Justin: I have been thinking from the atheist point of view
one cannot ascribe to love infinite value,
as the atheist, as a materialist, will have to say
love will cease to be when the universe meets its last day;
whatever ceases to be can’t hold infinite value
as infinite value depends on eternal accrue
of days; without eternity naught is so valuable
no matter how we see it to humankind so integral.

Julian: I see you have been thinking my friend, your thought is most sound,
however let’s venture to one atheist opinion found
that ascribes the finite being of more value
than the eternal because the limited due
of life means one should cherish each moment the more
because there is no banking on eternal store
of days; this has even been accused of detracting from living
because eternity would add up giving
eternal boredom for fun loving souls,
we would run out of things to do and worthwhile goals

Justin: Well you’re the teacher, so rebutting that’s your role

Julian: No, novice, go ahead, the master fears to dig a hole.

Justin: Well I’d say since God is infinite, He’s of infinite
interest to explore, so we wouldn’t get bored, not one bit
and since God is love, love is infinite too
and the vocation of infinite love is fit too,
to see us through eternity I’d say,
and God has infinite ideas for each day,
so there won’t be any danger of boredom
for New Jerusalem’s eternal kingdom

Julian: Yes indeed, eternity won’t be boring,
for all Christians that should be reassuring;
but lets examine that charge of those finite days
finding more reason to cherish and praise
life, for in the limited allotment of time
not to suck the sweetest honey of life would be a crime,
that in life’s finite duration itself life is worth more
because we cannot afford to ignore
each opportunity to live and love,
throwing our all into all, with no hopes for days above
to redeem the squandered hours we’re so wont to make,
more to cherish if after life there’s not more life to take.

Justin: I’d say it stands to reason that cherishing
life would eventually meet its perishing
given life’s finite span, so the value
of the cherishing of life has no infinite accrue
whereas on the theist’s side if one can explore
God and love forever surely there’s more
to cherish, given God and love are infinite,
I think that as a rebuttal should sit,
not to mention the cherishing itself
would enjoy eternity’s fulsome health,
we would never run out of time to cherish
the things so good that they should never perish,
and who’s to say we put less into life
because we believe in heaven and an end to all strife,
I say more we’re motivated to put our all
into living and our vocation’s call,
for we’re battling for a place in that heaven
and its rewards that the righteous believe in,
we believe we should make the most of time and do our best
because it’s our souls for salvation’s rest,
our actions have eternal consequences,
and we’ll be requited for our obedience and offences.

Julian: That sounds good, and even if there’s some flaw
to the logic I think a general law
is that each day can be cherished equally
whether one believes in eternity
or reckons a cessation of days to be.
Now lets go back to what you were saying before,
we can surely take it as basic law
that a thing that ceases to be can’t have infinite value;
now, as Christians believe a glorious afterlife is due
to those who hold firm in the faith of God
a Christian can believe there’s eternal life in his blood,
an atheist would have to agree life and love are finite
in value unless he can make a right
good case that that which is finite
is the gold to posses that is more bright
than the infinite, but it seems absurd to me,
the transient to be worth more than eternity.

Justin: I do think though that everyone would like to think
that love is the infinitely valuable link
that connects each human to one another,
we get the sense that love is like the mother
of the human soul, transcending all that we know
and that it will always be there and never go,
that it is the mystery that masters us,
the demanding question that flusters us,
the hope that is guiding us through the storm,
the kind perseverance that wants to be the norm,
the charity that we cherish to see,
the action that can change a heart instantly,
the law that sets the spirit of man free,
the lesson that teaches us how to live,
the good for others that’s aching to give,
the truth revealed that can mean nothing wrong,
the healing to the bones that keeps us strong,
the hunger for a better world that does belong,
the arms that’re open and welcome the lost,
the tenderness that can thaw a heart of cold frost,
the bliss we’re promised when we give all for it,
the fulfilment we enjoy when we learn to store it;
and so much more of course, but an atheist will have to say,
who is a materialist, that one day
all love will come to nothing, so much for that then,
it’s only of finite value for men and women.

Julian: I’m with you, so what were you thinking beyond that?

Justin: Well I was thinking as I was at my desk sat,
that we ought to be able to prove that love is eternal,
that that is in fact to it a feature integral.

Julian: Then we shall try to prove that is the case,
in fact my suggestion is we prove that love must have eternal place
in order to exist at all, and that love has always
had a mind throughout the all of its days,
preceding the existence of life and the universe,
that would imply that Jesus is the gentle nurse
that has been applying love to us wretches
who are so much in love with temporal riches.

Justin: But would that get to Jesus Christ Himself,
or just, “a God” for our better spiritual health?

Julian: We can get it to Christ I think, we’ll try,
at worst it’s a worthwhile exercise to apply
our minds to. First I suggest we define
love, the greatest love that we can assign.

Justin: Well you’re the master, so you should talk about love

Julian: No, novice, you speak of the Sacred Dove

Justin: I’d say we can’t do better than go to the cross
for the greatest love, even at one’s loss
willing the good of the other. Selflessly giving,
even if oneself has to give up living.

Julian: Yes I think willing the good of the other,
like one were the most dependable brother,
is at the core of what love really is.
Now how do we prove we never did miss
love since before the beginning of the universe
and that cruel time will never inhearse
love in a sepulchre for dust to rule?

Justin: A question: will this argument work on the school
of thought that the universe is eternal?

Julian: Yes, I believe so, that will be no wall
to where we might go in our exploration,
now, get ready with your imagination,
how do we prove the eternality of love?

Justin: Well let’s go to origins, creation by breath above
the atheist obviously is much in lack
of faith for, but doesn’t have any story that does stack
for the origins of the universe,
of course if an eternal universe is his song’s verse
he doesn’t need one but is hard pressed to prove he is right.

Julian: Let’s put evolution in our mind’s sight,
if we can trace eternal love from that
that shall make our hearts most merry and fat,
and will make case even on an eternal model
of the universe, so speak something from that well.

Justin: I cannot remember, do we believe in evolution?

Julian: Honestly, we think it’s an unsatisfactory solution
in order to explain how life emerged,
personally I’d rather it a theory purged
from the schools, but let’s just grant it in full
even if we don’t feel it’s story’s pull,
it’s so believed and trusted, we must entertain
it for purpose of our argument’s pain,
or at least for this argument we will investigate it,
though the more I think about it the more I hate it,
it must be responsible for many souls’ loss,
but come now, friend, where’s your pain from its point? Take up your cross.

Justin: I think the atheist would ground love in evolution,
I believe that is his strongest solution
for where love is from, not only romantic love,
but agape love that we attribute to the above

Julian: Yes we already defined love though, didn’t we,
so you don’t need to tell those points to me.

Justin: I just wanted to reinstate it to make sure
we’re on the same page. Evolution often has the flaw
that love arose out of self interest to survive,
but we can’t take the greatest love from selfish drive
love must proceed from its own quality
that reflects it in all simplicity.

Julian: OK but you’re getting a bit technical now,
what is love’s own quality, and can you say how
it got to where it is inside a person,
speak with goodly elucidated reason.

Justin: Love’s own quality is the attribute of love,
us Christians would call it the soul of love,
and therein I say is God’s mind above.
Let me explain this: love requires expression,
and love’s expression requires inspiration,
and it’s inspiration requires the will to love,
and will to love requires the attribute of love,
or like we say the soul of love, fixed in Father, Son, Holy Dove,
but we’ll call it the attribute of love
so the atheists don’t already throw down the glove.

Julian: Ok so we have the attribute of love, or AL,
you have given this old mother the sell,
we’ll have to see what the atheists say to its place,
but you seem to make a reasonable case,
but how do you say it’s eternally been?

Justin: Remember, AL is the quality not seen
of willing the good of the other, so
the materialist will probably go
with that being grounded, or coming from,
evolution, the entirety of its sum.

Julian: What about social bonding, could it come from that,
did you think anything about that when at your desk sat?

Justin: Yes actually, I don’t think it can take
from that, surely social bonding does make
to be an act of love, AL cannot be grounded,
I think you will see that it’s logically amounted,
in something that is the action itself, the act
proceeds from the attribute of itself in fact;
the action of love does come from AL,
as do the thoughts and words of love as well,
internal activity of love comes too from AL.

Julian: OK, you’re doing well enough my son,
we haven’t got much far but, still, well done,
now how’s the thing eternal, and what of a mind.

Justin: OK, well now I might get in a bind,
but it’s easy to grant that will to love requires a mind.

Julian: I’d say it’s easy too to say AL requires a mind,
seeing how it’s so charitably kind;
when I think on it, love and a mind seem designed
to go one with the other one assigned.

Justin: I think so too, but the materialist might object,
but then it’s eternal love he’s trying to reject.

Julian: Really, why would anyone want to do so?

Justin: Well, there’s some committed finitists, you know;
but we can go back to that later on
if more lines for such a justification need be spun;
so AL needs a mind, but evolution,
we’re told happened by no imagination.

Julian: So what are you getting at here my friend,
I hope you haven’t met with a dead end.

Justin: So I say an agent would’ve had to invest
AL into evolution; I know that will not rest
well with atheists, but I think it logically stands,
for AL, being action of love’s source demands
not to be grounded in a (physical) action of evolution,
if proceeding from (physical) action it means AL’s source is in creation
of some kind, necessitating there being a creation
of course, for if AL is proceeding from (physical) action
it requires then an original action
to have incorporated it in the physical action
since the act of love comes from its own quality,
to better explain, its own quality
couldn’t have its source from the act, that’d be circularity
of reasoning, but if there were an original action,
i.e. I do mean the act of creation
that could have started it going in order,
I hope this thinking isn’t a mind’s murder.

Julian: Does that mean if AL is grounded in
(physical) action, that in action its ever been,
that rules out the possibility
of an eternal universe in this reality?

Justin: It seems so to me, logically, we can go back
to that later if necessary; also, not more for mind’s wrack,
if AL is grounded in (physical) action on this earth then
because there’s an original action involved, good woman,
to transfer it, that means it has a further original grounding
outside the physical reality of anything,
i.e. it was transferred from beyond, from some other place
we don’t have access to in this physical space.

Julian: So we are getting at God of course, man.

Justin: Yes, of course, that’s indeed the plan.

Julian: But let us say an agent invested AL
into evolution as creation won’t sell.
That’s still implying our great God of course,
but the atheist will say at this point without pause,
that mind or consciousness came from evolution,
perhaps AL came to be when consciousness had occasion
to exist, thus love arose from a mind,
but consciousness by evolution was assigned.

Justin: There are some problems with that, it’d imply
AL couldn’t have been before consciousness was at least a fry,
and as AL, or the soul of love, is required
for love to exist, as it’s so desired,
there could have been no love in life before consciousness came to be,
and I think with that most would disagree.
If we grant consciousness arose from evolution,
then to me it seems to be the solution
is to say the kernel of consciousness was in AL,
thus consciousness did arise from love, tell
me that’s not more than likely given love in possession of mind

Julian: Love gave us consciousness, isn’t that kind,
though I’m not sure all will agree that’s right.
Also, atheists don’t really believe in minds but brain’s might,
that consciousness probably comes from brain.

Justin: I don’t think the mystery of consciousness need be for our pain,
I will just say if love always had a mind,
consciousness precedes always having a brain assigned
to it seems about right to me,
love in some way being to consciousness key

Julian: But we needn’t discuss that now like you say,
perhaps we can leave that to another day.
By the way we needn’t have been so technical alright,
saying AL, it steals something from love’s height
now that we have put this jargon within sight.

Justin: Yes, perhaps it’s unnecessary, what
I was getting at was not to give love a blot,
was to say the action of love proceeds from love,
as well as the thoughts and words of dear love,
and I should say as well that soul of love
is the much better term for it, and, really, I mean soul of love,
but point more than well taken, we shall move
to saying love unless there is reason for otherwise

Julian: OK now let’s go back to this point to rise–

Justin: Before you do so I’ll add on that previous point
where there’s ‘AL’ one could just ‘love’ appoint,
I don’t think it makes much difference, do you?

Julian: At this point you are the expert and I don’t have a clue;
but, back to my point, can we strengthen the point about love
possessing a mind, which we say is the Christ’s mind above
of course, we need to say love has always had mind.

Justin: Well, I will tell you where I am inclined
to go with that, that is within its definition,
but let me quickly mention another implication
of an agent investing love in evolution,
it would mean that an agent has power over evolution,
thus that evolution has a mind behind it,
at least that is how I logically find it,
so then the case for God is indeed there,
I think the atheist would have to say, if he does so dare,
in order to make clear escape from this,
that love is something his worldview does simply miss
unless he can source love in something other
but I’ll wager that will be quite a bother;
but, back to what I was speaking about, love’s definition
is willing the good of the other, this has implication
of mind, for how can you will something without mind?

Julian: Yes I can surely get myself behind
that, but how were we saying that love has always
had a mind, that it indeed is eternal?

Justin: I think we just say that love is eternal
because it is ultimately sourced in who is integral,
that is God, and God must be because he’s the agent
that with command over evolution sent
love to be invested within evolution
in order for evolutionists to have a solution
for love to exist, I believe that’s it,
though evolutionists don’t need to commit
to love having a (second) source in evolution,
for love’s source in God is a good enough a motion,
of course, it’s not quite right to say love is sourced in anything,
more true is it love is the source of everything.

Julian: Expound and summarise a bit on some of what’s been said, I’m not sure I’ve been with you on everything to be honest.

Justin: OK, I’ll restate a few things and collect some thoughts: I am saying love proceeds from the action of love, but the action of love is not love’s source, for love is the source of the action of love, what I am saying is that love is the source of love in the physical universe, and there is love necessarily exterior to invest itself into the physical universe; and this investing was done via a mind.
We think love requires a mind as love is willing the good of the other and that implies there is a mind to do that willing. Perhaps the materialist can rebut this point, I think it would be tricky but even if he does I think there is still a problem as I will explain.

Julian: The business of a mind doesn’t seem all that necessary to discuss at this point.

Justin: If the materialist wants to say the source of love is the chemicals in the brain, I would say where do the (physical) actions of the chemicals in the brain come from, for (physical) action requires motivation, i.e love in this case as we are talking about the (physical) actions of love); and that motivation cannot come from the physical action as that is circular reasoning to then get at the (physical) action coming from the motivation (note, theists: this might be different in matters of the Godhead regarding action and motivation), yet I think the chemicals in the brain must be where a materialist is grounding love, source or origins of love that is (as Christians we believe love comes from love but its not quite right to say love, or the attribute or soul of love if you like, has a source, rather love is the source of everything), perhaps he could try and say that love evolved from the chemicals in the brain slowly, he’d have to explain that, but we have a problem saying that: if evolution is the source of love, for evolution involves change whereas love doesn’t change, love couldn’t come from something that doesn’t simply reflect the whole of it, if he is going with this explanation he will have to submit he has the illusion of love at best on his worldview, and not actually love. The materialist therefore seems to have to concede love doesn’t exist on his worldview unless he can explain an origin of love.
He may submit that love does change, but is completely going against the grain of thought to say so, remember the poet, ‘love is an ever fixed mark,’ but we don’t need poetry to tell us love doesn’t change, it’s something we just know, I will have to be staunch on that point, if he is saying otherwise it is a rejection of love. If he points to divorce and says that is evidence of love changing, either we submit it was never love, which I don’t like to do or to say, that despite if there’s’ any bitter feelings (but remember we are not defining love merely as feelings) love didn’t change but was abandoned and there is always the possibility of reconciliation with love. Perhaps the materialist could say there was some fundamental element of love in the evolutionary process which never changed, and from which our love was realised from, or he can try and better explain it if he likes, but then he is just sort of saying love is a brute fact, and I don’t think that is particularly satisfactory as an explanation for the origins of love (of course like I said we Christians believe love is the origins). I know this quite unpleasant to break love down like but I think the materialists have forced the game at this point.

Julian: On the point of love never changing, I wonder if we can say love never changes therefore it is eternal, for whatever doesn’t change has to be eternal for if there’s a point of the existence or reality of something coming into being that implies a change involved, but if something is eternal no such change is involved because it was there already, an eternal state or existence has always been if anything is eternal; only love (Christians note, God is love) is eternal .
Now,
We believe love is inherent to God’s intrinsic nature
but what if an atheist said the same of a creature,
that love is inherently part of a person’s intrinsic nature,
it’s just there in a person.

Justin: Well going with that reason
is more or less the brute fact route again,
but it gets me to another point for words’ pain
and we are getting to our Lord
Jesus now, by each continuing word.

Julian: Speak it as straight as you can my good man.

Justin: The source of love (or just love) can’t be an inherent part of a human’s intrinsic nature without God because it’s required that love is 1) eternal 2) for something to inherently be the source of love, it has to be love therefore must encapsulate love completely, reflecting the whole of it in all simplicity, that is there must be giver, receiver, and a relationship between giver and receiver. Obviously a human is not eternal and can’t comprise being a giver, receiver and relationship only of oneself. Also it’s quite egotistical for a man to claim himself the source of love.

Julian: That is where the Trinity is involved in terms of a giver, receiver, and relationship of love.

Justin: Yes now we are saying love is only compatible on the Trinitarian concept of God.

Julian: Of course unitarians think love is compatible with God as only one person, or one being formed not of multiple persons.

Justin: Yes, it stands that is not the case though, for I submit love requires a relationship, then who was God in a relationship with before creation? Of course the Trinitarian says what St Augustine said, the Father gives love, the Son receives love, and the Holy Spirit is the love that flows between them and that has always been the case.

Julian: The unitarian will say love doesn’t necessarily have to require a relationship with God, it’s just inherently part of his intrinsic nature: Love was always complete and perfect in God just like that, not dependent on the external factor of creation (which of course didn’t exist when there was only God).

Justin: However if there wasn’t a giver of love, a receiver of love, and a relationship of love that would mean love hasn’t always been expressed, there would have always been in the intention to love (through creation), but not the expression of love, and I submit that in order for love to always have been complete and fulfilled there always would have to have been the expression of love. Love requires expression.

Julian: Of course the unitarian would always have had the thoughts and words of love, but not the expression (or action) of love, I suppose though we could say words of love are in some way expressions of love. Perhaps even thoughts.

Justin: Perhaps, but what’s the greater love the thought or words of love or the action of love?

Julian: The action of love of course.

Justin: The action of love therefore would always have had to be in place for love to have been complete and fulfilled in its expression, the thoughts and words of love don’t suffice to fulfil love perfectly. Action is required. If the unitarian thinks the action of love not greater than the thought and words of love, I would say what is better to wish a beggar a blessing for food and clothing for the day, or to give a beggar food and clothing that day?

Julian: Point taken, so love requires expression, absolutely perfect expression in God’s case. But perhaps the unitarian will submit complete love doesn’t require expression, it suffices to be complete in thought only.

Justin: He can say that but, mark it that he is saying love doesn’t require expression then, or we could say doesn’t require action if we are saying the thoughts of God count as expression, and action is love at its most realised. That seems flawed.

Julian: Perhaps the unitarian will say God has always been upholding eternity through action of love.

Justin: Perhaps, but I don’t think that action suffices, because who was He demonstrating that action to, just Himself? I think the unitarian has to say complete love doesn’t require action.

Julian: Point taken.

Justin: And here’s the other problem for the unitarian, as love is willing the good of the other and as God is love (or on the unitarian concept at least has love or love is intrinsically part of His nature), God would always have been interested in willing the good of the other, and as God is all powerful God always would have been acting on that will, for not to be acting in love when one is capable of doing so is not to love, but it seems to me then there was a time when God wasn’t acting in love.

Julian: The unitarian will say God was waiting for the correct time to act in His infinite wisdom.

Justin: Yes perhaps he say that, but even if that’s the case, the previous point stands then, as action was delayed, the unitarian seems to have to submit the action of love is not required for the complete fulfilment of love.

Julian: I suppose a point to take from that is if God’s love was always perfectly fulfilled in love, then humans reflecting God’s love can surely express the best love by thought only too; yet we value the action of love over the thoughts of love, for actions are more powerful than thoughts.

Justin: So something isn’t seeming quite right there I say.

Julian: A question: can a human express the best love, or can her love be perfected by prayer only?

Justin: Perhaps it can, I don’t know, but it seems like in most cases God wants humans to have the routine and assortment of life beyond just prayer as well, and God uses opportunities in our daily life to bring our love closer to perfection.

Julian: We are saying express love rather than possess or own love, is love something you posses or own?

Justin: I don’t think love is something one really possesses, I don’t think that’s quite right, I think love is something somebody is, in God’s case perfectly, in the human case, imperfectly. I do not think love is stored in us and activated by us, I think we have to be love, for by the very fact of having love one is working to express love, if one has love, that love is always proceeding from a person, whether in thought, word, or action. In that regard it is our duty always to draw to light and not darkness that our love may not be lessened.

Julian: Our first duty must be to align our thoughts with love for the better words and actions of love.

Justin: That is probably the case, but my point to repeat from there is that as God is love, love is always proceeding, and the most powerful love is the action of love, so how was the action of love always in place in order for love to always have been complete and fulfilled since eternity, for we are saying the most powerful love has to be expressed in order for love to be perfect?

Julian: Yes we are going around in circles, the unitarian will have to submit the action of love is not necessary, it seems, in order for love to be perfect. Or if he thinks it is required, then it seems like creation is that action of love, therefore on the unitarian model God’s perfect love is dependent on creation. God’s intention to act, waiting in his perfect timing to create isn’t enough fulfil love?

Justin: No because there is a delay of between intention and action, the action always has to have been in place and perfectly expressed for love to always have been fulfilled.

Julian: Of course with the Trinitarian concept of God we say love has always had perfection action in the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, the Father always giving love to the Son, the Son always receiving love and I would say reciprocal through the flow of the Holy Spirit.

Justin: Perhaps the unitarian will say the eternal unchanging nature of God’s love is just as, or more so valuable than the act of love; but the eternal unchanging nature of love would be diminished without love manifested through action, the most powerful manifestation of love, and we couldn’t say it was unchanging before an action of love took place, if it was unchanging an action was always in place.

Julian: It seems the action of love is just as important as the eternal unchanging nature of love, absolutely key to it in fact I would say.

Justin: So we say God’s love on the unitarian concept of love isn’t unchanging until he creates to manifest the action of love, which we say necessarily must be manifested for God’s love to be fulfilled.

Julian: Therefore the unitarian concept of love is flawed it would seem.

Justin: As well as this business of love not existing in a relationship on the unitarian concept of God, if God’s love was perfect and fulfilled in Him without a relationship, then the start of a relationship with God’s love and creation is a point we might be able to contest when love changed as well, changed from no relationship, into a relationship, unless unitarians want to contest that God’s love isn’t in relationship with creation, which would seem absurd.

Julian: But as Trinitarians we say love has always been a relationship. I think we have fairly pointed out the flaws of God being love on the unitarian concept of God. Perhaps the unitarians will say this kind of logic is unfair to apply to God, and appeal to mystery. However, why don’t you make some sort of summation of points from out conversation?

Justin: The first matter with regards to Evolution and love:

1)  Love is sourced in evolution
2)  Love couldn’t be sourced in any action involved in evolution because the action of love proceeds from love (or the quality, or soul, of love), and love couldn’t’ve been sourced in any action that wasn’t an action of love, for love’s source must reflect love in all simplicity
3)  Love then, sourced in evolution, is somehow an inherent trait of evolution, but how-- that needs an explanation:
4)  Love has a mind
5)  That mind invested love into evolution
6)  To do so that mind necessary had power over evolution
7)  This mind is best understood as God
8)  Thus love’s ultimate source is God; God is love
9)  In God is sourced love’s eternality; also love is eternal because it doesn’t change, whatever never changes must be eternal; only love is eternal

The second matter with regards to God and love:

1)  Love always requires expression to be fulfilled
2)  In action is love’s expression fulfilled; the action of love is the most valuable love, and therefore required to fulfil, or complete, love
3)  On the unitarian concept of God’s love was not fulfilled until he acted in creation, therefore God’s love is dependent on creation in order to be fulfilled
4)  Love always requires a relationship between persons, on the unitarian concept of God, what was this relationship in eternity?
5)  In either case, on the unitarian concept of God, of love first acting in creation or starting a relationship with creation is also the implication that love changed (and grew greater), but love is unchanging
6)  Therefore the concept of eternals unchanging love is flawed on the concept of the unitarian God
7)  Love is complete on the Trinitarian concept of God because the Father has always been giving love to the Son, the Son has always been receiving love, the Holy Spirit has always been the love that has flowed between them (this perfectly completes the action of love)
8)  Love is only compatible on the trinitarian concept of love; the one God can only be in His three persons therefore

Julian: I suppose people might reasonably say there are other eternal things such as eternal justice.

Justin: Yes that is perhaps another discussion but I would say the eternality of anything else such as eternal justice must be grounded in God, and God is love, so anything else that is eternal borrows its eternality from love, and is not in itself eternal.

Julian: People will bring up the subject of eternal hell, that might be trickier to say is grounded in love.

Justin: Many people see God’s wrath as the flipside to God’s love, if someone actively rejects God love, He is rewarded eternal separation instead, which is cut off from God’s love, a decision made by love to give the sinner up to wrath. Although I probably believe in eternal separation, I do hold to a hopeful universalism however; but that is another conversation.

Julian: Very well novice, I think we’ve made good our points
now lets utilise our lower limbs joints,
and go for a stroll in the garden
before all this thinking does harden
our bodies into a stiff mess
while we’ve been sat playing logic chess.

Justin: Yes let us go for a walk
and listen to the birds talk.