I hate close minded people with VERY OPEN MOUTHS..

Oh to be in the world of literature debating again..only this time its battling out about C.S Lewis, so there's the whole moral aspect in there as well. I just really get sick of people monopolizing the discussion with worthless tidbits they picked up from their close minded, doctrine-less, non-denominational, mega-church, youth groups....hwgoiwhgoihwo/g

Yes, I'm frustrated...Ive literally had more intriguing conversations with the homeless people I help feed on weds. At least they are open to the thought that what they believe is not the only thing that can be correct.

I, however, love C.S Lewis...hes proof to me that the best believers are those that doubted for the longest time, then got knocked on their butts one day (a la, Ruth, the thief next to Christ on the cross, and Paul)Cause once they start believing, it rocks the earth, forms the church, and gives way to some of the greatest work God is able to do through people. And C.S Lewis was about as sound of an atheist as it gets, till with the help of his good friend J.R.R Tolkien, reading D.K Chesterton,and the realization that nothing else makes sense, rocked and changed his world.

We are reading Mere Christianity right now, and I love the simplicity of it. I had no idea but this book was actually a series of lectures he read via radio to England in WWII. Its exactly what it claims, an explanation of Christianity in its simplest form. One that claims to know not much, but has inarguable proof for the little that it must know. Its beauty lies in its simplicity, that's what I have found at least.

But supposing God became a man, suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person, then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, be cause He was a man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us, but God can do it only if he becomes a man. Our attempts at this dying will only succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of his intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless he dies; and He cannot die except by being man. That is a sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what he himself need not suffer at all.
I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, than his sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must have been so easy for Him.' Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because he was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely that is an odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown up. If it rejected him because "it's easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no 'unfair' advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) 'No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank'? That advantage - call it 'unfair' if you like - is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?