Reading Life Through The Principle - Day 6

Good evening everyone, it's nice to see all your shiny faces again. So, I'll start by sharing my screen. As I said, I'll be looking at the parent-child relationship. When I was explaining the way in which I approached these principles and teachings, it's not just about foundation faith and foundation substance. My main frame of analysis is actually to do with restoring the four great realms of heart. Through the fall, all the relationships within the family were corrupted and distorted. Restoration is about putting all these relationships right.

Restoration occurs when people face a challenge or a similar temptation as Adam, Eve, the archangel, Cain, Abel, or one of our parents or grandparents. We find ourselves in a similar situation that they faced, confronting a similar kind of challenge. Of course, there is the temptation to make the same mistakes they made. When we do that, the pattern of fallen history, attitudes, and behaviours just gets passed on from one generation to the next. Restoration is when, instead of giving in to that temptation, we bring those thoughts and feelings in front of our conscience and pray about it. Our conscience will tell us whether it's the right or wrong thing to do.

If our conscience indicates that we shouldn't do something, the challenge is to do the right thing this time. It's not always easy, but that's what restoration is about. For example, Sarah went through a similar situation as Eve, having to choose between the archangel and Adam. Sarah had to choose between Pharaoh and Abraham. It was her choice; God wasn't going to intervene and make her do the right thing. She had to take responsibility for her actions, and we saw that she did that.

Now, let's look at the parent-child relationship, which also became corrupted because of the fall. First, I want to briefly review filial piety, which is a phrase that comes up more and more in our spiritual community. Filial piety, if you look it up, is very much associated with Chinese philosophy, particularly with Confucius, who was a scholar and social reformer. He lived about 500 years before the birth of Jesus. However, when you read his writings, he had very little understanding of God as a personal being. He would talk about heaven and getting heaven's blessing but never about developing a personal relationship with God.

Confucius focused on ethics and relationships within the family, recognising that stable families are essential for a reformed society. He emphasised the relationship between parent and child, particularly father and son. In English, filial piety comes from the Latin 'filios pietas', which means a devotion that a son has for his parents. This virtue is also pronounced in Roman culture, where it means to be good to one's parents, to take care of them, and to engage in good conduct to bring honour to one's family.

There is a huge expectation that children should earn enough money to support their parents in old age. This expectation motivates families to have many children. Filial piety also involves showing love, respect, and support, displaying courtesy, ensuring male heirs, and wisely advising parents against moral unrighteousness. If you think your parents are going to do something wrong, you should persuade them not to do that. It also includes displaying sorrow for their sickness and death and carrying out sacrifices after their death.

Father, who was born in Korea and attended a Confucian school, had a unique understanding of filial piety. He said that the center and foundation of the universe is the relationship between a father and his children, meaning the father-son relationship. People might think he was referring to natural parents, but he was emphasising the relationship between God and man. Ordinary people in Korea assumed he was talking about their own parents, but Father was highlighting that the core of our identity is that we are sons and daughters of God. Filial piety should be practiced primarily in relation to God, and then to our natural parents.

I'm going to look at the parent-child relationship not chronologically but in terms of Noah's family. Some might wonder if the flood really took place. Just as we looked at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, archaeologists and scientists have found evidence that many stories in Genesis have historical roots. The way these stories are recorded in the Bible teaches spiritual moral lessons. There is evidence of Noah's Ark; for instance, surveys of the Black Sea have found evidence of towns from 7,000 years ago. The expectation is that there was a land bridge between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which was flooded as the ice age ended and water levels rose.

There are also stories about the flood in the Gilgamesh Epic, which is the oldest surviving literature in human history. This epic dates back to about 2100 BC, around the time of Abraham. The Gilgamesh Epic also talks about a flood and someone who builds a boat to save his family. Unlike the biblical account, the Sumerian legends are polytheistic, attributing the flood to the gods who regretted creating people. One god has pity on humanity and helps the king build a boat. Abraham would have known this story but recast it to teach different spiritual moral lessons, just as he did with the myth of Adam and Eve. Abraham retold these myths in a way that revealed different truths, as he had a personal relationship with God.

Only one God exists. God was the invisible being who created the heavens and the earth. He knew that God was good, loved him, and cared about him. This presents a very different understanding of God compared to the ancient world, where people believed in many gods and did not see these deities as moral. In the Canaanite myth, there is a particular story that Abraham recast to convey different moral and spiritual lessons, similar to those found in the Garden of Eden. I believe he retold these stories to present a different view of God and the nature of divinity. However, I must clarify that there is no evidence for my interpretation; it is merely my idea, in case anyone questions it.

The question then arises: why did God bring about the flood in Genesis? Just as Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the flood raises questions about divine intent. For instance, in the 18th century, a massive earthquake struck Lisbon on a Sunday morning while faithful Catholics were in church. This event caused a spiritual shock across Europe, prompting the question of how God could allow such devastation during worship. It is only much later, in the 19th and 20th centuries, that we understand earthquakes as natural phenomena caused by tectonic plates, rather than divine punishment. In ancient times, people attributed earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes to the gods, but the biblical narrative reflects a time when people assumed a supernatural cause for such events.

The important aspect to consider is not whether these events were divine or not, but how Abraham and others interpreted them. The Bible states that the Lord saw humanity becoming thoroughly evil on the earth, with every thought of their minds being completely evil. This mirrors God's concern for the victims in Sodom and Gomorrah, where He was heartbroken over the suffering caused by murder, rape, and robbery. God expressed His grief over humanity's actions, regretting the creation of human beings because they were inflicting harm upon one another. Instead of a world filled with peace and unity, God saw a corrupt earth filled with violence, which He detests more than anything else.

God's motivation for the flood was rooted in His concern for how people treated each other. There was no justice or fairness; people were mistreating one another. The narrative of Adam and Eve includes their sons, Cain and Abel, where Cain killed Abel. Adam and Eve later had another son named Seth. If we count the sisters, there were eight members of Adam and Eve's family. Similarly, Noah, ten generations later, also had three sons and their wives, making eight members in Noah's family. This parallel suggests that both families faced similar challenges and temptations. Instead of succumbing to temptation, they were called to do the right thing.

We often discuss restoring the foundation of faith. In the Bible, Noah is described as a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, who walked faithfully with God. This raises interesting questions about how we judge people in history. Noah was righteous compared to the corrupt individuals of his era, but in a different time filled with good people, he might have seemed ordinary. This perspective is relevant today, especially with contemporary discussions about judging historical figures by modern ethical standards. It is unprincipled to apply today's ethics to those who lived in different times; we should judge them according to the standards of their own era.

God instructed Noah to build the ark, forewarning him of the impending flood. According to the Talmud, Noah spent 120 years building the ark and preaching to others about the flood. He was akin to a forerunner of environmental activism, warning of an impending catastrophe. After 120 years, the flood began, and during this time, Noah's family was to purify themselves and separate from evil. The Bible states that God told Noah and his family to enter the ark, emphasising the importance of this instruction by repeating it three times. This repetition signifies the gravity of the command.

As they entered the ark, Noah and his sons went in first, followed by Noah's wife and the sons' wives. Traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations suggest that the sleeping arrangements on the ark were separate for men and women. The Talmud indicates that God instructed Noah's family not to engage in sexual relations during the flood. This separation implies a focus on restoring the foundation of faith, which for Adam and Eve involved obeying God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit. Thus, restoring the foundation of faith is fundamentally about sexual purity, as they sought a new beginning after the flood.

Noah's story presents a complex situation involving shame and familial relationships. After the flood, Noah became drunk and lay naked, leading to a series of events that culminated in Ham cursing his son, Canaan. The question arises: what was the serious crime that Ham committed? The Divine Principle explains that Ham's feelings of shame towards Noah indicated a separation from his father, suggesting that he was not united in heart with him. This shame was inherited from the Fall, where Adam and Eve were initially innocent and unashamed. Therefore, after the flood, Noah's family should have been innocent and free from shame, but Ham's feelings indicated otherwise, showing he was still connected to Satan's lineage.

The principle of shame is significant because it creates a barrier between individuals. Ham's shame led him to cover Noah, which in turn meant he could not restore his position as a good son. When I first encountered this explanation decades ago, I struggled to understand how Ham could be judged for his feelings. Emotions can be spontaneous, and it seemed unfair to label his feelings as sinful without understanding their origin. The more pressing question was why Ham felt ashamed in the first place, especially after a 40-day period meant to separate them from Satan. This led me to ponder the events that transpired during the flood.

During my university studies, I stumbled upon the Talmud, which provided insights into Ham's actions. I discovered that Ham and his wife had a sexual relationship during the flood, which explained his feelings of shame. This relationship occurred without establishing a foundation of faith, which is essential for restoring sexual purity. Consequently, when Ham saw Noah naked, he projected his own shame onto his father, accusing Noah of his own sin. This tendency to accuse others of one's own problems is common among fallen individuals, and it highlights the complexity of Ham's actions.

Imagining the dynamics on the ark, I envisioned Ham and his wife struggling to sleep due to the cramped conditions. They eventually found themselves on the top deck, where a romantic encounter led to their sinful act. The following morning, instead of confessing their actions to Noah and his wife, they chose to hide it, fearing their parents' anger. This decision to conceal their mistake ultimately led to Ham's shame and his subsequent actions towards Noah. If they had been open and honest, they could have restored their relationship and avoided the shame that followed.

Noah's reaction to Ham's actions was also significant. Instead of cursing Ham directly, he cursed Canaan, which raises questions about the underlying family dynamics. According to a midrash, Ham's wife may have been pregnant before the flood, complicating the situation further. This speculation suggests that Noah may have known about his daughter-in-law's infidelity, leading to his curse on Canaan. The narrative illustrates the complexities of familial relationships and the consequences of actions taken in secrecy.

The lessons from Noah's family are profound. Ham should have expressed gratitude towards his father for saving their lives and shown compassion for Noah's struggles. No one has perfect parents, and we must recognise the sacrifices they make for us. While parents may have their flaws and limitations, we should not judge them harshly. Instead, we should appreciate the care they provide, as it is through them that we exist. Understanding these dynamics can help us navigate our own relationships with compassion and gratitude.

Perfection should not be judged by the standards we hold today. We must recognise that our parents have done their best, and we should honour their efforts. It is important to inherit what they have accomplished and strive to take it to the next stage. This feeling of compassion is what Ham should have had for his father. We need to have compassion for our parents and forgive them for their mistakes, as everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect. Ham should have overcome his shameful feelings and treated his father with respect. Just because he felt a certain way did not mean he had to act on those feelings. The main lesson here is to have compassion for our parents and not to get angry with our children.

If Noah had been a better parent, perhaps Ham and his wife would not have hidden their mistake from him. When we make a mistake, it is crucial to indemnify it quickly; otherwise, Satan can use it to invade something important. The real issue is not making a mistake but hiding it, as Adam and Eve did. They felt ashamed and hid their mistake, which became a bigger problem. We all make mistakes, but the problem arises when we try to pretend we have not made any. Reflecting on Noah, he was called by God but was described by Jonathan Sacks as a good man who was not a leader. Although he was faithful to God, he did not take a stand when he should have.

One wonders why Noah got drunk. Perhaps he experienced survivor's guilt after the flood, feeling he could have done more to persuade others to build an ark. This feeling of guilt can lead people to seek escape through drinking, as a way to cope with trauma. The Bible sets a high standard for moral life; it is not enough to be righteous while ignoring the wrongdoing in society. We must take a stand, protest, and register dissent, even if the chances of changing minds are slim. The moral life is a shared experience, and we are responsible for the society we are part of. It is not sufficient to be good; we must encourage others to be good as well.

When comparing Noah and Abraham, we see a stark difference. When God told Noah He would destroy the world, Noah said nothing. In contrast, Abraham argued with God to save the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, negotiating from fifty down to ten. Moses, too, exemplifies great leadership, having led the people out of slavery in Egypt and creating a sustainable community that has lasted for 3,500 years. This highlights that being good is not enough; we must also take action and lead when necessary.

Shame plays a significant role in this narrative. Shame is what we feel when our wrongdoing is exposed to others. We may feel bad about our actions when no one knows, but once exposed, we feel embarrassed and want to hide. This self-centred feeling of shame is concerned with how others perceive us, affecting our reputation and family honour. In some cultures, this can lead to extreme consequences, such as honour killings. Guilt, however, is a personal phenomenon, unrelated to what others might say. It is the voice of conscience, inescapable and personal. While one can escape shame by hiding, guilt cannot be avoided, as it is tied to self-judgement and conscience.

When people feel ashamed, they may leave their community to start anew, fearing that their past will catch up with them. Guilt, on the other hand, is about how we see ourselves and how God sees us. It is more important to have a clear conscience than to protect one's reputation. Shame attaches to the person, staining their character, while guilt attaches to the act. Once publicly disgraced, it is difficult to remove shame, but we are not condemned to live with our past mistakes. The future is not predetermined; in a guilt culture, one can confess sins and be forgiven, maintaining a clear conscience.

The biblical tradition teaches that concealing sins does not lead to prosperity, while confessing and renouncing them brings mercy. Adam and Eve made mistakes, but their failure to take responsibility turned those mistakes into crimes. The reason we lack clarity about their actions is that they hid them. Abraham marks a shift from a shame-based culture to a guilt-based culture. In our spiritual community, we sometimes see a tendency to hide issues rather than confront them. This is not the path to prosperity; the proverb states that concealing sins does not lead to success. The reality is that mistakes are not the problem; it is the cover-up that creates significant issues.

In the parent-child relationship, we see another important dynamic. God appears to Abraham and tells him to count the stars, promising that his offspring will be as numerous. Abraham believes God, which is counted as righteousness. However, when God promises him the land, Abraham questions how he can be sure he will possess it. This doubt is a human response, highlighting the importance of faith and trust in God's promises. The narrative continues with God instructing Abraham to bring an offering, emphasising the significance of faith and the covenant between them.

Abraham does not cut the birds in half, and as it is written, he brought all these animals, cut them in half, and laid each half against the other. However, he did not cut the birds in half. When birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away. As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram, and behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. The Lord said to Abram, 'Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners like refugees in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for 400 years.' This sounds quite harsh, and it raises the question of what is really going on here. Abraham partially cuts the heifer, sheep, and goat, but he does not cut the birds. It seems a bit severe that his descendants would suffer for 400 years just because he did not cut the doves. This situation requires deeper reflection on the significance of living in the land of Canaan.

Abraham's request for evidence from God leads to the offerings, which are meant to restore the foundation of faith. He had already demonstrated enormous faith when God promised that his descendants would number the stars of heaven. However, this situation regarding the land was different, and it caused him to doubt. God desires for Abraham and his descendants to live in Canaan, but Satan claims that he cannot because of a mistake Abraham made. If Abraham successfully makes the offering, it can serve as a restoration of that mistake, allowing his descendants to prosper in Canaan for 400 years. If he fails, Satan can torment them for that same period. This is reminiscent of the story in the Book of Job, where God and Satan engage in a similar bargain regarding Job's faithfulness.

Had Abraham made the offering successfully, it would have established a condition of lesser indemnity, allowing his descendants to enjoy 400 years of blessings in Canaan. However, because he did not make it successfully, it became a condition of greater indemnity, leading to their suffering under Satan's influence for 400 years. This situation can be likened to receiving a heavy parking fine; it took 400 years for them to return to Canaan. The deep sleep that fell upon Abraham signifies the weight of this spiritual condition, similar to how one might feel heavy burdens after breaking a spiritual condition. This darkness and depression can linger until one emerges from it, which is what happened to Abraham.

Abraham's failure to cut the birds is significant, and one might wonder how we know this. It is written in the Bible, but one can imagine Abraham returning home to Sarah and telling her about the offering. He could have lied and said it went well, but instead, he confessed his mistake. He told her that because of his error, their descendants would suffer for 400 years and not live in Canaan. This must have been a difficult conversation, as he was admitting that he had messed up not just for himself but for future generations. The reason this is recorded in the Bible is that Abraham was open, honest, and transparent. He did not follow the shame-based culture of Adam and Eve or Ham and his family. This moment represents a turning point in human history, moving from shame to guilt and embracing honesty.

God instructed Abraham to be blameless, which does not mean to be without mistakes, as everyone makes mistakes. Rather, it means to have a clear conscience and to be open and honest. This transparency allowed God to continue working through Abraham, unlike with Adam and Eve, who turned away from God in shame. Similarly, Ham turned away from his parents, breaking their relationship due to his mistake. This pattern can be observed in our own lives; when we say or do something we regret, it often stems from unresolved issues in our past. Abraham's willingness to confess and repent changed everything, allowing God to work through him despite his mistakes. King David is another example; despite his numerous errors, his openness and willingness to repent granted him multiple chances.

Some people in the Divine Principle community mistakenly believe that failure is final. However, the key issue is not the mistakes themselves but how we respond to them. Abraham's reaction was to confess to his wife, which is why his story has been passed down through generations. The Bible records the flaws of its heroes, showing that there are no sinless individuals. For instance, Moses documented his own mistakes, demonstrating a lack of shame and a commitment to honesty. This is something we need more of in our spiritual communities. The focus should be on restoration, particularly regarding the parent-child relationship.

After these events, God tested Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, whom he loved. This request is shocking, and it is a story that I have always found difficult to teach. The shocking aspect is not only God's command but also Abraham's immediate response. He rises early in the morning to carry out this task, and Isaac willingly goes along with it. The word 'test' in Hebrew also means 'miracle', indicating that tests challenge our limitations and push us to do the seemingly impossible. Imagine standing at a high diving board, watching others dive without incident, yet feeling paralyzed by fear when it is your turn. Overcoming that fear can lead to immense personal growth and joy, as it allows you to break through barriers and achieve what you once thought impossible. This is the essence of the tests God places before us. They are not about passing or failing but about growth and transformation.

Up until this point, Abraham had passed nine tests, including those involving Nimrod and the idols. However, the command to sacrifice Isaac was against everything he believed in ethically. The question arises: why did God ask him to do this, and why was Abraham willing to comply? Additionally, why did Isaac go along with it? These questions highlight the complexity of the situation and the profound nature of the test that Abraham faced.

Call up social services and say a terrible crime of child abuse is about to take place here. My children's rights are about to be violated by my dad; please come and rescue me. Why was Isaac willing to go along with it? I mean, I said I hated this story more than any other because I couldn't understand how to explain it in a meaningful and moral way. One way is to say that the core of one's being lies not in oneself but in commitment to the Creator. In other words, if God tells you to do something, you have to do it because God created you, and therefore you must have absolute obedience to whatever God tells you to do. I don't think that's it; there must be something more to it. It's all about restoration.

If we go back and think about why God chose Abraham, I talked about this yesterday. He was chosen so he would instruct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just. Abraham then is a role model for what it is to be a good parent. So, if you regard Abraham as your role model for a good parent, should a good parent wake their children one morning and say, 'God told me to put you on the barbecue this afternoon to test your faith and see if you're a good child'? Practicing filial piety, is that what people do? But Abraham is our role model; shouldn't we be doing what he did to Isaac? How do we deal with this? People who follow Abraham do not go around sacrificing their children, which distinguishes them from all the other people in the ancient world. How do you deal with this?

Theologians have struggled to find an explanation for this. Kierkegaard talked about the teleological suspension of the ethical; he wrote a whole book about it. Teleological means it has to do with purpose. In other words, because I'm doing this for a good purpose, it's okay for me to do things that are unethical. It's acceptable to suspend normal ethics or break the law for the sake of God. He spoke of the willingness to let the 'I-thou' love of God override universal principles that bind human beings to each other. He suggested that it is acceptable to sacrifice one's children if it is done out of love for God. How do we deal with that? Is that right?

That's Kierkegaard, one of the greatest philosophers in the European tradition, offering his explanation. However, the reality is that this logic resembles that of a religious fanatic—the inquisitor or the suicide bomber. What do Muslim suicide bombers shout just before they blow themselves up? They shout, 'God is great.' Are these religious people? Yes. Are they doing it for the sake of God? Yes. Are they doing it out of their love for God? Yes. This is a misunderstanding of the story; it reflects the logic of the religious fanatic. The inquisitor tortures someone to ensure they come up with the correct belief about Jesus, similar to the Spanish Inquisition, where people were burnt at the stake and tortured until they professed the right belief. The torturer had a clear conscience because they thought, 'I'm doing this to save this person's soul.' They believed they were acting out of love, wanting to ensure that the person would go to heaven.

At the end of the day, it's important to remember that God never asks us to do anything unethical. God never asks us to do anything against our conscience. God said to Abraham, 'Be blameless,' which means to follow your conscience. The biblical tradition is clear: observe the Lord and do not break the law. Therefore, God never asks anyone to do anything unethical. There must be another way of looking at this story. Since it's nearly eight o'clock, I will leave you on this little cliffhanger and come back to this on Thursday.