Judaism, Christianity or Islam?

If you were absolutely assured that the God the Jews believe in exists (and therefore, the God both Christians and Muslims believe in exists), however, you were not assured any further details, like how to worship this God or what this God wishes you to do, then which religion of the three religions mentioned would you choose?

For arguments sake, whatever proof there is, an experiment can be done by anyone to confirm it.

Posters may post what they voted, and they may reinforce their choice with arguments if they wish, and they may also challenge others' choices with respectable arguments.

The goal of this thread is to attempt to get a rough idea of which of those three monotheist religions is most believed in (in ZU), or would be if there was evidence.

Christianity, because then I wouldn't need to be circumcised.

A crude argument, I suppose, but true nontheless.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

Christianity, because then I wouldn't need to be circumcised.

A crude argument, I suppose, but true nontheless.

The funny thing is that I felt like mentioning that point... because I can imagine that circumcision would be very painful for a male, and the act is civilized for infants only, because they wouldn't remember...

But still, that doesn't deduce why you wouldn't choose Islam...

I don't think it civilised even for infants, but anyway - I was under the impression muslims were also circumcised? Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, I also like ham, gammon and bacon, and I know muslims can't eat those, so still Christianity.

Originally Posted by Guy Westcott

I don't think it civilised even for infants, but anyway - I was under the impression muslims were also circumcised? Maybe I'm wrong. But anyway, I also like ham, gammon and bacon, and I know muslims can't eat those, so still Christianity.

I took a little look at wikipedia, and it turns out we are both right. I'll quote a piece:

In Islam, circumcision is mentioned in some hadith, but not in the Qur'an. Some Fiqh scholars state that circumcision is recommended (Sunnah); others that it is obligatory.[28] Some have quoted the hadith to argue that the requirement of circumcision is based on the covenant with Abraham.[29] While endorsing circumcision for males, scholars note that it is not a requirement for converting to Islam.[30]

I see. Well in that case it is only Judaeism which I would have to reject for that reason, but like I said, it would still be Christianity because of the meat.

Not that I think your beliefs should just be based upon what you want to do, but if you only know that there is a God and not what he wants, and you have to just randomly choose one, it might as well be the one that you will lead a more enjoyable life with.

I'd choose Christianity just because it has the least rules out of the three. But, if I actually wanted to be devout, I'd go with Islam. From my understanding, Muhammad(sp?) was another prophet, and they believe in Jesus teachings, but don't believe he was the son of God or rose from the dead and etc. So if my understanding is correct, Islam expanded on Christianity.

I made a poll for it. I declined to put a "null option" because the terms of the original post seem to exclude it.

Unless, of course, someone has a more pressing reason. PM me or GDwarf for that change.

-Rob

P.S. Regular I:SB rules apply. Anyone who simply posts without discussion will have their post deleted.

Even if God was Abrahamic that doesn't mean any of the religions must be correct. I'd still stick to my own personal philosophy.

Insufficient information.

Even if we accept that one of those three must be true (which is not necessarily the case), that still isn't enough to figure out which religion would be the one to follow.

GDwarf: Crippled by indecision since '89.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Insufficient information.

Even if we accept that one of those three must be true (which is not necessarily the case), that still isn't enough to figure out which religion would be the one to follow.

GDwarf: Crippled by indecision since '89.

The point was that IF one of the three had to be correct, which would you choose to follow?

So, I would not want to be circumcised, would want to be able to eat pig byproducts, and wouldn't have any reason to suppose any were more likely than the others, so I would follow the one that gives me what I want (more so than the others) - Christianity.

If you had to choose one of the three, which would it be and why? That is the question here.

In that case I'd go for Christianity, too (unless there was more information that would make me think another one was more likely to be true). I think the majority of people here would just because it's what we're most familiar with. If I became Christian than my life really wouldn't change at all, apart from maybe going to church.

(Is my avatar showing up to anyone? I see everyone elses but mine is just an invisible box...)

Since no one seems to want to start discussion, I'll throw my two cents in. I expect some interesting responses.

If our choices are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, then we must in some sense, no matter which one we choose, assume the truth of Judaism. This is at least inasmuch as we say that the monotheistic God revealed Himself to them.

If we are to say that either Christianity or Islam are true, then, we must say so without repudiating a certain core of truth which Judaism must have. Any legitimate development on a principle cannot negate the original principle. Granted, it may be the case that certain Jews misinterpret the truth revealed to them, and so we cannot judge either Christianity or Islam to be corruptions (false developments) simply because Jews judge them as a corruptions.

It seems to me that at the center of Judaism are certain important strands. Most importantly, we must say that God revealed to the Jews that they were His particular people with whom He made a special covenant. Since the dawn of their primeval history they traced the covenant from a motley assortment of unworthy successors. After Adam, most every person to continue the covenant is a younger son. Ideally the eldest son is destined to inherit what his father gave him. But the story of the fall seems to turn the world topsy-turvy in the Jewish narrative. Cain and Abel are the sons of Adam. Cain makes an unworthy offering, and Abel makes a worthy offering. God prefers the younger son. When Cain kills Abel in his jealousy, God continues Adam's line preferentially through Adam's next son, Seth. The line continues this way traced to Abraham. Abraham's first son is Ishmael by Hagar, but this odd theme of the younger son recurs and Ishmael is driven out. It is by the younger son, Isaac, that the covenant is continued. This is central to the Jewish story, which sees itself as the heir of the covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (known also as Israel). It is interesting to note that the the theme of the younger upstaging the older continues between Esau and Jacob, sons of Isaac, as well as to Joseph the youngest son of Jacob, and much later on, to David, the youngest son of Jesse.

In any case, the Jewish faith has at its center a strong narrative about its election from amidst the nations, esp. through "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob" (Ex 3:6). As it develops it carries with it a stronger and stronger sense of its unique covenant with the creator God which is perpetuated through this very line by a multitude of successors. The promise to Abraham, which was perpetuated through Isaac and Jacob was that God would make a great nation out their descendants and that all the nations of the earth would find blessing through Abraham (cf. Gen 22:18). This becomes especially important as the Jewish faith catches greater and greater glimpses about how "the nations" will come to the God of Israel. It starts as a quite peculiar people in its foundation, but from the very beginning anticipates that all peoples owe its monotheistic God their allegiance, and that their God will bring blessing on them too (but in a peculiar way, through the chosen people).

This grows in emphasis through the Jewish scriptures. It is seen at times or points more clearly that God will welcome the nations into His covenant as well. It is fascinating to note the development of understanding which occurs throughout the Jewish scriptures. The Psalms in particular bear witness to what God really wants in sacrifice, and the limited nature of the law when followed without its spirit. Psalms 50-51 are beautiful examples of the deepening of understanding. In them, God rebukes man for meaningless sacrifices. "Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for mine is the world and all that fills it. Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Offer praise as your sacrifice to God; fulfill your vows to the Most High." And in Psalm 51 (the Miserere), "For you do not desire sacrifice; a burnt offering you would not accept. My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit..." I don't think we should read these as a repudiation of Israel's sacrificial system, but as an emphasis on the very heart of the matter-- the emptiness of sacrifice done in an evil way, because God wants not the animal but man's whole self. Hence Hosea's dictum that, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

In the prophet Jeremiah the circumcised are criticized. "For... the whole house of Israel, are uncircumcised in heart" (Jer 9:25). The vision of spiritual regeneration which Ezekiel envisions is similar to this: it entails a "circumcision of the heart" to the Lord. "I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees" (Ezekiel 36:25-27). This is nothing new, but is a development of one of the earliest statements of the Jewish scriptures. "The Lord, your God, will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, that you may love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and all your soul, and so may live" (Deut 30:6).

Towards the very end of Israel's development prior to the advent of Christianity, the book of Daniel expresses a very sophisticated version of this in the prayer of Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael from the flames. "We have in our day no prince, prophet or leader, no holocaust, sacrifice, oblation or incense, no place to offer first fruits, to find favor with you. But with contrite heart and humble spirit let us be received; as though it were holocausts of rams and bullocks, or thousands of fat lambs, so let our sacrifice be in your presence today as we follow you unreservedly..." (Dan 3:38-40).

As for the development of the nations, we can look towards the prophet Isaiah. "In days to come, The mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it; many peoples shall come and say: "Come, let us climb the LORD'S mountain, to the house of the God of Jacob, That he may instruct us in his ways, and we may walk in his paths." For from Zion shall go forth instruction, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and impose terms on many peoples." (Isaiah 2:2-4). The messianic becomes intertwined with the nations especially in Isaiah. Isaiah says that, "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom" (Isaiah 11:1). It says of this Davidic messiah figure that, "On that day, The root of Jesse, set up as a signal for the nations, The Gentiles shall seek out, for his dwelling shall be glorious" (Isaiah 11:10).

I was discussing the principle in Jewish thought that the nations are somehow going to be blessed through Abraham. Later Jewish thought connects this blessing more specifically to a Davidic messiah-figure, like in Isaiah. One of the more important messianic texts, though, also uses this connection. From the book of Daniel: "As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13-14). In this way the Davidic messiah/king is seen again to be a bridge to the nations.

One of the most striking passages in the Hebrew Scriptures comes from Jeremiah. He says, "The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt; for they broke my covenant and I had to show myself their master, says the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer 31:31-33). This "new covenant" is quite fascinating.

My education on these things is very limited, I admit, so I can't go into as much depth as I'd like. However, from these principles of Jewish thought I'd like to discuss a few conclusions.

We have several strands which I think coalesce well with the Christian movement. Not that you guys couldn't see that coming from this Catholic here. I think that development in Judaism requires an opening to "the nations" or "the Gentiles" which Judaism hasn't done. Thus, I think that Judaism has not developed as it ought; it has not become 'catholic' (universal).

On the other hand, though, I find fault with Islam if we are to count it as a development of Judaism. If we accept that God revealed Himself to the Jewish people and perpetuated His covenant with them, we cannot simply abandon God's promise to perpetuate His covenant through Isaac and not Ishmael. It becomes more specified when we see how the line of Isaac produces the line of Jesse-- whence the Davidic messiah/king was expected to appear, the same messiah to which the Jewish scriptures see the nations attracted, and the many ministering to Him. I readily grant that Jewish thought still needed to connect Isaiah's suffering servant (Is 42-3) with the davidic messiah/king, but this can easily count as development, whereas denying the covenant through Isaac, and the messiah through Jesse can only count as negation. But negation is impossible in proper development, for negation entails obliterating principles once revealed as true. (Also, the principle of sacrifice seems to be not developed, but negated in Islam. It seems to be rather unique in the way that it has word but not sacrifice, whereas both Judaism and Christianity have word and sacrifice.)

Christianity, growing out of the second Temple period of Judaism, synthesizes these thoughts rather admirably. It can easily be seen that the Christians consciously tried to appropriate Jewish scriptures as pointing towards the Christian faith. I am thinking of Luke in particular who carries one of these strands: Simeon says of Jesus, the hoped-for messiah, that he is a "light of revelation to the Gentiles" (Lk 2:32). I can't help but think that Luke wrote this with the verses from Isaiah and Daniel in mind. I think that one can argue persuasively for the continuation of principles in development in the Christian model. The development of Jewish thought on sacrifice makes the Christian development regarding the regulations of the law and sacrifice plausible, esp. when located within the context of the spirit vs. the letter of the law which Jesus' preaching emphasized (oddly enough, asserting, "I come not to abolish but to fulfill the law"). (Jesus also quotes Hosea, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice.") When put in context of the passage from Ezekiel about the spiritual regeneration and Jeremiah about the "new covenant" it seems that Jesus' actions are potentially valid developments of Judaism. The sacrifical principle is retained, but developed.

The interplay of development being founded on old principles but in some sense "new" is introduced paradoxically by one of the latest of the documents in the Christian New Testament. The first epistle of John says, "Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard And yet I do write a new commandment to you, which holds true in him and among you, for the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining" (1 Jn 2:7-8). There is simultaneously something deep and old about what has been developed, but new inasmuch as it has been developed.

Whereas the Islamic model seems to entail the negation of many Jewish principles. I find it implausible that Islam can be a legitimate development of Judaism if it entails a negation as such. Negation is not development rightly so called, it is corruption.

Granted, I am sure I've oversimplified or flat-out misrepresented Islam's position on Judaism. My understanding is that Muslims reject the Hebrew Scriptures, not because they are uninspired, but because they are corrupted. Either way it goes-- it seems that we cannot judge adequately that Islam could possibly be a true development of Judaism. I would need to know a bit more. I'm sure my post will compel one of our Muslim regulars to interact. I must apologize for any embarassing mistakes I've made about Islam. That is the point of discussion, though... to learn.

This is an attempt to show why it is reasonable to choose Christianity out of those three.

-Rob

Bobslob - You don't believe in short and snappy posts, do you? That was very enlightening, and I'm not sure I grasped the lot, but it seemed to make sense.

T-Nemesis - No, I can't see your avatar either.