8/13/06 3:02 PM Let’s look at the atonement and try to make some rational sense of it all.

The point of an atonement is an inducement to take another try to being good. A fresh start.

Now we can assume that a price must be paid for one’s transgressions and so we wonder how a fresh start will reconcile with a necessary punishment for the evil done or intended, infinite as it is in weight. If one becomes a new person, then the good done from then on cannot be used to offset the evil done (or intended or willing to do) earlier for that good is the proper fruit of that new birth and is not a surplus.

How can this be reconciled? Kant would have us think of the instant of conversion. In that moment, by virtue of that new disposition, a person becomes willing to put aside many of the helps and aids useful in an evil world, e.g., lying, and to suffer as a result of this unilateral and voluntary disarmament and that suffering that one is willing to undergo in the person of this “new man,” which (sufferings) are not deserved of him in his “new man”, that suffering is carried without complaint. And that willingness and determination in a moral court is sufficient to call the punishment imposed and completed at that very instant. And hence then a “new start” or “second chance” is meaningful and not just a waste off time or a half hearted “covering” operation to appease a wrathful God of some sort or another.

Now in terms of the psychology the historical depiction of Jesus death is very powerful (and where the rational is not sufficient). An extreme must play in order to impress all the people of this world. Jesus death must for this reason be focused primarily upon the criminal Barabbas and the thief on the cross, the two criminals, rightly condemned to death. For in their individuality they are a proxy for the whole of humankind

Jesus is calling to the world in order to draw out of it a certain good spirit, to divide the world into those of his heart and his kingdom and those of the heart of the prince of the world. He had to convey to all people that all were called and all who could hear this call should believe that they can turn and walk in another direction and find the happy end that everyone yearns for. The happy end belongs to those of his kingdom, but they are called to suffer in this world for the time being, just as he suffers for the sake of this kingdom and the world. And so what he does in order to convey emphatically this message is to call a thief into his discipleship band and he dies in order to give another criminal a new lease on life, an entirely undeserved new lease. The man loves criminals. And in this love he shows the love for all of human life. And now it was necessary to die in order to convey the extent of this love and his appeal to all men to take heart and follow him, because the humans are not impressed in any other way. And because this is the case, it is quite right to declare that Jesus died for the sins of the world, i.e., he died in order that his disciples (and through them the world) might understand and have hope and be willing to take a second chance, and it is quite right to say that in this God was reconciled to the world, for now the world was in a position to be redeemed, i.e., now in a meaningful way all sin had been paid for and a fresh new start could be made and now with the help of God to those who believe in a second chance. This is a way meaningful to the worst of the human race and thus to all the human race:" you have a second chance, now take it. Come and follow me. This is the way back."


Resurrection. An aside on the resurrection. This is the story of the aftermath as reported by the followers of this Jesus. They said that he was resurrected from the dead to show them that there is nothing to be afraid of and that they can never be separated from him in any way, and that everything is ok, that there is indeed a happy end. "Now go and make disciples of all the world, and continue our program for the sake of God’s kingdom." The point that all this ultimately makes is this: if you take the second chance, you will be successful--that is the guarantee of the Resurrection. You will succeed and can go ahead and be at perfect peace in your hearts, a peace which passes all understanding.

Now those who do not accept the resurrection reports can easily find themselves as kindred in spirit to those who do, just as Zachaeus found salvation and a good spirit without any belief in a then nonexistent resurrection. And so it would be helpful if those accepting the resurrection reports and those who do not, could cooperate together in that thing Jesus created (and where Zachaeus was then also a member, an invisible church), the church.

The solution is to make ritual of all that goes on and then use the interpretation to make it moral. Then the believer and the unbeliever can worship together in good conscience (somewhat as described in Romans 14).

This is why I am excited about the American Episcopalian Church, for it seems to have the makings of Kant’s Universal Church, the one where all people of a good heart, regardless of beliefs, would work together for the good of the world.

The great reconciliation in Western Christendom will come when all recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome and he recognizes the inviolable sanctity of the Edict of Liberation of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15 as interpreted by Paul’s conception, though not always by his words). Then things could really start to click.

I don’t know what to suggest about the Eastern Church except they would be covered by the Edict of the Council as well and so the Roman Pontiff would not be able to require anything more, and leave it to each Patriarch to decide the customs of worship.


With regard to Islamic matters, I am increasingly of the opinion that we need to recognize the holiness of the notion of sincerity in one’s actions. It is first rank and it is admittedly based upon the notion of sincerity introduced so well by Jesus. Indeed this would be an “authentic” section of the Christian scriptures, where the railing out against hypocrisy is described. This could be sort of complimentary, i.e., I admire Islam for its emphasis upon sincerity in all that one does. First rate and morally sound.

As soon as possible we want to get out of Jesus, however, and into Paul. Paul stands as a fresh figure for the Muslims and they have had little interest in him (while the history of Jesus is thoroughly contentious). Now the gospel is to be promoted through Paul. And so essentially the Muslim will come to Jesus first through Paul.

Paul can be compared with Mohammed in terms of a miraculous encounter with the divinity, and they both had stories to tell and histories to make. Paul reveals that God is only interested in a heart like that of Jesus, pure and clear in utter sincerity, and that such a heart will be conveyed to those who believe in Jesus and who will trust him enough to follow him. And so there are no boundaries to mind in Paulian Christianity, but merely a point of focus, the heart of Jesus, sometimes called the Holy Spirit. And what must be done in order to be pleasing to God is so simple that even children can understand it and apply it and have no need of experts. As a consequence it was clear that God had made his final revelation and that none more would ever be needed again. Nothing pleases God except a good and loving heart.

And the histories produced by Paul were of two kinds, his own experience and that of others. And in both cases we hear of an actual transformation such that one begins walking in the opposite direction and develop a love of Christ’s rule of love, and come to enjoy doing good either immediately or gradually and progressively.

Now instead of turning to Mohammed immediately (and we have established that there is no need of any other revelation) we turn instead to Joseph Smith and present his fantastic story and then compare that with Mohammed’s story of how things came about and find that they are almost copies, except that Smith’s story is more impressive (and in many ways). Then noting that they are blatantly contradictory to each other and so where one must be false, and where an unbiased, rational jury would not be able to decide and, if required, would probably opt for Smith being the more compelling story (for several good reasons). The conclusion is: one is utterly false and yet we can’t tell for sure which it is.

Now with Paul’s communication he does have this much going for it: it meets the criterion of a moral religion. And since this is not the case for Mohammed’s (as might be treated along with the comparison with Smith). This means that Paul communication corresponds morally with what one would expect of God and that Mohammed’s does not.

Jesus promises salvation to all who are of a good heart, even if they stay hidden. Perhaps we should close this presentation by making a call to join Jesus on the way, and then to inform the Muslim that he is free to make this choice secretly and only to himself and not even to tell the evangelist, and that if he will trust in Jesus and do his best to live in accordance with the law of love in all that he does, under the circumstances he finds himself in, then he has Jesus’s word that he shall not fail to have a happy end with him.

I sort of like this, for it doesn’t require an immediate response to the evangelist. Let it simmer awhile and let him or her think on it. Nicodemus was a man who came to Jesus “by night.”

And so: sincerity is what counts. Then Paul as a sincere man. Then no need for future revelations. Then doubt is cast on Mohammed’s judgement via Smith’s story. Then the call for conversion and the cover of secrecy until it is safe.

Another point is the “Comforter” section of John’s gospel. The Muslims want Mohammed to be the comforter. The point can be made that if the reference is not to the Holy Spirit but to a man, then that comforter would most certainly be Paul the Liberator. Additional stuff at Liberty of Paulian Christian.