I find the use of the term 'Abrahmic' disturbing - I would say offensive or blasphemous, if my response was more intense. I'm not satisfied with the term 'Judeo-Christen' either.
I guess the best analog to my take on religion is late Roman - I believe that respect for secular (civil) authority is more relevant than unity of religious worship / authority; I expect the state to be a multi-cultural entity, and citizens of the state to engage in religion as a private practice through a series of different cults (I'm using the term here in the greco-roman sense, where a cult meant a congregation dedicated to a particular interpretation of a particular god / gods, one that did not necessarily deny the existence or power of other gods, although, of course, some cults, such as the Christian cults, did - a belief which I find intensely destructive).
That being said, religions are intrinsically a part of the moral and ethical dialog of a state, being, as they are, so much a part of the moral and ethical background of those citizens who are religious. In a tolerant state, where the citizens take part in the dialog of how laws are enacted (and which laws are enacted), moral and religious sensibilities will clearly inform the legal process; in an intolerant state, where the controlling interests impose a specific religion, and / or draw on a specific religion to inform the legal process, this happens too, but in a much more narrow, and clearly not multi-cultural, way.
Anyway, I tend to think of Jewish, Christen, Moslem, and Mormon faiths as sects of the cult of the Nameless God. To me, it's important that the nomenclature reflect, not a common myth, but the similarity in the entitie(s) followed. To fail to do so is a denial of what I am - it makes me invisible in a way that I'm uncomfortable with; that's the part that I find offensive (or something like that, but maybe not at quite that intensity). It's also a denial of the divinity in question to identify the myth rather than the God - a divinity which I myself acknowledge, although I'm not a part of any of the sects mentioned; that's the part I find blasphemous (although, again, not at quite that intensity).
Anyway, I probably won't see the film, as, despite the home geek feel, I dislike the use of the term enough to avoid it. (I think it's inaccurate too - other religions have creation myths that are contracted by evolution - they just don't have enough 'credit' within our society for us to be willing acknowledge, or even notice, what affect it might have).
no subject
I guess the best analog to my take on religion is late Roman - I believe that respect for secular (civil) authority is more relevant than unity of religious worship / authority; I expect the state to be a multi-cultural entity, and citizens of the state to engage in religion as a private practice through a series of different cults (I'm using the term here in the greco-roman sense, where a cult meant a congregation dedicated to a particular interpretation of a particular god / gods, one that did not necessarily deny the existence or power of other gods, although, of course, some cults, such as the Christian cults, did - a belief which I find intensely destructive).
That being said, religions are intrinsically a part of the moral and ethical dialog of a state, being, as they are, so much a part of the moral and ethical background of those citizens who are religious. In a tolerant state, where the citizens take part in the dialog of how laws are enacted (and which laws are enacted), moral and religious sensibilities will clearly inform the legal process; in an intolerant state, where the controlling interests impose a specific religion, and / or draw on a specific religion to inform the legal process, this happens too, but in a much more narrow, and clearly not multi-cultural, way.
Anyway, I tend to think of Jewish, Christen, Moslem, and Mormon faiths as sects of the cult of the Nameless God. To me, it's important that the nomenclature reflect, not a common myth, but the similarity in the entitie(s) followed. To fail to do so is a denial of what I am - it makes me invisible in a way that I'm uncomfortable with; that's the part that I find offensive (or something like that, but maybe not at quite that intensity). It's also a denial of the divinity in question to identify the myth rather than the God - a divinity which I myself acknowledge, although I'm not a part of any of the sects mentioned; that's the part I find blasphemous (although, again, not at quite that intensity).
Anyway, I probably won't see the film, as, despite the home geek feel, I dislike the use of the term enough to avoid it. (I think it's inaccurate too - other religions have creation myths that are contracted by evolution - they just don't have enough 'credit' within our society for us to be willing acknowledge, or even notice, what affect it might have).
Kiralee