Gaming can be defined as playing games of chance: whether unproductive Wii, solitaire, gambling for money, or gambling on either a theist or atheist lifestyle. Everything is a gamble, especially the game of life; however, a correct evaluation of the points raised in theism and atheism argumentation will still the endless debate and lead to a better world, removing the barrier to a worry-free game of life.
Many shun gaming as evil; to another, it is merely a fun-filled endeavor. The point, however, is not to value one viewpoint over another but to rationalize the view of offense: offense cannot be in the real definition of motivation to action but in action motivation. Would the act of gambling hurt others, or would disallowance of gambling injure others? The absence of either pro-gambling or anti-gambling factions to the other’s presence would hardly constitute offense or injury!
In everyday activity, we engage a predisposition to chance taking, in acts not normally thought of as evodomino of chance. Fate has much to do with our religious leanings. In either of three branches of metaphysics, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, we ask, which offers the greater chance of delivering benefit? Or, further, if one chooses one of the numerous sects or denominations under each branch, under which are the odds greater to reach a favorable result?
There exists great difference in choice, each at odds with the other and outside unilateral purpose as biblically recommended (origin of all three branches). So, which should one choose – or, does one simply depend on luck of the draw? Was each born to a particular monotheism or perhaps merely geographic heir to his religious or nonreligious commitment?
If born to Judaism, how can one escape a promised termination in Bible prose?
If one inherited Christianity, how could he ignore the scriptural end of all things and evidential Parousia in prophetic utterance and consistent with first century symbol and number meanings; which template sets precedence for the modern branches?
If the reader submits to Islam, how could such mentality escape the disinheritance of Ishmael and the ruthlessness of its founder?
These shortcomings deserve evaluation of the ethos determining rightness or wrongness in inference. Additionally, if one can work simple arithmetic and basic language, coupled with a sense for acceptable meanings and intent, he can intercept and wonder at the cabal (code) hiding biblical intent.
The choice is there for everyone: Muslim, Jew, or Christian. Each gambles with his means, his life, and his fate. Yet, participants face a guaranteed loss, according to chances of benefit at Ezekiel 14:14. But a sure gamble awaits those with enough interest to hedge his bet.
Modern religionists fall short, in light of the Ezekiel 14:14 restriction, and can depend neither on chosen people misconceptions nor on the identity and definition opened in Bible Symbols and Numbers. This is an important and far-reaching observation. Both theist and atheist debate from a very flawed position; they base belief more on desire and speculation than reason. Debate bounces back and forth without advantage, for they neglect the mediating link hidden in Bible symbols and numbers, the only source for a sensible determination.
Both belief and unbelief, in ignorance of cause and effect, fall to opinion and emotion. Only in a correct evaluation of Bible symbols can proper interpretation resolve the atheist/theist dispute. The truth will shock all who dare to risk a concerted study of eschatology and Parousia time frame! Yet, even with an edge, any gambler will tell you: I’d rather be lucky than good. However, luck is just an added advantage if you forsake emotion and consult the know-how available.
By the same token, if one selects religion as his gaming favorite, in the race of life, he should be equally discriminatory of choice. For, after all, participants bet the ultimate stakes, their life. Is the discipline a unilateral recommendation? Better yet, does it meet with all the limitations and exhortations posited in the only legal-historicity positing its possibility? Does your commitment exceed or lack the harmony of prophecy and soteriology? This author guarantees your commitment can be syllogistically evaluated for proof or disproof. Such conclusion is available in further study.