Logos, Jesus, and the CTMU

May 01, 2022

As everyone here should know, the CTMU - also referred to as Logos or Absolute Truth - is, among other things, a metareligious framework in which various religions, insofar as they are valid, can be convergently interpreted and thereby reconciled.

The CTMU qualifies as "Absolute Truth" because truth and reality are synonymous, and the CTMU explains what reality is and how it is logically or "truthfully" generated (logic can be described as "the structure of truth"). The CTMU constitutes a "metareligious framework" because it consists of the metaphysical logic without which the metaphysical content of scripture is essentially meaningless. Without the CTMU, God - or equivalently, ultimate reality - cannot be meaningfully defined.

While the CTMU is seemingly opposed by philosophical relativism, the supposed mutual inconsistency of absolutism and relativism is as illogical and illusory in metaphysics as it is in physics. But as this is lost on most philosophical relativists, we now have a kind of spiritual relativism according to which every set of spiritual beliefs is as good as any other. Thus, some might expect that the "convergent interpretation of religion" amounts to a form of egalitarianism which completely levels the spiritual playing field, putting all religions and their central figures on a par. However, the aim of metareligion is not to hide the differences among religions and their founders and adherents, but to merge their strengths and resolve their disagreements.

As for the deeds, habits, and personalities of religious leaders, no attempt is made to obscure their differences. In particular, the CTMU does not attempt to hide the uniquely exemplary nature of Jesus. Jesus differs from Buddha and Mohammed, for example, in that he was neither a hebephilic warlord nor the scion of a rich and powerful family who was generally silent about God, and therefore qualifies not only as a divinely certified leader of the faithful, but as a true universal exemplar as well.

What does this mean? It means that although the CTMU does not dispute the status of Buddha and Mohammed in their respective religious frameworks, neither does it claim that their personal profiles "distribute" over the members of any healthy society in a truly exemplary way. Not everyone can be born into wealth and power as was Buddha; moreover, although the existence of God as a hyperconscious entity is an unavoidable entailment of certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy, he was all but silent on the issue of God's existence. Similarly, a society in which everyone is an aggressive and acquisitive warlord who lives by the sword and uses it mercilessly to enforce his will would quickly descend into Somalia-style chaos. This implies that despite their elevated spiritual status, neither Buddha nor Mohammed qualifies as a universal physical, moral, and spiritual exemplar for mankind.

Ethics is not about mere adherence to a legalistic code of behavior. Although deontology and consequentialism are often contrasted in philosophical reasoning, it is ideally consequential as well as deontological. It is supposed to conform to a set of absolute rules that are good in themselves - for example, the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, or the Kantian categorical imperative, which rely on Logos insofar as absolute ethical rules are justified only in terms of absolute truth and reality - but it is no less true that the expected consequences of good actions conforming to good rules are supposed to be beneficial rather than harmful, leading to positive rather than negative outcomes for all concerned. The rules, absolute though they may be, should conduce in the real world to a rational "utilitarian" expectation of as much good as possible for as many as possible without egregiously violating individual rights.

However, ethics is also about obligation, or what human beings owe to society and to each other. It is thus about fairness, justice, and moral symmetry, whereby (1) everyone dutifully discharges one's moral debts to others, (2) individuals discharge their debts to self, family, and society (along with all other levels of stratified identity), and (3) society discharges its debt to individuals under a rational "social contract". In other words, moral symmetry applies between individuals and various levels of society, making society a moral entity in its own right; otherwise, society becomes abusive and degenerate. The cosmic ledger must be everywhere balanced on all levels of obligation.

Ethically, an exemplar is a person who serves as a desirable model for others in thought, attitude, and behavior, representing the best that a person can be. Such a real-world model enables people to "live right" and improve themselves by emulation, conforming to the model's example. It follows that the exemplar should be someone to whose model everyone can conform on a real-world basis; everyone should be able to identify with the exemplar and emulate his/her thought, attitude, and behavior. Where ethics are universal, as they are expressly held to be by most religions, the relationship of a universal moral exemplar to the rest of humanity must mirror the symmetry of morality itself; the exemplar's circumstances and personality must be amenable to symmetric distribution along with the morality concept associated with the operative belief structure.

According to Christians, Jesus is one aspect of a triune (3-aspect) God Who conceived him in the womb of a human mother; in addition, he was the perfect blood sacrifice to God, serving as an eternal human "sacrificial lamb" who offered himself to God the Father in atonement for original sin. (By the implications of triunity, God conceived or originated Himself as the physical being Jesus, sacrificed Himself, accepted the sacrifice, found within Himself the divine empathy to forgive mankind after living among men and sharing their lot, and distributed His forgiveness over the human species as a "medium of salvation".) The post-sacrificial resurrection of Jesus is then offered as "proof" of the possibility of the miracle of salvation (extraordinary divine intervention on behalf of individual human beings) and the divinity of Jesus and the ultimacy of his sacrifice, principles crucial to the ideology and historical spread of Christianity. Although the death and resurrection of Jesus has receded into ancient history and can no longer be witnessed by human eyes, it remains a primary article of faith that continues to inspire Christians throughout the world.

Of course, Jesus is not claimed only by Christians; he is also frequently claimed by Jews as one of their own. According to some he was a reprehensible apostate; to others he was a good and observant (but widely misinterpreted) orthodox Jew who fought against the Roman occupation of Palestine; to adherents of Messianic Judaism, a modern religious movement combining certain aspects of Christianity with elements of Jewish belief and tradition, he is the Jewish messiah. Unfortunately, none of these viewpoints is entirely consistent with the status of Jesus in Christianity. To Christians, Jesus was blameless, a harsh critic of certain Jewish beliefs and practices (e.g., rigid Jewish exceptionalism, monopolistic money-changing in the temple), and the messiah for everyone as opposed to only the Jews.

As much as possible, the CTMU dispenses with such disagreements. Instead, it emphasizes the present function of Jesus as the ideal of human perfection - wise, compassionate, altruistic, and open to human empathy and emulation - and the logico-metaphysical structure of Logos, with which Jesus is identified. In stark contrast to Buddha and Mohammed, Jesus lived his life out in the real world as an ordinary working man, and took the hits as they came without becoming apathetic or sociopathic. That's what we're supposed to do.

Thus, Jesus qualifies as a true moral exemplar for all of mankind.