The Galactic Question Center

No preference, if she were smart, her chosen beliefs would be flexible enough to accomodate mine.
 

I wouldn't choose any of the doors. What arrangement have these suitors gotten themselves into that they're willing to wait around behind a door for a blind one in six shot with me?
 

I would probably be ok with the Buddhist or the Hindu or the atheist, as it would be easier to connect in a "spiritual philosophy as interpretation of nature" kind-of-way.. ie: they would be much less likely to hold beliefs that were in conflict with basic scientific tenets.
 

i would choose the one who could best discuss thier exit strategy from our relationship.
we do this in business, why not in a personal relationship that, as it evolves, involves assets and responsibilities with very little to distinguish it from commercial enterprise. though it may offend the sensibilities of the romantically inclined, it is a reality a fair proportion of relationships will have to face eventually.
 

If each of the individuals behind the six doors is looking for love as well then I would choose all six doors and meet each of the individuals because I like to believe that romance and romantic love have the power to supercede man made concepts like religion and atheism. Opening only one door would substanially diminish the possibility of meeting a true lover and opening all six, (while increasing the odds), is still no quarantee that the chemistry and magic would exist in any combination
unless your question is suggesting some kind of loveless arranged marriage based on religious preference?
 

You'd think intelligence would mean you would pick a more plausible religion, because you'd have good reasons for it, but modern psychology tells us that people are irratinal in most of their decisions and make rationalizations a split second later, so intelligence would only affect the consistency of the rationalizations people make up after they choose a religion. I would have to go with the atheist, as my it would best work with my view of God, as less of a personal omnipotent being and more as a set of probabilities that affect the universe over time.
 

The time span between these posts seem to vary incredibly scott. Are you waiting for us to give a certain answer or a particular type of behavior?
 

Did I call you scott? I meant cliff...
 

Why such a limted set of options? No Zoroastrians, no followers of Voudoun, no pagans of any flavour, no Deists, no shamanic nor aboriginal spirtual paths, no Sufis, no Kali-worshippers, no followers of Shinto nature worship, and no transcendentalists, eh? Not even a Canadian Inuit? What makes you think that 'love' and or 'romance' are mediated by religions rather than hormones and pheremones, genotypes or shared work interests? Why imagine that love cannot be sparked by someone of radically different family/type rather than one's own 'logical' preference (the Capulet/Montague syndrome)? Why not suppose that love transcends all such superficial characteristics as a spiritual imperative that mows down differences by the force of an overwhelming desire for unity? In short, I think you have posed a very shallow question--or at least couched it in trivializing language. If love is merely a mating dance, one might as well allow one's parents to arrange a properly social bondage in marriage. If one is free to love where one wills, why assume that only one of those persons is the "right" mate, or the only mate? One could accept several or all of them, simultaneously or in succession, as one chose. Love can have many forms. What begins or ends in friendship (philos is a form of love) may or may not begin or end with sexual attraction (eros, another form of love) Why not think about it in a more galatic form: suppose one or more of the doors concealed a off-world alien. Then what?
 

Why base you're love interests on beliefs rather than genetics? Perhaps because those opinions come from genetics. As far as science can tell, genetics affects roughly fifty percent of our personalities and characteristics.
 

To anonymous #1: Why don't you try answering the question instead of inventing your own?

Somebody has posed a question and all you've done is use it parade your meandering mind.

Do you not see the value in the challenge of remaining within the constraints of the original question?
 

Buhddist...easy to talk to. Easy to get along with. Willing to allow for my flights of fancy, while some of the other religions are too dogmatic and would "box" me in. Plus I don't have to throw away a day off every week going to temple-church-mosque and hang out with a group of people that are trying to box me in too with their thinking..."One of us, one of us!" (just kidding...I think)
 

the one with big tits...duh.
 

I would probably choose the Christian person but I do believe that two people can get married and still live a happy life together even if they're of two different religions. Love knows no limits.
 

Alas, in the real world it is usually better to cohabit with one of the same religion. In my lifetime I have seen many marriages that either exist precarioulsy or have broken up due to the partners having conflicts that arise from differing religious beliefs.
 

I would choose the Atheist because I am an Atheist too. I think it is more important to have things in common than to be opposites.
Btw, how can I post using my name instead of being just another "anonymous" poster???
 

I would most likely choose the Buddhist or the atheist, because they would not be as likely to try to push their belief systems on me. Perhaps we could explore many belief systems and science together.

I certainly would not choose the others, since they are all known for having some radically dogmatic and restrictive members, for fear that I would end up with one of those.
 

i would probably say the athiest, just because in my own experiance people are closed minded to their religious beliefs in most cases. Since the athiest doesnt have a form of organized religion. i would say that that person would tend to think outside the box more frequently.
 

i would choose the door of my own faith. a common faith can be a powerful assistance for couples in good and bad times.

if i had no faith, i would another door
 

As soon as you 'label' yourself you place a heavy burden on the world. I may choose none because I have learnt from various spiritual experiences that to become 'who you are supposed to be' you must not apply the 'label'- and at the same time I would be comfortable with any of the people as we have so much to learn from each other whatever the persons road they have chosen to walk down... be open - you never know when you are entertaining angels... I do believe in God and he wants us to get off our arses and do something with our lives!
 

I was raised a Christain, but I would probably choose the Buddhist first because I would rather be with a spiritual person, untouched by the first three organized religions.
Those religions are mis-interpreted, hippocritical, & historically downright dangerous.
Give me a girl with good philsophical understanding & love of life for the sake of it any day.
 

easy, the Christian. All others are just beating at the air and kicking against the pricks.
 

why should religion make such a difference or such an important factor in our life. Any person who is not fanatic about it is fine. Actually to be more precise, a being with self respect and who is aiming to better himself is all that matters to me.
 

Since it didn't say you couldn't, I would open all the doors and invite everyone together as a group. Dinner, party, coffee, picnic - it doesn't matter. Just a group of smart, attractive people getting together. If a relationship comes out of that, even better.

I also agree with grimp - who would sit around the other side of a door waiting to be called?!
 

If I were still looking for a permanent relationship I would have to choose the Jewish woman. That's the rules of the game for seriously believing Jews - you can't marry outside the tribe. It's completely forbidden. To ignore this would be to invite sanctions from Heaven and from the community.

The requirement is quite a sensible one. There would be too many practical conflicts with one's partner on a continuing basis if one ignored this demand. And what religion would the children follow? "Let them make up their own minds?" It won't be a matter of choice in my house.

That's not to deny that the five other participants would also be attractive and interesting, but religion is a real basic building block of the human psyche. It makes sense to use this in your favor when choosing a marriage partner.