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.726244358@spssig>
Date: 5 Jan 1993 20:00:38 UTC

In article <root.726244358@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>>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...
>>>Uhm, my reading of the OT seems to say that YHWH is 'THE' God, and no other
>>>God's may come before Him...I may be wrong, but I was pretty sure that
>>>Hebrew monotheism denied the existence of other Gods...
>>Only for Hebrews. Genesis3:22(JPS): And the LORD God said, "Now that the
>>man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should
>>stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and
>>live forever!" Most tribal religions are like this, there is one set of
>>deities for the tribe, but they are of course only for the tribe. Other
>>tribes have their own deities, maybe stronger, maybe weaker. Once you
>>make the claim that your religion is the only true world religion for
>>all peoples, then you have a conversion religion where anything is
>>justified in the name of "selling" the "truth." Christianity and Islam
>>are the two great conversion religions. Think about it. It's a big one.
>Come on, Paul.  Genesis 1 neatly disposes of all other Gods.

Genesis1(JPS): (1) When God began to create heaven and earth - (2) the earth
being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and
a wind from God sweeping over the water - (3) God said, "Let there be
light"; and there was light.

Who created the earth being unformed and void, who created the darkness
over the surface of the deep of this unformed void and who created the
water with the wind from God sweeping over it? Details have been left
out. Why?

Isaiah14:12(JPS): How are you fallen from heaven, O Shining One, son of
Dawn!(d) How are you felled to earth, O vanquisher of nations! (13) Once
you thought in your heart, "I will climb to the sky; Higher than the
stars of God I will set my throne. I will sit in the mount of
assembly,(e) On the summit of Zaphon:(f) (14) I will mount the back of
a cloud - I will match the Most High."
---
d: A character in some lost myth.
e: I.e., the assembly of the gods in council.
f: The abode of the gods; cf. Ps. 48.3

>Gods of the
>sun/moon, land, sea, air, animals, etc.  If YHWH created all of these
>things, then they are not Gods...

YHWH is a symbol. For what? I am that I am? Monotheism is a metaphor.
For what? I am that I am?

>And I point you to the place in the OT where the 'prophets' of Baal had a
>run in with Elijah.  Sounds to me like YHWH being placed over and above any
>other gods which might/might not exist.

If these other gods don't exist, why must YHWH be placed over them?
YHWH, through Moses, says He is the only GOD of the Hebrews. Hebrews
stray from Mosaic Law at their own risk, not in the next life, but in
this life. Non-Hebrews do as they choose, presumably following their own
gods. The gods of Assyria were presumably stronger than the Hebrew God
YHWH and the nations of Israel and Judah where destroyed. But, we are
told, YHWH has a plan for His people the Hebrews. A cunning plan.

>>>>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>.
>>>But from a philosophical point of view, if ones religion doesn't claim to
>>>be right, then what is it?
>>What is right? If you and I are both Christians of the same sect, even
>>the same church, do we really have the same religion, the same beliefs,
>>the same understanding of the world? 
>No.  But, the point here is, that the sect makes some basic claims to the
>truthfulness of their exegesis.  If you disagree with it enough, you find a
>new sect or keep your mouth shut.

This is mob rule, tyranny of the masses, might makes right. Is this
truth? Is this any way to run a religion? Who is fooling whom?

>>What is the right understanding of the Christian triune? What is the right 
>>relationship with Jesus? What is the right relationship with mother, father, 
>>brother, sister, spouse, children? When is a good day to live and a good day 
>>to die? What is the right way to raise the Sun?What is the right way to press
>>the grapes and the olives? What is the right way to clear the land and plant 
>>the corn and work the fields? What is right?
>Come on Paul, you know darn well that there isn't just one 'Christian'
>religion...at least in practice.  In theory, the Bible lays out clear
>answers to these, and other questions...it's just that my 'clarity' and
>others 'clarity' do not agree.  The fundamental point is that claims to
>truth are the norm for sects/denominations/religions - you pick the word.

And what does this tell you of any *claims* to the truth if even
Christians can't agree as to what they are? Is absolute truth only a
metaphor? For what? Some religious sects may claim to have sole
possesion of the only absolute truth, but does this *claim* make it so?
Does might equal right? Is "convert or die" a valid way to run a
religion? Is forced conversion a "good" thing?

>>>In other words, it expresses a metaphysical
>>>world view that in general, is somewhat exclusionary of others...
>>Why must it be exclusionary? Can we all just get along? Is unity of
>>diversity not achievable? 
>India would seem to be an example of 'Not,' along with the ex-Yugoslavia.

The whole post-Neolithic world is an example of 'Not.' There is a white one
who doesn't like a yellow one who doesn't like a brown one who doesn't like a
black one and so on and so on. But, why have you given up, why have you
resigned? Who said it would be easy? Who said what the chosen people
were chosen for? Who said Roma backwards is amor? Why did Rosa Parks sit
at the front of the bus? Didn't she know of Greco/Roman pessimism, that
the golden age was in the past, that things can only get worse? Brothers
and Sisters, let me share with you some news, as I sit on my plush couch
watching the news, I have become aware of a rude awakening, that I have
marched until my feet have bled and I have protested until they called
the Feds, what's left my *conscious* said, what's left my *conscious*
said? And still you want to live like nine-oh-two-one-oh while we scream
out, YO! Let's talk about a revolution. The Golden Age was not in the
past, it is in the future. We are not separated from the Kingdom of God
by time nor space. Heaven is right here, right now, only most don't see
it for what it is. Hell is not seeing. Revolution now. A revolution of
the conscious. Flash it!, gentle people. And now we dance.

>>>>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?
>>>Naming 'God' by different names is not what relious systems are about.
>>>There are great differences between eastern and western religions...
>>>Perhaps God has revealed himself differently to different groups, but that
>>>seems to be a stretch when some religions down-right contradict others.
>>Christianity contradicts itself. So what? You were expecting something
>>different? There is one thing about people. No two are alike, all
>>different people, all contradictions of the one. So what? I say worlds
>>above and worlds below, no one in the world like me. Does this make it
>>so? Different strokes for different folx, does it really make a
>>difference what gang I'm in? I am everyday people, everyday, but surely
>>you are too?
>Once again, the fundamental difference is our understanding of the
>spiritual, of good vs. evil, of right vs. wrong.  You claim that you are
>correct (even if you claim these things are unknowable, you still make a
>claim that you assert to be true).

True, only for me. No *one* in the world like me, or is there?

>>>>What is this RIGHT/WRONG? GOOD/EVIL? Shoot an arrow of condemnation and
>>>>it will surely return.
>>>This is the difference between eastern and western religions....or so it
>>>would seem.  When one makes a claim of ultimate truth, right/wrong and
>>>good/evil follow fairly naturally...
>>When one makes a *claim* of ultimate truth. You said it, not I. Worlds
>>above and worlds below ... [My dog is always barking ...]
>Sorry, but your claim to not make a claim is a claim!  You assert that we
>cannot know.  That is as much of an assertion as mine.

Ah, ah, ah. Not so quick. We are operating on multiple levels here. I
did not assert that we or I can not know, at least not strongly. I only
make one assertion, I am that I am, no *one* in the world like me! But
this is the claim of all animate and even inanimate objects. A rock also
makes this claim, does it not? But, how is a claim different from the
ultimate truth? Does my claim of not being the *one* make it so? I am
not a number, I am a free man! But ...

>>>>>>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 your 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.
>>>So then what is 'right' for me is 'truth'...and back around the circle
>>>again...
>>Whose "truth" is "right" for you? If a great prophet came to you and
>>said follow me and be free, would you follow? Why?
>I don't know...it depends...how's that for an evasion...

You answer well.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:25503 alt.pagan:15088