The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Monotheism: not as simple as you think > Comments

Monotheism: not as simple as you think : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 14/9/2009

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are simplistically described as 'the great monotheistic faiths'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Constance,

<<...the Koran seems to be full of inconsistencies>>

Ever read the Bible?

<<It’s no wonder that Muslim countries are not operating as well as they could be.>>

The reason Western countries operate better than Islamic countries, is because Christianity is a few hundred years older than Islam, and has therefore had a lot more time to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity by Secularism.

Go back a few hundred years and Christianity was exactly where Islam is today - experiencing it's Dark Ages.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 10:21:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Judaism and Christianity emphasise God as Presence, the God of Islam is more a distant lawmaker".

I think that both Islam and Judaism are law-giving religions.

Nothing mentioned either about the various versions of Christianity that exist nor the concept and importance of of the Trinity by some groups - which is not quite so monotheistic.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 1:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter S,
I thought you might have appreciated that in the quote I gave Polkinghorne also seems to prefer the “temporal God” of Revelation to the “atemporal God” of classical (natural) theology.

On the other hand, I know he sees both these approaches as two perspectives of the same God, who - in Galileo’s words - is the author of the Book of Revelation, (that you seem to prefer), as well as of the Book of Nature (that is closer to the heart of those who prefer to see Him through philosophy and pre-20th century science). As said before, I think the right attitude is through seeing both these approaches or perspectives as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. In particular, Karen Armstrong - as quoted by Rhian - has a point.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 8:01:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Go back a few hundred years and Christianity was exactly where Islam is today - experiencing it's Dark Ages.'

Yea and that is exactly where secularism is now. Murder the unborn, promote perversion, corrupt leaders and self righteous pseudo science high priests.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 9:37:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Constance,

Intolerance of others was also known to early Christians:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=70760
What Christians need to learn is compassion and understanding not only for themselves but towards others. We should love our fellow humans and embrace peaceful diversity.

I was not advocating Islam, yet I was saying that the Faith does mention that Al-Lah is “compassion” and “merciful”.

Perhaps, the Muslims would have committed as many atrocities as the Christians, if they had the resources. I don’t deny this possibility. On the other hand, Islam does recognize the legitimacy of the “People of the Book” and that all peoples receive prophesy in their own way.
I have no problem with Muslims having prayer mats or Catholics wearing scapulars. Sectarian humanism allows for personal faith for all, in Jesus or Al-Lah or Zeus or the Man in the Moon. If spirituality is a characteristic of our species, it is hard to disallow the fact religiosities will emerge.

In early times, polytheism (Classical World) and quasi-religions (East) allowed civil peoples to live in harmony. Alternatively, monotheism is confrontational. “The other side is always wrong and I am always right,” mentality pervades actions.

Vague? The OT God was the God of the Hebrews. That God may have had Urgatic roots: Latter known as Elohim and Jehovah, depending on the scriptural writer. The NT God grew out of Nicaea and various Synods and Councils. Moreover, the Latin, Eastern and various Protestant churches have different interpretations. In between, we have the Jewish-Christ sects. Recall, the first fifteen bishops of the early Christian Church were Jews.
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 11:40:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoa there, runner.

Perhaps check under the couch for those meds my friend.

Can you possibly hate anything or anyone anymore than you do already?

Do you have a comment, or just need to unload your hatred of other ontological expressions? If you bother to educate yourself, or attend the many, many lectures and events held by Secular/Christian organisations working together, you will indeed find your "enemies" are in your mind.

As for 95% of your piffle dragging up the USA Creationism movement, I'm at a loss. Pseudoscience? You wear your 'white trash' reactionism like a badge of honour.

Ignorance, hatred and projection of your social/sexual oppression, utterly void of the sagacity you aim for reveals your verisimilitude to be not even humurous, but disturbing in the extreme.

How many parents must read your "us and them" bridge burning and decide on the spot that Christianity might not be for whack-jobs, but it sure creates the soap-box upon which they sway from dimension to dimension.

Steady on there chap, steady on.
Posted by Firesnake, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 1:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy