Talk:Abrahamic religion

Moved from Shabat/Talk

Also, the term desert monotheism is actually more neutral than "Abrahamic" because (a) many key figures in the Bible are female, (b) why not trace things back to Noah, who is the supposed physical progenitor of all of present humanity? (c) the only thing we know for sure is that desert people came up with all this. Also (d) emphasizing "which son of Abraham bred who" is used as a direct excuse for racism by many ignorant people.

Are you the person who's been arguing this on en?  :-) "Abrahamic" is, as far as I know, the term people actually use, by a wide margin. The women in the Bible aren't relative to this term (I think), because it is in reference to the specific person Abraham. "emphasizing "which son of Abraham bred who is used as a direct excuse for racism by many ignorant people." But again, this is the term / terms in use, and we should reflect that, maybe with a note about the problems with this term/terms. -- User:RJWiki

I'm not sure "people" use this term other than a few biased academics. And many people prefer not to mention Abraham as a founding figure. Many people have also argued similar points all around this on en:. But to explain this in the article, and include a redirect from desert monotheism, explaining that term as well, is fine. Then the reader can choose which is fair.

Abraham is clearly the point at which the 3 religions first split. Islam following one son, Judaism following the other (Christianity obviously split from Judaism a few years after Jesus' death). So "Abrahmic" is a good term.

Ask a Muslim if it is. The implication that one son is a legitimate heir, the other not, is not lost on a lot of them.

The fact that abraham lived in a desert is irrelevant.

"is". What does "is" mean? Moses and Muhammad lived in deserts too. Jesus spent a lot of time in "the wilderness" which means the desert. What is it "irrelevant" to? This is contrary to a *lot* of writing about these religions, Tango. Deserts might be irrelevant to Christianity - they do not appear to be irrelevant to Judaism or Islam.

I did not say the desert was irrelevant to the religion, i said it was irrelevant when deciding what to call the religions as a group. And you know perfectly well what "is" means, E-Prime is a foolish ideal, so don't try to impose it on people. -- Tango

The term "monotheism" should certainly be mentioned somewhere, though. -- Tango

Absolutely. These are usually called "the monotheistic religions", with or without the desert.

This is not completely simple, because (most) forms of Christianity are Trinitarian, whereas Judaism and Islam are "hard" monotheistic/Unitarian and think Trinitarianism is pretty goofy. -- User:RJWiki

All this dividing-one-God stuff is goofy. Divinities are obviously beyond what humans can understand. If it was relevant to know the difference between say how they behaved in the morning, and in the evening, and asleep at night, presumably, that would have been revealed, right? Also see Devil/Talk for a good questions the Buddhists ask about this.

Saying that it is "beyond what humans can understand" is just an excuse not to think about it. If you were to think about it, you would probably realise that is whole discussion is a waste of time because "religion" is pointless, false, and outdated. -- Tango