Is Dungeons and Dragons

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I'd still like an explanation. But I supposed if you don't believe in the Bible then you probably wouldn't want to listen much to a Christian's standpoint. Just like if you lived by that infidelguy site and told me everything on there was truth, I'd laugh at you all the same because I'm not an athiest. So there's no point in arguing that I suppose...

Also, I didn't really take my gloves off, I just made a simple statement. It's tough to argue with someone who draws his ultimate truth from himself basically, whereas I draw my ultimate truth from a bit higher source. But I'm not quite sure I want to open up that can of worms...
Click to expand...
You're a joke. You keep asserting that I live by IG somehow. And, you're asking me to go through and pick apart a book? A website is one thing, but a book... let's just leave it at the fact that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus. As for me drawing truth from myself, that's a load of bull and you know it. I deduct truth using logic and reason. You deduct "truth" by comparing it to a book. Who has a better system?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It's important to note that the Lord wasn't talking about other "Gods" but instead "gods." We've had this argument on here before at some point... Basically, anything can be a "god," whether it be money or fame or whatever, because all a god is is something that is worshipped, idolized, or followed; basically whatever is at the head of your life. It can even be you. However, there's a big difference between a god and the Lord God.
Click to expand...
I am going to disagree with you there. It could very well be taken to mean that there are other gods, but that since this god is a jealous one, he does not want other gods to be revered and worshipped. He is a glory hog.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]- I wasn't making an argument at all, but rather responding to Grand Master's hypothetical.
- I didn't say, "well, if God did exist, then he could be sadistic, or lying or whatever."
- There was no assumption of God being a sadist or a liar. That was one possible conclusion from the hypothetical situation posed by Grand Master.
- I didn't say that the all killing and dying is God's fault.
Click to expand...
oh, my mistake,I guess you were just talking about a hypothetical situation... ok my bad....

I would also like to take this time to point out that if people found they had the mental capacities to levetate themselves and fly, gas prices would go up.
Also if trolls started jumping out from under bridges, and robbing crossers, I would make a fortune using armed escorts to escort people across bridges...
rock.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]edit: Also, the green font is unreadable. Is it some sort of tactic?
Click to expand...
no, it matches strongbad's eyes really well, so I liked it. Sorry, is it really that unreadable?
 
Mahfrot, the site you provided seems to be saying in essence that liar, lunatic or lord? doesn't provide logical proof of the validity of Christianity, nor was it intended to by Lewis. Rather, it was provided to answer the questions of those who accepted Christ as a good moral teacher but not as the Son of God.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lewis specifically addresses it to those who accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but not as the Son of God. It is only this claim which he offers to refute.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The trilemma, like the figure of Aslan, is intended to be a wake-up call to such people, encouraging them to see the Biblical Christ for the first time. If McDowell wishes to claim that it proves more than this, he has no right to attribute this claim to C.S. Lewis.
Click to expand...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Grand Master @ April 07 2004,11:19)]I am going to disagree with you there. It could very well be taken to mean that there are other gods, but that since this god is a jealous one, he does not want other gods to be revered and worshipped. He is a glory hog.
Click to expand...
Right. So you're telling me that the Hebrew text, which you've so clearly taken a look at, points to that conclusion? I'm sorry, but your argument has no support. Based on the Hebrew itself and every other thing the Lord said concerning that issue, your statement doesn't line up at all. God NEVER contradicts Himself, and what you're asserting would support that. Sorry. Don't buy it.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Drelin @ April 07 2004,11:44)]Mahfrot, the site you provided seems to be saying in essence that liar, lunatic or lord? doesn't provide logical proof of the validity of Christianity, nor was it intended to by Lewis. Rather, it was provided to answer the questions of those who accepted Christ as a good moral teacher but not as the Son of God.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Lewis specifically addresses it to those who accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but not as the Son of God. It is only this claim which he offers to refute.
Click to expand...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The trilemma, like the figure of Aslan, is intended to be a wake-up call to such people, encouraging them to see the Biblical Christ for the first time. If McDowell wishes to claim that it proves more than this, he has no right to attribute this claim to C.S. Lewis.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
But don't you see that the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is the validity for Christianity right there - if he wasn't we'd all be sunk. But the fact that he is provides complete validity.
 
Uh, yes? Of course I see that Jesus being the Son of God is the belief that underpins Chrisitanity, and that validity of Christianity depends on the truth of that belief. However, that's not we were discussing. We were talking about proving that Jesus is the Son of God. The liar, lunatic or lord trilemma doesn't provide that proof.

If you're going somewhere with this, please do so, but to me it looks like you're throwing in a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top