Again, I believe that there is very often a spiritual reality behind many of the world's religions. You brought up the example of a Hindu. I believe that there are often spiritual being behind the gods that they worship and that sometimes Hindus experience genuine supernatural experiences because of it. I believe the same thing about UFO's for example. A few % of the citings are legitimate spiritual - and I emphasize spiritual - manifestations. Same thing with the occult/New Age. There's a spiritual reality behind their practices. Now in the case of New Age, occult, eastern religion - I don't want their spiritual reality. Been there, done that!
Again, man has choice. For those in the world who are not materialists, they can worship or interact with whatever they want to. That's one of the reasons for the differences and, not entirely, as you assume because of manufactured emotional responses.
Unfortunately when it comes to reality you dont get to pick and choose. ps your still one shoe short of a pair . lol :-/
Jem, I'm aware of the Josephus claim, the so called Testimonium Flavium. I think it is pretty accurate is I say this widely regarded as a later Christian interpolation, even by Christian scholars themselves. I know there are some people that cling to it but I think the honest approach would be to say it is questionable at best. Tacitus was writing more than 80 years after Jesus died. In my opinion he was just repeating what some Jew or Christian had told him. The fact that he mistakes Pilate for a procurator instead of a prefect makes it likely that he was using a non-roman source for his info. Note that neither Tacitus nor Josephus mention Jesus in any other writings. I'm not sure of what Suetonious or Pliny are supposed to have said. I'll look them up, noting that Suetonious was also writing more than 80 years after the events. I'm not sure I see the significance of the Thallus quote, it doesn't mention Jesus and is simply reporting an eclipse. Is there some way he links the two? Personally, I find it rather telling that these are the only independant mentions of Jesus, none of them by contemporaries.
I didn't understand your last paragraph, but basically I "tried Christianity" in college. The Bible said to believe so I just did it. I did not ask God for miracles, emotions, behavorial changes, etc. but these all happened naturally in my life and the life of many family and friends. (Yes, I know you're about to puke now.) What I am saying is if I had felt, like Turok I guess, that I had received no confirmation of my faith, I would have given up. However, in my case I have had many confirming things happen - supernatural, circumstantial, behavioral, etc. - that have confirmed what I believe. You're right - these don't prove Christianity. They just confirm it. It always comes down to faith in the end. And, for the record, I believe faith comes first just like every other Christian. But I'm just saying that I am not "mindless" in the sense that I believe w/o any ensuing evidence.
Is this an admission that there is nothing particularly special about Christianity? A "spiritual reality" could mean a thousand different things, couldn't it? None of which need necessarily have a god behind the curtains.
But on what basis do you differentiate between your religious experiences and the religious experiences of other religions? So far you've given me that you believe there's a "spiritual reality" to life. Which I can only read as there being no essential difference between a Christian religious experience and any other religious experience. What you're accpeting "on faith", it seems, is that while there is no discernible difference between religious experiences, you just believe you're right and everyone else is wrong. Can you understand why I then term that "irrational"? And why I then claim that your decision to stick with Christianity is essentially an emotional one?