Talk:Ethical monotheism

Zoroastrianism
I would appreciate it if someone who knows how to do it could like to Zoroastrianism where I've put the word in. thanks. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is a total mess.
First, the "definition" section instead first mentions the origin of the idea, and then gives a definition which is more about monotheism in general without saying anything about ethics or morality. Then, in the "history" section, it lists some traits of the Abrahamic god, some of which that some might disagree with which are beside the point (what does whether God is corporeal or anthropomorphic have to do with his relation to ethics?), then says something that seems inconsistent (saying based on tradition and practice as opposed to philosophical argument is one thing, but "logical conclusion to questions about the origin of the world" seems to belong more with the latter than the former). Then for some reason it states what Jewish belief calls other religions including Christianity, which is a total non-sequitur, especially since Christians are also likely to have the kind of belief this article is supposed to be about. Then it says something about other religions and their relationship with "the God of ethical monotheism", as if that is a separate existence from the rest of those religions ideas about God. Then lastly the only "see also" is "Jewish ethics", despite this concept not being unique to only Judaism, but is present in many monotheistic beliefs.

Really, the only part of this article which actually helps explain the concept is the first sentence, which properly defines the idea behind it. After that, the article oddly focuses on contrasting Judaism with other religions on different points, rather than contrasting ethical monotheism with other ideas about ethics and morality (any of which that have a strong contrast to this are mostly based on some sort of philosophical ideas rather than being a tenant of some other religion).--108.86.123.102 (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Section "History"
With the oldid 927801790 of November 24, 019, I've modified the initial statement for which "Originally, ethical monotheism implied the adherence to the non-physical, non-corporeal, eternal, and in no way anthropomorphic "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob"".

Many Christians believe in the Pre-existence of Christ to all times with a human-divine Body generated by God. So, this in contrast with the aforementioned statement. If we don't have of an appearence of Jesus Christ God in the Old Testament nor that He was the one who spoke directly and personally to all the prophets, king David, as well as the High Priest of Israel, however Christ is also identified with the Word as to say He was the one who revealed the divine law in all the Sacred Texts.

Christianism differ in that the ethical law is not only a statement of God (of God the Son), but also is God the Son himself as He is the Word of God.

About Melchizedek, remarks the Bible didn't provide for him the name of the parents nor any some sort of genealogy, "resembling the Son of God" and like Him remaining a priest forever. To anyone believing in the Pre-existence of Christ, their identification remains an open issue. Hope someone helps or comments. Thanks for your courtesy attention, Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)