Dr. Serguey Zagraevsky
NEW CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
The original was published in Russian: ALEV-V Publishing House, Moscow, 2004. ISBN 5-94025-014-9. 288 pages.
ANNOTATION
My previous theological book were named “Jesus of Nazareth: the life and the teaching” (2000) and “God is no murderer” (2002). I received a number of readers’ comments for those books. It was the most gratifying for me that many readers began to perceive Jesus Christ in a new way – not as an infinitely far and terrible judge, but as a human, who was crucified for his teaching of good and love. If that is the case, I can consider the purpose of those books as achieved.
The passions for the beginning of the third millennium and the increased interest of people to the person and the teaching of Christ were over soon – so to speak, the subject “went out of the fashion”. Neither the “Last Judgement”, nor the “Second Coming” took place, and people engaged in their ordinary business. I also faced a certain “vacuum”: during that time neither new facts of Jesus’ life, nor new interpretations of his teaching appeared, disputes on the “Shroud of Turin” will be held for some more decades (possibly centuries), and it seemed to be nothing new to write about. That is why I deviated from christological researches, but not for long.
The point is that the words “we, Christians” do not suppose an answer to the question: why are we Christians? Only since many of us were baptized in childhood or were taken to a church by a grandmother?
For contemporary people, who are highly experienced and not inclined to overestimate traditions, normally, it is not enough. People need their own understanding that the actuality of Christianity does not decrease (furthermore, increases) under the conditions of the rapid scientific-technical progress, the genetic engineering, the computerization of all areas of knowledge etc.
Exclusively theological methods of analysis of Christ’s life and teaching turned out to be insufficient for that. It became necessary to form an integral philosophic worldview and to show that the nowadays’ humanity does not know any spiritual alternative for Christianity.
In the book “New Christian philosophy” I engaged in this subject.
I must note that here, as in all my previous books, I completely refuse of the usage of the specific philosophic language. Any human with any educational level, who is interested in the subject of this book, must have the possibility to read it. Even if he does not agree with something, even if he does not understand something at once – there will be an occasion for the reflection and for the forming of an own worldview. Our research touches on questions of morality (as the basis of intersubjectivity), and it is possible in no circumstances to place for the overwhelming majority of readers an insuperable obstacle of strictly specialized terms.
The main question of the book “New Christian philosophy” may be formulated so: who are we, where did we come from and where are we going?
To answer this question, it is necessary to form on the Christian basis a system of philosophic views, which are applicable both in theory and in practice. And the concept of practice includes questions, which may seem estranged from the real life – such as the existence of God, the creation of the world, the origin of the humanity, the predestination of people and eternal life.
Christian theology is a greatly complicated and many-sided science, and it has the history of two thousand years. But today we can look at it in an unprejudiced way and stop trying to undo an unimaginable number of “Gordian knots”, which were tied up even by the medieval “Fathers of the Church”. Such knots can be undone neither by us nor by somebody else. They can only be cut. We may say the same about a great number of stereotypes, which are embodied in our consciousness in connection with Christianity, furthermore with the faith in God.
The first Chapter is called “The moral imperative: theory”. First of all, we determine our initial positions.
Philosophy is not only a form of cognition of the world, and not only “the science of sciences”. First of all, philosophy is a worldview, and every human comes to it by his own ways, having lived in the world for a long time, knowing, understanding and feeling many things. So, everything that we can enumerate from the spheres of our life, health, education, civil rights, duties etc., are constituents of our “before-philosophic” worldview. It may be named briefly “people among people”.
But to the next question – if God is present in our “life world”, and if yes, what his relations with “people among people” are, – thousands of contradictory answers will be given, and we have to turn from the “before-philosophic” initial positions to philosophy.
The overwhelming majority of European philosophers accepted the existence of God. But it is important for us to note that for philosophers, who created their systems on the basis of research of an individual consciousness, the idea of God was not so necessary, because, in the logical result, every separate individual consciousness acknowledges only itself and is inclined to consider all the rest things as unprovable by rational methods.
And from that point it seems to be only one step to the postulate that in the world nothing exists but the subject himself, and the world is understood as a product of our consciousness – the only thing, which is given undoubtedly. As it is well-known, this point of view is called Solipsism.
Nevertheless, the history of philosophy does not know “pure” Solipsism – the complete non-acceptance of the objective existence of the world. If we look attentively at the teachings of all philosophers, who were more or less inclined to “Subjective Idealism”, we shall see that nobody of them carried an abstract idea of the existence of the world only in feelings of a subject to complete Solipsism.
But since the outward world is accepted as objectively existing, there are questions about its origin, substance, ways of development, – and, in general, why is everything arranged exactly in this way? Is there harmony in the world, and are there universal laws? And if such laws exist, where are they from? In other words, does God exist?
This question agitated everyone, and a number of philosophers tried to prove the existence of God. In Chapter 1 some arguments are examined, but the main thing for us is that Kant completely smashed up all the existing arguments because the necessity of objective reality is not evident from our subjective thought.
And since there are no rigorous proofs of the existence of the outward world and God, every human, who supposes the objective existence of both, has to examine everything aforesaid from his subjective point of view, basing exclusively on his “before-philosophic” initial positions.
In fact, there is nothing terrible in the “subjectivity” of the latter postulate. Even Kant saw in the position of Berkeley the unobviousness of the reality of the world and wrote: “It is impossible not to acknowledge as a scandal for philosophy and the human reason the necessity to get only on faith the existence of things beyond us.” However, Karl Jaspers considered the permanent “scandal in philosophy” to be a normal situation, substantiating it in the following way: “An indisputable knowledge, which is accepted by everyone, is not philosophy any more, but becomes a scientific knowledge and belongs to a specific area of science.”
It is difficult to disagree with this, but, unfortunately, this is only an elegant going away from the problem of initial positions.
We can also see the similar going away from the determination of initial positions and from the problem of the existence of God in the works of the majority of modern Western philosophers. But the problem of the existence of the outward world and of God remains extremely actual for us, and we shall understand very soon that we can not go away from it, – not only because we have named this chapter “The existence of God”.
However paradoxically, the Marxian ultramaterialistic position will help us go on with the research of the problem of the existence of God. Marxians could be Soviet, Western or Eastern, but all of them applied the principle of jurisprudence (if something is not proved, it does not exist) to the existence of God and they said something like the following: “The existence of matter – the objective reality of the world – is proved by the totality of our physical feelings, and the existence of God is improvable”.
But if we approach to the proof of the objective being of the outward world from the same positions as Marxian materialists approached to the existence of God, we shall come to the “solipsistic” conclusion: it is impossible to prove rigorously that the totality of physical feelings exists in reality, not only in the perception of a subject.
So, either we are trying to prove rigorously all the manifestations of the objective reality and inevitably come to Solipsism, or we accept something as axioms. In other words, get on faith.
And if we have the faith in the objectivity of the existence of matter, why shouldn’t we make a next step and have the faith in God as in the source of matter’s structural expediency and harmony? Consequently, if we get on faith millions of different manifestations of the outward world, the step to the faith in God turns out to be insignificantly small, and it makes no importance from the logical point of view.
Philosophic thought of the mankind was going to this conclusion, which seems to be simple, for a long time and in a difficult way, sometimes approaching to it, sometimes moving away. The point is that not only material questions appear, but also many “spiritual” questions, which are much more difficult. For example, what is a human? What is the humanity? How do we perceive the world? What are our spirituality and soul? What is our civilization and what is its place in the Universe? Do we, people, fit in more or less expedient structure of the world, which is described by natural philosophy? And, at last, who are we, where did we come from and where are we going?
And in this case, harmony and expedience are called in question. Is the influence of human civilization upon nature positive or negative? And the influence of nature upon the humanity? And upon each of us? In what degree are natural mechanisms of self-regulation and self-reproduction applicable to the humanity? What is the fundamental difference between a human and other natural organisms? And so on.
It is impossible and unnecessary to enumerate all arising questions. Let us try to reduce them to one: falling neither into Solipsism, nor into vulgar Materialism, we suppose the certain structure and expediency in nature. Is it possible to suppose such expediency in a human and the humanity? At least, potential?
Speaking in the context of our book: can we admit the existence of God as the source of structure and expediency not only in nature and the Universe, but also in a human and the humanity?
Of course, it is possible to try to “purify” philosophy from all admittances and subjective positions. But in this case, as we have shown, even Marxism with its faith in the exclusive objectivity of matter does not have the right to existence, and Solipsism remains the only destiny of any “purified” philosophic thought.
Thus, the existence of God-Absolute is not more unprovable than the existence of the outward world. And the laws of logic permit to formulate the words “not more unprovable” in the other way: “no less provable”. Consequently, the supposing of the existence of God is absolutely justified.
But one more question arises. Our “before-philosophic” initial positions demand to admit the objective existence of matter. But is the next admittance – the existing of God – necessary for us?
To answer this question, let us remember what we have said in connection with the “scandal in philosophy”: the shank of any philosophy is the human and his subjective, personal confidence in either problem. And morality – a significant attribute of a human person – will help us find an answer to the question: is the admittance of the existence of God as necessary for us as the admittance of the existence of matter?
We accept as the terminology: if there is a human, there is his morality, and it is as inalienable from him as his thought or his mind.
As the base of our analysis of morality, we use Kant’s philosophy. In the one hand, Kant considered morality as absolute, universal, generally valid, having the character of general “goodwill law”. In the other hand, he supposed that the principle of our “goodwill” is the wish to turn our maxim (the personal law) into a common law. “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time wish that it should become a universal law”. Uniting these two points of view, Kant elaborated the basic concept of his “moral metaphysics” – the categorical imperative, which was actually identified with “goodwill”.
As regards “goodwill”, it is impossible to disagree with Kant. But, unfortunately, a great number of people not only commit evil quite sincerely, but so much sincerely (at the level of subconsciousness) wish that their “maxim” should become a universal law.
The same counter-arguments may be brought against the well-known Kant’s postulate that the practical expressions of the categorical imperative can be reduced to the call of duty to the humanity. We examine some samples and see that the call of duty is not the necessary and sufficient practical expression of that spiritual basis of the humanity, which Kant called as the categorical imperative.
That is why I propose to use instead of Kant’s categorical imperative the concept of the moral imperative and to understand it as the totality of moral positions in the interpretation of Kant (absolute, universal, generally valid, having the form of general law and “goodwill”).
And for the description of the practical expressions of the categorical imperative we use a more contemporary term – humanism, which postulates the highest, self-sufficient and self-realizing dignity of a human, the priority of his person.
In the book “New Christian philosophy” we look what moral positions may be called humanistic, and show that antihumanism is a philosophic absurdity, which may be ranked with Solipsism. All our arguments permit us to speak about humanistic morality as the base of one of most important concepts of modern philosophy – intersubjectivity.
We could have stopped at that and, as the majority of “post-modern” philosophers, could have started to examine various aspects of intersubjectivity. But with the help of a simple biblical example we see that we can not stop at the “abstract” humanism.
According to our determination of morality, the people of Sodom, as all human beings, had some moral positions. And the paradox is that aggressive “moral positions” of the people of Sodom, according to the laws of humanism, have the right to existence.
It is a very serious problem. Even the fact that Kant in his moral philosophy took into consideration only “reasonable beings” will not help us. If we call “Sodom people” as “unreasonable” and postulate that they do not have the moral imperative at all, we shall come to the contradiction with our determination of morality as an unavoidable feature of every human. And, unfortunately, “life philosophy” of the “Sodom people” lives and works, and millions of contemporary people more or less follow it.
It is impossible to disregard this practical reality. Having understood this, we return to theoretical questions and examine, what (to put it more precisely, who) is the source of the moral imperative. We examine Kant’s “moral” argument for the existence of God, but take Blaise Pascal’s argument as the basis of our research, since it is much more simple and frank.
Of course, the moral aspect is not the rigorous logic. But, having spoken about the “fundamental question of philosophy”, we have seen that, in the determination of the basic positions, the rigorous logic is found powerless, and we can expect nothing but the permanent “scandal”. Then we have to follow Pascal and, reasoning from everything said about humanism and antihumanism, accept the existence of God as necessary.
Thus, we accept as an unavoidable axiom that God is the creator of the Universe, the source of the world harmony and expediency, and that the acceptance of the existence of God is as necessary as the acceptance of the existence of the outward world. And since we determine the moral imperative as the totality of moral positions in the interpretation of Kant, we accept as one more axiom: God is the source of the moral imperative.
We also make the following conclusion: the moral imperative, directly or indirectly, is the shank of any philosophic system (except Solipsism).
Then we turn again from theory to the practical expressions of the moral imperative.
First of all, we formulate the postulate, which is the most important for us: today there is no equal alternative for religion as a practical expression of the moral imperative, and the research of philosophic problems in the moral aspect sooner or later leads to theology. We see that we can speak about religion as about the moral basis of person.
The same we have determined for the moral imperative. Thus, it is possible to say that, in theory, the turning from the general-philosophic context to the religious one in the limit of moral aspect is possible and appropriate.
And in practice, having turned to the religious aspect, we obtain the convincingness and common-accessibility.
We realize the fact that in the contemporary world, which is far from the perfection, every humanist finds himself surrounded by “Sodom people” and becomes one of priority objects of their aggression. This “life opposition” is insoluble at either historical stage. So, there is only one way for the humanists in the historical trends – to put their teachings in common-accessible forms, to make it able to penetrate into hearts of millions. That is why we turn our research from the moral imperative to religion, i.e. from philosophy to theology.
The second Chapter is called “The moral imperative: practice”.
The religious worldview of the people, who belong to the European civilization (of course, that means also Americans, Russians, Australians etc.), is inseparably connected with Christianity within last two thousand years. The East has its analogues, but we start the examination of the practical expressions of the moral imperative from Christianity.
We turn the system of concepts from the “abstract” humanism (or from the general-philosophic moral imperative) to the Christian spirituality, which is deeply implanted into the human consciousness.
Of course, repeatedly there were attempts to “replace” Christianity with something “new”. But all that proved to be an usual speculation. Christ’s teaching was and remains that basic system, on which the overwhelming majority of European philosophers created their doctrines. And the moral imperative “without Christianity” for the time being proves to be a fertile field for political speculations. Anarchists and military juntas also use ideas of good and justice in their goals.
The present day situation poses the moral problem with an unexampled actuality. The point is that the humanity never in history could be destroyed (at least in theory) by one successful terrorist with a nuclear bomb. It is impossible to underestimate the potential danger of the nuclear self-destruction, which threats the mankind since the middle of the 20th century. And, unfortunately, the death of the population of the Earth will be scarcely seen by the population of other planets of the Universe.
Vulgar Materialism, which seemed to be a funny toy in the hands of Marquis de Sade, became an “ideological bomb” in the hands of Lenin, and that “bomb” brought to dictatorships a half of the world. The extremes of “Islamite fundamentalism” lead to explosions not only of ideological bombs, but also of real ones. And with what philosophic system will a potential “nuclear terrorist” be equipped?
That is why we must not “play with fire” and must not try to replace Christianity with something “new”. Alienating ourselves from the extremely dangerous doctrine of the “nuclear containment”, we say: there is a time-approved instrument of the “moral containment”, and in the book “New Christian philosophy”, we work with it.
We show that Christian religion is the shank of European philosophy, its moral (ultimately, personal) basis, and theology is a science, which researches that basis.
We do not go deep into a dispute, what is more important – philosophy or theology. We declare the equal existence of both disciplines and address ourselves to their objects – the moral imperative and religion.
First of all, we analyze the right of European philosophy to base on the Christian understanding of the moral imperative. And with a view to show the validity of Christianity as the spiritual base of the European understanding of the moral imperative, we analyze the authenticity of the New Testament and the information, which is contained in it.
We start from the historical-biographic review and highlight key-points at a number of fundamental things, which we need both for the determination of the New Testament authenticity and for the following theological research.
We briefly remember the 1st century’s chronology, which is connected with Christianity, and determine the most exact and compromise both in historical and in theological aspects dates of Christ’s life as following: the end of 5 BC or the beginning of 4 BC–April 7, 30 AD. The exact date of crucifixion, April 7, 30, may be considered as a completely proved historical fact.
We examine the Old Testament’s traditions, on which Christ based in his activity, and see the ready scheme, to which the Messiah was to conform. And if Jesus had not conformed to at least one of the “demands”, which were cited above, his identity with the Messiah would have been called into question. And we, calling Jesus by the name of Christ, thereby acknowledge him as the Messiah, acknowledging all the Old Testament’s prophecies at that.
We examine some basic facts from the life of Jesus of Nazareth and of some Apostles. We pay a serious attention to the order of the Gospels and to their authorship.
We cite some proofs of the authenticity of the Gospels and show that, as a whole, the New Testament is authentic, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth is a historic person. Consequently, we base our philosophic system on Christianity by right.
The third Chapter is called “The fundamental paradox of Christianity”.
We have already spoken about the illegitimacy of the philosophic application of the juridical principle: if not proved, does not exist. But, unfortunately, many contemporary philosophers (especially followers of Existentialism) use the similar principle, trying to convince us that, from the scientific point of view, the concepts “good” and “evil” are as relative as “right” and “left”. If we develop this idea in the strict logical direction, it turns out inevitably that there is neither good nor evil.
But we come again to the shank of philosophy – the moral imperative. Any speculative conclusions may be done around it, but at the subconscious, intuitive level it tells us good, only good and nothing except good. We show it on a number of examples and state: good is determined by people’s thoughts and acts, which conform to the moral imperative. Accordingly, evil is determined by thoughts and the acts, which do not conform to it.
The shank is usually somewhere inside an object. The degree of the approaching to the shank of person – the moral imperative – may be different, and therefore there are no unambiguously good or evil thoughts and acts, like there is no absolutely white or absolutely black color. But it does not mean that we have no right to use the concepts “white” and “black”, although with some approximation, which is conditioned by the certain situation.
In that case, if we speak about the moral imperative as about the source of good, we must try to answer the question: does Christianity conform to it? Is it an adequate expression of the moral imperative? Bluntly speaking, did Jesus Christ teach the world good, only good and nothing except good?
And to answer this question in the affirmative, we have to solve the most acute problem, which may be named the “fundamental paradox of Christianity”.
The point is that in the Gospels there are a number of Jesus’ phrases, which at first sight cast doubt on good and love – the moral basis of Christianity. We give a nimber of examples, such as the following: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword, for I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...” (Matt. 10:34).
The situation is even more complicated, because the key Christian concepts of the retribution in the “life of the world to come” (the “life after life”), – paradise for good, hell for evil, – also contradict to the moral imperative. Actually, if sinners are waited by God’s punishment in the form of hell, there takes place the Old Testament’s principle of the retribution of evil for evil: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell for sins.
In the book “New Christian philosophy” we show that the “fundamental paradox of Christianity” brought also to the theological and moral absurdities. And we see that few contemporary educated people seriously believe in blazing inferno and paradise in heaven.
Nature abhors vacuum: a great number of teachings are offered to us instead of Christianity. Contemporary people, having an access to any information, do not know where to look first because of the plenty of alternatives.
The concept of the catastrophic “Doomsday” is also tightly connected with the concepts of heaven and hell, and here the “fundamental paradox of Christianity” yields not only theoretical results, but also much more sorrowful practical ones. Everyone can remember a number of speculations on the fear of the “Doomsday”. And how fruitful this ground is for sectarianism!
Is all that an oblique fault of Jesus Christ? If we do not solve the “fundamental paradox of Christianity”, it will turn out that it is.
We examine some modern attempts of the major world Churches to justify hell tortures and see that they sound at best as casuistic, at worst as fondly.
I do not want to say that Christ was not right, threatening sinners with hell and the catastrophic “Doomsday”. But I want to say that we understood him incorrectly, and I show it in the book “New Christian philosophy”.
Then we note it was not so simple to conceive the teaching of Christ as the system of value exclusively of good and love, and even the Apostles were not able to do it at once. But Apostle John the Evangelist, having written in the middle of the 60s the ominous Revelation, in twenty–thirty years came to the fourth Gospel, where nothing is said about either the catastrophic “Last Judgement” or the hellfire.
If already in a half of a century after Christ’s crucifixion, his favorite disciple John the Evangelist did not mention all frightening words about hellfire, then two thousand years later it is all the more possible to interpret Christ’s words about paradise and hell exclusively in the symbolical context of the spiritual uncompromising stand. So we do it in the book “New Christian philosophy” and show that Jesus’ words about the hellfire mean, firstly, the passionate and convincing appeal for the complete moral uncompromising, and secondly, that good leads to good and evil – to evil.
We note that all major Churches are gradually coming to similar positions, though with reservations that paradise and hell are however some specific conditions of people after the death, i.e. it will be very good for good people and very bad for bad ones.
But, in reality, paradise is the whole spectrum of positive consequences of good both for a man himself and for the outward world. Hell is, accordingly, the whole spectrum of negative consequences of evil.
These spectrums are extremely wide in practice, and we touch them on in different aspects, speaking about good and evil, the Kingdom of God, righteousness and eternal life. But this conclusion permits to solve the “fundamental paradox of Christianity” and to show that the moral imperative is consistently expressed by the Christian spiritual system.
Then we examine the importance of the exactly Christian expression of the moral imperative in comparison with other expressions – abstract duty, abstract conscience, abstract goodwill, abstract humanism etc., and confirm the position of Christianity as of the universal system of spiritual value, which expresses the moral imperative mostly fully and adequately.
Thus, to understand, who we are, where we came from and where we are going, it is necessary to engage in the Christian theology.
We formulate the “fundamental question of theology” in the following way: the existence of what God do we accept? Good or evil? Sole, dual, triple or multiple? Cognizable or incognizable? Active or inactive?..
Chapter 4 is called “The Theodicy: “social” evil”.
The majority of philosophers considered the problem of the Theodicy as collateral and not so fundamental in comparison with the problems of correlation between being and consciousness, of the cognizability of the world etc. But in actual fact, without its solving a doubt is cast on the existence of God, and together with it on all that we have already discussed – the existence of the moral imperative, Christianity, humanism...
The essence of the problem of the Theodicy is well-known: the moral imperative dictates us the faith in God as in the good, wise and almighty power, which created the world. But how to explain that on the Earth together with good there is evil, at that hardly at the less degree? Why does God permit the existence of evil? Or the devil, or the Satan – it can be called in any way.
Knowingly – then God is not good, furthermore, he is the source of evil? Or God can not overcome evil – then he is not almighty, and the devil is as strong as God? And if the creation of the world, as of the physical and moral whole, primordially assumed the presence of evil in it, then wouldn’t it have been better for God not to create the world at all?
Examining the major opinions on that, we come to the problem of Dualism and show its groundlessness from the moral positions. In this case, two practically equivalent powers turn out to be – God and the devil. Consequently, every human may have the temptation to come to an agreement with the devil - like Faust did. But in the 20th century, the treaty between Faust and Mephistopheles got one more aspect, not so harmless as flights to witches’ sabbaths. I mean the people, who choose the ways of the struggle for the things, which they consider as good, by the means of evil, – I mean the international terrorists. Today they capture planes, tomorrow they will capture nuclear bombs.
It may seem that Monotheism, as against Dualism, limites free will and replaces it by the moral imperative – i.e. by something like a command to think in some way and act in some way. We have to stop and discuss the problem of the freedom.
And in Chapter 3 we see that freedom is a possibility of a realized choice, which takes into consideration both necessity and chance. The freedom is fulfilled in the realized choice, in accordance with the essence and level of the chosen (rejected) variants. The possibility of the realization of such choice on the level of human will means the freedom of will.
The moral imperative is a demand, but not a compulsion. In nowadays’ society there are a great number of factors, both objective and subjective, owing to which even people of the highest morality sometimes act contrary to the moral imperative. This is the freedom of the realized moral choice – between good and evil.
Discussing the problem, what the freedom of a specific person may bring to people, we postulate its important humanistic aspect: in principle, a human may choose not only good, but also evil. But in the conditions of the action of the moral imperative, the probability of evil as of a realized choice is reduced.
Thus, only Monotheism remains. But then we have to go on with the solution of the problem of theodicy and examine the position of the author of the term “Theodicy”. Leibniz’s position is supported by the modern theology of major Christian Churches.
We see that the concept of “Divine Providence” of the major Churches has the exact parallel with Leibniz’s “submission of the world to some great general aim, which is known only for God”, and Churches’ “foreseen evil to which God is tolerant” – with Leibniz’s “admissible non-perfection of the world”.
All that seems to be logical, and this position seems to be grounded philosophically and theologically. But after its examination it turns out that in every court, God is sitting together with murderers, robbers and violators. God, who does not only allow, but even provides all the crimes, tortures and troubles.
And does that “Kingdom of God” conform to the moral imperative? The “Kingdom of God”, to which unimaginable, innumerable and, what is the most terrible, necessary sufferings of people lead?
By the efforts of the medieval Churches, the concepts of God, Christ and a King mixed into one thing. So, God turned into the absolute dictator of our thoughts and acts, and the theologians of the major Churches (as well as Leibniz) tried to solve the problem of the Theodicy, basing on the “Divine Providence”. But the solution was internally contradictory: either God is not absolutely almighty, or he is tolerant to evil consciously, being its direct or indirect culprit.
So, we have to go on solving this problem. We show that every human has the freedom of will, which is limited at a number of situational levels by the moral imperative, by “local” morals of different social groups, by state laws, by material prosperity and an infinite quantity of other factors, and that excludes God’s culpability of sins, crimes and improper acts, which are committed by people freely – when the choice between good and evil is made in favor of evil. We call that freely chosen evil by “social”.
For justice we note that both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches acknowledge the people’s freedom of will, though they come into a incompatible contradiction with the “Divine Providence” at that. But we managed to solve that question without contradiction, though for the sake of that we had to refuse of the perception of God as of an almighty dictator. Practically, of the Churches’ concept of the “Divine Providence”.
Nevertheless, we do not cast doubt on the omnipotence of God. It is possible to rule the world without either a direct interference or a small-minded regulation, but by means of laws of nature and laws of morality.
Thus, we have succeeded in the solution of the problem of the Theodicy in the sphere of social relations. This “social” evil is committed to a variable degree by each of us, and it is necessary to understand where “social” evil is from and how to struggle against it.
Theologians, who work for major Churches, refer to so called “original sin”. But in the book “New Christian philosophy” we look from the classic theological positions at the freedom of will, which appeared for the first time at our ancestors Adam and Eve, and ask the question if it is possible that just the free will led to evil in their innumerable posterity.
And after the examination of the concept of “original sin”, we answer that question in the following way: the disobeying of Adam and Eve may not be a convincing cause of considering our freedom as the “falling away from God”. Moreover, God allowed that disobeying, possibly even “provoked” it. I am inclined to consider that there was something like a “trial by freedom” for Adam and Eve, and our ancestors, having managed to disobey, stood that trial. And they became ready to inhabit the Earth only after that.
The most modern version of theology of the major Churches says that God threatened Adam with a spiritual death, and Adam after his disobeying died in spirit. But in actual fact, it is most probable that Adam after his disobeying remained immortal and obtained divinity, and in Chapter 4 we show that in the theological way.
So, as regards the “original sin”, we have understood that we must thank, not curse Adam and Eve. They took upon themselves the great burden of the knowledge of good and evil (actually became the first bearers of the moral imperative) and made the way for us.
Consequently, humanity was brought to evil by no “original sin”. It came to “social” evil (which, freely or not freely, is committed by each of us) in quite another way. We remember the temptations of Christ and show that, according to the Bible, the devil is somebody like the supreme ruler of the earthly states. Christ called him as the “prince of this world” (John 14:30). And to avoid the idea of the devil as of a Mephistopheles-like gentleman, who commits evil by hand of presidents, ministers, oligarchs, generals and other “great ones of this world”, we turn to the contemporary understanding of the fundamental nature of the devil: that are the states themselves.
And we ask the question: is the imperfection of the earthly states objective, and can it become a perfection somewhere and some time, not losing the contemporary economical and political features of a state at that? Is an absolutely fair, just, decent and humane state possible? At least in theory?
We show at an example of a wolf pack that, in actual fact, such a state is impossible.
The point is that the problem of good and evil is solved in a wolf pack by its complete exclusion of examination – a wolf pack knows nothing about good and evil, and that is why it behaves quite naturally and even attractively in its own way. Two natural “basic instincts” are brilliantly simple – a species’ preservation and continuation. That seems to be good, but if we project the wolf pack model to habitual forms of the human social organization (a kin, a tribe, national and state structures), things do not turn out to be so smooth. As soon as the moral imperative “switches on”, it turns out that not everything is so remarkable in a wolf pack. Not only in the relations with other animals, but also inside the pack.
In Chapter 4 we show that a wolf pack is a useful and even necessary community, which provides the preservation and continuation of the species according to the “natural selection”, but no peace and happiness of each wolf, and moreover of other animals – the potential victims.
So why did Christ refuse to rule over the earthly states? Didn’t he understand that every state, which is based on the tears of the innocent children, is at best a modified model of a wolf pack?
That is why I propose to speak about good and evil in the human society only in the context of the struggle between the moral imperative (humanistic, Christian spiritual principles) and the “basic natural instincts”.
Nowadays’ states have to “flirt” with citizens, to organize election campaigns, to advertise politicians etc. But even now in the most democratic state, a human is a screw in a huge mechanism. These screws are oiled when it is necessary, or thrown away when it is necessary.
That is the objective essence of a state: the subordination of human interests to society interests. The person’s priority above society is declared in the constitutions of the majority of developed countries, but it is rather propaganda than reflection of the real situation. That is why every state lives according to the laws of a wolf pack and, consequently, is not good, but evil.
The fifth Chapter is called “Caesar’s – to Caesar”.
We see that, unfortunately, evil nowadays prevails in the social structure (we have called this evil as “social”). Both economy and politics base on it in the overwhelming majority of states.
So the methodology of our research is the following: the division (of course, to the extent of possibility) of moral and social elements, the orientation toward first ones and taking second ones out of context. I call this methodology, by analogy with Matt. 22:21, by the following: “Unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”. For short, by “Caesar’s – to Caesar”.
I may be accused of anti-sociality. But, working according to the methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”, I ask a methodological question: in which aspect do we examine anti-sociality – in the moral or social?
In the moral aspect, I, really, do not love contemporary (especially medieval or ancient) society – first of all, since in the world, where it rules, prophets are condemned on crucifixion, and people – on suffering.
Many philosophers and theologians of the 19th–20th centuries, who were to some degree touched by Communist ideas, tried to “flirt” with contemporary society in an effort to determine some bright social perspectives of the humanity. But now we may say frankly: society in its today’s form, moreover two thousand years ago, is evil. And let us not create illusions for ourselves. While money and state power are the determinants of social relations, society will be evil.
But the uncompromising moral position – “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24) – does not mean an uncompromising social position. The point is that the taking out of context does not mean a taking out of examination. Having picked out social elements in every problem of a human and the humanity, we facilitate the task of its understanding and, in the end, of the adaptation to it. And it is necessary to adapt (at least to some extent). The “wolfish” essence of contemporary society may be overcome only by the widest spread of spirituality, and while that has not taken place – unfortunately, it is impossible to avoid it.
And we formulate our position concerning the correlation between “social” evil and the moral imperative as follows: evil nowadays rules over the world, but sprouts of good are taking roots and developing actively. And it is possible to say confidently that the day will come when evil ceases ruling over the world.
This position completely conforms to the teaching of Christ, who refused to rule over the earthly kingdoms, but did not refuse of solving of global social tasks and declared the possibility of the building of the Kingdom of God on the Earth. And that was no void declaration.
If not God, but the devil offered the earthly kingdoms to Jesus then no earthly kingdom (empire, republic etc.) is capable to build the Kingdom of God neither on its territory, nor on some other. On the other hand, we see that it is useless to wait that Jesus or God the Father will send a lightning to burn criminals.
Then, analyzing the possibility of building of the Kingdom of God on the Earth, we come to the single remaining variant, which conforms to our general philosophic point of view: only each of us is able to build the Kingdom of God. And the victory over evil is not a condition of society, when everyone, as at hypothetical Communism, was to “work by capabilities and consume by needs”. And no condition of society at all. Simply no one will wish to commit evil.
What condition of society will then be, it is possible only to guess. That is why the task of Christianity is not utopian (to make the humanity or one separate country happy by means of some global social experiment), but quite real – to make the life of a human and the humanity better. Little by little, step by step. And the size of that step is the true acceptance of Christianity by one human.
In Chapter 5 we examine from the point of view of the methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar” some important practical problems concerning both society and the moral imperative. Exclusively as an example of the universal adaptability of our methodology.
We ascertain the absurdity of such concepts as “a humane state” or “a kind ruler”, analyze causes of criminality, the scientific-technical progress, labour, ecology... We see that human society yields to the influence of the moral imperative, which puts in the forefront the person, freedom, life and health of a human. Yields slowly, with periodical “recoils” to fascist dictatorships, but still yields. If it is possible to apply the word “progress” to the development of humanity, then it is exactly the progress.
We also pay attention to nations and the “national problem”. Our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar” shows that the national self-feeling is a potential source of no good, but of evil for a human. Someone will be kept from evil by the moral imperative, but, unfortunately, someone will not be kept.
And if some time the national self-feeling of people sinks into oblivion together with other manifestations of “social” evil, national cultural traditions will hardly disappear, though they will change. There is nothing terrible in the rejection of the national self-feeling. History of the humanity says that nations come and leave, but their culture remains. There are many examples – Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome... May these nations be called as disappeared? In the social aspect – yes, but in the spiritual one – no.
Thus, in the book “New Christian philosophy” we examine both the concept of “social” evil and a number of the “local” problems, which are connected with the conformity of either social problem to the moral imperative. Having spent much time to the solution of the problem of theodicy, we understand: the freedom of will of people excludes the guilt of God in their sins and crimes.
But we have not yet spoken about “natural” evil – hurricanes, tornados, accidents, illnesses and even mental diseases, which deprive a human of the capability for realizing of his criminal acts, and here we see the close interlacing of “social” and “natural” evil.
Moreover, analyzing “social” evil, we shall sooner or later reach its “natural” roots – aren’t a wolf pack and human society also created by God?
And why God, having given the moral imperative to the civilized humanity, did not want to extirpate our “bestial” instincts but let them coexist, not quite peacefully at that?
Consequently, we have not solved the problem of the Theodicy finally. If the creation of the world as of the physical and moral whole primordially supposed the presence of evil in it, then wouldn’t it have been better for God not to create it at all?
And though we have shown that our suffering is no guilt of God, but the guilt of society or the laws of nature, we have not yet managed to answer the main question – why God created both nature and society as potential sources of evil. We have been at the level of a “microcosm” – of a human, but the question, which has just been cited, relates to the “macrocosm”, and we are not yet ready to its solution. In our research of reasons and forms of “social” evil, Christianity was the basic “tuning fork” of the moral imperative.
We have examined Christianity in the subconscious forms, in which it took roots in people who belong to the European civilization. Few people get deeper into problems of theology. Something is understood by reason, something is felt intuitively, and, as a rule, that is enough. Hitherto, we could manage in the book without theologian niceties.
But now we are in for the change from practical philosophy (Metaphysics of Moral) to theoretical philosophy (understanding of the structure of the world and of ourselves in this world). And since Christianity remains the main instrument of this understanding, it is necessary to “tune it up” to the solution of theoretical problems before to work with it.
It may seem strange: why must we “tune up” the Christian theology?
Because its theoretical (conceptual) part essentially differs from the practical one, which has taken roots in subconsciousness of a number of generations, and this situation is a source of a great number of abuses and speculations.
In Chapter 3 we have successfully done such “tuning” of the understading of Christianity, and may say surely: Christianity as the teaching of Christ completely conforms to the moral imperative.
But since the times of the writing of the New Testament almost two thousand years passed, and within these years multiple schisms of the Church and the forming of so called “Canon law” took place. And though Christianity – the teaching of Christ – exists as an objective reality since the moment when Christ gave it to us, Christian religion – the worldview of people – in many respects depends upon subjective positions of people, society, the historical epoch, economy, politics etc.
And in this case, the answer to the question if Christian religion completely conforms to the moral imperative, will be negative.
And this unfavorable conclusion follows from an additional question: what Christian religion are we speaking about? About the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant one? About Luther’s or Calvin’s teachings? May be, about Socinianity or Adventism? If hundreds of different variants exist, then which of them expresses the moral imperative with the whole (or at least the highest) fullness and adequacy?
Trying to answer this question directly, enumerating all possible interpretations of Christianity and analyzing them, we shall have to examine many thousands of volumes and will scarcely succeed in that. The approach, conforming to our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”, must be another in principle: we must determine Christian religious concepts, which are formed exclusively on the basis of the moral imperative, and take all the other concepts out of context, considering them as depositions of “social” evil, which prevents from the integration, mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence of Orthodox believers and Catholics, Catholics and Protestants, Protestants and Baptists, Baptists and “Jehova’s witnesses”, “Jehova’s witnesses” and “Seventh-day Adventists”...
The sixth Chapter is called “The Trinity”.
We start the “tuning” of the Christian theology from a question, to which any Church – the Orthodox, the Catholic, the Protestant – is ready to give the most comprehensive answer at any moment. And the question is the following: the “Trinity” (three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) is the base of Churches’ dogmatics. They are distinct from each other but equal in their eternity and power, and each of them has its own “duties”. However, the latter are not divided definitely, and all the hypostases take part in every act, to a variable extent though.
But does this approach coordinate with strict Monotheism, without which, as we have already shown, any religion inevitably becomes a morally degraded system? And the First Commandment of the Decalogue sounds unambiguously – God is single (Ex. 20:1).
In Chapter 6 we analyze the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as the mostly condensed form of the dogmatics of the major Churches, and see that if we have found a number of contradictions in this Creed, which is adjusted and grinded to the limit, then in many volumes of the “Canon law” the quantity of contradictions increases greatly.
To understand, if these contradictions are accidental, or they are unfair stratifications of “social” evil, we apply to the origins of Christian religion.
In the end of the 1st–the beginning of the 2nd century, Christianity grew into a religion of all-empire scale and faced a problem: how to explain to the masses of pagans, to whom the Christians worship? To God – yes, but to what God? To the same as Jews worship, or not?
Thus, in the 2nd century, the Christians needed “own” God to differ from Judaism. At that time, Christ began to be called a god along with God the Father.
In the beginning of the 2nd century, people did not yet ask questions, why there were two gods in Monotheism. But, nevertheless, a theological basis for the divine nature of Christ, sooner or later, was to become necessary.
So, it was necessary to declare Christ a god and not to incur accusations of Polytheism. We show that the task was theoretically insoluble. But, as it is well known, if it is necessary to think something out, it will be thought out in each case. Justin Philosopher thought out the following: having interpreted some fragments of the Gospel according to John literally, he declared Christ as “God’s Word”, which was made flesh and came to the Earth.
The oddity of this approach at that time was not striking, because Justin, basing on Greek philosophy, identified John’s phrase “The Word was with God” with the term “Logos”, which was often used by Greeks. As a matter of fact, “logos” is translated as “word”, but Socrates meant the “true word” (logic, source and criterion of objective knowledge) by it, Heracleitus meant the rational basis of nature, the Stoics – organizing origin which was independent of God, Plato – reason, providence, discourse, proof and speech, and Aristotle – the true nature of every thing. And by Justin, “Logos” meant the divine reason, which was made flesh and came to the Earth in the person of Christ.
So this synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy – the identification of Christ and “Logos” – originated. And since “Logos” was considered by all Greek philosophers as something like supreme reason, this identification in the conditions of Christianity meant the acknowledgement of Christ as a god in fact. “God the Son” and “the Son of God” seem to sound almost equally, but actually the difference turned out to be fundamental and became the basis of the dogma of “Trinity”, which appeared in two hundred years after Justin’s death.
We understand that in the 2nd century that conformed to political purposes of the Church, which needed its “own” god. But is the identification of Christ with the “Logos” in respect to theology, which, in principle, must base on the Holy Scripture and solve no political problems, rightful?
To understand the theological motivation of Justin, we remember the philosophic school, which is called Gnosticism. Many professional philosophers of the 2nd and 3rd century, having come enthusiastic about Christianity as a “fashionable” idea, could not avoid attempts to create some kind of a “full-scale” philosophic system on its base. In that purposes, a number of doctrines were “put” into Christianity. Concepts from Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Manicheism and many other philosophic and religious systems were used, but Greek philosophy was the highest on the list of “popularity”. Christ’s contemporary Philo of Alexandria was the direct precursor of Gnosticism, with his synthesis of Judaism and Greek philosophy.
In short, Gnostics supposed that Christianity was too simple and axiomatic, and if it had not been “colored” by specific philosophic terms, and if all concepts had not obtained “loud” and spectacular names, then serious people would not have accepted it.
This point of view turned out to be extremely enduring. “Logos” (“God’s Word”) and Sophia (“God’s Wisdom”) are the most well known Gnostic concepts, which penetrated Church’ dogmatics and implanted in it. The first became the predecessor of the “Trinity”, and the second became the “banner” of the “Russian religious Renaissance” of the beginning of the 20th century.
In the book “New Christian philosophy” we show the fundamental difference between Christianity and Gnosticism, but see that Church’ theology of the 2nd–3rd centuries, unfortunately, proceeded along the path of Gnosticism. The same path was chosen by Patristics (teachings of so called “Fathers of the Church”) – from Athanasius of Alexandria to John of Damascus. All attempts of at least partial return to the teaching of Christ were declared heresies and pursued grimly.
Unfortunately, it is quite logical that Churches consider Justin Philosopher, who declared Christ to be “Logos”, as the founder and the first representative of Patristics.
In Chapter 6, we examine the positions of Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus of Lyon, Docets and Monarchians, and see that the Church came to the bloom in the time of Constantine the Great (the beginning of the 4th century) with the ambiguous definition of Christ as “God the Son”, i.e. as the second god. And then we examine Arianism.
It is interesting that in the polemics of Arius and his opponent Athanasius of Alexandria, the viewpoint of Origen triumphed last time and inclined the public opinion, however paradoxically, to Athanasius’ position. Arius denying the eternality of Christ, also denied the teaching of Origen. The latter acknowledged the preexistence of souls of all people, and people always wanted to be somewhat gods. Basil of Caesaria said very showy and, above all, in proper time: “God became a man for a man became a god”.
As regards people, the position of the Church changed soon: when it was necessary to appeal to broad masses, Athanasius and Basil named everyone a god, but when Arianism was defeated, the divine essence of people was quickly forgotten, and people in about fifty years, in the times of Aurelius Augustine, turned out to be “loathsome receptacles of sin”.
But let us digress the terminology of the official Church (though it is quite indicative) and establish that even now we, doing our best, will not be able to clear up who was right – Arius or Athanasius. The point is that their polemics quickly became a completely scholastic dispute, and that bereaved Arius of the only chance for victory – of the appeal to common sense.
It is no wonder that disputes on Arianism – a heresy or a canon to be – lasted for minimum three centuries. Against the background of fundamentally insoluble theological problem, a number of political problems appeared.
A “fresh idea” was needed for the victory over Arianism. Athanasius put it forward in the end of 330s, and Basil and Gregory developed it in 360–370s. That idea – the declaration of the Holy Spirit as a god – became a “trump card” in the political game of the 4th century.
The “Trinity” was convenient for the Emperor and for the majority of bishops: at that moment (I accentuate – only at that moment) it was a stabilizing dogmatic compromise and was working for the political image of the Church. When the Holy Spirit turned out to be “one in being” with the Father, together with “God the Son”, the Church’s theology came to a complete, showy, alienated from any reality and self-sufficient system.
The third god, the Holy Spirit, proved to be very convenient for claims of the Church for state power and property, since the Church declared itself as its “keeper”, and that became a decisive political factor.
In the end of Chapter 6 we examine the dogma of the “Trinity” in theological aspect and see that the declaration neither of Christ nor of the Holy Spirit as “hypostases of the Trinity” has serious basis in the Holy Scripture.
The seventh Chapter is called “Two natures”.
Having examined the forming of the dogma of the “Trinity” on the historical material, we have understood that it was elaborated only as an instrument of the political struggle of the 4th century. And though at that time the “Trinity” was a compromise, which was convenient for the Emperor and the majority of bishops, we have to conclude in accordance with our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar” that the dogma of “Trinity” is a deposition on the teaching of Christ, and that deposition belongs not to the moral imperative, but to “social” evil.
In this Chapter we look if our conclusion is confirmed by historical facts and if that dogma bring good or evil to the Christians.
In the beginning of the 5th century, the Church’s theologians had to elaborate one more dogma to answer the question, how the divine nature (which had been “legalized” by the dogma of the “Trinity”) and the human nature (which could not be “repealed”) correlated in Christ. In the 5th century, that question became a weapon in another peak of the struggle for the power in the Church.
And the 4th Ecumenical (Chalcedon) Council of 451 decided that there was “one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity... in two natures, without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated”.
We examine this resolution and see that the same happened to the dogma of ‘two natures” as to the “Trinity” seventy years before: each part of the problem was solved separately. The main goal was to connect the new dogma with the “Trinity”: since there is a self-dependent divine nature, then it is “God the Son”. And the human essence also was present in Christ, but it was not related to the divine one.
In short, separately – a god and a man (that is why the Orthodox tradition calls Christ as the “Godman”). And as a whole, a number of theological paradoxes took place. In our time, this situation is called as a split personality.
But in the 5th–7th century, during the open struggle for power in the Church (that struggle is described in the book), nobody was disturbed by theological paradoxes.
We examine the substantiation of the dogma of “two natures” by contemporary Churches and see that the task of the major Churches was to declare as gods not all people, but only Christ (of course, not “canceling” God the Father), and, as a result, Jesus of Nazareth became the “second hypostase of the Trinity” and the unique being of “two natures”, and he was absolutely teared away from us by that. When the Church accepted the complicated and contradictory dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures”, no place for the divine nature of people in the Church’s theology remained.
But we show in the end of Chapter 7 that Jesus is the same god as each of us is. Consequently, the same human as each of us is. There is no fundamental and insuperable difference between the divine nature of Jesus and us.
In Chapter 8, which is called “Christianity and the present”, we answer a quite appropriate question, why we refuse of the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures” so uncompromisingly. Really, in our time, not so much people speak seriously about God’s or the Holy Spirit’s bidding of either dogma, and the “Trinity” has already completely accreted with traditions of the major Churches. So why should we break lances in the struggle against the “Trinity”?
This question is quite serious, and we need an entire chapter to answer it.
First of all, I note that I am going to “break lances in the struggle” neither against the “Trinity” nor against the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant Church nor anything else. Moreover, I am an Ecumenist – an adherent of the integration of all Christian (and in further perspective – not only of Christian) Churches.
And then I explain, why I have shown that the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures” are antiquated and need a radical reconsideration.
We examine some contemporary philosophic teachings, which are based on the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures”, and see that, as a result, however hard you try to “live in peace” with official positions of the major Churches, any attempt to coordinate medieval dogmas with contemporary common sense will lead to the situation that “everything new is a forgotten antique heresy”. And Churches’ officials will not thank you, will not accept your point of view and will not elaborate a new dogma on its base.
And in this way, you will never reach common sense – even Christ said: “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish” (Matt. 9:17).
Consequently, we must look for a spiritual base exclusively in the sources of the Christian teaching, when there were neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism nor heresies, but only Jesus Christ, Apostles and the New Testament.
And since, as we have shown, then there were no dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures”, we shall have to do without them. They can help us by nothing, but can impede us greatly. Dogmas, which have no convincing base in the Holy Scripture, may not be a base of Christian religion.
If the absence of a convincing base in the Bible had been the only argument against the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures”, it would have been possible to accuse me of dogmatic conservatism. But the non-acceptance of these dogmas has other aspects, beside the theologian. In Chapter 8 we examine the historical, social, cosmological and moral aspects, and then turn to Ecumenism.
The ideas of Ecumenism will triumph together with the moral imperative in the historical perspective. And that are not mere words. Without the integration of the Churches (the Christian ones at the first point, and then the others), it is impossible to avoid fits of international discord, and the matter can not concern the Kingdom of God.
We show that a basis of the integration of all confessions and the creation of “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” could be the refusal of medieval dogmas and ceremonies. We can say even more: the dogmatics of any religion must ideally keep within one line, which must be understandable for everyone and be the most full expression of the moral imperative. In Chapter 8 we try to formulate that line, but whatever that line will be, however this “super-Ecumenical” religion will be called – Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or somehow else, – its essence must be the same: the most full and understandable to everyone expression of the moral imperative.
And if people love each other and do not commit evil to each other without any religious dogmas (even those dogmas, which are kept within one line) – God grant.
And the sooner the major world Churches clear of medieval stratifications, which are an obstacle for the perceiving of the moral imperative, the better. That is why I am, in particular, oppose the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures” and by that, undoubtedly, incur anger of the majority of organizations, which have the word “Church” in their names and use the teaching of Christ in their aims.
For those organizations, Ecumenism is not only harmful for ambitions, but is also an administratively abrupt form of integration (something like a compulsory confluence of corporations), and that says once more about the “social” orientation of these organizations. And the word “organization” itself is a product of the contemporary society, with all following consequences in the form of “social” evil.
Chapter 9 is called “Sin and righteousness”.
We have understood that the dogmas of the “Trinity” and “two natures”, which alienate Christ of people, are evenly not good, but evil. Apostle John, Apostle Paul and Jesus himself repeatedly accentuated that the Savior is one in being with us, and each of us has a possibility to become same as Christ.
But the theoretical possibility is not yet practical. One important thing is an obstacle for us to certain of one in being of people with Christ: as the major Churches teach, Jesus was completely righteous and “conceived immaculately”, and we were conceived in sin, were born in sin, and live in sin.
It is impossible to disregard these arguments, and in this Chapter we look if each of us can be equal to Christ not only by the origin, but also by righteousness.
First of all, we examine the the moral part of the teaching of Christ, and then ask the question: what is a sin?
It is understandable and logical, that in the Old Testament sin is understood as a violation of Mosaic Law, and not only of one of ten Holy Commandments, but also of some hundreds of obligatory regulations.
We have already understood, what the moral law of Jesus Christ was. And sin is a transgression of the Law (1 John, 3:4). Accordingly, Jesus understood a sin exclusively as the absence of love to God “with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and the absence of love to “thy neighbour as thyself”.
And that is all. Brief and to the point.
Thus, every complication of the concept of sin is an attempt to return to the antiquated Old Testament’s law and to the understanding of God not as an object of love, but as of a revengeful despot.
But, unfortunately, the medieval Church followed exactly that way, and something like a new Law began to form, but it was elaborated not by Christ or Moses, but by many generations of “Fathers of the Church”. And the dogma of the “Trinity” gave to the Church – the “keeper” of the Holy Spirit – the right to determine itself, what is a sin, and to forgive it (not at all free of charge). It turned out that in the Middle Ages the complication and flexibility of the concept of sin became a mighty instrument of the church-state power.
And in our time, all major Churches interpret sin extremely widely and ambiguously, in spite of that they (moreover not they but the Ecumenical Church) have the right to forgive sins (Matt. 18:17; John 20:23), but not to determine what is sin. As it is well-known, the less people understand, the more easy it is to control them for the major Churches (and for a great number of sects), especially by establishing of the “complex of a sinful creature” in people.
In Chapter 9 we look at the “official” list of sins and see that, according to Christ, each of those concepts is ambiguous and may be called a sin only since it makes problems, pain, inconveniences etc. for neighbors. And all other words (including “seven deadly sins”) are nothing more than fine words. In actual fact, everything is much more simple. To love God and people and to act in compliance with this love – that is the righteousness, and the opposite is a sin. Christ taught so, and the concept of sin may be understandable for us only from this point of view. And the understanding of sin is the first step on the way of refusing of it.
I may be asked a “provocative” question: what to do with self-defense? Of course, it is possible to declare after Christ: “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”, but if the things head so, will the esteemed author turn the other cheek or will nevertheless smite back?
This question is actually complicated and much more general than a specific behavior in a specific situation. It may be formulated so: what to do if “the life forces to commit a sin”? And these cases take place at every step.
Really, the earthly life dictates its laws, which are cruel and homely enough. Firstly, each of us has to think of meal and clothes. Secondly, the nowadays’ reality let neither give beggars all that we have, nor turn the other cheek when we are beaten. Of course, it is possible to do that in theory, but it may become the last act in the life in practice. And Christ certainly did not want our death of hunger or beating – that would have been no less contradiction with his teaching.
But then who can be saved, i.e. can live absolutely righteously? Nobody? Does it mean that Apostle Paul, calling all Christians as holy, was mistaken?
The major Churches propose a “next-world” variant of solving of this problem: if you have committed a sin, expiate that sin by good acts, and after your death (and then at the “Last Judgement”) your sins and good acts will be counted and it will become clear, who is righteous and who is not.
In Chapter 9, we examine this position and see that it is more harmful than useful. At this approach, a contemporary human would certainly like to imagine something like a “scale of good and evil acts” and try to reach a “positive balance”. We explore the capability of people to compare good and evil acts and come to an absurd in each case.
But even if we, after the major Churches, consider that God or Christ are capable to compare millions of different sins and good acts, this position will nevertheless lead to catastrophic consequences. The point is that the primitive way of expiation of sins by good acts (so called “continuous penance”) may be apprehended as a permission to sin as much as one likes. And we have to say: the orientation firstly on the expiation of sins by good acts gives people the moral right to commit sins.
It is not the main thing – to expiate a sin. The main thing is a sincere wish to commit it never again. Then, having even committed a sin forcedly, a human will not repeat it voluntarily.
That is why the teaching of Christ is aimed at the absence of the wish to commit sins. The accent on the love to people and God is from here. And how many good acts must be committed to “surpass” sins – that is arithmetic, not love.
And concerning the canonical position of the major Churches, we may say: it is incorrect and harmful to make an illusion of the expiation of sins by a formal reading of some prayers by a human. If a priest does not have enough time for a deep and thoughtful talk with every repentant, it is better to delay the confession and to replace it by a public sermon. But this is still not customary in the major Churches.
It turns out that only the sincere penance may give the real expiation of sins (in actual fact, the sincere penance if equal to the acceptance of the Christian system of value). But it is very difficult and, moreover, impossible to remember all minor sins.
So, who can save, i.e. can consider himself as that true Christian, to whom Apostle Paul addressed as to “holy brothers”? Nobody? Is there an insoluble contradiction?
In connection with that, we examine a number of medieval theologian disputes about the “grace of God” and try to determine the possibility of the forgiveness of our sins by God more evenly than the major Churches do that.
We do not deepen into logical schemes, but give a determination of the grace of God according to the moral imperative and the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
However paradoxically, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Catholic and Orthodox theologians, having been carried away by the general problems of the correlation between freedom of will and the grace of God, forgot about Christ’s teaching, which is understandable to all.
And will a human, who accepted that teaching sincerely, commit sins? If he even will, then only forcedly and, as the saying goes, if the worst comes to worst. It is impossible to predict all that cases – a Christian lives among people, and not each of them shares his views.
While there is “social” evil, there are sins, which even a Christian can not avoid committing. Those “forced” sins do not contradict to the moral imperative and can not be considered as sins.
Thus, the grace of God may be determined as the moral imperative, which was given to us by God, and our righteousness – as the sincere devotion to the moral imperative and acting in conformity with it in all situations.
Turning from theory to practice, we can formulate the practical aspect of the Christian moral system in the following way: if there is the least possibility to commit good and avoid evil, it is necessary to use it. And as deep Christianity strikes root in every human, as wider that human perceives the limits of this possibility.
In the light of all said, it is possible to answer the “provocative” question if I should turn the other cheek (i.e. if I should keep the position of the non-resistance against evil by force at any “force” conflict). If there is the least possibility, I shall do everything to avoid a “force” conflict. Moreover, if there is a chance to keep the life and human dignity, I shall turn the other cheek, i.e. shall not commit anything in return. But if there is no such chance, I shall have to smite in return. And even since I know that it is a sin, there are situations when not to smite is a worse sin.
The main thing is that this position decreases the probability of “social” evil. To avoid it completely and to live without any conflict – neither Apostle Paul nor Jesus Christ nor anybody else managed to do that. But the more people accept the Christian teaching, the lower this probability will be.
We have understood what is sin. We have understood what is righteousness. But there is one more argument of the officials of the major Churches that Christ had some “special” righteousness – the dogma of his “immaculate conception”. It is the subject of Chapter 10.
This dogma, which declares any physiological conception as sinful even by its formulating, leads to the situation that so called sin of adultery (the 7th Commandment of Decalogue) holds a record by the number of interpretations and conjectures.
So, we have to examine the “sin of adultery” from the point of view of Jesus Christ.
Firstly, we look what is written about that in the Old Testament and see that Moses formulated the concept of adultery exactly, clearly and soundly. Naturally, a woman had a subordinate role in the tribal order of Ancient Israel, but we see in Mosaic Law neither purposeful humiliation of women nor prohibitions of sexual relations nor exaggerating attention to “intimate” questions.
But the situation changed radically in early Christian times. As it is known, it is more simply to rule humbled people, and the medieval Church, creating the complex of a “sinful creature” in people, could not miss so splendid cause as adultery.
Of course, for a “good Christian” of the beginning of our era, it was unpleasant to look at morals and manners of Ancient Rome – “Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots” (Rev. 17:5). But centuries passed, morals and manners changed, but the relation of the major Churches to a woman and to sexuality did not change. And it is completely on the conscience of the officials of the major Churches that Jesus of Nazareth is still perceived by the majority of people as a woman-hater with the inferiority complex.
We examine the first pages of the Bible and look how the first sin (as we have already spoken, it may be called a sin only conditionally) took place: people disobeyed of God. But if somebody was waiting for a description of the sexual relations of Adam and Eve, I had to disappoint: “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain” (Gen. 4:1) much later, and that was normal and natural – God did not say “Be fruitful and multiply” in vain.
But the “original sin” in the mass consciousness is still understood as the sexual relations of Adam and Eve, and each of us is a “sinful creature” by the right of the birth.
Then we examine the consistency of the theological base of the “official” hatred of the major Churches to sexuality and see that Jesus of Nazareth actually did not insist on the obligatory and indissoluble marriage, and furthermore on the sexual continence or the emasculation. He said nothing also about specific theses of Mosaic Law on adultery (except the divorce), and it is not our deal to guess about that.
Thus, there is neither humiliation of women nor undesirability of sexual relations in the teaching of Christ. The Christian concept of adultery differs from the Old Testament’s one only in the prohibition of divorces, and even this prohibition is also conditional – if a husband or a wife have committed adultery (at least “in the heart”), then it is possible to divorce.
And who is, according to the dogmatics of the major Churches, righteous by the right of the birth, i.e. who is free of “original sin”?
Only Jesus Christ, since he is “God the Son”. And if that is so, he could not be conceived and born in sin, hence the dogma of his “immaculate conception” was originated.
And “sinless Virgin” Mary, accordingly, also could not make sex – not only before the marriage with Joseph, but also after it, so she remained virgin forever. It is no wonder that any woman, who worked honestly for the whole life, who brought up many children, who loves her husband and never committed adultery, looks nearly a whore against the background of that image of Virgin Mary.
We examine the beginning of the Gospel according to Matthew, the personalities of Christ’s brothers and some women, who were named in the Gospels, and see that Mary, the wife of Joseph, was a common woman, had normal intimate relations with her husband and gave birth to many children.
But the medieval Church was ready to do all possible substitutions to consider sex as sin. To show that, we do not go deep into Freud’s “ousting” and “sublimation of libido”. We say more simply: if a man has normal family life (and normal sex in also included into this concept), it is very difficult to get that man out of his family and to send him to conquer the world.
And if a man is capable only of a defective resemblance of sex and feels the “complex of a sinful creature” constantly, he will be scarcely happy (or at least satisfied) of his family life. And it is “good” – it is simpler to send that man to a front to die for the dictator’s ambitions.
And in the Middle Ages, it was necessary to raise people to crusades, to the struggle against heresies, to endless wars with neighbor states – what sex could be there?
It was impossible to prohibit sex completely – children, i.e. future soldiers and soldiers’ mothers, were not born without it. But the major Churches and states quite succeeded in the replacement of sex by its defective resemblance. It is possible to laugh as much as one wants at sanctimony and secret debauch of the medieval clergy, but the constant reminding to people about the “sin of passionate sexuality” yielded its fruits.
But, may be, that is enough? Life cancelled unfounded prohibitions on sex a long time ago, and isn’t it time for the major Churches to cancel these prohibitions, too, and to cease the considering normal intimate life as sin? As we have seen, there were prohibitions of sex neither in the Old nor in the New Testament. Moses, Christ and Apostle Paul wished people well and did not want to make callous robots of them.
We