Monday, 17 November 2008
What scope the grace of God?
Some of the thoughts that have been 'running in my head' (a catchy number one hit from 2003 as I recall)... I've been thinking quite a lot lately about how Christian truth - assuming here you believe in it - can be thought through and applied to real life and people in a way that fully expresses the highest, most expansive and generous view of God's grace, and takes full account of the richness and sheer complicatedness of human experience. The simple evangelical line recites that you need to believe in Jesus and that he died for your sins to be saved. Say the sinner's prayer. This may suit a particular person at a particular moment in life in a cosy church environment, but how can the idea that this man Jesus died for the sins of the world be meaningfully communicated and made relevant to the vast tide of humanity living out the brief candle of their lives without meaningful absorption of the message. JC described the kingdom of God as like a mustard seed or drop of yeast that gradually grows, or permeates the world. So in secular Britain say, what of the tens of thousands of ordinary decent secular folk who pay their taxes and watch Coronation Street but don't give God much thought and are felled yearly by the grim reaper, without having 'signed on the dotted line of a 'clear commitment to Christ'? (cheery one today!). I believe the grace and kingdom of God are more expansive and embracing than such a model implies... but how? In what way(s)? I'm just bit by bit flagging up some questions I'm interested to explore...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
31 comments:
The "sinners prayer". Thats a nice description of the prayer written down on the back of a thousand gospel tracts. Its a bit of an industry standard isnt it ? I remember CSLewis once blabbing on about how christians believed jesus was the son of god (whatever that means) and that if you believed in him you recieved eternal life ( whatever that means).
I really appreciated the brackets - belief could mean a range of things. Belief in jesus often seems to be passed off as some sort of intellectual assent to a ancient mediteranean cosmology. People can have big beliefs and even bigger emotions over who jesus was - its a sort of ontological bouncy castle - where the more sanctious you jump the higher and closer to god you bounce.
I guess for me the belief thing is becoming much more about believing practically in what jesus did. The sort of belief which makes you look out for other people and opens you up to the world as a whole. Thinking you know who jesus was - giving him sort of close philosophical definition - doesnt seem important - not compared with practically living out the good news, Believing things to me now isnt as important as listening - listening makes you whole - as you take a little bit from every one and dont get the one-sided picture that comes from listening to yourself.
The funny thing is this to me isnt unorthodox thinking. It really is just matthew 7:21. But if you are really touting this as a blog for discussion I can go further. I remember saying to someone in a moment of ire "everyone is a christian and they dont know it and nobody is a christian knows it" .
What I am starting to say is that there is something fundamental about the christian faith that it cuts into everyones lives - and something whole and simple about it that it doesnt need to be supported by name tags and intellectual tension.
The watertight models I grew up with dont work for me anymore. The problem is now I need god more and yes the support of friends. When I thought I knew everything I didnt need god - I had biblical commentaries. I didnt need friends - I didnt need anyone to point out if I am completely losing the plot.
Cheers Rob, I appreciate the exploratory approach and you always get me thinking. I think I cd get into a bit more of a rhythm here again... but won't speak too soon.
That only works if you can show that I am indeed a sinner - to do this, you need to demonstrate an absolute moral law - good luck, it has evaded the best philosophers (of course you would then have to show that it comes from your god). Then I have the problem of OT nastiness ordered by god.
I will probably put up a morality post later tonight
However, what good deed can a christian do for another that a non christian cant? I really have a problem when people claim that you need jesus to be good.
Hope that gives you something to think about
Questions are good - but are all questions wise ?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? Is that worth answering ? Dorothy Sayers made a serious attempt to answer this ! Caputo said an interesting thing in one of his recent books - does answering a question lead to yet more questions ? Because if it does it probably isn't a good question.
Rather than debating answers on behalf of god - maybe it would be better if we could be clear about the sorts of questions god wants us to ask ? Is that a good question ?
billy
Do you need an absolute temperature scale to measure whether you are hot or not ? When is 39 degrees 39 degrees - only when you are happy to accept an approximation. Even in physics any temperature is theoretically infinitely measurable and practically only finitely obeservable. Such metaphysical complications do not stop me taking my jumper off on a hot day. Are you arguing they should ?
It would be extremely suprising if a word like sin had been used for so long without any ability to map our shared experience. The only thing you really need to show an evidence of sin - or falling short - would be to show a discrepancy between what people desire themselves to be and what they are. Most people would admit their is a difference between the two - most people would happily admit they fall short of even what they expect of themselves.
Such a tension is off course needless - as is any discrepancy between what we want and what actually happens in the world. Maintaing a distemper between what we want to happen in the world and what actually happens is a bit like saying god cant be associatied with nastiness.
The dissolving of such tensions - the idea that we are sinners - that the world is not suited to us - appears to many to make life easier. Peace and Forgiveness are hallmarks in the christian tradition. To some this way of percieving the world makes acts of virtue - "good acts" easier. One might not need to wear a jesus badge to perform a good act - but the absence of phenomenological tension certainly makes it easier.
Thats our model of coping with the world - why dont you share yours ? I have always thought stoicism and atheism were a naturally compatible approach. Either way - somehow - you must be making a model which both dissolves the tension between expectation and reality.
"I'm just bit by bit flagging up some questions I'm interested to explore..."
With respect, I don't know how genuinely interested in exploration you are. All too often, when you come up against questions that criticise or point out contradictions within Christianity, you simply ignore them, or reinstate comment moderation. It's all very well wanting to learn more about your faith, but by not engaging with what challenges it you're just shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears.
That's my opinion, anyway. I hope you don't take this comment as having a go at you, since it isn't intended that way.
Bob,
It would be a whole lot better if god actually spoke - rather than you wondering what he wants you to ask - this is how a non existent ebtity would appear to act
The generally held idea is that god is the source of absolute morality. Breaking that standard is considered sin - for most christians (and for my thinking on the matter) morality does have to be absolute.
I know you have some unusual ideas about god, but if you claim that god's morality s relative, then I still can not be a sinner. Your god then only arbitrarily decides what is right or wrong.
Either way, I can not acknowledge being a sinner. And for the benefit of others, even if I were to perform an act that I do not consider good, does not mean I have broken any unbendable law.
Bruce, when you use words like truth in this context, I find myself having to agree with Jonathan. I remember you quibbling with atheists who used less strong terms on the matter of evidence. Can we have some consistency please :-)
Jon,
As tolkein said : he who destroiys a thing to find out how it works has left the path of wisdom.
Perhaps you misunderstand the sort of exploring bruce is interested in - to me I'm a christian and as far as I can forsee will always be - the question is how can I be that
more effectively, reasonably, truthfully, humanely - whatever those words mean. That question is limitless - to me it is an exploration.
Apologetics is really only a casual interest to me - once you have decided to dive into the river of faith - well its all about swimming from there on in.
Any lack of reply from me to you lee or billy is not a lack of respect - its a lack of interest. Show and Tell is different from Show and Smash. I have no problem with either game - but I know which one I enjoy more...
It seems a very narrow view to think that once you're swimming in the river, you never ponder whether it's better on the shore.
Bob, you would not have the benefits you enjoy in this modern world without the smashing of things. I dont think Tolkein's words stand up to scrutiny.
Have you eve tried living without faith? Both Jonathan and I have given it up - it's nothing to be scared of - give it a go - go on!
Bob-
"to me I'm a christian and as far as I can forsee will always be"
That will certainly be the case if you won't openly scrutinise whether or not you're wrong. I did, and that's why I'm now an atheist.
Do you need an absolute temperature scale to measure whether you are hot or not ?
Ugh... who brought physics into this?
OK - just for fun... YES
I need to have a reference and a meaning of what it is – I need to understand what it is and have an agreeable measure for it. Don’t I?
I probably could make up a working idea for temperature that we could agree on - but what about sin? What is it? When is a sin, a sin? When is a sin, not a sin? Do we have levels of sin?
How about lying? Is lying always a sin, or is there different levels of lying?
How about killing? When is it OK to kill, and when isn’t it?
It is all so… unclear to me.
When is 39 degrees 39 degrees - only when you are happy to accept an approximation.
Are we talking about measurement or what it means to be 39 degrees (whatever units you are using – the absolute temperature scale doesn’t use degrees BTW just 39K)
Even in physics any temperature is theoretically infinitely measurable and practically only finitely obeservable.
Ugh again...
"infinitely measurable" what does that mean?
"finitely observable"?
This sounds a lot of pseudoscience babel to me (I’m being polite) - sorry, could you perhaps rephrase what it is you are talking about so a simple-minded physics graduate can understand you?
Many thanks
Lee
Thanks for your comments folks, I'll respond soon.
Hi Lee,
I Rob also brings up another problem (aside for the need for absolute morality if the concept of sin has to have any meaning).
Stick one finger in ice cold water for a rew minutes, and another in water at 45 degrees for a few minutes. Then stick both in some water at room temperature. One finger now feels hot, while the other one feels cold. That's the problem with subjectivity - it's not reliable.
Billy/Lee/Jon,
You dont really do show and tell do you ? Dialogue might appeal to me but Diatribe ? You'll have to count me out...
Best Wishes,
b.b.b.
Billy Stick one finger in ice cold water for a rew minutes, and another in water at 45 degrees for a few minutes. Then stick both in some water at room temperature. One finger now feels hot, while the other one feels cold. That's the problem with subjectivity - it's not reliable.
Yep - I knew this, I was going to mention it, but thought you already done so. It's a another problem for BBB analogy – another problem for this absolute morals business, it needs to be shown to exist, not just asserted.
I asked a couple of questions regarding lying and killing... any answers/views from BBB?
Come on - these should be the easy ones...
BBB You dont really do show and tell do you ?
What do you want me to show you? Please ask and be clear about it
Dialogue might appeal to me but Diatribe ? You'll have to count me out...
Happy to have a discussion, a dialogue – the only problem seems to be that you don’t like what is being said so it is diatribe?
Blogs are not the best place for conversation – we have to be ‘short and sweet’... well, I do, cos I am now late for my train
See ya
Lee
Bob, why do you call pointing out problems with theistic thinking diatribe?
If you disagree with the problems mentioned, then why dont you do some "show and tell"?
If you have nothing to show or tell........
If there is something you think is important on the subject of convincing people they are sinners, we would love to hear it, but keep it consistent and justify your arguments.
Sorry guys you want Ireneus not me...
I mean Reifying theological language and then claiming it doesn't make sense is as pointless as parading logical positivism as an exclusive epistemology - In my humble opinion - and thats all you seem to do. Strawmen and Reductionism are the tools of your trade. What do you do really do - well you find the most deplorable instances of religious thought and expose them to the crudest of philosophical methodologies. Its not difficult is it ?
We can play this game in our heads and save on the typing. Billy and i could even switch seats ? I could write as you and you write as me ? If we know the principles - the rest follows pretty easily.
I mean its really easy to be me - all you have to do is say "its not like THAT , the problem guys is that you have a simple understanding of something which is actually more subtle. In fact maybe its a more like THIS and anyway whatever it is - its only an approximation of the infinite - and you cant destroy it by reductionism because logic and empiricism are only two of a wider number of methodologies".
best wishes
rob
Bob
There are a lot of accusations there that I'm going to guess you will have a hard time backing up. It seems your case boils down to "you lot dont/refuse to understand", which is not a case for your position.
We keep hearing things like faith is subtle, it is sophisticated etc, but you have not shown that your way of looking at things is valid. You can bang on about reductionism and the "crudeness" of our methods all you want, but you are not arguing against it - more to the point, you are not supporting your own claims.
Do you really think it is crude to point out to you the need for moral absolutes as a necessary foundation for your beliefs - really bob, you are not providing a case at all. That is one of the topics of this post - isn't it? If you want me to believe that there is a god of grace, you have to show me that I am breaking some unbendable moral law
All the best
Billy
BBB I mean Reifying theological language and then claiming it doesn't make sense is as pointless
Actually, it was your science talk that I was saying didn't make sense in this instance. So, can you please explain yourself :-)
However, yes - your theological talk should also make sense. If it doesn't match with our observations - then it is nonsense. Just babel... white noise
Plain and simple.
Sorry if that offends
Crying foul and not explaining yourself is rather weak
Have to go...late again
Lee
lee/billy
Of course it doesn't offend - i don't see this as a personal argument. What we've got is the standard face off when you try and fit theological language inside the constraints of logic and empiricism. Analysing holism through reductionism is never going to work. Holism can swallow reductionism but it definately doesn't work the other way
The only way for me in this argument - as the miscast theist - to go would be to explore the epistemological limits of logic and empiricism. But to be honest you don't need me for that - you can get it on wikipedia. Any web search on scientism will probably get you some information - and lee that Polkinghorne book on "belief in god in an age of science" does actually say how gods actions can be mapped in the natural world - you might have get further with sturm-liouiville than me - so maybe you could follow it better than i can..
Indeed he has an interesting chapter where he compares theological and scientific method under the guise of what he calls "critical realism". His argument is that both approaches are constrained by similar limits. if anything polkinghornes theology is a little bit abstract for me - but he is english after all.
If I had a million lives i might happily spare one to look at that kind of stuff with you. But time is precious - too many trains to catch - too many fun things to do. On this blog Im afraid i'll have to stick to a perhaps a narrower range of problems. Speaking of which I must go and read Bruces christmas play.
Best Wishes
Bob
You'll certainly find fewer problems and hopefully a little fun reading my 'play'. Actually it occurred to us today that Simon Cowell cd actually be quite litigious so we're going to have to check if it'll be ok to spin The X Factor as we do.
I've read the last few comments but not yet the water at different temps ones... I'm hoping I'll have time to reply to J in particular later in the week. I'm with Bob on the need here for a wider appreciation of the variety of epistemological methods - means of discovering truth. But also that no-one's ever going to be argued into the kingdom of God. What discussion, debate and reading about issues CAN do is clear some of the intellectual obstacles to faith for the sincere seeker.
Ciao just now (and Bob rest assured that's me being 'deliberately corny').
Lee,
So as to not seem evasive - the temperature thing.
Any temperature is "theoretically infinitely observable" - any temperature you claim something is - well its never the real absolute tempertaure because you can always go to another measurement - another decimal place - when have you found the absolute and the real temperature ? See Zeno of Elea's old argument about the flying arrow.
The other obvious thing is that in the face of this infinite regress our ability to measure is finite. Our instruments cannot match such a recursive plunge into infinity. There is a limit to what we can observe - Isnt this the early part of Feigenbaum's work.
So claiming you have an absolute knowledge even in the most basic of physical measurements is a little bit of an overstatement. Ethics may be more difficult an issue but I am simply claiming these two areas are not incomparable. Maintaining I have to show an absolute ethical standard is rather like saying lets not do anymore experiments until we get the temperature reading better. To me at least.
But Im not getting into ethical theory - merely using this as an example to show the possibility that similar epistemological problems present themeselves in different disciplines.
I agree with bruce about faith - saying that the only truths which are valid are scientific and logical is not a scientific statement. If I say science will be the only truth - I still require an epistemologucal foundation. Logical Positivism as an exclusive methodology is self refuting. You certainly can form a belief that the only truths that are of any value are scientific and logical - but scientific observation and the exclusive belief in its value are two different things - but as i said someone like polkinghorne writes about this better than me - and he gets paid for it.
but yeah Im finished with this - any accusations I am forwarding to Ireneus to answer on my behalf. Good luck on finding him...
Hi BBB
Any temperature is "theoretically infinitely observable"
Sorry, this is precisely wrong according to modern physics best theory of quantum mechanics – there is a limit you know, it’s all quantum :-)
Of course, the theory could be wrong… it just happens to work and make some very ‘odd’ predictions that have been shown to be true to amazing detail.
I’ll trust this theory if that is OK by you.
Oh, and if by chance… the first comment on my post here
http://strawmen-cometh.blogspot.com/2008/11/
interesting-blog-post.html
quotes Humes that tackles this infinite thingie.
See Zeno of Elea's old argument about the flying arrow.
Yes, wasn't this paradox showing why your assumption is wrong and playing with infinity is a dangerous game to play?
I guess this is why they don’t give philosophers like Elea sharp objects to play with – they will probably cut themselves they are so sharp.
The other obvious thing is that in the face of this infinite regress our ability to measure is finite.
I deny your infinite regress :-)
When you get infinity in your equations it is normally because you got something wrong… like dividing by zero.
There is a limit to what we can observe
Indeed
So claiming you have an absolute knowledge even in the most basic of physical measurements is a little bit of an overstatement
I do not think I made such a claim - did I?
Erm, but on the subject of absolutes, isn’t this what the theist claims with regards to morals – the whole point of Billy’s discussion here?
I only asked you what you meant by "infinitely measurable" and "finitely observable"?
It still doesn’t make sense to me.
Maintaining I have to show an absolute ethical standard is rather like saying lets not do anymore experiments until we get the temperature reading better. To me at least.
I disagree… if you are claiming there is an absolute ethical standard – you have to be able to show it, prove it.
In physics (and back to your temperature analogy) it has been shown and proven that there will always be an uncertainty in any and every measurement.
I can trust my physics, but I cannot trust your absolute ethical standard, you just have not shown it in anyway. In fact, the more you think about it, the crazier it appears (Take a look at Billy's new post)
I agree with bruce about faith - saying that the only truths which are valid are scientific and logical is not a scientific statement.
So you believe in ‘truths’ that have not been shown empirically or logically?
Does this make sense to you?
If I say science will be the only truth - I still require an epistemological foundation
Who said science is the only truth?
The best you will get from me is that it has been shown to be the best method man has devised at getting closer to the truth.
Science proves nothing, but shows a lot of crazy ideas to be false.
but as i said someone like polkinghorne writes about this better than me - and he gets paid for it.
Aye – but I am not sure I want to buy his books to give him anymore money :)
but yeah Im finished with this - any accusations I am forwarding to Ireneus to answer on my behalf. Good luck on finding him...
Who is Ireneus?
Lee
I'm all for examining epistemology. The only problem is that theists cry foul when their position is challenged.
I disagree that theology and naturalism have the same problems, as there is a larger burden of proof that rests on you guys. You guys even have to validate your paradigm, and that rests on (unsound) propositions. If you want to go down the problems with knowledge route, that ultimately leads to the conclusion that your position is unknowable - a bigger problem for the theist than me. Science on the other hand works - just look around you.
And unless you know everything there is to know, then claiming the holistic nature of things is really just an argument from ignorance. Reductionism again works - by reducing things, we can build models that explain the observations in purely mechanistic terms - no need for any special "magic".
Oh, and what Lee said on temperature. I dont see what point you were trying to make though other than perhaps morality was relative - a toxic position for the concept of sin.
I didn't get it either... I'm still confused
Nice summary billy
I would agree that theology offers a bigger answer but In my opinion it approximately matches the set of data and questions that sciencism discounts or reduces - logical positivism effectively reduces its answers to a level beneath the one on which the question is being asked. Most people dont like the arrogance of the big religions answer but they also dont seem to want the stripped down atomic life of positivism. With all due respect billy your scientific absolutism seems to me nothing more than a mirror image of religious fundamentalism.
You approach is not something I feel have to argue against - any more than fundamentalism. Religious traditions and science are a source of knowlege for me - despite some peoples claims to monopolise their findings.
As i have always said It appears to me that in terms of methods you are simply using one hand. I use it too - but I dont forget I have another hand of faith and tradition . I have I hope a brain of logic and one of music. I can use the apporaches of analysis and synthesis - logic and harmony. The indivisiblity of phenomena is as important to me as any divisive act of subject/object empiricism. In short I'm not dissecting myself as I argue. My answers match my questions - they dont reduce the question in an attempt to sweep it away.
I am also confused why you seem to think I have to validate my paradigm of knowledge - to the best of my knowledge we can only promote a paradigm of knowledge and at the most hope to observe its consequences . My propositions are the consequence of my approach to knowledge - not the foundations. My paradigm might be " I will use all available sources of knowledge to approximately explain as many problems as I can encounter " I would agree the set of propositions I would then construct have to be consistent - but they come after and not before my epistemological leap of faith. My paradigm is different from yours " I will use science and logic to explain the world "
If any ones paradigm is set up off key I would think it was yours - you are reading a lot back into it - which is ok theoretically - but it smells a bit - it rather like " I will use the bible or the koran to explain the world ".
But I do agree on a couple of things - Ultimately everything is some respects unknowable I will agree with that - but I fail to see how that is a problem for a theist - since a theist will propose one of the cardinal aspect of god is his ineffability - and one of ours - our finite intelligence.
And I will agree with your model of testing - what works - we can propose a wide variety of models of knowledge but what do they give us - sciencism offers less than say a more imaginative idea such as panenthiesm. Both present problems of knowledge but one offers to me at least a more attractive answer. Indeed I dont really think sciencism offers answers - as I have said it reduces the existential question to a byproduct of another event. what is the meaning of life ? - there isnt one - the question is invalid.
Like most people I have a problem with the unquestioned arrogance of many institutionalised religions but I think the problem is that they dont do the buisness - not that it is pointless trading in these matters in the first place. You have to have fish before you get sharks.
The fish are really the unresolved problems of positivism. Immortality - religious experience - moral obligation - in sciencism - these are just ghosts in the machine - the side show of blind chance. In positivism I see myself as a fish out of water - in the christian tradition I am a fish and there is a water which fulfills my upswelling desire : god.
Regarding absolutes you don't have them in any field of knowledge so why should you expect them in theology. I would be very worried if anyone claimed to understand god and his ethical impetus completely. St Basil said "anyone who claims to know god is completely deluded" . Anyway saying you should just deal in objective knowledge is again an epistemological statement and I'm not going back through that again. Analogical language seems to have enough ramifications for most people to tell the difference between the ineffectual and the consequential - a good theologian like a good musician is one who words or music can uplift more than just himself.
To me its all about the big picture. The bigger the picture gets the smaller your knowledge becomes -to me thats something about being human. You can go with it or stop being human and try to pretend you are happy being a machine. In the often quoted words of wittgenstein :
An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it.
Thats all till christmas.Honestly. Truthfully. I am really promising myself that. I dont know how i get sucked into this. Maybe I have an unresolved teenage debater lurking deep inside my psyche. I'm going to have to go off and think about that for a few months.
Bob, you still have not said why there should be anything else. You just seem to assume that there is. You really have no frame of reference, and I do not subscribe to sciencism - I'm more of a pragmatic sceptic. You need existential import in your world view. I could say what you just said, but say it about fairies - that does not mean it is something worth believing. I would suggest that your interpretation of the world is highly subjective and tainted with your own agenda. This is one reason I reject subjective approaches to explanation - surely you can see the problems with such a position.
Regarding moral absolutes, they are necessary for christianity. If absolute moral law does not exist, then I have not broken such a law. Therefoe, I can not be a sinner. It is therefore not just to puish people. The other alternative is a god whose morality is relative - that makes him nothing more than a fascist bully boy who lives by the slogan of might is right - which does appear to be the message of the bible, although the likes of Lewis claim absolutes exist. He however does not appear to know the difference between moral absolutism and moral universalism. He also fails to argue his case anyway.
Fairies
I dont think I have ever proposed a deus ex machina model for god - a heavenly fairy isnt the first thing to appear on my radar. I am siply arguing that traditional christian theological language can provide a wider and more fulfilling world view than a shrinking pragmatic scepticism. Of course it requires an act of imagination to colour the world in such a way - but thankfully we have one. It also requires a leap of faith but traditionally mankind has been more than gifted at that. The risk of dischordant subjectivity is an obvious one - but there are similar risks in falling in love - am i the only one sensing this ? - but that never stopped me.
Lewis believed in a lot of things - The abolition of man I assume you are talking about. I think he draws from Taoism in that work doesnt he ? Its founding idea is I am sure you know "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao". Once ideas are encapulated they have already lost their ability to replicate the eternal. Which I suppose would mirror the neo-platonism which runs through Lewis's works. I dont think lewis ever claimed to have personally captured the the mind of god - merely that it could be dimly percieved in our traditional moral codes. Are you claiming that conscience cannot be developed through practice ?
Agenda's - what is my agenda at the bottom this - what is the core of the christian tradition - the undeconstructability of love ? To put it simpler : loving my neighbour as myself and loving everything else I find as well - in my family we tend to sum that up into the term "god". If that is highly personal agenda so be it. It is certainly a difficult one - and it keeps me busy.
Attempting to defend the potential relevance of a cultural tradition and indeed trying to win other peoples approval is merely one of my vanities - or should i say one of my sins - I do hope you will forgive me - I trust god will :)
Bob,
You miss the point about fairies. You can have all the "fairy theology" (and not talking gene robinson here :-) ) that you want, but that does not mean they exist
I was refering to Lewis's moral argument for the existence of god.
Undestructability of love???? Care to demonstrate it? Love each other as yourself was written down before jesus ever said it by other cultures - it's not something that christianity frst came up with.
As for agenda, you have already said elsewhere that you put your own agenda on your faith. That makes it highly subjective.
Post a Comment