Abrahamic Religions are Relatively Inferior

[Show-Me]

Abrahamic Religions are Inferior in spiritual terms relative to Eastern Religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Taoism.
Why?

Abrahamic Religions:
One critical criteria of inferiority - "Us versus Them" (Believers).
The critical basis of the effectiveness of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is the "us versus them" principle. Meaning us (good) versus them (evil).
On this basis, only the religion's own believers are superior while others are inferior and condemned in the worst light. Even amongst their own divisions and sect, one will look down on the others and claims other are false. e.g. Sunni versus Shia in Islam.
Example, intolerance in the Bible: http://www.evilbible.com/BiblicalIntolerance.htm
Intolerance in the Quran can be read here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Q%20...%20/long.html
Such verses in the Bible and Quran is significantly responsible for most horrendous evils committed by Christians and Muslims around the world in the recent past 500 years and at present.

Eastern Religions
-Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Taoism.
These Eastern religions start off with recognizing the individual human has problems, e.g. suffering re Buddhism due to ignorance of what reality is.
The holy texts of these religions are centered and focused on the individual's spiritual self-improvement.
There are no emphasis on comparison with and putting down non-believers like what the Abrahamic religions do.


I don't deny there are positive elements in the Abrahamic religions but because of the inherent 'us versus them' element in their immutable holy texts and thus imputed in the life of the believers, it will soon be a net-negative and a threat to humanity.


On this critical basis of 'us versus them' and other factors above, the Abrahamic religions are inferior to the listed Eastern religions.

Prismatic 567,
Can't you see that this argument is self defeating? The very basis of your argument is Us vs. Them. Good Eastern Religions vs. those evil, psychotic, intolerant Abrahamic religions. The title and the two large bold subtitles scream Us vs. Them.

Example, intolerance
it will soon be a net-negative and a threat to humanity.
others are inferior and condemned in the worst light.

If no Us vs. Them is the criteria for good vs. bad, then your argument is bad.

This thread : Idealize Eastern religions, demonize Abrahamic religions - discuss.

LOL

[Uccisore]

Another surprising part is that it becomes easier to work with the more knowledge you take in because in essence it's just another juggling act that we deal with while living and we are expert jugglers when it comes to dealing with mental tasks. We have to be after a while if we wish to actually partake in life and the world around us and work around other people.

I don't know what you mean by 'knowledge' or 'work with' here. When all you're doing is accepting carte blanche that everything is equally possible, then there is no knowledge to be had, and there's no working to be done other than memorization. It's not as though you have any particular motivation to discover if the arguments for some position work or not.

I incorporate the best and discard the discrepancies that get so many people going on in hating the groups that bring forth these ideas. There is no real evolution of the texts and ideas and so people are continually stuck with decadent philosophies and wonder why we keep trodding the same paths of them and getting seeming nowhere with them individually.

SO you're just on a quest to make yourself feel good? Seems like their are much easier ways to do it. Either chakras are bullshit, or they aren't. Wouldn't you like to know, instead of just faking it moment to moment because it gives you a special feeling?

The fact is that I would not be so silly; and neither would many other people; to believe that I could generate energy charges like in Dragon Ball Z or fly like in the Matrix or perform such tricks as Jedis do, for to assume that we can do such as such is ridiculous given the present nature of reality.

Ah, so you only believe in things that aren't immediately refuted by physical reality around you. So won't believe that you can breathe fire, because...you try it and you can't breathe fire. But you will believe that you have a magical energy vortex in your solar plexus that will increase your libido if somebody pokes it with a needle, because, well...it's a state of mind mostly and can't be as easily refuted.
Here's my problem with that- you and I are doing the same thing, you're just doing it on easy-mode, to me. You only deny that which you'd have to be a fool to accept. The low hanging fruit of skepticism. If you worked a little harder, and stepped beyond what is accepted/denied by your immediate senses, though, you could do philosophy and realize that there are a great number of claims out there that are just as bullshit as jedi powers, and are revealed to be such through argument, historical evidence, and so on.

What if immortality were possible and the only reason why people don't live forever is all of the stress and anxiety and fighting. What if, by getting along together and learning these things that teach us how to do so instead of falling for the us vs. them mentality or the 'we're better than them and this is why' stupidity we could free our selves from the only things that actually kill us, since even the toxins our factories produce are produced from naturally occuring developments.

Yeah, what if? Go off and believe such things without evidence because it makes you feel good, if you like. Just please don't try to pass laws or reshape society in the name of your baseless ideas. It'll be a little sad if you raise children to believe baseless ideas with no grounding in reality, but that's your business.
Point is, it matters that people are crazy. If you believe in a bunch of mystical horseshit that isn't real, sooner or later you will convince enough people to agree with you, laws will be passed or policies will be enacted, and folks will suffer and die. The only reason why your 'make it up as I go along' philosophy seems to work for you is because you are surrounded by, watched over by, and protected by people with their heads grounded in reason. Would you like your doctor to have the same ideas about medicine and anatomy that you have about religion?
Look at the Quakers- pacifists. Pacifism seems nice, especially when you have your tiny pacifist enclave tucked away in the midst of the greatest military power on earth willing to die to protect you, and law enforcement ready to do violence to anybody who would hurt you.

But anyway, what you're saying confirms for me that you are believing as you do because of politics and not philosophy, which takes me back to my critique of the OP, who seems to be saying that religions are inferior of they challenge his political assumptions.

[The Eternal Warrior]

your first assumption is that I classify all as perfectly equal in such a manner, which I don't. In the end, that doesn't matter as they will twist back together like a frayed rope being returned to the form of a whole rope and certain things will be discarded. You say there is no knowledge to be had and yet the knowledge itself is unimportant compared to the lessons learned that aren't knowledge at all but present themselves in our instinctual programming in how we react without thought, etc. Memorization has already proven to be a faulty process of learning since simply learning these things and memorizing them is pointless to actual learning. People still need to actually experience something to fully understand it and then they have their own understand separate from what is presented, which is the entire point and what spurs growth and your assumptions of what I meant are what stints growth. Your assumptions are based in faulty learning programs presented by and institutionalized system of indoctrination. You immediately look at how what I say can be construed for the worst instead of taking it and seeing where it goes from there. Instead of being able to move onto the next part of the conversation, I now have to clarify what I meant beyond what I needed to and waste time with you as you drag me back for the next arrow shot forward; which would be the metaphorical exemplification of this post. I'm going to still take it to the next step.

Yes, I am on a quest just to make myself feel good. Considering that your job as a moderator allows you to see far more posts from me than others here, that assumption from you is rather asinine. At the same time as being for me, it's for others, too and I know you see that even though you pretend not to for the sake of gesticulating fakery on my part as if I would fake something that interests me so much and as if I could fake the help I've managed to give to my self that I try to give to others. What you and others don't realize is that I am my favorite test subject for what I learn before I ever learn from others. My pursuit is learning how best to help the worlds problems and these conversations are but small part. The ripple effects of them are going to be epic if I live long enough to see them and yes; to be quite fucking honest; I do this for me in the long term. I was born to be King of this world and I don't forget that shit. Cue the questions that queue on that thought process for me from you and those will be another post of explaining further my intentions and my visions of all that rests around me in this world and more views into my personal perception which you seem to have your own negative opinions of what I mean. Frankly; after all that I do and have done, I do expect something from life itself for it all; but that's not the main reason I do it and would be content with nothing as long as I made a difference with my pathetic life that I have sought to make less pathetic.

The fact is that chakras aren't bullshit and neither is spiritual energy or emotional energy. As a strong empath, I do sense these energies and feel them move through me and have felt the different chakras and the opening of my own third eye. I have looked into the sun on multiple occasions throughout my life and have recently seen things in it that would amaze you and yet I believe that the things I saw were only able to be seen under the circumstances they were seen under; you can't just stare at the sun and then close your eyes and see cool shit pop up instead of the usual flashes of greenish color from staring at lights. Most of the time, that's all you're going to say and you're going to feel stupid and yet twice in the past 5 months, I stared at the sun and the first time saw afterward with my eyes closed an eye within the sun clasped open like clockwork orange; like the image of the Crayak if you read Animorphs at all; which are a damn good set of books; and the second time I saw simple geometrical patterns in a 1-2-3 format stopping after the third one with the insinuation that there was more. The simple fact of the matter is that people truly experience these fucking phenomenon's, Ucci, and where I used to believe people who believed in ghosts to be silly superstitious fools; I find it really hard to discount any of it.

No, I believe even things that are immediately refuted by the physical reality around me; it's a lot like situational ethics except situational reality and why is that so hard to believe? Perhaps in the right situations, I could breathe fire or fly or release energy blasts from my hands with a power level of over 9000, or even walk on water. You don't know because you've never been in a situation that demanded it of you and your mind may not be open enough to give it an honest try even if it did and who would believe the people who might have had such happen to and for them and so why would they say anything at all if it did? I never said Jedi powers were bullshit; just bullshit as they were presented. Ever see Men Who Stare at Goats?

I don't believe these things without evidence and I don't believe them because they make me feel good. Some times, they don't make me feel good at all and I have all the evidence I need and am content with it. I have no need to have a God prove itself to me anymore to believe in it and yet such a God may still do so just because it chooses to. In fact, there are times where I don't like what I experience, but what the Hell can I do about it other than deal with it? That's the whole problem that I fear: that more laws and policies will be passed that are entirely useless.

And personally, I believe that if we were to fix our problems of society that we would be able to heal our selves and others with our minds, making medicine and doctors completely useless. The combined power of such energy working through everything would dictate immortality since we would have reach a point where the future may become set in stone in a manner that we would be completely content with: pure epicity. But that's just a coincidence to what I already postulated here as a possibility that can't be disproven and until such a possibility is given the full measure and effort it deserves in bringing about world peace in a conducive manner and disproven, who are you to call it mystical horseshit. And I don't make it up as I go along, either. Calling my ideas baseless... How trite and utterly predictable of a cynic. I believe as I do because of a mixture of it all together as I have said countless times and even gone so far as to show. Politics is pointless is the entire point I'm making.

Anyway, it's been fun talking with you again Ucci, but you are simply not intellectually qualified to have a conversation with me since all you can do is futilely attempt to deconstruct my posts with barbed cynicism and misconstruing what was being said. You can call it foolish all you want, but it's just a bunch of bullshit just like you claim my theses to be. And frankly, at such a point as that, Fuck you, lol. No offense, but fuck off, lmfao. I'm going to laugh about this because it's just infantile. Like this needed a counterpoint such as yours to reinforce negativity and cynicism in people. No, kid, I actually experience and learn what I put forth and you can't shake it and you can't shake my mood any longer, either. I have a lot more things now that nobody can ever take away from me again and I'm trying to share those things with other people on the off-chance that they might be going through the same things.

You don't understand that I don't need to teach this shit and that's not what I'm doing or have been doing with all these posts of mine or with the fight I'm fighting. It's a giant reach out to people who feel like me and experience like me which I assume is a good portion of society more than what is apparent by just viewing the surface of the interactions. I would assume that some people may go their entire lives without ever experiencing anything like what I have and yet there are still too many people who do. I've never learned a damn thing from any other philosopher except how similar my thoughts are to theirs after the fact of having my thoughts. And I laugh and laugh and laugh at how silly people are to go to school and try to hold down a job in a world where everything we need in life stems from our subconscious and our souls. Laugh and laugh and laugh, lol. The fact is that it does make me feel good to have justification to believe what I believe. I don't even care that I can't transfer that justification over to others as they have to walk their own paths in life.

I say to the world, 'set my people free.' If you don't understand these things that I say, if you can't see their place in the world and the importance of these things beyond the concept of just being a belief then you are not one of my people, lol. There are things in this world stronger than beliefs and those are actualities and the things I talk about have been proven to me by life and not by any other person or group of people, so what really can you say to that? Absolutely nothing and yet you'll probably try anyway because you may not have experienced it in your life. Shit man, sucks to be you, because it's fucking awesome.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic 567,
Can't you see that this argument is self defeating? The very basis of your argument is Us vs. Them. Good Eastern Religions vs. those evil, psychotic, intolerant Abrahamic religions. The title and the two large bold subtitles scream Us vs. Them.

Example, intolerance
it will soon be a net-negative and a threat to humanity.
others are inferior and condemned in the worst light.

If no Us vs. Them is the criteria for good vs. bad, then your argument is bad.

Btw, do you have any respect for intellectual integrity or NOT?

You need to read my justification in the whole context and the related points.
Note, the point in red;
On this basis, only the religion's own believers are superior while others are inferior and condemned in the worst light.
I gave examples of what that meant.

Btw, you need to understand the full perspective of the primal inherent "us versus them" impulse.
The neural mechanics of the "us versus them" impulse is embedded deep in the brain and once upon a time (10,000 and prior) was a critical necessity to facilitate survival of the tribe, group and therefrom the human specie.
This "us versus them" impulse has lost its criticalness [i.e. leverage on life or death, see point 2 below] and significance as humanity progress to the present state of the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology. Such an impulse may still be critical to some tribes in the jungles of Amazon, Africa and elsewhere, but this is insignificant to our modern society.
Elsewhere it is still useful to some degree and if it is not used 'malignantly' it is of no cause for concern.

Because the "us versus them" impulse is deeply embedded in the brain and still have some use it cannot be eliminated and thus need to be modulated. Where this impulse is not modulated in individuals, they form gangs, become racists, political extremists, religious divisions, etc.

1. Now what is worse is this "us versus them" impulse is malignantly enshrined in the immutable holy texts of the Abrahamic religions.

2. The double whammy is this "us versus them" is leveraged upon a deeper primal impulse of the threat of eternal death and hellfire.

3. The incendiary elements are the evil laden verses I have highlighted.

1, 2, and 3 are the ingredients for a Molotov cocktail from SOME fundamentalists to commit evils upon non-believers and even believers.

[Uccisore]

your first assumption is that I classify all as perfectly equal in such a manner, which I don't. In the end, that doesn't matter as they will twist back together like a frayed rope being returned to the form of a whole rope and certain things will be discarded. You say there is no knowledge to be had and yet the knowledge itself is unimportant compared to the lessons learned that aren't knowledge at all but present themselves in our instinctual programming in how we react without thought, etc.

To you. If knowledge isn't important TO YOU, then you certainly have embraced the right outlook to make sure you don't have to worry about it.

. Your assumptions are based in faulty learning programs presented by and institutionalized system of indoctrination. You immediately look at how what I say can be construed for the worst instead of taking it and seeing where it goes from there. Instead of being able to move onto the next part of the conversation, I now have to clarify what I meant beyond what I needed to and waste time with you as you drag me back for the next arrow shot forward; which would be the metaphorical exemplification of this post. I'm going to still take it to the next step.

You repeatedly condemned people and institutions that teach that there is such a thing as correct and incorrect when it comes to religious beliefs. I've listened to you rant about how everybody that doesn't think about religion in the exact way you do is causing wars, and death, and backwardness and how they are everything that is wrong with the planet.
Now I'm criticizing YOUR take on religious beliefs in turn. You can respond or you can ignore me, it's all good, but I'm not interested in the 'why are you picking on me' game.

Yes, I am on a quest just to make myself feel good. Considering that your job as a moderator allows you to see far more posts from me than others here, that assumption from you is rather asinine. At the same time as being for me, it's for others, too and I know you see that even though you pretend not to for the sake of gesticulating fakery on my part as if I would fake something that interests me so much and as if I could fake the help I've managed to give to my self that I try to give to others. What you and others don't realize is that I am my favorite test subject for what I learn before I ever learn from others. My pursuit is learning how best to help the worlds problems and these conversations are but small part. The ripple effects of them are going to be epic if I live long enough to see them and yes; to be quite fucking honest; I do this for me in the long term. I was born to be King of this world and I don't forget that shit. Cue the questions that queue on that thought process for me from you and those will be another post of explaining further my intentions and my visions of all that rests around me in this world and more views into my personal perception which you seem to have your own negative opinions of what I mean. Frankly; after all that I do and have done, I do expect something from life itself for it all; but that's not the main reason I do it and would be content with nothing as long as I made a difference with my pathetic life that I have sought to make less pathetic.

So you discovered the miraculous secret to how to save the world, and that secret is the exact same views on spirituality and self-righteousness that any random millennial raised on the Left Coast would have. You're wasting a lot of words painting yourself alternately as my victim and a super hero, when I'd rather discuss philosophy. I simply don't care what you think of yourself or how clever you imagine yourself to be. It will reveal itself in the quality of your arguments, or it won't.
And this goes back to what I was hinting at before about relativists doing the same thing as everybody else, except on easy mode. What are the true secrets of the universe? Self-serving drek that you don't have to try to hard to achieve.

The fact is that chakras aren't bullshit and neither is spiritual energy or emotional energy. As a strong empath, I do sense these energies and feel them move through me and have felt the different chakras and the opening of my own third eye. I have looked into the sun on multiple occasions throughout my life and have recently seen things in it that would amaze you and yet I believe that the things I saw were only able to be seen under the circumstances they were seen under;

OK, so in addition to everything else, you think you have magic powers. No wonder you don't consider yourself to be in a position to judge anybody else's beliefs.
Best of luck to you.

[The Eternal Warrior]

Again, you misinterpret. I never said knowledge wasn't important or that it wasn't important to me. Also, never said I was free from worry, did I. No, I did not.

Point out one instance of me condemning institutions for pointing out a wrong and right way to live. I have not condemned any institutions, let alone for that reason. I believe I said something about each institution; each group and every person is a mixture of right and wrong because they fail to properly coincide to bring out the maximum potential of each belief and they fail to tie those beliefs together as they should for being so disconnected from each other. I have never said that people who don't think about religion exactly as I do are the only cause of wars, in fact I don't think I blamed a single one for causing a war. The fact is that wars stem from it and there is an ongoing war of the spirit that has existed for a very long time. I never said they were backwards, either.

I have said a good many things about religions and other groups and their fallibilities, but I have also been there to speak of their virtues, too, if you would care to listen to both sides of the story and argument. You want to envision something as perfect when it isn't? Fine, be my guest. The fact is that the duality of mankind isnt just limited to masculine and feminine but to good and evil, too. To some I would appear to be very good and to others I would appear to be very bad and to others still, I would seem a variety of both in either confusion or confidence. To state these things about these groups is to state the same things for individuals, myself included. You think I remain unaware that my actions have the same repercussions? Why do you think I stand away from groups and act on my own as an individual instead of speaking beyond my means for people who may not share the same ideologies.

Now, the fact of the matter is that I came in here and I turned a lot of people on their asses and on their ears when they thought they had suitable argument against what I was saying. I have used more than just swearing and insults to bring down faulty arguments, I have used actual reason and sense beyond emotion to point out the fact that most arguments brought forth by people are not fully fleshed and they really don't know what they're talking about, but love the idea of talking about it as if they do. Now, if you want to state that I lump all people into that category, then you're wrong. I have not engaged every person here in the same manner, nor have I tackled every subject matter there is, here and why do you think that is? I don't know everything, duh. I argue what I know and some times I just sit back and watch a conversation as it unfolds without saying anything. I treat every situation differently based on the merits each situation and each person part of each situation brings forth.

You're not criticizing anything except your own integrity. You're tackling an insurmountable project by criticizing me and my arguments because you have nothing to stand on but cynicism and negativity and I really don't give a fuck, bro. But here I am anyway giving a fuck and responding to you anyway; do you get the picture, yet? Has that duality popped itself into your head, yet? I'm not saying that you're picking on me and I'm not asking why, either. You seem to want to take bits and pieces of what I say and pull them out of context to make it seem as though I say something I'm not saying and why? I don't know and frankly, I don't care to ask you for your reasoning, because it seems sketchy and I doubt you would give much actual reason.

I'm not sure what I discovered and yet you want to jump quickly into assuming that I'm stating such just because I'm confident about what I say. You mistake my confidence for something else. I have no clue how to save the world, to be honest because shits going to happen regardless. All I have ever said in this regard is war is ongoing, it is going to get worse, prepare for a massive shit storm in the future and I go forth and try to prepare people for what I see coming, often times without realizing that this is what I'm doing. I'm often just reaching out to people I see who are struggling with their own inner storm and I ask nothing in return and yet hope they pay it forward to the next person they see that needs help that they can help. I have no idea about random millenials or how the left coast plays a part in things. I don't paint myself as anything but myself. That I see myself as a hero and as a victim of circumstances beyond my control is obvious to anyone who sees me; one is what I have been, the other is what I hope to be and often fail at and yet never give up and even in the failing, I succeed in never giving up and give testament to will power and tenacity and integrity. I don't give up, even in giving up it becomes a strategic retreat.

It seems to me that you'd rather talk out your ass than talk philosophy, Ucci. I've seen your posts and they don't amount to much, in my opinion and that might just be me striking back at you for what you've said to me. Honestly, I can't remember reading anything of yours worthy of notice. Magical powers, you say with abject cynicism and then you look down your nose at me and judge me all the same. I never considered myself to be in a position to judge others no matter what I believed in. Even in negativity, I fought against talking shit about people for no reason based in immaturity. This extends from racism to everything else. Now, I have made a good many jokes and I have torn apart arguments and shredded peoples beliefs on all sides as I've argued so many things. You want to persecute me for my beliefs or my thought processes, my theses, then go ahead, but you leave your self open for the same treatment. I have not once persecuted anyone for anything or called anything silly... I only asked that they properly present it and argue it, show that they're using their minds to properly bring it forth.

Now, I have actually experienced shit and I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD TO HAVE DONE SO. I know this to be true. There are many things I am, but I'm not a prick for no reason; not like you. You want to be mean? I'm still pulling my punches. You want to know the secrets of the universe? Hah, here's a clue, buddy, so do a lot of other people who never get further than the philosophies of those who already came before them and yet here I am, never asking once to see a single secret of the universe and I get shown some amazing stuff just for being a good sport and fighting an actual fight against corruption and bullying. I have been hated by so many and I'm not whining and bitching about it anymore; have had things I loved torn apart, my family torn apart; my friendships ruined; by an intangible entity working through this world and I may be just a man caught in physicality or I may be much more and I don't know or care enough to know for sure either way. I just want to live my life in a better world and that is impossible, so I seek to make it better for others who will come after me. I really don't care how silly you think it is, I stand in the darkness against darkness; darkness that you exemplify at this moment.

You want to talk philosophy, then talk philosophy. The fact is that I try hard while barely trying and again there is that duality that is hard to pin down; that seeming contradiction.

I don't imagine myself to be clever; I AM clever. I AM intelligent. I don't need to imagine or pretend and the fact is that I couldn't imagine a lot of what I talk about. It flows through me as if I was a vessel for it and find myself a willing puppet for whatever consciousness the universe has. I invited it all in, if it was there, to see what would come of it without thinking in those terms, just trying to find an answer and to my surprise, I got answered. I don't care if you believe me whatsoever; the fact remains that I am entirely believable in what I say because what I say has conviction to it. I have lived my life as truthfully as possible for a reason I didn't understand until recently and I love the fucking reason. I love telling the truth and being believed, no matter how insane it might sound. At the least, you can believe that I believe it and have experienced it personally, which should speak volumes. Do I care if it can be replicated? Obviously not if I believe in something I label as situational reality.

But, the actual fact of the matter is, Ucci, that you; as a moderator; have derailed this conversation and taken it off-topic just to lodge a personal assault against me and what I brought to the conversation and for that lack of professionalism and respect for your position, I just get a smug little grin and shrug my shoulders and say, 'you know, you really should pay better attention to your surroundings and the world around you instead of just opening your mouth without cause.'

Peace, love and harmony, bro.

[Uccisore]

Point out one instance of me condemning institutions for pointing out a wrong and right way to live.

K.

What if immortality were possible and the only reason why people don't live forever is all of the stress and anxiety and fighting. What if, by getting along together and learning these things that teach us how to do so instead of falling for the us vs. them mentality or the 'we're better than them and this is why' stupidity we could free our selves from the only things that actually kill us, since even the toxins our factories produce are produced from naturally occuring developments. What if we kill our selves on such an epic scale in such an epic way as to realistically be the most tragic story ever told on a cosmic scale as people kill and are killed for no other reason than because they can not move past their own mental traumas, insecurities and insanities; can't transgress the differences in ideologies to bring them together as they might have once been before a great divide occurred to tear them apart into all of the in-fighting we see today throughout every culture known to man. I tie history and psychology and the provable things into it all and it makes more and more sense and nobody can disprove it and if they could; even if we got everyone squared away and found our selves to still be mortal and to still die at the end of a lifespan, wouldn't we at least experience world peace and deliver it to every generation that were to come after us in epic style?

I'm just not having it. You want to have your cake and eat it too- you can't go on a big rant about how every ideology every where all the time is doing everything wrong and you're the magical wizard that has the solution to all the world's ills, while AT THE SAME TIME patting yourself on the back for how open-minded and inclusive you are.

Now, the fact of the matter is that I came in here and I turned a lot of people on their asses and on their ears when they thought they had suitable argument against what I was saying.

So far you aren't saying much of anything and you certainly aren't making any good arguments. You seem to be writing vast quantities of text in order to impress yourself.

Yes, you take a little bit from every religion and only use what works. Yes, you think that if everybody did this the world would be a better place. You, and every other two-bit 21t century spiritualist. It's not new or interesting or inspired or particularly deep. It's just a way of melding (fake) non-confrontationalism with (fake) profundity.

You're tackling an insurmountable project by criticizing me and my arguments because you have nothing to stand on but cynicism and negativity and I really don't give a fuck, bro.

I know you don't, because you have it all figured out, because you read a blog or something. I'm just sort of skimming your post to see if you stop talking about how wonderful you are and actually make some sort of argument for some sort of position. Not seeing it yet.

But here I am anyway giving a fuck and responding to you anyway; do you get the picture, yet?

You know, speaking of duality. Look how angry you come off as. In all your embracing of contrary points of view, in all your vast, tireless journeying through what I assume must have taken you many decades, surely you've been scoffed at before. You opened up your participation with me by declaring how you believe in everybody being a little bit right and getting past the us. vs. them and all that, and the first time somebody says 'pfft' to it you fly into a tirade that is equal parts enraged and egoistical- telling me I shouldn't question you because of the others you've bested, your conquests, your talents. Telling me that if I do question you, you're oh so above it and couldn't care less.

Too badass to be doubted and too aloof to be concerned with what others think, and...

that is of course the absolute contradiction of what you proposed to believe, which is my point.

You see, your idea- that all religions are equally right or have chopped up kernels of truth or all that stuff...it's preposterous. Logically, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It's the kind of thing that nobody would believe. What, you take your favorite elements from 10 different religions and all your favorite elements just happen to be true? Horseshit.
And since it's horseshit, it has to be defended in the ways horseshit always is: by appealing to the fact that believing and pronouncing horseshit is good for the world regardless of whether or not it's true, which is how you began, or by declaring that people who deny your horseshit are terrible human beings who don't deserve to have their arguments considered, which is what you are moving too. I was impervious to your "I am spreading baloney to save the world" routine, so now you are trying the "I am a better human being than you" routine, which you will discover I am equally impervious too, having seen all of this before.

A person who is actually just a Catholic (or Buddhist or whatever) believing and behaving as these people do, is far less likely to react as you are, because their beliefs are not so wrapped up in their own ego, and they have ways to defend their dogmas other than alternating between self-righteousness and intimidation.

Magical powers, you say with abject cynicism and then you look down your nose at me and judge me all the same.

You declared yourself to have magical powers to a stranger on the internet who was already skeptical of your position, and now you want to portray yourself as a villain because they rolled their eyes at you. How can you help anybody when you are that divorced from reality?

I don't imagine myself to be clever; I AM clever. I AM intelligent.

It doesn't matter as much as you'd think. A super clever, super intelligent person would still lose to a mediocre chess player if said genius simply hadn't taken the time to learn the rules of chess. If you haven't bothered to learn what a contradiction is, how rhetoric works, why fallacies are important and what an ideology is, and so on, then all the raw brain power in the universe won't get you far in a discussion like this. You're clever and intelligent? Not clever enough to keep your magic powers to yourself in an online discussion.

IN summary, you present yourself as being that one who has a deep respect for all cultures and beliefs and sees the value in them all because that is what is beautiful, how you like to be seen. In reality, you are somebody who thinks he is more deserving, more virtuous and more clued-in than almost everybody else, and is in a unique position to pronounce on the nature of the universe to guide the plebs out of their ignorance and into your light. Is what you pronounce good? Superficially. But because it is rooted in your own ego and sense of self-importance and not the discipline and humility that comes with true study, you become a monster at the slightest provocation. Why is this a problem? Because everybody who pronounces the kinds of things you do is that way. Why? Because it is horseshit, and see above.

And to return to the original subject, that's why Abrahamic (or other "us vs. them") religions aren't relatively inferior to other, more 'inclusive' styles: more inclusive styles aren't rational, and irrational positions that can't be defended through argument have to be defended through authority, emotional appeals, or 'how dare you's' instead.

[AutSider]

Go off and believe such things without evidence because it makes you feel good, if you like. Just please don't try to pass laws or reshape society in the name of your baseless ideas. It'll be a little sad if you raise children to believe baseless ideas with no grounding in reality, but that's your business.
Point is, it matters that people are crazy. If you believe in a bunch of mystical horseshit that isn't real, sooner or later you will convince enough people to agree with you, laws will be passed or policies will be enacted, and folks will suffer and die.

Did Uccisore become an atheist or something?

Or is it one of those instances when a religious person meets a religious person with even more extreme beliefs and they get to feel like what it's like to be an atheist for a day and they get to experience all the silly arguments and claims us atheists do on a daily basis when engaging with religious people.

[The Eternal Warrior]

I'm just not having it. You want to have your cake and eat it too- you can't go on a big rant about how every ideology every where all the time is doing everything wrong and you're the magical wizard that has the solution to all the world's ills, while AT THE SAME TIME patting yourself on the back for how open-minded and inclusive you are.

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.

So far you aren't saying much of anything and you certainly aren't making any good arguments. You seem to be writing vast quantities of text in order to impress yourself.

Yes, you take a little bit from every religion and only use what works. Yes, you think that if everybody did this the world would be a better place. You, and every other two-bit 21t century spiritualist. It's not new or interesting or inspired or particularly deep. It's just a way of melding (fake) non-confrontationalism with (fake) profundity.

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.

I know you don't, because you have it all figured out, because you read a blog or something. I'm just sort of skimming your post to see if you stop talking about how wonderful you are and actually make some sort of argument for some sort of position. Not seeing it yet.

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.

You know, speaking of duality. Look how angry you come off as. In all your embracing of contrary points of view, in all your vast, tireless journeying through what I assume must have taken you many decades, surely you've been scoffed at before. You opened up your participation with me by declaring how you believe in everybody being a little bit right and getting past the us. vs. them and all that, and the first time somebody says 'pfft' to it you fly into a tirade that is equal parts enraged and egoistical- telling me I shouldn't question you because of the others you've bested, your conquests, your talents. Telling me that if I do question you, you're oh so above it and couldn't care less.

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.

Too badass to be doubted and too aloof to be concerned with what others think, and...

that is of course the absolute contradiction of what you proposed to believe, which is my point.

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.

You see, your idea- that all religions are equally right or have chopped up kernels of truth or all that stuff...it's preposterous. Logically, it doesn't make any sense at all, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It's the kind of thing that nobody would believe. What, you take your favorite elements from 10 different religions and all your favorite elements just happen to be true? Horseshit.
And since it's horseshit, it has to be defended in the ways horseshit always is: by appealing to the fact that believing and pronouncing horseshit is good for the world regardless of whether or not it's true, which is how you began, or by declaring that people who deny your horseshit are terrible human beings who don't deserve to have their arguments considered, which is what you are moving too. I was impervious to your "I am spreading baloney to save the world" routine, so now you are trying the "I am a better human being than you" routine, which you will discover I am equally impervious too, having seen all of this before.

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.

A person who is actually just a Catholic (or Buddhist or whatever) believing and behaving as these people do, is far less likely to react as you are, because their beliefs are not so wrapped up in their own ego, and they have ways to defend their dogmas other than alternating between self-righteousness and intimidation.

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?

Magical powers, you say with abject cynicism and then you look down your nose at me and judge me all the same.

You declared yourself to have magical powers to a stranger on the internet who was already skeptical of your position, and now you want to portray yourself as a villain because they rolled their eyes at you. How can you help anybody when you are that divorced from reality?

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.

[Uccisore]

No, sir; I'M not having it. The whole point of making a cake is to eat the damn thing, is it not.

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.

just that people don't make enough of an allowance for other ideologies.

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, you're right, I don't care or concern myself with what others think. I never do that.

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?

How is it perposterous, sir? How does it not make any sense? How can you claim that nobody would believe it?

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.

[The Eternal Warrior]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=187379

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

[zinnat]

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.

I dare say, there are substantially* no evil laden elements (potential or otherwise) in the holy texts of Buddhism nor Jainism.

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.

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.

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.

Except for some potential areas of misinterpretations, Hinduism generally is OK and do not has notable inherent evil elements like those of the Abrahamic religions.
*minor disputable points.

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?

When I compare the Abrahamic religions to the main Eastern Religions, the basis is the average best performance they are capable of.
To use an analogy from academic;
1. The highest potential for the average Abrahamic believers is up to say primary level.
2. The highest potential for the average Eastern religions is up to University Level.

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.

The underlying principle in Jewish thought states that every man is born with, both, a good inclination and an evil inclination. This, in itself, is not bad, nor is it an abnormality.

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 [u]Yetzer Hara is called Nafs in Islam and Man/Chitta in different sects of Hinduism[/u].

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.

Note I said, the potential for the average believers, this will exclude the mystics who are special class of people. This include Christian mysticism and Sufism. You will note the Sufis are regarded as apostates and infidels by mainstream Muslims. Note the recent bombing of Sufi shrines. IMO, the mystics of Christianity and Sufis should be regarded more to mysticism rather than belonging the their conventional religion. In this case, a Sufi is 90% mystic and 10% conventional Muslim, as is similar with a Christian mystics or a Buddhist mystic.

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-

The Amman Message, a detailed statement issued by 200 leading Islamic scholars in 2005 in Amman, and adopted by the Islamic world's political and temporal leaderships at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005, and by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies including the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006, specifically recognized the validity of Sufism as a part of Islam

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.

Muslims and mainstream scholars of Islam define Sufism as simply the name for the inner or esoteric dimension of Islam[1] which is supported and complemented by outward or exoteric practices of Islam, such as Islamic law.[15] In this view, "it is absolutely necessary to be a Muslim" to be a true Sufi, because Sufism's "methods are inoperative without" Muslim "affiliation".

Why I say the average Abrahamic religions potential is inferior to the Eastern religion is based on the parts of the brain they addressed in facing the existential dilemma.
The Abrahamic religion focus more on the reptilian and limbic [animal] part of the brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_bra ... an_complex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system

while the Eastern religion focus on the higher cortical brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex

If you researched into the holy texts, the ethos and behaviors of Abrahamic believers and ER believers in general, you will notice the associations with the various parts of the human brain.
I will avoid the details as it can be tedious.

The point is,
because the Abrahamic religions focused on the lower and mid brain, the limit of its average can only reached a certain level, say X points, (exceptions of the mystics)
because the Eastern Religions focused on the higher complex brain, its max limit of it average will be extended beyond X, say X+3 points.

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.

The other point is,
the Abrahamic religions work on the principle of the immutability of their holy texts (to edit God's word would be a sin & blasphemous). As such, there is no likely possibility for any progress to be made from what is stated in the holy texts which focused on the lower and mid brain.
The Eastern Religions meanwhile are dynamic and flexible and believers can direct attention to the relevant parts of the brain to facilitate greater spiritual progress.

It is on this basis that the Abrahamic religions are relatively inferior to those of the Eastern Religions listed above.

Jainism existed in parallel with the Vedas (controversial point) and Buddhism emerged from Jainism in parallel with the Vedas.
I mentioned earlier, Buddhism is a paradigmatic shift in its central principles (anatman) from the atman of the Vedas.
The older Vedanta existed before Buddhism, but the later-Vedanta [renewed by Adi Shankara] emerged only after Buddhism was getting popular in India and subsequently this renewed-Vedanta pushed Buddhism out of India.

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

[Arminius]

Abrahamic Religions are Inferior in spiritual terms relative to Eastern Religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Taoism.
Why?

Abrahamic Religions:
One critical criteria of inferiority - "Us versus Them" (Believers).
The critical basis of the effectiveness of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is the "us versus them" principle. Meaning us (good) versus them (evil).
On this basis, only the religion's own believers are superior while others are inferior and condemned in the worst light. Even amongst their own divisions and sect, one will look down on the others and claims other are false. e.g. Sunni versus Shia in Islam.
Example, intolerance in the Bible: http://www.evilbible.com/BiblicalIntolerance.htm
Intolerance in the Quran can be read here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Q%20...%20/long.html
Such verses in the Bible and Quran is significantly responsible for most horrendous evils committed by Christians and Muslims around the world in the recent past 500 years and at present.

Eastern Religions
-Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Taoism.
These Eastern religions start off with recognizing the individual human has problems, e.g. suffering re Buddhism due to ignorance of what reality is.
The holy texts of these religions are centered and focused on the individual's spiritual self-improvement.
There are no emphasis on comparison with and putting down non-believers like what the Abrahamic religions do.

What is worst is the Abrahamic religions also worked on the basis of immutability of their holy texts from an infallible God. Thus there is no room for changing and revising their holy texts for the better and adapting to changing modern conditions.

I don't deny there are positive elements in the Abrahamic religions but because of the inherent 'us versus them' element in their immutable holy texts and thus imputed in the life of the believers, it will soon be a net-negative and a threat to humanity.

Note Pareto's Principle is applicable in this case. It is not the majority that is of concern but only the critical few believers (1%) and immutable evil-laden verses (10%+) in the holy texts.

On this critical basis of 'us versus them' and other factors above, the Abrahamic religions are inferior to the listed Eastern religions.


ps. btw I am not religious thus not proselytizing any specific religion.

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

Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

[Prismatic567]

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.

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

I dare say, there are substantially* no evil laden elements (potential or otherwise) in the holy texts of Buddhism nor Jainism.

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.
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.
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 Kamasutra 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.

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.

Except for some potential areas of misinterpretations, Hinduism generally is OK and do not has notable inherent evil elements like those of the Abrahamic religions.
*minor disputable points.

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?

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.

When I compare the Abrahamic religions to the main Eastern Religions, the basis is the average best performance they are capable of.
To use an analogy from academic;
1. The highest potential for the average Abrahamic believers is up to say primary level.
2. The highest potential for the average Eastern religions is up to University Level.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Note I said, the potential for the average believers, this will exclude the mystics who are special class of people. This include Christian mysticism and Sufism. You will note the Sufis are regarded as apostates and infidels by mainstream Muslims. Note the recent bombing of Sufi shrines. IMO, the mystics of Christianity and Sufis should be regarded more to mysticism rather than belonging the their conventional religion. In this case, a Sufi is 90% mystic and 10% conventional Muslim, as is similar with a Christian mystics or a Buddhist mystic.

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.

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.

Have a look at this-
“The Amman Message, a detailed statement issued by 200 leading Islamic scholars in 2005 in Amman, and adopted by the Islamic world's political and temporal leaderships at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005, and by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies including the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006, specifically recognized the validity of Sufism as a part of Islam”

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

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 propagate violence cannot be a Muslim. They all are non-Muslims. It is as simple as that.

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.

Now, let us come to your theory 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.

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.

There is no merit in that argument. Explain me the process of your conclusion 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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[James S Saint]

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

[Arminius]

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]

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.

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

[Arminius]

You're arguing and differentiating the obvious forms.

They seem to be "obvious" only to you but not to others.

You do not seem to appreciate effectiveness in linguistics and communication.

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

So what is your intention? Ad hominem again?

If I do not use the term "Abrahamic Religions," then I will use the phrase 'the common features of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

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!

Your opposition to the term "Abrahamic Religion" ....

What "opposition"? Stop being so much sensitive!

I merely said:

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

What is your problem, boy?

|=>#

[James S Saint]

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?

[Prismatic567]

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.

[James S Saint]

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").

[Arminius]

I don't deny there are positive elements in the Abrahamic religions but because of the inherent 'us versus them' element in their immutable holy texts and thus imputed in the life of the believers, it will soon be a net-negative and a threat to humanity.

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.

[James S Saint]

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.

[Arminius]

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.

[Show-Me]

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

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.