You insist that being unique gives some ontological advantage to a certain claim. I don't see how that can folllow logically.
I hate to make comparisons, but I must here, to make my point. Scientology makes also absolutely unique claims.
Well not really. By the way, despite the claims of the lunatic fringe, Scientology is not a bonafide "relgion." Scientology, at best is a cult. Scientology like all other belief systems is focused on self and finding fulfillment by using one's self as the agency of that fulfillment. It's all about what you do. Christianity is unique because it stands in complete opposition to those types of worldviews.
When I claim unique claims, I am not referring to simply making claims that no one else is. All religions make speicific claims that no one else does.
I guess I need re-clarify what I mean by "unique." Christianity is unique because the unique character of its claims. Christianity is unique because it is redemptive. Instead of dying for your god, in Christianity, it was God ;who gave Himself for us. In all other religions, the focus is on human effort and what a person must doe to appease their deity or find personal sastifaction. In other religions it is about behavior modification and personal merit. "Turnning over a new leaf" so to speak.
Not merely that it is unique but in HOW it is unique. That seems to be the part that you ignore.
Please note that I am not comparing Christianity with Scientology, that would be absurd. I just concentrate on the preference we should give to a certain claim, just because it is unique. We shouldn't.
It's not merely that they are different, but in HOW they are different.
However, if Christianity is very different from Islam then, by applying the obvious symmetry, Islam is very different from Christianity. So?
The problem I have with you discuss religions, is that you want to lump them in altogether as if they are all basically making the same types of claims which is revealed in your less than accuate approach to the Pascal's wager.