Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

at
Categories
Tags

 

Compare and contrast Judaism, Christianity, and Islam according to the following
points.
• The Nature of God: what God is like, how God relates to creation, how God
relates to morality, and how God relates to human beings.
• How God has revealed himself to human beings, and the main components of
that revelation (i.e., what is it that God holds we must believe)
• What is human salvation? What do we need to be saved from? How is it we
are saved? What happens to those who are not saved?
Note: within some of the religions named above there are different understandings of
what the religion teaches about the details in the three points listed.
Note also: do not just list the points, but show their connections (e.g., teachings about
what God is like and how God is revealed will be related to teachings about how a
human being is to be saved).
Part 2:
Choose one of these religions: Are there any criteria from reason, science,
experience, or history that might count as evidence for or against the truth of the
religion. If there are no such criteria, explain why not.
Note: I am not asking which religion you believe or disbelieve, but about criteria—
evidence or counter-evidence—by which someone might believe or disbelieve.

 

 

Sample Solution

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Three of the world`s major religions – the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism. There are differences between the three religions: The nature of God – in Christianity, there is one God, who exists in three distinct persons (The Trinity): father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19); in Islam, there is one God (Arabic: Allah), who is not a trinity. The Islamic view of God is called strict Monotheism (Quran 112:1); in Judaism, there is one God (known in English as Yahweh or Jehovah) Deuteronomy 6:4. While there have been differences among these religions, there was a rich cultural interchange between Jews, Christians, and Muslims that took place in Islamic Spain and other places over centuries.

conclusions on the suitability of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership, Tuckman’s Model of Group Development, Belbin’s Team Theory, and Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory in practice, and how complexities like power and influence shape how they can be applied to best suit the situation a leader faces.

Leadership
Contingency based theories of leadership suggest that there is no correct or best way to lead a group, or organisation, due to the significant number of constraints on a situation (Flinsch-Rodriguez, 2019). Fiedler, in his Contingency Theory of Leadership (Fiedler, 1967), suggests that the effectiveness of a group is dependent on the leadership styles of the leader and their favourability to the situation. Much of the theory is established around the least preferred co-worker scale (LPC). The LPC aims to quantify a potential leaders approach to a task on a scale of relationship motivated to task motivated, where the leader fits on the scale allows their most favourable situation to be deduced, and thus allows the identification of suitable leaders for tasks. The favourableness of the situation depends on three characteristics: leader-member relations, the support and trust the leader as from the group; task structure, the clarity of the task to the leader; and positional power, the authority the leader has to assess a groups performance and give rewards and punishments (Fiedler, 1967). If the leaders approach matches what is required from the situation then success is predicted for the group.
Fiedler’s contingency model offers a very austere categorisation of leadership, clearly defining which situations will and will not result in success for a potential leader. At the senior management level of a hierarchal structure within an organisation the theory can be applied freely, firstly due to the ease at which persons can be replaced if their LPC score does not match that required of the situation (Pettinger, 2007). Secondly, and most importantly, is to ensure that the senior management are best equipped to lead the organisation successfully. However, further down the hierarchy Fielder’s contingency theory begins to hold much less relevance, it becomes impractical from a organisational perspe

This question has been answered.

Get Answer