Clete said:
It's not circular. I thought at one time that you were a Presuppositionalist which you denied. This comment confirms it for me that you are not only not a Presuppositionalist, you don't seem to understand what a presupposition is.
I understand why you think it is circular but I assure you it is not. My comments are based on the transcendental argument for the existence of God. The argument in its most basic form is that God must exist because there is no rational way to account for the existence of reason if He does not exist. The example that most clearly demonstrates the truth of this has to do with the confirmation of truth claims. If someone was to say that all truth claims must be verified through logic and reason (which atheists and deists commonly claim) then how would that person verify the truth claim that says that all truth claims must be verified through logic and reason? If they attempt to verify that truth claim with logic and reason then they beg the question, which is a violation of logic and reason. If, on the other hand, they say that this truth claim doesn't require verification then they violate the claim itself and thereby falsify it. Any worldview that does not presuppose the existence of God always ends up question begging in one way or the other thus God must exist because of the rational impossibility of the contrary.
You are Kantian in your thinking, and this is where the circular argument is grounded. Immanuel Kant has had much influence in the West (especially in the United States) and his Theology has been taken into the church without question. Kant continues in the line of Modernity as he places the foundation of knowledge within the mind of an individual person (which I must add is the presupposition of Descartes). So our knowledge of God, for Kant, must begin in the mind, through a rational sense of being "morally conditioned." With Kant and other Enlightenment philosophers you have the advent of "religion" and the idea of "faith" as a moral grounding and a common "relgious experience" found as a universal trait of humanity. What is ironic to me is that in going down this road of the "common religiosity" and "faith" of humanity Kant has not succeeded in rebutting the secular influence of the Modern period on the church, but has in fact reorganized the church so as to ground the church in a secular foundation. Christianity no longer knows God in Christ, but with Kant the Christian now is like any other religious subject, who must come to know God in rationality, through the medium of the mind. Whereas the church of old stressed one's knowledge of God as coming externally through Christ, now the knowledge of God would come internally through the mind.
It is only because you adhere to this framework established by Kant that you would ever pursue a Transcendental Proof of the existence of God, for you assume that our knowledge of God must be mediated by the particular brand of rationality fed to us by the Enlightenment. You assume that the only reality that is sure is found in the human subject. And this is an assumption that you make based off of the early Modernists, like Descartes. It is not an assumption that the scriptures share, for truth is held in God (in the other) in the scriptures, not in one's ability to rationalize the external object (for the Modern period has now turned both God and the Creation into the objects of our rationality neigh of even our faith). Whereas faith for the early church called to mind a very particular narrative grounded in the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Christ, now "faith" is nothing more than a foundational trait of the human subject. Faith is corresponds perfectly to the English "trust."
Clete said:
And notice that we do not use logic to prove the existence of God and thus cannot be committing a fallacy of logic like circular reasoning. We presuppose the existence of God in order to make logic itself work in the first place. The presupposition that God exists is the foundation of logic, not an aspect of it, and more specifically, the existence of a personal, intelligent, rational, Triune God is the foundation of logic.
And as I said before, you fall in line with Kant in this. And what you fail to realize (as well as does Kant) is that in your efforts to stave off the attack of secularism in our Modern World you have invited it to be the very foundation for what you call "religion." You may think you are attempting to convert the atheist, when in fact you are allowing the atheist to define life and religion and everything else. The irony of secularism is that it would have been impossible were it not for Christianity. And Christians unwittingly drive the world to secularization even as they try to compell that world to follow God.
Clete said:
Impossible. This begs the question. In order to create logic, people would have had to use logic to do so thus the creation is implied before it is created.
It's inescapable Michael. Any attempt you make to account for the existence of logic outside of presupposing the existence of a rational God will beg the question every time.
It's not inexcapable. Logic in its current hegemony of power in the Modern World did not have such a preferred status throughout time. Logic as a universal standard of physical "laws" is very recent. Descartes was the first one to really systemetize such thinking. The Hebrews, the Early Christians, in fact the classical philosophies all understood logic as a very practical and embodied thing. Logic could never be spoken about in a "universal sense." A logical person was not one who understood the "governing principles" of the cosmos. A logical or rational person was a wise person, who was able to deal with a situation when it presented itself. Thus logic was always a particular endeavour. The Proverbs illustrate this very well when they place two logically opposed concepts right next to one another: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly or you will be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly or he will be wise in his own eyes." Such wisdom seems utterly non-sensical in our modern understanding of it (for logic is a set of universal priciples that govern the universe to the Modernist, and cannot contradict one another, as such). But logic in the mind of the Hebrew is wisdom, which means that it is situational, not universal. For an early Jew the situational nature of logic is key, and so the early Jew would not look for universal principles in a search for logic, but would find ways of dealing with the reality that is around us.
For the early Jew the Creation is what is real, and God is what is real, not the mind. The mind for a Jew leads to deception in idolatry, as "cunning" can lead to one's undoing (as is made very clear in the garden). This is very much in line with the idea of
hubris for the Greeks. One's pride can lead to destruction. Yes, the human mind can be quite clever in understanding the governing principles of the universe, but if one does not humbly admit that such rationality is
not as certain as one thinks, one's wisdom can be one's own undoing.
The problem in our Modern world is that we think we know something, and that we base our hope in that knowledge. The fact is that such certainty can only lead to our fragmentation (as we have now discovered). The hegemony of Modernity has been fundamentaly fractured, as Modernity has given rise to nihlism and subjectivity; the Tower of Babel has fallen because we no longer can agree on even the basics (God has scattered us in our inmost thoughts).
Clete said:
The gender neutral person pronoun "him" is sufficient while using the English language. That's off topic, I know, but I can't stand the politically correct nonsense that has crept in to virtually every nook and cranny of our society and so had to comment on it.
Well, please understand that my use of the two has nothing to do with an effort to maintain "political correctness." "Him" is not a gender neutral term, as you would claim. The English language has no case system, in which the gender of a word only indicates its pattern of inflection (as is the case with Greek or Hebrew). So when we state "him" it carries with it a certain image that is masculine. It also becomes important when speaking about God because the image of God is not made complete in masculinity or feminity, but that the image of God as revealed in humanity is revealed in the two together, for when God makes us in God's image God makes all of humanity (singular) in that image, both male and female. When we refer to God as simply "he," that ought to sound just as funny to us as when a feminist uses "she" to refer to God. Don't pretend that masculine language is a neutral thing. Women were not allowed to vote until the 20th century in the United States, and it was precisely because they were not seen as human (as people with the same rights as men), which was enforced by our language. Language has been embodied, so that in very real ways men are more valued than women in our world. If we look at the declaration of Christ in the coming of the Kingdom, such embodied disparities are reversed in the Kingdom. And seeing how women play such crucial roles in bringing God's deliverance, that reversal in many ways has already come about in very real ways.
Clete said:
Leaving that aside, this comment also begs the question. "Frameworks of observation" could not exist without logic to form them. Nor could the idea of what is "best" exist unless logic existed with which to define it. So you are suggesting that men used logic to form logic. That’s called begging the question.
Logic is not necessary for frameworks to be built. In fact, all that is needed is a vocabulary. Language is central to logical constructs, not logic itself. Yes, I agree with the deconstructionists in this much, for they point out very well that language lies at the very foundation of much of our logic (just look at Freud and Marx). And as I look at language, it becomes very apparent that logic is not a universal reality, but that logic is situational, and develops as a response to the world that lies outside of us, a world that is not an object to us, but that is a subject, of which we are a part and with which we must cope. Language is not a universal reality; it is situational reality that can only be applied within a certain context. And knowledge is not a passive engagement of the world with our senses, but is an active ordering of the world around us to acheive certain goals. As soon as we turned truth into an objective reality we equivocated. Truth is a union of substance and
telos (thing and purpose). The reason our world struggles to find such purpose is that we have ordered truth in such a terrible way as to assume that purpose cannot be found outside of ourselves. Much of my thinking on language has been shaped by Stanley Fish.
Clete said:
I didn't read all of this, it made my eyes glaze over (sorry). The part I did read had to do with your brain making sense of the horizon. What you over look is that we do not have to learn how to make our brains operate. If you claim that we do, then I would ask you to explain by what method you calibrated your eye-brain connection so as to be sure that the data you are receiving via your eyes is being translated properly to your brain and then in turn interpreted correctely by your brain in order for you to be able use that information.
You had to be formed. You had to be born into the right culture. As I said before, not all people who look at the horizon see a line. That is a construct of the brain. And those constructs are imbedded in us from early on in life. It is well-known that a baby's senses grow over time. A newborn only sees vague shapes and hears muttled sounds. Even color is not developed until a relatively late period in the child's formation. Clearly there is a biological formation that takes place for the senses to mature. But more than that biological formation, a person is also lingual and picks up the habits of those to whom that one is born. So an aboriginal tribe does not need to see a line at the horizon, because there isn't one there. The Heavens touch the earth, and one need not make a distinction between the two. Sure there are objective differences, but in the early Greek thought the sky and the earth were united (not distinct from one another) and the Heavens ordered the events of the earth. Instead of seeing a line at the horizon they saw the Heavens touching the earth. We see a line at the horizon and think that the air ends and the oceans begin, or vice versa. The line that is drawn by the mind comes out of a certain formation of what we expect. And this happens regardless of how much of an actual difference there is. The brain can be tricked into seeing things that aren't really there. In fact, one can draw a line that is predominately dividing two distinct colors on a paper, and the brain will actually fill in the the small discrepincies in color on either side of the line with what it assumes should be there (it's like the coloring book effect of the brain, where the chastizement of our teachers to "draw within the lines" has had a real effect on how we perceive the world around us). The line becomes a means for us to fragment the world around us according to what we see as similarities. A funny example of this is that we will look at snow and see snow.; an eskimo will look at snow and will see 20 different things (with 20 distinct words for what they are seeing). Are we wrong and the Eskimo right? Or could it be that our perceptions of the world are not as unbiased as we claim them to be?
Clete said:
What do you mean obtained a universal logic? God is logic just as God is righteousness and love. Logic is defined by God Himself just as righteousness is.
And this is based on certain assumptions. You assume that logic is the most real thing (which is really just a progression from Descartes who in the face of doubting everything holds on to the contructs of his mind as the only true thing; everything else can be doubted but one thing is true, "I think," for even if his thoughts can be brought into doubt, the fact that he thinks cannot be, "Therefore I am!"). I, on the other hand, assume that God and Creation are the most real things, and my identity is wrapped up in how I find my place before God and within the Creation. This is the scriptural view. Logic is
hubris (pride) which can ultimately lead me to
hamartia (missing the mark; sin). The Creator and the Creation are good, and thus I must submit myself to God within God's Creation to participate in the good. Nowhere in the scriptures do you find the statement of "God is logic." So I am not so inclined to simply accept such a statement as true.
Clete said:
And just because I think it is important to point such things out, your comment concerning the Greeks is known as an Ad-Hominem argument. It is yet another fallacy of logic you've employed. Something is not false because it is Greek but because it not of Scripture or of sound reason (or both). The Greeks came up with bubble gum too. Do you think that Double Bubble is therefore evil?
By a "Greek understanding of the world" I wasn't equating Greek to evil. I was speaking of the neo-platonism inherent to Descartes and Modernity that was embodied in a philosohpy which placed logic as a universal reality governing the cosmos, and subordinated the cosmos to that reality (so that the cosmos wasn't "real" in a sense but the laws governing it were).
Clete said:
God is logic. God is also personal, thus logic is personal. Satisfied?
Hardly. You continue to speak about the importance of scriptures, and yet such statements are nere to be found in the scriptures. "God is logic" is not a statement that we can agree on. Logic is fundamentaly grounded in language, and is therefore, by very nature, a situational reality, a contingent reality. Human logic wasn't first (we aren't participating in God's logic in our logic); Creation was first, and human logic came out of that as a response (specifically in our
hubris).
Clete said:
That person being Jesus, actually. God is a Trinity not a Foursome.
??????????
Clete said:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word (logos) was with God, and the Word (logos) was God.
John 1:14 And the Word (logos) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
And so
Logos is never conceived of as a universal set of principles governing the cosmos by Christians.
Logos is first an utterance (a Word) which becomes embodied (i.e. in the Creation and New Creation). Thus,
logos for us is a union of substance and
telos, matter and life, body and soul. And our knowledge of God is contingent upon that emodiment (for outside of the Creation and of Christ we know nothing of God). The knowledge of God is not internal to us in our ability to discern the "truths" (laws) of the Creation through our moral agency. No, our knowledge of God is ever contingent upon the activity of God to bring about God's Creation both in Christ and in us.
Clete said:
Yes it is a fallacy and no I didn't do the same thing to you.
You forced me to admit my foundation within a certain theo-philosophical reality that was instilled within me through my studies. I have done no different in trying to point out that you also are within a line of thought that is not your own. What you are saying is not novel. You are in the line of the Liberal Theologians of the Americas (as I point out through your identification with Kant and you ultimate affirmation of Descartes).
Clete said:
The form of my argument was not one in which I claimed you were something you weren't and then declared on that basis that you were wrong. I rightly claimed that you are a philosopher based on your own use of philosophical ideas in order to make your case, which you then later affirmed. My point had to do with making what I thought was a very clear point using a stereotype to make the point that only a philosopher could make the question"Is God righteous?" a difficult one to answer. But I made the argument by using your own words, not by implying that you must be wrong because you are a philosopher. The comment was aimed at making fun of philosophers not attempting to refute your position. That had already been done.
I did not affirm your statement of my being a philosopher, for, as I previously stated, I cannot start on the secular grounds that Philosophy requires. Though I cannot deny the influence that Philosophy has had on me, I can deny my identification with it. I am not a Philosopher; I am a Theologian, which is fundamently different.
You, on the other hand, are claiming a novelty that is just plain ignorant. You claim that in the fact that you have not studied the philosophies of the world that you are not complicit with them. As I pointed out before, your ideas are not new, and they are grounded on certain assumptions that are entirely found within the secular philosophies of our world (especially those of the Modern Age). You are more of a Philosopher than I am, because you
do accept the secular ground that is given to us by Modern Philosophy. You accept the supposed "neutrality" that has only come to us through the philosophers of our age.
Clete said:
That isn't what I did. You missed the point. I didn't even mention philosophers until the point had already been established.
And just because you do not site your sources, or aren't even aware of them, does not mean that they have not influenced you. People can look up into the heavens now and see that stars are "big balls of gas burning billions of miles away" without having to recognize the inovators who brought us to that understanding of the Universe. People state this as if it were a simple fact brought about by their own observation. It wasn't a simple fact, and their are certain thinkers who revolutionized our understanding of the stars. And I assure you that most people have no idea who Copernicus and Galileo and Newton are. Yet despite their ignorance, their statement is entirely indebted to these people who fundamentaly altered the way that we looked into the skys.
Well, philosophical ideas are no different. They come down to us through traditions. And what I am telling you is that you are indebted to people like Descartes and Kant for your statements, just as I am indebted to Barth and Yoder for mine.
Clete said:
It is!! All that deism states is that God sets things into motion, and that the Creation and God function as distinct entities. The Creation and its laws do not require a present God in order for them to function. So when you make the Creation into another sovereign reality from God, you have submitted to the deists (who because things can be explained through "science" no longer see God as active in the world, other than as an initial cause). This is very different from Paul's statement (which you have continued to ignore) where "we live and move and have their being in God."
Clete said:
No deist in the world would agree with me on nearly anything. And the things they would agree with doesn't prove me wrong any more than it proves them right! This seems to be your favorite fallacy of logic. Something is not wrong because it is believed by a deist. Deists believe that God exists. Do you therefore conclude that God does not exist by virtue of the fact that deists believe He does? Of course not!
The deists, however, have engaged in idolatry, so that it matters little that they "believe that God exists." "Even the demons believe and they tremble because of it." A Creation that is made into a sovereign reality and a God who is submitted to that reality just as much as the Creation is submitted to God (i.e. they are both agents which have a certain power of coersion in their agency) is completely divergent from the scriptures. You keep saying that I am engaging in fallacy, when all I have done is identified your understanding of the world and then asked that you would explain how it complies with the scriptures when Paul states that "in God we live and move and have our being." Your understanding of deism is a joke. Deism is not a religion that implies evolutionary theory. Deism was first introduced in the Enlightenment, especially by the founding fathers of our own nation, who did not conceive of the world as being left to its own end, but that God simply was no longer active, and the end would be acheived once God had intervened once again in the Creaton. Many of the Deists still had a rich apocolyptic vision for the end of the world, but God's activity was removed from our everyday life. This is not how God's creative activity has always been conceived of by Christians.
So once again, I ask you to explain the statement of Paul when he says that "in God we live and move and have our being" and again "for by God, and through God, and unto God are all things, and in God they all hold together."
Clete said:
More logical fallacies!
First of all you make a false dichotomy. The making of cars for profit does not remove the possibility that they made the cars for people to drive them.
Do you even understand what dicotomy is? To create a dicotomy is to make a distintion of things. So you are the one dicotomizing the ends of Ford Motor Company by stating that the desire for people to have cars is distinct from Ford's profitability. You don't understand economics very well, now do you, for one must take into account both supply and demand when speaking of production, and the bottom-line of the entire thing is profit. The driving force for all production is profitability. Otherwise we would have easily been providing food to all who need food in this world, for the US produces enough food to feed everyone each and every day. But the reason everyone is not fed has to do with the bottom-line, i.e. profit. The Ford Motor Company does not simply care if people get the car that they need; the Ford Motor Company only cares that those with means to do so get the cars that they need. At the bottom-line of Ford Company is profit, not charity for the poor people in this world who are born into a system where cars are a necessity of life, but where cars are well out of the means of most people (seeing how most people get into great debt in the purchase of a car). You are sacrificing rhetoric for your own understanding of "logic," for you would assume that my questions about the "why of the production?", and the "who does it benefit?" aren't really important questions to ask in the pursuit of "truth". It is funny that the very people who would have us avoid such questions are the very ones profiting within the economic system.
Clete said:
And secondly you intentionally stretch the analogy to its breaking point. It was simply an analogy, Michael. Analogies are not perfect parallel truths. And when you intentionally stretch one to the breaking point you commit a fallacy of logic known simply as a weak (or false) analogy. In short you ability to turn a perfectly good analogy into a bad one does nothing to refute my position nor does it render the original analogy false.
And what I am telling you is that the analogy is simply useless. Ford makes cars for their own benefit (not for the benefit of others), and they make cars out of the supply available to them (i.e. technological advancement and cheaper methods of production as well as a less costly capital bass and a demand for their product [as we are seeing is a problem now for Ford who is being forced to lay-off many of its workers]). To compare God's creation to Ford Motor Company's production of cars is to completely misunderstand God's creative power. When the Jews have a distinct word for "creating" when speaking of God than they do when speaking of human "creation" you can see how absurd your analogy is. God creates out of love, which means that the Creation has nothing to offer as a benefit to God. God doesn't rely on anything within the Creation. God is selfsustaining in such a way that God creates and the Creation has nothing to offer back to God (nothing more than what is already God's). And the Creation is not distinct from its purpose. The substance is united with the purpose, the flesh infused with life from God, so that our very reality is a mix of substance and purpose. And when we reject the purpose, we reject the very reality. It is not the pupose in which we consist (that is God, for God is life). But we are beings of the dust, so that our body and our soul are united in such a way as to be dependant upon one another. There is no soul without the body, nor is there a body without the soul. Ford cannot possible create in this way. They can no more infuse their products with their own purpose for them than we can make a sandcastle that will resist the waves, or than Boeing can make a plan that will not crash into buildings.
Clete said:
You are wrong.Completely wrong. Logic is the same from person to person. The only thing that changes is their skill at using it. Logic has three irrefragable laws.
Three Laws of Logic
The three laws of thought are universal, irrefutable, and true for reasons already stated. Without these laws, it is impossible to imagine how anything written or spoken could be intelligible. More to the point, the laws are the basis of necessary inference, for without them, necessary inference vanishes! To repeat, the laws of logic are universal, irrefutable, and true. By "universal," we mean allows for no exception. "Irrefutable" means that any attempt to refute them, makes use of them; thus, establishing them as necessary for argument. "True" means not only "not-false," but not-false because they are grounded in the Logos of God, the source and determiner of all truth. Moreover, the laws stand together as a trinity; to fault one, is to fault all, and to uphold one, upholds the others. Together, these laws establish and clarify the meaning of necessary inference for logic and all intelligible discourse.
Here is a brief statement of each.
1. The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.
2. The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.
3. The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.
Without the first, identity or sameness is lost; without the second, confusion begins; and without the last, irrationalism is in full residence.
None of this can be found in the scriptures. And I can give you an example from the scriptures that does not conform to your third "law." That proverbs are wonderful example of contradiction to your "law": "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:4-5.
You see, you assume that logic is our access to something that removes us from our context. You believe the myth that in Modern "reason" we have attained a truly unbiased observation of the world around us. It's wrong. I know for a fact that logic is quite different from person to person, and to pretend that a person can have a logical construct that is distinct from their historical context is just plain absurd. You are still living in the myth of Modernity and have refused to see the nihilism and relativity of our world that have been produced as a result of our acting according to our myths of hegemony. For Christians there are no absolute statements, nor are there fool-proof methods of rationality (until we get to the late Mideval period where a nominalistic theology takes hold). Christ is it, and he comes to us in all the contingencies that we ourselves face. Christ is not a universal, but is embodied. Even science, the supposed king of this rational method, must submit to the contingencies of the world. Within science one cannot make a statement of law. It's just impossible. You can have really good theories; you can even have theories that are good at explaining everything that happens. But you can never have a law. Newton's theories, which were foundational for our modern physics, were entirely shattered by Einstein, for Einstein's view of gravitation was not dependant upon Newton, but in fact created an entirely new foundation which submitted Newton's theories to that foundation (a foundation of space-time); Forces are not the fundamental nature of the universe in gravitation, space-time is. And the same can be said when we compare string-theory to Einstein.
To recapitulate. Logic is the science of necessary inference. The basic elements are propositions in arguments. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. An argument is composed of propositions some of which are premises, one of which is the conclusion. The premises are reasons given to support the conclusion of an argument or a position. Arguments are classified as either inductive or deductive. With Deductive Argument, we ask: "Does this conclusion follow as a necessary consequence from these premises?" If the answer is affirmative, the Deductive Argument is valid; otherwise, the argument is invalid. Deductive Arguments are either valid or invalid. Also, if the argument is not invalid, then it is valid. If the argument is not valid, then it is invalid.[/QUOTE]
And with this method you assume that understanding is primary to knowledge, whereas application is something else. The substance of a thing is what it is. You assume that your logic is its own foundation. It is not. And if you claim that your foundation is God you are no better than the ancients in their constant appeals to the gods for authorizing their understandings of reality. Logic is not commanded of us in the scriptures. Show me where I am to find your three laws in the Word of God, because I have not found them there. Logic is not my grounding; God's word is (which cannot be made distinct from God). God's word is revealed in those who obey it (which is ultimately the witness of Christ).
Three reasons for the study of logic are (1) correct thinking requires it; (2) discerning minds necessarily depend on it; and (3) man is a rational being in the image of his Creator. Logic is universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Man's mind was formed on the principles of identity, excluded middle, and contradiction. These three laws are the basis for all intelligible thought. Without them, all rational discourse vanishes.
source [/QUOTE]
And you have repeated the very distress that Descartes voices in his
Meditations. Everything is in doubt, except the rationality of the mind. You are a child of Descartes and you don't even know it.
God did not such thing. Paul was not referring here to that which was genuinely absurd but that which evil men in their secular humanistic pseudo logic found to be foolish or absurd. Logic is as absolute as God is and Paul absolutely affirmed logic and reason. In fact, I think someone around here somewhere has a quote from him stating exactly that in their signature line!
:think: I can't seem to remember who it is that uses that signature banner. :think:[/QUOTE]
Well, I guess that our hermeneutic of scripture is at odds. You also have a funny way of applying anachronistic ideologies to Paul. "Secular humanism" didn't even exist in the first century. And your statement that "logic is as absolute as God" just makes me squirm as I think back to the idolatry of Israel and their "law" (which I might add was spoken to them on the mount of God). But God declares that the law is powerless to bring about the rectification of the Creation. The law is good, but it is not self sufficient. The law without God is dead. Logic may be good, but it is not where it is at. Christ is the power of God to rectify the Creation.
Peace,
Michael
ureX:
