Hitler

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Nice try.

Thanks, who told you I scored a try last week?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Thanks, who told you I scored a try last week?

Here's one for you:

Is it possible to have an objective standard for the conception of God?

Societies may impose their conceptions of God on the people within those societies but if two different societies had different conceptions of God how would you ascertain which society had the correct conception of God?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne


Maybe you can explain it to FMJ. But be prepared for a never ending onslaught of questions in lieu of rational discussion.[/b]

I think FMJ's "never ending onslaught of questions" is less of an irritation than ThinkofOne's endless onslaught of sly winks concealing his abject unbelief of about 80% of the New Testament.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's one for you:

Is it possible to have an objective standard for the conception of God?

Societies may impose their conceptions of God on the people within those societies but if two different societies had different conceptions of God how would you ascertain which society had the correct conception of God?

Good question. I think so. For a start I would suggest, you could test for:

1. Logical consistency
2. Empirical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Good question. I think so. For a start I would suggest, you could test for:

1. Logical consistency
2. Empirical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance

Make your best case for your conception of God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Make your best case for your conception of God.

I would suggest you read the book, "Jesus among other gods" by Ravi Zacharias. It's a good place to start.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I would suggest you read the book, "Jesus among other gods" by Ravi Zacharias. It's a good place to start.

That was, "Make YOUR best case for YOUR conception of God."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I would suggest you read the book, "Jesus among other gods" by Ravi Zacharias. It's a good place to start.

Why do I suspect you've not read it yourself?!

Originally posted by sonship
I think FMJ's "never ending onslaught of questions" is less of an irritation than ThinkofOne's endless onslaught of sly winks concealing his abject unbelief of about 80% of the New Testament.

If you understood the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth, you'd have an "unbelief" of much of the NT as well.

Why are you pretending that I've been "concealing" this fact?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That was, "Make YOUR best case for YOUR conception of God."

There are many smarter people who can build far better cases than I can. Besides I don't have the time right now to write you a book.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
There are many smarter people who can build far better cases than I can. Besides I don't have the time right now to write you a book.

You don't have to "write a book". Just make a case for YOUR conception of God.

Of course, it seems likely that you realize that you don't have an objective standard for the conception of God and this is just a way for you to avoid having to admit it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You don't have to "write a book". Just make a case for YOUR conception of God.

Of course, it seems likely that you realize that you don't have an objective standard for the conception of God and this is just a way for you to avoid having to admit it.

What's with all the red herrings? We can end this whole discussion with a simple question. Was the holocaust objectively wrong? Yes or No?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What's with all the red herrings? We can end this whole discussion with a simple question. Was the holocaust objectively wrong? Yes or No?

You're the one who keeps tossing out red herrings and you know it. That you try to foist that off on me makes it all the more reprehensible.

I responded to the following nonsense as you well know:

When you say something is evil, you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. So your claim that something is evil only makes sense if God does in fact exist.

It has nothing to do with the holocaust.

Just make a case for YOUR conception of God.

Of course, it seems likely that you realize that you don't have an objective standard for the conception of God and this is just a way for you to avoid having to admit it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're the one who keeps tossing out red herrings and you know it. That you try to foist that off on me makes it all the more reprehensible.

I responded to the following nonsense as you well know:
[quote]When you say something is evil, you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of ...[text shortened]... e standard for the conception of God and this is just a way for you to avoid having to admit it.

You are still dodging. Is the holocaust objectively evil? Yes or No?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You are still dodging. Is the holocaust objectively evil? Yes or No?

Clearly integrity isn't a part of the morality of your conception of God.