Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Truth
-
At 04:53 PM 9/14/2006, Mark wrote:
> >L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” > >-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from >Abraham.
“Venerates?” That smacks of worship…. “Respects” does not.
>This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). >They largely differ over where this line stops.
Indeed. Christians and Jews-and-Muslims — the latter being quite close — have differing definitions of prophethood. The Baha’i introduce a whole new concept which is in my opinion alien to Islam, but not so alien to Christianity. (The Baha’i consider the Prophets to be the “Manifestation” of God, which gets very close to the Christian concept of the Incarnation. Jesus himself, of course, was a Jew, and quite a good one at that.)
But, again, this has to do with TOP?
There is a connection, but it is getting pretty thin. The connection is my claim that people can come to agreement much more than is often thought, if they can take the time and have the space in which to examine what they believe deeply, rather than merely noting surface appearances and differences.
>-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. >I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of >aspects of one Godhead. >And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.
It ought to be. That’s where I got it (or, more accurately, from the synthetic Vedanta tradition, the Sanskrit begins “ekam sat vipra bahudra vedanti sarvam khalvidam buddham tat tvam asi….” If I remember it correctly.)
But I could also state it from my personal experience. Truth is one. People call it various names. But all agree [where the conditions permit it]….
+1
-
> > >L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” > > > >-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from > >Abraham.
>L: “Venerates?” That smacks of worship…. “Respects” does not.
-M: ‘Respect’, in the context of religious authority, I would call ‘veneration’.
> >This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). > >They largely differ over where this line stops.
>L: Indeed. Christians and Jews-and-Muslims — the latter being quite > close — have differing definitions of prophethood. The Baha’i > introduce a whole new concept which is in my opinion alien to Islam, > but not so alien to Christianity. (The Baha’i consider the Prophets > to be the “Manifestation” of God, which gets very close to the > Christian concept of the Incarnation. Jesus himself, of course, was a > Jew, and quite a good one at that.) But, again, this has to do with TOP?
-M: We are nailing down our worldviews – this enhances communication.
>L: There is a connection, but it is getting pretty thin. The connection > is my claim that people can come to agreement much more than is often > thought, if they can take the time and have the space in which to > examine what they believe deeply, rather than merely noting surface > appearances and differences. > > >-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. > >I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of > >aspects of one Godhead. And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.
>L: It ought to be. That’s where I got it (or, more accurately, from the > synthetic Vedanta tradition,…
-M: My tradition is based more on Trika Shaivism than Vedanta, but there are much more similarities than not. (Laksman Joo cataloged only five significant differences.)
>L: the Sanskrit begins “ekam sat vipra bahudra vedanti sarvam khalvidam buddham tat tvam asi….” If I remember it correctly.)
-M: Fun stuff, eh? :-)
>L: But I could also state it from my personal experience. Truth is one. > People call it various names. But all agree [where the conditions > permit it]….
-M: :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
