David,
If you accept the passionate life, forgiving attitudes and self sacrifice of Jesus then you are accepting the "WAY", if you are accepting that he was truthful in his life as to his claims you are accepting the "TRUTH" and if you are accepting life as he lived it is the ultimate "LIFE" then you are accepting Him, [not his bodily presence] but you are accepting his spirit and character are of the God [Father]whom he lived by. You are coming to the Father, no man comes to the Father another way, another way of living, another selfish or debauched behaviour.
In the light of what I have previously said; Think about it!

Dear David,

<<By what criteria can we choose one over the others? Is there any evidence for any of them? Is there any evidence that any of them are anything other than a creation of the imagination?>>

Just follow your heart and choose any of them which appeals to you most, it doesn't matter which. When followed sincerely, all religions lead to the same (which I name 'God' but you may use whatever name you like).

Now if you are looking for evidence, then don't look at the contents of beliefs - but watch the people who suggest any particular path, see how they live, then ask yourself: "do I want to go where they are going? do I want to be like them?". I cannot blame you if you cannot find that many inspiring examples in the established churches, but keep looking: all you need is one.

<<They all promote belief in fables which conflict with the scientific method>>

So what?

The scientific method is meant for finding out about the world.
It serves materialistic pursuits.
Religion serves the spiritual pursuit.

For achieving one's worldly desires, one's beliefs should better match the scientifically-observed facts of the world.

But for spiritual success, such matching is useless, irrelevant. All that matters is that the beliefs in question do their job effectively - to bring people to God.

<<There is enough conflict in the world in a contest for resources to promote further conflict in deciding between brands of mumbojumbo>>

Yet if you like a particular kind of food, then wouldn't you look for different brands of it in the supermarket? Even despite resource-scarcity? It's all a matter of personal preference: what do you want badly enough: the world - or God!

Pilger.
Brainswashed by the Hippy generation., he grew up with.


The Iraqis weren't so innocent when they raped and plundered Kuwait for
3months before America finally went in and put a stop to it.

It wasn't just the Iraqi army either.

There was a never ending stream of old trucks and vehicles coming across
The dessert coming back with loads of looted furniture and whatever they could take.

ttbn,

So you have nothing to say in response then? Still going to keep us all in the dark with regards to these alleged facts?

<<They don't dare open the New Testament because that would ruin their equivalence theories.>>

As I’ve pointed out once before, I’ve read the whole Bible and spent every Tuesday night attending my church’s Bible study group for many years. Perhaps that’s why surveys tend to show that atheists generally know more about the Bible than Christians?

I have already linked you back to a post where I explained why the New Testament doesn’t override the Old Testament (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6865&page=0#209004) and here you are again, implying that is does. If you know so much more about Christian theology than everyone else, then perhaps you could explain what the point in any of the Old Testament was (particularly the bad parts) if Jesus was going to come and change it all anyway? (Hint: there are two main schools of thought on this)

<<How anyone, including athiests [sic], cannot see the difference between the two main flesh and blood prophets of religion...>>

Mohammed was no doubt the worse of the two. However, Jesus wasn’t perfect himself. He claimed to be sin-free, and yet he unleashed wrath on the money changers in the temple. It’s not like his actions were a temporary moment of insanity either. He went off and, having had the time to cool down while he made his weapon, came back and acted irrationally violent. Mohammed at least never claimed to be sin-free.

If you accept that Jesus was who he allegedly said he was, then you accept that he allowed nonsense about demon possession to continue all the way through to the Enlightenment, which undoubtedly cost many lives over many centuries. He also allowed disease to spread more than it had to by not informing us of bacteria and disease prevention through basic hygiene.

The biggest thing Mohammed had over Jesus though, was that we know he actually existed. We can’t say that with the same degree of certainty even for an historical Jesus.

Oh, I forgot to mention the divisiveness of Jesus demanding that people place him over their families (Matthew 10:34-36). Not to mention his false dichotomy in Matthew 12:30.

He was also fine with the fact that most people would go to hell and suffer infinite punishment for finite crimes (Matthew 7:13-14). He invents the notion of an unforgivable sin in Mark 3:29, reaffirming it in Mark 12:10.

There’s plenty more where that came from. The guy was apparently a real piece of work.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “Now if you are looking for evidence, then don't look at the contents of beliefs - but watch the people who suggest any particular path, see how they live, then ask yourself: "do I want to go where they are going? do I want to be like them?"

I have followed your advice. From ancient times until now going back to Protagoras and Epicurus the people I see in history who I would like to model myself after are the atheists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_atheists lists the lists of atheists to which I have added Epicurus and Lucretius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers lists the philosophers. In that long list I have received the most from: Marquis de Condorcet, Daniel Dennett, Paul Edwards, Epicurus, William Godwin, Eric Hoffer, Lucretius, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Protagoras and Peter Singer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors lists the authors. In that long list I have received the most from: Jorge Amado, Isaac Asimov, Italo Calvino Richard Dawkins, Umberto Eco, George Eliot, Vardis Fisher, Anatole France, Rebecca Goldstein, Robert Graves, A. E. Housman, Henrik Ibsen, Franz Kafka, Pär Lagerkvist, Philip Larkin, Jack London, H. L. Mencken, Arthur Miller, Dame Iris Murdoch, Philip Pullman, François Rabelais, Philip Roth, Salman Rushdie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Sendak, George Bernard Shaw Robert Louis Stevenson, Gore Vidal and H.G. Wells.

There are probably more who aren't listed. The intolerance of religion has probably made many people afraid of admitting their lack of belief. Burning at the stake and the iron maiden are not pleasant ways to die.

You also wrote: “The scientific method is meant for finding out about the world.
It serves materialistic pursuits.
Religion serves the spiritual pursuit.”

There is only the world. The spiritual pursuit is looking for something which doesn't exist.