Theological discussions can be difficult to have because the Western, Abrahamic religions each base their religion on have some kind of privileged knowledge, innate experience, or birthright, despite starting from the same point, and being monotheistic. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are siblings locked in dispute over legitimacy, land rights, and prophets.
Christianity operates on the premise that Jesus died to atone humanity for the original sin which Adam committed through eating the forbidden fruit, with its bible (New Testament) comprised of many authors and varying interpretations of Jesus' life. Judaism operates on the premise that original sin doesn't exist, with the Jews being entitled to the Promised Land, relying on both the Torah, which is a general guideline, and the oral Torah, which are specific, more in-depth interpretations by Jewish rabbis. Islam operates on the premise that God verbally recited the Koran to Muhammad, which serves as a final and incorruptible recitation, which to them is a mortal flaw in both Christian and Jewish text. All of these are Abrahamic because they start from the point of God telling Abraham to emigrate to the Promised Land, testing him along the way, including the most famous test of whether he'll kill his son Isaac or not.
Things get hairy quickly when you compare them, even though they all agree on Abraham being the first to receive word from God. Since Judaism is the oldest, it claims it is undisputedly entitled to the Promised Land. Muhammed--a direct descendant of Abraham--made his trek from Mecca to Jerusalem and was apparently the only human to ascend heaven alive thereby making Islam the uncorrupted version of God's word, unlike the other two. And Christianity doesn't care much about the Promised Land, but more so about "finishing" the message of God that the Jews left incomplete. The Jews and the Christian thus compete about interpretations, though cross paths on the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), yet refute each others interpretations. The Jews view Islam as falsely interpreting the Hebrew Bible, and the Christians flat out dismiss Islam as a true religion. And these are all religions who believe the same basic things.
Even though they all operate on the same basic assumption--God spoke to Abraham about man having a special purpose--their beliefs entail different behavioral models. Maybe not wildly different, but ironically they all agree that each is purer and more real than the other two. Not only is debate severely inhibited when the other two are stubbornly disputed or outright dismissed, but simple discussion about the origination of the matter can be thrown into a frenzy if the very legitimacy of belief is incorporated into the discussion. Bumping religious shoulders for thousands of years takes energy, and although each of these claims the others are false and fraudulent, they tip the critical mass scales in the direction of belief, rather than disbelief, or even anti-belief. So when atheism became more socially acceptable, and they wanted to debate it, the Western religions had to portion out energy from defending their own uniqueness and entitlement from the other two religions, just to deal with the atheists. This makes atheists' critiques of Western religion dualistic: they must simultaneously argue against thousands of years of belief-legitimacy, despite it manifesting into three separate branches, as well as argue against the potential damages living in accordance to belief can incur, which is often the only topic they want to visit in the first place.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new Orwell 365 posts.