For instance, Islam’s insistence that Mohammed preached to the North American Indians.
There is no “official” keeper of the “official” doctrine for any of them. If you think otherwise, you are deeply mistaken.
That’s why I’m trying to get some definitions nailed down. A lot of what you are saying about them is only true for the fundamentalist sects of each (for both laity and clergy).
If you focus the discussion to a specific area of the religions, such as “morality”. Morality is a system for judging human behavior, good or bad (or evil if you prefer). Each of these religions has a moral code. Judaism’s moral code states that it is bad/evil to worship idols. Therefore a Jewish person has a basis for judging some Christian practices. It is for instance well known that many Jews will not go to a church service because there are statues of Jesus in there, that their religion considers idols. Islam teaches that polygamy is fine, but Christianity in most of its forms do not agree.
But what a Christian should ask is, “what if the Koran is true? then maybe I should accept polygamy and get rid of my JC statues?” or a Jew should ask, “what if Christianity is true? I’d like to know so I can go to Heaven.”
But we clearly won’t arrive at greater clarity by analyzing any particular belief or practice. What we need to debate is the basis of the entire system. Perhaps the historical basis.
There are clergy and there are laity. I submit to you that the clergy are the authorities, not the laity. That still leaves breadth, but not as much as you are suggesting.
As I wrote above, I don’t think we should try to debate any particular doctrine. What matters is the basis of the religion.
For instance, Southern Baptists and Catholics have very very different views about the “correct” way to do Christianity, but they agree on the fundamental truth of Christianity and they recognize each other as true Christians, and they agree that non-Christians are going to be in hot water.
Again, I’m referring to the clergy and theologians, not the laity.
There’s no unified clergy in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
For Christianity alone (with which I’m most familiar), there’s a wide divergence in particulars that your OP does not acknowledge.
For example, several Christian sects (including their clergy) don’t believe in a literal hell. Others do. Some believe Jews and Muslims are automatically doomed to hell. Others do not. One, in particular, believes the Bishop of Rome is God’s direct human representative on Earth and supreme among all Christians. All the others do not share this belief.
That’s a wide breadth of beliefs, just within Christianity, even among the clergy.
Not true. Many Southern Baptists believe Catholics (“Papists” as they used to be called) are going to hell. Actually, many believe that of Methodists, Episcopalians, and Unitarians, too. That kind of stuff used to be (at least in my childhood) screamed by preachers at revival meetings.
For that matter, many Unitarian churches (yes, clergy included) reject the notion of a literal hell.
OK, I’ll rephrase the question like this: Every religion makes claims about reality. Is there any rational (historical, scientific or otherwise) reason to believe those claims, or is belief merely a function of emotion (leap-of-faith)?
It would be really helpful to have some adherents on this thread, because they themselves bring all kinds of rational arguments. They don’t simply say, “hey we got a great religion here, come and believe”. They bring “proofs”.
I agree there are some common points, of course, but there are big schisms in all three religions. So I disagree with your comment about any “official” version and the existence of anything liked a united group of “keepers.” And I don’t think I agree with your views on the clergy either. Why should the official version of a religion get more emphasis than its actual day-to-day practice and the views of the bulk of its adherents?
Give one point for every accuracy, take away one point for every inaccuracy, the take the one that has dug the shallowest hole and declare it the winner?
Are you talking clergy or laity?
In any event, I stick to my original proposition. The specific doctrines don’t matter at this stage. If we conclude that Christianity’s fundamentals are the most credible, then we can debate which form of Christianity. But indeed all forms of Christianity agree that the Christian Bible is true and that Jesus is their savior. If they don’t, they don’t fall under the normative definition of Christianity. The doctrinal details are for later.
So let’s lay out the basics:
Judaism: Torah is true word of God, given to Jews
Christianity: Jews screwed up, so God sent Jesus to save the world and NT is true, over-riding much of the Torah.
Islam: Jews and Christians screwed up, so God sent Koran to save the world and it is the only true book anymore.
Please comment.
Look, the reason I keep arguing is that I’m a lapsed Baptist. I ran off when I grew some brain cells (i.e. about 15 years old).
The “proof” you’d give when trying to convert people and save them from eternal damnation (including any and all non-Baptists) was basically the Bible. It really is “come and believe”. The SOP is to tell them about how great Jesus is, what he did for us, and that the only way to be saved is to accept him. The evidence is in the Bible. The emphasis is “putting your faith in Jesus”, rather than any scientific, historical, or other proof of the validity of the religion.
BOTH!
Screaming preachers would tell you that non-Baptists would burn in hell.
More or less true, but several Christian sects don’t accept the literal existence of Jesus, the truth of the NT, or that it’s all that important that you obey much more than “Be Good to Each Other”.
On the other hand, you have other Christian sects that claim the reverse.
Maybe the “details don’t matter” to you, but those are awfully gigantic differences in theology.
By the way, the reason the doctrinal differences matter:
If Jesus was simply a good guy and not divine, there’s not necessarily a contradiction with the common Muslim notion that he was another prophet and divinely inspired teacher.
On the other hand, if he was divine and the Son of God, there might be a contradiction there.
Sheesh. I don’t even thin that’s official Catholic doctrine anymore.
But applying logic to religion. Why?
I think you’re onto something here. The real question we can and should ask is about the reliability or veracity of these three books. Regardless of how you interpret the Bible, you are by definition a Christian if you believe in and follow the Christian Bible. Right? If you disagree with that definition then we have descended to a semantics game.
Ergo, we should be able to discuss the evidence for or against the truth or reliability of each of these books. It may not be true about Christianity, but it certainly is true about Judaism and Islam, both of which claim that their book is the word of God.
If there are people who call themselves “Jewish” or “Muslim” but don’t believe that, OK, so they are culturally members of those sects, but if you believe the Koran is a work of human creation you are not a believing Muslim by my definition. Likewise by Judaism.
Check on that, I believe it is.
Spoken like a true heretic! 
Ask that question to a preacher.
It sounds like you are perhaps not approaching this debate with an open mind, Czarcasm. Just an observation.
All three are blatantly baseless, logically incoherent nonsense. They are all as close to being provably false as it is possible to achieve with anything outside of pure mathematics; there’s no meaningful difference in plausibility between them.
And there’s no reason at all to take any other position but emotion and faith.
Why? All of them are evil belief systems; cruel, oppressive and destructive as well as being blatantly false. They can and should be opposed regardless of their factual basis.
Why do the fundamentalists get to define the religion?
What do you mean by blatantly false"? Are you stating that Islam (for instance) is clearly NOT the correct expression of God’s will, or are you stating that even if it is the true expression of God’s will, it is nonetheless false?
I’m saying that all of them blatantly contradict reality, are illogical, and are clearly just as made up as Santa Claus. We might as well be arguing over whether Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny is more likely to be true.