Morals – Absolute versus Relative

Truth Behind Reality readers: the following conversation took place in January 2011.

Within the ensuing conversation, I argue that Truth, and thereby Morality (the human design specification for all humans – past, present, and future), is necessarily both objective and subjective by nature.

My goal in this Truth Behind Reality post is to show that Truth is not only separately objective and subjective but also entirely both, their source and mutual reconciliation – Jesus is Truth. Truth is not merely objective or subjective but instead the living source and reconciliation of both back unto himself.

A Discussion on Prayson Daniel’s blog, “With All That I Am

Post Title: “Facing the Challenge of Relativism

Premise

  • Prayson Daniel takes the stance of moral absolutist
  • Brap Gronk takes the stance of moral relativist
  • Todd Beal takes the stance of moral absolutist
  • Lance Ponder takes the stance of moral absolutist

Introductory statement to Prayson Daniel by Brap Gronk:

“Thus, Homosexuality is wrong, and Homosexuality is not wrong can not be true at the same time and sense.”

I would agree that homosexuality cannot be objectively wrong and also objectively not wrong, but moral relativists don’t claim that so I’m not seeing how moral relativism fails the law of non-contradiction. You have to assume there is objective morality for homosexuality to be either right or wrong. Too bad we never finished our discussion on objective morality.

Introductory question to Brap Gronk by Todd Beal:

Would I be incorrect in saying, moral relativists claim that moral absolutists are wrong in saying absolute right and wrong exists?

Brap Gronk says:

“Would I be incorrect in saying, moral relativists claim that moral absolutists are wrong in saying absolute right and wrong exists?”

Yes, as I have been discussing with Prayson for quite awhile, I believe absolute right and wrong does not exist. (I don’t know for certain if that makes me a moral relativist, since I don’t generally care for labels, but it probably does.)

What does exist is opinions about right and wrong that are almost universally held among non-psychopaths, and similar intuitions about what is right or wrong, neither of which make something absolute or objective.

Todd Beal says:

Brap Gronk, that’s great, but you still didn’t answer my question.

Brap Gronk says:

If we limit “right and wrong” to “moral right and wrong” then I believe it is wrong (meaning incorrect, not morally wrong) to say absolute moral right and wrong exists. If we do not limit “right and wrong” to “moral right and wrong” then I believe it is right to say absolute right and wrong exists, because that includes “correct and incorrect.” Here are some examples of statements that are absolutely right or wrong (correct or incorrect):

– Two plus two equals four.

Object A has more mass than object B.

– The distance between objects A and B is less than the distance between objects C and D.

– There are two stars in the Milky Way Galaxy that currently are exactly 20,462.54 light-years apart.

Todd Beal says:

Brap, you clearly believe in absolute right and wrong, but only within a physically based measurable context. In other words, if you cannot perceive the absoluteness of moral right and wrong, then it is ultimately incorrect in your point of view. However, your inability to perceive the validity of something only testifies to your inability to perceive that something, and in no way invalidates the existence of that something.

“The ability to perceive is non-existent if something cannot be what it is separate from perceiving it.” – Todd Beal

Truth is not about believing what is most comfortable to believe. Truth is what it is whether we perceive it as such or not. We discover truth, not construct it. If we discover truth then truth does not belong to us. If it does not belong to us then it is not naturally in us. If it is not in us then we are ultimately incorrect in proclaiming this absolute, “Absolute moral right and wrong does not exist”. But if truth is in us, then it is truth that says, “Absolute moral right and wrong exists”, not us.

So, ultimately, the question is not about whether absolute moral right and wrong exists, but whether one absolutely accepts absolute truth.

Brap Gronk says:

Todd wrote: “However, your inability to perceive the validity of something only testifies to your inability to perceive that something, and in no way invalidates the existence of that something.”

Agreed. Nobody’s inability to perceive the validity of unicorns, gravity, the Loch Ness monster, evolution, Bigfoot, a flat earth, or the Big Bang Theory has any bearing on the existence of those things.

“Truth is not about believing what is most comfortable to believe. Truth is what it is whether we perceive it as such or not. We discover truth, not construct it. If we discover truth then truth does not belong to us. If it does not belong to us then it is not naturally in us.”

Agreed.

“If it is not in us then we are ultimately incorrect in proclaiming this absolute, “Absolute moral right and wrong does not exist”. But if truth is in us, then it is truth that says “absolute moral right and wrong exists”, not us.”

Until someone can counter my arguments against the existence of objective morality, I don’t think I’ll be agreeing with those sentences.

“So, ultimately, the question is not about whether absolute moral right and wrong exists, but whether one absolutely accepts absolute truth.”

Sure, I absolutely accept absolute truth. I agree that my beliefs have no bearing on any absolute truths outside of my brain. I accept that not everyone has the same beliefs regarding what is true and what is false, and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

Todd Beal says:

Brap,

Objective morality, no such thing exists. Morality is foremost intrinsic to the integrity of human design, and is secondarily intrinsic to the integrity of each individual’s unique personal design.

At some crucial point, objectivity necessarily becomes subjective. Otherwise, we fall into the age-old trap of human-based religious law. You do what “We” say, regardless of how God designed you. We can hold an “objective” truth out in front of us for a lifetime, but until we subjectively make it our own, according to our unique personal design, that truth is mere concept and consequently delivers no truth. Truth is what it is, but to make it personal, we necessarily make it our own, subjectively.

We westerners have been brainwashed into thinking that subjectivity and objectivity are mortal enemies, that objectivity allows us to see things the way they really are and that subjectivity introduces irreparable personal blindness to reality.

Objectivity allows us to see something out and away from our self, but subjectivity allows us to understand that something in a uniquely personal way. However, truth is what it is and does not depend on our agreement – whether objectively or subjectively – to exist. Truth exists; we simply find it and personally accept it as is, or not at all.

So how do we accept something we don’t initially fully understand? How do we know that what we are accepting is irrefutably true? Understanding morality, both universally and personally, is directly dependant on the same premise as understanding real and unselfish love. One cannot understand an all-consuming marital or parental love before first experiencing it. Yet one cannot experience that selfless love without first opening his or her heart to embody that love. But how do we know that we are opening our heart to something that is truly real, truly authentic, and not a gross facsimile?

Until we know for certain which foods nourish our body, we must rely on our complimentary senses of smell and taste. Once we swallow the food, our body inevitably informs us if we are eating the wrong foods according to our unique body type. However, we can override what our body tells us – and shows us – continually eating only those things that initially taste great to our preconditioned palate, but wish as we might, our body demands certain nutrients specific to its unique personal design. The same goes for truth. Truth always reveals itself as good and nourishing food, but if according to our preconditioned palate we accept only what initially smells good and tastes good, we become malnourished and begin to waste away.

Truth may initially taste bad, as in accidentally drinking a glass of water while expecting a glass of coke. The water isn’t bad; it just tastes bad according to our expectation of good. In the same way, truth isn’t bad; it just tastes bad according to our pre-conditioned expectation of truth. However, once our heart rejoices at finally ingesting real personal truth, we begin to love it, need it, and become willing to die for it, just as we would for our child or spouse.

As much as we each desire to understand truth first and accept it second, we cannot because truth doesn’t work that way. Intellectual thought only points toward or away from truth, but inevitably, only experiencing it provides personal understanding, both objectively and subjectively, according to your unique and personal design. So how do we experience it? We do so only by expecting something other than the incompleteness of what we already expect. Truth will do the rest.

Brap Gronk says:

“Objective morality, no such thing exists.”

So you wouldn’t consider William Lane Craig’s moral argument for the existence of God a very strong argument?

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3) Therefore God exists.

Todd Beal says:

Brap,

When I say objective morality, I mean it as existing strictly external to self as an ideal or concept. This is not to say that conceptually understanding the intrinsic nature of morality is impossible, but rather that by nature, morality does not exist as an ideal or concept. Morality is the human equivalent of the operational design specifications for an automobile engine, robot, bolt torque setting, etc. Unless one adheres to these operational specifications, one will damage or break the object. Morality is simply the operational design specification for human beings.

We were designed with a set of operational specs specific to the human species as a whole, and we are also designed with a set of specs specific to each unique individual. God personally designed the human race, but he also personally designed each individual as unique within that human race. Therefore, the operational design specification (morality) of each individual is unique to that individual but at the same it must harmonize with the overall operational design specification (morality) of the human race.

So yes, we can think about and understand morality objectively, but until we also make it subjective by internalizing that morality and infusing it into our unique personal life, it will at best, always remain within the realm of conjecture and opinion where one person’s version is no better or worse than another’s.

If we don’t understand how something is designed to operate, we inevitably damage it and eventually break it, including our self.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:30 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Hey Lance,

I am participating in an interesting conversation with Brap Gronk on Prayson

Daniel’s blog, “With All I Am”. I would be most grateful to hear your take by email.

Todd

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:05 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: I solicit your thoughts

First of all, I do believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I’m not so sure about gravity.

In one of Brap’s comments he says: and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

The retort I would offer is: why? Why be driven to correct error – be it moral or philosophical or logical (etc)? The answer is natural law. There are moral (good/right and evil/wrong) absolutes and one part of our nature naturally is aware (one might say instinctively?) of this. This is why when we perceive error, particularly outside ourselves, we strive to correct the error. We know good from evil because they exist. Until our conscience is seared away (turned over to a reprobate mind), we will gravitate toward good. Unfortunately we also have a sin-nature which repels against this gravity when our thoughts come into conflict with our desires. This is the flesh/spirit war.

It seems to me the only real conflict is over the word “objective”. Is good/evil or right/wrong (moral context) universal? Of course I’m going to say because that’s how I roll. But to explain why ultimately depends belief in the existence of a morally perfect eternal God. Allowing for moral relativity assuages the guilty soul. All are guilty, so all of us seek excuses. The relativist will not give up his relativistic argument until confronted with Truth he or she is personally unable to deny. Does that mean objective morality does not exist until it is perceived? Of course not, as you’ve already argued quite nicely.

Shall I post these thought to stir the pot, or were you simply doing a little sanity check?

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 3:29 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Hold off on your comment until I see his response. This guy is different from the others. Something tells me he is truly searching, hence my lengthy and comprehensive reply to his comment. If he responds with a careless and flippant reply, then put the hammer down, but make Jesus proud in doing so.

Thanks Lance,

Todd

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 2:37 AM

Subject: I solicit your thoughts

Lance,

I posted my comment reply to Brap Gronk on Prayson Daniel’s blog, Feb. 4th. He has not responded. What are your thoughts regarding this last comment?

Todd

Lance Ponder says as blog comment:

First of all, I do believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I’m not so sure about gravity.

In one of Brap’s comments he says: and sometimes, when someone tries to convince me that something is true when I believe it not to be true, I’ll try to show them why I believe they have an inaccurate belief.

The retort I would offer is: why? Why be driven to correct error – be it moral or philosophical or logical (etc)? The answer is natural law. There are moral (good/right and evil/wrong) absolutes and one part of our nature naturally is aware (one might say instinctively?) of this. This is why when we perceive error, particularly outside ourselves, we strive to correct the error. We know good from evil because they exist. Until our conscience is seared away (turned over to a reprobate mind), we will gravitate toward good. Unfortunately we also have a sin-nature which repels against this gravity when our thoughts come into conflict with our desires. This is the flesh/spirit war.

It seems to me the only real conflict is over the word “objective”. Is good/evil or right/wrong (moral context) universal? Of course I’m going to say yes because that’s how I roll. But to explain why ultimately depends on belief in the existence of a morally perfect eternal God. Allowing for moral relativity assuages the guilty soul. All are guilty, so all of us seek excuses. The relativist will not give up his relativistic argument until confronted with Truth he or she is personally unable to deny. Does that mean objective morality does not exist until it is perceived? Of course not, as Todd already argued quite nicely.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:48 AM

Subject: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Okay, that works.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:52 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Thanks. That’s the same answer I replied to your email a couple of days ago, aside from fixing a couple of typos. LOL.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:57 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

I see that. I was wondering what you thought about that particular comment. It’s not a big deal, I just wanted to hear your thoughts.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 3:15 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Sorry, I guess I’m confused. You mean my thoughts on your last answer to him, or his last answer to you? His was pretty short and you went at some length to respond to him. If the latter then I see what you’re saying. I think objective absolutes remain such regardless of whether or how we internalize (subject) them. But that’s not the point you were making and that’s fine.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 3:24 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

As I told my father, my last comment is the first I have (in my view) successfully explained morality with a practical answer. My question to you: If you were on the receiving end of my comment, would it help you to better understand that morality is not relative, but absolute and simultaneously uniquely personal?

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:17 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Well, since you asked…

I really liked the first, second, and fourth paragraphs. The third paragraph, however, left me having to think a little too hard. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m not so sure about the details…

//So yes, we can think about and understand morality objectively, but until we also make it subjective by internalizing that morality and infusing it into our unique personal life, it will at best, always remain within the realm of conjecture and opinion where one person’s version is no better or worse than another’s. //

I don’t much care for the way you said we have to make the objective into the subjective. Like I said, I understand what you’re getting at, but the word choice leaves me cringing because I don’t really think that’s how you want to say it. Objective morality is not in the realm of conjecture and opinion. Not ever. If so it ceases to be objective. Once it is no longer objective it cannot again become objective. Consider the lesson of the leavening. A little does the trick, and once its in there it ain’t coming out. What is in that realm [of conjecture and opinion] is our corrupt, imperfect, and/or incomplete (subjective) understanding. The specs on a machine must define construction, and in this sense it is internalized, but the objective specification remains separate just as the builder of the house remains separate from the house.

It seems to me that perhaps what you’re really trying to get at is purpose and application. Of what use is morality until it is internalized? Perhaps that’s more along the lines of what you meant? Ah…. then…. Purpose goes to justice, and from there we enter another realm. Not so easy to compartmentalize, now is it? LOL.

Have a great morning and be blessed.

Lance

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 1:50 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Lance,

Truth exists as neither exclusively objective nor subjective but entirely the source of both, with each serving to complete the other, separate in essence yet unified within truth. Truth is alive – he is a person – apart from which the object and subject are not merely separate but entirely nonexistent. Therefore, we understand truth both objectively and subjectively – one in terms of the other – or entirely not at all. If indeed truth is the source and reconciliation of all things, and if indeed truth is within and without all that it reconciles, then “truth” remains in the realm of conjecture and opinion if one does not both objectively and subjectively understand it as truth to the exclusion of what it is not.

If then morality – the operational design specification for the ongoing integrity of human construction – is understandable only as exclusive to objectivity, an external law only unto itself, then it is true only in and of itself and remains impersonal, as personally unknowable. If on the other hand morality is exclusively subjective, a law only unto oneself, then it exists as true only in and of the unique person, remaining impersonal and personally untrue for all others. If however, morality transcends both the objective and subjective – wherein both are unified within truth, the source of everything – then morality is understandable and adhered to only by subjectively internalizing one’s objective understanding of morality, and, simultaneously, objectively externalizing one’s subjective understanding of morality; understanding both in terms of truth, and, necessarily then, each in terms of each other.

So, to address your concern regarding the inability to re-objectify morality once it becomes personally subjective: truth is both in and through everything including itself, both objectively and subjectively, apart from which neither objectivity nor subjectivity exists. Therefore, truth is completely known – including his provision of morality – only when understood objectively, as concept, and subjectively, as incorporated personal essence, and both in terms of each other as reconciled back unto truth.

Lance, I know this is extremely abstract, but this is the bare-bones essence of how I reason through everything. I employ this method only when nothing else will suffice.

Your friend,

Todd

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:11 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Wow. Okay. That makes sense. Now I get it. Thanks for your patience. You’ve given me a new way of seeing all this. Thanks so much. Sorry for being such a scoffer – LOL.

From: Todd Beal

To: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:35 AM

Subject: RE: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

Thanks for giving an honest listen.

From: Lance Ponder

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 2:40 AM

To: Todd Beal

Subject: Re: Your comment on Prayson Daniel’s blog

You’re welcome. I really enjoy the sensation of my cranium expanding. LOL. Its not easy fitting new ideas into this old skull. ~_*

Advertisements

About Todd Beal

I love truth and its facts. I love thought-provoking conversations that give both the other person and me a better understanding of a particular topic. I love to find answers to life-long questions; answers that let me see things for what they are instead of what they seem to be. I truly enjoy being in the midst of a group of people where all individuals are joining in, where everybody is enjoying the company of each other. I relax in the company of individuals who are competent yet humble. I like to catch myself doing or saying something ridiculous and then laugh my head off. I enjoy my church and being involved.
This entry was posted in By Title [A]. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Morals – Absolute versus Relative

  1. Interesting? But I am so happy I don’t really engage any longer in strict philosophical debates! 😉 I now concentrate on the authority of Holy Scripture, and biblical genre.. as a Presuppositionalist! But enjoy mates! 🙂

    Btw, nice to see that Lance is still around! 😉

    Like

    • Todd Beal says:

      Fr. Robert,

      I agree that presupposition is the foundation for understanding everything. Without an underlying premise we could not arrive at any conclusion whatsoever, whether meaningful or otherwise. But that is not to say that all presuppositions are equally grounded in truth. We must therefore test our presuppositions (whatever they may be) in order to prove whether they are valid or invalid for the given context. That is what I attempted to accomplish in this post.

      First, I presuppose that Absolute Morality exists. Why? Because the Bible bears it out from cover to cover – there is not one Biblical book for which absolute morality does not either directly or indirectly serve as the underlying premise.

      Second, I presuppose that not only do objective and subjective morality each separately, authentically exist, but also are necessarily inseparably interdependent coequals that must ultimately become a single, unified essence within oneself to facilitate personal reconciliation back unto Truth, Jesus Christ. Why? I defer to the following scripture passages as my authority: Romans 14, Hebrews 11, and Philippians 2:12.

      Romans 14 [NASB] – Principles of Conscience:  “14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

      One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

      10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

      “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
      And every tongue shall give praise to God.”

      12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

      13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.”

      Hebrews 11:1 [NASB]:  11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

      Philippians 2:12 [NASB]:  12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;”

      If one reads the above three scripture passages and subsequently all contextually related scripture references, studying each to exhaustion, one will find the unmistakable unified co-signature of both objective and subjective morality together serving to unify one’s personal reconciliation back unto truth. There is no such thing as objective versus subjective morality (or more broadly, objective versus subjective truth), in terms of ‘one at the expense of the other’, when speaking of absolute truth. The absolute, by definition, always unifies (incorporates) the objective and subjective both, as interdependent coequal partners – two inseparable, interlinked sides of the same indivisible coin.

      So harking back to your mention of Biblical presupposition, Fr. Robert, it is one thing to take something at face value because we know (or presuppose we know) that our source is trustworthy, but until we understand something in a personal sense (as in ‘make it our own’) it is simply a borrowed piece of information that, at best, does nothing to improve our personal understanding, and, at worst, leads us away from truth, not towards it.

      The Apostle Paul succinctly sums it up in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 [NASB]:  21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;”, and in the ESV translation the text reads:  21 but test everything; hold fast what is good”. It is one thing to accept something ‘as is’, it is quite another to test it and thereby prove it. If it is true, it will stand on its own. If it is not true, truth will destroy it.

      * By the way Fr. Robert, this blog post conversation, which involves Prayson Daniel, Brap Gronk, Lance Ponder, and me, took place three years ago January 27, 2011 on Prayson Daniel’s blog. As I was reading Prayson Daniel’s post and the subsequent comments last night, I felt compelled to repost everything here on Truth Behind Reality, ending with my email exchange with Lance Ponder, in which I argue for absolute morality as the unification, and therefore the inseparability, of objective and subjective morality.

      Lance no longer blogs on Divine Logos, or at least not since February 07, 2013 when he announced his first grandchild. I really miss him. I tell you Fr. Robert, I look back with fond memories of when you, Michael Knudsen, Lance Ponder, and I (including everyone else in the original Truth Behind Reality participants) really dove into the issues. I learned so much during that time and felt myself draw close to you, Lance, Michael Knudsen and the others. I am so thankful for that time in my life. I appreciate you Fr. Robert. I appreciate your willingness to engage me in real dialogue that lays the issues bare, even when we disagree with each other. Thank you for being my friend.

      I hope you had a good Christmas. Happy New Year.

      Like

      • @Todd: Great to hear from you mate! I am so glad you are blogging more and enjoying it! I actually spend less time on my own blog these days, but perhaps as you can see, I still do something often, even if I just share another blog offering. But, I am always seeking the theological place, but I hope biblically! Btw, I count you one of my closest blog friends, keep at! And best blessings in 2014! 🙂

        Yours In Christ,
        Fr. Robert

        Like

Comments are closed.