the right religion

[1robin]

Millions of people also believed that Hitler would create a better Germany, guess they were wrong too. That's what happens when you blindly follow something without question.

No matter how many times I point this out, the next poster will get it wrong.

Please pay close attention to this as it is vital.

My claims were to a spiritual experience not to the intellectual agreement to proposition. Christian faith requires intellectual agreement but does what no other religion does. It demand and offers spiritual confirmation in the form of experiencing God directly. Islam only requires you declare there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet to become one (no spiritual experience offered or required). Judaism requires adherence to law. No spiritual experience required.

Claims to agreement with a proposition have no confirmation and can be held without any evidence. Claims to experience are based on nothing besides evidence.

Millions (not billions) agreed with Nazism but did not have a personal experience to confirm it. Christians are the opposite. And this is why the two are not comparable.

BTW Christians are traditionally the most inquisitive, curious, constantly questioning, and skeptical people I know. That is why so many of history's greatest scientists were Christians. Most do not just follow their parents faith, and saving faith cannot be acquired that way anyway. Only sincere and personal faith will produce a born again experience.

 

[1robin]

This is what I said to someone on another thread.

And that was a very nice testimony, but I have also heard many others people from other religions say the same thing, is their testimony worthless to yours ?. You will of course believe your religion was God sent, but again people of my own religion that I use to go to also believe the same.

This is inaccurate in several categories but as it was not something I mentioned not the subject. The subject was your claim the right religion is whatever religion you like.

You believe you have correctly translated the scriptures, and also did my church, especially concerning the Sabbath, and the second coming of Jesus.

I believe I correctly understand the most crucial ones but for the others I am open to debate. Actually I am open to correction at any time but I am still confident in my core understandings.

To each religion it all sounds wonderful, and through arrogance each are believing their system is the right one.

The evidence for each religion is spread out over huge ranges of reliability, merit, and quantity. Equating them all and throwing your hands up is not in any way justifiable. Some have mountains of reliable data and some are devoid of any merit whatever. People have spent thousands of years developing sophisticated ways of determining this but in most cases a child could do it. And most of the world religions (over 90%) do not even merit consideration. And 90% of the remaining 10% soon fall apart under intense scrutiny.

I don't think any of them is the right one, there all man made, true so called religion isn't found in any arrogant church who believes they are the chosen. religion is found within each one of us, its yours and nobody else's, no one has the right to shove it down anyone's throat, to do so is nothing but egotistical in its highest order.

Even if that was true (and the evidence strongly suggests it is not) that would still not validate you original claim that the right religion is a matter of preference. That is what I countered. I can debate anything you brought up and show it inaccurate but this was not the subject.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Says the person that supports killing them in the womb by the millions based on a right you do not have unless God exists and the very right you deprive who it is that is killed.

Yo. You really make me dizzy sometimes.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The evidence for each religion is spread out over huge ranges of reliability, merit, and quantity. Equating them all and throwing your hands up is not in any way justifiable. Some have mountains of reliable data and some are devoid of any merit whatever. People have spent thousands of years developing sophisticated ways of determining this but in most cases a child could do it. And most of the world religions (over 90%) do not even merit consideration. And 90% of the remaining 10% soon fall apart under intense scrutiny.

That's true. We can discount out of hand any religion which believes that God sent actual Words down to mankind. And also any religion which follows a supernatural, miracle-doing God.

Then we can start weeding through the remaining 10%.

I will let you know when I am finished the process and ready to announce the actual Right Religion.

 

[1robin]

Yo. You really make me dizzy sometimes.

Happy to do it, but I imagine your very sensitive to being off balance to begin with.

 

[1robin]

That's true. We can discount out of hand any religion which believes that God sent actual Words down to mankind. And also any religion which follows a supernatural, miracle-doing God.

This makes no sense but even worse has nothing to do with anything I said. Do not link my agreement with any of it or claim my statements justified it. My statements condemn it.

Then we can start weeding through the remaining 10%.

Now this one is accurate, once what you eliminated is eliminated.

I will let you know when I am finished the process and ready to announce the actual Right Religion.

I would not waste my time as far as I am concerned. I did this exact thing long ago.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Happy to do it, but I imagine your very sensitive to being off balance to begin with.

Says the person that supports imbalancing them in the internet by the millions based on a right you do not have unless God exists and the very right you deprive who it is that is imbalanced.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This makes no sense but even worse has nothing to do with anything I said. Do not link my agreement with any of it or claim my statements justified it. My statements condemn it.

What the heck could you possibly be talking about?

May I ask if you ever review your messages before posting them?

 

[Ouroboros]

Anti-evolutionist apologist argument from popularity:

60% of the world believes in a God, therefore God exists.

70% of Christian Biblical scholars believe Jesus rose from the dead, therefore he did.

99.999% of scientists believe evolution is true, therefore evolution is wrong... :sarcastic

... Uhm... yeah... :areyoucra

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

BTW Christians are traditionally the most inquisitive, curious, constantly questioning, and skeptical people I know. That is why so many of history's greatest scientists were Christians. Most do not just follow their parents faith, and saving faith cannot be acquired that way anyway. Only sincere and personal faith will produce a born again experience.

Questioning? Skeptical? Is that why they burned books, hung witches, and threw Gallelio in prison because he questioned the Church's teaching by saying that the Earth revolves around the sun? Just look at them today... Christian organizations such as the "American Family Association" and "One Million Moms" try to control the media and silence anyone or anything that challenges their agenda.

 

[psychoslice]

This is inaccurate in several categories but as it was not something I mentioned not the subject. The subject was your claim the right religion is whatever religion you like.

I believe I correctly understand the most crucial ones but for the others I am open to debate. Actually I am open to correction at any time but I am still confident in my core understandings.

The evidence for each religion is spread out over huge ranges of reliability, merit, and quantity. Equating them all and throwing your hands up is not in any way justifiable. Some have mountains of reliable data and some are devoid of any merit whatever. People have spent thousands of years developing sophisticated ways of determining this but in most cases a child could do it. And most of the world religions (over 90%) do not even merit consideration. And 90% of the remaining 10% soon fall apart under intense scrutiny.

Even if that was true (and the evidence strongly suggests it is not) that would still not validate you original claim that the right religion is a matter of preference. That is what I countered. I can debate anything you brought up and show it inaccurate but this was not the subject.

All you said is just your opinion, as it is with what I said also, and again the right religion is the one that you connect with yourself, I know that you think yours is the only true one if you admit it or not.

You can debate with me until the cows come home, but I never debate over things that cannot be proven either way, its useless to do so. I'm just sharing my own experience and that is all I can do, who is right and wrong, doesn't bother my the least.

 

[Ingledsva]

Need for new arguments until the current ones have been countered. What I said is a proposition absolute. Since you granted the proposition what it necessitate is absolute. And without the slightest hint of an argument against it, it is standing stall.

Again - psycho babble. Many people here have given you well thought out arguments.


The real problem Robin, is that you are a fundamentalist Christian.


No matter the reality of the argument - you tell us we can't argue it because YOUR-God is "God!" And as "God" he can do any horrific thing he wants.


You tell us he can murder babies for other people's sins, etc, because he is God. This is just plain BULL! And this type of occurrence in the Bible, tells the rest of us that this arrogant, jealous, revengeful, murdering, God, is just made up by arrogant, jealous, revengeful, murdering, humans.

Nothing I said has any religious connotation. The burdens I mention are true in any subject. You constantly just blurt our assertions as if they are facts. That necessitates a burden of proof no matter what subject is under discussion.

Ummm! Robin, we are on a Religious Debates Forum, and all of the debate centers on religions.

My spaghetti monster as you like to put it for pure biased effect, is not claimed by me to be certain knowledge so I do not have the burden you most certainly do. Your requirements are the result of sloppy language us in a debate.

More of your psycho bull! You are so invested in your religion, - that you claim in your so-called arguments, that we can't logically oppose murder, or anything else the Bible says that God did.

Pure BULL as usual. You got plenty of context from me, and others, in past arguments on this subject.

No I did not. I saw a complete disregard for the surrounding biblical narrative for every single claim, and even an ignorance concerning even simple ANE cultural norms. The only context I got was context invented out of thin air for effect and the use of modern connotation associated with words that the bible was translated into.

More BULL Robin. Blind religious fanaticism - does not a real argument make.


Many very intelligent people have given you superior rebuttal argument, - you just can't see it past your religion.


Haven't you noticed that most people no longer bother to argue with you? That is because you are a fundamentalist, and can't even consider a well written rebuttal.

Most other Christians here are not like you, and hence they have lively, logical, respectful, debate with everyone.

For example biblical slavery did not contain the word slavery. It contained a word I will provide if you wish that meant forced servitude. You and others of course invoked the 19th century meaning of the word to call to mind pulling people apart by horses, whipping them for minor offenses, and working them to death. Which has nothing at all to do with even the most stringent of biblical "slavery". Nor did you even acknowledge that it's laws were by far the most benevolent of any ANE culture known. If the Bible was as evil as you say, it would not require such linguistic gymnastics to show it.

More blind babble. It does not matter what the words were for slavery and indentured servants. Other Jews could only be indentured servants. Other people could be kept as slaves forever, bred for more slaves, and handed down as an inheritance.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be enslaved for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.

The word there is "abad" and is definitely enslave.

YOUR Bible, says YOUR God, killed innocent babies, and other people, for the "supposed" crimes of others. Nothing else needs be said!

Says the person that supports killing them in the womb by the millions based on a right you do not have unless God exists and the very right you deprive who it is that is killed. That is hyperbolic hypocrisy on steroids. Especially considering God knows their guilt or innocence and can place the innocents in eternal bliss, created the life to begin with, has complete and absolute sovereignty over all life, and is aware of every piece of information needed to make the decision. Not one of those are you in possession of but still pronounce a death sentence that applies to a thousand lives for every one God has taken, and then to top that insanity off the morally defunct accuse the being more associated with goodness than any in history of being a monster. Simply remarkable. Reminds me of a line in apocalypse now. "What do you call it when the assassins condemn the soldiers, It's like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

We have had this argument over and over. Women are not broodmares, they have to have legal bodily autonomy. They have to have the right to kill clumps of cells within their bodies.

Autonomous born babies, on the other hand, are "autonomous" and have all human rights. The Bible says your God murders them.

I didn't say any God was sexist. I said the MALE writers of the Bible, whom are from a patriarchal culture MADE-UP the Bible to their advantage.

The same evidence I gave that refutes this would apply to either.

BULL! We have an actual Bible written by this patriarchal culture.


We do not have any proof of the God of this patriarchal culture.

LOL! Read Spong's Born of a Woman. It deals with the patriarchal crap imposed by the church. Mary M. got labeled a whore, and any texts dealing with her as more, were altered, or left out.

Oh no, we are in the Da Vinci code. Christians revere Mary Magdeline, what is the motivation to smear her?

No Da Vinci Code. Patriarchal subterfuge. She was more then likely the Apostle to the Apostles. More then likely meant to take over and further the work, - and quite possibly married to Jesus, - as she does the things a wife would do, - including collect and wash the body, etc. It would be cultural taboo for a non-family member to see and wash his naked body.

Mary the "virgin," got changed from a normal women giving birth to a spiritual leader, to a perpetual virgin impregnated by a Deity, which women "impossibly" were told to emulate. Leading to the Virgin-Whore sex ideas that women have had to fight against ever since!

These are all obscure Catholic traditions. Neither are unflattering to women and neither are taken seriously by orthodox Christians. I am not defending men. I am defending the Bible and God, so please concentrate on them.

What is your point? They were not obscure. They were used against women for thousands of years. Like I said read Bishop Spong's Book. He is very clear on this subject.

Women being passed from male to male as a broodmare transaction - isn't equality!

What are you talking about?

Don't play dense! Patriarchal culture's belief that males own women, - and girls are passed from father to a male THE FATHER chooses. And get murdered if they have sex with someone they choose. No choice - just broodmares to pop out babies for their owners. Just as in a lot of Islamic countries to this day.

Raping little girls - isn't equality.
The RIGHT to rape female prisoners isn't equality.

What are you talking about? Is there a verse promoting this? What are you talking about?

You are playing dense again. I have given you the verses several times now.

Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every female that hath known man by lying with him.
Num 31:18 But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful female, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy female;
Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deu 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her master, and she shall be thy female.

Being S****ed by your husband's brother to insure A male to inherit - isn't equality.

That was not a requirement it was an option that would continue a family line. It was not mandated if not desired.

LOL! Yeah right! If no male to inherit, - the majority (if not all) of the inheritance went to the nearest male relative, and the wife became a ward of that male, or starved.


Continued on Page two.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Part 2.

Your father having the right to sell you as a sex slave - isn't equality.

What are you talking about? I can't even think of a scripture you are misunderstanding that would result in what you claimed.

Exo 21:7. Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the male slaves go free.

Exo 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath (H2359) "summoned" her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath been deceitful with her.

Look carefully at those sentences. Note that "deceitful" is Strong's H898 meaning "to cover" and "to pillage" - in other words -

Her father sold her as a sex slave - her new owner doesn't like his sex slave - but since he has "covered/pillaged" her body with his - he can't sell her to another man.

Number 10 clinches the meaning -10 If he take him another woman, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish. (he has obviously had sex with his bought servant)

I did. It is a male dominated system but it's emphasis is on the elder male. I was not denying what you said. I was clarifying it for information's sake. I do not believe women were subjugated by any verse and were at times highly favored by God but I do think that at least for those times a male headed family is an extremely logical and necessary requirement.

BULL! It was an all male system. Men owned women! Women were passed from male to male - and were murdered for stepping outside this patriarchy.

Since women cannot physically compete with men on average and duties must be separated in a family or tribe, then by evolutionary principle or divine command by far the most logical allocation of duties is that men lead, hunt, fight, and handle the more strenuous physical necessities and women do the less physically rigorous chores. That is the most efficient model possible.

LOL! I didn't know life was a weight lifting event! Women have been hunting and fighting alongside males since the beginning of time. The Idea that one has to be able to lift a certain amount of weight to be a warrior (LOL) is modern. Ancient warriors didn't wear themselves out by packing heavy crap - that is what carts and pack animals are for, - thus leaving warriors ready to fight.

It is not the most efficient model possible - it is the patriarchal idea of the perfect model!

However in our time I still think man is the leader of the house but should always consult his wife on all decisions, outside that since duties are far less physical I no longer see any need for distinguished roles.

There is absolutely NO reason for males to be the heads of households.

As for your hunting. I believe your an Alaskan. Can you gut a moose and drag him up hill to the truck by your self. Has nothing to do with anything but it is hard to predict.

LOL! Obviously you haven't hunted for moose. Most men can't even pack out a whole deer, let alone a moose. We gut and quarter the moose. Then depending on how we are hunting, and the weather, we tow the sections out on branches, or special material, or with sleds, or with snowmobiles. If you have to tow it up hill - you are hunting wrong. LOL! Up here we pre-scout areas with sign, and hopefully near streams, and then climb a tree and wait for the moose to come down its trail. If near a stream you have it made, - as you can float, or boat the moose out.

Let me add in an example of one of the few areas women do not belong in in modern times. For purely politically correct reasons women are now allow in special ops. Instantly the physical standards were lowered. There is no way possible this will not cost many men their lives. How many lives is feminism worth?

LOL! See above.

No, men are more able to actualize aggression. When I was in kindergarten though 8th grade, every single fight I was in was with a girl, and some of them won. At age 10 one girl had me so scared I would not go out at break to avoid here and I lifted weights every night hoping in vane to eventually be stronger. However once I grew a bit that ended abruptly. I will grant you this. A world run by Margaret Thatcher's would be infinitely better than one run by Obamas.

I can certainly grant men are at the root of many wars. However many times they are fighting over women and women have a singular ability to intrigue wars into existence. Helen of Troy is a good example. Men at least go toe to toe most of the time and settle issues. Women backbite, recruit clicks, use propaganda like master. Instead of 4 year wars there would be perpetual wars of propaganda and head games that would never end.

LOL! Like men don't backbite, recruit clicks, and use propaganda! And fighting wars over women does not make the women responsible.

As to that last sentence that is just BULL! Almost Everywhere in the world where women have come to political power they improve their countries.

LOL! Look at the state of the whole world. If your God thinks men should be in charge - he would be an idiot, - and it is more proof of his non-existence.

It is not God who has placed men in power in 90% the cultures around the world.

Indeed - they raped, tortured and murdered their way there, using patriarchal religion.

LOL! Of course we are different, - or there would be no humans.

Yes you are and physically and mentally mean we are each suited for differing roles and both are vital. Only women resent theirs. I can grant that bad men have contributed to much of women's dissatisfaction. In a good world a good man would lead the family and the women would do her duties and everything would be as it should. However many men abuse their role and fail to do as God commanded so women have rebelled and want to take over his role. I can sympathize but if the Bible was faithfully followed that would not be the case.

LOL! I am not relegated to specific roles by your God. Or your ideas about what strength is.

However, my ability to pop out a baby, - does not mean that is my only role, - especially with aggressive, murdering, raping, dominating males that think they are Gods image and I'm an afterthought from a male rib. LOL!

I didn't have child birth in mind for my comment. I meant women are more tender and loving toward children. Men are better at hacking apart intruders and honestly negotiating uneasy agreements and throwing spears threw mastodons.
If you doubt he physical superiority of men why does every women who competes in a men's sports arena normally loose so bad it's embarrassing. Do you think Layla Alli would last 10 seconds with Tyson.

This is the typical bull that shows some men's non use of brain material when talking about their supposed God-given/strength held beliefs of superiority.

Does a lightweight boxer fight a heavyweight? Is the lightweight male embarrassed that he can't win against that heavy-weight?

How many males wash out of Special Forces training? Are those huge numbers of males embarrassed?

Are males embarrassed when running track and they can't win against that seven footer with legs that go up to their waists? Or can't compete against those big basketball players?

So why should women be embarrassed by size, or strength differences?

It is interesting that you think size and build differences are only embarrassments when considering women to larger males ...

If strength is all it takes to be in charge - move over for the gorillas - LOL - in fact move over for the little monkeys - as even they are stronger then any man.

Speaking of fantasies, the bible uses man to indicate mankind's being like God as having freewill and moral agency.

The church teaches that a MALE named Adam was created in the image of God, and only after not finding any compatible animals to s****, a rib was taken out, and woman created from that. Differing historical church statements, and documents, show that was their belief, and patriarchy alive and well. At one point women were thought to not have a soul, or only half a soul.


*

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Muffled]

Those promised heaven = the little flock = the bride of Christ--to rule as kings and priests alongside of Jesus. they are numbered-rev 14:3--144,000 bought from the earth. No more-no less.

I believe there is no evidence for Heaven for the 144,000. It only says they are sealed.

I believe the Bride of Christ is the body of Christ which includes anyone who has received Jesus as Lord and Savior. Mt 25:10 And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast: and the door was shut. Rev: 19:7 Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

I believe there is no Biblical evidence that Heaven is promised.

 

[Muffled]

LOL! We are talking about invisible beings, that supposedly created everything, and thus we are being told we must worship them, or go to Hell.

BULL! BULL! BULL!

You need real proof when you want people to believe such crap.

*

I believe Christinas Jews and Muslims only talk about one being who is the creator of all things.

i believe He says that He did and He says that He doesn't bear false witness.

I believe God's requirement is obedience and that Hell is not an immediate punishment but one where the person has repeatedly disobeyed over a long period of time.

Nonsense, nonsense nonsense. i believe Bull is a form of prevarication but we speak the truth.

I believe that is only one opinion. I never needed solid proof that one and one makes two. I simply took it on faith by those who taught me. Now that I am an adult and can figure out things for myself I can see the logic behind addition. It has also been the case with me and God. I accepted His existence on faith and after many years of living by faith I now have what I consider proof, a detailed prophecy that came true. I have had other proofs but it would be easy for someone not of faith to dismiss them.

However it is my belief that some people who want proof never will accept any proof and deep down in their hearts don't want it to be true.

 

[Muffled]

All you said is just your opinion, as it is with what I said also, and again the right religion is the one that you connect with yourself, I know that you think yours is the only true one if you admit it or not.

You can debate with me until the cows come home, but I never debate over things that cannot be proven either way, its useless to do so. I'm just sharing my own experience and that is all I can do, who is right and wrong, doesn't bother my the least.

I beleive this is like saying that you are going to see the Red Sox play baseball and your path takes you to see the Blue Jays play the Yankees. Yes you connected with Baseball but you did not connect with the Red Sox. The connection was a wrong connection.

I believe it has been proven but that does not mean that anyone has accepted the proof. I believe it is like a court case fo murder where a reasonable doubt gets an acquittal which means that the law errs on the side of safety for not finding an innocent person guilty. I believe the question is whether reasonable doubt errs on the side of safety when making an error saying there is no God could lead to spending time in Hell.

I agree that it is useless to try to convince people who have already deteermined that they are right and any evidence to the contrary must be contrived.

I believe this is therapeutic and encourage you to continue to do so. At the same time I would hope that you would also attempt to make it relevant to those who have not had your experience.

 

[kjw47]

I believe there is no evidence for Heaven for the 144,000. It only says they are sealed.

I believe the Bride of Christ is the body of Christ which includes anyone who has received Jesus as Lord and Savior. Mt 25:10 And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast: and the door was shut. Rev: 19:7 Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

I believe there is no Biblical evidence that Heaven is promised.

John 14:2-- Gods house is in heaven.--- Jesus spoke these words to the bride-little flock--144,000 bought from the earth with Jesus blood-rev 14:3

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! We are talking about invisible beings, that supposedly created everything, and thus we are being told we must worship them, or go to Hell.

BULL! BULL! BULL!

You need real proof when you want people to believe such crap.

I believe Christinas Jews and Muslims only talk about one being who is the creator of all things.

i believe He says that He did and He says that He doesn't bear false witness.

I believe God's requirement is obedience and that Hell is not an immediate punishment but one where the person has repeatedly disobeyed over a long period of time.

Nonsense, nonsense nonsense. i believe Bull is a form of prevarication but we speak the truth.

I believe that is only one opinion. I never needed solid proof that one and one makes two. I simply took it on faith by those who taught me. Now that I am an adult and can figure out things for myself I can see the logic behind addition. It has also been the case with me and God. I accepted His existence on faith and after many years of living by faith I now have what I consider proof, a detailed prophecy that came true. I have had other proofs but it would be easy for someone not of faith to dismiss them.

However it is my belief that some people who want proof never will accept any proof and deep down in their hearts don't want it to be true.

And you have every right to believe however you want to.


For those like me - we need real proof - or Christianity is just like any other of the thousands of religions claiming to be from God.


You are not a Christian fundamentalist like Robin. - and hence - most people hold normal - respectful - debates with you.


*

 

[1robin]

All you said is just your opinion,

No it is an absolute fact that the evidence quality and amount for each religions validity varies drastically. That is true of every historical claim or really any claim at all and is not opinion of any type.

as it is with what I said also, and again the right religion is the one that you connect with yourself, I know that you think yours is the only true one if you admit it or not.

Let me ask you this if you connect with Buddhism but when you die you find Allah, or Jesus, or Ra sitting there and since you had chosen to fallow a lie you are cast into a bad place for eternity. Then how is you what connects with me the right basis for a religion choice? It is the worst possible method of choice. In fact my God said that exact thing.



2 Timothy 4:3 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter


3 For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold,
2 Timothy 4:3 - Bible Gateway


Do you select who operates on you by who your favorite friend is? Do you select a mechanic by his appearance or by his qualifications?

You can debate with me until the cows come home, but I never debate over things that cannot be proven either way, its useless to do so. I'm just sharing my own experience and that is all I can do, who is right and wrong, doesn't bother my the least.

What I am debating is simply an obvious absolute fact. Choosing a religion because you like it is a terrible way to make the decision. It may be the worst possible type of decision there can ever be.

I am not discussing which religion is right whish is debatable and subject to opinion and cannot be proven. I am rejecting metaphysical speculation as a method to wager your eternal soul on.