Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

[Arminius]

Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

I would say: "yes, it is".

What do you think?

[James S Saint]

Extremely.

[Ierrellus]

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

[James S Saint]

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).

[Peter Kropotkin]

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

[Arminius]

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

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

Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.

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.

|=>#

[Prismatic567]

Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?
I would say: "yes, it is".
What do you think?

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

Only to people who follow one or the other.

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

[Arminius]

I think your presentation is very short-sighted and full of cognitive blindness.

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?

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.

That's nonsense!

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

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are similar in the following contexts;
1. Theistic => No, "theistic" is no feature of their similarity (other religious confessions can also be theistic, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!
2. Mono-theistic => No. 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. |=>#
3. Abraham as the root => Is that what you mean with "short-sighted" and "cognitive blindness"?
4. OT => Is that what you mean with "short-sighted" and "cognitive blindness"?
5. Brain activations Patterns => Nonsense!

Read the details here;
3 Common aspects
3.1 Monotheism => No. 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. |=>#
3.2 Theological continuity => No, "theological continuity" is no feature of their similarity (other religious confession can also have theological continuity, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!
3.3 Scripture => If you write a religious book, are you then automatically a Judaist, Christian, or Moslem? No!
3.4 Ethical orientation => No, „ethical orientation“ is no feature of their similarity (other religious confession can also have ethical orientation, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!).
3.5 Eschatological world view => No, "eschatological world view" is no feature of their similarity (other religious confession can also have a eschatological world view, even philosophical/metaphysical systems!).
3.6 Importance of Jerusalem => No. That's not as much true for Christians as it is for Judaists and Moslems. You can see it, if you go there. Rome (not Jerusalem) is important for the most Christians, and for the other Christians it is their soul. And again: 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. |=>#

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.

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".

[James S Saint]

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.

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.


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).

[Prismatic567]

I think your presentation is very short-sighted and full of cognitive blindness.

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

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.

[Arminius]

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.

[Arminius]

From another thread:

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.

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.

[zinnat]

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

[phyllo]

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

Really??

[zinnat]

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

Really??

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

[Arminius]

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?

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

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.

Suggesting? Here follows the OP:

Is Christianity much different from Judaism and Islam?

I would say: "yes, it is".

What do you think?

That OP is not suggesting.

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.

That's why I quoted meyself:

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.

But, which religion differs on moral issues?

See above.

Does Islam or Judaism say that one should lie, cheat or ill treat others?

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

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).

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.

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.

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


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

[zinnat]

Do's and Dont's in Ialsm

1.1 Say a prayer when entering, to ward off jinn and demons
1.2 Remove your rings
1.3 Do not face nor turn your back to the direction of the Ka'aba
1.4 Do not hold nor touch the penis with your right hand
1.5 Do not stand while urinating
1.6 Do not uncover your private parts until after squatting
1.7 Do not soil yourself with urine, this is a major sin
1.8 Do not speak while in the toilet
1.9 Clean yourself with an odd number of stones or water
1.10 Do not clean yourself with less than three stones
1.11 Do not use dung or bones
1.12 Do not use your right hand
1.13 Wash yourself, once you're done
1.14 No need to cleanse your anus when done in a river
1.15 Say a prayer when exiting the toilet

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

with love,
sanjay

[Arminius]

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.

[Arminius]

Christianity is a monotheistic religion because it has only one God. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations of the same God.

I know very well what you mean, and according to many but not all Christians you are right; but people of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity you are speaking of is a "manifestation" of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.

They are three in one not three separate from each other. Furthermore the First Commandment clearly states there is only one God.

The First Commandment clearly belongs to the Jewish religion - regardless whether it is also accepted by Christians or not.

But this is more a subject of another thread, for example the following one: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187389 .

[Arminius]

The Jewish God is not the Christian God. That is - by the way - the reason why all monotheists are actually henotheists. They know that certain others have their own one god too and accept him, but they accept him merely as a god of the enemies.

But Christianity is not as much of that kind as Judaism and islam are. Christianity is not a pure henotheism (in everyday language: "monotheism") like Judaism and Islam are. When Christianity came to Europe, it became more and more adapted to the European religions (later called: "heathendom"), first in the Ancient Roman Empire, then in the rest of Europe. So, Christianity became more and more poytheistic, but never completely.

Polytheism is much different from all that coming from Persia and the Arabian Peninsula: henotheism (in everyday language: "monotheism"). The European tradition of polytheism has almost only to do with projections of the humans: their gods are like humans with one difference: they are immortal, they are "undying humans", so to say. The Ancient Greek optimzed the European polytheism. Their gods were the said "undying humans" as the said "projections of the humans".

[Zero_Sum]

They're all a part of the same chimera where the only difference that exists is who is God and who isn't, or who is the messiah and who is not. Other than those differences they're all practically identical.

[Prismatic567]

My views on the OP is still the same [there are similarities and differences] as presented in this post above;
viewtopic.php?p=2515988#p2515988

but after studying Islam full time for nearly 3 years since then, I have gathered additional information on Islam.

One necessary criteria of comparison should be 'evilness' and this must be assigned a significant weightage in terms of the impact to humanity.

'Evilness' is defined in terms of human acts that are a net-negative* to the well being of the individual and therefrom to the group and humanity.
* e.g. Escobar was a drug warlord who help many of the poor which is positive, but the negative acts committed by him was very evil [evidences] and the resultant is a net-negative.

It is obvious the Quran [core of Islam] contains tons of evil laden elements that inspire and compel SOME [20%, pool of 300 million ] Muslims who are evil prone to commit terrible terrors, violence and a range of evils upon non-believers and even on Muslims. There are glaring evidences to support this claim.

Christianity [NT] in the NT has an overriding pacifist maxim that prevent Christians from committing terrors, violence and evils on non-believers, i.e. 'love your enemies' love your neigbors, give the other cheek, etc. There are no evidence Christians has ever killed non-believers shouting "Jesus-u-Akbar" or calling upon the name of Jesus or God.
Even if any Christian has done so, there are no verses in the NT that called upon and give sanction for a Christian to kill non-believers.

Since evilness is such a critical threat to humanity, it must be given a significant heavier weightages. Based on glaring evidences Christianity is much more positive than Islam.

[Arminius]

They're all a part of the same chimera where the only difference that exists is who is God and who isn't, or who is the messiah and who is not. Other than those differences they're all practically identical.

They all have origins in the Arabian peninsular, are related to each other, but Christianity is much more different from Judaism and Islam than Judaism and Islam from each other.

[Zero_Sum]

They're all a part of the same chimera where the only difference that exists is who is God and who isn't, or who is the messiah and who is not. Other than those differences they're all practically identical.

They all have origins in the Arabian peninsular, are related to each other, but Christianity is much more different from Judaism and Islam than Judaism and Islam from each other.

Yes, all are Abrahamic. Christianity is Judaism, it was never meant to be its own separate religion. Jesus was a radical rabbi of his day trying to reform Judaism while also claiming to be the son of God where the Pharisee rabbi elders wouldn't have any of that which is why he was crucified with the aid of the Romans. Jesus was the radical rabbi that wanted to make everybody Jewish under the new pact and covenant of God. Christianity is basically Judaism 2.0 on steroids.

[Christianity was a heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself that became its own religion after the worst of ancient Europeans adopted it later enforcing it onto everybody else through pain unto death.]

At any rate for the record I maintain the world would of been better off staying pagan as all three religions of Abraham in my eyes are poisonous, pervasive, and destructive. I detest all three religions as a kind of living scourge upon this world. For me there is no such thing as the wise or intelligent Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They all stem from virus plague like religions hailing from the same origin.

Although I'm an atheist pagan values do at least for me seem superior to Christian ones in terms of community, independence, and individual accomplishment. Such values that all Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always lacked.