Journal of May 8, 2005

Sunday, May 8, 2005 11:46 AM The glove is the key (as an analogy for the history of the Christian faith)..

The glove is a proxy for scriptural and/or eccelsiastical laws and regulations and must be worn at the supper table.

Now the Peterians were Christians and of a glove wearing people (the Jews), and the Lord of the Christians always wore a right hand glove at the supper table, except on those rare occasions when he took it off in order to do some good (and without waiting until he had left the table before removing his glove), but then he still always held it in his hand and never threw it down. He remained always a right glove man. He had been tossed to the people who wore no gloves at all, the gentiles, and they had killed him. [Note: this is inexplicable to the Muslims.]

The Peterians, acting under the authority of their Lord, authorized a supper table for the gentiles who wanted to follow the Lord, where it was not necessary to wear gloves at all, but merely a napkin to show that they were not unruly (Acts 15). This supper table, called Paulian, and the Peterian tables were different and yet the same, and this can be explained by another analogy of the glove and the two hands.

If we conceive of a single hand (and letting it signify the Christian Church in the mind of God) then it can be perfectly and absolutely depicted by each the right and the left hand in our sight. Identical with one and the same thing (the hand in the mind of God), and yet different. Identical point for point, finger for finger, relation to relation; in every single way understandable to the mind, and yet still different. Each then was a table that the Lord would join. And so each the Peterian and the Paulian tables are sanctified and the napkin of the Paulian table merely signifies a denial of lawlessness.

Now suddenly the Peterian table is annihilated (70AD sack of Jerusalem) and the only table left is the Paulian; and the Church continues unabatedly. The Paulian, in an effort to woo the right glove people to the table of Christ, acting in Christian freedom, start wearing a glove of scriptural determination, and this habit sticks and the Paulians slowly vanishes and is replaced by neo-Peterians, those of a glove, although now with a left hand glove of scripture and edict imposed by the church.

Now the neo-Peterians are split in terms of pattern and material of the glove. The Roman Catholics wear a solid, heavy material glove, while the Protestants wear gloves with patterns cut out of them and with nuance in texture and material and the variation seems infinite. Only here and there are their traces of the Paulian. Luther started cutting out parts of the glove, and it was the edict of the church, and left just the scriptural law. No one has yet adequately proclaimed the reappearance of the Paulian as the opposition (in these terms) to Roman Catholicism. Hopefully this glove example will serve to that end.

With the greatest respect the Paulian is to address the Peterian when they eat together. When they eat together they are not to focus on gloves at all, and instead talk about other things which are more edifying. Let the Paulian restrain himself for the sake of the love of the Peterian and not flaunt his liberty by touching him without a glove. The Peterian will not be able to permit any at the Peterian table who do not wear gloves. It is a gloved table. The Paulian can voluntarily put on the decorum of a glove by wearing one merely for the sake of harmony among like spirits, one a culture the other not. And so it would be a sacrifice of love for the sake of harmony in the church. But at his own table he is free to sup without any glove. The Peterians will refuse to go, and will gather at the glove table, and whenever they are forced to eat together they will boost the spirits of each other and encourage each other in all good things in the spirit of Christ. We follow in two paths but one spirit. One table in heaven and two on earth. Each a perfect match of the heavenly table, and each still different.

I suspect that the Paulian will be the one finally to take over the world, for in its independence of the authority of scripture as a law book (other than their supreme constitution as Paulians), it also implicitly means an independence of authority of scripture as history, for the Paulian is directed by the three loves of Christ: God, neighbor and fellow Christian, and one may enter into the faith by sincerely intending to acquire the spirit which moved Jesus Christ (as related in scriptures) with this full (and very Wesleyan) expectation: you will partake of a miracle which appears as you find that you are coming to actually enjoy the three loves more and more, and it is in this way that you will then come to realize that the scriptures are accurate, for what is promised in them will have been accomplished within you and thus are validated through you. That is a personal experience, and that comes through time. Join now all those who repent of their sins and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments (the three loves for the Paulian) and seeking to reflect them in all dealings with all people. This is like the left and right hand: you come in wearing a left glove of intentional faith and end up wearing a right hand glove of natural or conveyed faith. You enter in search of salvation and end up with it. You enter to avoid punishment and end up with the reward of eternal life in hand and no longer interested in reward and punishment but rather on how to spread goodness all about, under the circumstances of one’s condition.

And so in a word I think that Kant was quite right in his assessment of the Paulian as the “revolutionary” element in the new faith. A factually moral faith at the table of the Paulians, where no glove is worn, but only a napkin to prove that we are not brutes.

Here endeth the analogy of the glove. Below I get into Christian and Muslim musings

12:38 PM As I play with this glove and left and right hand stuff I wonder about Islam and Christianity? Here the contrast is more of a glove or napkin (of etiquette) and a whip. I don’t see any other conclusion. And I think Roman Catholicism can also be a horror if taken too seriously. As well as any number of religious movements. I tremble at the thought of a religious body having the power possessed by the Roman Catholic Church and some of the protestant churches a few hundred years ago. Where people can be destroyed if they do not utter a certain mandra in opposition to their own conscience, the worst enslavement according to Kant. [How about self enslavement by refusing to consider new ideas?]

No wonder the government of the early Americans was to be kept free of the domination of religious mind set. No wonder Kant was frantic to find a moral religion that would serve as a universal religion, where all well intended people are invited in a mutual, self encouragement of the spirit of the three loves, and where the measure is virtue, i.e., an earnest striving for perfection in these three loves. Those who believe the story of the Christians have reason for great hope and anticipation, while the new comers may be there out of fear and in need of even the least hope. Or the new comer may be a kindred spirit which has not yet accepted the history (except morally and ritualistically). As a kindred spirit then it is like the naturally good gentile of Romans 2. And no doubt he would be welcomed at the table of the Lord, in “I believe, O Lord, help thou my disbelief.” In that sort of fashion.

12:55 PM Kant describes Jesus once in these terms: he came to call those of a spirit of goodness and to take them to his kingdom, and to leave the others to fend for themselves in a godless existence after death. Presumably we will no longer be in the same dimension with these others, and so they will essentially, for those of a given realm, have disappeared.

And so then the Christian of today follows Jesus Christ into the next realm, the one man who can thoroughly trusted. And we have to leave the others to fend for themselves without the help of Christ, while we follow Christ into the realm of the community of spirits and avoid in that way also the realm of individual spirits, which is also called hell by the Christians.

1:06 PM Need for Jesus’ death. Morally it is the supreme indication of virtue. Something you might only expect from a super power. Practically it was necessary to convey the meaning of discipleship and in that way to open the door to a Holy Spirit (and get beyond the gentile game of lording it over each other). It was necessary in the inducement to people to believe that they had some hope of pleasing God, namely in their own reformation, i.e., by virtue of the death of Jesus and the justification of the species, I now have a hope of pleasing God through a like perfection in myself, and my striving, given my condition, is seen as a justification by faith.

3:53 PM Gifts of the spirit. Yesterday, when I heard wivey’s happy dog at the door, the one (dog) that she loves so much, I look out to make sure she were there, but only two neighbors talking, and so I ran back and shouted: Tobi’s here. But there was no answer. Puzzled I look outside and saw her with the two neighbors as she stood up and then leaned over again.

and so that burst of spirit was utterly vain, is it not? Nothing was accomplished. But the spirit lives and strengthens itself in acts of goodness, for they bring an enjoyment in that goodness. And so it is not in vain, but in total and utter expression.

The spirit speaks according to one’s understanding and capacity, and this is only right. To whom much is given, from him will much be required. The spirit spoke to don Quixote in one way and Hitler in another (vis a vis Eva Braun), and to Francis of Assisi and John Wesley in another way, each according to his understanding and according to his capacity. Even the Marquis de Sade proved himself a decent man when as judge he let his bitterest enemy go free simply because he was innocent.

Now I suspect the Muslims would want to make much of this “vanity” of good acts, without physical response, and we should simply assert the spontaneity of the good spirit and its effect on strengthening our moral fervor as Christians.

We will shut others out, and this means also then God.

6:22 PM Abraham’s faith from an Islamic perspective. The greatest in Abraham was his immediate, unquestioning, undisputing compliance with a clear guidance of God. The point is made clear in the determination to slay an innocent person based on what Abraham took in all sincerity as a clear command of God.

Such a faith then will be justification before God. On this there is no dispute.If a man always and unhesitatingly does what God commands then that man deserves the highest of any awards that might be given.

Now then we come to Kant and his condemnation of Abraham (in terms of the Issac story): since it is clear to me that I may not slay an innocent person, and since I cannot measure a given apparition to know that it is God, it is clear that I must reject the command of the apparition to slay such a person as being understood of God.

Therefore the clear guidance of pure reason itself,imbedded in every man and requiring only thought for action to arise to reveal itself (as Kant develops it), tells us immediately that the moral is required by God, and so any religion we shall accept will have to have as its supreme intention the cultivation of a love of the moral law.

And so a person may in the full faith and credit of Abraham acceed to any religion where the supreme practical objective is love of neighbor as self. In that he can, by admission of Islam itself, attain to the statue in faith of Abraham by complying unhesitatingly and unquestioningly to that task, in all sincerity.

6:33 PM Draft letter to Islamic correspondant.

Dear Mr. B.

I ask your assistance as I try to understand the image of Abraham in the Islamic conception. He is the Great Slave who carried out unhesitatingly and without disputation or question all the clear instructions of God, and would have indeed most certainly have killed his son if that had been willed by God. The magnitude of this submission of Abraham is given by the fact that he was commanded to disregard the moral law and commit an immoral act, and Abraham did not hesitate (although he lovingly informed his son of what was going to happen to him).

Now I sometimes think I understand Muslims to mean that any one who sought to carry out commands of God which were very clear to him will be rewarded for their sincerity, even if they have misunderstood--for still they were trying to be obedient as they understood things. And I couple that with the faith of Abraham to say that it is quite conceivable that the Muslim might understand in all sincerity what was a command to commit an immoral act, e.g., the slaying of innocent people, and seek to implement that in the same faith as that of Abraham, doing as he had understood he was told by God.

And so we are this far, if there is no dispute: A Muslim has no reason to think that God might not call upon him to commit an immoral act. He has done it before, and there is nothing of iconic magnitude against it. And so it should be no surprise that an immoral act might be committed by Muslims in the name of God. It would be a surprise for a Muslim to advocate a cessation of prayer, but it would not be a surprise for a Muslim to advocate the slaying of innocent people.

Now enter joker Kant and notes that the moral law is the clearest sign we have from God for it is embedded in our very rationality and arises of itself when musing about practical matters. Now here then is the situation. I know for a fact and utter certitude that it is wrong for me to slay an innocent person. I do not know for a fact that a given apparition before my eyes and in my ears is God for as a human I simply cannot measure God and before me could be standing a demon or a jinn or who knows what. Therefore I can never be brought to understand that God could ever require an immoral act and this principle would guide in all interpretation of religious texts and scriptures.

Accordingly a man following the clearest of all signs of God would not be able to submit to Islam under its present structure, for he cannot make the unsevering dedication to the possible immoral that Abraham made all Muslims heir to.

If a man thought that religion could be helpful in the strengthening of moral fiber and moral fevor for humans then he might consider the Christian faith. In the first place we have a clear icon of the supremacy of the moral law in the refusal of Jesus (according to John 5) to wait unntil the sun set on the Sabbath but would do good immediately, for this was a violation of one of the ten commandments. For Jesus could have waited.

Thus it is illogical that any Christian could ever presume either to commit an immoral act based on scripture or on revelation in general (dispite the myriad violations throughout Christian history, but this is no different from the widespread tolerance of remarried divorcees, i.e., it’s not right according to scripture); or to force a person to admit publically what he sincerely does not believe. Both are violations of the moral icon of Jesus’ disobedience to Mosaic law.

And so a man who decided to put his faith to the test of Abraham in following the clear dictates of his own reasoning about practical matters and to think that conforms him to the demands of God can be assured by the Muslim story itself that he will not go wrong, and it is likely that given the array available to day, he will select the Christian, either as a neo-Peterian or as a Paulian. He will be driven by his own logic to seek the company of like minded and like spirited persons in order to have some hope for actually attaining to the model of moral perfection and righteousness which is his new intention. The neo-Peterian is more rule based and with hints of a formal communalism here and there, while the Paulians are more independent and discretionary communalism. There is perhaps a greater sense of solidarity among the Peterians, perhaps.

What enables Christianity to appeal as a moral model for a religion is the Paulian communion table which prescribes no laws, but merely etiquettes, and focuses on the moral law itself as the object of veneration which then, according to Kant, leads to God as the adequate moral judge for the apportioning of happiness. This the moral law and the respect that the human has for it is the clear evidence for the existence of God in the first place (as opposed to some powerful and capricious or even evil demon). The Paulian table is established in scripture and so can reappear at any time by scriptural authority. The present day Roman Catholic and Protestants are merely the extreme and then varying degrees of legalism, e.g., the prohibition of homosexual conduct. The Paulian is no where to be found.

The various degrees of the protestant spectrum shows us the freedom of people to sincerely select the laws and rules which are applicable to them, and to establish a communion table under those laws and rules and histories. And so any group of Christians can band together in twos and threes and more.

The faith of Abraham then serves every person to make sure that he has the clear guidance of God and then to act unhesitatingly on that guidance.

7:17 PM New draft of brief argument of moral inferiority of Islam and moral superiority

If I act in the same faith as Abraham in unhesitatingly seeking to comply with the sincerely understood clear guidance of God, am I then safe from disobedience? Am I then not sincerely seeking to obey God?

Now nothing is clearer to me (Kant speaking here) than the immorality in the slaying of an innocent person, and so no matter how tremendous a display some apparition accomplishes, since I cannot tell by looking or hearing that I am faced with God, if I am told by that apparition to commit an immoral act I will have to refuse to believe that the apparition is of God, and not far rather some powerful demon or even my own hallucination.

But now Abraham, according to Islamic lore, has to commit an immoral act per his understanding of God and was commended for his sincere attempt to comply with the command, and for that very reason is lauded as the Great Slave, the Slave Par Excellence. But that means that there is no reservation about a guidance from God to commit an immoral act. And so a man with the faith of Abraham, following what is clearest first, would never join Islam. For his clearest signs (his own practical reasoning) would tell him to eschew such a religion entirely.

The Christians, notwithstanding their poor history, have a principle embedded in their scripture which puts the moral law above all else, namely when in John 5 Jesus is said to have broken the law in his refusal to wait until the sun went down in order to do good, even though this law was one of the ten commandments. This principle of the supremacy of the moral law (called the law of love) is the foundation of all conduct at the Paulian or “lawless” table of communion.

And so it seems to me that any thinking person, sincerely considering the Islamic story about Abraham, would find far more reason to join a Christian body than an Islamic one. It should not be clear why Kant excluded Islam in his recitation of the moral religions in human history. (Religion, Part I, General Remarks, 8th Paragraph).

Appendix.

Now is there any need to explore the historical accounts to determine if that means they are of God? But how could that be possible? Suppose they contain great scientific discoveries and great numerologies, is that the measure? Comparative religion suggests not, and Joseph Smith, for example, seems to have a superior story to that of Mohammed, although they are very similar in many details. My thinking is that the essay should be short and sweet, as just above, and then enjoy going over the plausibility of Islam and Christianity in other regards. But this is a more involved endeavor.