... but i'll play the game.

josiah,

as for god’s unconditional and everlasting love, maybe you could talk about that to the street children in this city who sniff glue all day so they don’t have to realize their hunger pains; they could may use a pie-in-the-sky heroine more than i, friend.

“and he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. and he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. and he said, of a truth i say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: for all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of god: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.” (luke 21:1-4)

and how much more beautiful the offering of the widow who barely had anything to give than that of the rich men, how beautiful the love of the being who loves despite it’s difficulty than he who loves in abundance with facility, how much more tangible and real;

besides, accepting and relishing in the love of christ seems the physical equivalent of enjoying sex with a sincere prostitute.

(if you’d let yourself fall in love, tangible, organic, non-static love, maybe you’d know what it means.)

as for the wisdom of man v. the wisdom of god, tu quoque? you’ve spent the last four years in an institution that stands, within the scope of modernity, as a symbol of man’s attempt toward and respect for wisdom and knowledge, specifically self-knowledge, i.e. man’s effort toward knowledge of the humanitarian sort.

in any case, the word of god had to pass through a human filter, ergo man’s wisdom, in order to enter history. christ himself was a wise man, but fully man as well as divine, transforming his wisdom into a piece of that of the corpus of the history of the wisdom of man.

i reiterate that I feel that christianity is but a chapter in the history of man’s relation to the divine, a beautiful myth, of whose authors fortunately didn’t distinguish between truth and fiction nearly as rigidly as we do, but how can it be approached with any morsel of the religious objectivity that it demands?

my opinion holds that people believe something because they want to, perhaps because it fits well their social or cultural reality, but not necessarily because it’s “true”.

i don’t mean to sound asshole or mean, on the contrary i love you. you’ve opined on behalf of what i’ve written, now i return the favor. and it fits to note that i do believe in the divine, but i don’t think by any means that she’s beyond reproach.

sincerely,

zachary david campbell





p.s. (yet how much more does the superfluous character of judas suffer, how much does he himself sacrifice for enabling christ’s sacrifice?; much more than three days: now eternally, now infinitely in hell.)