10/23/05 3:52 PM Sunday

I think I figured it out. Here is what is actually going on. God gathers all the rational souls who are destined to be humans and tells them that he is going to do something. And they all shout back, “don’t tell us, we can figure it out on our own, for you made us to think for ourselves.” And so then God does not tell him what he is going to do, but he did inform them that they would play a part in this thing (this world) that he is going to create. And some of them would be mighty and powerful and able to abuse others. And others will be weak and subject to abuse. Some will have this talent and this advantage, others that, and others more or less. Now, God goes on, I will not tell you what role you will be taking in this thing (the world I have created) but will let that be a surprise. But I will be willing to consider any rule that you might want to prescribe upon yourselves and to hold you bound to that. And so the souls began to intellect with each other, and this was the outcome: the group was faced with this situation: every one of the souls was willing to have a rule that he would be supreme above all others, and each soul was also willing to have a rule that all souls were equal in worth and to be treated rightly. And so the common rule was that of the derivative, albeit still always absolute, value of the individual, namely: he is important because all are important. And so God agreed to hold us accountable in this thing of his (the created world) in accordance with our conduct in conformity with the general rule, the moral law.

Now then we are faced with a puzzle which we would like the explain, namely existence and suffering, and we will have to figure it out on our own, and hope that God will be able to give us hints without breaking our own rule (we will figure it all out ourselves). But one thing we know for sure, namely: that we will be held accountable for our conduct, somehow and in some way God will exercise the judgment that we asked him to, when we were all together with him as souls before our birth into time and space.


Now the Kantian element is the agreeing together of the souls with regard to the moral law. In fact we would even need to make a survey, for we can already tell in advance merely about thinking about it that that is the only rule which would be universally acceptable. The odd thing, I suppose it is that Kant is saying, is that we are imposed upon by this rule, namely the human is so constituted that once he realizes the demands may be duty (in conformity with the universally agreed and necessary moral law) he cannot again be happy with himself when he thinks of a violation, and spends much time and energy rationalizing to himself actions to remove the terrible guilt that that carries, where one can only wish to loose memory.

And so we can see in the example of the souls that they can conceive of this rule of conduct and realize that they themselves would always obey that, easy enough for pure souls to say!, and so they would if it were not for the desires which are pressed upon that soul by means of his physical body.


I wonder if this congregating of the souls before birth would be like the man in the second paragraph of the Preface to Religion who is put into a position of fashioning a world. He is considered to be morally inclined and led by practical reason. And he is to understand that he is to live in that world just like all of the other souls.

He would create a world in accordance with the Highest Good, i.e., moral perfection and happiness proportionate to the degree of perfection. This he would do as a matter of course, for he is led by practical reason. But he would also want such a world to exist, because he is morally inclined and because he knows it is his duty to do as much good as he can and to achieve to the highest good that he can, and so he would choose such a world knowing that it would be possible that he might not himself live up to the demands of perfection and suffer in a loss of happiness as a result of that. And still he would do that, judging himself now as a separate person, for he knows that it is the right thing to do, to create a world in accordance with the idea of the Highest Good.

And so this brings us to think that God has done just this and this is the world we are in, and now we are ready to see how we are to deal with this God as humans.

In the first place we are sunk into evil, and it is from this standpoint that we must consider the matter. We are sunk into an evil of our own making and which continues because we want it to, because we are continually choosing it, for we know that we can do otherwise immediately. We are sunk into an evil which arises from our own rationality and makes us look with evil eyes into the souls of others and to be sure that that evil is there, that willingness on occasion to violate the moral law.

That’s the first book. The second book gives us the picture of contrast, the pure picture which can awaken people from their moral stupor and make them realize not only how evil they are in comparison, but that they should also become better people now. Difficulties are overcome, such as how forgiveness can be forthcoming.

In the third book we go into the means of hope for those who are determined to hearken to the call of Jesus for total righteousness. This hope depends upon union of two or more and is a duty that the species itself imposes upon each, i.e., since it is possible to remove this evil, and apparently only by coordinate endeavor, every human is obligated to all the humans to do his best in promoting that endeavor, i.e., join a church.

In the fourth book we look at how we can maintain the purity of the moral church and not let it become overcome with tales and dogmas, etc. Here such things as resurrection stories can remain and can be very useful, but the import will always be on the disposition/spirit of the individual, namely that it be a love of the moral law.

Thinking now more towards Islam:

Now here I think we should move first and present the Christian religion, as understood by Jesus and Paul and not cluttered yet with post death tales, as a moral religion which every person in the world could subscribe to and find within their own hearts.

And then we can ask Mormonism and Islamism to do the same with their own religion. Purely for the sake of the reader I would suggest that this will not be easy with Islam, since it is also so based on sincerity. If it were a moral religion, then it will not be necessary for a man to acknowledge Mohammed as Prophet with any sincerity, although he might do so as some sort of creed or something like that. It could also be retained if somehow it could be related with the strengthening of the moral resolve in some way, as communion by the Christians can be understood. But since sincerity is practically all there can be to Islam this will be very difficult, but must be accomplished if Islam is to lay claim to a natural, universal religion, i.e., one which all people would freely accede to on their own, if they were not coerced, remembering that religion is an internal matter anyway, and not to be confused with the church of that religion, for there can be many.

4:43 PM Back to the example of the souls congregating before birth and God.

This was suggested to me by someone as an example of kantian thinking, I think. I now think it is a perfect description of the man in the second paragraph of the Preface to Religion who is to fashion a world. He is morally inclined, as naturally all the free souls are in their pre birth and pre desire state, and he is led by practical reason, as all the free souls in this great congregating, and he is to be a member like all the other souls in that great undertaking. And so, as we have already seen, he is necessitated into seizing upon the moral law, for that is the only one which makes sense and at the same time is the inevitable conclusion of pure practical reason.

That makes a good example, I think, of his man that Kant is talking about. Someone just pictured the souls before creation, all free and rational beings, and realized that they all would opt for the Highest Good, where moral perfection is possible, and happiness will be at hand, but only in proportion to moral perfection.


4:54 PM Reflections on the marriage vow. Premise: it is only possible for the human to be whole and complete and that is when he can be himself even in a crowd. Due to the make up of the human’s sexuality, he cannot be himself in a crowd without impinging upon that crowd. This is alleviated by the institution of marriage where a man and another become one flesh, and where each can be him or her self in the presence of another. It is intimacy. Now this sexual intimacy is merely one facet of a more general intimacy, the shared consciousness. But due to the evil make up of the world, this is not possible except in a marriage which must continue until death. Hence the entire notion of divorce is absurd and self contradictory, for if the possibility that an intimacy might be exposed to another or used against one’s self, if that possibility existed then intimacy would be impossible. At most you would have simply slave and master, i.e., who had the most strength and most wit full of deceptions in anticipation of a possible divorce.

And so here the Christians have failed mightily. They accept the divorcee who continues to screw someone who is not his wife (for he was married already and divorce doesn’t exist and now he is screwing this other woman or man), and refuse to set the homosexual continue in his sin, as they will have it. The church must first of all redeem itself by accepting the homosexual and rejecting the divorcee. Then, with its own house in order, it is able to take on the other faiths which are clamoring for supremacy.

From hence forth, and grace is conveyed, from henceforth all marriages shall be preceded by an engagement where intimacy is practiced by much self exposure to each other before then the actual marriage which is to cement the couple and permit full intimacy. It would be like a courtship where sex is permitted and it would continue for several years perhaps before being disbanded or cemented and expanded with vow.


5:57 PM And so what have we?

We shall first of all approach religion in the way that Kant has suggested, by reference to a preceding assembly of all the souls.

The difference here with Islam is that Islam not having an assembly as rather a herding by Allah who told them that they should always do what he tells them to do, and that will make them extremely happy. And so they are born with that vaguely in their minds and needing clarification.

How can we jump around this barrier? The most we can do is to describe the situation and contrast it with the Islamic picture, but we cannot presume to declare it obviously true, i.e., doubts will remain.

If you really want to know the way to remove all doubt from your mind, then consider this: that God is telling you to do your duty as you yourself know it, only then can you expect God to provide any happiness to you. This religion is accepted immediately by every innocent heart.

With Islam, as I understand it so far, we are faced with a bunch of souls facing Allah and being told to do as they are told and they will be happy. And then we end up with people trying to discern what they are being told to do in order that that happiness might ensue as a consequence. Mohammed makes it clear. Etc.

The difference seems intense. The former is a moral religion, accessible by all by their own free will and good sense (rationality). The latter is a cult of happiness.

What now is it? is religion a cult of happiness or is it the universal religion, that which is simply expected in the hearts of all people, when thinking freely to themselves?

It is only incidental, given a cult, that happiness is promised to moral acts, for they could just as well be otherwise, and that would make no difference. And so this mindset is essentially amoral, or actually immoral for considering the immoral as an option (as was the case with Abraham).

Abraham was wrong to do as he did with his son. And this declaration arises in the Christian Religion, the declaration of the law of love as the supreme law, universal dignity, etc. Will Islam now declare Abraham as wrong in what he apparently planned to do in his devotion, i.e., actually slay his child?

This is the new age. The Age of Jesus, when the old cultic practices pass away and the universal religion is proclaimed and given as light unto the world. Islam must condemn Abraham as the Christians do, or else Islam must give up the claim to universal religion.

By the way it doesn’t count and it is unfair for a religion to become universal by the elimination in some way of all dissent, for then anything goes. A religion must be freely accepted in the heart of the individual and this arises upon hearing the details and elements of this religion.


6:14 PM The agnostic Christians and the faith Christians come together in separate congregations and join with each other in accordance with customs and for the sole purpose of mutual edification and exhortations in the faith. Let not one condemn the other. Those who do not believe in the resurrection among us are still always one with us all in spirit and differs merely on how much they can believe. Let them know that all who seek the spirit of Christ (love of the moral law) are welcomed in the same church with those who do belief, for common effort and exhortation, but not for discussion of what is divisive. Pray all that the knowledge and peace that comes through belief will come upon all who labor in the service of Jesus.

No one is there for disputation and argumentation, but only for mutual edification. Let each be convinced in his own mind, let the Lord grant easier belief to some than to others as he wishes, let us all strive together that he be served. “If you heart is like mine then give me your hand.”


7:29 PM God loves us as individuals and he loves us all together. He loves us because we are humans, and then he loves the particular human.

This must seem incredible to Islamic ears. Or not? Could we not conceive of a being who dreamed up courses to happiness and who would tell each person how to get to that happiness and then asked to be excused of all blame if that individual then diid not follow his advice. “I told you it was coming. Now maybe you’ll believe me now when you experience it.” Now suppose they were told that the way to happiness is to don the moral code in their lives and conduct. The reason they would be doing it is what Jesus called “hireling”, i.e., they would be in immoral pursuit of profit thus making them fit only for the pit and not at all for communion with God. And since they would point out that what they were doing was exactly what was commanded by the moral law, they would count themselves as perfectly moral and never understand that it was they who were blind.

Sunken in this evil, how does Paul’s Christ now appear to them? The image of the Son of God in his earthly life should be presented as the goal of their strivings and their hope, if they are determined to rid themselves of this evil, namely a perfectly righteous man who stands as a beacon to all to follow him, and promises them suffering on earth and joy in heaven.

He must awaken the Muslim to the realization that he is in a bondage, and we must liberate him into the Christian faith (for some faith will be needed) which should be easy enough if the Christians could ever start thinking right and thinking smart.

It has to be based on the community of all humans and not of all Muslims, he must enter via a church.

If the true religion of Jesus is proclaimed then there will be a universal acceptance of that religion as the religion that makes the most sense. A religion where moral perfection is the ideal and God is pleased by striving for virtue, and where happiness will be proportioned to virtue. All moral duties are seen as commands of God and violations as sins. This religion is within the particular individual, where he cannot lie to himself.

Now to those who want to be part of the servants of Light and to struggle against the servants of Darkness are called to join in a united effort called the church of Jesus. This is the invisible and unorganized church, a willingness and desire to join forces against evil and for the sake of righteousness. The visible church then has its various denominations and creeds and whatnot. As long as the creeds and all are seen as voluntary and not compulsory (except in formal solidarity) they may remain, and this independently of whether or not they are even true.


7:47 PM Here is the situation. Every person can distinguish the story of the earthly Jesus from the tooth fairy tale, but not every person can distinguish the story of the resurrection after death from that tale. And, according to Jesus with Zacchaeus, it is possible to enter into the Kingdom of God, and so a belief in the resurrection is not mandatory for those who can participate in a church where that is the official belief (not subject to argumentation from the pulpit). And so these people, so-called Christians-in-heart (like the “naturally good gentiles”), these people are part of the church which was established by the earthly Jesus and are to be accepted, but not for disputation, but for edification. The agnostic, therefore, should be as welcomed as the homosexual and the left handed person, for they are as slave to their minds as the homosexual to his sexuality and the left hander to his left hand. They will all be seen as odd balls by the faith Christians, but thank goodness their own scriptures contain the key of their escape from this unnecessary bondage.

It’s like now a new congregation of the Christian Church, namely: agnostics who want to live as Jesus did, and want to join with others for a mutual encouragement of that spirit in their lives. And so we could have three congregations: Peterian (under ecclesiastical or scriptural law and a sacred history) Paulian (under no law and with a sacred history) and now the Agnostic (under neither law nor sacred history).

They all never come together except for the purpose, not of disputation, but of edifying, and each follows the footsteps of Jesus according to his own conscience.

This acceptance would permit an individual church to consider itself the universal church, albeit still in combat, and to look for its own triumph. For it would be a church where only is asked: is your heart like that of ours.

The agnostic then is also duty bound to get involved in such a church, or its like, in order to work together efficiently and effectively against the evil that permeates our world.