April 1, 2006 4:57 AM, when we pray for the fools of this wretched, and yet nevertheless promising, world.

My purpose is now becoming increasingly clear to me, thanks most of all, I think, to Immanuel Kant. Let me put aside my faith and all that is hearsay and hand-me-down and focus on what I know. Through a development we will see that basically we can only know for sure such things as: things don’t get smaller at a distance, they only seem to. And not much more in terms of quality.* Beyond this capacity reasoning is great for speculation but trips up on itself and makes a mess of ideas. Except in practical reasoning for then we come to living by rules and the formulation of rules to live by, and there, surprisingly, we come upon the moral law and the recognition of a certain compulsion of that law such that we can never be happy again whenever we think of some wrongful and unrighteous act we have committed, e.g., sleeping with one’s mother (as I look for some universal primitive expression). By virtue of that moral law we recognize, of necessity, that we are free beings and responsible for our actions.

[* See two essays, Kant in a Nutshell and Circles in the Air. The former provides a semi-popular presention of the object of experience, as derived by Kant, and the latter a semi-scholarly presentation of the same object.]

Now (and here I must be careful, for the language is tricky) we recognize that we are free and explain therefore our respect for the moral law.* Now we just have to use our heads, i.e., our rationality. There has to be a purpose in every action and thus in every moral action.** What other purpose could that be, knowing now what we do of the power of practical reason to produce the lively and awe-giving respect for the moral law? what other purpose than the accomplishment of the Highest Good, namely moral perfection and allegiance to the moral law, and, of course, speaking of OUR Highest Good (as humans), happiness commensurate to that perfection. That is the necessary purpose of the moral act, for otherwise it is inane. Any one not accepting the need of this purpose and who are troubled by an immoral act should visit a shrink to rid themselves of this concern about this law, or to be treated, say with drugs (reminding me of the Orchs of Tolkien’s Ring) that would hide the feelings associated with respect and shame.***

[* The moral law and our respect perceed, and our recognition of freedom follows and then by means of that we can rationalize the moral law as the law of a free realm.]

[** If a morally inclined man, following practical reasoning, had to fashion a world that even he would have to live in as a one of many, he would most certainly include in that world the highest good, namely where the moral perfection was the supreme good but a happiness commensurate to that the completed good. He would also want this out of a sense of justice, namely that it is not right for the good to suffer and the evil to prosper. And so such a man will recognize this morally impressed need to provide a result, and hence a meaning, to all our moral duties, i.e., that they bear fruit. (Preface to Kant's Religion.]

[*** Imaginative dialog: Doctor, you’ve got to help me. I cannot be happy with myself unless I comply with this insane, senseless notion that I respect the dignity of others. Help me in some way to quit respecting the dignity of others, for it would be costly to me to do this. And yet it robs me of my happiness, thinking about how I have mistreated some people. So help me out and get rid of this feeling called respect for the moral law, so that I can mistreat, as the occasion calls for, and not be burdened any longer by this unhappy feeling.]

Recap. And so then this is the situation that we have upon an examination of the possibilities of rationality in the present world: we know that we must be good and do good, and the reason why (which comes after the respect and provides a purpose to this factually existing respect that we as humans do in fact have) is because we are all working together for a common goal, namely a decent world, where people will do good and where they will end up happy. That is the clear purpose of the moral act.

And so in this way we see that the Highest Good is the moral purpose of mankind. It is the purpose of mankind morally speaking. It is his only conceivable purpose. It is what we implicitly aim at when we undertake our deeds of goodness and righteousness. It is the necessary object of what we are about in our good deeds. Our sense of justice requires us to append the happiness factor to the moral law, the former being conveyed accoding to the moral due. As Plato said: each person is entitled to his due.

But now this means, of course, also this: there must be an eternal life, in order to provide the possibility of achieving to moral perfection, in order for that to be the practical goal which is what is meant by the Highest Good which has already been established (as that practical goal). The goal is now at this moment in this next moral act that I can express my expectation of achieving moral perfection. Eternal life is a necessary postulate of pure practical reason. We are not permitted by speculative and theoretical reason to make the statement “there is eternal life” for that cannot be known, but we are required logically from the Highest Good to state that there must be eternal life. And so it is of this odd form: we may not be able to say that there is eternal life, but we know that there must be eternal life. Normally if there must be A then, of course, it follows that there is A. But here we cannot make that jump, because the two assertions are spoken in two different realms of reason, the one theoretical and speculative and the other practical. So that’s it: we do not know if there is eternal life, but we know that there must be eternal life (remembering always the conditioner, i.e., "morally speaking").

And likewise, of course, with God, for he is the great purveyor of the happiness necessary for the practicality of the Highest Good, that it is indeed practical and the real, practical object of the moral act, and while we do not know if there is a God or not, we do know that there must be a God.

What we know. Thus we know this much: we are free beings and responsible for our actions, and that there is a purpose to all this morality, and the achievement of that purpose requires an eternal life and a God, the latter a holy and omnipotent judge, to provide the degree of happiness called for by any given individual.

Assuming this God. Now it is conceivable that this God of ours might want to communicate with us. And indeed many people report having been communicants of God. And so, on that note, we will begin our consideration of the various claims of being the universal religion of the world, that ordained by God.

Now the first thing we must do is to establish how it is that we can have a divine communication which is associated with this God of ours, this God that we have rationally devised for ourselves. Well, this much we know for sure. He won’t tell us to do anything wrong, and indeed will tell us to do good. This much we know because he is the God stemmng from morality. Otherwise we cannot tell how this God of ours might communicate with us. We certainly can’t tell by looking or sensing in any way, for a sense reveals at most the possibility of the supernatural (but which, for all we can tell, might be a demon)* or even a hallucination, a voice purporting to be God, but which is not of God. By looking we cannot distinguish an angel of God from a demon or hallucination. And so the only thing we have to go on is the moral difference, namely we can know that he will not tell us to do evil to each other. This much we know for sure, and further that he will always tell us to do good to each other, but we cannot tell anything else about how this God of ours would communicate with us.

[* Here we imagine demon as supernatural in power but very much unlike God morally. While the human has respect for the moral law and violates it only unwillingly, the demon hates the moral law and seeks the erradication of its roots in the human species. We can make this assumption entirely gratis for it is of no use in science and so I may assume it for the sake of argument. And since there may or may not be a God, even so there may or may not be a demon. But since we cannot tell, and since there might be a motive for a supernatural being to profess to being an angel, we cannot preclude this possibility.]

Criteria of Distinguishing a Divine Communication. And so when we are faced with various claims of communication with this God of ours the only thing we have to go on is this single distinction of morality. If in addition to complying with moral behavior we are also told something else, well then we would just have to accept, or reject, that in faith, i.e., by saying, “I will believe that I am being told by God to go here or there and do this or that” or “I will not believe that.” The divine origin of no message can be determined through the senses of men, who cannot distinguish in perspective a very long line from an infinite line by looking. The only thing we know for sure is that no message or communication from this God of ours can tell us to do wrong, as understood by the moral reasoning of the actor, us humans. This we can know for a certainty he will not do.

Consequently, and to be developed much further:* Abraham was dead wrong. Paul might have had a communication from this God of ours, and Mohammed could not have had such a communication. Those conclusions are quite readily available when using the criterion of moral evaluation of the alleged communication itself.

[* See draft essay concerning discerning the divine.]

Now I wish to turn our attention to the world stage and think in terms of all people, including those professing to be non-religious. And so here we have more some wondering than fixed ideas. I.e., I muse.

It is possible that there is a science of religion (The New Yorker, of April 3, 2006 [as of yet only scanned by me]). And this might mean that religion is a natural phenomenon. Working now with that imagined premise, namely that the humans are going to have some religion, we continue.

To find a suitable religion we might look first at those religions amongst now us before dreaming up new religions from scratch (as has often been done), we will find the preferable choice in the Paulian conception of the Christian religion, for this religion (thinking of this Paulian congregation) exemplified in real life the consequences of a moral religion, e.g., love of neighbor equal to self.*

[* See Liberty of Gentile Christian.]

This program of securing for the world at least the possibility of a universally desirable religion, where the Episcopalians, for example, prove in a marvelous way that it can work and thrive, and where the supreme delight of this God of ours lies in our love for one another, and where no one is excluded. No one at all. On this count alone Islam fails and the Paulian succeeds, for only the Paulian treats homosexuality as left-handedness.* (Islam does so also really by denigrating the left hander in their denigrating way, i.e., dirty. Disrespectful. "That's the hand he uses to wipe himself with. That his crap hand. That's what he offered you. Are you going to stand for that insult? It is within bounds to pay him back" Etc.).**

[* Ibid.]

[** Islam, with respect to spirit, seems one and the same with a free market mind set. Allah and the governments set certain laws, i.e., certain bounds, and as long as you stay within those bounds you can do anything you please without fear of trouble with the powers that be.*** 4/26/06]

[*** And I am finding this similarity of spirit when I consider that Islam's Allah grades on the curve, and which is discussed more below. Grading on the curve makes for a free-for-all, be it for a better slot in heaven or for a bigger slice of the pie in the market system. 4/26/06]

And so then the question is really very simple. Are we better off with a universal religion like that of the Episcopalians or are we better off with no religion at all? Or is that even a choice (given the possibility of a science of religion)?*

[* Since I am not an Episcopalian I can only wonder how they would relate to this proposition: "I do not believe the sacred histories of you Episcopalian, but I one with you in spirit for I am one in spirit with the Jesus that you preach. Now what I want to do is to unite with spirits kindred to my own in order to help one another get an ever closer approximation to that spirit alleged by tale to have been the spirit of Jesus. I am willing to join in in the recitation of the creeds and all the ceremonies in a spirit of solidarity in spirit and much as though we were singing 'We're marching to Pretoria!' In other words we will talk the talk and walk the walk but we will not believe the talk unless somehow we are converted by being associated with yourselves, and which, if you believe in miracles as I don't, may happen." I think I would be willing to do that, i.e., consort in a communion with him.]

Fitness of Modern Paulians. The question has to do with the vow, the absolute oath of old which carried consequences beyond the grave and which call for rectification. The Paulian Christians must now get off their high horse and recognize that only the Roman Catholics have it right with regard to divorce. The entire idea is anti moral, it is the breaking of an unbreakable promise. This is one promise that is a promise for it is a vow in front of all of these people and God, etc.*

[* It is also a practical matter for the Paulian Christians who take their birthright seriously, for they make a vow to chastity to represent the vow to Christ to subdue their bodies to him, and at the same time make possible a meaningful vow to a loved one in marriage, one that can be counted upon. The only other vow is to avoid denigrating a fellow Christian who believes differently about things. (Romans 14 as interpreted by Paul]

And so in order to show their stuff and promise the Paulians are going to have to stop divorce and declare it a non-word, and simply work through the morass of their past sin as best they can as they head toward the restoration of the vow as an absolute, i.e., unbreakable, promise.

This is probably more important than the homosexual stuff, although that ought to be dealt with pronto in as many denominations as possible. It serves to prove the universality of the reach of the Paulian message of liberation to all. The gospel of Paul calls people in the condition where they find themselves, e.g., if left handed then remaining left handed, and tells them only to conform their profession to the moral law first, e.g., the thief has to give up his thievery for thievery is a profession and not a condition. the left hander and, by logically extension, the homosexual are even expected to remain in that condition and not to change unless it is both possible and desirable.

Mohammed's Mistake. As for Mohammed, it is no wonder that he spoke as he did, for he was confronted with “an angel of light” and did not realize it?* How could he? how could any man? Mohammed is not to be blamed for this, for he is honorable and fair and sincere. Poor man. He followed the example of Abraham and was very impressionable and just assumed, as all men would have tended to do, that this supernatural being was an angel of God, for he was so strong and powerful, so overpowering. “I just knew it was his angel. I mean, man, it was so powerful, like the man who must have built the majestic sky dome above our heads. It must have been him. He was so powerful. So great. Really awesome.”

[* It is doubtful that Mohammed ever heard much about Paul, except as the corrupter of the pure teaching of Jesus, and so would not have heard of the liberation of the members of that faith from all law, and so where there would never again be a question as to what it might be that God required of any human, and so therefore where there would never again be a need for a revelation of what God wants. This would have forewarned Mohammed that something was amiss. Had corruption not infected the Church, perhaps through the machinations of Great Constantine, the Paulian Congregation might have visibly endured to the time of Mohammed, which would then have saved Mohammed much sleep.]

And so where does this leave us in a search for an acceptable universal religion among those presently with us? Certainly Islam is out. And so it is either Christianity or something eastern that we have not considered here. Based on what we know now we can tell that we would prefer something like the Christian faith which directs people in accordance with the moral law as its only command, and which has people, according to many reports, coming to be good naturally, i.e., as a result of their faith. And it is this faith which promises happiness for all who are good naturally (like the righteous gentiles of Acts 2), and that they are not to be downcast as though their moral effort were meaningless. I.e., it strengthens moral fervor.

And so I propose the Christian religion to become that universal religion, understood in the extreme Gentile Christian sense that Kant will have had in mind.* Kant would have made a good Episcopalian because he would have pronounced the creeds in moral solidarity, i.e., this God of ours is such and such (like “We are marching to Pretoria”), and where what counts is that people work together for a common good and encourage that with neighborliness.

[* Something like the Episcopalian conception, as I happen, perhaps mistakenly, to surmise. If so then it may be that the Episcopalian congregation is the only one among all the Christian sects that can presume the title of the World Church.]

Some Formalities. Now I think Kant would inspire me to think that the only functional aspect of the creeds is that they eventually become the lore and tales of a people who have developed to some perfection due to ancient events which made them possible but which are now only rumored and sung about as tales from yore. The creed can be repeated until the end of time, but the important thing is the redemption that has taken place (in this example) such that people can much more easily love each other, i.e., it is not as hard as once it was and it is getting easier (a Wesleyan notion). In other words it might be that people could start becoming more and more like Jesus but may or may not remember (as history) who this Jesus was. He was called the Savior of his people and he died for them, and things like that.

We are imagining that people will have become now naturally of the moral disposition which is so lauded in those tales. (as in Tolkien’s Ring). And so what happens is that we have a world which is righteous and has tales of this having developed by means of certain people, who, it is said, gave their lives in order that we might be good and happy. That would be the world of Kant’s ideal I think. But it also works where the tale remains lively and grounded in history, which would also be nice, for the point is to Kant (as I read him) that we will then have become people who love the moral law, the ideal and final aim of rational religion for him.

General Plan. So that’s the general plan for the conversion of the world to Paulian Christianity, asking those skeptical of the sacred histories nevertheless to join in in moral solidarity with others who honor and believe a sacred history that they accept as true and which they wish to celebrate as the fulfillment of the promise of the righteous inherent in the creation of this world by this God of ours.

Let the skeptics join with the believers in announcing the universality of the Paulian Congregation, i.e., that it can serve as the world religion, to which all goodly intended persons can join in with conscience, can join in with others of a like spirit, and work for the Highest Good possible to us jointly.

And so the clue for the union of the believer and skeptic in one church is the otherwise inane “We are marching to Pretoria!” song of the Wesleyans children. In a word: we (disbelievers in God) know that there must be a God, and we know that it is plausible, by moral judgment alone, that the Paulian conception is a divine communication, and we know, by moral judgment, that Islam is not, and so until something better comes along, why don’t we just all join a church and join in the singing of “we’re marching to Pretoria” and of doing good with those of a kindred spirit, and perhaps being buoyed in our moral fervor by contact with those who exhibit a sincerely good spirit and a joy which comes from the certitude of their faith. I.e., where Pretoria is a real place and where we are all headed. Heaven.

Now a word to my fellow Paulians in spirit. We should not fear the sudden influx of historical skeptics into our midst to join with us in good works, for we can be sure that the Lord will so arrange that those who are not against us are really for us, and we will most certainly touch them with the awareness of the Lord's spirit, as many of us attest to (Paul, Francis and John Wesley among others) through a progression of love.

Communion of Believers and Skeptics. What then is the Paulian invitation to the universal communion table? "Come join together at the table called Christ on your knees before this God of ours in contrition and dedicate yourself to perfection from hence forth, just as Jesus did all of his life and especially in his death for our sake, that we might be awakened to eternal life. Understand that by this rededication you are made perfect and are acceptable again in the sight of this God of ours. You have new hope. You are made clean again. Rise, go forth and sin no more. Christ has set you free."

Purposes of Jesus' death. He dies objectively for the sins of the world by proving the promise of moral perfection in one individual of the human species (before a court encompassing all rational species, including therefore the humans and the angels). He dies subjectively for personal sins by convincing his disciples, in that way alone, of what it mean to follow him and then providing the assurance of the resurrection to keep the promise of success in this “second chance”.* By means of this the Holy Spirit was able to enter into knowledgeable and willing hearts.

[* Morally speaking, of course, every person anyway committing to the new course of life has a new start, at least as far as pure practical reason would have it when applied to the atonement for one’s own sin. An incentive for wanting to try to do better. An incentive for moral fervor. The conceivable infinity of ills taken on in the new disposition of righteousness equals and cancels the infinity of punishments due the old disposition of selfishness and unrighteousness.]

What the believing Christians have going for them (over the skeptics in the church who do not accept the sacred history as fact) is a peace of mind in the fact of their salvation, which is not a fact in any other way (without the sacred histories), but merely a hope.


Muslim Free Will and Predestination. Interesting take on the Muslim conception, and I may be wrong about this, but I think it is right, namely Islam presents an interesting twist on the pre-destinationists. The latter have the soul assigned before birth to a heaven or a hell. But this is not the case in Islam, for here it is only the number that it is predetermined and not the individual, who remains as free as always to choose. And so what is happening is that Allah is going to grade on the curve and put the most obedient in heaven and the most disobedient in hell and then drawing a curve of all the individual judgments and of arraying them that way, e.g., “you have position 1000 and will take precedence into a paradise over the man assigned 999.” This is premised on my understanding that according to Mohammed Allah has already created a fixed number of paradises and hells and is now merely waiting to see who is going to get what. And so it is up for grabs and makes a free for all.

Now if this is indeed an accurate picture of the Islamic conception, then this explains much of the fervor rumbling in Islamic communities, for there is now a competition, for if you are better than me in zeal in submission then you are going to get a better paradise. And so if it is whipping my back that is called for by Allah, then I must do that in all sincerity (focused thoughts) and with great force in order to show Allah* that I am no slacker for his guidance (and he has been clearly warned of the consequences of being slack) and that I hold them in the greatest respect and do all in my power to comply. Then we can explain boys excitedly talking about the virgins that await them upon a suicide mission, and wondering whether the girls will be made virgins again after the initial plunge, or whether they will be just a had-girl for ever, although always young and pretty.

[* And perhaps it is not even to show Allah as rather to show everyone else but Allah why it is that so-and-so is going to a hell, although not the worst hell. It will be clear to everyone, he wasn’t quite zealous enough. Too bad. So sad.]

The logic of the suicide bombers is absolutely impeccable. Like Ishmael to his father Abraham, we can think along with them. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

We compose now some recitation to a Muslim considering becoming a suicide bomber as it could be understood by the bomber:

“Look, there is no pain for the suicide bomber, for the only painful deaths and injuries are those people who stand further off; you don’t suffer at all. Period. So absolutely no pain. Instantaneous. Faster than the noise of clapped hands reaches your ear. Before you can hear the blast you are already with the virgins and they are gazing down into your face and wondering what you might want to do with them. They have no idea.

“Secondly you get paradise and the virgins immediately and not have to wait with the rest of us through yet eons of death’s sleep, but will get it instantaneously. Open your eyes to see the beauties coming now to you for your disposal now. By the time the rest of us get our girls you will be enjoying one of your 1000 year long climaxes.

“Thirdly you get to kill some of the enemy tribe and that can always make you feel worthwhile. [But that doesn’t really matter, for Abraham is seen as right in trying to slay an innocent son. Indeed he is a hero among the Muslims. You may find the guidance for the you, the submitter, is to do something bad to a member of the family. Too bad again. Finally it is each man for himself. Be wary, for Allah is watching, ever listening.]

“Fourthly you will get to get 70 people out of hell free, and so you need to be thinking about that, e.g., your mother and father, etc., and us, of course, though we don’t expect to be threatened with hell, for we have submitted to doing our present jobs. Just as you will be submissive by carrying out this bombing. That’s what pleases any master, and most certainly Allah. [I don't know if this is true or not, but it is in character.]

“Fifthly you don’t have to suffer through old age and infirmary. It’s no fun. Look at your future as did Buddha and you will see only suffering and misery. Having to deal with girls and women who talk back to you and mutter at you. It’s a blessing when you can avoid that old age, especially for something good right now, this very second. Instead of old age and its difficulties with an erection you will be climaxing all over your paradise with one or more of the unknowing and non-critical girls at your eternal disposal. And who knows when to shut up.

“Sixthly (and possibly) your family gets rewarded for money by people who want to show their own zeal, but which is less than yours, of course, by taking care of your family and making them so happy at what you have done for them.

“In fact it looks like the only stupid action would be to do nothing. Consider this. Suppose we are all wrong and this is not the guidance of Allah in this situation, then in that case we still get a great reward, that for our sincerity in wanting to totally submit to his guidance and just being mistaken. That counts a lot in his evaluation of his many slaves. And so let’s not be stupid, but men of intelligence and good judgment and go for the suicide, for it is impossible for you to lose. Suffer a quick and easy death and have girls at your immediate beck and call, all for your delight. Get friends out of jail, man it goes on and on.”

This composition points out again the great efficacy of this rational/moral approach presented here in this essay, for having derived this God of ours from moral reasoning, we know ipso facto that he is moral, and so where such reasoning as the suicide bomber above would be immoral and thus meaningless prattle to the ears of one who respects the moral law above all else, which is the case with the Paulian.

Complaint that Christians are also after reward. This is answered via the so-called Christian Paradox. It is true that a convert may enter into the faith with the primary intention being the gaining of paradise and the forsaking of hell, but the result of this faith is a changed nature, called the new birth, and which is witnessed to by countless people (e.g., Paul, Francis and John Wesley). As a consequence the Christian looks upon him or herself in faith as having already gained the reward, which therefore is no longer a consideration or motivation for the Christian. He now counts all to Christ and shares with him in all blessings, for at the table of Jesus there would be right sharing and there would be enough sharing. It is no wonder that the first Christians shared with each other. They ought to do it now. I suspect the RC’s are here a better standard for this notion of community than the modern Paulians.

And so while the desire for reward draws them in, reward then granted and now with eternal life with Christ assumed, reward no longer carries any weight in the motivation. The selfishness that draws one in is then as a result of that selfish act given up for the selflessness of salvation.