>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.
Daniel Hughes
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.
Anthony Myers
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."
Juan Allen
>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
Elijah Phillips
>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.
Grayson Jackson
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.
