Hi Hilmar,

I don't know, and probably you don't either, what difference it makes that one central figure of a religion is "alive" while others - possibly all of them - are "dead".
I can't see how a living figurehead that cannot be seen is any better than a dead one that cannot be seen. And how many times have we heard/read that authorXXX 'lives forever through his writing' or composerYYY 'lives forever through their songs' etc.

This is an area (one of many) where my "Christianity" differs from that of my brothers of the same 'faith'. I do not see my "Christianity" as mandating that I have to go around stating or "proving" that my religion is better than others or requiring me to "sell" it to others at every opportunity.

Somewhere along the way I got the notion that ALL people who live "good" lives (in accordance with biblical expressions) will get to Heaven on their day of judgement, regardless of their religion. "Christians" are guaranteed entry by definition, yet they too must still live as prescribed by the bible. To live otherwise constitutes false acceptance of Jesus.

Complicated, all this stuff, and even more so when differing groups of the same faith interpret the same words differently. I have no idea why they feel the need for different interpretations except that they like have most unChristian objectives in doing so.

Jim

>>>In what sense do you think that "Jesus is alive, and Mohammed dead"?
>>
>>Jesus rose from the dead. Mohammed did not. Pretty straightforward.
>
>That's what the Christians claim. However, I have never seen any proof offered, apart from the Holy Script. And if you begin your argument by claiming that the Holy Bible is the book of God, whereas the Holy Qur'án is not, you are commiting a logical error, since this is about the equivalent of circular reasoning (that is, you take that, what you want to prove, as a starting-point of the proof).
>
>Hilmar.