@Wayfarer

You lost that bet. Where can I collect?

;)

Notice 'about the only two....' - left myself some wriggle room....

Whatever else religions may be, they are surely wisdom traditions, vehicles not simply for the accumulation of bland, discursive knowledge, but for personal transformation and for better states of knowledge. It doesn't seem possible to experience these things without being on the inside of a religion. But the desire for them can't be made the primary reason one converts to a religion. That reason ought to be because it is true. Unless one is reasonably confident of the latter, then attempting to experience the former will be impossible whether inside or out. On the inside, one would be forced to lie, and on the outside, one would be forced to coldly appropriate. Either way, the cognitive dissonance would be too great to give one any peace, which, in part, is precisely what one is seeking. This is why the search for whether any religion is true ought to come first and the search for similarities between religions second, which in fact will follow as a matter of course from the first. — Thorongil

I definitely agree to the first point. They aren't about "bland, discursive" knowledge but rather "personal transformation." What stands out for me above is your insistence we our reason for converting should be that the religion is true, as if your current living/actual but not entirely satisfactory religion is "Truth" nevertheless. I'm not saying this is wrong or bad, just pointing it out. Religion is still being framed in terms of knowledge, though not "bland, discursive" knowledge.

I think it's possible to question objectivity as a supreme value. In practical terms, we have no choice. But metaphysical truth is different. What if positing objectivity as a supreme value is a "mad" or "irrational" leap? I understand that if we are talking about personal resurrection, hell-fire, etc., then truth or falsity is paramount, but that takes us back to prudence, and religion is swallowed by an inclusion of the super-natural within nature. God would be a promising/threatening object invisible to certain instruments and methods, like an asteroid heading toward our planet that most of us don't see coming.

I think Feuerbach is right that we can only revere or worship human virtues. If God isn't love or wisdom and instead just a sort of important machine, then not worship but something else (fearful, prudent submission to the superior "alien") is appropriate. In short, the perfected or ideal human being is (for me) the only reasonable religious object.

"Go, tell them that the worship of God is honoring his gifts in other men, and loving the greatest men best, each according to his genius. " (Blake)

Then i would like to make a conversation with two people in question.

Amen, inclusivism is the way forward. That all religions possess the same truth yet there is one religion who possess the highest clarity and in this case it is Catholicism. All religions can be found in Catholicism, even Hinduism and Buddhism is found in Catholicism.

I have reviewed the comments I made on this thread six years ago, and I completely and unconditionally withdraw them. They were obnoxious and overly polemical. Later I will provide a revised response.