The game can be defined as playing games of chance: unproductive Wii, patience, playing for money or playing with a theistic or atheistic lifestyle. Everything is a gamble, especially the game of life; however, a correct assessment of the points raised in the argument from theism and atheism will still be the endless debate and will lead to a better world, removing the barrier to a worry-free game of life.
Many avoid games as bad; for another, it’s just a fun-filled enterprise. The point, however, is not to value one point of view over another, but to rationalize the view of the offense: the offense cannot be in the real definition of motivation for action, but in the motivation of action. Would gambling harm other people, or would banning gambling harm others? The absence of pro-game or anti-game factions in the presence of the other would hardly constitute an offense or injury!
In everyday activity, we engage in a predisposition to chance, in acts that are not normally considered games of chance. Fate has a lot to do with our religious inclinations. In any of the three branches of metaphysics, Judaism, Christianity or Islam, we ask: which offers the greatest chance of generating benefits dominoqq? Or, still, if someone chooses one of the numerous sects or denominations under each branch, under which the odds are greater to achieve a favorable result?
There is a big difference in choice, each at odds with the other and with the external unilateral objective, as recommended biblically (origin of the three branches). So which one should you choose – or does it just depend on the luck of the tie? Was each born in a particular monotheism or perhaps just a geographical heir to his religious or non-religious commitment?
If born into Judaism, how can anyone escape from a promised ending in biblical prose?
If someone inherited Christianity, how could he ignore the end of the scriptures of all things and the evident Parousia in prophetic pronouncement and consistent with the meanings of symbols and numbers of the first century; which model sets precedence for modern branches?
If the reader submits to Islam, how could this mentality escape from Ishmael’s disinheritance and the cruelty of its founder?
These deficiencies deserve an evaluation of the ethos that determines the correction or inference in the inference. In addition, if one can work with simple arithmetic and basic language, along with a sense of acceptable meanings and intentions, one can intercept and wonder about the kabbalah (code) that hides biblical intent.
The choice is there for everyone: Muslims, Jews or Christians. Each one plays with his means, his life and his destiny. However, participants face a guaranteed loss, according to the chances of benefit in Ezekiel 14:14. But a sure bet awaits those with enough interest to protect their bet.
Modern religious fall short, in the light of Ezekiel 14:14 restriction, and can neither depend on the wrong concepts of the chosen people, nor on the identity and open definition in Bible Symbols and Numbers. This is an important and comprehensive observation. Both the theist and the atheist debate from a very flawed position; they base belief more on desire and speculation than on reason. The debate jumps from side to side to no advantage, as they neglect the mediating link hidden in the symbols and numbers of the Bible, the only source for sensible determination.
Both belief and disbelief, in ignorance of cause and effect, fall into opinion and emotion. Only in the correct assessment of the symbols of the Bible can the proper interpretation resolve the atheistic / theistic dispute. The truth will shock everyone who dares to risk a joint study of eschatology and Parousia’s term! However, even with an advantage, any player will tell you: I’d rather be lucky than be good. However, luck is only an advantage if you abandon emotion and consult the available know-how.
Likewise, if someone selects religion as their favorite in the games, in the race of life, it must be equally discriminatory. After all, the participants bet their final bets, their life. Is discipline a unilateral recommendation? Better yet, does it meet all the limitations and exhortations placed on the only legal historicity that represents its possibility? Does your commitment exceed or lack the harmony between prophecy and soteriology? This author guarantees that his commitment can be assessed syllogistically as to the test or disapproval. This conclusion is available in more studies.
