That's the ironic thing about people who reject the Bible: they'd gladly accept any ancient discarded scrap of paper or modern fiction, from any source, but the Bible with its mountain of documented evidence isn't good enough. They require no support at all for their sources, but reject the Bible even though it exceeds all their demands for support.

Jesus has a few things Shirley and Buddha and all the rest don't have: a predicted and miraculous birth, sinless life, voluntary substitutionary death, and resurrection. Many people claim to "have God within" but I've never seen them walk on water, or raise the dead, or calm a storm with one word. (Besides, if everyone is God then no one is. And how the endless karma can a god forget (s)he is a god??)

In the end, as I said in the epistemology post, people have to decide how truth is determined. If feelings are the "standard" then there is no such thing as truth. But if evidence is the standard then truth is absolute. There is no evidence that reality can be changed by our thoughts or emotions. People who believe otherwise, who have no standards, cannot say whether anything at all is right or wrong or true or false, yet these same people will claim that Christianity is not to be tolerated because it claims exclusive truth! Can they not see the absurdity of this charge? It's hypocritical for people who don't believe in absolute truth to condemn those who do.