According to what sources?
The existential crisis normally as presented in psychology is the following;
What Is An Existential Crisis And How Can It Be Resolved? | Betterhelp
What Is An Existential Crisis And How Can It Be Resolved?
So, what kinds of existential crises are there?
Different psychology writers have identified 4 or 5 existential givens that we all share. Each of these givens can be the source of existential dread, existential anxiety, or even existential despair. By resolving these dilemmas, you can move past your existential crisis.
2. Death And Limitation
You can't choose whether to die or not. You can't choose to be limitless; no one is. What you can do is choose whether to acknowledge death and limitation psychologically. It would be too hard to be constantly aware that your life's journey will end in death. At the same time, the acknowledgment of death can help you live more fully now.
From the above, there are 4-5 existential givens, and my focus here is the one related to death, i.e. the perceived eternal death, not wanting to die versus the yearning for eternal life. This generate a terrible cognitive dissonance as an algorithm in the brain with a very powerful impulse.
Note the existential crisis is a very subliminal impulse of existential pains and Angst which most cannot pin point, but there a strong impulse to do something about it. Religions is the most effective balm to relieve this existential crisis.
Again, according to what sources? Your claims so far seem to only be opinion, based on generalized anecdotes. What is the evidence what you're saying is true? For the majority of human history, religion had no way of dealing with personal crises. There was no promise of an afterlife. The gods routinely ignore mortals.
I have researched deeply into religions and spirituality.
You have think widely and deeply, you will note the main focus of all the mainstream religions are related to eschatology and the impulse to deal with inevitable mortality.
This doesn't follow, since you haven't substantiated the claims you made above.
Now that I have substantiated my claims,
therefore the majority of humanity need religions to relieve the existential pains and Angst.
The Abrahamic religions [Judaism, Christianity, Islam] which promise instant salvation upon surrender and believe is the more effective group of religions to deal with the existential crisis at present.
This promise is represented by the verses in their holy texts.
In the case of Christianity, note John 3:16.
In the Quran the promise of paradise with eternal life [72 virgins for some] is very prevalent among the 6236 verses of the Quran. Appx 30% of the verses are related to Eschatology.
"Inclusive" means "open". I think you mean "exclusive", correct?
Yes, it was an error, I meant "exclusive"
Either way, this is a very poor representation of Judaism. For one, you're lumping all denominations together. More conservative ones do typically discourage converts, but this is only because they believe Gentiles don't need to follow the Torah. More progressive denominations are fully open to Gentiles joining them, but again not out of a need to follow the Torah. Even if we accept your initial claim as true (which I am doubtful about), your misrepresentation of Judaism doesn't really make your point.
It is in general, that is why there are less than 10 million Jews adopting Judaism around the world at present out of 7 billion.
This maxim is not unique to Christianity. It is found in religions older than Christianity. Judaism, of course, has the commandment to "love your neighbor", which specifically includes the instruction "you shall not hate anyone". The concept is found in many other religions, as well, which shows the desire to maintain peace with everyone in a person's community is a basic human need expressed across many cultures. This means it has nothing to do with the validity of any religion.
Yes almost all religions promote peace at the fundamental level.
However, by its holy text -Quran, Islam is the only religion that do not promote peace to non-Muslims.
What's worse, however, is the teaching originates in Christianity with Jesus in the Q source. This source is highly apocalyptic, promising punishment on people who don't follow Jesus or God. Hanging the threat of torment over everyone to compel them to "love others" is necessarily going to result in a very warped idea of love. The apocalyptic context of Jesus' teaching also casts it in a similar light Daniel's "wise" and the DSS's community, who believed in pacifism only because they expected God would unleash punishment on their enemies. Ideologies are hardly "loving" if the underlying assumption behind that love is "you'll get yours".
The Gospel is the main authority of Christianity. Others in the Bible are only supporting texts.
That Revelation is part of the Gospel is contentious and disputable.
Even then, what is the worst, the religion, i.e. Islam that advocates warring and killing non-Muslim now or Christianity's final days which we do not know when it will happen or even if it will ever happened [given non-theists and majority non-Christians do not agree with that]
The one thing you hold up as the uniquely defining trait of Christianity is anything but.
My focus is to contrast Christianity and Islam in this case.
Christianity is much the same. Christianity's love and pacifism is conditional. When the apocalypse unfolds, love and pacifism are lifted. Revelation 19 depicts Jesus and his followers as a militant king and his army, wiping out their enemies and feeding their corpses to scavenger birds. This messianic war scene is found across literature from the time, so interpretations that try to soften the violence of the scene are not justifiable.
Christianity is violent in its foundation.
Note my point above, Revelation is contentious and disputable as not belong to the Gospel and Amargeddon is likely to be an impossibility from the non-Christians point of view.
As you can see, I disagree with your conclusion, because I disagree with almost every point you make. Your starting premise seems to be an idea that you invented from anecdotal evidence. You badly misrepresent Judaism. You also miss how the eschatological context of Christianity subverts its pacifism.
I have counter your points, explain and supported my premises above.
Note there are more as the subject can be very deep, wide and complex.
