In this engaging and provocative study, John Peter Kenney examines the emergence of monotheism within Greco-Roman philosophical theology by tracing the changing character of ancient realism from Plato through Plotinus. Besides acknowledging the philosophical and theological significance of such ancient thinkers as Plutarch, Numenius, Alcinous, and Atticus, he demonstrates the central importance of Plotinus in clarifying the relation of the intelligible world to divinity. Kenney focuses especially on Plotinus's novel concept of deity, arguing that it constitutes a type of mystical (...) monotheism based upon an ultimate and inclusive divine One beyond description or discursive knowledge. Presenting difficult material with grace and clarity, Kenney takes a wide-ranging view of the development of ancient Platonic theology from a philosophical perspective and synthesizes familiar elements in a new way. His is a revisionist thesis with significant implications for the study of Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian thought in this period and for the history of Western religious thought in general. (shrink)

A consideration of monotheism. The term ordinarily suggests belief in one God and derives from the Greek monos meaning “one” and theos meaning “god.” In the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the one god is regarded as supreme lord and creator of the universe, almighty, all-knowing, and all-good. Traditionally, Christianity has taught that God revealed himself to our first parents, Adam and Eve, as the one true God in Genesis. The Old Testament reveals a jealous God who forbids the (...) worship of strange and multifarious gods. God's chosen people, the Jews, are destined to prepare the way for the coming of the universal religion available not just to a privileged few. (shrink)

Reprinted in Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity, Oxford, 2009, eds Michael Rea and Thomas McCall. In this essay, I assess a certain version of ’social Trinitarianism’ put forward by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, ’trinity monotheism’. I first show how their response to a familiar anti-Trinitarian argument arguably implies polytheism. I then show how they invoke three tenets central to their trinity monotheism in order to avoid that implication. After displaying these tenets more fully, I argue (...) that Trinitarians would do well to hold Moreland’s and Craig’s trinity monotheism at arms length. (shrink)

In this paper I propose a cognitive interpretation of the emergence of monotheism. I first distinguish between two fundamentally different conceptions of representation: one intuitive, which favors an analog model of rational cognition, and one discursive, which favors a digital model. While both Hellenism and Judaism may have been instrumental in setting civilization on the path to reason and law, it is the discursive or digital conception of God as a single universal Judge, I argue, that provides the foundational axiom (...) of the moral logic of the Hebrew Scriptures. That is, in monotheism, God came to be represented differently. (shrink)

In this volume, renowned experts in psychoanalysis reflect on the relationship between psychoanalysis and religion, in particular presenting various controversial interpretations of the question if and to what extent monotheism semantically and structurally fits psychoanalytic insights. Some essays augment traditional religious critiques of Freudianism with later religio-philosophical theories on, for example, femininity. Others explore the relation between psychopathology and morality from the Freudian premise that psychopathology shows in an excessive way aspects or mechanisms of the human psyche that constitute our (...) subjectivity, moral capacities, and behavior.Contributors: Andreas De Block, KU Leuven-University of Leuven; Fethi Benslama, University of Paris Diderot; Sergio Benvenuto, ISTC, Rome; Gohar Homayounpour, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran; Felix de Mendelssohn, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna; Julia Kristeva, University of Paris Diderot; Lode Lauwaert, KU Leuven-University of Leuven; Siamak Movahedi, University of Massachusetts; Wolfgang Muller-Funk, University of Vienna; Gilles Ribault, University of Paris Diderot; Céline Surprenant, University of Sussex; Inge Scholz-Strasser, Sigmund Freud Foundation; Herman Westerink, University of Vienna; Joel Whitebook, Columbia University; Moshe Zuckermann, Tel Aviv University. (shrink)

Why are religious tolerance and pluralism so difficult to achieve? Why is the often violent fundamentalist backlash against them so potent? Robert Erlewine looks to a new religion of reason for answers to these questions. Drawing on Enlightenment writers Moses Mendelssohn, Immanuel Kant, and Hermann Cohen, who placed Christianity and Judaism in tension with tolerance and pluralism, Erlewine finds a way to break the impasse, soften hostilities, and establish equal relationships with the Other. Erlewine’s recovery of a religion of reason (...) stands in contrast both to secularist critics of religion who reject religion for the sake of reason and to contemporary religious conservatives who eschew reason for the sake of religion. Monotheism and Tolerance suggests a way to deal with the intractable problem of religiously motivated and justified violence. (shrink)

Discussions of monotheism often consider its bigotry toward other gods as a source of conflict, or emphasize its universality as a source of peaceful tolerance. Both approaches, however, ignore the combined danger and liberation in monotheism's 'intolerance.' In this volume, Christopher Haw reframes this important argument. He demonstrates the value of rejecting paradigms of inclusivity in favor of an agonistic pluralism and intolerance of absolutism. Haw proposes a model that retains liberal, pluralistic principles while acknowledging their limitations, and he relates (...) them to theologies latent in political ideas. His volume offers a nuanced, evolutionary, and historical understanding of the biblical tradition's emergence and its political consequences with respect to violence. It suggests how we can mediate impasses between liberal and conservative views in culture wars; between liberal inclusivity and conservative decisionism; and, on the religious front, between apologetics for exclusive monotheism and critiques of its intolerance. (shrink)

This article addresses the following metaethical questions: how many intrinsic values are there? Robert Adams holds the view that there is only one intrinsic value, a view called “intrinsic value monism,” but does not present any arguments in favor of this view. This paper makes the case that there are good reasons for upholding value monism. I argue that our ability to weigh different values against each other supports value monism and that monotheistic worship also supports monism.

This article takes as its basis the claim that the root cause of the ecological crisis is based on theological reasons, especially the monotheistic conception of God in traditional Christianity. The article aims to evaluate the claim that the monotheist understanding of the God-universe relationship is the main cause of the ecological crisis, in the context of ecofeminism, which is one of the leading representatives of this claim. In the literature, which includes examining the ecological crisis with its theological dimensions, (...) many studies evaluate the relationship between human beings and nature. In addition, some studies deal with the subject within the framework of the relationship between God and the universe, albeit relatively few. An important part of them consists of the studies done by ecofeminist theologians. The most distinctive feature of these studies is the critical attitude of ecofeminist theologians against traditional monotheism concerning the ecological crisis. At the center of the criticism is the emphasis on power and absolute transcendence among the attributes of God in the monotheist conception of God. According to ecofeminist theologians, the monotheist conception, which is claimed to represent the dominant understanding of God, especially in Western Christianity, supports a hierarchical God and universe relationship as a result of the application of the dualist perspective in explaining reality. In this hierarchical structure, God is portrayed as a being outside and beyond this world, who legitimizes power relations and enables the weak to be oppressed, therefore, the monotheistic God concept is strongly criticized by ecofeminist theologians. On the other hand, ecofeminist theologians propose pantheist and panentheist God conceptions, which are defended by two pioneer ecofeminist theologians Rosemary R. Ruether and Sally McFague, respectively, as an alternative to the traditional monotheist conception of God. In this study, in line with the mentioned purpose of the study, pantheist and panentheist interpretations proposed by ecofeminist theology and prominent among the God and universe relationship approaches in contemporary Christian philosophical theology are discussed in the context of ecological crisis. In this framework, this study evaluates some of the problems that arise in the application of ecofeminist discourse to the field of theology in terms of alternative God conceptions put forward by ecofeminist theologians. Based on this background, the study includes four chapters. First, the dimensions of the relationship between ecofeminism and theology have been revealed. Then, the main arguments of ecofeminist theology in its critique of the monotheist conception of God are evaluated. Then, pantheist and panentheist conceptions, the alternative God conceptions offered by ecofeminist theology against monotheism, are discussed. Finally, within the framework of the arguments it has put forward, an evaluation of ecofeminist theology and conceptions of God has been made in terms of contextual and methodological aspects. (shrink)

The main question of this short monograph is how the existence, supremacy, and uniqueness of an almighty and immaterial God bear on our own nature. It aims to uncover lessons about what we are by thinking about what God might be. A dominant theme is that Abrahamic monotheism is a surprisingly hospitable framework within which to defend and develop the view that we are wholly material beings. But the resulting materialism cannot be of any standard variety. It demands revisions and (...) twists on the usual views. We can indeed learn about ourselves by learning about God. One thing we learn is that, though we are indeed wholly material beings, we’re not nearly as ordinary as we might seem. (shrink)

Distinguished experts from a range of disciplines with a common interest in late antiquity probe the apparent paradox of pagan monotheism and reach a better understanding of the historical roots of Christianity.

Laurel Schneider takes the reader on a vivid journey from the origins of "the logic of the One" - only recently dubbed monotheism - through to the modern day, where monotheism has increasingly failed to adequately address spiritual, scientific, and ethical experiences in the changing world. In Part I, Schneider traces a trajectory from the ancient history of monotheism and multiplicity in Greece, Israel, and Africa through the Constantinian valorization of the logic of the One, to medieval and modern challenges (...) to that logic in poetry and science. She pursues an alternative and constructive approach in Part II: a "logic of multiplicity" already resident in Christian traditions in which the complexity of life and the presence of God may be better articulated. Part III takes up the open-ended question of ethics from within that multiplicity, exploring the implications of this radical and realistic new theology for the questions that lie underneath theological construction: questions of belonging and nationalism, of the possibility of love, and of unity. In this groundbreaking work of contemporary theology, Schneider shows that the One is not lost in divine multiplicity, and that in spite of its abstractions, divine multiplicity is realistic and worldly, impossible ultimately to abstract. (shrink)

Laurel Schneider takes the reader on a vivid journey from the origins of "the logic of the One" - only recently dubbed monotheism - through to the modern day, where monotheism has increasingly failed to adequately address spiritual, scientific, and ethical experiences in the changing world. In Part I, Schneider traces a trajectory from the ancient history of monotheism and multiplicity in Greece, Israel, and Africa through the Constantinian valorization of the logic of the One, to medieval and modern challenges (...) to that logic in poetry and science. She pursues an alternative and constructive approach in Part II: a "logic of multiplicity" already resident in Christian traditions in which the complexity of life and the presence of God may be better articulated. Part III takes up the open-ended question of ethics from within that multiplicity, exploring the implications of this radical and realistic new theology for the questions that lie underneath theological construction: questions of belonging and nationalism, of the possibility of love, and of unity. In this groundbreaking work of contemporary theology, Schneider shows that the One is not lost in divine multiplicity, and that in spite of its abstractions, divine multiplicity is realistic and worldly, impossible ultimately to abstract. (shrink)

SummaryChristian theologians can explain the Trinitarian faith today in dialogue with Islamic thinkers as “deepened monotheism”. Therefore it is important to widen the systematic-theological discourse in an ecumenical and transcultural perspective and to retrieve resources from Western and non-Western traditions of Trinitarian thought (I).In this paper I will first work out historically that the Trinitarian creed of Nicea and Constantinople was originally an ecumenical but non-Western creed (II). Afterwards, I investigate the philosophical-theological reflection on the Trinity by Anselm of Canterbury (...) (1033–1109) in the context of early interreligious encounters in the Latin West. Based on biblical, augustinian and Greek sources, he developed an approach to understand the mystery of the Trinity by rational arguments as “deepened monotheism” (III). Then I will proceed to explore the philosophical-theological dialogues on the Trinity from the Arabic philosopher and Syrian-orthodox theologian Yaḥyā ibn ‘Adī (893–974). Much earlier he developed rational arguments for the Triunity of God with reference to Aristotle. Thereby he answers to anti-trinitarian arguments from Islamic thinkers like al-Kindī and al-Warrāq. He intends that the Trinitarian faith of Christian minorities can thereby be understood and tolerated by Islamic thinkers as rationally founded “deepened monotheism” (IV).In the end I will evaluate what these classics from the Western and non-western traditions of Trinitarian thought contribute to explicate the doctrine of the Trinity today in a pluralistic religious context as “deepened monotheism” (V). (shrink)

Some Christians combine a doctrine about Christ which implies that there is more than one divine self with the doctrine that God revealed to the Jews a monotheism according to which there is just one divine self. I suggest that it is less costly for such Christians to achieve consistency by abandoning the second of these doctrines than to achieve it by abandoning the first.

This Element examines aspects of monotheism and hope. Distinguishing monotheism from various forms of nontheistic religions, it explores how God transcends the terms used to describe the religious ultimate. The discussion then turns to the nature of hope and examines how the concept has been used by Augustine, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, and Moltmann, among others. The Christian tradition to which these monotheists belong associates hope and faith with love. In the final section, Wainwright shows the varieties of this kind of love (...) in Islam, Christianity, and theistic Hinduism, and defends the sort of love valorized by them against some charges against it. He examines why the loves prized in these traditions are imperfect because their adherents invariably believe that the love that they cherish is superior to that cherished by others. (shrink)

This volume contains Freud’s speculations on various aspects of religion, on the basis of which he explains certain characteristics of Jewish people in their relations with Christians. From an intensive study of the Moses legend, Freud comes to the startling conclusion that Moses himself was an Egyptian who brought from his native country the religion he gave to the Jews. He accepts the hypothesis that Moses was murdered in the wilderness, but that his memory was cherished by the people and (...) that his religious doctrine ultimately triumphed. Freud develops his general theory of monotheism, which enabled him to throw light on the development of Judaism and Christianity. (shrink)

In the first part of this text, the author attempts to demonstrate that sacral kingship might, in anthropological terms, be regarded an Elementary Form of socio-political life; not an autonomous elementary form, but one falling under the category of rulership. The reference to the anthropological notion of Elementary Forms renders virtually irrelevant the rigidity with which categorical distinctions are made between polytheistic and monotheistic kingship, as well as any civilisational divisions that might be imagined between Orient and Occident. The second (...) part of the text provides an illustration of these presuppositions, the author taking several examples from the history of monarchy – both in the Western World and in the Arab World. (shrink)

Oleh Shepetyak. Monotheistic tendencies of Egypt's religions of the pre-dynastic and early dynastic period. The study analyzes the religion of ancient Egypt, and it proved the presence of a clear monotheistic tendencies. The article provides a brief examination of the historical landmarks of Egyptian culture, its literary achievements inspection and analysis of earlier beliefs, which are at the center of the personality of Seth and Horus, and other deities who have the zeal of the late myth associated with them.

Suffering and evil in the world provide the basis for the most difficult challenge to monotheistic belief. This Element discusses how the three great monotheisms – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – respond to the problem of suffering and evil. Different versions of the problem, types of answers, and recurring themes in philosophical and religious sources are analyzed. Objections to the enterprise of theodicy are also discussed as are additional objections to the monotheistic God more broadly. This treatment culminates in a (...) recommendation for how monotheism can best respond to the most serious formulation of the problem, the argument from gratuitous evil. (shrink)

Monotheism and the Meaning of Life explores the role of God, and the relationship to the question 'What is the meaning of life?' for adherents of the main monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Exploring the various senses of 'meaning' and 'life', Mawson argues that there are various questions implicit in the notion of the meaning of life and that the God of monotheistic religion is central to the correct answers to all of them.

At head of title: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. Includes bibliographical references.

Some concepts of transcendence, like sensibility and understanding, have a deep concern with the world that is of empirical type but not directly. Their connection is indirectly with the help of empirical realizing agents. The pure terminologies become suitable for the world that is empirical with the reconciliation of their respective temporary scheme programs. The research study determines the concept of transcendence in monotheistic and non-monotheistic traditions. All those religions in which people do not have any belief in the presence (...) of one God. One of the most common examples of non-monotheistic religion is Hinduism because, in this religion, people have many Gods and Goddesses. In non-monotheism, people believe in celestial beings, whether their existence is found or not. These deities do not influence people's lifestyles. In monotheism, only one deity is considered capable of worship. Still, polytheism is a belief in which more than deities are given the right that they are worshipped by people. Henotheism is also a belief in which more than deities are found, but one deity is capable to such an extent that people revere him. As it is elaborated, Jewish and Christian Binit Arianism is found with the beliefs of non-monotheistic. They focused on the works of Peter Hayman, Margaret Barker, and Daniel Boyarin. Overall research found that the idea of monotheism is not only realized in the Jewish of early times, but this thing can also be seen in Judaism, but also in some scholars who belong to the religion of C, some of them that are well known are Jurgen Moltmann, on which accusation of a follower of Tritheism can also be perceived. (shrink)

The patristic period is the process that starts with the birth of Jesus and continues until the Nicean Council. Before the Nicean Council, Jesus, the only God's apostle, has gone instead of Jesus, the son of God. There was no intact Bible in the time of Irenaeus, who was among the apologists who advocated monotheism. This harsh and hard struggle of Irenaeus against those who do not accept the one God undoubtedly provides us with information about the profile of Christ (...) before the Nicean Council. Adversus Haereses consists of five parts. In the first part of the work, he explains his thoughts on gnosticism, in the second part, he criticizes and refutes the gnostic arguments, and explains the Christian doctrine in the other three parts. The first sentence of his book begins with "There is only one God: it cannot be otherwise." In this article, I will analyze the monotheistic words of Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses. (shrink)

Existentialism is often seen and at times parodied as the philosophy of individuality, authenticity, despair, and defiance in a godless world. However, it cannot be understood without reference to religion, and in particular the monotheism of Christianity. Even the existentialist slogan, 'existence precedes essence', is formulated in relation to monotheism. This Element will show that monotheism and existentialism are intertwined: they react to each other, and share content and concerns. This Element will set out a genealogy of existentialist thought; explore (...) key atheistic and theistic existentialists; and argue that there are productive conversations to be had as regards key concepts such as freedom and authenticity, relationality, and ethics. (shrink)

In this paper I present an argument that there can be no more than one God in a way which allows me to give the doctrine ofthe Trinity logical priority over the attributes traditionally used in arguments for God’s unicity. The argument that there is at most one God makes no assumptions about the particular attributes included in divinity. It uses only the Identity of Indiscemibles and a Principle of Plenitude. I then offer a theory on the relationship between individuals (...) and kinds which allows me to offer an interpretation of the Trinity. (shrink)

The controversy about research on human embryonic stem cells raises many fundamental ethical and religious questions, especially about the sanctity of lifeand the Divine mandate of human dominion over nature. This paper reviews the different perspectives of three monotheistic religions on the use of embryo for stem cell research. Looking at the religious perspectives, it shows us that Islam and Judaism support most forms of stem cell research. Both of them express their beliefs on when life begins or what the (...) role of scientists in stem cell research is by interpreting specific religious texts. Although Christianity has put the issue of stem cell research on the forefront of its agenda, they do not point to any specific biblical text that supports their concept of when life begins. While science cannot answer the question of when life begins, Christianity, Judaism and Islam have answered the question in some ways. (shrink)

This Element traces the effects of science's rise on the cultural status of monotheism. Starting in the past, it shows how monotheism contributed to science's rise, and how, returning the favour, science provided aid and support, until fairly recently, for the continuing success of monotheism in the west. Turning to the present, the Element explores reasons for supposing that explanatorily, and even on an existential level, science is taking over monotheism's traditional roles in western culture. These reasons are found to (...) be less powerful than is commonly supposed, though the existential challenge can be made effective when framed in an unusual and indirect manner. Finally, the Element considers how the relationship between science's high standing and the status of monotheism might appear in the future. Could something like monotheism rise again, and might science help it do so? The Element concludes that an affirmative answer is possible. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that the Levinasian opposition between the violence of the production of identity and self-presence and its undermining in a charitable disburdening of the self for the sake of the monotheistic ethical other, is unable to provide all the resources required for a politically motivated critique of the present. As a critique of Levinas' almost Manichean opposition between identity and difference, I argue, by appealing to the Arendtian model of public space, that Levinas underestimates our capacity (...) to build and open up societal spaces within which a non-violent polytheistic political difference can proliferate. The identity of the built and legislated can constitute a non-violent stage upon which discursive political differences are played out. (shrink)

From an interdisciplinary perspective the authors of this book, scholars in theology and religious studies, give an account of the problematic and promising aspects of biblically based monotheism, considered as a formative religious idea, belief, and practice in Western history and culture.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 3-12 [Access article in PDF] Monotheistic Violence David Lochhead Vancouver School ofTheology While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people began to have sexual relations with the women of Moab. They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. Thus Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor, and the LORD's anger was kindled (...) against Israel. The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the chiefs of the people, and impale them in the sun before the LORD, in order that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel." And Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Each of you shall kill any of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor." (Num. 25:1-5) This is the first of two stories told in Numbers 25. In the second, an Israelite brings a Midianite woman into the camp as the sentence is being carried out. In response, one of the Israelites, a man named Phinehas, a grandson of Aaron the priest, takes a spear and follows the couple into a tent, where he slaughters them both. God commends this act of butchery with these words: "Phinehas son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by manifesting such zeal among them on my behalf that in my jealousy I did not consume the Israelites. Therefore say, 'I hereby grant him my covenant of peace. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of perpetual priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the Israelites.'" (Num. 25:11-13)The account of these incidents is an unsophisticated one. God is portrayed, in an anthropomorphic way, as violently egocentric. The punishment exacted for offending God is crude and barbaric. This is a god who demands violence and commends violence when it is performed in his cause. This is a god who is intensely competitive toward the other gods and who treats vindictively anyone who has commerce with them.Because of the unsophisticated terms in which this story is told, it is easy enough to dismiss a text like this as a crude expression of ancient Hebrew religion that the Judeo-Christian tradition has long since transcended. I want to take a somewhat different perspective and argue that the violence expressed in this text, albeit in a more subtle and spiritualized way, has persisted in the Christian tradition.The violence of Numbers 25 has the following characteristics. First, it is ordered [End Page 3] and justified in terms of an exclusive loyalty to a single deity. Secondly, it expresses a religious xenophobia. This xenophobia is religious, cultural, and sexual. The transgression of the loyalty to God is attributed to the presence of foreign women. In short, the text is chauvinist and misogynist.It is common to distinguish between henotheism and monotheism. Henotheism is the worship of a single god in distinction from other gods. Henotheism does not deny the existence of other gods. It focuses its attention and devotion on only one of those gods. Thus henotheism might also be described as monolatry--the worship of one god among many. Monotheism, by contrast, acknowledges the existence of only one god.Given this contrast, we can say that Numbers 25 is a henotheistic text. That is, Yahweh, the god who leads the Israelites out of Egypt and toward the Promised Land, acknowledges the reality of the other god--here the Baal of Peor--by the intensity of his anger. The worship of the Moabites is taken very seriously. Those who participate in the Moabite cult actually yoke themselves to this other god. The coincidence of the sexual liaison with Moabite women and the worship of the Moabite god expresses something of the intimacy of the relationship in which the Israelite men are understood to participate. It is the assumed reality of the Moabite deity that makes it necessary for Yahweh to demand that the offenders be impaled in the glaring light of the desert... (shrink)

Ben Zoma's mishnah is astounding from a number of different but interrelated perspectives. He indirectly addresses four of the most central, vexing questions emerging out of human experience—What is wisdom, knowledge, truth? What is strength, power, courage? What is wealth, exalted status? What is honor, reputation?—and manages to turn the questions on their head and resist answering them. His first move in this strategy of resistance is to transform inquiry into these various qualities and attributes into an investigation of the (...) person claiming or aspiring to possess them. This displacement is momentous. Instead of there being a known, finite, delimited…. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the concept of the Trinity and the distinction between the Latin theory of the Trinity and the Eastern or Social Theory of the Trinity. An a priori argument in favor of the Social Theory is given, and objections to the Social Theory raised by Brian Leftow are answered. The concept of perichoresis is important for both understanding and defending the Social Theory. The Latin Theory and the Social Theory are two appropriate ways of talking about the mystery (...) of the Trinity. (shrink)

James McGrath's contribution to the forthcoming edition, Vocabulary for the Study of Religion.

Name der Zeitschrift: Der Islam Jahrgang: 94 Heft: 2 Seiten: 363-384.

Today's conflicts between religions are grounded largely in historical injustices and grievances but partly in serious conceptual disagreements. This essay agrees with Miroslav Volf that a nontritheistic Christian account of the Trinity is highly desirable. Three traditional models of the Trinity are examined. In their pure, unmixed form, two of them should logically be acceptable to Jews, Muslims, and strict monotheists who regard Christianity as inherently tritheistic, despite lip service to one God. In the social model, three distinct self-aware subjects (...) are unified by being in perfect harmony with each other. Despite Volf's best defense of this, to conceive of three gods, this is how one would go about it. In the psychological model, one divine subject has three psychological capacities—memory, understanding, and will. In the functional model, one subject relates to the world in three different ways—as creator, redeemer, and companion. These two are genuinely monotheistic. Finally, a monotheistic account of the unity of Jesus with God is proposed for consideration. (shrink)

Fourteen essays by leading scholars from around the world explore the theological, philosophical, and historical connections between the three Abrahamic faiths and ethics. Timely reading for students of religion, philosophy, and ethics.

This book offers a unique comparative study of ubuntu, a dominant ethical theory in African philosophy, and western monotheism. It is the first book to bring ubuntu to bear on the axiology of theism debate in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. A large motivating force behind this book is to explore the extent to which there is intersubjective ethical agreement and disagreement between ubuntu and Western worldviews like monotheism and naturalism. First, the author assesses the various arguments for anti-theism and (...) pro-theism on the assumption that ubuntu is true. Ubuntu's communitarian focus might be so different from the Western tradition that it completely changes how we evaluate theism and atheism. Second, the author assesses the advantages and disadvantages of the truth of ubuntu for the world. Third and finally, he assesses the axiological status of faith for both monotheism and ubuntu. Ubuntu and Western Monotheism will be of interest to scholars and advanced students specializing in philosophy of religion, African religion and philosophy, and religious ethics. (shrink)