Journal of July 1, 2005

7:02 PM I am still trying to express the intention of the essay on Paul and Mohammed.

I want to make a case that it is impossible for any human to see God and recognize that it is God. I have the ability to distinguish one quality or quantity from another and see that this is greater than that. And I have the ability to experience power which is greater than that of any human. But I do not have the capacity to see an infinity. That is simply impossible for the human.

Now if you admit the possibility of an hallucination then you also admit the possibility not only of God but also of other heavenly beings who have less power, and yet who still would appear as powerful. And of these powers and examples given to my vision and other senses I could often judge that one were greater than another, e.g., one floats a car and the other floats a mountain, but there I might be dealing with one of these other heavenly beings.

These other beings shall be called demons and they are like God in possessing more power than humans, but different in that they hate what is right and love what is wrong, almost like love what is dirty and hating what is clean. And so whereas God always loves the right, these other conceivable beings love the wrong. This is not like the human. No human loves the wrong, but is merely willing to consider committing the wrong for personal gain. A demon is then understood as a being who is set to interfere with the work of God and can only work through human beings and relishes the immoral aspects of the world.

Now then we shall be faced with three possibilities, the being is God or one of his angels, or else the being is Satan, let us call him, or one of his demons, or else the being is a projection of one’s own imagination (like seeing a face in a cloud, which is often quite vivid).

These then we need to examine. Based on our understanding of the conceptions of God and demons, we know in advance that God will speak only morally with his creatures, or at least without immorality. We know in advance that a demon will speak only immorally with its zombies and consistent with that will camouflage its own immorality in clothes of morality, e.g., honoring one’s parents. In speaking morally God is understood to say: however you understand me, you must understand me morally. In speaking immorally the demon is understood to say: however you understand me, do according to your understanding. The contrast is clear: in the latter you are free to understand me immorally and all you have to do is to simply follow suit. Sincerity is what counts.

Now what will an hallucination produce? we can come up with a revelation expected from God or with a revelation expected from a demon, and that is because we can conceive of these two roles and thus can obviously imagine them as actually existing before our eyes and can project them like the project the rainbow back into the rain from whence it came but where it never was nor is. If we can conceive of it we can also project it and see it before our eyes.

I don’t think it shall be possible to distinguish the hallucination from reality and shall consider it no more. The only practical question is this: is the revelation from God or is it from a demon, no matter the technique of inducement (e.g., an hallucination). They will always appear to scientists as an hallucination and that takes care of the matter. The only question, again, is this: is it divine or is it demonic?*

[* In case hallucination it is possible that the author of the revelation could not have been a human due to certain extraordinary aspects, then the question becomes clearly divine or demonic without further consideration of hallucination.]

And these raises the question of how you can tell? In terms of power we cannot tell, but we can tell, to a certain extent, by means of morality and universal dignity. We know that God will at least never speak against universal dignity. That much is certain by virtue of the concept of God (which has to be developed in the essay as a product of human reason a la Genesis 3:22). And the antithesis is the demon world where universal dignity is dispensed with, even though its ghosts are noted and shown as the demon laughs in the face of God. you cannot convince those who are morally blind that they are blind.

And so the question is quite acute. And I propose taken two alleged prophets about whom there is at least some detail on the process that each took in certifying to himself that the being before his eyes was a work of God and not of a demon.

Now I honestly think that is a fascinating question, and should even engage the atheists in terms of actors.

Paul has Jesus in the sky and Mohammed has Gabriel in the cave and in his own home. [By the way, I cannot help but believe that it could be immensely effective to harness a parallel between Mohammed and Smith in terms of it being a fraud, but I can’t seem to work it in in a meaningful and germane way.]

Paul’s revelation is really quite simple and almost instantaneous. He is a zealot Jew persecuting jews who professed the Messiahship of Jesus and is encountered by his man, killed sometime earlier, standing in the sky. He calls upon Paul to be his emissary to the gentiles. The rest is the development of this revelation upon the understanding of Paul. What happens is that Paul is now still a zealot, but now a zealot of Jesus who is called to turn his back on his Jewish past and to start over now as a gentile. Jesus called people instantaneously to follow him, but they were all Jews. Paul transfers that now in terms of the Christ who has finished his obligations for the sake of the promises and who calls instantaneously upon those who are not Jews to follow him. The law becomes unnecessary for the knowledge of good and evil are written in the heart (Genesis 3:22) and needs merely to be marshaled for cooperation in doing good, and that spark is available from God for those who truly desire it (the Holy Spirit). There is a single law, the law of love, and all good can be derived from it. [This exemplifies the icon of Jesus as lawbreaker in John 5.]

Hence it is clear that the moral law (law of love) is the supreme law of the realm of the Christians, and that they are necessitated to subjugate, by means of interpretation, all revealed commands to that moral law. And this understanding arrived at by Paul was confirmed and authenticated by the disciples of Jesus themselves in extensive dialogue and discussion and exchange.

And so the revelation of Paul could very well serve as an example of what humans might expect in a divine work, a promotion of the supremacy of the moral law and a lively dedication toward spreading that supremacy in all hearts.

When we turn to Mohammed we have an entirely different story, and one that is built on the notions of clean and unclean, and pride and shame. In order to convince Mohammed that his vision is an angel appearing to him, his wife has Mohammed relate to her in different ways and they discover that the vision vanishes as soon as Mohammed and his wife begin to get intimate and this would be an angel, for if it had been a demon it would have stayed around to enjoy the action. And so this tells us nothing about the content of the message.

When we turn to the message we find the iconic exaltation of Abraham, Great Slave, who was willing to commit a wrongful act on the mere hint that it might be commanded God. This indicates that the commands of the being behind the apparition are superior to the moral law. But this is the antithesis of a divine work and rather exemplifies the demonic work.

We find here and there what would otherwise be pure morality, e.g., giving to the poor, but then when we look behind the act to the motive we find that it is an extortion, for either you give this money away (to the poor, it happens to be) or you rot forever in the most excruciating pain which is beyond your imagination.

And so from the content we have not only the blazon example of the Great Slave but only a Schein morality, the trappings of morality.

The conclusion ought to be a realization that Paul’s revelation rings more authentic with regard to a divine communication and that Mohammed’s rings more authentic with regard to a demonic communication (and it could be helpful perhaps here to include the comparison with Joseph Smith). Again we need to note that we have pretty much discounted the hallucination hypothesis with regard to Mohammed. Paul’s could still be explained as a visionary, for his conception can actually be called pure moral religion in its practical effects. I.e., it is what reason itself would devise for effect of its moral intention.

From here we go on to examine some objects that Muslims and other people might have with certain Christian doctrines and histories.