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.