Opinion of these Abrahamic religions

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Disapprove of all. Islam is way past its due date from what it was and Christianity—especially Pauline Christianity—were the Lassalleans of their day. Just useful idiots for the establishment and ultimately opponents of both the peasantry, Jews, and even the small pool of wage laborers spreading the gospel.

I notice that you, wisely in my opinion, avoided passing any specific judgment on Judaism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The answer to all of these is 'depends'. On each spectrum for each one you have people like ER, Netanyahu, and the Taliban (they aren't that equal, but the point stands) but you also have many others who are just normal people with a spiritual connection to their religion (this is particularly common among Jews (for obvious reasons) and to a lesser extent Christians).

And millions of different parts in between.

Now, if we follow Islam word-for-word as it is in the Quran, HR. If we follow Christianity word-for-word as it is in the Bible, HR. If we follow Judaism as it is word-for-word in the Torah, HR. But if we interpret it in a modern sense, all are FR.

I understand what you're getting at, but the idea that there's a single "modern sense" in which to interpret any given religion's tenets strikes me as a pretty serious misunderstanding of what's actually at stake in the sorts of intrareligious disputes you're alluding to. Very little, religion-wise, is more aggressively modern than boilerplate Nixonian-ratf**ked Global South Evangelicalism or the "bulldoze 'idolatrous' shrines that have been around for a thousand years to throw up parking garages" Saudi style of Islam.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I could make a case for any of three options for each of these religions depending on what angle of interpretation I want to take. Should I give it a go?

I'd be interested, yes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strongly approve of Christianity, strongly disapprove of Islam and Judaism.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.  Any religious system which denies his deity and/or his status as the Messiah is false and puts people at risk of eternal damnation.

I hope you don't need me to explain to you why "strongly disapproving" of Judaism even from within an extremely conservative and traditional belief in Christian salvation history is a formulation that many people would find alarming to say the least, RFayette.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strongly approve of Christianity, strongly disapprove of Islam and Judaism.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.  Any religious system which denies his deity and/or his status as the Messiah is false and puts people at risk of eternal damnation.

I completely agree. In response to Nathan, I don't care who finds it alarming or why they find it alarming, especially since every possible reason involves placing someone else's opinion above God's (the one that matters more than anyone else's).

You ought to.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Strongly approve of Christianity, strongly disapprove of Islam and Judaism.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.  Any religious system which denies his deity and/or his status as the Messiah is false and puts people at risk of eternal damnation.

I hope you don't need me to explain to you why "strongly disapproving" of Judaism even from within an extremely conservative and traditional belief in Christian salvation history is a formulation that many people would find alarming to say the least, RFayette.

As someone who is suddenly feeling much more connected now to my ancestral Judaism than I have in over a decade, I really genuinely do not care if someone views it negatively. That's their right, and if someone thinks that one particular religion ought to be free from the analysis and criticism extended to all others, then I would say they ought to grow a thicker skin.

Ethnoreligions should be assessed using a different hermeneutic than universal-proselytizing religions even when it comes to their intellectual and devotional content because the relationship of that intellectual and devotional content to other practices, customs, and attitudes is intrinsically very different. I understand that you'll probably disagree with that, but I don't intend it solely as special pleading on behalf of Judaism, although I do think it's especially imperative to make this stance of mine clear regarding Judaism for all the obvious historical reasons.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, you do.

You absolutely do see the same 'evidence' in so far as the same outcomes are attributed to prayer and offerings as in the Christian faith, by those who adhere to other faiths.

I would suggest reading Craig Keener's work Miracles, many of which specifically focus on missionary activity to areas with little Christian presence, and showing comparable miracles specifically done in connection with the missionary work of other faiths in areas where that faith is not very present.  

The fact that we such an intense concentration of miracles in association with Christian mission is a clear mark of divine favor.

Craig Keener is a Christian theologian and apologist.

     Which gave him the motivation to find these miracle testimonies. Citing it to dismiss him out of hand is analogous to a juror dismissing a prosecutor's arguments for the guilt of a defendant because the prosecutor is acting out of a professional obligation to try and convict the defendant, yet nobody tries to defend that course of action.

The people charged with findings of fact are jurors themselves, not prosecutors, and jurors absolutely are disqualified for having a vested interest in the outcome of the case. The equivalent of a prosecutor would be either the person making the miracle claim or someone attempting to dispute it.