Christianity is probably the one true religion.

Well we are already at round 4, and Con has simply just repeated what he said earlier. It's funny how he wants me to be "objective" yet, he isn't objective about the evidence I gave, because he didn't even bother refuting the poins I brought up.Con said "all religions are considered to be history and a lot have historians that support their claims being almost every religious person in their country."My response: This is false at its root. Most of the so called "religions" of this world, the creator/founder of the religion never said that their story is historical, sometimes, even the religion doesn't claim to be based off of a person who actually lived in history.Con said "christianity is the word of men just like every other religion. and the conscience does consists of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth and that has been proven shouldnt a religion be based on something more objective?"My response: Which yet again, begs the question. This statement assumes that all religions are man-made, it also assumes that no God exists, then with that assumption in mind, you go back and read every religious text with that viewpoint in mind. And secondly, I already addressed the second objection of supposed indoctrination. Maybe if you bothered reading what I say instead of just being so stubborn, I already told you, I don't believe what my parents taught me was true, I am not a Christian because of someting my parents taught me, I am a Christian for something that I taught myself, big difference. Con said " is your religion based on anything objective morally?"My response: This again demonstrates that my opponent does not want to hear what I have to say, he just ignores what I say and insists on continuing to ask the same questions over and over again like a parrot in spite of me already addressing his questions. I already told you, I don't believe in Christianity because of blind faith, I believe in Christianity because of the evidence for the Resurrection, which you have not yet refuted, you just attacked the Bible and arrogantly thought you refuted my position, which yu didn't. Classical case of being delusional.Con said "well how fair is it that in the story of noah, or adam and eve or so many other stories where god punishes children for the sins of their parents or ancestors?"My response: Con has misrepresented the Christian position. We do not believe, nor do the scriptures teach that we get punished for sins that we didn't commit. This is the basics of Christian doctrine, yet my opponent has demonstrated that he does not know what he is talking about. The Christian position on original sin started with Adam and Eve. God made a covenant with Adam and Eve. So they had a choice to obey or disobey God. Then Satan deceived them into disobeying God, which resulted in the fall of man. Because of Adam's sin against God sin entered into the world and everyone born from two parents would suffer the effects of sin. But the ultimate thing to remember is we aren't forced by God to sin, we chose to sin. When I sin for example, I do it not because God forced me to, but because I chose to. That is why God punishes us, and that is exactly why we need a Savior to save us from the wrath of God.Con said "but the bible claims god is perfect while he has treated us so unfairly by not teaching us right from wrong and causing our unfair behavior and letting other people be subjected to unfair cruel and detrimental rules and treatments because of the other religions of mans law which he apparently supports because these are laws of an extremely unfair and cruel god who is anything but just"My response: God never choses to punish someone unless they deserve it. God does not just sit around thinking "ah yes, I am going to punish innocent people", that is not how it works. God's justice in the Bible shows how patient he is to people who sin. For example, God in his decision to completely wipe out the Cannanites in the Old Testament was 100% justified. God patiently waited and watched as the Cannanites commited all sorts of grave sins, all while not repenting, and every generation for 400 years continued commiting the sins of their fathers. There is a limit to how much sin God can put up with. Once you reach that limit, God has no choice but to wipe you out. This is a strong demonstration of God's patience and his mercy. All they had to do was repent of their sins and God would forgive them, yet they continued in their sins for 400 years, after which God got fed up with giving them more chances, so he wiped them out. Proof of this is Genesis 15, read it and God has a conversation with Abraham about this. I sincerely ask you if you want answers to your objections, read my responses.Con said "and to be perfect he must be perfectly just." My response: Con didn't even realize that he just contradicted himself. He first said "well it's unfair for God to punish people" then he said "God must be perfectly just". Well punishing people for sins they CHOSE to do (not forced to do) is perfectly just. Sure, God not punishing sin is merciful, but that's not just. If God requires all sins no matter how small to be punished, that is perfect justice, as nothing gets swept under the rug.Con said "science says they are lies proving that is the case"My response: Saying that science somehow "disproves" religion is one of the biggest deceptions of atheists. Do you know that atheists weren't the first ones to formulate to study of science, it was the Christians. Atheists might despise what Christians believe, but science started with Christians, not the atheists. All the biggest names in the world of science like Copernicus, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Kepler, and Pascal were all devout Christians. Galilieo even believed that his theories fit with the Bible, and wrote a book arguing this.Con said " the gospels werent written until forty years after jesus supposedly died making it unlikely that they were written by first hand account but even if they were who says they are telling the truth?"My response: Which again assumes that is what took place, namely, that the earliest Gospel was written 40 years later. You can't even argue that is the case. Most NT scholars agree that it is hard to pinpoint the exact dates of the writings of the Gospels. Besides placing them in the 1st century, NT scholars agree that the arbitrary dates put forth for the Gospels are really just arbitrary. Different arguments are offered for earlier/later dates, but we really don't know the exact dates of them being written aside from the 1st century. Who says they are telling the truth? How about this...who says they are not? How do I know what you're telling me is true? How do I know science indisputably proves religion false? Unless you can disprove the accounts in the Gospels, then you aren't in a position to say "well they might be lying".Con said "you have failed to give a good reason to believe in the christian religion that cant be used as a reason to"My response: What debate are you participating in? My argument fro Christianity was never "blind faith" or "just believe what you are told". I clearly said that I beleive in Christianity because of the evidence for the Resurrection. I gave the outline of a basic case for the Resurrection and the evidences supporting my contentions. You on the other hand didn't even bother to respond to anything I said. All you have been doing so far is rambling on about a bunch of different topics, all the while ignoring the topic at hand. You are committing red herrings left and right.Rather than me "failing to give good reason to believe in Christianity" it is you who has failed to give me good reasons to become an Atheist. Disproving Christianity doesn't prove Atheism, so stop assuming that. Saying "all religions are the same" doesn't prove atheism. It is time for you to start the debate once again. Because so far you have miserably failed to give evidence for your position.