Kant Wesley Web Log

Contemplations of religious conversation with an informed and sincere Muslim.

August 27, 2011

What an opportunity, I think to myself (about possible conversations with a Muslim), and count it, as a Christian, to the work of God, at least in the sense that given this situation, I look for the work of God, i.e., now and tomorrow.

Here is my situation. I am a converted Gentile Christian and I am given two alternatives as the truth, either that of Gabriel (Islam) or that of Moroni (Mormon). And a very great contribution of Gabriel is the hint of the trickster in this grand game of religion, namely Satan is not evil, but only mischievous and liking to “gum up the works”. [That needs to be translated into the local speech and not rendered otherwise in English.]

[Note: I take some literary license with the revelation according to Joseph Smith for the sake of ease of comparison with what we hear from Gabriel.]

Well, here, through possibly reliable means, namely Mohammed and Smith, these two angles would be speaking, one to the truth and one to the lie. And what makes me suspect Islam is that they first devised this solution to the question of evil, and to point it out in Satan as mischievous. Now I think it would be great if, as speaking as basically unbiased, I guess, we discovered that what Gabriel was telling us is, “hey, I’m the trickster, and this is all part of the trick, all this recitation”. But it could be that Gabriel is telling the truth and is pointing to Moroni as being the liar. So, how do we tell that Gabriel, or Mornoni, is telling us the truth?

[Aside: Paul had not need of the instructions for he corresponded the law of love of Jesus with the moral law that, a la Kant, arises from within himself, and indeed a fact. Wesley touches somehow on this by tying in the change which had taken over him, and which was visible only to his inner eye, that this change corresponded exactly to what the gospel promises. Not so much what it says, and what it promises.]

So how do we tell? We cannot depend upon “lightening and thunder” for we, per Kant, cannot distinguish the very large and super from the infinite. So displays may get our attention, but they cannot assure us. So there seems to be merely guesswork. So it would be based on who has the best story, I guess. This much we know: at least one is a fake, and if one then anyone and so both could be fakes. Gabriel and Mornoni and laughing at each other for they both are tricksters.

When I examine the evidence, the reports of both sides, I think I would opt for Moroni. But Moroni does have an unfair advantage over Gabriel, in that the human science has developed enough so that new metaphors might be utilized, e.g., the explanation of the trillions of planets like earth is that they are enhabited by a local god who is an exalted man. Gabriel couldn’t tell that story yet, because the humans were not ready history wise. Etc.

So what’s left? We have Kant’s negative appraisal of the communication of God, i.e., since it is derived from the moral law, God cannot be understood as calling for what is clearly an immoral act.

Let’s presume to rewrite Sura 18 and have Moses stoutly resisting the “Teacher and insisting on saving the boy, which would be based on the moral law (and thus showing clearly, as Gabriel would insist, if he were not a trickster). And then the Teacher could have slapped Moses and knocked down and killed the child and then, say, “no have some patience and you will see what took place before your eyes [saving the parents] is good for humans.” And then later Moses would have been told the secrets of the actions and reveal that they resulted in a greater good. But then he must argue and say, “No, I cannot sit by and allow what is clearly to my sight a wrong, and I cannot believe that God would ever tell me to do that. A trickster might, but not God.”

If such a thing existed, or something like it, then there is a better chance for the validity of Gabriel’s recitations, for a trickster will not permit a moral foundation, but only a selfish foundation, e.g., doing good acts not becaue they are good, but because God has commanded them.

I don’t see it in Gabriel’s Sura 18. I can’t speak of Moronoi. The conversation is on-going with the Prophet of the Mormons and so you never know for sure what’s coming next. Moroni seems to like to stay up to date and utilize the most recent gagets.

I wonder if we ought to consider the question: if you could tell a single lie and bring all humanity into a state of happiness, or would you tell the truth and let the world sink into unhappiness? But this would touch more the persons of the two Prophets, as though one were a genius who understood humans and who devised a plan for their salvation through some sort of mind control and, being a tactical genius (like Joan of Arc), was able to make it stick and thus give hope for this intended universal happiness of the humans on earth. I think etiquette prohibits me from speaking of the Muslim Prophet in such terms. I think that is taboo among the Muslims and something they perhaps must object to. So maybe better to speak of Smith has having the genius and tactical skill and the moral compassion to want to tell this single lie for the sake of universal happiness among all people (eventually).

So I need to see evidence of a moral core to both Gabriel and Moroni and I don’t yet see it. So we have these two recitations which contradict each other and where there is no clear moral core (as far as I can tell) and where the evidence supports Moroni in being more up to date, if I knew that my own faith were a lie and still wanted to believe in one of these two angels, I think I would opt for Moroni. At least until I am persuaded otherwise. Oh, and one other thing, Smith does a far better job in synchronizing his reports with those of the older and newer testaments of Jews and Christians. A more uniform flow. Gabriel is a bit choppy in this regard.

Regarding, in contrast, the scholarly authenticity of the writings of Paul, gives light to another report of a communication with God. Paul doesn’t depend much upon his Jesus-in-the-sky, but rather on its command to syntheise the knowledge of Jesus held by the disciples and speak it universally to all the world, namely of what Jesus was about when stripped of his Jewish appearance and presented in his universality.

Paul defines the Gentile Christian in a practical as a follower of Jesus for whom there is no law except the law of love, as understood by the follower, and that the only question is expediency with regard to the execution of the dictate of universal love. So in a nutshell the Gentile Christian passes muster as Kant’s representation of a moral religion, and not only by not employing the immoral, but in a positive way of having the command of God be this very moral law (that Kant has welling up within us), and where we realize that this moral demand within us is not only within us, but in fact is also the command of God.

Now if I were trying to present my own take on things to a disinterested bystander, e.g., an intellectual atheist, along with those of Gabriel and Moronie, I would introduce the Wesleyan into the picture and experience in themselves, and not visible otherwise, and declare that what Paul has of the promise of the gospel has been accomplished in my soul, namely I am becoming like the Jesus whom Paul described to us.

So the case for the Gentile Christian (which was unknown or misunderstood by both Gabriel and Moronni) would be

1. the communication of Paul is authentically his and not that of any angel,
2. the communication is totally moral, thus according with human rationality, and
3. the communication will be experienced in the life of the follower of Jesus, i.e., you will becoming more like Jesus in the love for all humanity, i.e., it is a transforming faith, i.e., it accomplishes what it promises.

So, let’s bring this to a close.

We are faced with the two stories regarding Gabriel and Moronie. They can’t both be true, but they can both be false. Smith is more elaborate in his science and more consistent with earlier scriptures. But neither has exemplified a clear moral core, and while that does not make it immoral, it makes it uncertain. At least it is not yet clear to me.

Then we have Paul’s own story (and not quoting an angel) and we find a good correlation (given just above in three points) with what we would want to know in deciding upon a religion. I think the evidence and fair appraisal will opt for Paul’s story. And as described by the Wesleyan and Paul there is here a representation of Kant’s “ideal of the moral religion” which is coming to love the moral law, and not implement reluctantly by willingly and gladly.

Now an additional consideration. Since the Gentile Christian is not beholden to Paul except as the expounder of the universal religion, i.e., honored, (Romans 14:4), he is called upon to utilize the principle of Paul of all things being lawful and where expedience in the application is the only criteria.

Accordingly the Gentile Christian is free to disregard Paul’s specific injunction against same-sex sex and to apply the principle of rational love in this world and this condition and to promote homosexual unions as a special and wonderful way for two beings to be unified in one flesh (no secrets) while avoiding the birth of children, which is precisely what a benevolent nature would present at this stage of the chaos due to unrestrained childbirth by the heterosexuals and those acting like heterosexuals.

This liberty beings up an important distinction, I think, in comparing the character of the produce of Gabriel, Moronie and Paul, namely the Gentile Christian acts independently of all interpretations of the communication of God (experts are not a crutch) in deciding how best to implement his moral law of universal love at this moment. (See also John 5:1-18.)

So while a Christian does submit himself to his Christ, he remains a free man, for his understanding of what this submission calls for is for him to use his head in best implementing the law of love, given conditions on the ground (according to his condition, which gives it its universal flavoring). The Gentile Christian is a free man who surrenders to Jesus and joins his universal band and who is set free by the same Jesus to become like Jesus on his own terms, i.e., making his own decisions.

So, for what it is worth, until I am shown otherwise, I am thinking that the Gentile Christian can be termed a free man, while those hearing the recitations of Gabriel and Moroni have given up their freedom and look only for instructions from somewhere else in order to act properly, e.g., do this and don’t do that, and then you can do what you want to.

Where is the trickster? He could be in Gabriel or in Moroni but not in Paul, it seems to me. Paul might even have hallucinated his Jesus, but he reports of a moral religion which is suitable for the entire world and which, many witness attest to, can be experienced in one’s own soul (given time enough for the progression). So these many reports would have to be hallucinations or inventions, but they could not be the work of a trickster, i.e., trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works, for this witness correspond exactly to accomplishing Kant’s moral ideal, love of the law. That’s exactly what we know that God wants (per Kant’s deduction), and that is exactly what Paul promises and which John Wesley reminds us can be experience in one’s own soul. And which I have experience myself, a growing perfection in love, a growing love of the moral law.

By the way. It seems quite unlikely that Paul would have told a lie to make the world happy because we have the witnesses to the transformation that he asserted was the truth within himself. And so there is no reason to doubt the testimony of so many witnesses of the fact of transformation, i.e., growing in love of universal neighbor.

Musing further.

I need to consider the simplicity of the instructions of Paul relative to the need for experts as in Islam and (I think) Mormonism. The law of love can be understood, even if not always adhered to, by children at a very early age. All that changes after that is one’s understanding of the world, of causes and effects, and of medicines and poisons, and the extent of “neighbor”.

So then we have:

1. an authentic and original report of Paul,
2. a universal moral core is clear in his teaching,
3. there is an authentication of Paul’s report by countless witnesses, and
4. there is no need for experts (though certainly practical advisors) for “every man is a king”, and there is no slave in the band of Jesus.

Briefest yet then: authentic report, more core, validation of report, and the dignity of free and sovereign people (and the moral cannot be applicable except that all people are seen to have dignity, i.e., universally).

A justification for the freedom is given in the very conception of the Christian, namely one who assumes and accepts his salvation and has it in hand in his communion with the Lord Jesus and acts no longer for gain and reward, but rather in order to implement the law of love. And this supports my contention that the Gentile Christian is be considered as a free man, even though he belongs to a band, for now he acts freely for the sake of the band (and its mission). If I am not mistaken neither the Muslim nor the Mormon can have such assurance by his religion.

Filed under: Christian,Islam,Kant