Talk:Abrahamic religions/Archive 1

message: I trimmed this because it seemed a bit out of place in the header section:
:At the same time, Sikhism can also be considered to part of the Dharmic faiths, as it, like Hinduism and Buddhism accepts karma and reincarnation. 
Perhaps there should be a section in this article giving an overview of all the other religions that claim or can be claimed to descend from Judaism, Christianity, or Islam (Sikhism, Bahai, Mormonism, Kardecism, ...).  The parag above then would be reinstated there.Jorge Stolfi 05:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Abrahamic religions

message: *Strongly Oppose Deletion - The very fact that some want this article deleted is an argument to keep it.  If its a very difficult topic then it deserves much work rather than us giving up, sometimes its the difficult things that are most worthy of our attention.  In my personal opinion this is a hot and difficult topic because part of the character of the "Abrahamic" traditions is to see themselves as unique, set-apart, special or to be more exact "Chose by God."  They therefore want to repell any similarity with 'other' traditiions.  This characteristic desire to seperate themselves is one of the most characteristic features of an Abrahamic tradition, something which certainly distinguishes them from the more tolerant and syncretic so-called "Pagan" traditions which joy in sharing an exchanging ideas about the divine.  (I am obviously my self a pagan.)  The term "Abrahamic" religion is therefore probably an afront to those who are most "Abrahamic" because they wish to have a special and unique stauts which is betrayed by the terms they often use to referr to themselves e.g.: "The Chosen people", "The Elect of God", "The Sanctified" etc...  Non-Abrahamic religions have had no need for such special statuses but were fine just remaining humans and citizens.  This seems to be a distinguishing characteristic between what is an "Abrahamic" and "Non-Abrahamic" religiion.Paul diffenderfer 15:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why delete this article?

message: I don't see the relavance of this
:Although Mohammed was an Arab, many Arabs are Christian, and most Muslims are not Arabs.
However, the origin of all Islamic/Muslim/Moslem ideas is a uniquely Arab source and character.--Yehonaton 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabs vs Muslims

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism is trying to decide all Hebrew linguistics issues for Wikipedia by themselves.  But Hebrew is not purely the realm of Judaism; it is also the realm of Samaritans, Christians and Abrahamic religion as a whole, and also secular Canaanite languages studies.  I'm trying to challenge mono-cultural mono-sectarian dominance over a linguistic field that we all should be sharing together.  I invite you to participate in trying to pluralize Hebrew language conventions for Wikipedia.  In particular, not only is Tiberian Hebrew transliteration challenged, but also Standard Hebrew transliteration, as some people want to use only Israeli Hebrew colloquial transliteration or Ashkenazi Hebrew liturgical transliteration.  I think these are perfectly valid and worthy of participation, but not at the total expense of every other Hebrew linguistics study concern.  Please support a multi-religious multi-cultural scientific NPOV mandate for studying Hebrew linguistics on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 02:54, 18 July 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone was wondering, I dropped this dispute a long long time ago.  It was a challenge against User:Yoshiah_ap, but we made up. :) We're good colleagues now and we cooperate extensively. - Gilgamesh 19:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation for Hebrew linguistics project participation

message: I believe "The Supreme Diety" section of this article should be merged with the section about each religion's scriptures.--Josiah 15:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Sections 

message: These people did not however leave any recorded moral code behind.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church considers the Book of Enoch inspired.
Is it a "moral code"?
The Book of Enoch is not a "moral code" as it were. When read, it is an account of an event
rather than "guidelines" of any kind. I have refrenced the book many times and I 
find no guidance in it save for the fuel for freethinkers and the like. --J. 03:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Enoch 

message: Could somebody please write something on this on the page? I would, but due to exams I don't have time at the moment. The Holy See (Vatican) website may be found useful.--Girl-razor 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you are incorrect.  Hell and purgatory are two distinct things, and this teaching has remained unchanged for many centuries.  See The Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 1030-1037 for the offical church's teaching, today. Lawrence King 04:37, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Hell 

message: Samaritans have been left off the list.  Why?  According to the wikipedia's article there are 650 practicing Samaritans who trace their faith back to Abraham.  They say they are the descendants of the Israelis who weren't enslaved in Babylon.  So, their doctinal difference with Judaism date back 3,000 years.  -- Geo Swan 03:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 650 people?  You don't think these 650 people are being given enough prominence? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the Samaritans?

message: The introductory paragraph to this section is inaccurate in all its parts.
* Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews do not agree that their conceptions of God are sufficiently alike to validly state that they all worship the same God.  This might even be the majority opinion.
* Muslims and Jews do not "visualize" God at all.
* Christians do not believe that "the Jewish God is only one aspect" of the Holy Trinity. The Persons of the Trinity are not "aspects", and the name "God" -- meaning one and the same God, not three individual Gods -- applies to all three equally. Csernica 09:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points are valid.  Also, statements about "Jews", "Muslims", and "Christians" tend to be weasel words; it's better to quote official religious positions, as stated in authoritative religious works, or official positions of various movements. Jayjg  | (Talk) 01:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Supreme Deity 

message: Note by Rife(elitehackers.com...whoo...) 
//Ok, first I'd like to point out that this page is being plagerized throughout the net.//
:GFDL kinda makes plagiarism accusations moot, don't you think?--Polyparadigm 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon comment (by Rife) [[24.13.147.214]] 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing policy proposal 

message: Incidentally, I had been told that Abraham being called the "first Muslim" is idiomatic.  It doesn't mean "the original adherent to a creed".  It's an idiomatic expression that means roughly, "I need no one to lead me, in order to obey. If commanded by God, I will be the first to submit myself to him". Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Muslim 

message: I reworked the lead to reflect a related discussion in Christianity; aiming at neutrality, softening claims of continuity between these religions, pointing out the cause of controversy in use of this terminology, and more fully describing why Christianity is often called an Abrahamic religion. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead - neutrality 

message: Noitall wrote : Not true at all (that Jesus was physically descended from Abraham_ - See VIRGIN Mary
Of course the Orthodox view is that Mary was a Virgin; but even discounting Joseph's seed, we still say that Jesus physically came from Mary, and Mary is a physical descendant of Abraham too.  Of course, this is not of vital importance to Orthodox either, since his teachings do make it pretty clear that being a descendant of Abraham is not a free ticket nor a requirement into his Kingdom... Codex Sinaiticus 19:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not meant literally, but spiritually. "conceived of the virgin Mary from the Holy spirit"  I accept that one of the minor demoninations preaches your views though (even though I do not know if this is in fact true).  Even there, I think you might be confused.  There certainly is a disagreement on how devine and how human He was when he came to earth (see Mary Magdalene argument).  But coming to earth and rising back into heaven were Godly things, not human.  And the association with an ancestor is tenuous at best, since there is disagreement as to the historicity of Abraham.  The association with David and John the Baptist are far stronger, but both in the spiritual sense of the Jews being God's chosen people (and Jesus, of course, being a Jew) and preparing the way for His entry on earth.  --Noitall 20:04, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am not in the least confused; I know what my Church teaches.  It teaches that Christ has only one, undivided nature that is at once fully human and fully Divine.  That is the difference with Chalcedonian churches, that all claim he had two entirely separated or schizophrenic natures.  We say that his humanity and divinity had to be perfectly meshed into one nature, in order to have any effect.  In other words, he didn't just visit his creation, he fully entered into and became a part of it.  Also, there is no disagreement whatsoever within our church as to the historicity of Abraham, so again, this argument applies only to the other churches.  Finally, Monophysite Christianity might be "one of the minor denominations" to you, but not so in all parts of the world; it is the oldest Church and the dominant or official religion in many countries, including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Armenia and Georgia, all of which became Christian even before the Roman Empire. Codex Sinaiticus 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Alright, I accept it.  I had no idea where your expertise was coming from.  I will look up the denomination because I have no knowledge of it.  Do you have a decent link?  --Noitall 07:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I have a problem with two statements in this passage.  First:
"Christians do not generally believe in a literal lineage or covenant. They refer to the Old Testament for spiritual lessons, which speaks of the history of Judaism and the heritage and stories of Abraham, son Isaac, and Jacob (Israel)..." 
To say that Christians do not believe in a literal lineage or covenant is absolutely false.  The very first thing written in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1-17) specifically lists the geneology of Jesus starting with Abraham.  It is a literal lineage to the fullest extent, and the majority of christians accept this account in the bible as an actual lineage.  
As for Christians not believing in a covenant, well the fundamental basis for Christianity, and this is pretty much for all Catholic and Protestant denominations, is that Christ is the fullfillment of the covenant given to the Jews of the OT.  The Old Testament is filled with examples of God talking about the covenant, and prophesies of the messiah that will fullfill that covenant.  Therefore, the belief in the covenant is an absolutely necessary part of christiantity.
Also, saying that "Christians refer to the Old Testament for spiritual lessons" immediately proceeding the statement that (incorrectly) says that they do not believe in a literal covenant implies that Christians do not believe in the Old Testament literally, and just take it for good advice.  Again, this is just not true.  Christians believe in the absolute validity of the old testament, otherwise Jesus wouldn't mean anything.  If the OT wasn't true, and was just a bunch of "spiritual teachings", then you wouldn't be able to determine that Jesus is the Messiah.  In fact, Christians would say that one of the major purposes of the OT was to let the Jews know how to identify the Messiah when he comes, so that he could be recognised as the Christ when he did.  Without believing the literal statements of the OT, such as he will be born of a virgin, he will be of the line of Abraham and David, he will be born in Bethlehem, etc, (all part of the lineage / covenant), plus other statements about events during the rest of his life and death, without these there would simply not be any Christianity.
Therefore my issue with this second text follows:
"Unlike the majority of Christian denominations, Monophysite Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Christians teach that Abraham was a physical ancestor of Christ, since they firmly hold that in addition to being Divine, Christ had to become fully human in order to save the world."
This text is a bit misleading.  By physical ancestor, do you mean that Jesus had to receive genes from Joseph's sperm and Mary was not actually a virgin?  If so, then your statement is partially true, but remember that most Christian denominations conclude that Jesus was 100% human, as well as 100% devine.   So to say that the majority of christian denominations don't think Jesus was fully human would be innacurate.  If "physical ancestor" does not require that mary was not a virgin, then your statement would be true of you said that the majority of christians believe it (see above).
Thanks, I'll be happy to edit the article or participate in some back-and-forth.
Oh, and I removed the statement "a figure which is not mathematically credible" from the Rastafarian Lineage section as well.  I know basically nothing about Rastafarian beliefs, but to simply discount their beliefs like that, with an link to the "Mathematics" wikipedia article is nothing less than insulting to them and completely inappropriate.  The article is about their beliefs, not whether you think they are true or not.
--adamsta
If you accept that adoption is a valid way into a linage, than using the bloodline found in Luke 3:23-38, Jesus is linked to Abraham. People  like to read luke 3:23 as "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph." However,"so it was thought" could also have been translated as "as it was entered into the book." Meaning Joseph was under the law, Jesus' father. Regardless, a religion need not phsyically be linked to Abraham to an abrahamic religion, as long as it worships the God of Abraham. I welcome any differing opions l4apoc@yahoo.com
The halachic idea of adoption is very complex, and it would automatically exclude someone from holding such a significant position as "moshiach" in Israel. Also, according to most Christian doctrine (Catholic/Evangelic etc...) they claim that jesus was "fathered by G_d". This idea therefore negates the issue of lineage because if his father is "G_d" then why would there need to be any proof of lineage, and this would also disqualifies someone from being "moshiach." --Yehonaton 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Jesus' physical descent from Abraham 

message: === Explanation ===
 Lineage is covenant between Abraham and God, passed from Father to Son, much as the 
 crown would have been passed  from a King to a Prince.
 === Abraham ===
 In Genesis, Abram entered into a covenant with God, and was renamed Abraham.
This entire section is practically meaningless. As adamsta says about one of its sections, with charming understatement, this text is a bit misleading.  The use of terms is weird, "Lineage is covenant".  No it isn't.   And if that's the explanation for the presence of this sectiion, the section needs to be entirely re-written for factual accuracy and NPOV. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineage 

message: Anonymous Editor, don't you see that the reason that the "apostasy" issue is relevant here, is that Islam says that "there is no compulsion in religion".  And yet, every Muslim is under compulsion to remain a Muslim.  The balance is necessary in order to understand what is meant by "no compulsion". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original sentence said that apostates were subject to penalties ranging from ostracism to death. It did not say that all apostates were to be killed.  The paragraph should not invite the inference that Islam teaches that religion is a matter of free choice, free from coercion; or that this coercion preventing apostasy, and penalizing evangelists, is limited only to the fringe among a few Muslim countries. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostasy in the Evangelism section

message: :When you say that ALL Christian churches state evangelism is sinful that is both point of view and factually incorrect. There are several protestant groups that encourage it. Obviously you can not apply the definition you added to preachers like Pat Robertson or other extremists. I think adding "certain" for both the churches and the Muslim countries is fair and uniform between the two. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sentence has never said "all Christian churches" - it states a norm, from which I am not aware of any notable exceptions.  Although, if you look under a rock somewhere, I'm sure you can find somebody who wants to tell the world to convert or die.  If Islam has any renegades who don't fit the norm, maybe you can understand what I'm saying.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Determining what "churches teach" isn't a matter of adding "preachers" here, or there, who say one thing or another.  There are norms, and exceptions to norms.  The norm for Christian churches of any consequence, is to teach that forced conversion is a sin.  Now, name the the exceptions; but don't say "certain Christian churches" teach against forced conversion, which invites the inference that they are not the norm. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No specific sources have been provided that say that the Catholic church has always deemed forced conversions "sinful" or any other church for this matter. Only present day sources have been given. I find it hard to believe that the "teaching" has always been that forcing people to convert to Christianity is "sinful" when the Catholic church has authorized them in many (and most) of the cases cited. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right.  Only present day sources need to be given, when they speak for the whole church.  Vatican II is an authoritative council, and the teaching on the subject is spelled out in the document linked to - which addresses the tradition and the Biblical reasoning behind their conclusions.  Papal encyclicals following Vatican II reiterate the theme of "human freedom and dignity" to the same effect.  It is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  Do you wish that it wasn't?  As a Protestant, I can tell you that I thank God for this teaching, and have no desire to see it changed, and hope that all Catholics will adhere to it.  I pray for the same thing with regard to Islam.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Good, I am glad you agree that the present source is given, because that indicates that the Catholic church did not necessarily always have this negative stance towards forced conversions and that this is a fairly recent decision. Therefore I propose that an edit be done to reflect this within the article. Something that indicates that condemning forced conversions as "sinful" is a recent decision by the catholic church and that there wasn't necessarily such a teaching when all the cited "allegations" of forced conversions of Muslims, Jews, native Americans, eastern orthodox, etc. took place. I too hope that Catholics and others will adhere to this teaching from now on, because so many people have suffered because of it. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that what you need to appreciate is the Catholic idea that an understanding of a doctrine can develop without the doctrine changing.  If you would interact with the document that has been referred to, and the encyclicals that affirm the same things, you should be able to see that the Church's understanding has developed, so that the Church is understood to have always taught that forced conversions are wrong, despite the fact that Catholics understood things differently at other times and places.  What has changed is that there was no formal condemnation, in the past.  What has not changed, is that forced conversions are a sin according to Roman Catholicism.  If you'll get your mind around that, you can express the Catholic teaching without bias - pointing out the wrongs, and also describing what the Church says about those wrongs, and what in fact it does about them. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  But at the same time you should realise it also means that although the doctrine does not change, the understanding may infact change again in the future. It is possible that in 100 years time, that forced conversions will be condoned by Catholics. Critics at that time may point to the fact that it is condemned today, but supporters of forced conversions will be able to use your (Mark) exact same argument to state that it was simply an incorrect interpretation of the unchanging doctrine. -Chees 198.152.13.67 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced conversion

message: I'm not sure where to ask this question, since there's no specific WikiProject to turn to. I'm in the middle of a heated debate with an anonymous user at Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#1 Tim 1:17 about the meaning of "eternal, immortal and invisible" in relation to "The God Of Abraham". Here's some of the dialog from that conversation.
----
but what makes it so unique from the other Abrahamic religions, yet alone important for including here? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The don't mean the same thing. end of discussion. This article is about a group you know nothing about, so it's best that you leave it alone. Stick to articles where you may have some knowledge of. 168.243.84.113
----
as well as this...
----
See above. God is immortal. The God article says so, so why must this as well? It is redundant in a language sort of way becuase it repeats a concept with a different word. To be clear, if we are talking about "the God of Abraham" (for lack of better word), we are talking about the same God. There's no difference between the Jewish God, the Christian God, nor even the Muslim Allah. Each religion is based on their view of God. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 09:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Again displaying your ignorance of the subject matter. It may serve you to do a little research before making statements such as this. 168.243.84.113 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  God; eternal, immortal, invisible 

message: Would editors knowledgable about the Judeo-Christian ethic or tradition see my comment here: ?  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  call for help 

message: Rather than overhauling this article, I would go for deleting the article altogether. The only unique contribution of this article is the definition of the term "Abrahamic religion". Other than that, the article just makes a cursory comparison of several aspects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and goes like "Judaism says this, Christianity, says that, Islam says something else." All these issues, however, are treated extensively in the articles devoted to these three religions. I fail to see any need to combine several excerpts from those articles in one place. However, if this article is only about a term, then the Wikipedia policy is "do not create an entry merely to define a term." WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. So the appropriate decision should be to delete this article and, possibly, create the article "Abrahamic religion" in Wiktionary.
*Support. As nominator. Pecher Talk 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *By the way, you need to put up a request for deletion if you really want this article to be deleted. joturner 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Pecher said on my talk page he created this section to just test the waters, to see what everyone would think about getting this article deleted before actually making a formal request. I think the idea of testing the waters doesn't make sense as that, essentially, is what the request for deletion is; a vote before the vote doesn't seem to make much sense. joturner 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary vote to delete the article

message: I recently added Abraham to the page List of people known as father or mother of something, noting that  he has been called both "Father of Israel" and "Father of Islam".  There are numerous sources for both.   I also added Ishmael, who has been called "Father of the Arabs", and Paul of Tarsus, who has been called by various scholars "Father of Christianity".
Another user removed these changes, contesting that only within Islam has Abraham been considered a Father of Islam.  He (or she) further contested that father means "founder", and that Muhammed should be called the Father of Islam.  This list is not meant to be an exclusive one, and specifically states "that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated, nor that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it."
Anyone interested in this discussion, please contribute at Talk:List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something#Religious_Figures.
--Dforest 07:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham on [[List of people known as father or mother of something]] 

message: There's a section about Moses receiving the 613 commandments on Mount Sinai.  I am personally confused --- in my Bible it says (Exodus 21) that Moses received 10 commandments on Mt. Sinai.  Do Judaism or Islam say differently?  If so, perhaps we should note the discrepancy..
: Traditional Judaism believes that not just the 10 commandments were handed down at Sinai, but the entire Torah as well (+ the oral law, now emobodied in the Talmud and therefor no longer exclusively oral).  A reading of the Torah reveals a total of 613 commandments (including keeping Kosher, etc) which include the traditional 10 commandments that Christains are familiar with. Incorrect 07:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the edit of 613 to 10.  It is ironic that someone would make that edit to a section of the site without explanation.  Incorrect 01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In a nutshell, Christians believe that Jesus's coming, death, and resurrection signifies the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesy and the Law.  Christians believe that with this fulfillment, the Law itself no longer applies in terms of one's path to salvation, and instead one "gets to heaven" only through true faith in Jesus.  For example, wearing four tassels on your cloak or performing certain ritual washings no longer had any stock in your salvation (some of the 613 laws).  Christians believe that this was explained in the OT and, once Jesus came, reiterated through Jesus' teachings and the other inspired books of the New Testament.  Thus, the 613 laws were neither rewritten, deleted, nor replaced, but fulfilled.  They were the guidebook for God's people to keep and live by until the Messiah would come.   The 10 commandments remain as an excellent guideline for moral behavior, but again, if you were to break one of them, it does not guarantee Hell, nor does fulfillment of all 10 commandments lead to Heaven.--Tom II 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  613 Commandments? 

message: There was significant support for splitting this article, but since then things seem to have gone quiet. There is a clear need for an article about What is an Abrahamic religion? Which religions are generally claimed to be Abrahamic? and to some extent What are the core or distinguishing features of Abrahamic faiths? but which need not be an in depth piece of comparative religious study. Obviously it ought to say something about general trends Abrahamic faiths - it would be silly not to mention that they seem to be monotheistic, although of course even this is not clear cut (Muslims do not generally view Christians as true monotheists). There is no need to make this a Muslim-Christian comparison piece and I think there is significant support for this view expressed above. The article fails to address the key question of "what faiths are considered Islamic" and some instances like "Rastafari" get their first mention far too low down. It also fails to address the "what is an Abrahamic faith?" point well at all. I support those editors above who decided this needs a significant re-write. TheGrappler 20:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting this article 

message: If this is a historical overview of all these religions, then the discussion of Jewish non-evangelism should include mention of the pre-modern period when Judaism was evangelical. If there's no room to be complete, perhaps the matter should be kept for a more specific page where there is room for the whole story. Dybryd 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish evangelism

message: Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner, apologize, self-promotion):
Philosophy and religion - including Abrahamic religions:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm
Pvosta 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link suggestion 

message: I'm not sure where to add it, but the first paragraph has more open parens "(" than close parens ")".  The unclosed paren begins with "Abraham ("Father/Leader of many" Hebrew".  Somebody close that paren!  — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a close paren ) in the first paragraph 

message: Good to see Bahai's listed, however, shouldn't the Sikhs get a mention. They are after all a cross fertilisation between "Abrahamic" and "Dharmic" --MacRusgail 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhs