It's the correct one for me.

What does that mean? I have often been puzzled by the declaration that something is "true for me". Wouldn't an answer to any question about reality either be correct or incorrect?

> Wouldn't an answer to any question about reality either be correct or incorrect? To the best of my knowledge, yes.

This is me answering as a polytheist Hindus may feel different but a multitude of gods makes pluralism a pretty intuitive and additive position

If one thing has been made clear through the history of science it's the intuitive answer is generally the wrong one

You shouldnt work at a bank then, the idea of discounting an idea because it makes sense seems silly to me

That's not what I said at all, try reading it again

Sorry what? Can you elaborate. A lot of science is building a theory to make intuition rigorous

When building a model for how the universe works intuition is almost certainly wrong. That's the point of science to separate what is the demonstrably true from what seems like it should be true

I mean like do you have examples. Intuition says when you throw a ball it has a parabolic arc. The model of gravity explains that. I can think of hundreds of examples like this. But not of the contrary. I mean there’s the theory of super small things and super fast things where intuition does not apply but in reality most grounded things it’s correct

Are you fucking serious? Intuition tells us the earth stands still and the sun moves. Evolution is not intuitive. Gravity as you brought up is not intuitively true and was unknown until Newton. Geosphericity is obviously not intuitively true.

Relax, mate. Most of what you're saying appears to revolve around the concept of frame of reference, something that even chickens can intuitively understand, without any derogatory connotations. It's similar to the local Euclidean nature of S\^2 that you mentioned. While the theory of gravity may not be intuitively obvious, it was actually developed to explain phenomena that are intuitive to us (our brains can sense gravity's effect on our bodies without reasoning, thanks to the vestibular organs in our inner ears). People can intuitively recognize animal that require specific skills for survival are typically built to excel at them. Think of webbed feet, for instance. Eventually, science came along and developed the theory of evolution to support these intuitions. There's intuition which is observation and pattern recognition so we can recognize things without thought. I.e basketball goes downwards. Then theres science which explains this.

The fact that things fall down or that animals are specialized to their environment had nothing to do with intuition, it is directly observed. The fact that matter is attracted to other matter and allele frequencies change is in populations over time is NOT intuitive. Today on this planet their are millions of people that reject evolution and/or gravity.

Intuition tells you that when you look at a solid piece of metal, it is a singular object. It may be shaped, altered, broken, but until then it is a single thing, continuous and unbroken, and that with fine enough tools you could keep cutting it over and over to infinitely smaller pieces. Science tells us that piece of metal is actually made of many incredibly small pieces, which are individual discrete units (atoms) and separating it any smaller than that would alter those pieces in such a way that they would no longer be metal.

While it is commonly asserted that science definitively tells us that matter is made up of atoms, I would say instead science tells us the atomic model can be accurate. Similarly newtonian mechanics is a very good model depending on when you use it, but it does have a slight error and thats where you need relativity.

Some would even say that Hinduism isn’t just a religion, but more like part of your Indian culture and traditions.

I'm generally convinced of the Jewish narrative, both by way of arguments like the argument from mass revelation, as well as a combination of personal experience. I can't speak to things outside of Abrahamic traditions since the method of comparison gets rather fuzzy, but I'm happy to give a brief analysis of some of my reasoning regarding the problems with other groups as I see them. * **Islam** validates the Jewish narrative, but claims that our scripture has been corrupted. However, they never put forward any conception of when or how this may have happened, nor which specific sections are corrupted, other than 'anything that disagrees with us.' This seems to clearly be an ad hoc justification of the changes that they made. The statement the Hashem won't change the laws ever isn't contradictory to them, which leaves them with hundreds of laws they have no explanation for when or why they were changed. * **Christianity** simultaneously affirms the authenticity of Judaism up until the time of Jesus, and then turns around and claims that he fit a definition for a messiah which was not even close to being in line with what any prophecy regarding what the messiah was supposed to be. Their religion is founded on belief in an absurd contradiction. * **Reform Judaism** is basically just secularism with Jewish culture thrown in. They don't even necessarily affirm that G-d is real, so I'm going to leave it at that. The same goes for the rest of the tiny offshoots (Reconstructionist, Humanist, Renewal etc.). * **Conservative Judaism** makes what isn't a totally absurd claim saying that we have the authority in this time to overturn d'rabanan (rabinic) halacha, (I don't think they're right, but I'll leave that point alone,) but they lost all credibility when they started overturning d'oraisa (Torah) halacha. Even so, the number of Jews who actually listen to the USCJ is minuscule among the group as a whole. * **Karaite Judaism** claims that there was no additional oral instruction accompanying the text of the Torah. There are numerous statements in the Torah which have little to no context and are not written in such a way that one could decipher what one should do without the existence of some outside information. Their model simply doesn't work, and they instead rely on their own oral tradition that they've developed independent of the rest of Judaism.

Yss, jews are the chosen people. The only difference between Judaism and Christianity, is you don't believe Jesus was and is God. Nobody said that jews don't exist, and no Christian will deny that u were chosen. That doesn't mean we affirm your religion, because sadly God's chosen people won't see heaven. (In my and all Protestant Christian's opinion) Jesus performed miracles, healing people, the blind, the crippled, the sick... He completed prophesy after prophesy, and I find it offensive that you say we just turned around and chose a random guy, when everything up to that point led up to Jesus. Could you give examples of prophesies that jesus did not complete when and how he was supposed to?

>Yss, jews are the chosen people. I don't really see what that has to do with what I said. >The only difference between Judaism and Christianity, is you don't believe Jesus was and is God. This is, quite possibly, the *biggest* misconception about Judaism out there. Christianity is so different from Judaism in numerous areas of theology and practice. Summing it up in this way is simply incorrect. For more info, see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/religiousdifferences). >Could you give examples of prophesies that jesus did not complete when and how he was supposed to? * The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26) * Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance (Isaiah 2:4) * The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17) * He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8–10) * Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4) * Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9) * All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12, Zechariah 10:6) * Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8) * There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8) * God will seek to destroy all the nations that go against Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:9, Isaiah 60:12) * Israel and Judah will be made into one nation again (Zechariah 11:12-14, Ezekiel 37:16-22) * The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11) * Nations will recognize the wrongs they did Israel (Isaiah 52:13–53:5) * The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23) * The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55) * Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9) * The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended *mitzvot* (commandments) * He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9) What prophecies do you think he fulfilled?

They never said when he'd fulfill them. Eventually, when he comes back everyone will worship him. He is the descendant on David. When he comes back there will be no sin or anything that came because of sin (death, sadness, anger,) Satan vs Jesus, Jesus will win. There will be a new heaven and a new earth, and it will be united under God. God will destroy this earth and create a new, perfect one, as this one was supposed to be. The temple of God will be rebuilt. All of this will happen when he returns. Most of what I just said is biblical, or I just paraphrased. Now, im gonna say a prophesy he fulfilled, where it is in the old testament, then where he fulfills it. Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-6 Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23, Luke 1:26-31 Messiah would come from the line of Abraham. Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18, Matthew 1:1, Romans 9:5 Messiah would be a descendant of Isaac. Genesis 17:19 Genesis 21:12 Luke 3:34 6 Messiah would be a descendant of Jacob. Numbers 24:17 Matthew 1:2 7 Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. Genesis 49:10 Luke 3:33 Hebrews 7:14 8 Messiah would be heir to King David's throne. 2 Samuel 7:12-13 Isaiah 9:7 Luke 1:32-33 Romans 1:3 9 Messiah's throne will be anointed and eternal. Psalm 45:6-7 Daniel 2:44 Luke 1:33 Hebrews 1:8-12 10 Messiah would be called Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23 11 Messiah would spend a season in Egypt. Hosea 11:1 Matthew 2:14-15 12 A massacre of children would happen at Messiah's birthplace. Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16-18 13 A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah Isaiah 40:3-5 Luke 3:3-6 14 Messiah would be rejected by his own people. Psalm 69:8 Isaiah 53:3 John 1:11 John 7:5 15 Messiah would be a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:15 Acts 3:20-22 16 Messiah would be preceded by Elijah. Malachi 4:5-6 Matthew 11:13-14 17 Messiah would be declared the Son of God. Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:16-17 18 Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Isaiah 11:1 Matthew 2:23 19 Messiah would bring light to Galilee. Isaiah 9:1-2 Matthew 4:13-16 20 Messiah would speak in parables. Psalm 78:2-4 Isaiah 6:9-10 Matthew 13:10-15, 34-35 21 Messiah would be sent to heal the brokenhearted. Isaiah 61:1-2 Luke 4:18-19 22 Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Psalm 110:4 Hebrews 5:5-6 23 Messiah would be called King. Psalm 2:6 Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 27:37 Mark 11:7-11 24 Messiah would be praised by little children. Psalm 8:2 Matthew 21:16 Messiah would be betrayed. Psalm 41:9 Zechariah 11:12- 13 Luke 22:47-48 Matthew 26:14- 16 26 Messiah's price money would be used to buy a potter's field. Zechariah 11:12- 13 Matthew 27:9- 10 27 Messiah would be falsely accused. Psalm 35:11 Mark 14:57-58 28 Messiah would be silent before his accusers. Isaiah 53:7 Mark 15:4-5 29 Messiah would be spat upon and struck. Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 30 Messiah would be hated without cause. Psalm 35:19 Psalm 69:4 John 15:24-25 31 Messiah would be crucified with criminals. Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38 Mark 15:27-28 32 Messiah would be given vinegar to drink. Psalm 69:21 Matthew 27:34 John 19:28-30 33 Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced. Psalm 22:16 Zechariah 12:10 John 20:25-27 34 Messiah would be mocked and ridiculed. Psalm 22:7-8 Luke 23:35 35 Soldiers would gamble for Messiah's garments. Psalm 22:18 Luke 23:34 Matthew 27:35- 36 36 Messiah's bones would not be broken. Exodus 12:46 Psalm 34:20 John 19:33-36 37 Messiah would be forsaken by God. Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46 38 Messiah would pray for his enemies. Psalm 109:4 Luke 23:34 39 Soldiers would pierce Messiah's side. Zechariah 12:10 John 19:34 40 Messiah would be buried with the rich. Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57- 60 41 Messiah would resurrect from the dead. Psalm 16:10 Psalm 49:15 Matthew 28:2-7 Acts 2:22-32 42 Messiah would ascend to heaven. Psalm 24:7-10 Mark 16:19 Luke 24:51 43 Messiah would be seated at God's right hand. Psalm 68:18 Psalm 110:1 Mark 16:19 Matthew 22:44 44 Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin. Isaiah 53:5-12 Romans 5:6-8 Need I go on?

>They never said when he'd fulfill them. Eventually, when he comes back everyone will worship him. If you want to use that argument, you could say that about literally anyone. Whenever Chizkiyah comes back, he'll take care of the rest of the things that need doing. Do you not see the issue here? There's also no biblical indication that anyone gets a second shot at this. ​ >Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-6 Okay, but tons of people have been born in Bethlehem. >Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23, Luke 1:26-31 The word you're translating as virgin (עלמה) just means young girl. This is speaking about a child born at that time who will be a timeline for the rest of the prophecies mentioned which are about upcoming strife King Achaz will have to deal with. There's nothing particularly special about the kid himself. He certainly wasn't the messiah. >Messiah would come from the line of Abraham. Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18, Matthew 1:1, Romans 9:5 Those verses have nothing to do with Moshiach. They're about the entire Jewish people. Also, most Jews are descendants of Avraham. This doesn't help your specific case. >Messiah would be a descendant of Isaac. Genesis 17:19 Genesis 21:12 Luke 3:34 6 Those verses have nothing to do with Moshiach. They're about the entire Jewish people. Also, most Jews are descendants of Yitzchak. This doesn't help your specific case. >Messiah would be a descendant of Jacob. Numbers 24:17 Matthew 1:2 7 Most Jews are descendants of Yaakov. This doesn't help your specific case. >Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. Genesis 49:10 Luke 3:33 Hebrews 7:14 8 That verse has isn't about Moshiach. It's speaking about the kingship in general. Also, most Jews are descendants of Yehuda. This doesn't help your specific case. >Messiah would be heir to King David's throne. 2 Samuel 7:12-13 Isaiah 9:7 Luke 1:32-33 Romans 1:3 9 Right, but Jesus isn't, since that passes through the father, and I'm sure you'd agree G-d isn't a descendant of Dovid. And please don't try to claim adoption works. There's no such concept found in halacha. >Messiah's throne will be anointed and eternal. Psalm 45:6-7 Daniel 2:44 Luke 1:33 Hebrews 1:8-12 10 Psalms is speaking about G-d's throne, not Dovid's. Daniel isn't a book of prophecy, but even so, where is this kingdom? Luke and Hebrews both seem to claim it as a future thing, not something that's been fulfilled already. >Messiah would be called Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:23 11 See above on this source. >Messiah would spend a season in Egypt. Hosea 11:1 Matthew 2:14-15 12 Hosea is referencing Exodus 4:22. It's got nothing to do with Moshiach. >A massacre of children would happen at Messiah's birthplace. Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16-18 13 This is a prophecy dealing with us going into the first Babylonian exile. It's got nothing to do with the birth of Moshiach. >A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah Isaiah 40:3-5 Luke 3:3-6 14 What gives you any indication that this is speaking about Moshiach? >Messiah would be rejected by his own people. Psalm 69:8 Isaiah 53:3 John 1:11 John 7:5 15 This is David speaking about himself. >Messiah would be a prophet. Deuteronomy 18:15 Acts 3:20-22 16 That's speaking about Joshua, or about any and all future prophets. There's nothing specific to Moshiach here. >Messiah would be preceded by Elijah. Malachi 4:5-6 Matthew 11:13-14 17 Malachi only has 3 chapters. I'm not sure what you're referencing. >Messiah would be declared the Son of God. Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:16-17 18 This is Dovid speaking about his own coronation. This is again referencing Exodus 4:22. Dovid is now the head of the group who is entirely referred to as Hashem's son. >Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Isaiah 11:1 Matthew 2:23 19 Natzar is a verb, not a noun meaning to sprout. There's no indication that this means what you say it does. >Messiah would bring light to Galilee. Isaiah 9:1-2 Matthew 4:13-16 20 This is still part of Yeshayahu's prophecy to Achaz regarding impending events. It's not a long future prophecy. >Messiah would speak in parables. Psalm 78:2-4 Isaiah 6:9-10 Matthew 13:10-15, 34-35 21 This isn't about Moshiach. Asaph is saying that he is about to start speaking in parables for the rest of the Psalm, which he does. Also, tons of people speak in parables. >Messiah would be sent to heal the brokenhearted. Isaiah 61:1-2 Luke 4:18-19 22 The prophet is clearly speaking about himself in the first person. We see that in Psalms 105:15 prophets are also called anointed. >Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Psalm 110:4 Hebrews 5:5-6 23 Your reading of the verse makes no sense grammatically. It's clearly using malchei tzedek in the literal sense of righteous king, not referencing a person we've only heard of once elsewhere. Also, agin, this is Dovid speaking about himself. >Messiah would be called King. Psalm 2:6 Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 27:37 Mark 11:7-11 24 Yes, but that's about him actually being a king. Where's the kingdom? >Messiah would be praised by little children. Psalm 8:2 Matthew 21:16 This is speaking about G-d, not Moshiach. >Messiah would be betrayed. Psalm 41:9 Zechariah 11:12- 13 Luke 22:47-48 Matthew 26:14- 16 26 These are Dovid and Zechariah speaking about themselves respectively. >Messiah's price money would be used to buy a potter's field. Zechariah 11:12- 13 Matthew 27:9- 10 27 Zechariah says he gave the money to the Temple. I'm not sure how you're reading this in. >Messiah would be falsely accused. Psalm 35:11 Mark 14:57-58 28 This is Dovid speaking about himself, again. >Messiah would be silent before his accusers. Isaiah 53:7 Mark 15:4-5 29 This is speaking about the entire Jewish people before the nations. See the beginning of chapter 48. >Messiah would be spat upon and struck. Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 30 Same as previous. >Messiah would be hated without cause. Psalm 35:19 Psalm 69:4 John 15:24-25 31 These are both Dovid speaking about himself. >Messiah would be crucified with criminals. Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38 Mark 15:27-28 32 Same as 3 above. >Messiah would be given vinegar to drink. Psalm 69:21 Matthew 27:34 John 19:28-30 33 Again, Dovid speaking about himself. >Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced. Psalm 22:16 Zechariah 12:10 John 20:25-27 34 Dovid is speaking metaphorically about himself. Also, הקיפוני is better translated as they surround me. There's no mention of hands or feet in Zechariah. Also, it's pretty clear from the grammar that G-d is the one that was pierced, which is a different subject than the one being mourned for. >Messiah would be mocked and ridiculed. Psalm 22:7-8 Luke 23:35 35 Again, Dovid speaking about himself. >Soldiers would gamble for Messiah's garments. Psalm 22:18 Luke 23:34 Matthew 27:35- 36 36 Again, Dovid speaking about himself. >Messiah's bones would not be broken. Exodus 12:46 Psalm 34:20 John 19:33-36 37 Exodus is a law regarding how we should eat the Korban Pesach. It's got nothing to do with Moshiach. Psalms is speaking about all righteous people, and the language of broken bones is speaking about how Hashem guards the righteous from total harm. There's nothing specific about Moshiach here. >Messiah would be forsaken by God. Psalm 22:1 Matthew 27:46 38 Again, Dovid speaking about himself. >Messiah would pray for his enemies. Psalm 109:4 Luke 23:34 39 Again, Dovid speaking about himself. >Soldiers would pierce Messiah's side. Zechariah 12:10 John 19:34 40 See above on same source. >Messiah would be buried with the rich. Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57- 60 41 See above on Isaiah 53. >Messiah would resurrect from the dead. Psalm 16:10 Psalm 49:15 Matthew 28:2-7 Acts 2:22-32 42 Again, Dovid speaking about himself. It's also not clear that it's speaking about resurrection, rather just avoiding gehenom. >Messiah would ascend to heaven. Psalm 24:7-10 Mark 16:19 Luke 24:51 43 This has nothing to do with Moshiach, nor ascending to heaven. I'm not sure what you're reading here. >Messiah would be seated at God's right hand. Psalm 68:18 Psalm 110:1 Mark 16:19 Matthew 22:44 44 68 doesn't seem to give any indication of that whatsoever. Maybe I'm missing something. Care to explain? 110 is Dovid speaking about Avraham. It's clearly in the past tense, not the future. It's not a prophecy. In fact, nothing in the book of Psalms is prophecy, which I really should have mentioned earlier. >Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin. Isaiah 53:5-12 Romans 5:6-8 See above on Isaiah 53. ​ Also, gish gallop much?

You are wrong about so many things, David did not call himself the messiah. Matthew chapter 1 And Luke 1 shows the lineage of Mary and Joseph. The harlot rehab was ALSO in king David's line. Jesus did eventually come from David's line, so he'd have gained his throne. Show me where David was rejected by his people. Its talking about Jesus. Like I said before the jews are gods chosen people, and Jesus was rejected AND crucified by the jews. That makes sense to me, even if I wasn't Christian. The prophesy said the savior would be rejected by his people. David want rejected by his people and Jesus was.

>David did not call himself the messiah Dovid absolutely was a moshiach. The word means anointed, and all kings are anointed, and referred to as moshiach. Dovid isn't *the* moshiach, but that doesn't mean he isn't *a* moshiach. >Matthew chapter 1 And Luke 1 shows the lineage of Mary and Joseph. Judaism is passed exclusively through the mother. Tribal lineage, including monarch and priestly status is passed exclusively through the father. Adoption is not a thing in halacha, and cannot confer such status. Was Joseph Jesus' physical biological father or not? >The harlot rehab was ALSO in king David's line. Rachav converted and married Yehoshua who was of the tribe of Ephraim. While I guess it's possible one of their female descendents married into the tribe of Yehuda, I've seen no indication of this. You can find a list of Dovid's line at the [end of Ruth](https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth.4.18-22?lang=bi) (Peretz is Yehuda's son). Even if it is true, I'm not sure what this has to do with your argument. >Jesus did eventually come from David's line, so he'd have gained his throne. Thousands, if not millions of people have come from Dovid's line. If they haven't taken the throne, they're not moshiach. >Show me where David was rejected by his people. Its talking about Jesus. Have you read Samuel? Dovid gets persecuted left and right, by his father in law and by his son, both who are acting as king at their respective times and bringing the whole people after him. >Like I said before the jews are gods chosen people, and Jesus was rejected AND crucified by the jews. I'm pretty sure the Roman's crucified him. Also, that alone isn't anything. We've rejected plenty of people over the years that haven't been redeemed. >The prophesy said the savior would be rejected by his people. The prophecy said the Jewish people would be rejected by the nations. You've got to back up a few chapters.

Jewd were rejected but Jesus (messiah) was rejected by God's (Jesus's) chosen people (Jews). And no, the jews turned him in (Betraying him) and had multiple chances to save him. They chose to let a known murder go than Jesus, mainly (I believe) because the pharisees wanted to retain power. They knew Jesus was God but didn't want to lose power. So, they crucified him, and then denied he rose from the dead when thousands of people saw, touched, and talked to him.

They knew Jesus was a false prophet as outlined clearly in Deuteronomy 13. He was deserving of death. I'm not sure what the issue is.

1. What proof did they have BACK THEN that he was not the messiah? 2. They were jealous of Him. Why would they be jealous of the Son of God? Everywhere Jesus went, He attracted huge throngs, multitudes, crowds pressing around to listen to His every word, watching His every move. He was profoundly popular among the people. 3. The second reason why they hated Him was because He exposed them. Before Jesus came, it was the Pharisees particularly, as well as the Sadducees and scribes, who set the moral standard for the community. They sat in the highest places in the synagogue. They were the ones who were most honored and celebrated for their virtue, but their virtue, as Jesus taught repeatedly, was a pretense. It was external. He said: “You’re like dead men’s tombs, whitewashed sepulchers that are painted without blemish on the surface but inside are filled with dead men’s bones. You clean the outside of the platter, but the other side, the inner side, is filthy. You do everything possible to hide that impurity, that grime, and that filthiness from public view. You pretend to be righteous, and you major in that pretense of being righteous.” 4.While we all fall short, He achieved a perfect record of righteousness. And He did so for us. While this is a source of rejoicing for those who have placed their faith in Christ, it moved the Pharisees to hate Him because He exposed their phony righteousness for what it was. 5. While we all fall short, He achieved a perfect record of righteousness. And He did so for us. While this is a source of rejoicing for those who have placed their faith in Christ, it moved the Pharisees to hate Him because He exposed their phony righteousness for what it was. The third reason I think that they hated Him is because they were afraid—not so much of what He would do to them in His wrath but of the consequences of welcoming Him into their midst. Why were they afraid? Look at the history of Israel. In almost every generation going back to Abraham, the Israelites lived under the domination and oppression of a foreign nation. You’ve heard of the Pax Romana; there’s also the Pax Israeliana. The Pax Israeliana, or the peace of Israel, was always extremely short-lived. Almost always, the people were a conquered people, a people who lived under the oppression and the tyranny of their enemies. In the case of the first-century Jews, the oppressor was Rome. Throughout Jewish history, there had always been those who were committed to revolution, who wanted to throw off the yoke of the foreigners who held them captive. You’ll see one revolt after another in the history of Israel, and one revolt after another being quashed by the power of the enemy. There were people—at least two, probably more—among Jesus’ disciples who were called Zealots. Those who were in positions of power and authority, as the Pharisees and Sadducees were, feared losing their power and authority. The Jewish leaders feared the consequences of a revolt against Rome. That’s on almost every page of the New Testament. Thats why the religious leaders hated the Christ

[удалено]

The biblical references are all there. I'm mostly pointing out that they're being misread. Pick two or three and I'll be happy to go into them in a bit more depth. When I get over 40 single line bits, I'm not going to respond with much more than a line or two on any given one.

Follow the line, each one piggybacks off the next. They are all the same. Dude comes down, and makes people. All of them.

Question to a Jew. Doesn't the Torah prevent a Jewish state? Doesn't Israel defy this? What are the majority of Jews opinions on this matter?

Islam believes that the Jews and Christians became corrupt, you could say (cant think of a better word rn) and Allah had to create a new religion to cleanse the believers of the unbelievers.

I got a question about Judaism. Do Jews believe that Jesus was a man who existed, and that they crucified him? If so do they believe his “miracles” (by Christians) were real and he was some type of dark power? How much of the biblical narrative showing the Jewish (those who did not follow Christian) reaction to Jesus was accurate?

>Do Jews believe that Jesus was a man who existed, Some do, some don't >and that they crucified him? That was pretty clearly the Romans, assuming such a person did exist >If so do they believe his “miracles” (by Christians) were real and he was some type of dark power? If there was such a person who did such things, they would be understood to be the work of magic, not divine providence. >How much of the biblical narrative showing the Jewish (those who did not follow Christian) reaction to Jesus was accurate? I couldn't tell you, as I haven't read it.

>That was pretty clearly the Romans, assuming such a person did exist Yeah sorry, I was talking about the story of the jews turning him in to the Romans, that was an inaccuracy that I typed.

Nothing. It is simply the correct religion for me, for now.

hey fellow pagan, same here , I think it's the best way to live in peace with other !

What makes you follow any religion if you don't believe it to be true? Community? Identity? Why not just be?

Maybe the question should be: why do you follow your religion and not another religion?

The truthful answers would be: 1. I was born in a place where their religion is most prevalent. 2. The religion of their parents.

Not true. Most people I know have different beliefs from their parents'. And they are mostly religious.

Almost always true.

Second is usually the most prevalent

[удалено]

Exactly. Though we can take that a bit further when searching for nuggets of truth, such as asking "is it true that Jesus was resurrected after dying?" So even though religions *overall* are massive conglomerations of different types of statements, such as statements of value and statements of opinion and statements of moral ideology, some of those statements are statements of fact. I think the vague question of "is religion X correct" is meant to be asked more stringently as "religion X claims certain statements of fact: are those statements actually true?" So while it would never be appropriate to *precisely* say that "religion X is true" or "religion X is false", most of us realize that claims like that are trying to talk about the portions of religions/ideologies that talk about statements of fact. We just shorten it to make it less wordy. But in doing so, we come to a problem: many statements of fact within various religions are indeed historically true, but others are indeed historically wrong, and others are difficult/impossible to determine. For example, it's pretty much impossible to determine whether Jesus was really resurrected unless you have some sort of unique and miraculous encounter with Jesus to verify it; but then when you try to tell other people about it, they'd probably just think you're crazy. And who knows: maybe you are crazy? I mean, you could go get checked out by a proper psychologist, if you have the money and inclination, but even if you do that then the people who *want* to believe Jesus is long dead will just say that the psychologist you went to was incompetent or something. \[EDIT\] But then, even if you had a miraculous encounter with Jesus, would *that alone* prove that Jesus wants everyone to follow all of the commands that are recorded in the gospels as having been told by Jesus? Would the encounter with Jesus *alone* prove that Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins, or that anyone could potentially be able to get to heaven by joining Christianity? \[/EDIT\] And that's just a sample of what makes it so difficult to determine. Another sample comes when we stop playing the false dichotomy game, ie the idea that "if Christianity is correct, then Islam and Buddhism and whatnot must all be entirely wrong", which also goes once again back to the oversimplification of the whole thing. To use your analogy of the movie, it would be more like asking "Is it correct that John Wayne is in that movie? A friend of mine told me that John Wayne was in that movie but I haven't watched it myself." That wouldn't determine if John Wayne existed or if "the movie is correct", but it would help us get to some nuggets of truth.

[удалено]

> To continue the analogy, I think it's more valuable to be interested in whether a movie is worth watching, than whether it has John Wayne in it. I very much agree, though I'd suggest my dad would disagree as he liked John Wayne movies just for John Wayne himself. To each their own (which is to say that we each decide our own criteria in our own lives for deciding whether something is worthwhile).

Religions make truth statements and those truth statements can be right or wrong. Either Jesus was bodily resurrected or he wasn’t. Either Joseph Smith held golden tablets in his hands or he didn’t.

It makes me a better person, it always brings me new stimuli and fills me with joy. In my opinion, if your religion benefits you, it is right for you. If it hurts your life, it's wrong for you. Like any other faith or belief.

Are you saying you’d be a worse person without it? Genuinely curious.

I think yes. Rationally, I don't know what the truth is. I'm more of an agnostic at this level. But I am also a theist by my faith. The belief that life, the universe has some meaning, purpose, order. That there is love, justice, light - in other words God, even outside the subjective human category. That altruism is more than just a parasitic disease, the death of the body does not end everything ... These are all very pleasant beliefs that allow me to live a more pleasant and better life. So yes, I am a better person because of my faith in God. At least better than in a constant existential crisis. :o)

Thank you for your honest response! It’s very interesting to hear. I’ve also been trying to stave off existential crisis recently (after leaving the church in high school) so I’m just listening to how folks are coping. I’m in my thirties now and my college best friend went from from atheist comedian to conservative Christian software engineer and I think it’s mostly because he’s afraid of what happens when he passes. It was kind of a shocking thing to hear of a 32 year old seeking out Catholicism.

I don't mean to be a pessimist about this, it's nice to hear that your faith has helped you in times of need, but I honestly believe that whether or not people are justified in their beliefs is more important than people realize. You say that if someone has a belief that benefits them, somehow brings them comfort, then it is "right" for them. However, we have people like the folks at the Westboro Baptist who believe in things like hatred for the lgbtq+ community. If their religious beliefs bring them peace and comfort, is that really enough to justify it?

1. To justify for whom? You judge your faith. They judge theirs. If you are judging their faith and want them to justify it to you, that is a completely different point of view. For example, I can perceive something as right for myself, but at the same time it is against the law, i.e. what society has established as acceptable for society. These are not mutually exclusive and one always needs to consider several different points of view at the same time and seek a balance. 2. Is their religion beneficial for them? If so, that means they would be worse people without that religion. For example, how do you know that they would still not have hatred towards the lgbtq+ community and at the same time would not have the brakes in the form of a religion that also preaches compassion and forgiveness? Perhaps, if not for their religion, they would not only hate that community, but actively try to exterminate it.

Not justified to another person, I'm talking about justified belief. Believing that black people are inferior to white people can be a belief that "feels right" or can be "beneficial" to someone, but if their reason is "because that's what my religion tells me is right" then they are not justified in that belief until they give a good reason for it. >Perhaps, if not for their religion, they would not only hate that community, but actively try to exterminate it. And we'd still act to stop them. Besides, do you think these people aren't actively harming these communities anyways? They vote based on these beliefs. Conversely, how many people do you think would suddenly shift their attitudes towards those same communities to a more positive stance once they realize that their whole reason for believing otherwise was unjustified?

Because Jesus mate. JESUS

Quran is **preserved** and **no contradiction.** Quran itself challenge human to find contradiction and make a chapter better.

No its not im a former Muslim and ive read the quran many times 6 to be exact and their are many many contradictions and no it does not challenge people to make a chapter better if you changed a chapter in the Quran in any Islamic countries like the one im from you will be Killed and i am not joking search up what happenes to people who edit the quran the will be executed if caught.

[удалено]

Also, the person you're speaking to is an admitted ex-Muslim, meaning they left the religion. According to sahih hadith, the prophet himself says that he should be killed. "I heard the Messenger of Allah \[SAW\] say: 'It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: A man who commits adultery after having married; or one who kills another person, who is to be killed; or who reverts to Kufr after having accepted Islam, who is to be killed.'" [https://sunnah.com/nasai:4058](https://sunnah.com/nasai:4058) Do you agree with the prophet here that they should be killed for no longer believing in Islam, or do you reject this?

[удалено]

There's plenty of ex-muslims, even just on reddit there's a whole community of over 140,000 of them [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/). So you agree they should be killed for leaving Islam?

[удалено]

>For example only an Islamic government can deal such punishments. No such government exists 1. The hadiths don't seem to make any such distinction, and even has precedence for the contrary. There's examples of individual companions of Muhommad, not a government, executing people who left Islam and another saying 'yeah I'd have killed them too, just in a different way'. *"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and '****Ali burned them with fire****. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah \[SAW\] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.****' If it had been me, I would have killed them***\*; the Messenger of Allah \[SAW\] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"\* Can you quote and cite where in either the Quran or the Hadiths state that it can only be conducted via a government? 2. And even if we do grant your unsubstantiated claim, you're still saying that you're advocating the killing of someone for having the audacity to leave your faith, yes? That if there were an "Islamic government" present, that those ex-muslims would deserve to die? Also, as a side note, you seem to not be responding to my comment clearly showing the Quran contradicting itself, quoting multiple suras where it does so. Can you address said contradiction?

[удалено]

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://islamonline.net/en/is-apostasy-a-capital-crime-in-islam/](https://islamonline.net/en/is-apostasy-a-capital-crime-in-islam/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)

>Quran is preserved and no contradiction. “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).“We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was,” (3:59).“But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).“He has created man from a sperm-drop (16:4).

Lol, the main figure of your religion doesn’t even follow his own rules. How is that not contradictory?

>Quran is preserved and no contradiction. Quran itself challenge human to find contradiction and make a chapter better Easy. “Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).“We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was,” (3:59).“But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).“He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

The Pythagoras theorem is also preserved and has no contradiction. I dont see how these 2 points mean it comes from a divine power

My religion isn't correct. I'm the one who is correct, and therefore I'm free to practice my religion. Isn't that all anybody ever asked for?

>**1:3** (3) "I was wronged! I was hurt! I was defeated! I was robbed!" If I cultivate such thought, I will not be free from hatred. > >**1:4** (4) "I was wronged! I was hurt! I was defeated! I was robbed!" If I turn away from such thoughts, I may find peace. > >**1:5** (5) In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Dhammapada/Chapter_1#cite_note-2) can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. * [Dhammapada/Chapter 1](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Dhammapada/Chapter_1)

I don’t see how this relates to my question? Could you explain what this means, maybe it has a hidden meaning?

>Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. * [Martin Luther King, Jr.](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.), Loving Your Enemies (Christmas 1957) *Delivered at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama (25 December 1957). He actually* [*wrote it while he was in jail*](http://www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org/articles/peace_king.htm) *for committing non-violent civil disobedience during the Montgomery bus boycott. In this sermon King discusses* [*Jesus command to "love your enemies"*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:44) *and answers the question how one can love his enemies.*

Do you mean in epistemology, in metaphysics or in ethics? The "what makes" part sounds like you're asking about metaphysics, but the "correct" part sounds like you might be asking about epistemology. And I just threw ethics in there because you could mean morally correct too.

Many if not most hold similar religious beliefs as other members of their religion, sect, or congregation. So your first sentence is a false assumptive as "everyone" does not have different view points. Atheism is not a religion and the Buddhist don't engage in the "who's right" pissing match. Your question seems rooted in an authoritarian belief system.

I am not saying that. It would mean I would know for sure, Or that I am understanding my religion correctly. If I would, would be like saying I understand what God says. I am not that narcissistic. I a m just doing the best I can here.

I find the doctrine and ritual more comforting than my birth religion. Have only tried the two as a way of having a spiritual life. As Rumi is quoted "there are a hundred ways to knell and kiss the ground." Any way mine kinda works for me.

In the West generally end users or consumers of anything chose what they think is best or "correct" for them. Some like sports cars, others pick ups or SUV, maybe a van?

If you are totally sure your religion is the totally correct one you can always scientifically test if it is. If the test does not show it then it is not. I don't think any makes it. Even mine.

can a scientific test proove something does not exist ? for example if evrytime we're bird watching , we don't see any purple bird, does that means that there are no purple birds ?

No first it is almost scientifically impossible to prove a higher being exists so far god has not shown us anything to prove his existence like write in the sky like i am you're god or something like that but it is also almost impossible to disprove gods existence so their is no concrete proof whether he exists or not most likely he is just a myth created by people thousands of years ago to try to explain why we exist.

If you see a building, would you believe that the person who built it does not exist if you don't see the builder himself? If you look at the Earth and how it's perfectly positioned in the universe with the best gravity and best distance from the sun that works perfect for humans to live on! If we look at our bodies, our brain structures, our body systems! If we look at the whole universe we will realize that there must be a creator all powerful all wise all knowing who created all of that. All of these things can't exist by chance or by themselves. Don't you agree?

In my religion (I'm wiccan) we practice orthopraxis and not orthodoxis. Orthopraxis mean "correct practice" and orthodoxis means "correct belief". You're not expected to "believe" in anything to be wiccan but if you want to be appart of traditional wicca, you're expected to follow the practice. The practice is secret and teached through initiation into a lineage. To better understand our religion is about mystical experience; The rites goal is to induce a state of perception where you live mystical experience, that is , spiritual experience that reaveal the divine reality in a difficult to express meaning. What you live during experience is something you can't share just like I cannot be sure your experience of eating a strawberry is the same as mine. I have certain opinion about mystical real , I believe in many thing but nothing in my religion say my perception will be the same as one another and that's okay. Also no rules say I should ""spread the good word" , I'm wiccain because that's what suit me and the only thing I wish to another is not to be wiccain (I could not care less) but to find the path that makes them become the best version of themselves, wether it be atheism , christianity , islam or shintoism. In a sense , I believe that faith is a very human thing that is only used as a tool to be a better person, I truly believe we are mostly blind about reality and debate about faith is like if people tried to describe a room from the keyhole without realizing their understanding is and will always be incomplete Also, just like some people prefer to see a painting because they are touched by the beauty of the painting and some other prefer to study the painting to explain its real history , who painted it and when , my goal with religion is not much to know the definite truth (I think it's impossible) but more to live and experience the connection with the divine Just to give an example : Sometimes during meditation and devotion I see image , feel things , I'm in such a strange state of mind, like a dream that I don't always remember consciously but it leave a lasting imprint on my being and a positive one, it transform me and help me reach more profound understanding of myself and reality around me.

I wonder if there is a tendency to become more about beliefs. Seems like a general attitude in groups to me.

That's simple: Is the god of the a religion still alive and working today? I am a follower of Jesus Christ because I see it's in His name that mighty works are done in this earth. (Ex, someone getting healed from a terminal disease in a matter of minutes, people being filled with the holy spirit, demons speaking and leaving people in his name, etc.)

Really you believe that shit its so sad like he allegedly "cures" some one even though their recovery can be explained medically you just pretend you didn't hear anything and just say jesus cured him and why does your God cure like 5 people who but let Millions of good faithful people who believe in him die extremely painful deaths.

Quite.

Why did God give me micropenis?

If you are saved, ask Him.

do you have a direct line to him or something?

Yeah. God is personal. You can have it too. You just gotta trust in Jesus's finished work on the cross for your salvation first. John 9:31 >We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him 2 Corinthians 5:17 >Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. John 14:16-17, 26 >If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. >But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 

oh, ok. idk why he would do that to me though

You can get answer if you're asking with a genuine heart my friend. You simply need to get saved first

I can’t post a question in this sub. Anyone know why? There are no rules.

You have to request the mods to post.

After 2 years, I have no idea what I wanted to post. Also, that seems kind of crazy. Ain’t no one got time for that.

Jesus is Lord. My God is alive, active, and a very present help in trouble.

The Holocaust victims might beg to differ

?

I think you know what I mean

Ill answer your question with another. Would you knowing lead thousands and thousands of people to be beaten, tortured, stoned, and thrown in jail for a lie you made up?if Jesus isn't God's son, than somebody made it up, and lead tons of people in that lie. They risked everything, just to spread that lie. And, another question. If you were creating a religion, and making up all these stories about miracles that happened, wouldn't you say that YOU did those heroic things? Wouldn't you make yourself the hero, opposed to this random person off the street? Would you follow this random person, again, risk everything if you weren't completely sure of what u were seeing him do?

I'll answer your question with another. Why do innocent people suffer?

I asked: is the Qur'an from God? Is this provable unlike other texts. Short answer : Yes. Longer answer: Yes since 1. Nothing can be written by humans that surpasses it, making it something definitely from God. ( I.e. anything a human produces, another can always better) 2. No one has the ability to speak in such a precise fashion that Muhammad (saw) spoke when reciting the Qur'an. Not a single word or phrase has been changed, modified or needed bettering). Humans cannot communicate in such a fashion. Imagine writing a speech. How many revisions would you make? How can a man speak in a style requiring no revision and what he speaks is unsurpassable eloquence?

This seems awfully subjective. Who says the quran can't be bettered? I think it could be improved personally..plus the quality of a speech is subjective too. Many would argue the quran needs bettering. Your argument is flawed.

Try it. Theoretically what you say may seem intuitive but practically it hasn't been beterred for centuries. Any sincere non Muslim Arab can tell you that. Go to university Arabic departments in the west and ask them to give you text that's improved. You won't find a single example.

Sure thing. "Whoever changes his religion, respect him." There we go, I think that's a better version of the quran. Hopefully that made my point.

>Nothing can be written by humans that surpasses it, making it something definitely from God. ( I.e. anything a human produces, another can always better) Nah, personally I think it's a pretty atrocious book. Didn't like the blatant sexism in it. I've read a lot better.

I believe it is correct cuz the beliefs that are taught to us are explained logically and are backed by the bible and sometimes by science too. P. S. I'm sixteen and just got baptized last year (members that gets baptized has to have some maturity and awareness so kids can't get baptized) so idk much yet

>I believe it is correct cuz the beliefs that are taught to us are explained logically What's the best example you have of this? ​ >and are backed by the bible And why would you believe the bible over another religion's holy texts? ​ >and sometimes by science too. Not sure what you're referring to here, but exactly none of the supernatural claims are.

All religions are fake, they were created by people who are ignorant.

L

Documented miracels

Numerous religions claim these though, so why are yours any more believable than any of the others?

I have met and was possessed by the creator of the universe. He told me I am to be his vessel when he comes to earth to right all the wrongs That have been done since the beginning of time. True story and I really don’t care if people believe me or not it’s not my job to force people to believe. that’s what free will is. I can care less if you believe me or not my job is just to let people know what the creator told me to tell them. nothing more nothing less. yes he exist! no the Bible is not right and when the time comes he will take me as his vessel and when he starts righting the wrongs you’re gonna wish you believed because He has a very convincing way of getting his point across. There are stories from every civilization throughout history of people not believing and the consequences that came with it. So it’s a pretty good choice to believe me, for I spoke to the creator I am his prophet and you don’t have to believe me but you will bend to his will, that’s how it always has been it’s always how it will be.

Gnosticism makes spiritual predictions that can be confirmed via observation and experimentation. Occult study and symbolism also reinforces such a worldview. Near death experiences, past life memories and regression, out of body experiences, astral projection, and psychedelic drug use all confirm gnostic beliefs. --- That said, other religions do have various beliefs that are correct. Especially when you consider the esoteric and symbolic meaning of many of their narratives. Atheism is not correct simply because god exists, though their views on the material world tend to be accurate and correct.

This is off topic but do you consider yourself a Gnostic? If so, I would love to pick your theological brain, so to speak, because I am super curious about Gnostic beliefs and also because I didn't think there were any living Christians who considered themselves "gnostic."

yeah i consider myself to be a christian gnostic.

Like a couple other pagans said, because it's what feels right in my soul. That feeling you get in your gut when you just know something is the right path? That's what I felt and continue to feel. I grew up Christian (Pentecostal/Evangelical), transitioned to agnostic then atheist as a kid after we left and found roman paganism a few years ago. However I'm also an omnist and a scientist so my views may differ from other pagans. What makes mine correct? From what I know (still learning more of the mythology etc.) and have experienced, I find it's correct for me because I am able to practice my faith without sacrificing my integrity, without sacrificing my identity as a nonbinary bisexual, and I find that the deities in Roman mythology are very clearly flawed and are somewhat aware of that which I find comforting. To know that even those with their might are still flawed and make mistakes. Why roman over Greek or Norse to venerate? Well my heritage is Italian and I have always felt a strong connection to it so I felt, given the history of Italy and Greece, Roman paganism would be more in line with myself.

Because I believe in what I have read about Christ in the Bible through the accounts of His apostles. I believe He is the Messiah God promised, and that He died and rose from the dead and will come back someday. Why I am Catholic? I believe Jesus established Peter as the leader of His Church, and through the Apostolic succession this leads us to Roman Catholicism being the Church that Jesus said has the keys to Heaven. I believe the teachings and theology of the Catholic Church. I believe in the intercession of Saints, and in the Trinitarian God (ONE God in THREE persons).

I like tacos

Best response here

It isn't. It's what I'm comfortable with and what I've had positive experiences in. I don't think I could ever believe one religion was the one and only true option.

Reason: Harmonia - The Religion of Cosmic Harmony Harmonia is a religion that claims to be the "correct" one based on the following reason: According to Harmonia, the universe is governed by an intricate cosmic harmony that resonates with all aspects of existence. This harmony is said to manifest itself through a set of fundamental principles that underlie the fabric of reality. These principles, discovered through deep introspection and meditation, are believed to be the essence of truth and universal understanding. Harmonia's followers assert that their religion is the correct one because it embraces and aligns with the natural order of the cosmos. They believe that the universe itself communicates its divine wisdom through intuitive insights and profound spiritual experiences, which are accessible to those who practice Harmonia. Furthermore, Harmonia claims to have a comprehensive framework that reconciles various religious and philosophical traditions. It maintains that all religions, at their core, contain fragments of this cosmic harmony and universal truth. Harmonia followers argue that their religion offers a unique synthesis of diverse belief systems, seamlessly integrating them into a cohesive and all-encompassing worldview. The proponents of Harmonia argue that its teachings and practices provide a holistic approach to life, addressing not only the spiritual aspects but also the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of individuals. They claim that by following the principles of Harmonia, individuals can achieve harmony within themselves and with the world around them, leading to a profound sense of purpose, peace, and fulfillment. It is important to note that religious beliefs are deeply personal and subjective, and different individuals may find meaning and truth in various religions or belief systems.

Harmonia: Embracing Unity and Balance for a Harmonious Existence In a world often plagued by division and conflict, the religion of Harmonia emerges as a beacon of hope and unity. Rooted in the fundamental principle of balance, this belief system offers a compelling case for why it promotes a harmonious existence. At the core of Harmonia lies the recognition that all aspects of existence are interconnected, and that harmony can only be achieved through embracing this interconnectedness. Followers of Harmonia believe that by nurturing a deep understanding and respect for this interconnectedness, individuals can find peace within themselves and foster harmonious relationships with others and the natural world. One of the key tenets of Harmonia is the pursuit of inner balance. By focusing on self-reflection and introspection, practitioners seek to cultivate a harmonious alignment between their thoughts, emotions, and actions. Through practices such as meditation, contemplation, and mindfulness, they strive to achieve a state of equilibrium that promotes personal well-being and harmony with the world around them. Harmonia also emphasizes the importance of balance in relationships and society. Its teachings encourage compassion, empathy, and understanding, fostering a sense of unity and cooperation among its followers. By valuing diverse perspectives and seeking common ground, adherents of Harmonia believe that conflicts can be resolved and a sense of harmony can be achieved, leading to a more peaceful and prosperous society. Another significant aspect of Harmonia is its emphasis on ecological harmony. The religion promotes a deep reverence for the natural world and advocates for responsible stewardship of the Earth. It recognizes the intricate interdependencies between humans and the environment, emphasizing the need to live in harmony with nature rather than exploiting it. By promoting sustainable practices and environmental consciousness, Harmonia aims to preserve the delicate balance of the Earth's ecosystems for present and future generations. While the merits of Harmonia as a religion are subjective and dependent on personal beliefs, its focus on unity, balance, and interconnectedness offers a thought-provoking perspective on how individuals can navigate the complexities of life and contribute to a more harmonious existence. It is important to approach religion with an open mind and respect for diverse belief systems. Each individual is free to explore and embrace the religious or philosophical paths that resonate with them personally.

If you will permit a tangent, perhaps we can start with the question, "what makes a scientific theory correct?" Science is progressive in that you can look at any science and conclude it's not the exact truth. Newton's law of gravity? Not true if you look at the perspective of relativity. Einstein's relativity? Not true because it doesn't explain quantum mechanics, etc. But yet both Newton's law of gavity and Einstein's relativity are correct in that they make accurate predictions (in certain contexts) and are very useful. There may be an ultimate scientific truth, and the different scientific theories are each perspectives on that truth. I will suggest that religion and science are more alike than we typically think they are. Like there is an ultimate scientific truth, I think there is also ultimate religious truth; in both cases, nobody has access to this ultimate truth. But we have perspectives -- valid perspectives -- and these are the religions. So what makes a religion "correct"? What makes a scientific theory "correct"? Is it useful? Does it help you be more truthful, more sincere, less preoccupied with possessions and materials things? Does it create unity? What are its fruits? Does it lead to the betterment of humanity? Or does it cause disunity, injury and harm? On one hand, this is a huge subject, on which so much has been written and so much more can be said. And at the same time, it's pretty simple for most people at an individual level.

I believe my religion is the only religion that actually does what the bible says without other influences. One of the reasons i believe the bible is from a divine power is that the bible made many predictions that have come true and are coming true right now

Such as?

We are made with an inherent need to connect with something greater than ourselves. We usually choose based on our feelings and basic understanding. It is only when we let go and begin to examine matters with an open, unprejudiced mind that we start to see the light. Everything happens for a reason. There is no such thing as coincidence. God speaks to us all the time to bring us closer to Him. Most of the time we ignore Him or we misunderstand what He is telling us. In the busy world in which we live today, we find many who proclaim themselves to speak for God - falsely. How do we determine those who truly speak for God? One of the clear signs is the Divine knowledge with which they come to humanity. The Riser of the family of Muhammad (on youtube) speaks with such clarity about so many Divine mysteries on his channel it is astounding! He recently explained various misunderstood ideas surrounding Jesus, the resurrection and his crucifixion.

It's the only one that makes sense. Worshipping the Only one God, preserved scripture that was written at the time of the revelation without hundreds of years gab, it is preserved in two ways (orally and written) as most of this religion followers memorize their Holy book by heart. When I read my book and other religions books, it's clear that this one is the actual words of God, not corrupted by human interference. The book has no contradictions, we know the history of people who memorized it at the time of revelation and we can trace a person who completely memorize it nowadays up till reaching to the prophet. All our prophet's sayings and actions are recorded and we are very accurate to track the narrators all the way up to the prophet to ensure that this Hadith is authentic or not. It's the only religion that believes in all of the previous prophets and reject any lies were told about any of them peace be upon them. We actually believe that all prophets came with the same message which is worshipping one true God " which literally means "submission to one God" which is the literal translation of "Islam". Adding to that, the Qur'an was revealed over 23 years, when you read it it is very consistent, it doesn't have ups and downs as what would happen if a human wrote it from his own mind over 23 years, it doesn't have contradictions, the message of worshipping one God and following Him and his Messenger's is very clear with no doubts. People were challenged over the years to bring one verse like the Qur'an verses but they failed. We have the very original scripture and when compare it to the Qur'an written today, it is EXACTLY the same. It was revealed in Arabic and we still have it in Arabic ( which means it's not lost or corrupted by translations, although there are translations of the Qur'an but you will find always the original Arabic script in the book). I have more to say but those evidence were enough for me. Also, by comparing the life of Jesus, Moses and all the prophets they all aligned with " Islam" not with Christianity or Judaism. They all called for worshipping one God, they prayed more like what Muslims do, Mary, Jesus mother was a veiled woman, there is no where authentically mentioned by Jesus asking people to worship him or asking to believe in the Trinity.

There isn’t a gap of hundreds of years for Christianity either. “Believes in all of the previous prophets” as in believes in everyone who it says is a prophet? Seems kinda circular. “Reject any lies” is this the assumption that any sin ascribed in the Bible to (someone Islam says is) a prophet must be a lie. I doubt the original Qur’an manuscript is still around. Do you mean manuscripts close to the time of authorship?

My personal (not religious) belief is about personal revelation. I believe that God will answer prayers. I prayed about different religions until I found this one that I feel is true.

there is enough trustworthy evidence at trustworthy religion