Judging between religions--part 2

I am discussing several ways we can judge between various religions, contrary to what relativists believe. For this blog, I'd like to examine the differences between the various religious leaders as part of my first point--that there is factual evidence we can look at in determining which religion seems the best for us to follow. See my previous blog for the first point regarding factual evidence for the belief.

Let's start with Jesus. I have created a special presentation about his uniqueness, so I'll give you a simplified edition of it here. Napoleon said about him, "Jesus Christ is no mere man." H. G. Wells noted, "I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history." Others have said similar things.

There are other ways he is unique. We have unique sources of information about him--close to his time and a great number of them. The prophecies he fulfilled are unique among religious leaders. What he did (miracles, healings, exorcisms) has never been equaled by other religious leaders. What he said was so different from others--who else claimed to give eternal life, raise people on the last day, to be the truth, to exist before Abraham? What his friends said about him was unique as well--they saw him as more than a human. Even his enemies claimed things about him that were unique--Jews later said he was a sorcerer, Roman historians said he was worshiped as a god. The impact he had on the world was so much better than any other religious leader--Jesus and his followers helped elevate the role of women, led to the creation of hospitals, created universities, brought about capitalism/civil liberties.

Now let's look at other religious leaders. Mohammed was a person devoted to revenge, he married young girl and had sex with her way earlier than he should have, he lacked mercy toward his enemies. How about Joseph Smith? Here's someone who dabbled in the occult, claimed to translate ancient Egyptian (proved to later be a fraud), and made many false prophecies. Does Mary Baker Eddy do any better? Hardly. She claimed her second husband was mentally poisoned, she claimed her book was unique but plagiarized it. Her claims of severe injury and healing were exposed by her own doctor as false. Then there's L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. He became a recluse to avoid tax problems, he was known as a poor naval officer, he dabbled in the occult, he ended up married to two women the same time. Let's close with a look at the two early leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses. Charles Russell was a fanatic about pyramid power, he divorced his wife, he peddled miracle wheat, he lied in a courtroom about knowing ancient languages. Judge Rutherford, who followed Russell as head of the JWs, smuggled liquor during Prohibition, was estranged from his wife, made a lot of failed prophecies, lived a luxurious life.

So, there's another way we can judge between religions. Just look at the founders. I'll take the amazing life, sayings, and impact of Jesus any time.