Dan S de Merengue: "...I would say none more clearly than in Christ’s resurrection."

I'm not saying that the resurrection story isn't compelling, and if believed would put a lot of weight on the words of Jesus, however my question aims below that level to ask why is the story any more believable than the story of Mohammad, or Buddha, or any of the other equally compelling religious stories?

Dan S de Merengue: "You could choose to accept it or believe it, or not."

That's pretty much it. There are hundreds of religions out there, and the choice to believe in a particular one is completely arbitrary. How can you be so committed and passionate about something that is simply the result of chance? Some claim that God's will put you in the situations that would lead you to believe; if you this, how can you been so self centered to deny that it is Allah's will that another person follow Islam?

To take an example of Christianity vs Islam:
Both have a long history.
Both have a large collection of historical texts supporting their cause.
Both have a large number of followers.
Both have a collection of compelling stories about the love of their god.
Both have people that claim a direct connection with their god.

What has your all mighty lord given to tell me or show me that will convert me to Christianity? Where is this "Holy Spirit" that empowers you to speak in tongues and convince me of the truth of your words? For a supposedly divine cause, you seem strangely limited to the same material world of other religions when trying to spread your "Good Word".

Reality Check: "This particular society also has big problems. Among them is that fertility rates remain below replacement levels."

Secular Humanism seems to be the only segment of society that recognizes the limits of the material world, and that the endless growth of civilization may not be possible. A reduction of population levels is not a bad thing. Some claim that it may die out as other cultures are breeding faster, however they fail to realize that the cultures that have grown the fastest have done so through people changing rather than basic reproductive growth.

"Promiscuity is common and accepted. So are bisexuality and homosexuality. So is prostitution. Birth control and abortion are legal, widely practiced, and justified by society's leading intellectuals."

And I don't see it causing the end of the world.

"So was Christianity a positive, or would we have got to this point without it? Was this because it 'ruled' society or despite it? Would Kevin Andrews have succeeded in the Roman Senate and would the indigenous be better off under Roman rule?"

I think you'll find that the Roman empire converted to Christianity in an attempt to homogenize it's culture to assist in the centralized control. In fact during it's epic rise to dominance it was a pagan empire leaving locals to follow their own faith, and during it's downfall it was Christian.

The vast majority of cultures that came in contact with Roman, or Roman based cultures saw value in and absorbed significant amounts of the roman culture within their own, however you would really need to classify what you define as 'better' in order to be able to answer that question properly.

Desipis, the Roman conversion to Christianity (and also the Roman Empire’s fall) could equally be attributed to their love affair with plumbing. They were enthusiastic plumbers, which as the word indicates, had its origins with lead (Latin - Plumbum - lead as any dictionary will tell you).
Pipes were of lead; boiling-down vats – lead. Grape and other fruit juices were boiled down to sweet concentrates in lead vats.
And in these modern days we know what lead does to mental development.

Yes, the times of lead did lead to the Vatican.
And the Vatican continues with a leaden attitude to change until the present day.

Desipis, thanks for your comments.

Why is the Christian gospel story any more believable than the story of Mohammad?

The choice is not arbitrary (to a thinking person). It would be arbitrary only if the stories were equal or the same.

For one thing, the miracle of Christ’s resurrection and the events that surrounded it did not happen in a corner. There were many witnesses. From what I understand, Mohammad’s biggest claim to fame in the miracles department, was a claim that the angel Gabriel visited him when he was alone and revealed to him the Scripture. In other words, we just have to take Mohammed’s word that it happened.

For another thing, Mohammad never claimed to be deity, Jesus did.

I am not aiming at one-upmanship; I’m just trying to point out that not all events are the same and not all are equally attested to.

If there were a single, simple argument, proof, miracle, or demonstration of the one true faith, then such proof would be declared and we would all be adherents.

However, the world just isn’t like that. Instead, the world in which the Holy Spirit dwells is one where people are free to follow their conscience, and the Spirit acts in a gently persuasive manner. And we are free to seek out the truth.

In terms of gentle persuasion, there are many good books around. One that comes to mind is “More than a Carpenter” by Josh McDowell. It’s an easy read, dealing with the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

I am glad you thought the story of Jesus’ resurrection was compelling. I did too. I don’t know of any one else that has willingly died to help me. No other religious leader I know of did.

Where is the Holy Spirit? Perhaps it is like the wind. You’ll never see it; you only ever sense its effects. But it is a good question. If no one is seeing God’s Spirit truly at work in the church, then I’ll admit that we are failing.

I would like to post my views. Note that I mean no offence to anyone with these, and any offence caused is accidental.

Many religious people claim that their God is all-knowing, and that mankind cannot comprehend what their God thinks. If this is really so then why attempt to understand if mankind never can understand? Why attempt to decode the meaning of the religious texts, if it is impossible? Quite frankly, why bother?

Dan,

You make some interesting comments about the 'contents' of the religious stories. However from my point of view in today's world I see the same thing with both: people claiming to know the truth using ancient documents. The fact that some stories involve witnesses to miracles is not significant given they aren't alive to testify today. One can just as easily make up a story with witnesses as one can make up a story about solo contact with a god.

If you're going to examine the contents of the stories, you run into further trouble. Even assuming that Christianity is the true religion, there are literally hundreds of information sources many of which have contradictory facts, rules, messages, etc. So essentially the religion is 99% about having faith in a group of old robed men and their biased selection, translation and interpretation of texts.

While the Jesus story was 'compelling', I think the dying bit is a bit overplayed. It's not much of a sacrifice to make when you're a god who can resurrect themselves a few days later. Compare this to the permanent mortal sacrifice the ANZACs made and I don't see it as all that great.

Additionally there are also the core philosophical contradictions that I find with Christianity (possibly applicable to others).

One is the significant portions of the faith that is unknown, how can someone have such a strong belief in something when they don't even know what it is they believe in.

An other is the conflict between the notion of an all-powerful being yet somehow we're supposed to have free-will.

If one takes the line that there is an all knowing, all powerful god then such a god would have known of the evils, pain and suffering that would result from the creation of our world. An all powerful being could have created a world without such issues, and thus must have deliberately chosen to create such things. Hence, any "god" cannot be both all powerful and purely good, and thus is not worthy of worship as if it was.