Dear david f,

Christianity is also a monotheistic religion with a Trinitarian structure (of their model) of God that neither Judaism nor Islam, and many others, share.

From Wikipedia: "Monotheism characterizes the traditions of Atenism, Babism, the Bahá'í Faith, Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Islam, Judaism, Rastafarianism, Ravidassia religion, Seicho no Ie, Shaivism, Sikhism, Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Vaishnavism, and Zoroastrianism."

Dear George,

I do not understand how one God can be in three parts. Christianity is free to call itself anything it likes. To me it is not a monotheistic religion. I don't see any particular virtue in being a monotheistic religion. If one is going to invent a god it can be in as many pieces as one likes. Christians may refer to the mystery of the Trinity. It is a mystery to me why it wants to be considered monotheistic without having a God in one piece. You are free to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion. I am free not to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion. However, one considers Christianity does not make it better or worse.

.
 
Dear david f.
 
.
 
It’s nice to catch up with you again.

I found the article on the food movement in the US, for which you provided the link above, quite interesting. Thank you.

As I understand it, there is no such thing as morality in nature, just whatever is necessary for survival.

Also, for the sake of clarity, I understand that the terms “ethics” and “morality” have essentially the same meaning and are interchangeable. “Ethics” is of Greek origin (ethikós ). “Moralis” is the Latin equivalent which Cicero coined in 43 BC in order to translate it.

In modern usage there is a general tendency to employ the term “morality” when the emphasis is placed on the individual. Otherwise, the term “ethics” seems more appropriate.

Morality or ethics is a human concept, a product of the human mind. But, of course, that does not mean that it is not also part of the evolutionary process of nature, necessary for survival.

Perhaps it is for that reason we do not practise cannibalism despite the fact that we are, generally speaking, omnivores. By extension, our appetite for the flesh and blood of other animals, particularly mammals such as ourselves, is also becoming affected as we begin to realize that they share many of our thoughts and feelings, if not some of our conscience as well.

For the time being, such altruistic considerations are, nevertheless, seen as too great a luxury by the poor and too great a sacrifice by the rich.

Another potential barrier to this evolution, of course, is religion. The consummation of meat is a right for Muslims and Jews when it is Halal and Cacher. And seen as an obligation for Christians who respectfully obey Jesus:

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.”
(Luke 22:19)

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
(Luke 22:20)

.
 

Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "For the time being, such altruistic considerations are, nevertheless, seen as too great a luxury by the poor and too great a sacrifice by the rich."

Well said.

Dear George,

We have different definitions of monotheism. Your definition comes from the religion you believe in. Mine comes from the religion I don't believe in. The definitions are incompatible.

Wikipedia accepts the Christian definition of monotheism. I don't.

My first criticism of Atkinson is his identification of the Golden Rule as the property of christianity. The beauty of the GR was recognised by philosophies centuries older than christianity. Like most moral and ethical ideals, the GR was plagiarised by the original recorders of religious texts and incorporated into doctrine. A Google of the term will disabuse him.

That he holds that perversion of compassion and pious dedication, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, or Mother Teresa, as a glowing example of humanitarian philanthropy reveals just how well the catholic church has disseminated another great lie and how vulnerable even sworn skeptics can be guiled into believing goodness exists simply because authority says it does.

Certainly the cull of the unborn shows how consciences are seared by those rejecting their Creator.Moral relativism has dulled society into the morally bereft and yet self righteous society we live in. The attempts to call right wrong and wrong right are yet pathetic attempts of self justification. How well the Scriptures reveal the corrupt nature of
Man. Max confirms this so clearly.