I was recently on a website that was arguing that a Hindu should consider converting to Christianity because Christianity is more historically verifiable, and is based on a literal history, whereas Hinduism has more roots in mythology. Is this true? Even if it is true, I personally don't think it's a valid reason for someone to convert. What are your thoughts?

Both religions are rooted in vast webs of oral tradition that were eventually (and selectively) transcribed into "sacred texts." The notion that Christianity is historically accurate is a fallacy promulgated by Christian apologists who cherry-pick "history" and propose nonsensical "this or that" arguments designed to trick people into believing in what they're selling.

I have a brilliant friend who, sadly, was recently hoodwinked by "historical accuracy" into becoming a Christian. It was as though he checked his brain at the door! Key to his buying into the Christian faith was the ridiculous argument that "Jesus was either who he said he was, or else he was a madman." He also said that there is too much historical evidence of the miracles Jesus performed to deny any of it.

I choose to allow for the fact that my friend needed something he's now finding through Christianity and I will not debate with him. If he tries to convince me of his beliefs I will politely excuse myself from the conversation or change the subject. I could ridicule his basis for his new beliefs but that would do neither of us any good. If it makes him happy to have "a relationship with Christ" then I'm happy for him.

One of the major differences between Christianity and Hinduism is that the latter doesn't propose that all human beings must believe as Hindus believe in order to avoid the eternal punishment of hell. Christianity and Islam have built-in beliefs that lead people to proselytize, so they have full-time apologists who manipulate historical evidence and religious texts for the purpose of convincing other that they are right. Any semblance of "historical accuracy" is manufactured by these concept-marketing evangelists.

This thread's title question doesn't make sense. Accurate relative to what? Religions aren't even internally consistent. Christianity's claims to historical accuracy are based on forcing history to conform to belief. There is no basis for believing if one sincerely investigates what little we know about the history of Jesus or his followers. Most of that history was censored by the Romans when they decided what would be included in the Bible. Silencing one's detractors through censorship and coercion doesn't lead to historical accuracy, it leads to mass deception.

I've just stepped into the Atheist worldview, and I think I got what you mean:

Just because there are some claims of history are partly verified to be correct does not mean that the rest of the claims are correct; that each claim need to be verified as well to be true.

"I've just stepped into the Atheist worldview," The what? We don't build our worldviews on that which we don't believe. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's impossible. Perhaps you mean secular humanism or naturalism.

"Jesus was either who he said he was, or else he was a madman."

Wait! When did we rule out the madman theory? I mean he did have an 'episode' in the Temple didn't he?

If you investigate the claims of Christians with a broad mind and humility you will sooner or later come to a conclusion that Christians are right, Jesus is God and bible is 100% truth!! Until then, may God bless you all!!!!

Too funny!

Every religion proclaims that if you open your heart and mind to their teachings you will uncover the truth. Are you at all familiar with the placebo affect?

I respectfully disagree...

Hindu texts state that the truth is of the highest importance but do not claim that what hindu texts have a monopoly on the truth. In fact the idea that truth can be sequestered by assigning a label to it and then claiming exclusivity is a foreign concept to Hinduism.

i totally agree with you one cannot just change his religion on that basis one must truly have faith towards his own thoughts one must do his own research and clear out all doubts or at least most of them but there are things that fascinates me that how the bible (not Christianity) is historically accurate,Like for eg all the kingdoms stated in the bible were there on this earth at one point of time archaeology proves that surely not in detail but you can be 100% sure that the kingdoms once existed, not only that though bible is not a science book some verses in it which tell about the earth it is scientifically correct and address' earth a circle and suspended in space where as in some cultures it is said to be on some animal back surrounded by animals or some god supporting it from beneath, these are just some thing i found out on doing research one has to do his own research because finally he is just gonna belive wat he thinks is rite and he might have his own reasons to do so ,so if you have researched it at least you don't have blind faith