I'm not a Jain, but this faith is very much unheard of (4-6 million followers, estimated; for comparison, Judaism has 14 million), while , which is a shame, since it's my most liked faith. About 99% Jains live in India. Anyhow, Jainism is not like the Christianity and Islaam, which concentrate more on creeds and worship, and I guess you could call it, lore. Lore is less weighty in Jainism.

Jainism is best explained by the five core vows that every Jain monk must take, from highest priority to lowest:

1. Do no harm.
2. Speak the truth.
3. Do not steal.
4. Do not have sex. (dumb rule, but whatever)
5. Don't be greedy. Don't be attached to things, and in more extreme stances, folk (but no thanks to unattachment to folk - I'm not a sociopath).

Jains who are not monks are recommended to follow these rules as much as they can as well. Also, by priority, what this means is that, if lying (#2) will save lives (#1), then break law#2. Now, some of these I find very dumb, but I still think that it instantly trumps what the Jewish, Christian, and Islaamic creeds have to give. Let's take a look at the opening pages of each creed, what is the core thing that all Jews, Christians, and Muslims must know.

Tanakh (Judaism):

In the beginning, God made the heaven and the Earth. Now the Earth was shapeless and empty and darkness was on the deep sea's face, and God's soul soared over the waters' top. And God said "Let there be light.", and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God unyoked the light from the darkness. And God called the light "Day" and the darkness "Night". And there was evening, and then there was morning, and then the first day ended.

New Testament (Matthew):

This is the family of Jesus the Saviour, David's son, who was Abraham's son. Abraham was Isaak's father, Isaak was Jakob's father, Jakob was the father of Joodaa and his brothers, Joodaa the father of Perez and Zera (whose mother was Tamar), Perez was Hezron's father, Hezron was Ram's father, Ram was Amminadab's father, Amminadab was Naashon's father, Naashon was Salmon's father, Salmon was Boaz's father (whose mother was Rahab), Boaz was Obed's father (whose mother was Rooth), Obed was Jess's father (and so on and so on, for 15 or more lines or so).

Reading (the Opener):

In God's name, the wholly merciful, the oddly merciful. All praise is to God, the worlds' lord; the wholly merciful, the oddly merciful, the king of the Rewarding Day. It is You we worship and it You who we ask for help. Show us to the straight path: the path of those upon which you have given your liking to, not those who have angered you or those who are astray.

Modern Jainism was born in the -500s, when Mahāvīra, the last Teaching God, died. So still 500 years before Christianity, and 1100 years before Islaam, it still morally trumps them by a mammoth and two thirds, although Islaam made great strides ahead of Christianity ("Let there be no compulsion in faith" Cow 256; "To you, your faith, and to me, have mine." Disbelievers 6).

Imagine if instead of the 10 Commands, or the like codes in Islaam and Judaism, there was just this one sentence: "Do not hurt, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." (a quote from Mahāvīra). I mean, wow.

Some more things about Jainism: it does use the Swatstika as its main sign. The Swastika in Jainism represents the four different paths of how folk can be reborn (yes, Jainism also believes in rebirth): Heaven (somewhat different from Abrahamic heaven - you can die in Jain heaven. In Jainism, it's just another dimension where folk are very happy.) , Hell (also somewhat different from Abrahamic hell - you don't stay there forever, and you have to be a right sadist scumbag do get in at all), Mankind, and Wildlife.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Swastik_on_head.jpg (newnazi skinhead)

The leaders of Jainism are odd folk. They're generally naked (no attachment to things, like clothes), except for some kind of breathing mask, so that they don't hurt dust mites and other microscopic life floating in the sky. They're all full vegetarians, although they justify eating a meagre muchness of brooks and legumes as, without them, life is not possible.

Jainism is unyoked into two main branches, ideologically divided by if clothes should be worn: sky-clad (naked) and white-clad (white robes). Although the sky-clad branch is pretty hypocritic since women monks have to wear robes, while men don't. Also, the sky-clad branch is kind of sexist; they believe that a woman with maximal karma will be born as a man, and won't be taken out of the cycle of rebith, like men will be; while the white-clad disagrees, saying that both women and men can escape the cycle of rebirth.

Jainism greatly influenced M. Gandhi's outlooks, and he spoke very fondly of Jainism (he was Hindu himself, though).
----
3 main laws by faith:

Jainism
*Do no harm.
*Be open-minded.
*Don't be greedy.

Buddhism (5 Musts):
*No killing.
*Don't take stuff that isn't given to you (don't steal).
*Don't be sexually unfaithful.

Christianity/Judaism (10 Commands):
*Worship only the Christian God, and none others.
*Don't say the word "God" unless you actually want to talk to God.
*Keep Sunday a holy day.

Islaam (10 Commands):
*Don't compare any other godly beings with God.
*Only worship the Islaamic God, and none others.
*Be nice to your parents.
-----
Default payers:

Jainism (note: it is not allowed in Jainism to pray for oneself - only prayers for others are allowed):
I bow to those who have conquered their inner selfish wants. I bow to the souls that have left the cycle of rebirth. I bow to the high Jain monks, and I bow to all wise folk in the world.

Christianity:
Our Father in heaven, your name is hallowed. Your kingdom will come, your will shall be done, on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread, and forgive us to what we owe you, as we have forgiven those that owe us. And don't lead us into temptation, and save us from evil.

Islaam:
In the name of God, the endlessly kind and forgiving, praise be to God, the worlds' lord, the kind, the forgiving. King on Reckoning Day, it is You alone who we worship, and You alone that we ask for help. Lead us to the straight path, the path of those who you like, not the path of those that have brought about your wrath, nor of those who wander astray.

---

In short, go learn about this faith some more. After Buddhism, this is the faith I'd convert to. Sikhism is also good for those that value truth over peace (looking at japan77), it's mostly the same, although it has more "lore" to it. Zoroastrianism is still practised a bit today in a few bits in countryside Iran, which Islaam never really made it to. and it's core is "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds" and is thought by theologians to be a very unique faith. Or for those that want to stay Abrahamic, there's Bahaï, which basically takes the extremism and wacky rules out, and concentrates on these three cores: There is only one God; all faiths are different retellings of the same one (Bahaï), and that all humans are made equally.

That's the one where they pluck all your head hairs out with tweezers isn't it ? Other than that idk much about it.

Sikhism is better

Let's take a look at the opening pages of each creed, what is the core thing that all Jews, Christians, and Muslims must know.

In any case it's pretty flawed to say that the opening verses of a text are "the core thing that all believers must know", as in a lot of cases these first verses are just a sort of introduction.

These introductory statements can hardly be considered the "core" of a text, especially a religious one. Which actually brings me to my next point; While in Islam The Quran is considered the literal word of God transcribed by Muhammad, and In judaism the Torah is considered the literal word of God transcribed through Moses, this isn't the case at all for Christian scriptures, which are actually com,popsed of a whole bunch of different texts bby a whole nunch of different authors.

All of the four gospels (yes there are four of them, matthew, mark, luke, and john of which you're only quoted verses from matthew) are accounts of jesus's life written by four different dudes, and even all of these together aren't the whole new testament, which consists of:

1. The four gospels (written by four different people; matthew, mark, luke, and john)

2. A book describing what jesus's apostles did after his death (this was written by luke, the guy who wrote one of the gospels)

3. A whole bunch of letters written by a dude named paul (one of jesus's apostles)

4. A whole bunch of letters written by the other apostles

5. The revelation, which is where Christian eschatology comes from

When you're quoting the "core teaching" of any of these texts, you really have to quote which text you're referring to, and quote the actual core message, not just quote the first few verses of the first text you see when you open up a new testament.

Now as for the core teaching of the Gospel of matthew, which is the text you referred to, I would say it's this:

Matthew 7:12:

12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

---

And if you think about it, this makes much more sense as a "core teaching" than "Here's who jesus's ancestors are".

Now as for the gospels being the core part of the new testament; Well, sort of, but for me I actually really like 1 john as a moral guide. Here is the "core teaching" of 1 john:


1 John 11-24:

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

---

In short, go learn about this faith some more. After Buddhism, this is the faith I'd convert to. Sikhism is also good for those that value truth over peace (looking at japan77), it's mostly the same, although it has more "lore" to it. Zoroastrianism is still practised a bit today in a few bits in countryside Iran, which Islaam never really made it to. and it's core is "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds" and is thought by theologians to be a very unique faith. Or for those that want to stay Abrahamic, there's Bahaï, which basically takes the extremism and wacky rules out, and concentrates on these three cores: There is only one God; all faiths are different retellings of the same one (Bahaï), and that all humans are made equally.

I've already done research on all of these to some extent, and none of them are particularly special. I'll stick with my God thanks.

Edited 6/19/2016 17:21:24

In any case it's pretty flawed to say that the opening verses of a text are "the core thing that all believers must know", as in a lot of cases these first verses are just a sort of introduction.

The opener, what you want to make sure that all readers know. Or, what the whole book will mainly be about.

yes there are four of them, matthew, mark, luke, and john of which you're only quoted verses from matthew

Matthew was the first one, and I can look in the others, but I doubt I'd find anything much differing.

the actual core message, not just quote the first few verses of the first text you see when you open up a new testament.

The first few lines need to highlight what is good and what is bad, or should, anyway.

I've already done research on all of these to some extent, and none of them are particularly special.

Most haven't, and I think you haven't done enough research if you say that none them are particularly special - especially Zoroastrianism.

Edited 6/19/2016 18:13:59

The opener, what you want to make sure that all readers know. Or, what the whole book will mainly be about.

This just isn't the case though. The rest of the book of matthew doesn't even mention Jesus's ancestry, and it certainly isn't mainly about it. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad to hear your opinion on preambles, but it's just incorrect in this case.

Matthew was the first one, and I can look in the others, but I doubt I'd find anything much differing.

Actually, all of the gospels have unique openings. While they do have pretty much the same content, the opening are radically different (another reason to not assume that you can quote the first five verses of a book and sum up the entire book).

Mark 1:1-8

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the Prophets:

Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.”
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.’”
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

---

Luke 1:1-4

1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

---

John 1:1-5:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

---

And of course this passage from matthew which you already quoted:

1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

2 Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. 4 Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. 5 Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, 6 and Jesse begot David the king.

David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. 8 Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. 9 Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah. 11 Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. 14 Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. 15 Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

---

The first few lines need to highlight what is good and what is bad, or should, anyway.

This isn't the case, and honestly it shouldn't be either. You should be able to provide some context for your teachings, not have to spit them out in five verses at the beginning of your text. In a good text, the first verses serve as a sort of introduction to the rest of the text.

Most haven't, and I think you haven't done enough research if you say that none them are particularly special - especially Zoroastrianism.

I meant to imply that there's nothing that would convince me to switch from my current faith. Obviously they are all unique and interesting faiths.

Edited 6/19/2016 18:36:31

This just isn't the case though.

Imagine if it was - and it should be; teach the weightiest things that your followers must follow first.

This isn't the case, and honestly it shouldn't be either.

It very much should be. Make sure that your followers know the weightiest things the best, and first, for evident grounds.

Imagine if it was - and it should be; teach the weightiest things that your followers must follow first.

This isn't actually appropriate when you're writing an account of someones life (which is what the gospels are). Imagine that the most important event in your life is that you get married. It's totally inappropriate to mention this in the opening words of your account without first explaining how you met the person you are going to marry and or the events that took place in the context of planning your wedding.

It's also not appropriate when you're writing a letter to someone (which is what basically the rest of the new testament is). Why would you want to write a letter to your fried that just jumps to the point in the first phrases without saying "Here is who this is addressed to, and why I am writing them"?

This isn't actually appropriate when you're writing an account of someones life

That's fine, but that's the first thing in the New Testament, which is more than just that.

It's also not appropriate when you're writing a letter to someone (which is what basically the rest of the new testament is).

Get to the point, anything else is wordy and "beating about the bush", as they say.

Get to the point, anything else is wordy and "beating about the bush", as they say.

No, it's not. If you don't read an account of Jesus's life, understand his sacrifice, and read his teachings in the context of the miracles he performs and the parables he teaches, you don't have a faith. A faith is based around more than "here do this", and the Core of the christian faith is the wonderful life and
sacrifice of Jesus. If you cut all that and replace it with a list of jesus's teachings, there isn't any gospel, and at best you have an incomplete law code that is invalid anyway since no government can use it due to it's incompleteness.

A faith is based around more than "here do this"

It doesn't have to be. Jainism does have some lore and philosophy, but its focos is to be nice.

What I'm saying is that morality in the Abrahamic faiths, aside from maybe Bahaï, is much less of a focos, and like you said, "incomplete", but imagine if it wasn't - if Jainism became the number 1 faith.

What I'm saying is that morality in the Abrahamic faiths, aside from maybe Bahaï, is much less of a focos

Not sure where you got this from, but it's simply wrong. There are pretty extensive passages in the new testament epistles about this, such as this one:

John 3:4-8:

4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

---

and like you said, "incomplete"

I said it is an incomplete law code, not an incomplete moral code. What I mean by this is that there are no punishments ascribed, no details about what courts can and can't do, etc. If you remove the moral aspect from it, you have to add pretty extensively to it to have something functional.

It doesn't have to be. Jainism does have some lore and philosophy, but its focos is to be nice.

Jainism isn't simply a philosophy or moral code. There are all kinds of aspects of it relating to breaking out of life cycles, not killing animals because they have souls, and conquering your inner emotions.

There are pretty extensive passages in the new testament epistles about this, such as this one

I didn't say it's not any focos at all, just less of one. See the prayers.

I said it is an incomplete law code, not an incomplete moral code.

It doesn't even disallow rape, c'mon.

Jainism isn't simply a philosophy or moral code. There are all kinds of aspects of it relating to breaking out of life cycles, not killing animals because they have souls, and conquering your inner emotions.

Yes, it is a faith.

I didn't say it's not any focos at all, just less of one. See the prayers.

The two can't really be compared, as how you interact with God really has no bearing on your ability to interact with other people or with yourself. And in fact, there's even a pretty extensive passage about how "Just believing" isn't enough:

James 2:14-26

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

---

It doesn't even disallow rape, c'mon.

Actually, It does implicitly, if not explicitly. The distinction here is that the bible forbids all sex outside of marriage, so specifically banning rape isn't necessary.

Edited 6/19/2016 21:17:42

Actually, It does implicitly, if not explicitly. The distinction here is that the bible forbids all sex outside of marriage, so specifically banning rape isn't necessary.

What about in-marriage rape?

The two can't really be compared, as how you interact with God really has no bearing on your ability to interact with other people or with yourself.

Right, and my point was that Jainism has a focus on morality more than Christianity.

Actually, It does implicitly, if not explicitly. The distinction here is that the bible forbids all sex outside of marriage, so specifically banning rape isn't necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

Right, and my point was that Jainism has a focus on morality more than Christianity.

And my point was that it doesn't, It doesn't do much good for me to just say it. I'd recommend taking another look at the rest of my post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

Marital Rape is a very recent idea (as you can see from the article, it wasn't criminalized widely until the 20th century). You can't expect that something that was practically invented 2,000 after the bible was written would be included in the bible.

Edited 6/19/2016 21:37:12

And my point was that it doesn't, It doesn't do much good for me to just say it. I'd recommend taking another look at the rest of my post.

I don't get what you mean, rephrase?

Marital Rape is a very recent idea (as you can see from the article, it wasn't criminalized widely until the 20th century). You can't expect that something that was practically invented 2,000 after the bible was written would be included in the bible.

A flaw of Christianity, but not in Jainism.

"Do not hurt, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." - Mahāvira

I don't get what you mean, rephrase?

I quoted a passage that said that if you don't act morally then you're a servant of the devil, and then a passage that said that "Just believing" isn't enough if you don't act morally. As far as I can tell you simply reiterated your point without actually explaining how these passages aren't relevant.

A flaw of Christianity, but not in Jainism.

"Do not hurt, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." - Mahāvira

That quote doesn't specifically address Marital rape. If we're going to be quoting just general passages, there are tons in the new testament as well, for example:

Matthew 7:12:

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Edited 6/19/2016 21:57:27