God's Economy

Grace is a public good: non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The fixed cost has been paid by Christ, and we are now all privileged to free-ride on the good. However, paradoxically, God’s economy suffers from demand-deficit unemployment. Because there is an infinite supply of perfectly elastic grace at zero price, there is no inflation as more capacity can always be utilised. For this reason there is no such thing as an excess supply of labour at a given price (the Mormons might have you believe that God's company has limited vacancies, but this is false). Moreover, there is no such thing as structural or frictional unemployment, because no prerequisites are required to enter into the service of God (the religious types might have you believe otherwise). However, grace is a perfect substitute for death, and so anybody who chooses death cannot also demand life. Unfortunately, For this reason, the demand of sin (which also has a perfeclty elastic price, set at 'death'), which unfortunately is also inelastic due to its addictive nature, constricts the demand for grace. As the demand for love is derived only from the demand for grace (as God is love), the amount of people employed in the service of God is limited and the total production of love is below full capacity.

Relativism and Transitivity

The toxic philosophy that has so pervaded our modern society, that of postmodernism, espouses a theory of relativism. This theory says that there is no absolute truth ontologically independent from human belief; rather, truth consists of what people take to be true, and is thus inextricably linked to its epistemology. So if one person says that God is not real, and another that God is real, both are correct. Obviously, this is logically nonsensical.

One interesting way to really demonstrate this absurdity is through transitivity.

Take three societies, each with the following 'opinions':
Society 1: A > B
Society 2: B > C
Society 3: C > A
If all societies are correct, we should be able to consolidate their opinions to reveal truth. Thus,

A > B, which > C, which > A.
Clearly, this is a fallacy. If we are to take all 'cultures' to be equally valid, then we must sacrifice the inference 'if A > B and B > C then A > C'.

However, if we use such deduction as our starting point, and thus accept that truth is absolute, then one of these societies must be wrong. For example, if we take Societies 1 and 2 to be correct, then both premises are fulfilled, and A must be greater than C. Society 3 is therefore WRONG. And so on.

One pertinent application of this idea is that of law. In a multicultural society, it is politically correct to say that all cultures should be tolerated. But how to tolerate a culture of intoleration? How to incoroporate Shariah Law into our Western law, when the point of Shariah Law is to vanquish any other values besides those of Islam? How to allow freedom of speech under the assumption that everybody is right when people preach racism or advocate hate crime?

Lines must be drawn.