My take on Christianity - Judaism - Islam

[Brian37]

From what I understand, what unites these faiths the most is the belief in an intervening God who is unique and has no equals. The Christian doctrine can be said to contradict this, but, in theory, they believe in One God.

They each believe God sent Messengers to humanity through out time. They each believe they have that message that is the message that God wants us to follow. They each believe that God will establish justice through a person.

What I see is essentially these religions agree upon the core beliefs, and their structure is similar. They pray to God, believe he helps those who pray to him, emphasized on doing good, etc.

Now the two questions - is - why - I mean by this, what is the exact reason - you believe other religions could of been made up (like Bahais) but not yours without denying there is Messengers and God intervenes. The 2nd, is what makes you think other religions have been corrupted and have no book that is perfectly reliable, but you do.

I think that experience takes a subjective experience. I think it's hard to prove religion objectively. I think these religions would do well also to have dialogue and share their scriptural beauty.

Talking to some Christians, they find the Quran not as beautiful as the Bible. I have the opposite experience and find the Quran more beautiful then the Bible.

How do we leave the subjective experience to believing into an objective experience?

Islam is the third spin off off the Hebrews. Christianity is the second spin off of the Hebrews. But none of those three religions ever want to accept that even the Hebrews were merely a splinter sect spin off of the prior polytheistic Canaanites. 

No different than Coke Vs Pepsi vs Sprite. All sodas, and all forgetting that water was around long before soda and soda would not exist without water.

[Angrboda]

From what I understand, what unites these faiths the most is the belief in an intervening God who is unique and has no equals. The Christian doctrine can be said to contradict this, but, in theory, they believe in One God.

They each believe God sent Messengers to humanity through out time. They each believe they have that message that is the message that God wants us to follow. They each believe that God will establish justice through a person.

What I see is essentially these religions agree upon the core beliefs, and their structure is similar. They pray to God, believe he helps those who pray to him, emphasized on doing good, etc.

Now the two questions - is - why - I mean by this, what is the exact reason - you believe other religions could of been made up (like Bahais) but not yours without denying there is Messengers and God intervenes. The 2nd, is what makes you think other religions have been corrupted and have no book that is perfectly reliable, but you do.

I think that experience takes a subjective experience. I think it's hard to prove religion objectively. I think these religions would do well also to have dialogue and share their scriptural beauty.

Talking to some Christians, they find the Quran not as beautiful as the Bible. I have the opposite experience and find the Quran more beautiful then the Bible.

How do we leave the subjective experience to believing into an objective experience?

Islam is the third spin off off the Hebrews. Christianity is the second spin off of the Hebrews. But none of those three religions ever want to accept that even the Hebrews were merely a splinter sect spin off of the prior polytheistic Canaanites. 

No different than Coke Vs Pepsi vs Sprite. All sodas, and all forgetting that water was around long before soda and soda would not exist without water.

Everybody likes to think that they're different. It's what the industry of individualism is all about and part of the reason why fascism is unpopular.

[Reltzik]

From what I understand, what unites these faiths the most is the belief in an intervening God who is unique and has no equals. The Christian doctrine can be said to contradict this, but, in theory, they believe in One God.

Far more than that. It's not just that they all believe in a singular God (though the Christian Trinity stretches the concept of "singular" a bit). It's that they all believe in very similar narratives. All three Abrahamic faiths have different variations of the same tales (with somewhat different names for the actors, depending on language) -- Eden, Cain and Abel, Noah's flood, Abraham, and so on. These narratives diverge around the point where Jesus comes into play. Judaism doesn't really include him at all, Christianity labels him God in some form or another, and Islam labels him as another prophet. But the three religions are united by a largely shared narrative up to that point of divergence.

They each believe God sent Messengers to humanity through out time. They each believe they have that message that is the message that God wants us to follow. They each believe that God will establish justice through a person.

What I see is essentially these religions agree upon the core beliefs, and their structure is similar. They pray to God, believe he helps those who pray to him, emphasized on doing good, etc.

Yup, all of that (save perhaps God establishing justice through a SINGLE person, which is not universally held in Judaism, and doing good, when there is significant disagreement on what does and does not count as good) is part of the narrative shared by all three religions.

Now the two questions - is - why - I mean by this, what is the exact reason - you believe other religions could of been made up (like Bahais) but not yours without denying there is Messengers and God intervenes. The 2nd, is what makes you think other religions have been corrupted and have no book that is perfectly reliable, but you do.

I think that experience takes a subjective experience. I think it's hard to prove religion objectively. I think these religions would do well also to have dialogue and share their scriptural beauty.

Talking to some Christians, they find the Quran not as beautiful as the Bible. I have the opposite experience and find the Quran more beautiful then the Bible.

First, beauty is subjective. It's in the eye of the beholder. For myself, I regard the Tao te Ching as more beautiful than the scriptures of any of the Abrahamic faiths, some of which can get very ugly at some points. But that's just a subjective opinion.

Second, beauty is a poor indicator of truth. Partly this is because beauty is subjective and truth is not, but it's more than that. There are such things as ugly truths. There are such things as attractive lies. Perhaps admiring the beauty of (parts of) a religion can be a key to coexistence, which would be a good thing IMO. But it's not the only thing to be considered. I prefer to give a religion more respect than just considering whether it's aesthetically pleasing. I prefer to consider whether or not there's any basis for believing it has its finger on the truth.

How do we leave the subjective experience to believing into an objective experience?

By employing the basics of the scientific method. By focusing on what can be verified, what can be confirmed by others even if they begin from a point of disagreements, and by embracing the truths that can be sent through the proving grounds -- things which have some mechanism for proving them false if they are actually false. Anything else roots us solidly in the subjective. Either we end up holding millions of distinct and mutually-contradictory unverified beliefs, or we hold millions of distinct and mutually-contradictory beliefs which we can't cross-confirm, or we hold millions of mutually-exclusive false beliefs that we can never escape because we can never show them to be false. Without some mechanism as a group of holding them up to an objective reality, we cannot have objective truth.