Hitler

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually this was the point in contention that FMJ keeps dodging.:

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 conce ...[text shortened]... ties had different morals how would you ascertain which society had the correct morals?

Why is God more likely than Buddha?

Why is Jesus considered to be God to some, but not to others?

Why do we consider the Egyptians to be wrong by worshipping Rah, instead of God?

Questions to be answered by Fetchmyjunk.

Originally posted by chaney3
Why is God more likely than Buddha?

Why is Jesus considered to be God to some, but not to others?

Why do we consider the Egyptians to be wrong by worshipping Rah, instead of God?

Questions to be answered by Fetchmyjunk.

Have you read the book I suggested? Do you even remember which book it was?

Originally posted by chaney3
Why is God more likely than Buddha?

Why is Jesus considered to be God to some, but not to others?

Why do we consider the Egyptians to be wrong by worshipping Rah, instead of God?

Questions to be answered by Fetchmyjunk.

Yet somehow FMJ seems to believe that he answers the questions of others, but they don't answer his.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yet somehow FMJ seems to believe that he answers the questions of others, but they don't answer his.

Would you like a list of questions that I have asked you that you have not even attempted to answer? I can think of more than one. 😉

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Would you like a list of questions that I have asked you that you have not even attempted to answer? I can think of more than one. 😉

Seems like pretty much everyone here understands that when faced with points that you can't address, you start asking spurious questions and later pretend that you're the victim.

It's dishonest. It's what you do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like pretty much everyone here understands that when faced with points that you can't address, you start asking spurious questions and later pretend that you're the victim.

It's dishonest. It's what you do.

For starters, FMJ should explain why God is more likely to be true than Buddha.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like pretty much everyone here understands that when faced with points that you can't address, you start asking spurious questions and later pretend that you're the victim.

It's dishonest. It's what you do.

When you are faced with a question you cannot address you label it 'spurious'. Not dishonest at all.

Originally posted by chaney3
For starters, FMJ should explain why God is more likely to be true than Buddha.

For starters Buddha is a dead man. Why worship the creation rather than the creator?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When you are faced with a question you cannot address you label it 'spurious'. Not dishonest at all.

Yet more 'playing the victim' from you. Yet more dishonesty.

When faced with the following...

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.

You responded with...

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?

How exactly is that NOT a spurious question?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
My concept of God is based on the Bible. Nothing gets added or removed from the Bible. It's about as absolute or unchanging as you can get.

But in the formation of the bible, things were added and removed. (And not by God).

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
My concept of God is based on the Bible. Nothing gets added or removed from the Bible. It's about as absolute or unchanging as you can get.

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?

There are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity having different conceptions of God that are based on the Bible. Some are vastly different. How do you know yours is correct? Do you have an objective standard for the conception of God?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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?

There are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity having different conceptions of God that are based on the Bible. How do you know yours is correct? Do you have an objective standard for the conception of God?

I look forward to his response...


Edit: Tumbleweed rolls by...

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
For starters Buddha is a dead man. Why worship the creation rather than the creator?

Just provide proof why God is more reasonable than Buddha.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
But in the formation of the bible, things were added and removed. (And not by God).

Since you reject God is real, I doubt you would accept God's involvement at any level.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Since you reject God is real, I doubt you would accept God's involvement at any level.

FMJ said the bible was absolute due to nothing being added or removed. I don't need to believe in God to understand this is incorrect. In the formation of the bible, it was man, not God, who decided which books to include and which to exclude (almost certainly to fit the agenda of the day). No doubt if the bible had been put together 20 years later it would contain a number of different books than it does today. (With just as many contradictions and horrors).