It is good to point out that certain forms of Islam and Judaism view God the same way. It is, however, equally fallacious to imply that all of Islam and Judaism share this belief while none of Christianity does.

The better line to draw, I believe, is between inerrancy and infallibility.

Proponents of ID seem to be all in the inerrantist camp, religion notwithstanding.

Inerrantists throughout history have been, IMO, Pharisees, Wahhabists, and Fundamentalists.

There are some Christians who espouse omninescience. (Or should that be "divine nescience"?)

From the wikipedia article: "...God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, he is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to His plan or presuppositions."

Remind me not to write pre-coffee.

Restating the first paragraph: it is less than completely correct to imply all of Christianity is non-monistic; similarly, it is less than completely correct to imply all of Islam and Judaisism are monistic.

If one were to construct a two-by-two square, with the top two columns labeled "Objective" and "Subjective" and the left two columns labeled "Absolute" and "Relative", one would find that the close-minded belief systems can be placed into either the Objective-Absolute or Subjective-Relative boxes.

A similar Johari window can be composed with "Truthful - Untruthful" and "Honest - Dishonest" as the axes.

ID strikes me as truthful, yet dishonest. ID as seems to be practiced in America truthfully presupposes that all that is could have been made by an intelligent designer, but dishonestly hides their assumptions that there *is* an intelligent designer and that this intelligent designer is their personal flavor of God behind their truthful "we don't know."

Michael, I agree with you that Christianity and Judaism are not as black and white as she makes them out to be. That's why I mentioned the Mormons. I think she could have been more specific about which Christian, and Muslim groups fit into her bigger point.

I like her argument that ID fits in an icon heavy monotheistic religion. I'd never considered iconography or iconoclasm as traits that shape a religion.

For further evidence of monism, check-out [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom]shalom[/a], [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaam"]salaam[/a].

I can't find a convenient wiki link for the Christian version, charis kai eirene (KJV: "grace and peace" WGGV: "the gifts that give you reason for joy and the wholeness and completeness that comes with them")

For a Christian monist view, I'm listening to Bruce McLaren's [a href="http://marshill.org/teaching/index.php"]"Which Story Do You Live In?"[/a] (McLaren is seen by some accumulation monotheistic fundamentalists as the anti-christ. You have been warned.)

Hi.

I really love the way your posts express themselves in a way that we don't see enough on blogs nowadays.

Anyway, I know this is really off-topic, but I wanted to ask you about freshblogs - if you really don't want to continue it, may I use your domain? I love the way it sounds..

Thanks for your time, and sorry I couldn't find an email address - maybe delete 'Anyway' onwards?

Really interesting post. Thx

I read that article as well and found it really interesting becase the author make you think about the differces among relaigions and show the reader the real meaning of them...

A comparison of religions is good even if it can be dangerous. But it's always interesting to have such a good point on it. So i guess, thanks!