Joining The Dots - Day 11

Good evening. I want to start by expressing my gratitude for your presence here today. It's the third week already, and I am really grateful that so many of you are still here. It's encouraging to see that people find these talks interesting enough to return week after week. Today, I will share my screen and continue from where we left off.

There is a way of making sense of the nature of reality that goes all the way back to the Greeks, particularly Pythagoras, which has permeated the whole of the European cultural tradition. This way of understanding the world is often unconscious for many people. If we look at modern discourse, we can see that many divide the world into two classes: the oppressed and the oppressor, the poor and the rich, the lower class and the upper class, black and white. I've often heard people say that black people cannot be racist, while white people are inherently racist. This division extends to various other categories, such as female and male, LGBTQ+ and straight, socialist and capitalist, and those who work in the public sector versus the private sector.

Generally speaking, everything on one side is regarded as good, while those who fall into the other categories are often seen as suspect or even bad. This perspective is a form of essentialism, where good and evil are not determined by character but by the category into which one falls. If you belong to one category, you are regarded as inherently oppressed and therefore good; if you belong to the other, you are seen as an oppressor and therefore bad. This Marxist view posits that if you are part of the proletariat, you are inherently good, while those in the ruling class are inherently bad. This ideological justification leads to the elimination of the ruling class, regardless of their character, simply because they belong to a particular group.

This way of viewing the world allows people to commit terrible crimes with a clear conscience, as they see the world in terms of good and evil. It leads to stereotyping on both sides, creating a dualistic view where one is either wholly good or wholly bad. There is little room for nuance or complexity in this perspective. For example, if you belong to the Aryan race, you are seen as inherently good, while those who are Jewish or Slavic are viewed as inferior. This kind of thinking eliminates the spectrum of human experience and fails to recognise that people are flawed. No one is wholly good or wholly evil; every human being is a mixture of both.

This dualistic view is not an accurate description of reality. The world is not simply divided into good and evil. Those who impose this view are attempting to control the narrative and vocabulary surrounding these issues. For instance, the debate about what it means to be a woman has become contentious, with some arguing that only those with wombs can be considered women. This has led to significant backlash against individuals like J.K. Rowling, who expressed this view. The control of discourse allows one to impose their understanding of reality on others, labelling those with differing opinions as evil or oppressive.

The question arises: are people wholly good or wholly evil? Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his book 'The Gulag Archipelago', provides profound insights into this issue. He recounts his experiences during the Second World War and the consequences of expressing criticism of the war effort. He was arrested and spent nine years in a gulag, where he reflected on the nature of good and evil. He realised that the line separating good and evil does not run between states or classes but through every human heart. This understanding highlights that even in the most flawed individuals, there can be a small bridgehead of good, and even in the best, there remains an uprooted corner of evil.

Solzhenitsyn's insights reveal the falsehood of revolutions that seek to eliminate evil. Such movements often destroy not only the carriers of evil but also fail to discriminate between those who carry good. They may become even worse than those they seek to eliminate. This is evident in the current racial discourse in America and Britain, where individuals are categorised as oppressors simply based on their race. This dangerous dialogue is rooted in a flawed understanding of human nature and reality. From a biblical perspective, we see that God expresses both compassion and justice. Societies that believe in a just God tend to be more compassionate and forgiving, while those that do not often resort to revenge and impose justice in this life. The Book of Ezekiel illustrates this theme, emphasising the importance of actions and repentance, not just words. It is not enough to say sorry; one must also strive to restore what has been wronged.

None of the sins that a person has committed will be remembered against them if they have done what is just and right; they will surely live. This is how God sees it. However, the interesting thing is how people respond. They say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' They claim it is unfair that God says those who repent will be forgiven, while others may go to hell. It is fascinating that people assert the way of the Lord is unjust, but it is their own ways that are not just. The righteous person who turns from their righteousness and does evil will die for it, while a wicked person who turns away from their wickedness and does what is just and right will live. Yet, you Israelites say the way of the Lord is not just, but I will judge each of you according to your own ways.

The second commandment states, 'Do not make a graven image.' Sometimes, people have their own ideas of what God or Jesus is like, but God is who He is, not necessarily how we think He ought to be. People often cast God and Jesus in their own image. If you read the New Testament, you see that Jesus is incredibly straightforward; He is not merely nice and forgiving. There is much more about heaven and hell in the New Testament than in the Old Testament. God comes across as far more judgmental in the New Testament, punishing the bad people more than is depicted in the Old Testament. People, like the Israelites, may say the way of the Lord is not just, but we must understand that God is who He is.

When God spoke to Moses, He said, 'I will go on being who I am.' God is not necessarily how we think He ought to be. This is why it is stated in the Old Testament, 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' says the Lord. We must ask ourselves what is happening in the world today. Are people taking revenge on those who lived hundreds of years ago? God said that is not right; we should not be doing that. Vengeance is God's, and we should leave it to Him. Otherwise, we create a cycle of revenge, where people feel morally justified in honouring previous generations by taking revenge on the present generation. This cycle of revenge can go on for years, decades, and even generations, leading to a society permeated by violence.

God abhors violence more than anything else because He hates seeing His children hurt. This idea of God being a God of justice and mercy raises questions. I read something last time from Jonathan Sacks about the Middle Ages, where someone wrote about burning synagogues and destroying prayer books in the name of Christianity. This was a call to violence against Jews, and it is shocking to see such anti-Semitic sentiments attributed to Martin Luther. These words were used by Hitler and inspired Germans for centuries. Many churches in Germany display anti-Semitic imagery, which is incredibly offensive. My own family suffered greatly during this time, and I have never received an apology or reparations from any German. Yet, I do not seek revenge because I have learned that the purpose of our lives is to love, forgive, and empathise without limitations.

Despite the pain of the past, I can say it was Reverend Moon who taught me how to overcome bitterness. My father's experience, where he escaped a synagogue that was set on fire, shaped his gentle nature. He did not hold bitterness, even though he was raised in a culture that taught not to take revenge. The attitude of leaving vengeance to God allows one to move on with life. Reflecting on the world today, we see discussions about removing statues and monuments that represent historical figures with controversial legacies. While some argue for their removal, I believe it is essential to remember history, even the painful parts. Removing these symbols can lead to erasing our history, which is not beneficial.

The Israelites, when entering Canaan, did not want to be governed by kings or Pharaohs; they wanted to be governed by laws. The nature of laws is that they are general and abstract, not specific. For example, the command 'You shall not murder' applies to everyone without detailing what one must do. Laws are equal; no one is above the law, not even the king or the police. This equality is crucial because if someone mistreats another, they should face the full force of the law. Laws must also be certain and unchanging, allowing individuals to make plans based on them. If laws change frequently, it becomes frustrating and chaotic, making it difficult to plan one's life or business.

When discussing the punishment for breaking the Sabbath, we see that the law is clear. If someone works on the Sabbath, they shall be put to death. This may seem cruel, but the law must be certain. If a person breaks the law and is not punished, it undermines the law's authority. The punishment must be applied equally to everyone to reinforce the boundaries. This creates a deterrent effect, as people understand the seriousness of the law. In a classroom, if a student breaks a rule and faces no consequences, it leads to disorder. Therefore, it is vital for teachers to clearly explain the rules and the consequences for breaking them, ensuring that they follow through when rules are violated. This maintains order and a conducive learning environment.

Time is very difficult to regain order within a classroom and recreate a learning environment. There has to be a clear rule and a clear punishment that everybody knows, so it's not arbitrary. It should not be a case of, 'Oh, I didn't realise the punishment was going to be so serious.' This must be explained very clearly: this is the law, this is the rule, and these are the consequences if you break the rule. It is necessary for the law to be upheld, which is really important for the teacher. The same principle applies within society; the law should be upheld without exceptions. It should apply equally to an important politician as it does to an ordinary member of society. Justice is crucial, and at the same time, there is also the rehabilitation of offenders. When men have a dispute, they should take it to court. The judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty. This is one of the last rules set up during the time of Noah, and it is universal; every society must have a justice system to prevent individuals from taking revenge themselves. Therefore, when a dispute arises, you go to court, and an independent, impartial judge will decide the case, ensuring that justice is served.

The guilty person then receives punishment, and the focus shifts from revenge to justice, establishing and maintaining boundaries. If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with a number of lashes that correspond to his crime. However, he must not give him more than 40 lashes; if he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes. This is not about humiliating or degrading someone; it is about justice and maintaining boundaries. Jonathan Sacks commented that when the guilty have received the punishment their offence deserved, they are restored to their earlier status. In other words, they have paid their penalty. For example, they are permitted to be a witness, and their testimony has not been invalidated by their previous guilt. The stain on their character is temporary, not permanent. Offenders are to be rehabilitated, meaning that once they have served their sentence, they can reintegrate into society as ordinary members and should not be treated as criminals.

This biblical idea of justice suggests that the stain is paid, and the individual is rehabilitated, regaining full rights as a regular citizen. The crime they committed should not be held against them; it is wiped out and not remembered. Now, regarding rehabilitation and maintaining a good and stable society, someone asked me about when Moses commanded the killing of people. Moses went up onto the mountain and fasted for 40 days, during which God gave him the Ten Commandments. While he was on the mountain, the people wondered where he was and said to Aaron, 'Please create gods for us to follow who can lead us into Canaan.' God was upset by this and spoke to Moses, who calmed God down. When Moses descended the mountain and approached the camp, he saw the golden calf and the people running wild, dancing. They were completely out of control, leading to social chaos. His anger burned, and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them.

Did it help that he broke the tablets? Not really. He had to go back up the mountain, fast for another 40 days, and carve the tablets himself. You can imagine that he took much more care of them than the ones he received from God. Anger can lead to actions that do not help the situation. In a classroom, if disorder arises, a teacher may have to appear angry to restore order. Similarly, as a parent, you might tell your children off without actually losing your temper. However, in a tragic turn of events, Moses lost his temper, broke the tablets, and God ordered the people to strap on their swords and go through the camp, killing 3,000 people that day. There were about 600,000 people, and they had run amok, leading to rioting and social disorder. In such situations, ordinary people often get hurt, and businesses are destroyed. Anyone who stands up to the mob risks violence against themselves.

If Moses had simply asked the people to calm down, they would not have listened. In a classroom, if a teacher enters and asks the students to be quiet, they may continue misbehaving. Therefore, a teacher may need to shout or take action to restore order. This is similar to how a government must restore order during social chaos. It is not about imposing order but about restoring it to the way it is supposed to be. Moses had to make tough choices, and while nobody wants to do such things, it is the responsibility of a teacher or leader to maintain a safe environment. When disorder occurs, the vulnerable get hurt, and it is the job of a teacher, leader, or politician to keep people safe by maintaining order. If there is a social breakdown, it is necessary to restore that order, which is a tough call. Moses felt that the only way to restore order was through his actions, and while he was not happy about it, that was his judgment at the time.

Another aspect to consider is freedom. God says, 'The time is coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; they broke that covenant with me, even though I was their husband.' This covenant is like the relationship between a husband and wife, which is intense. God continues, 'This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time. I will put my instructions within them, and they will be my people. I will engrave my instructions on their hearts.' The Mosaic law was engraved upon tablets, but now the law is written within their conscience. This is another Jewish idea of freedom: I will be their God, and they will be my people. They will no longer need to teach each other to say, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest. Everyone will grow up with a conscience and an understanding of God living inside them, rather than relying on an external law.

When people live entirely according to their conscience, they feel completely free. Freedom exists within the law; you cannot break the law or go against your conscience because your conscience is strong. This idea is central to the Divine Principle, where every instance of the word 'vertical' refers exclusively to a person's relationship with God. The only other times it is mentioned vertically is in relation to conditions inherited through generations. This creates an integrated and interdependent society where citizens share joys and sorrows. To hurt someone else would be to experience pain as if it were their own, leading to a society where crime is not committed. Jeremiah poetically describes this world where people's consciences are so sharp that they would not hurt another person. This creates an integrated, God-centred society where God dwells and lives.

I mentioned the 615 laws, and while I only touched on a few, there is much depth to explore. These laws aim to create a good society, establishing and maintaining boundaries. The ideas of rehabilitation are modern concepts, particularly in Europe, where the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. For a long time, this was not the case, but these principles were revealed three and a half thousand years ago, providing a framework for a peaceful and just society. All these laws translate a vision into reality. We have a vision, such as the family pledge, but how do we translate that vision into reality? This is something we often overlook. Behind every law in the Mosaic law, there is a story, a narrative. After the break, I will share the narrative of Abraham and Isaac, which you will understand differently than before, as it connects to translating a vision into reality. Welcome back, everyone. I hope that was food for thought. You will find that many of my views are quite different from others, and I do not expect you to believe everything I say. In fact, if you agree with everything I say, I would be deeply shocked and disappointed. My aim is to open up these topics for consideration and thought. How are we going to translate our vision into reality? Has anyone ever tried to do it before? I often wonder about this. When Jesus appeared to Father on Easter Sunday, he was about 16 years old. Jesus said to him, 'I want you to inherit my mission and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.' Father, being wise, initially said no, thinking only an idiot would say yes. After much conversation and persuasion, Father agreed to take on the mission to restore the world. But then he faced the challenge of finding a handbook for restoring the world and building the kingdom of heaven. Has anyone ever done this before? Can I learn from anyone? Yes, Father picked up the Bible and invested his efforts into understanding it.

In studying the Bible deeply, we see that the Divine Principle serves as a pattern for the natural subjugation of Satan. This pattern was established by the forefathers: Abel, Noah's family, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Jesus. God Himself was following this victorious pattern for the natural subjugation of Satan and for the establishment of the foundation for the Messiah on a national level. This is about establishing the Kingdom of Heaven on a national level, where God is laying down the basic principles for a just, peaceful, and good society. When the Messiah comes, this foundation can then be expanded to other peoples as well.

If we consider how to build the Kingdom of Heaven, we might think that these principles are only for the Jews. However, God chose them as a holy nation and a kingdom of priests to teach these principles and ways of life to the rest of humanity. The goal is for all human beings to establish a just, peaceful, and good society where they can flourish and have the freedom to pursue beauty, truth, and goodness. God is trying to establish a God-centered society, and this message is for all humanity, not just the Jews.

Even the Mosaic Law was primarily intended for the Levites, one particular tribe. However, many Jews believed that everyone should follow these laws, desiring to live according to the strict regulations originally meant for the priests. Behind the law, there is a story, particularly that of Abraham and Isaac. This story is about establishing the value of the individual. After these events, God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, whom he loved. This request must have been incredibly challenging for Abraham, as it contradicted everything he believed about right and wrong.

The question arises: why did God test Abraham? The Hebrew word for 'test' can also mean 'miracle.' A test can be seen as an opportunity to do something that seems impossible. For instance, imagine standing at the edge of a diving board, afraid to jump. That fear may not be rational, as you have seen others dive without injury. If you manage to overcome that fear and jump, you experience exhilaration and a sense of accomplishment. This is similar to what God was doing with Abraham; He was pushing him out of his comfort zone to help him achieve something he thought was impossible.

Up until this point, Abraham had passed nine tests. Sacrificing Isaac was against everything he believed in, yet he was willing to do it. The question also arises about Isaac's willingness to go along with it, especially as a teenager who could understand what was happening. Some might argue that the core of one's being lies in the commitment to the Creator, suggesting that if God commands something, it should be done. However, a deeper examination reveals that Abraham was chosen to be a role model, tasked with instructing his children and household to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just.

Many descendants of Abraham do not see him as a role model in the same way. They do not test their children in such extreme ways. This story has troubled many, as Abraham is a foundational figure for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. How can one reconcile the idea of a loving God asking Abraham to commit such a terrible act? Philosophers and theologians have wrestled with this for generations. Kierkegaard spoke of the 'teleological suspension of the ethical,' suggesting that if the end is good, it justifies the means. However, this logic can lead to dangerous conclusions, as seen in the actions of religious fanatics who justify unethical actions in the name of God.

The biblical tradition teaches us to follow our conscience and never do anything unethical. The Old Testament is full of laws that prohibit wrongdoing. Therefore, we must look at the story of Abraham and Isaac through the lens of restoration. The ancient family structure was corrupted, leading to abusive relationships and practices like child sacrifice. God wants to abolish these traditions and restore the family to a healthier state. Child sacrifice is denounced in the Mosaic Law, and God abhors such practices. The ancient world often viewed children as property, which allowed for such sacrifices. However, the biblical worldview rejects this notion, emphasising that children are not property but precious beings deserving of love and protection.

It starts off with Adam, recognising that all human beings have a common origin in Adam. This means there is one God that all humanity worships. When people worship their dead ancestors, they feel closer to those who share the same ancestry. This creates a sense of belonging, often leading to tribal connections. However, this can also result in discrimination against those from different tribes, as they do not worship the same ancestors. This is a consequence of ancestor worship, which fosters division rather than unity under one God for all humanity.

The second biblical concept from the first page of the Bible is that every single human being is a child of God. All human beings are the sons and daughters of God, which means every individual has divine, unique, and eternal value. In the ancient world, only the Pharaoh was considered the son of God, but the biblical tradition asserts that every individual reflects the image of God. This implies that parents do not own their children; rather, they are guardians. Children belong to God, not their parents, and this principle establishes that both father and mother have equal authority.

When God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, He is asking Abraham to renounce his ownership of Isaac. Abraham could have refused, claiming Isaac as his property, but God’s request challenges this notion. God is asserting that Isaac is His property, and thus, He has the authority to ask for his sacrifice. This test confronts Abraham with the reality that Isaac belongs to God, not to him. Similarly, Isaac must acknowledge that he also belongs to God, which is a significant aspect of their relationship.

The rabbinic understanding of this story highlights that the principle at stake is that a child is not the property of a father. The difficulties faced by figures like Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel in having children illustrate that children are gifts from God, not merely the result of biological processes. When God asks Abraham to offer Isaac, He is not requesting child sacrifice but rather seeking to establish a fundamental principle of Jewish and international law: children are not the property of their parents. This recognition is crucial for the development of individual moral responsibility.

Every individual has a conscience and must take moral responsibility for their actions. They cannot simply follow orders from parents, kings, or teachers. As children reach maturity, they become independent moral agents with their own dignity and freedom. This theological understanding of lineage change emphasises that individuals must transcend the boundaries of life and death, making choices that affirm their belief in God. Abraham and Isaac’s experiences illustrate the journey towards recognising their identities as children of God, which is foundational to the change of lineage.

This transformation in understanding human value marks the beginning of the end of slavery. If every human being is God's property, it becomes impossible for one person to own another. Slavery is theft, and recognising that every individual is a son or daughter of God establishes a new moral framework. This shift has profound implications for human relationships, as every person should be treated with respect and dignity, reflecting their divine value as God's creations.

The implications of this idea have taken thousands of years to unfold, influencing the Jewish people, the early Christians, and eventually leading to the abolition of the slave trade in the 19th century. The recognition of individual value has been a slow process, but it is essential for combating racism and discrimination. If we acknowledge that every person is a child of God, we cannot categorise them based on race or gender. This understanding forms a solid philosophical basis for human rights, rooted in the belief that all human beings belong to God.

The change of lineage is a legal and spiritual transformation, where individuals become God's property, free from the claims of Satan. This shift in identity empowers individuals to assert their dignity as sons and daughters of God. The dedication of children to God, as seen in various traditions, reinforces this principle. Each individual is recognised as a member of the Covenant, affirming their dignity and value as children of God. This understanding has shaped Jewish and Christian traditions and has influenced the development of Western liberalism, tracing back to the story of Abraham and Isaac.

The story of Abraham and Isaac is significant in multiple religious traditions, including Islam. At the end of Hajj, Muslims sacrifice a sheep or a lamb, which connects to the Binding of Isaac. In this narrative, instead of sacrificing a son, Abraham and his son sacrifice a sheep or lamb. This event marks a turning point in human history, yet it raises profound questions. How could God ask Abraham to do such a thing? How could Abraham be willing to comply? How could Isaac accept this fate? Understanding this story is crucial, as it serves as a foundational event for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

To grasp the essence of this story, one must consider the change of lineage and identity. This change provides a framework for interpreting the narrative and its deeper meaning. It is about translating a vision into reality. The vision is that every human being is a son or daughter of God, making slavery impossible. The laws that emerged from this vision aimed to translate the historical experience of moving from slavery in Egypt to freedom in Canaan into a legal framework. Behind every law lies a story, and the abolition of slavery is rooted in the belief that every individual possesses unique divine value and belongs to God.

In the Mosaic law, slavery is acknowledged, but it is framed differently. For instance, if one buys a Hebrew slave, that individual is to serve for six years, after which they must be set free. This raises the question of how one could buy a Hebrew slave. Often, individuals fell into slavery due to mismanagement of finances, leading them to sell themselves to repay debts. Thus, slavery is not a matter of birth but rather a temporary circumstance. This contrasts sharply with traditional slave societies, where status was inherited.

The law stipulates that a slave can only serve for six years, reinforcing the idea that slavery is not permanent. Some individuals may find comfort in the dependency that comes with slavery, as it relieves them of the burden of decision-making. However, the law also provides a mechanism for those who wish to remain in servitude voluntarily. If a slave chooses not to be freed, they must undergo a ritual to mark their choice publicly. Additionally, the law protects slaves from abuse, stating that anyone who beats their slave must be punished if the slave dies as a result. This is a significant shift from the view of slaves as mere property.

Another important aspect of the law is that on the Sabbath, slaves are not to work. This provision allows slaves to experience freedom, even if only for a day. It acknowledges their humanity and moral agency, ensuring that they can breathe the air of freedom. The laws aim to translate the vision of individual value into practice, leading to the gradual abolition of slavery within the Jewish community. This principle was intended to extend beyond the Hebrews, as the commandment to not oppress strangers reflects the shared experience of being strangers in Egypt.

The foundation for the abolition of slavery took thousands of years to universalise, but it began with these practical laws. They illustrate a method for translating the inherent value of every human being into societal norms. This process is gradual, not instantaneous. The next topic, conflict resolution, is substantial and will be addressed in the following session. It relates to biblical political economy and the creation of a just society, particularly in addressing the desire for revenge and resolving conflicts.