2. The spiritual or
emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existance of a superhuman
power or powers. 3. An objective pursued with fervor or conscientious
devotion <make a religion of a hobby>.

Why must your type of religion reject other types of religion? Why can't
I say that He whom you call Yahweh, I call Brahma or Kali or Buddha? Why
can't I say that He whom you call Christ, I call Krishna? What makes
your right The RIGHT and what makes my right The WRONG? What makes you
think that your beliefs are the only valid beliefs for everyone else?
What is this RIGHT/WRONG? GOOD/EVIL? Shoot an arrow of condemnation and
it will surely return.

>>For example, from the Hindu epic, The Mahabharata, Buck translation,
>>Yudhisthira talks to the lake of unquenchable thirst, his father Dharma:
>>Lake: "What is hypocrisy?"
>>Yudhi: "The setting up of religious standards for others is hypocrisy."
>>...
>>Yudhi: "I don't know what you think of all this."
>>Lake: "You answer well," said the invisible voice. "I am you father
>>Dharma. I came to test your merit, and I have found it true, and I
>>return your brothers to life."
>But Hinduism certainly claims that it is correct and true, nicht wahr? 

No, it does not make any such claim. Why should it? Notice above that
the Lake did not say, you answer correctly, the Lake said, you answer
well. If it can be said that there is a central concept of Hinduism, it
is probably dharma, meaning "do the right thing." And who knows what is
the right thing? Only you can know - for you.

>>>>You think that what you know of the NT is the absolute truth. 
>>>For a Christian this is a basic tenet.
>>Do you really mean this Steve? The NT may be the absolute truth, but
>>can one's *knowledge* of the NT also be the absolute truth? Can any human
>>claim to know the absolute truth, to be as the Gods? 
>No...you are correct...I dropped out the more or less confusing dogma, but
>I get your point.  Same thing Sean has been saying - we can never 'know'
>anything for absolute certain....

Aha! This is the transcendent, the world we do not know, that which we
do not understand. Knowledge of the transcendent means knowledge of that
which is beyond you and me, but if one gains knowledge of the
transcendent, what becomes of you and me? The Buddha was said to be
fully enlightened, knowing all, one with the one, transcendent. Yet,
Buddha returned to live the life of the human being, to restore the
favor, to play with the children, to participate joyfully in the sorrows
of the world. Why?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc