Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

  • Yes.
  • No.
  • I don’t know.
0 voters

Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

I would say: “yes, it is”.

What do you think?

Extremely.

Yes. Possibly because of its indebtedness to Plato’s ideas about love and the soul.

Both Judaism and Islam teach presumptuous permanent judgment and love only thine own.
Christianity teaches aversion to judgment, forgiveness, and love everyone (similar to Buddhism).

I voted no. I have studied all three and while the specific details are different,
they all have the same agenda and the same way of going about it.
Praying to god is praying to god regardless of what language you use and
what format you use and what church you use. It is still praying to god.

the book that needs to be written is “One god with many different faces”
That pretty much covers it, one god with many different faces.

Kropotkin

This is what I wrote in a thread called “Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior”:

|=>#

I think your presentation is very short-sighted and full of cognitive blindness.
It is like insisting humans are different because of their different colors and shades but ignorant and ignoring the underlying root that they are all homo-sapiens with basic human dignity.
I note there is an intent of avoidance and deception in the philosophical perspective.

The appropriate presentation is to bring in the concept of context.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are similar in the following contexts;

  1. Theistic
  2. Mono-theistic
  3. Abraham as the root
  4. OT
  5. Brain activations patterns

Read the details here;
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

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are different in the following contexts;

  1. Founders
  2. Later doctrines
  3. Christianity’s Trinity
  4. Place of worship, synagogue, Church, Mosque
  5. Rituals
  6. Others, etc.

The general point is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same root substance but vary in various forms due to time, space [locations], enviroments and varying human proclivities, etc.

Only to people who follow one or the other.

To people who don’t, they all pretty much act the same.

Ad hominem? Or did you want to describe yourself with “short-sighted” and “cognitive blindness”? If yes, then I agree.

And what do you mean by the term “presentation”? This thread? The topic of this thread is a question: “Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?” And many ILP members answer: “Yes it is”. And they have arguments. So what is your problem? Cognitive blindness? Lack of tolerance?

That’s nonsense!

The similarities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not very much. Whether they share the same root substance or not is not as important as you think. To only concentrate on this mostly wrong “similarities” is what you call “short-sighted” and “cognitive blindness”.

Why is it that atheists seem to so very often accuse of their own guilt?
The lying atheist accuses the theist of lying.
The cognitively blind atheist accuses the theist of being cognitive blind.
The short sighted atheist accuses the theist of being short sighted.
The narcissistic atheist accuses the theist of being narcissistic.
The conspiring atheist accuses the theists of being conspiring.
The power craving atheist accuses the theist of being power craving.
The manipulative atheist accuses the theist of being manipulative.
The fanatical atheist accuses the theist of being fanatical.

And the psychotic atheist accuses the theist of being psychotic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZymJAsxHbVg[/youtube]
Without theists, atheists are automatically obsolete by mindless automation.

And Christianity was formed specifically to STOP Judaism (for the ignorant atheist accusing the theist of being ignorant).

Ad hominen is accusing the person personally, “you” are this or that.
Your presentation or your views are very short-sighted and [reflect] full of cognitive blindness.
What is wrong about that?
There is no need to be so sensitive.

My basic point is, if there are consensus of context between communicators, there is no issue.
The rest of your points are very frivolous.

So you admit that the presentation of Prismatic 567 or the view of of Prismatic 567 is short-sighted and full of cognitive blindness. Okay, I agree.

From another thread:

Prismatic 567 knows nothing about Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam; so he also knows nothing about the so-called “Abrahamic religions”; his presentation and views are very short-sighted, frivolous, and full of cognitive blindness.

This post is addressed to all posters, not any particular one.

It is unfair or rather useless to compare different religions. That does not serve any purpose but creates only confusion in the minds of the people.

One can compare only such religions which were initiated around the same timeline and within the same demography. I think that Jainism and Buddhism are the only two examples existed in the world. Every religion is different from other in one sense or other at the face value. It has to be because their purposes were different because of the mindset of targeted audience. It is as simple as that. Thus, they should not be compared.

One may say that biology is not logical because it does not use numbers like physics. Yes, that is true but still both are sciences but they deal in different subjects altogether. Can we compare biology with physics?

That is precisely what happens when one compares Christianity and Buddhism with Islam and Judaism. Their contexts were entirely different thus they are bound to be different. This difference does not make those superior or inferior. They should be considered different only.

Coming back to OP that whether Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam or not.

Yes, it is different but not in the sense in which OP is suggesting. Even Judaism and Islam are different from each other. People should not take it otherwise but Christianity is not a complete religion. Means, it addresses limited issues (though, not limited to the extent of Buddhism) but related to the largest section of the society. Judaism is more spreaded than Christianity and being the final one, Islam the most.

Quran, even being the shortest scripture that any religion has put forth so far, spares no vertical of the life.

I do not remenber it exactly now but Quran is merely 1/3 or 1/4 of the Bible. And, unlike Vedas, Bible or Torah, it is neither a systamatic text nor bestowed in a one go upon Muhammad. It took 23 years to Quran to be completely bestowed.

The practice was such that, whenever Muhammad had to face a new thing or dellima of any kind, a verse of Quran was bestowed to Muhanmmad by Jibrael ( Gabrial). That is why Quran covers almost all verticals of the life.

Buddhism is just opposite in this regard. It was never meant to be a mass religion, in the first place. Its targeted audience was spiritual investigators and scholars. A common man cannot follow Buddhism in the true sense. The core of the Buddhism is serious meditation to such extent where there would be almost no place for any other thing in the life. Everyone cannot follow that route. the moral part of the Buddhism was nothing new. It was already there in the Hinduism existed that that time.

Secondly, the core of Christianity is faith in a particular form of the God. Christianity sticks strictly to it. Unlike Buddhism, it does not allow its adherents to try and test in person. That is just opposite to Buddhism. I wonder how some people see similarities between the two.

Yes, they are on the same path regarding the morality. But, which religion differs on moral issues? Does Islam or Judaism say that one should lie, cheat or ill treat others?

The point people tend to miss that Christianity and Buddhism were supplements to Judaism and Hinduism. They were not full fledged religions by any means. A complete religion has to address all verticals of the life, including the rules and regulations for the war to sitting on the toilet seat. And, there are only two religions which pass this benchmark; Hinduism (as a whole) and Abrahamic religions (as a whole).

Rest are merely subsets or minor amendments which came up from time to time. Popularity of any particular subset (Christianity) is not an ideal benchmark to judge whether it is a complete religion or not. And also, let us not confuse merely some kind of spiritual practice ( Buddhism) as an independent religion.

Faith is faith and philosophy is philosophy.

with love,
sanjay

God has to tell you how to sit on a toilet seat?? Or the priesthood has to tell you??

Really??

#-o

Not the God himself, but religion has to tell that, if it is meant to be religion in true sense. The faith in any form of the God cannot be a complete religion. It also has to tell its adherents how they have to lead their daily lives with that faith. And, for that, it has to cover all verticals of the life. Only then, its true purpose would be accomplished. Otherwise, it would run into trouble sooner or later.

Religion is almost like our present day constitutions. A citizen must have faith in his country, just like a religious person has in his God. That is fine. But, by merely having a faith in his country and without any further rules and ragulations (constitution), the life of its citizens would become messy. The ontology of the faith has to be completed by reaching to all verticals of the life.

with love,
sanjay

Zinnat, biology is Logical, namely biological. And biology uses numbers. We can compare biology with physics - not only because of the biological realm biophysics.

Suggesting? Here follows the OP:

That OP is not suggesting.

That’s why I quoted meyself:

See above.

In Judaism and in Islam it is allowd to lie, to negate, to deny their own religion, confession and so on.

Why do you say “Abrahamic religions”, although you also say that different religions should not be compared? You can only know it by comparison. So there is a contradiction in your text.

Christian popularity? Today? Who told you that, Zinnat?


“Verfolgte Kirche in atheistischem und islamisiertem Europa.” - koptisch.wordpress.com/2013/04/ … ttackiert/
Translation:
“Persecuted church in atheistic and islamised Europe.” - koptisch.wordpress.com/2013/04/ … ttackiert/

By the way, the red colored ones are also included exactly in Hinduism and blue colored ones with some difference.

with love,
sanjay

Thanks for the laws of the darkest ages.

It seems that after the current battle or civil war between Christians on the one side and the antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and the fundamentalistic Moslems (the fighter for the darkest ages) on the other side the next battle or civil war in Europe will be between antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and Moslems becausethe Christians will then be expelled from their home in Europe.

Visit Europe with its modern persecution of Christians. Don’t look away. Don’t listen to your double moral.

According to Peter Sloterdijk religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems. Currently the exercising antitheists / atheists (including antimasculinists / feminists) and their best friends, the even more exercising fundamentalistic Molems, are fighting together for the darkest ages.