Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:32:38 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

[I wrote awhile ago...]
>>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...

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

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.

>>>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.

>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.

>>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.

>>>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).

>>>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.

>
>>>>>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.
>>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...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558