Christianity is the one true religion

Morality can stem from many beliefs. For religion to claim exclusiveness to morality is a false idea, not that morality cannot come from religion, but that it can come from other sources as well. Unless of course you think that the only morality worth following is from the bible. Then of course we must deal with all the morally counterproductive claims and laws, examples, and the declaration of things that we would be considered immoral today. Which tells us at least one thing for sure, that the words spoken then were not for today, so then one must come to the notion of feeling responsible for deciding which rules to follow. Your example of the parents and the child is lacking possibilities. Yet by default you claim that it is the devil or Satan that did it, which is another assumption that cannot be proved, I have just as much proof that god did it. Either way god must at least allow it, which makes him responsible. Your burden of proof is impossible to prove physically. Which Christian documents are true? Which parts, is it all true or just parts? What about the resurrection, is that part true? How do you know? There are speculations over the writings of early fathers and Tacitus, which is fine either way only because if there was or was not a man named Jesus killed by Pilate, it proves nothing for the greatest announcement of a resurrection! In regards to Tacitus: Pilate was a prefect " not a procurator as in the "Tacitus" quote " as a famous block of limestone, which was found at Caesarea in 1961 stated. Richard Carrier says this about Thallus and his writings: " We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems. Scholars since the 18th century have even invented facts about him, and some of these groundless notions--like the idea that he was a Samaritan--are repeated even today. Claims are also made, mainly but not exclusively by modern Christian apologists, which make Thallus into the earliest literary witness to the gospel tradition." Also: "The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology." http://infidels.org... Pliny the elder: Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. "It's worth noting that unlike the 247 letters Pliny himself prepared for publication (so-called books 1-9), book 10, which contains the celebrated letters "96" and "97", was published posthumously and anonymously. "It is surprising," says Betty Radice (translator of the Penguin edition), "that no more letters were to be found in the imperial files or among Pliny's personal papers to add to this record of the relations between one of the best of Rome's Emperors and his devoted servant." http://www.jesusneverexisted.com... Why would so many people die for a lie? Has there ever been a time where large amounts of people died for their beliefs? Yes the Muslims in the conquests. Does this mean that Islam is the one true religion? The myth aspect is not the point, the point is the truth behind the resurrection, which you already know is the focus I am aiming at. Truth in the raising of the dead and the ascension into heaven. So I will not follow the myth card, I am not interested. It is more of a red herring, just because a man named Jesus lived among potentially many named Jesus does not prove the resurrection, in fact all the writings in history do not prove the resurrection, and you know it. The point here again is not to prove the beginning of the universe or who or what, it is about whether Christianity is the one true religion. Grasping the power of god is like trying to grasp the power of Zeus. It would make no difference unless we knew what we were looking at. With or without a god is a misnomer, rather with or with out religion, specifically Christianity. As for Richard Dawkins, he is just one man like anyone else, yes smart, but not without the same limitations as anyone else has to see the evidence for or against any possibility. Again it does not matter monkeys or not, it is a diversion from the point of the debate. You say you don't care, but you have chosen Christianity for all these reasons and when it is boiled down, the evidence is wanting and not clear, therefore it is only by faith that you can accept the great claims of any religion, let alone Christianity. So even if we are on level playing field as for evidence, for and against any possibilities, this only proves that we cannot know for sure and therefore, Christianity is as much the one true religion as any other. I want to thank the PRO for a rather interesting debate. I am however certain that the PRO has no good argument for Christianity being the one true religion among the many and has offered and cannot offer proof of the bibles validity (dates, authors, mistakes, historically, geographically,). The PRO cannot give any evidence for the resurrection other than faith, which is to claim that you know something you do not know. To set up a whole belief system on things we cannot know for sure is faulty. The PRO may throw at me the Atheist stigma of doing the same, yet I am not making claims of the origins of life here or the origins of the universe, I am merely stating that I will believe what I can come to understand, life is full of things we might believe without actually knowing or observing physically, and with those things we can speculate, but to set up a whole world view on something we don't know, seems counter productive to whatever reality is. I will ask that the PRO does not introduce any new arguments in the next round, because I will not and cannot respond, but to respond with only that in which is on the table at this point. Thank you.