This section is pretty short, and my post on it can be even shorted because Keller and I agree. Last section in the chapter, though. The next one is about Science vs. Religion so… that’ll probably get heated.
In this section, Keller addresses the idea that someone can’t believe in the Christian God (I guess, it is unclear) because they believe in a “god of love”. Keller says that there is no evidence of such a god, physical or historical (ka ching) and that if you consider biblical evidence you must accept that the bible describes God as loving, but also just. He says that a belief in a god of pure love, who accepts everyone equally, is not supported by any sort of evidence.
And there’s really nothing to argue with. There is no physical or historical evidence for a loving god (or any god). If you consider the bible evidence, then you must accept certain aspects to God that are discriminatory. He has a chosen people, some people go to hell, so a perfectly loving god is not supported. However, since I take the bible as evidence of nothing but the folk beliefs of ancient peoples, I think the belief in a perfectly loving god is as valid as Keller’s belief in a god that will send me to hell, and frankly, I prefer the former.