Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior

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.’
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.

Prismatic does not seem to understand that the subatomic particles do not determine whether something is good or bad for life. Water molecules sustain life and cyanide molecules end it - both are made of protons, neutrons and electrons.

He has lost the essential features of the various religions by reducing to an abstract root.

You are off tangent again and you are totally ignorant of my main point of contention.

The subatomic particles example was an analogy to highlight the principle of unity within diversity.
I used another analogical example, i.e. the unity of humans in terms of DNA within its diverse forms.

My main point was to justify there was unity of the same root of ‘Abraham’ within the diversity of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, which collective are often termed ‘Abrahamic Religions’.

The story of Abraham indicate that the essence of the Abrahamic religions that follow the same root focus more on the animal or ‘lowest’ part of the brain. In addition, the Abrahamic religions also exploited the inherent primal “us versus them” impulse malignantly. The resultant is the existence of SOME evil laden verses in their holy texts being abused by SOME evil prone believers committing terrible evils upon humanity in the past and present with a greater threat in the future.

In contrast, the Eastern Religions [as listed in the OP] focused away and progressively on the ‘higher’ cortical brain. These religions do not rely on the common “us versus them” malignantly. There are no ‘significant’ evil laden verses in their religious texts which focus more on personal development to deal with the existential dilemma.

Based on the above central criteria as qualified, the Abrahamic Religions are Relatively inferior to these main Eastern Religions [as listed].

Your point has no relevance to the above at all.
Btw, I do not deny the Abrahamic Religions may be relatively superior if we use other criteria[s].
For example, the Abrahamic Religions are very effective [almost immediately] in relieving the angst of the existential dilemma [its a pseudo solution and a placebo]. This sort of quickie however results in SOME committing terrible religious-based evils.
For the Abrahamic believers all they need is just believe and viola! the passport to heaven and eternal life is given to them.
In contrast, the believers of Eastern Religions has to work at it by developing their brain or the lay believers has to do sufficient merits and other necessaries.

Us vs Them” - as in;
Us Atheists vs Them Religious
Us Socialists vs Them Masses
Us Communists vs Them Constitutionalists

What I really doubt is anyone’s ability to go beyond their subjective prejudices and make an objective decision about the OP proposition.

One good start towards objectivity is the resultants, e.g.

The figures [24,705] above are sort of a first draft and thus need some polishings and refinements.
The above statistics is since 911, we should consider statistics since the Abrahamic Religion emerged.

Note, just in case, you think the following are obvious.
There are evils committed by Buddhists in recent times (e.g. Sri Lanka, Tibet, Myanmar) and in the past, but these evils are not motivated by any evil laden verses from their religious texts.

I think that there is no point in engaging with you any longer. Take care. :greetings-wavegreen:

That seems like an arbitrary statistic for judging world religions that have existed for centuries?

What were those evils motivated by and why are those evils better than those is that motivated by “evil laden verses”?

The above statistic is sort of a first draft and it can be refined if need to. The evidences and facts are readily available for various media and government authorities.

Note this;

One can refine the above to Jihadists who claimed to commit the above based on their religion or to specific verses in their holy texts.

Here is one example where evil in committed in direct association with Islam;

The above claims by Islamists killing under compulsion of their holy texts is very common. Thus is it not difficult to collate statistics for such religious-based evils.

These evils are motivated by the believers own human nature and not catalyzed by evil laden verses. No, they are not better than the ones motivated by ‘evil laden verses.’ They are merely a different category of evil which must be dealt with seriously and separately.

In general there are no stringent policies to restrict anyone from becoming a Buddhist monk or a believer within the Eastern religious community.
Therefore when a Buddhist monk or a common Buddhist who had just watched porn, then it so happened his lust got the better of him and ended up raping or/and murdering someone, we cannot blame Buddhism per se for that. We cannot blame the religion if there are no evil laden verses that condone evils upon non-believers.

In contrast, a Danish cartoonist drew some cartoons of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam. Some Muslims perceived such act as an insult and a threat to Islam, therefrom they rioted and killed non-believers because the holy texts condone the killing of non-believers if they insult the religion.
thereligionofpeace.com/Quran … -islam.htm

This should be moved to the politics forum.

The truly arbitrary bit is that he’s using that statistic to condemn ‘Abrahamic Religions’. Why not just Islam? Why not all religion? Why not all patriarchal religions? Why not all non-eco-centric religions? He’s taking a completely arbitrary slice of the pie because he’s desperate to prove East > West.