I am loathe to admit the superiority of any Christian idea over its Judaic counterpart. But there was a stroke of brilliance in Christ's message that is often misunderstood even as it is asserted by those call themselves christ-like, and it should be pointed out.
Judaism is a religion under the law, which is prescribed by the Tanakh. The only way to truly know the god of Judaism is through his word as imparted by the holy books. It is precisely because of this that it is considered a terrible blasphemy to attempt any alteration to the Law; it has already been transcribed.
Christianity is often purported by its adherents as being something other than a religion. While maintaining the relevance of the Old Testament to their beliefs, Christians also assert the belief that the law is useless to providing salvation when compared to a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This emphasis on personal salvation and individual contact with deity are very far divorced from the religion of the Jews, for whom God is eternally transendent and separate from human life.
I say then that Christianity is superior to Judaism in at least one facet because in its purest form it challenges believers to find God through their own hearts rather than through the script of a page. And because of this difference, this emphasis on personal inspiration and grace over devotion to the study of holy law, is an important question not raised? What if the god of the bible appears to all one's sensibilites to be a intolerable monster undeserving of worship? What if this god is not the God of one's own heart? Is it not then reasonable for a Christian to conclude that the holy book is, in fact, wrong? If God does truly exist, and created mankind in such a way as to be capable of knowing Him, then would personal intuition not be more valuable than cloistered learnings from a knowledgable scribe of religion?
Of course the theological opposition to the former suggestion would come in the form of doctrine regarding Original Sin or Total Depravity. Both derive their conclusions from the premises that human beings have lost any nature that is godly, or have at least lost the capacity to be truly godly. In light of this, the best way to find God is ostensibly through the teachings of the prophets who have been directly inspired by God.
The trouble with that kind of argument is obvious. If human beings are indeed fallen, and incapable of doing good or knowing god, then how are they to discern which holy book is correct? Assuming that they could in some way find this knowledge, how would they then proceed to follow through in a personal relationship with God? The answer is that they could not. They would depend utterly on the text. They would be exactly what they claim not to be, which is a people bound to the law of God as transcribed in the holy books. Furthermore, if all men are truly fallen, disgraced and, if we are to take Total Depravity to its conclusion, are wholly incapable of godly thought or action, would not the drive to worship God and find salvation be in the first place founded upon sinful and ungodly urges?
If the religious are to assume that all human action and thought is evil, then there is no recourse in a holy book. If there is some capacity for good in human nature, even in the allegedly sinful state in which it now lies, then that goodness should be trusted where it manifests itself in intuition. To obey a god against which one's own morality and spirit rails is cowardly, evil, and pathetic. The only God deserving of worship is the one which inspires the human soul that prostrates before it. The only god that deserves to be the God of the human heart is one that adheres to the morality found therein.