Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior

No, sir; I’M not having it. The whole point of making a cake is to eat the damn thing, is it not. Cake isn’t made to just sit there and look pretty though they certainly make cakes for that purpose, I’m sure. And the fact is that I’m not sitting here and saying every ideology is wrong, just that people don’t make enough of an allowance for other ideologies. I bring forth an ideology that actually accounts for others ideologies and incorporates them and you and certain others want to talk shit about it? Sounds more to me like jealousy for not thinking of it your self. And yes, I am open-minded, but I don’t really pat myself on the back a lot for it. That is what you think you see. And, if you put hard work in to something, wouldn’t you want a pat on the back for it? Just saying.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. My opinion is that I make damn good arguments, which is what pisses people off and forces them to try to insult me and criticize me such as you do. It isn’t constructive, since you aren’t pulling out actual instances of such and seem to just be spouting off to give vent to your own frustrations and seem to blame me because… well, you figure that one out. Yes, I do believe that if every person in the world sought to be open-minded enough to learn from everything as I am that the world would be a better place because it would instill a lot of virtues and people would have to learn better how to get alone with each other. It’s the difference between dragging your feet on something and actually getting in the swing of it. Lmao, I never said not to be confrontational. Where in my fucking attitude, bitch-boy, do you see non-confrontationalism? I pick situational confrontationalism and make it worth it. Wow, what a fucking concept.

Dude, I don’t ever talk about how wonderful I am, I just use myself as an example instead of using other people, because no matter what I use as an example, people still get pissed the fuck off so I might as well just use my self if the damn shoe fits. I will make arguments for some sort of position if you can bring forth arguments that better criticize the position I already suitably argued into position. Don’t care if you see it or not, your posts in this thread are about to verge on ridiculous, so after this response to you in this thread, I’m done and will address you in a different thread so that this one can return to talking about how abrahamic religions are inferior to other systems of belief because of certain tenets of thought that were introduced into those religions after the religions got their forgotten starts from humble origins that never intended for such to occur. I would love to sit here and watch these people discuss and dissect the actual differences between the Abrahamic Religions and then put actual concrete example of the superiority of their chosen favorites. In fact, I was kind of hoping something like that would actually occur between the two threads made with this subject matter and have yet to actually see anything of the sort. Personally, I don’t care what you see and don’t see at this point since you’re not really saying anything of value and seem to just be willfully trying to tear me apart. Good luck with that.

Do you think I care how angry I come off as? No. Am I angry? All the damn time as I have said before, just the same as I feel every other emotion all the damn time. I balance it out, though and I’m not angry when I make these posts, but I do use bits and pieces of it to add emphasis. I. Do. Not. Care. What. Negativity. People. Can. Construe. My. Words. As. You want to be negative then be negative. Of course I’m going to get slightly heated when you want to just cut me down without actually using concrete arguments. I don’t care because you’re going to keep going on that track regardless of what answers I give because you want and somehow need to come out on top of this little tussle for the sake of your own ego and perhaps you need to question the why of that when you HAVE NO ARGUMENTS TO CONCRETELY GIVE AGAINST ANYTHING I BRING FORTH because I always have a counterpoint, my mind never stops working on it and I’ve been pushing these ideas along long before you ever even considered them. From pebbles to boulders and should I not feel some sense of pride for it? I don’t fly into tirades, I try to have actual conversations and here and in this place, I can say all that I have a mind to say without interruption. It’s some good shit. I’m not saying you shouldn’t question me, but actually have something to question me with instead of your negative and demeaning bullshit because, yeah, then I’m going to defend myself and cut you down like the bitch you are. I use swear words, but some times just as filler words because it helps the flow of language for me and I don’t care what others think about it and yet when you want to act as you do; as other trolls have acted as they have, you’re going to have them directed at you along with all the subtle insults that may or may not be over your head and at such a point as toppling so many other self-conceived intellectuals, should I not have some sense of pride toward my talents to say, without boasting, that I have done so? Did I stop there or did I go on to say that I did so because they beat themselves in those arguments? Oh, you must have missed that part since you only skimmed and seem to have that negative filter on your vision blocking you from seeing actual truth as it sits there and not how I present it to others. God, your life must suck balls, huh.

Yeah, you’re right, I don’t care or concern myself with what others think. I never do that. The sad part is that on some level I do have to make my self not care about the cutting aspect of the words otherwise it would cut too deeply, and I’m used to being on the outside looking in, even from a young age, so the whole aloof thing is not really my design, but… Sure, believe me to be too badass to be doubted because I certainly don’t believe that. Maybe if you believe it enough it will come true. I don’t care if people doubt me or what I say, I really don’t. And realistically, why shouldn’t people doubt it when someone comes forth talking about such things… yet, I see around me all throughout the world people who are willing, wanting, and waiting to believe in something like this because it is somehow buried deep down in their consciousness as possible and you have to wonder why that is. But, you don’t wonder much at all, do you. The fact is that there might just be these things a part of reality that once was and might be again and you can’t say for sure either way and neither can I and yet there are lots of dimensional possibilities, are there not. I spent some of the past five months existing on a multi-dimensional frequency of my mind, not just seeing a 3 dimensional world but experiencing countless different perceptions of things that I could not fake or bring about on my own. I was taken for a ride and I don’t care who believes me when I say it, I really don’t, but I’ll say it anyway because it is real and it does happen and a good amount of my people are counted as crazy for talking about it openly. I’ve seen them. And, it does make me angry and upset when I think about it, but what can you say about it? So fear-driven; so negative. Move on, dude.

How is it perposterous, sir? How does it not make any sense? How can you claim that nobody would believe it? I don’t say that people who deny these are terrible human beings and never have. I have continually stated that people need to actually have arguments and everyone deserves to be heard. Why do you think I spend so much time with dealing with the trolls when most people would just walk away? Why do you think I spend so much time with people like you explaining things I don’t have to explain when it’s not explanations you want from me? Do you really think that by pushing this ideology forward that the world is going to get better? It’s not ideologies that make the world better, it’s how people treat each other. You could have tried to treat me with respect and yet you didn’t. You don’t feel that you have to, so… here we sit not respecting each other and yet I still respect you more than you respect me. But then, you have a heightened sense of self by the position you have and then throw insult at me to talk about my heightened sense of self and I just don’t care to tell you how foolish that is when we could be having this conversation along completely different tones and still reach the same conclusion. You’re working through your inner problems the best you can and I respect that even if I don’t respect your arguments because they lack actual substance to their criticisms. I am not a better human being than anyone else and never said as much. And to be honest, you’ve never seen anything like me before, but that’s okay.

I’m not wrapped up in ego, I’m self-oriented and use that knowledge to analyze myself and present my findings. I talk about my self and there is a very big difference between ego and confidence. I am confident; I could be far more egotistical and you know it. And their beliefs get either forgotten or get nowhere except into the same stagnancy of politics as they deal with each other as diplomatically as possible instead of actually solving a very real problem with their hierarchies and the way they approach things. I don’t exhibit self-righteousness, I exhibit righteousness and there is a difference but I don’t expect you to see it at this instance, which you will take as more signs of ego on my part instead of the general assessment of your mood that it is. And… you think me intimidating? Really? That’s good to know. I like that, except I’m not even trying to be right now and that’s the problem. If I’m intimidating you, it’s your perception, not mine and shouldn’t you consider that in full why you perceive that when I’m just trying to converse?

Yeah, I guess I did claim magical powers and yet to denigrate what I claimed to such a term, spoken derogatorily, as ‘magical powers’ is kind of ludicrous. The fact is that emotional energy can be quantified by science, can be measured at least in small part and so can the neurological impulses our nerves put off. You should see some of the technology coming out concerning using just our brains to change reality. Sure, they have to hook electrodes up to the temples and other nerve centers to change just a small portion of say, a computer screen image, but the technology is quite promising and what is technology to some except magic? Science has the rights to magic? I don’t think so. If such energies can be quantified and ascertained, they can be felt and they can be ascertained by natural instruments. A strong empath is a person who is able to empathize with other people because they’re able to put themselves in their shoes to feel what they feel and how can they do that so easily without picking up the stronger trends of emotions that pass through in invisible energy waves? The fact is that I have seen evidence of it with my own eyes at the same time as feeling what I have felt. But, you would just discount that as folly or something else, wouldn’t you. But, divorced from reality as I am, I obviously failed to actually learn anything at all to adequately state my point because fuck, I guess I really am that foolish of an asshole still. You got me on that one, Ucci.

So, why don’t you tell me something I don’t know, Ucci, why don’t you show me something I haven’t seen before? Why don’t you actually try to talk to me about these things legitimately instead of being a giant douche? I don’t know, but this isn’t the proper place for it, is it… a combination of abrahamic religions with other religions and even those spiritualistic beliefs thought to be better by the OP? That is just too much ridiculousity in one thread for Uccisore the super-moderator.

All Glory to the Hypnotoad.

Oh, and don’t forget Cthulhu. That guy is awesome. His meaningless of existence question and the fog it brings to the mind is just epic. I answered the call of Cthulhu, lol, and faced my worst fears. Can’t say that that would work for everybody, though; not like it worked for me; but it is a moment of awesomeness I will remember forever and so I smile and giggle and look like I’m insane and don’t care one bit because jackasses like you are just that: jackasses. Cheers, mate.

The point of the saying is that once you eat/slice up the cake, you no longer have the pretty thing to look at anymore- you have to choose one or the other. The rest of what you wrote is similarly foolish. In this case, you want to play the ‘tolerance and understanding’ card, and the “I am intellectually superior to the rest of the world and know how to fix everything” card. You can’t have both really.

 Which people? To what degree 'not enough'?  Western civilization is currently drowning in people that are aggressive about their lack of conviction to the point that you can't say "Merry Christmas" in a Christian nation for fear a non-believer might overhear and be offended.  Western Civilization is currently being threatened with collapse by Middle Eastern cultures who are strong specifically because they do not take your advice.  Every ideology that you think people ought to make more allowance for has only persisted into the present, only continues to exist at all, because it is taught and maintained by people who don't make allowance for other ideologies. 

That is the cake that you want to both have, and eat. if 500 years ago Buddhism or Christendom or whomever was lead by people who took bits and pieces from all ideologies and incorporated them, there would be no Buddhism or Christendom now for YOU to take bits and pieces from today.

Yes, because it is shit. Two main reasons:
1.) You’re concerned with coming up with an ideology that is ‘nice’ and helps people get along and makes you feel good instead of one where the premises might actually be true.
2.) Your ideology is parasitic, in the way I describe above: it encourages people to borrow from others who did NOT believe in your ideology, and the more widespread your ideas become, the less there is to borrow from.

You’ll talk and talk and talk about how bright you are and how mean I am, but you won’t ever get around those two problems. And like I said, the horseshit factor- because your position is based on something other than being true, all you can do to defend it is appeal to emotions, make yourself sound superior for advocating it, and make others feel inferior when they don’t.

You’re never going to make an argument for HOW it could possibly be the case that some bit from Catholicism and some other bit from Hindu could both be true when completely torn from the traditional arguments and evidences that support them, because there is no such argument because your position is shit.

The ironic thing is that the only thing your position has going for it is that if everybody did it, the world would be a more peacful place. Trouble is, that’s true of any ideology. The world would be a more peaceful place if everybody was a Catholic, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, or whatever. At least in that case, people wouldn’t be mired in a directionless, fact-free syncretism.

Which is why it was so easy to pull out the flaws in your position from what you say.  This is also an odd thing to say for somebody who two posts ago was attributing magical empathy powers to themselves.  

So you’re that hard-ass who doesn’t care what other people think, who is also that tolerant-openminded guy who wants to heal the world by incorporating the best pieces of every body else’s ideologies. Is that cake anology making more sense to you now?

Because you're proposing your position on the grounds that it would make people happy to believe it, and not on the grounds that it is true. I would have thought that much is obvious. Take any bit from any religion you like....say, drinking alcohol being evil in Islam.   Try to stick that into Hindu somehow.  How the fuck would you do that? Why would you do that?  The Hindu story and the grounding of it's ethics has no way to support an outright ban on a foodstuff.  A person who said "I am a Hindu who incorporates the alcohol restrictions from Islam" would have to admit that they are only doing it from personal preference- and thus they would know that their ideas are false.  Now, that's an easy example, but practically every example of syncretism would break down the same way.  Anybody with any degree of intellectual honesty knows that when they pull ideas just because they 'like' them and clump them all together, they aren't engaging in a truth-producing enterprise. 
But none of this concerns you, so I don't know why you ask.  At no point have you given any indication that your ideology exists because you think it is true- it's a pablum to make people stop fighting.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=187379

so they can go back to discussing the relative inferiority of Abrahamic Religions.

Prism, I generally do not take that much pain to explain atheists because they are not ready to listen the other side. But, my assumption is that you are not one those thus I am trying.

Because, there was no such need for Buddha or Mahavira to address those kinds of questions. That brings us again to the point that i made in the last post.

[b]Religions are not isolated texts. Each and every religion has a particular context and its propagator tried to address that context only. The purpose of Buddhism and Jainism was merely to make people aware of those unnecessary social practices, which was forced by the Brahmans as an interpretation of Vedas. That is all. They did not go beyond this. That is why they are free from violence.

Buddhism and Jainism are merely complementary religions to Hinduism, not fully fledged ones. The same is for the Christianity too. They do not address all verticals of the life[/b].

One may also conclude in his wisdom that Buddha was not against homosexuality because he did not say that. But, that is not the case because Buddha did not say a word about sex. But, offering a complete life style, both of Hinduism and Islam has to address sex and marriage too.

Are you aware that the famous Kamsutra was written by a sage and was taught to the students besides with other streams of the knowledge! Does that make Vedanta a vulgar religion and Buddhism a sacred one?

Secondly, are you aware that both Hinduism and Islam too, laid down the guidelines even for how one should sit on the toilet seat, which hand should be where and which hand should be used to wash the excreta? Does that make them obscene religions in the comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, as they are free of such things?

The same is in the case of violence too. Hinduism and Islam talked about the violence because that is also an inevitable part of the human behavior too. It does not make any religion violent. Our present social system also lay down the guidelines for war like which weapons should be used and how one country should behave with prisoners of war. Does that mean that our present system is violent?

Unlike Muhammad , Moses and lord Krisha, Buddha did not have to face a war. So, he needs not to set the guidelines for a war. His focus was only the uncalled rituals in the name of Vedas like sacrificing the animals and other unnecessary ones. His only purpose was telling the people that these Brahmans are fooling you. These rituals are not the ultimate purpose and you can know and be like them by doing meditation on your own.

See, that is the problem.

When it comes to Hinduism, its shortcomings (so called) become minor disputable points for you. But, as soon as you find something such in Abrahamic religions, you present those as evil laden texts. Those are not misinterpretations for you! How you concluded that distinction?

Did Lord Krishna not force Arjuna to fight a war against his own cousin brothers, even when he was not ready and wanted that to let go? That war killed millions of innocents from both sides. Lord Krishna said many occasions in Mahabharata that it is okay to cheat a cheater and kill a killer. But, when Muhammad did the same to save his community, he becomes violent for you! Why?

Secondly, how Christianity, who does not propagate violence at any cost, looks evil laden to you?

There is some worth in that argument but already gave the answer to that question in the last post. That was not the fault of the Abrahamic religions but the shortcoming of the people who were being addressed. They were just not mature enough to comprehend subtleties. That is why the most of the Abrahamic prophets restrict themselves to simple day to day issues.

Only Moses and Muhammad addressed that. You may not be aware that there is a very subtle concept of Yetzer Hara in Judaism.

This notion that This, in itself, is not bad, nor is it an abnormality was misused by the Jews as an excuse to justify vested interests after Moses. Jesus tried his best to rectify that and his whole life consumed by this only. That is the only reason why most of the Jesus teachings were about morality not metaphysics.

This very Yetzer Hara is called Nafs in Islam and Man/Chitta in different sects of Hinduism.

Prism, you certainly know more about religions than an average intellectual but you are still far far behind from being an expert. Do not take it as an undermining statement. That is not my purpose at all. I am just trying to give you the actual picture. Religions are very vast and subtle concepts. It takes too much time and commitment to be an expert, sometimes a life time is not enough.

If you remember that in other thread you said that you studied Kant for three years yet that seems not to be enough. If understanding the work of a single person is taking so much time, how much time it will take to understand that collective work of so many scholars?

That is precisely the problem with intellectuals now. They think that reading some articles here and there on the net can make them an expert of anything. And, they start judging everything. It is not that simple.

You are again taking a wrong route without investigating enough.

How you concluded that Sufism is a special class of people and a Sufi is 90% mystic and only 10% conventional. I do not think that you know enough about Sufism to conclude that.

The bombing on Sufi shrines does not proof anything. Infighting within the different sects of a religion is a common amongst all religions. Shias and Sunnis have been involved in fighting and killing each other all over the world since long. That does not make any of them non-Muslim. So, how does the attack of Sufi shrines make Sufism non-Muslim religion?

It is only Wahabi and Salafi community of Islam that does not accept Sufism as a sect of Islam. Unfortunately, they belong to rich Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and west takes only Arabs as true flag bearers of Islam, while they are only 20% of the total Muslim population!

They also forget that more than half of the Muslim population lives in the countries like India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Russia etc. Do you know that Indonesia has the largest Muslim population, followed by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

If you ever go to the countries of Indian subcontinent, you will be able to realize what the place of Sufism among Muslims is in these three countries, which collectively accounts roughly 1/3 of the world Muslim population. There is no special class of people here who follow Sufism. They are very much common Muslims. The fact of the matter is that you will not able to distinguish between the two here. They offer prayer in the Mosks in the day and visit to Sufi shrines in the evening.

Have a look at this-

But, unfortunately, no western intellectual pays attention to all this. In their opinion, only people like Osama can interpret Islam wisely and no other.

The western premise is that anyone who does not prorogate violence cannot be a Muslim. They all are non-Muslims. It is as simple as that.

Now, let us come to your theory of of 90% Sufi and 10% Muslim.

Sufism accepts Muhammad and Allah in the same way as other sects of Islam. To be a Sufi, a person has to be Muslim in the first place. There is no direct entry to Sufism. One has to follow the Quran before entering into Sufism.

There is no merit in that argument. Explain me the process of your conlusion and i will tell you how it is wrong. Let us go to the details of the brain as it is one of my favourite subject.

You are again back to square one.

The only difference between the Sufism and Conventional Islam is that of interpretation of the text. Otherwise, they share the belief both in Muhammad and Allah. So, how can you say that Islam did not evolve? Existence of the Sufism is the enough evidence that Islam is flexible.

By the way, Buddhism was never pushed out of India. It is still very much there. It spread outside India, not pushed.

Let me also tell you that I am not a Muslim but a Hindu, and a religious one too. But, I have to say right to right and wrong to wrong.

with love,
sanjay

Those people who say that they are „not religious“ are often more religious than the other people.

[size=150]Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?[/size]

Whilst I am not a Hindu, not from India, I was involved in Vedanta quite seriously in one phase. In any case, not all non-theists , e.g. Buddhists [preferred but not one officially] and others, are militant atheists

IMO, your above views off target from the core philosophy of religion.

There is a proximate root cause of religion. This is the substance.
The variations are the forms that support the substance.
These forms vary with the local conditions, the individual’s conditions and other factors.

Buddha was a prince of a kingdom and in those days wars are very common. There are good reasons why Guatama steer clear of wars and his birth duty to fight.

Btw, imo, the story of Moses and lord Krishna, Buddha are myths/allegories to convey the substance or core principles of the philosophy of religion. Whilst Lord Krishna and Guatama’s arrows hit the 9 and 10, Moses hit 5 of the target.

In the case of Muhammad, I would take into consideration his psychosis (I mentioned somewhere the experienced of God by the mentally sick re Ramanchandran) and his plagiarism of Christianity and Judaism.

I did mention Hinduism is a bit problematic because it comprised and is represented of hundreds of religions and cults. This is why I always refer to Buddhism and Jainism to represent the peaceful religion with no evil laden verses.

When I charged that the Abrahamic religions are in part inherently evil I was referring to the total ethos and ALL the evil laden verses [have you read them] there in their holy texts plus the substantiation of the real evidence of evils acts SOME of their believers [Islam the worst at present, Christianity minimal] are committing.

I mentioned the story of Krishna and Arjuna is a myth and an allegory [not historical nor literally] to represent the substance of religion within the human system. Arjuna is the atman [the self] and his enemies represent his animal and primal instincts and impulses. Therefore Arjuna [the higher self] was advised to ‘kill’ his own animal impulses. In that contexts and logically, all the subsequent chapters in the Gita present the various methods (meditation, etc.) and philosophy of how to deal with and modulate one’s lower impulses spiritually.
It is very unfortunate that the Gita used the ‘war’ allegory to explain the substance of religion and spirituality. This enable evil prone people to cherry pick some verses literally for their evil purposes and that was what the Nazis did to motivate their soldiers to kill anyone even their kin, relative, race, etc.

As my earlier point I do not agree with your interpretation which focus on merely the forms but missed the substance of what is the core of religion.

I have never claimed to be an expert but I dare claim I know a lot and make the attempt to cover as much as possible. The point is the difficulty to assess how much a person knows in a forum like this is limited, but an assessment can be made based on one’s understanding of the principles and philosophy of religion generically.

At present I can read the most complex books on religion, i.e. those related to Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc within a day or two but it will take me a year to fully comprehend one of Kant’s main book.
The complexity of Kant thoroughness is way beyond anyone I have came across {which is many} within the sphere of philosophy and spirituality.

I am confident [based on extensive work done] to know enough [not expert] of the principles and substance to judge the various forms.

As I said it is not easy to go into details. I was making a very general statement in this case.
Sufism is basically Islam but it is influenced and intermixed with some aspects of ‘Hinduism.’
I assess that Sufism is veering towards ‘mysticism’ in general.
In practice, I agree there are many who follow Sufism, but its essence is mysticism.

It is the same for Christian mysticism.
There are many Christians who respect or follow the mystics teaching.
But if one were do a serious peeling away of the forms, they will find there are variations in the substance.

In practice, most Muslims do not give a damn about the OIC views. Note the killing of Shias, Ahamadiyas and other Muslims by Sunnis.

This need a debate on this on what is the true Muslim who obey Islam literally and the not-so-true-Muslim who subscribe to higher human values, compromise and ignore the evil laden verses of God in the Quran, Hadiths and Sira. Btw, I am not from the West.

Agree, but Sufism filters off the evil laden verses and add elements of Hindu thoughts to Islam. This is why most ‘true’ Muslims regard the Sufis as blasphemous like the Ahmadiyas and others regardless of what the toothless OIC recommends.

Don’t be too quick to brush this off.
You will need to understand the core and substance of religion first.
Frankly the core of religion is reflected in the story of the Buddha and Lord Krishna & Arjuna.
It has to do with the subliminal fear of death and what happen after death.
This issue is dealt critically within the Abrahamic holy texts. (Salvation is primary)
Fear is an emotion which is dealt with by the middle limbic system and the amgydala [google this].
However the primal fear is beyond emotion and dealt with within the primal brain.
Is there merit is my argument?
(There is more to it but a sufficient clue for the moment)

Whilst you think I am ignorant, it could like be the other way round.
The point is Sufism impute other elements from Hinduism (and others?) to combine with Conventional Islam.
Islam did not evolve as God’s word by default cannot be edited nor changed, thus evolution of Islam is an impossibility.
What evolved was the brain of SOME Muslims.

OK, that is just a matter of semantics. By ‘pushed’, I meant it was not popular anymore but obviously it was not totally eliminated or got rid off in such a big place like ancient India.

Noted you are luckily not a Muslim. I’ll appreciate if you point out anything I stated which is wrong. I only wish you dig deeper so we do not have to discuss much and waste so much time in our responses. Such lengthy replies eat into my full time attention for Kant’s third Critique of Judgment.

Very conspicuously antisemitic. And arrogantly bigoted, having no rational support for opinions, merely ultimate confidence in the absolute truth of them - fanatically religious.

The term “Abrahamic Religions” is not a well chosen one. It is as well a crutch as the term “Monotheistic Religions”.

[size=150]Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.[/size]

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That’s not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.

You’re arguing and differentiating the obvious forms.
You do not seem to appreciate effectiveness in linguistics and communication.
If I do not use the term “Abrahamic Religions,” then I will use the phrase ‘the common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as detailed in this wiki article.’ I will have to repeat this burdensome phrase all the time I make reference to it.

Your opposition to the term “Abrahamic Religion” is something like I should not use the term ‘fruits’ to represent the common fruits because they all look different and different people have different preference for certain fruits.

I suggest this very detailed and lengthy article and explain why they are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions#Common_aspects

Contents
1 Etymology
2 Origins and history
3 Common aspects
3.1 Monotheism
3.2 Theological continuity
3.3 Scripture
3.4 Ethical orientation
3.5 Eschatological world view
3.6 Importance of Jerusalem

4 The significance of Abraham
4.1 For Jews
4.2 For Christians
4.3 For Muslims

5 The religions
5.1 Judaism
5.2 Christianity
5.3 Islam

6 God
6.1 Judaism
6.2 Christianity
6.3 Islam

7 Religious scriptures
7.1 Judaism
7.2 Christian
7.3 Islam

8 End times and afterlife
8.1 Judaism
8.2 Christianity
8.3 Islam

9 Worship and religious rites
9.1 Judaism
9.2 Christianity
9.3 Islam
9.4 Circumcision
9.5 Food restrictions
9.6 Sabbath observance

10 Proselytism
10.1 Judaism
10.2 Christianity
10.3 Islam

11 Violent conflicts
11.1 Between Abrahamic religions
11.2 Between branches of the same Abrahamic religion
11.3 Between Abrahamic religions and non-adherents

12 Other Abrahamic religions
12.1 Bahá’í Faith
12.2 Ethnographic Abrahamic religions

They seem to be “obvious” only to you but not to others.

I said it just BECAUSE of linguistics and communication. I have studied linguistics.

So what is your intention? Ad hominem again?

There are not many common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That’s the problem that you do not want to see because you want more a short-sighted presentation or view - full of cognitive blindness!

What “opposition”? Stop being so much sensitive!

I merely said:

What is your problem, boy?

|=>#

Prism, Buddhism got almost completely whipped out in a single generation by your Secular-Communism while Christianity is holding and Islam and Judaism are growing. How can you imagine it to be superior?

By their fruits … Watson!
Note the amount of evils that had been committed by SOME believers of the Abrahamic religions ever since they emerged and traceable to their respective holy texts, in comparison, its negligible from Buddhism in this context.
I have also given some reasons in the OP why Buddhism is more effective.

Popularity has nothing to do with being more efficient [superior] now and in the future. I don’t think I need to explain this principle.

In other words, entirely by your personal preference in belief of “the good” … nothing scientific or logical about it at all … just a fanatic lust on your part (what you called “psychosis”).

You have no idea, because you don’t know anything about Christianity and the fact that it is much different from Judaism and Islam. Nietzsche said that (for example) there are “ja-sagende” (“yes-saying”) and “nein-sagende” (“no-saying”) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies: Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are “ja-sagende Religionen” (“yes-saying religions”) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are “nein-sagende Religionen” (“no-saying religions”). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, “Der Wille zur Macht” (“The Will to Power”), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no “three Abrahamic religions” because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.

Buddhism and Christianity are actually very similar but the anti-Christians want to focus on merely the material concerns (being entirely ignorant of the spiritual concerns). In spirit, they are nearly identical.

Christianity is a social religion with peace reinforcing ethics.
Buddhism is a personal philosophy with peace reinforcing ethics.

Thus many social events are not addressed at all in Buddhism yet are inherently relevant in Christianity. Arguing the difference is like arguing that because one wears a sash on the right shoulder and the other wears his sash on the left, they are entirely different religions.

…not that any of them do a very good job of any of it.

I guess you are in agreement with me, if I put this post in one of my threads.

A link to Wikipedia is your evidence? Very detailed and lengthy? Did you even read this? Many of the subtopics are only one or two sentences long. This is pathetically NOT detailed and short, and therefore leaves out many important details. Many of the points actually highlight differences between the three even though the topic is Common Aspects. How about you look at a source that goes over both the common aspects and the differences in some detail. This would require at least what’s called a book length treatment of the subject.

Just a few excerpts from your source that contradict your opinion:

Excerpts from the subtopic of proselytism:
“Jewish scholars have traditionally maintained that it is better to be a good non-Jew than a bad Jew, thus discouraging conversion

"Christianity encourages evangelism." “Forced conversions are condemned as sinful by major denominations

“Da‘wah produces converts to Islam, which in turn grows the size of the Muslim Ummah, or community of Muslims.” What the section on Islam doesn’t mention, is that it is the doctrine of Islam that if a person does not convert or at least submit to the rule of Islam, then the Muslim is to conquer by the sword and force submission.

On Monotheism:
“All Abrahamic religions claim to be monotheistic, worshiping an exclusive God, though known by different names.[17] All of these religions believe that God creates, is one, rules, reveals, loves, judges, punishes, and forgives.[14][need quotation to verify] However, although Christianity does not profess to believe in three gods — but rather three persons, or hypostases, united in one essence — the Trinitarian doctrine, which is a fundamental of faith for the vast majority of Christian denominations, conflicts with Jewish and Muslim concepts of monotheism. Since the conception of divine Trinity is not amenable to tawhid, the Islamic doctrine of monotheism, Islam considers Christianity to be variously polytheistic or idolatrous.
Jesus (Arabic: Isa or Yasu among Muslims and Arab Christians respectively) is revered by Christianity and Islam but with vastly differing conceptions, viewed as the saviour by Christians (and God incarnate by most Christians as well), and as a Prophet of Islam[23] by Muslims. However, the worship of Jesus, or the ascribing of partners to God (known as shirk in Islam and shituf in Judaism), is typically viewed as the heresy of idolatry by Islam and Judaism. The incarnation of God into human form is also seen as a heresy by Judaism as well as Islam.”

Worship and Religious rites:
“Worship, ceremonies and religion-related customs differ substantially among the Abrahamic religions.”

There are more but I think this is sufficient to make my point.

This is like,

  1. you insist blacks are different from whites,
  2. I understand your point in 1 but I insist they are the ‘same’ as human in general based on their DNA, etc.

I pointed out there is the ‘substance’ and the ‘forms’ of any religion.
If you focus on the ‘forms,’ it is obvious there are difference.
However, if we analyze the ‘substance’ there are commonalities.

There should not be an issue if we qualify the context and I have done so. The counter points raised to highlight the obvious differences [which I agree] are irrelevant for the OP.

Note I have highlighted the critical common elements* that made the Abrahamic religions less effective than the Eastern religions as listed in the OP.

  • These are the common root in the story of Abraham, the reliance on the malignant [note this] use of the primal “us versus them” impulse, the focus on the lower part of the brain, …

The substance of any religion is their doctrine. Their doctrine explains what THEY “think” and why. What you’re calling substance is what YOU “think” based on some completely unproven psychological theory.

These “obvious differences” that YOU brought up as evidence that the Abrahamic religions are the “same”, are now irrelevant for the OP? If they are obvious differences, why did you bring them up as evidence that they are the same?

I responded directly to 4 of the 12 categories that you brought up as evidence that they are same. Of these 4 only “Worship and religious rites” is an outward form of the religions, the other three are doctrine and therefore substance. And now all of sudden because the evidence you presented as proof that they are the same, turns out to prove that they are not the same, you declare that the evidence you brought up is irrelevant for the OP.

How about you present evidence to prove this statement.

Discussing things with you is like trying to discuss something with a talking doll with a pull string. When someone presents evidence contrary to your pet theory, you either ignore it, or dismiss it, by continually repeating your pet theory over and over…just like pulling the string on a doll.

Philosophically, the ‘substance’ [or matter, essence, ouisa] of common forms is the most ultimate concept that common forms can be reduced to. Conventionally, those concepts which are nearest and next to the ultimate concept can also be regarded as ‘substance’ within context.
For example, the ‘substance’ of the physical world is ‘quark.’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
However, conventionally the atom, its nucleus & electrons can also be considered as ‘substance’.

All religions are reducible to their doctrines or main texts which represent the substance [not ultimate] of religions. The doctrines cannot be the ultimate substance of religions. Analogically to the physical world, they are at most molecules.

The penultimate substance of theistic religions is God.
Within theistic religions we have the main categories, i.e.

  1. Abrahamic theistic Religions - common root to Abraham
  2. Non-Abrahamic theistic
    As such, ‘Abraham’ is the sub-substance of the Abrahamic Religions.

Meanwhile, the sub-ultimate substance of the non-theistic religions are their founders.
However, the ultimate substance of the non-theistic religions is the existential dilemma, a psychological theory.

My theory is, the ultimate substance of the theistic religions is also the existential dilemma.

Therefore the ultimate substance of all religions is the existential dilemma (ED).

I am very confident my psychology theory of ED as the ultimate substance of all religions is sound and can be justified.
Btw, ED is not only the substance of all religions, but the ultimate substance of all human behaviors and its resultants of good and evil.
I have not presented the full arguments for my theory and I do not intent to do it here [no imperative at all to do so], but I have left various clues that those interested can follow up with.

You missed my points.
I did not highlight the difference, it was you who dig out the irrelevant differences.
There are common aspects in the points I presented, but you deliberately and blindly ignore them and instead focus on the differences.
My evidence is based on the sameness and ignoring the difference which are irrelevant.

Analogically it is like, I say all humans are the same, while you insist they are different.
Both claims by you and me can be correct if we take into account the context.
I see all humans the same in terms of the DNA and common physical features [the substance], while you look at them in terms of external colors, height, voice, etc. [the forms].
The point is, substance overrides and is more critical than form in this case of the OP.

Note my explanations above that you deliberately ignored the sameness in those points.
Doctrines are not the main substance.

For the sake of his own selfish soteriological and salvation, Abraham has the odious impulse to the extent of killing his own son. This is inherent in all Abrahamic believers.
The malignant use of the “us versus them” impulse plus the evil laden verses in the Abrahamic Religion texts has contributed to all the terrible evils the Abrahamic believers had committed in the past to the present (e.g. ISIS).
The evil laden verses together the abuse of the “us versus them” impulse dehumanized non-believers as pieces of sh:t and SOME evil prone fundamentalists exploited that to kill with intents to exterminate non-believers. Examples, the inquisitions, killing of natives during missionary projects all over the world, genocides by ISIS, mass rapes, Boko Haram killing to hinder educations, etc.

You are the one experiencing a jammed string and pulling the strings frantically instead of understanding the mechanics and relation between the strings and the actions of the doll.

The point is, let say we are like Democritus in his time [hopefully you know him?],

We are like Democritus chasing after the ‘holy grail’ of the physical world and there is the idea then of the ‘atom’ as the ultimate substance of the physical world.
Now in this quest, why should be bothered about the outer forms of the physical world, i.e. the Earth, water, air Sun, stars, planet, etc. This forms are irrelevant to the issue of finding the ‘atom.’ The path is to did deeper instead of outward to the external forms. The proof of the pudding, note we have dug out the atom, electrons, nucleus, various sub-atomic particles to quarks and now speculating on strings and Higgs’ particle.
This is why I deliberately brushed you off when you veer towards the form instead of the substance. It is wasting mine and your time to deal with the irrelevant.

I think you may not get it even after this detailed explanation, … :question: :question: whatever will be will be.