> It strains credulity to the breaking point to think
> that
> Christ's followers would go to death for him if he had not risen from the
> dead. Perhaps one could have lost it and gone to his death for a lie; but
> all
> of them? Hardly."
Pim responded:
> That is hardly a convincing argument since the same could be used to show
> that the Hindus are correct or the Islam or .... After all why else would
> people risk death in the name of their religion if their religion was not
> the 'only and true one" ?
Jim wrote:
This contention is erroneous, and thus only confirms my point. The
followers
of Muhammed were not in danger of death. The very opposite! After
Muhammed's
I guess the holy wars between the christians and the muslims was not risky
?
Jim: emigration to Medina in 622, he was GREETED as a religious and
military
leader. Within a few years he had established control of the surrounding
region, and in 630 he conquered Mecca. This popular and military
confluence
was precisely what was missing in the case of Jesus.
Jim: Hinduism developed over about thousands of years and has no single
founder or creed. Its rise is thus nothing like that of Christianity.
No but who can say who is right ? THere are after all many hundreds of
religions and christianity is but one of the many.