it is more about the essence versus the form, and the emphasis you put on one versus the other. the book itself versus the purpose of the book. would one live life by the letters of the book or by its essence ? would one consider the book as a set of rules to closely follow, or would one capture the essence itself?that was interesting to read ..
in jewish and islam prevail more materialist dimension while in christianity (catholicism ) prevail the spiritual dimension .(or at least tend to be) ..
correct me if i am wrong
you come across this discussions several times in the NT between Christ and the jewish scribes and pharisees who could not tolerate the fact that Jesus was healing people on the sabbath, the day dedicated to the Lord and to rest, as written in the Torah; and Jesus simply tells them that the sabbath was made to meet the needs of man, not for man to meet the needs of the sabbath. along with pointing out on many other occasions that the spirit of the books is more important than the books itself.
though the question is rather simple, it gives rise to two different world views, are the scripted words more important and sacred than the intent they try to convey? should the context be focused on a word? a line? a chapter? a book? or the on the spirit in which that book was written? this is why we always reiterate that despite holding them very sacred, the gospels are written accounts testimonies that try to safeguard the essence of life with Christ, as such the book becomes an introduction to higher notion that is very much alive and interactive. so though the book is a close companion, the actual Journey is with Christ and with God, not with the book itself.
so while this is not exactly the same as the conflict with materialism, there are close similarities and shared elements, in particular as one will not be able to subscribe to notions of higher meaning without recognizing that there is more to life than what meets the eye. whereas when it comes to Protestantism, Judasim and Islam, they do make that recognition, but fall back to perceiving it strictly on the shallower levels of contexts, which makes for a very rigid perception that ends up often times violating the more important essence on higher levels.