Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Neo, I gotta say your point amounts to rationalization, not justification. Again we come to nothing more than internal reference. I'll point out as well that the passage you quote amounts to saying explicitly that the Abrahamic proposition is intended for only those gullible enough to fall for it.

Well, the history and archaeology with which I am familiar holds that following its destruction in 689BCE, Babylon was rebuilt, achieving it greates size, glory and splendor during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, 605 to 538 BCE. It remained a thriving metropolis and center of influence though 330 BCE, at which time Alexander the Great captured the then-still-magnificent-rich-and-powerful city (along with considerable treasure among which was enumerated and accounted gold, silver, jewels, incense, perfumes, precious woods, abd assorted works of art) intending to make it the capital of his empire.

However, following Alexander's death not long thereafter, among things associated with the matter of contesting his succession was the founding of the city of Seleucia, and the establishment there of the captial of the eponymous Seleucid Empire. With transfer of administrative and key commercial functions to Seleucia, Babylon's population and fortunes withered in favor of the new capital, and as time passed, other factors further reduced the status of the city, but the city remained inhabited for nearly another millenium, finally being abandonded in the 7th century of the current era. I don't see any corroboration of Isaiah there.

Well, moron, he also could have not put them in the position he did....or he could have simply forgiven them for a fairly benign act....or he could have forgiven them because they did not even know there was such a thing as disobedience....and they did not know the difference between good and evil. Or he could have punished them and not the entire goddam rest of mankind.

Neo, I'm afraid that's too much of a stretch to convince me ... barely qualiies as coincidence in my book. Sure, wait long enough, and damned near any city will fade, any empire will fall, any tyrant will die. On some days it will rain in some places, and on other days it will rain in other places. Some years will be warmer, some cooler. Some foplks will have good fortune, others won't. None of that is proof of anything other than that life gores on, regardless whether, by whom, in what fashion, or even if at all, any of it was predicted. There is no demonstrable causal connection relating such events to "prophecies" of their occurrence.

I really am amazed at the lengths folks - not just religionists - will go to assert that this that or another "prophecy has been fulfilled" by this, that, or the other event or circumstance. There are plenty of "Prohecies" that have not proved out, period - the world, for instance, has not once ended on the prophesied date, despite the many prophecies specifically setting the calendar for the event.

An occasional coincidence proves nothing, and stretching tto portray unrelated or even unverified events or circumstances as combining in some wierd way to "prove" a prophecy is just plain silly.

"Adam and Eve were created as perfect moral agents. Their perfect consciences prevented them from stealing, for example, or committing any other sins that may have come into their minds."

In other words, they didn't have "free will."

"Their eating of the fruit was more than just a dietary indiscretion." This must be the understatement of all time

I personally believe we are living in the time of God's judgement. That being said, I am well aware of the countless dates proffered in the past by well meaning believers (and not a few charlatans). When suffering, as many do, it is tempting to forget that Jesus himself did not know when that time would come.