My Response to Marie

Below is Marie's response to the post 'My Response to Alex.' Below her response, is my response to her. Enjoy!!!


Marie's response to the post 'My Response to Alex':
Here I go again with the definitions. According to good ole Webster, the word unity has six definitions (hmm… the one word “unity” has six definitions…). I’d like to reference the first four:

Unity-
1. a: the quality or state of not being multiple: ONENESS, b: a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation…
2. a: a condition of harmony: ACCORD, b: continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)
3. a: the quality or state of being made one: UNIFICATION, b: a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also: the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character
4. a totality of related parts: an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

Ok, so Jason I see inconsistencies with some of your comments/ideas, although maybe because you are referring to the different definitions of unity. (Still makes me smile –“different definitions of unity!”) It is apparent in your reply that you feel the idea of 3 in 1 does not a unity make. The idea of the Trinity, I believe, is referring to the 4th definition of unity – the related parts or entity that is a whole. I find it interesting that you can believe that the universe exists inside the head of a pin, and the head of the pin exists inside of the universe, but you throw out this type of thinking when it comes to the unity of the Trinity. I’m not saying that you even have to believe in the Trinity, but to understand that what the Trinity represents is the very thing that you hope for- that very thing that mysticism tires to teach. The separates will become equals, if you will. The sum of all the parts makes the whole. The entire idea of the Universal God Soul, that the parts (and God and all his “parts”) are all connected into one. I would even argue that saying “that God is one and has no partners” goes against this idea of the Universal God Soul. If we are one with God, and God is one with us, and God is the Universe and the Universe is God… how can you not be able to fathom the idea that God is one with Jesus, Jesus is one with God…? In fact, I think the very idea that Islam’s God is “one” and has no partners makes it less of a unity “promoter(?)” than Christianity.

I think that Islam points to the first definition of unity - the quality or state of not being multiple: oneness. However, I don’t think that negates the idea of the Trinity being unity as much as the Trinity negates the idea of God being one. Like you always say, two different things can exist, but at the same time can both be true.

However, I do think that the first definition of “unity” doesn’t help to foster love in unity. You stated in your article that “the very first pillar of Islam is saying and believing that God is one and Muhammad is his prophet” (although if Islam really did exemplify unity, wouldn’t they have to list/include all the prophets in this pillar?). I don’t think that the idea of love can exist in “oneness” (1. which is probably why you see more love in Christianity, 2. if there is only one, how can love grow?). When I think of “oneness” as in “not multiplies”, I think of “my way, my stuff, myself.” But when I think of love, it makes me think of unity in relation to the other definitions – “a condition of harmony, accord, unification” or “our way, our stuff, ourselves.” How is it that for you the idea of “one” can be such a symbol of unity and that the idea of three working, loving and acting as one isn’t unity?

Also in the article you wrote this about the three religions: “To me, they are all a bundled package, if you accept one, you must accept the other two. There is no division in this for me. I don’t understand how you can accept two, but not the third one.” Could you not apply this to the Trinity as well? Again, even if you don’t agree with it, you should see how another couldn’t say, “well I believe in God and Jesus, but I don’t know about that Holy Spirit thing.” For those people, as you feel about the three religions, you need them all to complete the unified picture.

Another thing you wrote in the article: “Also, I don’t know how Muslims can accept Islam but not it’s previous two revelations when it even says in the Qur’an to seek out and learn from the previous two revelations” (which isn’t very “unity”). But then you stated “Islam accepts the previous two monotheism’s and in some interpretations, the prophets of other religions as well into it’s belief system” (although, the first pillar only mentions Muhammad). So, which is it????

OK, let me get this straight – Unity isn’t promoted in the idea that God can be three parts in one, however, the teachings of Him can be??? I think it’s funny that you can “meld” the three different religions into one, but can’t “meld” the thought of God being 3 in 1 and consider it unity. What kind of a mystic are you??? ;)


My response to Marie:
Ok, here is my reply, first off, you write ‘It is apparent in your reply that you feel the idea of 3 in 1 does not a unity make.’ I don’t’ know if that’s completely accurate. It may make a unity for you and I can see the unity that you are talking about, but I think that the Islamic idea of Unity is a better idea of unity, if not better objectively, than more clearer than the Christian one, at least for me I see it better in Islam than in Christianity. This is because I see the trinity being an exclusive idea, only these three things are God, whereas when I think of Islam, I see the Oversoul. I will explain this in detail later.

Secondly, you reference this idea of ‘that very thing that mysticism tires to teach. The separates will become equals.’ That is not entirely accurate either, the idea that I try to get across with the whole Universal God-Soul Idea is 1) We all share the same One Soul of God, not a Trinitarian Soul of God, but the One God Soul and 2) the idea of Unification expressed in the third definition of Unity. That is what I mean when I talk about the Remembrance, Repurification, and Reunification of the Universal God Soul, that the many will once again become one, not necessarily that they will become equals, but that they will eventually all meld together to form the God Soul again, the Oversoul.

Thirdly, you are getting mixed up and putting words in my mouth when you say that ‘If we are one with God, and God is one with us, and God is the Universe and the Universe is God… how can you not be able to fathom the idea that God is one with Jesus, Jesus is one with God…?’ I do not think that we are one with God and God is one with us, I think that we are a part of God, that part being that we share the same soul as God, being that our soul is 1) either a part of a larger Oversoul which is God or 2) that our soul actually is God and that God and our Soul are two ways of saying the same thing. I actually think I like the first one more, but there is debate about this in mystical circles and writings. But taking the first one to be true, that we have a soul, and our soul is connected to other souls and this forms a larger, Supersoul, or the Oversoul, or the God-Soul, than to say Jesus is God is to say that the entire Oversoul is Jesus, which I don’t think is true. I think that Jesus exemplified that part of the Soul of God that he was, but I don’t’ think that he was the entire Oversoul personified in one being or in the Holy Spirit. Also, what does this have to do with the trinity? We are talking about the idea that Jesus is God which is Athanasianism, which is kinda separate from the idea of the trinity.

Fourthly, I can ‘fathom the idea that God is one with Jesus, Jesus is one with God…?’ I just don’t think it accurately portrays the relationship between the two and I don’t think the trinity does either. You can say that Jesus exemplifies the part of God which he is and you can say that the Holy Spirit exemplifies the part of God which it is, but to say they are One with God meaning that they are co-equal with God I think is idolatry and why Islam says God has no partners and why I think that this is correct. My understanding of Islam doesn’t say that we are not a part of a larger being which is God, it is saying that that larger being, the Oversoul, has no partners, which I agree with. In fact, it was Averroes, an Islamic mystic philosopher, who first came up with the idea of the Oversoul in the first place, although he is regarded as a heretic by a lot of Islamic schools of thought. You also state that ‘I think the very idea that Islam’s God is “one” and has no partners makes it less of a unity “promoter(?)” than Christianity.’ Not with my understanding of the Oversoul which I attribute more to Islam than to Christianity, but you are totally entitled to your opinion and I’m not saying either one of us is right or wrong, I’m just saying I don’t share your opinion and I guess that is why you are a Christian and I’m something else, I guess.

Fifthly, You also state that ‘Islam points to the first definition of unity - the quality or state of not being multiple: oneness.’ I do agree with you on this point. You also state though ‘However, I don’t think that negates the idea of the Trinity being unity as much as the Trinity negates the idea of God being one. Like you always say, two different things can exist, but at the same time can both be true.’ I don’t know exactly what you are trying to say with this paragraph, please clarify.

Sixthly, you state that I stated in my article ‘that “the very first pillar of Islam is saying and believing that God is one and Muhammad is his prophet” (although if Islam really did exemplify unity, wouldn’t they have to list/include all the prophets in this pillar?).’ You do have a good point there, and I think they should say that God is one and Muhammad is one of his prophets. I think that would be more accurate.

Seventhly, you state that ‘I don’t think that the idea of love can exist in “oneness” (1. which is probably why you see more love in Christianity, 2. if there is only one, how can love grow?). When I think of “oneness” as in “not multiplies”, I think of “my way, my stuff, myself.” But when I think of love, it makes me think of unity in relation to the other definitions – “a condition of harmony, accord, unification” or “our way, our stuff, ourselves.”’ I do no think of the same thing when I think of these things, when I think of oneness as in not multiples, I think of the Oversoul that we are all a part of. Just because we are all a part of it does not make it multiple. Just because the human body is made up of a lot of different stuff does not make it more than one human body. That is why I think that this Unity can also help promote love, because when people realize the Unity of the God-Soul, the Oversoul, they will realize the esoteric meaning of the golden rule, that you should treat your neighbor as yourself, because in a way, your neighbor is yourself being that you are both a part of the one Universal Oversoul. When I think of love, I also think of ‘unity in relation to the other definitions’ as well, but think that all those can be collapsed under the first definition, being that I see all those in the first one. I don’t know how else to explain this.

Eighthly, you say ‘How is it that for you the idea of “one” can be such a symbol of unity and that the idea of three working, loving and acting as one isn’t unity?’ that is because when I think of one I think of the Oversoul and when I think of the trinity I think of idolatry and that it is a mistake. Because my idea of One and Unity is the Oversoul, it is much more inclusive than the trinity is, which states that only these three things are God, I also think it takes away from the oneness of God. You may think it adds to the oneness of God, but I do not. Although, your explaining all of this to me actually makes me think of another reason why Christianity exemplifies love, this idea of the trinity, of ‘three working, loving and acting as one’ may actually promote love like you say it does more than unity, which would prove my point and maybe why the trinity is a part of Christianity, because it is there to promote love more than it is there to promote unity. Just a thought.

Ninthly, you say ‘Another thing you wrote in the article: “Also, I don’t know how Muslims can accept Islam but not it’s previous two revelations when it even says in the Qur’an to seek out and learn from the previous two revelations” (which isn’t very “unity”). But then you stated “Islam accepts the previous two monotheism’s and in some interpretations, the prophets of other religions as well into it’s belief system” (although, the first pillar only mentions Muhammad). So, which is it????’ It is both, most mainstream Muslims follow the former, most Sufi’s follow the latter and I tend to think that the correct interpretation leads one to the latter understanding. Pretty un-unified, huh?

Lastly, you state that ‘OK, let me get this straight – Unity isn’t promoted in the idea that God can be three parts in one, however, the teachings of Him can be??? I think it’s funny that you can “meld” the three different religions into one, but can’t “meld” the thought of God being 3 in 1 and consider it unity. What kind of a mystic are you??? ;)’ Again, I don’t understand exactly what you are saying here, except for the last comment, could you please clarify this as well please.

Judaism and Justice

This is what I'm talking about, a day or two after I wrote the Justice, Love and Unity article, I read this in a book catalog.

The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustice that Led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Law by Alan M. Dershowitz

Violence, lust, deception, murder, incest, and vengeance: these are the subjects of the biggest bestseller of all time, the Book of Genesis. Here, based on his lectures at Harvard Law School, Alan Deershowitz takes the approach of looking at the oldest Bible stories from a modern legal perspective. Cain murders his brother and walks. God gets angry and millions die in a flood. Jacob deceives his father, robs his brother, and gets away with it. According to Dershowitz, these stories describe a people, and a God, struggling in a world b efore the invention of systematic rules - a primal place that predates our notions of fairness, honesty, and basic rights. Yet here in Genesis we can see these concepts and the need for a formal legal system clearly evolving, culminating in the Ten Commandments and a deep cultural belief in justice.

My Response to A. Catholic

Posted below is Alex's response to my Justice, Love and Unity article. Below his response to my article is my response to his response (What am I saying!). Enjoy!

His response to my article:
I must say Jason for the "mindless raving[s] of a lunatic" who writes at 3:00am your essay was quite thoughtful. Yes it lacked an overall written "unity", lol but you certainly had much to say and I thank you and I am honored to be a source, partly, perhaps even 1% of your "ravings". With this said that does not mean I agree with you entirely but in the tradition of our "friendly disagreements", and truly friendly is what I strive to make them for once charity goes out the window I do not deserve the name of Catholic, I would just give a few of my opinions but only a few because I still have the Spong response to finish...boy I don't think I will ever finish that!

I totally agree with you when you say that Love comes through clearest in Christ. As far as Islam and their notion of the Godhead, I have to ask why do they say that God cannot be Triune and that this somehow contradicts God being One? Whose concept of the Unity of God are we to follow...our own or what God has revealed? I ask do you think it is possible at all for God to manifest His Unity in Trinity? At first glance this seems illogical but again why do we force human concepts on God. This is the thing with Muslims...they say God can have no Son and I would say yes of course if you are speaking in human terms but the Christ being the Son of God does not mean what we ordinarily think it to mean. This Sonship is one of eternity, it did not happen at one moment in time if it did that would mean Christ was a creature and is inferior to God the Father but this simply cannot be even though the Arians said it did.

Islam says God has no partners, and I once again say bravo yes that is true but when Christians say that there are Three Persons but One Nature in God we are saying that the Persons are distinct but perfectly equal. God the Father is not God the Son, God the Son is not God the Holy Ghost etc.....but God the Father is God, God the Son is God, and God the Holy Ghost is God, not three Gods (which is philosophically absurd) but One God in Three Persons. Muslims say no this is impossible but I ask why is it impossible??? Sure they stress the Oneness of God but by this strict mentality they miss the beauty of the Trinity.

In short this is what the Church teaches on the Trinity and it uses philosophy to somehow "explain" the Trinity to some degree for although God is Infinite, Perfect, Omnipotent and beyond our full comprehension still there are some things we can say about God.

God the Father is the principle of the Trinity, that is God the Father is not begotten, God the Father begets God the Son (keep in mind this is before the Incarnation which is a different topic) from all eternity. We liken God the Father to the Idea, and the expression of this idea by God the Son that is why God the Son is also called the Word of God. Words are nothing other than expressions of ideas. Where does God the Holy Ghost fit in? Well in the Creed we say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is the "product" (don't think in terms that the Holy Ghost is made or created...human concepts fail to grasp God entirely) of the love of God the Father and God the Son. The perfect manifestation of this love of the two "produces" the Person of God the Holy Ghost.

Once again this does not take place at any one moment in time but is eternal.

There is one more thing I want to say. Actually you have written on so many deep topics that I have to just pick two to save you the boredom of reading what I have to say.

You ask "Is there unity in Christianity?" Then you go on to answer that "Christianity has never been a unified religion and maybe never will" Well I would disagree. As I mentioned the other day Christ's Church (Catholic Church) is His Mystical Body and as such is One and is not divided. Christ cannot be divided. The Church has been willed by Christ...."Upon this Rock I will build My Church" and it has never lost its essential unity. This comes from the teaching that there is only One True Church. It does not make sense to say that Christ wanted thousands upon thousands of denominations each saying something contradictory about Christ and about the nature of His Church. I don't know what do you think? So if you take the view that the Church espouses then no Christianity is not fragmented but it is One. That is one of the marks of the true Church...its Oneness. So then this means that Christianity certainly does not "need" Islam. What exactly does that mean? That would mean that Christianity is lacking something which Islam has to offer? So then that would mean Christ did not provide everything for the Church which I equate with Christianity.

My belief about the Judaism and Islam is as follows:

God chooses a people, the Hebrews, and reveals Himself to them (although not fully as Trinity in the New Testament). This religion of the Jews was only a preparation, it was but a stepping stone, if you will, a very very important stepping stone, for the New Law, the New Covenant, fulfilled in Christ. By its nature this religion (Judaism) pointed to Christ who is the Messiah. (I have to admit I am no expert on Judaism so my words are not as penetrating as they might otherwise be...forgive me)

Islam (this is my belief and it in no ways is meant to denigrate individual Muslims or anything of the sort) is not part of God's revelation. The Old Testament spoke nothing of Islam (perhaps Muslims may claim that it does) and Mohammed. Islam emerged roughly 600 years after the Birth of Christ and I believe is simply a mishmash of Judaic and Catholic and heretical Christian teachings. I mean there is no other position I can hold. For me it is black and white with this regard. Sure there are some truths to be found in Islam but as a religion I don't believe it expresses what God wanted revealed to mankind. How can one explain the emergence of Islam? Well just because Islam exists and it is similar in many respects to Judaism and Christianity does that mean it is somehow part of God's message? I believe Mohammed was not given a message from God but if he indeed existed he was misled. Surely that is a possibility. Of course you may argue so maybe the Apostles were misled as well? You may argue thus but you know where I am coming from.

I know this will not solve any of the problems between the three religions but I still believe that God's revelation is One...and Islam represents a distorted view of this revelation.

Does this make me a "fundamentalist"?

Anyway this message of mine is nothing eye-opening it is basically the same thing I have been saying all the time. Keep up the writing and thinking....you are the philosopher type...I would say you have benefited somewhat from those degrees even if you have no job corresponding to those degrees. - Alex


My response to his reponse:
Ok, let’s see, I guess I will respond to your questions one by one, first you ask ‘why do they say that God cannot be Triune and that this somehow contradicts God being One?’ is because to Muslims, saying anything other than god is one is being a polytheist. The very first pillar of Islam is saying and believing that God is one and Muhammad is his prophet. To say that God is triune is different than saying God is one. You may not think it is, but to the Muslim, it is. What I was trying to say is that it is possible ‘for God to manifest His Unity in Trinity?’ but that this idea, at least to me, undercuts the idea of oneness and monotheism and the idea that God is one. To say that God is one in 3 doesn’t convey the idea of oneness as well as saying that God is one and has no partners. That is what I was trying to convey with my article, that to me, the Oneness and Unity of God comes through clearer in Islam because of their emphasis on the oneness of God and their rejection of the trinity. I’m not saying this unity cannot come through in Christianity, as it obviously does for you, but for me, it comes through clearer in Islam than in Christianity because 1) I don’t believe in the trinity and 2) it just comes through clearer to me in Islam because of the reasons I stated in my article.

Also, Muslims would say that nowhere in the bible do they mention the trinity and that this concept was created by later theologians reading into the scriptures their beliefs paganistic beliefs. I must say, that I agree with them in this assertion. My interpretation of the New Testament does not lead me to the trinity and I think it is a bit of a stretch to put this idea or to infer it from the New Testament. You ask ‘Whose concept of the Unity of God are we to follow...our own or what God has revealed?’ but to me and Muslims, the concept of the trinity was not revealed by god but is ‘our own’ concept of the unity of god and that if we were faithful to the scriptures, to what God has revealed, we would not believe in the trinity and would believe more in the Muslim idea of the unity of god. I guess ultimately, it all comes down to your interpretation of scripture. Obviously, you interpret it Trinitarian and I interpret it more Islamically. Which one is correct? We can argue about this, but ultimately, how would we decide. You refer to catholic tradition, I refer to what it says in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. Which one trumps the other one? To me, it’s the Qur’an because I do believe it has more ‘divine authority’ than catholic tradition. We just might have to disagree about this.

Also, I think we fundamentally disagree on another point as well and that is causing all of these subsidiary disagreements, that fundamental disagreement is about the divinity of the religion of Islam. You say that ‘Islam (this is my belief and it in no ways is meant to denigrate individual Muslims or anything of the sort) is not part of God's revelation.’ I fundamentally disagree with you and believe that it is a part of God’s revelation and you do not. This is obviously a huge disagreement between us and partly why we hold the beliefs that we do. For me, I don’t’ understand how you can accept Judaism and Christianity yet reject Islam. To me, they are all a bundled package, if you accept one, you must accept the other two. There is no division in this for me. I don’t understand how you can accept two, but not the third one. Also, I don’t know how Muslims can accept Islam but not it’s previous two revelations when it even says in the Qur’an to seek out and learn from the previous two revelations. That is also why for me unity comes through clearer in Islam, because it tells Muslims to seek out and learn from and integrate the previous revelations and stories of the prophets into their belief systems. This inclusiveness of the previous revelations of abrahamic monotheism into what true Islam should be seems to promote more unity than the exclusiveness of Christianity in rejecting Islam as a part of God’s revelation. Yet another reason why I see Unity more clearly in Islam than in Christianity, because Islam accepts the previous two monotheism’s and in some interpretations, the prophets of other religions as well into it’s belief system, and Christianity rejects them all as false religions. It is because I accept this Islamic inclusive belief and I reject the Christian exclusivism belief that I am motivated to harmonize and explain the differences that arise from the conflicting doctrines and scripture of these two monotheism’s. It’s easy for you to not do this because you reject Islam out of hand. I cannot do this, for me, if I reject Islam, I reject all of abrahamic monotheism. If I reject one of the three religions of the book, then I reject all of them. They are linked for me and cannot be separated.

I guess secondly or maybe thirdly, I don’t know where we are at, you say quoting me a few times ‘You ask "Is there unity in Christianity?" Then you go on to answer that "Christianity has never been a unified religion and maybe never will" Well I would disagree.’ Well, obviously you see oneness in the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, however, I do not see this same oneness that you are talking about. I’m not saying that it is not there, especially for you, but for me, it is not there. For me, Jesus himself did not promote unity and may have even promoted division, this is especially true when you reference the quote that he did not come to bring unity, but came to bring the sword of division, 2 will be against three, brother against father, etc., etc. Also, there was division in the early church over the question of circumcism which Paul talks about in his letters, I think he calls the Christians who want to continue circumcism butchers or something like that. Maybe that is inaccurate, but I’m sure you know the controversy that I am talking about and more exactly where it is in scripture and what Paul says about it.

Also, what about the early division between the literalists (what would become the Catholic Church) and the gnostics (who were ruthlessly murdered by the Catholic Church. You may disagree with this, but it is a fact of history that the church, maybe not the church, but many people in the church, murdered gnostic Christians in the hundreds and other non-Christian peoples between the years of 400ad and 600 ad. It seemed like a systematic campaign to wipe anything non-Catholic from the face of the earth and that is why I say the catholic church plunged Europe into the dark ages and the majority of scholars on this subject, I believe would agree with me.) Sorry, this is digressing a great bit from the subject on my part, but the point is that there was a early division in the church between gnostics and literalists and from what we learn from the gnostic gospels there may have been an even earlier division between Peter and Mary Magdalene as to whom the successor of Jesus was. The church says it was Peter, a lot of the Gnostic texts say it was Mary Magdalene. Again, whom are we to believe in this matter. You obviously believe the church, I believe the gnostic texts because 1) I identify with them more than I do the church and 2) I believe the church was corrupted by power and the desire to be the true successors of Christ at any cost and this undercuts their credibility as to being the true religion, especially when they murder their theological opponents to prove their points.

You also say that the church has never lost its essential identity and unity, what about the gnostics that I have mentioned above and what about Protestants? Do you just write them off as not a part of the church? That is also again why I see more Unity in Islam, because Christian exclusivism precludes and doesn’t do much to promote the idea of Unity like I believe or see in Islam. Now I’m not saying that Islam is perfect and you are correct, much of Islam does not promote the idea of unity like I am talking about, especially in this very dark period in Islamic history that we are unfortunately living through, but the seeds of it are there much more than they are in Christianity I believe for all the reasons cited above and all the reasons I put in my article.

Fourthly, you say that ‘So then this means that Christianity certainly does not "need" Islam. What exactly does that mean? That would mean that Christianity is lacking something which Islam has to offer?’ that is exactly what I am saying. That Christianity is lacking something which Islam has, namely, Unity. This may not be true objectively, but it is true for me and what I believe and what I see. Contrarily, Islam is missing something that Christianity has, namely, Love. This of course may not be true, but for me, it is. Islam is missing something that Christianity can provide and Christianity is missing something that Islam can provide. Now, I’m not saying that these things are not there in these respective religions. After all, Paul says that there is neither slave nor free, jew nor gentle, man nor women, but all are one in Christ, which is definitely talking about the Unity which I am talking about and conversely, surely Allah is merciful, forgiving, compassionate, and is talking about the Love that I am talking about and for many Muslims and Christians, these ideas are enough for them to promote the ideas that I do not see in these respective religions in their own belief systems. So for a Christian, they see a great unity in Christ that I do not see as much of, for I see unity in Christ, but not as much as I see it in Islam, and for a Muslim, they see the great love in Allah that I do not see as much of, for I see love in Islam, but not as much as I see it in Christianity. Do you understand what I am saying? This is why, at least for me, these two need each other, because they have what the other is lacking, and they both need Judaism because they, for me, are both lacking the sense of Justice that the Old Testament and Moses and the Ten Commandments and the Law and the Torah provide.

That is what I am saying, and I am even saying that God may have keep these things out of the respective monotheism’s because he wanted them to have to need each other and at one point in history, maybe to meld the way that they meld together in my mind. This may be a crazy thought, but it is what I think. Or he may have hidden these aspects from me because he wanted them to meld together only in my mind and not in anybody else’s. I don’t’ know, I try not to project what I believe on Objective Reality, if you know what I mean, but I think it’s a human tendency to do so, so what I am saying above is true for me, but I realize may not be true for everybody else, although I think it is, I may be wrong and probably am. This is just what I think and what is going on in my head, whether it is TRUE in that sense, I don’t’ know, it is true for me, but I don’t know if it is TRUE in the philosophical and religious sense.

Justice, Love and Unity

So I’m tired and I probably shouldn’t be writing this, but the more I think about it the more I can’t stop thinkingh about it, so what usually is the solution for me in this case is to write this stuff down, that way it is out of my head and on paper and I usually stop thinking about it then, let’s give a little background before getting into it though, first, when I was in decatur, I had a realization that to me, divinity and reality come through clearest for me in christiany, why is this, I ask, I think it’s because for me, love comes through clearest in christ, everything he did seemed to be about love, and faith of course, that is the constant theme that will run throughout this writing, anyways, so me and jan or jan and I were talking the other day and we talked about her sufi meeting with nouredeen I think is his name and she was talking about how much of a non-unity feeling she walked away from the meeting with, which really got me thinking, considering that is the one charactersistics I usually associate with sufi’s is unity, jan also says sidi is always talking about the unity, I think I was reading something on islam, islam and religious pluralism, or maybe transcendent unity and they said that the thing in islam about the godhead is the unity of the Godhead, whearas in christianity, it’s a trinity. I remember maher’s being is article and him basically saying that there are 3 constituents of unity, but basically saying unity was the ultimate metaphysical and meta=ethical principel of the universe, so all of the muslims I have meet and respect seem to be stressing unity to me, and when I think about the islamic religion and about muhammad and all that stuff, what strikes me is not the miracle of the quran, but the miracle of how basically because of the inspiration of one person, the whole constinent of arabia was united under one religion, basically, of course, you will always have your divergencies, but it can be argued, muhammad single handidly brought arabia, and thereby the world for that matter, into the middle ages. Where would europe be without averroes, avicenna, ibn khaldun, etc? where would those people be without muhammad? And of course, were would any of us be without the greeks and the hebrews, the two cornerstones of ‘western’ civilization. But I guess my point is, that in islam, that is the miracle for me, unity, the unity that muhammad brought to pagan arabia, the unity that maher is talking about, the unity of the godhead, the unity of the pilgrammage to mecca which I probably cannot even begin to understand but what struck malcolm x and changed his life thereafter, and the unity of the prophets, making no distinction between them, they are all but honored servants. But it is incomplete, and the reason it is incomplete is because of my girlfriend sitting in bed, half asleep, asking me what I’m typing about. What I mean by this is that my girlfriend symbolizes christianity and the clearest thing to come through in christianity is love. I’m not saying it’s not there in islam, because it is, surely allah is mericful, forgiving, compassionate, but at least for me, love comes through clearest through the person of christ and not the person of muhammad. But I guess my point is that without love and unity in either religion, those religions are incomplete. Is there unity in christianity? You tell me, how many different denominations within protestantism alone are there? How many different denominations where there when christianity itself started so many years ago? Christianity has never been a unified religion and maybe never will, but my argumetn is that is why it needs islam. That is most certainly one thing that we can learn from islam, us so called christians in the ‘west’, the unity of God, the Godhead. It’s supposed to come through in christianity through the triune god, but the very nature of god being triune seems to undercut the idea of unity from the very start. I don’t know, maybe for some, it helps the idea of unity, the unity of three in one, but for me at least, islam does a much better job of exemplifying and showing and being clearer about unity than christianity does. And on the other side of the coin, christianity does a much better job of exemplifying and showing and being clear about love than islam is. It just is, I don’t’ think that there is any question at all about this. I’m sure muhammad was a good example of love, but I believe that jesus was the archetype, the prototype, of what love is supposed to and should be and I think that islam is lacking this in it’s religion and is therefore, incomplete. Think about what muhammad’s main focus was, I think it was unity, I think jesus main focus was love, and I think that both religions are incomplete until they somehow meld or amalgamate these two ideals together to become the true abrahamic monotheism that god meant this ONE RELIGION to be. On the same note, I think that the old testament symbolizes another one of these virtues that the other two are not missing, but still seem to fall short in, that virtue is of course faith, which is the foundation which all of the three religions have, indeed, father abraham, had many sons, many sons had father abraham, I am one of them and so are you, so let’s just praise the lord, I think that is all that needs to be said about that, but what did the jews great prophet do, the torah, the exodus, he freed slaves from oppression, what is freedom, true freedom is justice, I believe that is what the islamic world and I would say even christians are lacking, the sense of justice that flows not just from moses and the torah, but from the entire old testament. This reminds me of jim wallis who is always talking about the old testament prophets emphasis on justice, justice, justice, speaking truth to power, all of the prophets did this in their own way, but isn’t this the essence of the exodus story, moses went to an unjust pharoah, demanded justice, which meant freedom for the enslaved peoples, the pharoah woudn’t give it to them, so god freed the enslaved egyptians himself and thus proved that he was a just god who keeps his promises. Again, I’m not saying that any of these religions don’t have these virtues, indeed, all three have faith, but what I’m saying is that I think that they are all incomplete because they lack what the other two have in spades, Justice, Love, and Unity, maybe this is why they were also put in that order, because somehow, justice flows into love which will eventually lead to unity. So what I’m saying is that all of the particular abrahamic monotheisms are incomplete in the virtues I have cited above and they will only be the true religion when they synthesize in order to compensate for virtues that they are puposefully lacking because I think it was in god’s providence that the day would come when this needed to be done, when humanity was ready for true unity, true love, true justice, which can only be had when all three are maximized by coming together as one, one god, one love, one law. That is the true religion, it is judeo-christian-islam, or faith, justice, love, unity, and of course, freedom, the truth will make you free, this is the truth, justice, love and unity are the truth, we must believe in them to be free, I guess that is all I have to say on the suject. That is why I will never be able to accept one of these completely if it means rejecting two of the other ones and why I cannot accept one completely even if I don’t have to reject the two others ones, because by accepting one, I am basically going against unity, remember, they are all honored servants. But this doesn’t in any way go against jesus divinity, which is hard to explain, but read schuon chapter two and you will understand. Here we go, what did jesus stand for, love, if jesus is god, then love is god, duh, everybody knows that, but what I want to argue is that it was necessary for jesus to be god and for christians to associate jesus with god in order to get the idea of the divinity of love across to his audience, that is why he was sent, to be the exemplar of love. Similarly, in the quran, muhammad bashes this idea and speaks against allah taking a son and says no partners will be attributed to allah and then makes a statement which unifies the prophets under the same heading, honored servants. This was done in order to preserve the unity of god and thus, the central message of islam, that being unity. If jesus was not god in christianity, then his message, that of love and the divinization of love by attaching it to god through jesus, would not have been maximized the way it was supposed to be. Love wouldn’t flow as clearly through christ if christ was not turned into god and made one with him, thus, making love one with god. Similarly, this very same thing had to be denied in islam in order to make the unity of god shine strong and be completely exemplified through islam. If these denial of partners with god, even jesus, was not done, then Unity woudn’t flow as clearly through islam as it does now. That is why these religions look like they do and seem to deny each other, because christianity was created and formed in order to exemplify love the best way possible and islam was created and formed to exemplify unity the best way possible and in order to do this most effectively, in christianity, jesus as love incarnate had to be turned into God to divinize love so love would show most clearly through christianity, but this very same thing had to be denied in islam so that Unity could shine through clearest itself and thus divinized, turned into the main characteristic of God so that God could be linked in an inexorable (? Is that even a word and if it is did I use it the right way) unbreakable way to Unity. Do you understand what I’m saying. I don’t know exactly how judaism fits into this equation that I have created here, but maybe in the jews rejection of jesus we see them upholding their own standards of justice, which was the law, jesus came to fulfill the law but we see him breaking it on many occassions, by jewish standards, maybe if they would have accepted jesus that would have undermined their showing the world Justice because they would have been breaking their own law which was Justice to them. I will have to do more research into this, but I think it may have some validity to it. I don’t’ know how it relates to islam, but the two are so damn similar anyways maybe it doesn’t really need to relate to it. I will have to think more about all of this, but I guess since christ symbolized love and islam symbolized unity by judaism accepting any of these would have undermined it’s own commitment to justice. I don’t see this as clearly as I see the above distinction, but I think it is there nonetheless. And of course, I get to the third page and my writing turns cold, I don’t know why I can only write three pages of material and it seems never more and mostly never less. I don’t know who you are reader who is most comfortable with three pages, but I cannot write more or less for your sake, so I hope you appreciate my inability to not have a 3 page writing, because I really have nothing else to say. I do wish I had a cigarette, but I have the 2 week flu and that wouldn’t be good for me anyways. I wonder if I will send this to jan and or alex, I don’t’ know, maybe, maybe I will, get their opinion on it. We’ll see.