Refute this

illegal move, I win

With everything you've ever known and learned about human behavior, what seems more likely:
A) The desire for knowledge and to make order from chaos inevitably leads to the invention of an explanation that's so vague that it's impossible to logically refute
OR
B) An entity whose existence cannot be proven or disproven coincidentally created a race of beings who just happen to have all the traits that on numerous occasions has resulted in alterative vague explanations that are impossible to refute (see: pagan religions), but those are wrong and this one is right.

It is not a historical book.

this guy is pure sex

CERN physicists literally worship Satan. Please sit down and shut the fuck up

My man! Peep truthstream media and now you see tv

Attached: byhDkLx.jpg (400x400, 57K)

one day you'll have some meaningful interactions with other human beings and you'll see how the idea of a god is an inevitable conclusion of human behavior.

Attached: 1552153661397.jpg (375x375, 15K)

Interesting you say this, I'm into all that conspiracy stuff myself and know about what you just mentioned. I don't know, however, whether it means their is actually such a being or force in the world, and these organizations are serving them, which proves that the Bible is true Christianity is real God exists and all the other corollaries. It might just mean that evil people exist and they're roleplaying as Biblical concepts for whatever reason. Now perhaps this is untrue, and there really does exist such an entity and right now there really is a Divine Plan being enacted by God. If so, I say that the Vatican sits at the center of that Satanic agenda, and that much of Christianity is used as a control-tool for the masses. Reincarnation, for example, is definitely real compared to the "one lifetime" policy intrinsic to Christianity. That said, maybe the End Times really will come, and God is again real, but I still don't and won't believe in many Christian concepts and hold that Christianity still has many flaws in itself which other worldviews do not suffer from.

I'm the other guy that replied to you. Most people who are along these lines of thought take issue with the vatican, most notably because of the archives and other generally known criticisms. HOWEVER, most people who dabble with witchcract will readily admit the power that the name of Jesus Christ has to dispell demons on the astral plane or whatever. Jesus is a punching bag in all of their media. Take of it what you will, no one can be convinced by another.

I'm the other guy who replied to that post you replied to***

Yes, I've heard this too. I'm not sure if it's merely Christians plugging and promoting their faith like always, or real accounts of real events, but I could believe it as either. Again, I still maintain a separation between Jesus and Christianity (and it's representative institutions), and that even if the above were true, it would not automatically validate all of Christian theology and all of the Earthly figures and organizations who speak on Christ's behalf. Who knows, though? I used to believe we were in the End Times, but I've since distanced myself from that sector and just want to live my life out. Whatever happens, I hope that we all make it out okay, regardless of whether we've read the Bible or not. After all, these prophecies are planetary, affecting everyone in the world. Let's hope that it sorts itself out, in whatever way.

?

>I'm not sure if it's merely Christians plugging and promoting their faith like always, or real accounts of real events, but I could believe it as either.
You could talk to these retards yourself, is on this very website.

Yes, the Vatican has been the whore of babylon since a while.

Attached: quote-through-some-crack-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-into-the-church-of-god-pope-paul-vi-69-52-99 (850x400, 65K)

Prove God exists without "I know".

>the idea of god is an inevitable conclusion of human behavior, therefore it's not real.

real galaxy brain shit here user

>I still maintain a separation between Jesus and Christianity

yeah so the reason you do this is because you don't want to admit that you're a sinner

>Jesus just wants me to like, be myself, you know?

>Reincarnation, for example, is definitely real compared to the "one lifetime" policy intrinsic to Christianity.

It's not mainstream, but a belief in at least the possibility of reincarnation is compatible with Christianity.

>Christianity still has many flaws in itself which other worldviews do not suffer from.

Name them, and keep in mind that "things I don't like" isn't the same as a "flaw". Try to avoid criticizing specific sects as I do allow that any given tradition will be flawed as the result of human imperfection.

prove god doesn't exist without "i know".

Kinda weird that the answers to the thread didn't get responses. Oh well

There is no historical evidence for JC

I never said it proves god does or does not exist, only that the relationship of Human creating God has been proven to exist. It's perfectly fair to wonder whether or not the inverse relationship also exists, but it doesn't take a huge brain to understand why it's a waste of time

The Great Divorce & Screwtape Letters are my favorites. Still haven't read his sci-fi trilogy.

>Jesus was either the son of god or a madman

Also, perhaps, a prophet mistaken for a god, as in Islam, or a man who never claimed to be God, as many nowadays hypothesize.

Both alternatives Lewis would have been well aware of and doubtless had sophisticated reasons for refuting, but this being a popular treatise for the uplifting of a wartime people, he doesnt bother with the nitty gritty.

Its a well meaning book but its hardly sincere in its argumentation.

Space Trilogy is better than Great Divorce, I'd say. (Depending some on how new the ideas in Great Divorce are to you)
Surprised by Joy and especially Til We have Faces were amazing as well, I'd recommend those to anyone that's liked his other works.

please stop posting this shit to this board

Attached: pepewojak.jpg (629x800, 306K)

The reason I do this is that I'm not able to act without sin. The institution was crafted by men, and through men, suffering. If I have to hear the Word of God through man first, it surely wouldn't be the Word of God. There are times I feel compelled to certain actions, and I cannot always follow through with them. "I can't afford to" in whatever it costs me. Surely that's bad in itself, but opportunities arise again for me to better the world as it needs to be bettered, my hand involved or otherwise. I can't devote my life to these callings because I need to focus on my shit for a minute. I can't be perfect, but I try when I can afford to, and even sometimes when I can't.

Thank you! I've only heard complaints about the trilogy, but I think I'll enjoy it now.

>Also, perhaps, a prophet mistaken for a god, as in Islam

Islam axiomatically requires Jesus to be less special than Muhammed.

>a man who never claimed to be God, as many nowadays hypothesize.

"many nowadays hypothesize" this (without a shred of evidence btw) because it allows them to reject Christianity without admitting this is what they're doing.

user I was not arguing for either of these positions, only pointing to where Lewis draws up a simplified dichotomy for persuasive affect.

>The reason I do this is that I'm not able to act without sin.

OK

>The institution was crafted by men, and through men, suffering.

The imperfection of the faithful is a source of suffering, but it isn't the only one, and I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it.

>If I have to hear the Word of God through man first, it surely wouldn't be the Word of God.

Doesn't follow.

>There are times I feel compelled to certain actions, and I cannot always follow through with them. "I can't afford to" in whatever it costs me. Surely that's bad in itself, but opportunities arise again for me to better the world as it needs to be bettered, my hand involved or otherwise. I can't devote my life to these callings because I need to focus on my shit for a minute. I can't be perfect, but I try when I can afford to, and even sometimes when I can't.

So you fall short of perfection. So does everybody. It doesn't follow from any of this that you need to categorically reject the Church as it exists.

Lewis was explicitly treating the Gospels as a basically accurate account of Jesus' statements. It's not "insincere" for him to not argue against the counterfactual of that particular premise.

>If Jesus said X, then Y

>OK BUT WHAT IF HE DIDN'T SAY X

Then you're making a completely different argument is what.

Thats a fair point, although I do not think it is possible to grasp "son of God" at some sort of common-sense level where one does not need exegesis. Certainly it seems to have taken several centuries for Christians to iron that out, and surely one is not at fault for wondering if this phrase is not intended as it is used on the Psalms.

It's just not as simple as "madman or Son of God."

>The imperfection of the faithful is a source of suffering, but it isn't the only one, and I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it.
It's not imperfection as much as ill will. "I seek to establish this monument so that you may praise God through this monument and indirectly me" whether it's a literal physical thing or not. Men seek to validate themselves before any higher being. This causes all unnecessary* suffering.
>>If I have to hear the Word of God through man first, it surely wouldn't be the Word of God.
>Doesn't follow.
Again, ill intent of man. It is through man I must act in the ways God may or may not have spake if man dictates to me the Word of God. I would rather hear from the source than any middleman, much less a middleman that has much to gain for merely moving his lips a certain way. God has no need for physical things, there is nothing that could tempt Him.
>So you fall short of perfection. So does everybody. It doesn't follow from any of this that you need to categorically reject the Church as it exists.
I don't need to, but it seems the best path to perversion is through power given to men, and the Church itself tends to give that. The Pope is certainly one of the highest positions in the world and it would be a horrible thing if he were to allow blasphemous acts as the new word of god through him. I'm not making that claim, but surely you can understand my reasoning

>It's not imperfection as much as ill will.
They're the same thing. If men were perfect, they wouldn't will bad things to happen.

>I would rather hear from the source than any middleman, much less a middleman that has much to gain for merely moving his lips a certain way.

Feel free to ask God for a sign, although he's under no obligation to show you one.

>I don't need to, but it seems the best path to perversion is through power given to men etc
You only need the faith of a child to be saved, but not everyone remains a child. Some men have authority in this world, and being men they use it poorly to a greater or lesser degree.

As far as individual men or churches, feel free to exercise discretion. Just keep in mind that if your standards are "causes no unnecessary suffering" they will not be met. I'd also ask you to consider whether your actual standard is "as good as me" (i.e., "as good as I think I am") and whether that's really so reasonable.

Jesus said repeatedly in the Gospels, particularly John, that he was God or the Son of God (e.g. John 8:52-59). In Mere Christianity Lewis is extremely explicit that he is not discussing what this "means" in detail, merely noting the fact that it is a claim that is centrally important to the character and teachings of Jesus and either factually true or false.