Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
God
is no murderer
The
Original was published in Russian: Ñåðãåé Çàãðàåâñêèé. Áîã íå óáèéöà. Ì.: Àëåâ-Â, 2001. ISBN
5-94025-014-9. 280 pages.
Attention!
The following text
was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been
edited.
So it can be used
only for general introduction.
ANNOTATION TO THE
BOOK
A new book by
a famous artist and Christian theologian Sergei Zagraevsky written, like all
previous ones, in a popular and accessible form, but pursues a fundamentally
new task: to form on the basis of Christianity modern system of philosophical
views, applicable not only in theory but also in practice.
In this regard, the author considers such
interest issues as the existence of God, the creation, the origin of man, his
earthly destiny and eternal life.
My previous theological book called "Jesus
of Nazareth's life and teachings". Dedicated she was, above all, the
doctrine of Christ, the followers of which we consider ourselves Christians.
The book received a wide variety of reader
responses. It is most gratifying to me that many read began quite differently
to perceive Jesus Christ - not as far terrible judge, and as a man, died on the
cross for his doctrine of the goodness and love. And Christianity my readers
have been seen not as a set of dogmas and rituals, and as a modern spiritual
system. In this case, the purpose of the book "Jesus of Nazareth" I
can safely assume executed.
Time has passed. Passed the passion on the change
of the Millennium and the beginning of the XXI century. Lost an increased
interest by the General public to the personality and teachings of Christ so to
speak, "was the fashion". No "second coming"or the
"end of the world"or "the last judgment" has not happened,
and people were going about their everyday business.
Some "vacuum" has come and for me,
during this time showed no fundamentally new facts from the biography of Jesus,
nor radically new interpretations of his teachings, the debate about the
authenticity of the shroud of Turin will be even dozens (or even hundreds) of
years, and writing seems to have been about. So I took memoir book "My
twentieth century" and walked away from the Christological studies.
However, for a short time. The fact that "we
Christians" do not imply the answer to the question: why are we
Christians? Just because a suckling baby baptized (not all), and grandmother of
the child was taken into the Church?
For modern man, experienced and not prone to
exaggerate the strength of tradition, as a rule, this is not enough. He needs a
personal understanding of what and in conditions of rapid scientific and
technological progress, and computerization of all areas of knowledge, and in
terms of the development systems "artificial intelligence", and the
terms "genetic engineering" the relevance of Christianity is not
decreasing but increasing.
And this was not enough purely theological
methods of analysis of the personality and teachings of Christ. Was necessary
to form a solid philosophical worldview and show that equivalent spiritual
alternatives to Christianity today, mankind does not know.
This I did in the book, we now present to the
readers.
As in the previous books, I fundamentally refuse
from the use of specific philosophical language. Any person with any level of
education, who was interested in the theme of the book, should be able to take
it up and read it. Let it with something you do not agree, even if something is
not immediately realize it will be an occasion to reflect and form their own
worldview.
But in any case cannot be put to the vast
majority of readers insurmountable barrier in the form of specialized terms.
Of course, you and about Vladimir Vysotsky to
write: "the Human being is modeled Vysotsky not just in the border, but in
the bifurcation situations, specifying at the same time and ontological
uncertainty of prospects for a resolution of opposition to the Life-Death, and
an open horizon of moral choice between true being and transformed forms of
existence" (M.A. Mozheiko).
But you can about Kant and Descartes and
Augustine, and about Jesus Christ to write the normal and familiar language,
without losing any of analyticity or philosophical depth.
The main question of this book is: " who we
are, where we come from and where we are going?
To answer this question it is necessary to form
on the basis of the Christian system of philosophical views, applicable not
only in theory but also in practice.
And the concept of practice and includes such
seemingly detached from the realities of life issues as the existence of God,
the creation, the origin of man, his earthly destiny and eternal life. These
questions are not even centuries, and millennia. All the philosophers, all the
theologians of all times and peoples tried to respond to them, and many people
in varying degrees of success.
But we live in an era that is unique in its
inconsistency and the pluralism of opinions on any issue, and even more
serious. And therefore we cannot do without "moral reference point, in
which European civilization is Christianity.
Christian theology - a complex and multifaceted
science, with two thousand years of history. But today we can look at it with
an open mind and try not to loose a lot of "gordievich node via another
medieval "Church fathers". Such nodes do not untie us nor anyone
else. They can only be cut.
The same can be said for a huge number of
stereotypes imprinted in the minds of millions of people in connection with
Christianity, and even more so with faith in God.
The examples are not far to seek - the great and
mighty Russian language they are met at every step. When all is well, we say
"Thank God". But when something goes wrong, we say, "All is
not the glory of God", and not even think about it, why because of the
small everyday problems we refuse God...
So let's hack "Gordeeva sites.
Chapter
I
And since our research is designed for a wide
circle of readers, and "personality" of the original position will
have to outline very broadly.
Philosophy is not just a form of understanding
the world, and not only the "science of Sciences". Philosophy is
first of all the world, and to him everyone comes in their own ways, for some
time, having lived on earth, much knowing, understanding and feeling. Let's
call it "tofiloski worldview".
Naturally, the range of "tofiloski
worldviews" mankind is extremely diverse. Generally speaking, how many
people, so many worldviews. And opinions on any issue even more.
And all of these opinions is a common sense of an
epoch, as billions of people - humanity. Produced some "rules of the
hostel, there are some vectors of public opinion, and if it cannot be
decomposed into separate components, to analyze and study needs. Are engaged
and political scientists, and sociologists, and historians, and philosophers.
In addition, every person has his usual
"life-world" (Husserl was defined as "fundamental certainties of
everyday consciousness, which are rooted in practice and are fatal prerequisite
of scientific knowledge"). And how could we not have gone into
philosophical delights, almost everyone of us has a passport, the certificate
of any education, clothes, shoes, a set of personal things...
To list all the things that have almost every
civilized person, can be very long to reach such trivial things as tables and
chairs. And even after all we live in a particular historical era, in the
country and the city. And yet each of us have relatives, friends,
acquaintances...
But all that can be listed from the sphere of our
life, health, education, public relations, civil rights and responsibilities,
components of our "daphilosopha" worldview.
Briefly it can be called as: "men among
men".
These are our "tofiloski" original
position, which agrees almost every sane person.
But the next question - is there in our
"life-world" of God, and if Yes, what are its relationships with
"people among the people," there will be thousands of different
answers, and we have to move from "tofiloski source positions to the
actual philosophy.
To suspect that it was just "reverence"
towards the all-seeing eye of the Catholic Church, not God-the absolute was an
integral part of the philosophical systems of Plato and Aristotle, and
Descartes, Fichte, and Hegel, and Schelling, and Solovyov.
However, for philosophers who built his teachings
primarily on the study of individual consciousness (Descartes, Fichte,
Husserl), the concept of God was not so necessary, since any individual
consciousness, individual, in a logical result, recognizes only itself, but all
the rest tend to believe unprovable rational methods.
And it is only one step to postulate that nothing
in the world exists except the subject, and the whole world is a product of our
consciousness is the only thing that is given without any doubt. This approach
is called solipsism (from the Latin "solus ipse" - "only").
In modern language, the world is not real and "virtual".
However, "pure" solipsism - full denial
of the objective existence of the world - the history of world philosophy does
not know.
If you carefully read the teachings of each of
the philosophers, in varying degrees, tend to "subjective idealism",
we will see that none of them wanted to bring the idea of the existence
of the world in the sensations of the subject to complete solipsism.
By way of solipsism went Descartes, whose radical
displacement of the "I" apocryphal, which are broken all ties with
the world, became the methodological basis for many subsequent generations of
philosophers.
But despite the fact that the Cartesian
"I" builds "the undoubted experience of the world based only on
camomile itself Descartes believed in the reality of the existence of the world
and the human body "never doubted no sane person".
By way of solipsism went and Husserl, who
declared the Foundation of scientific knowledge of the pure logic and made the
brackets" in his phenomenology as a reasoning and traditional philosophical
problems.
It would seem that the study of
"single"is excluded from the communication of consciousness would
inevitably lead to solipsism, but not the act of thinking of the subject,
according to Husserl, is inextricably linked with the subject, objectively
existing. And in later works he immersed himself in the study of the sphere of
social consciousness, "life world" and "intersubjectivity",
in fact, come to heideggerian approval "is impossible to get rid of the
world."
Contrary to popular stereotype, solipsism was not
and
Perhaps, a more or less consistent Sampsistemi
are some philosophical characters of the books of the Marquis de Sade, but it's
hard to say how they Express the point of view of the author, are more inclined
to eclectic materialism.
There is no doubt that on the road to solipsism
philosophers stopped insoluble contradiction with "tofiloski source
positions, which we call "men among men". Yes, and the sum of a huge
number of physical sensations translated the illusion of the real world in the
discharge abstract and absurd notions.
But because the outside world is recognized as
objectively existing, the question arises about its origins, nature,
development paths - and indeed, why things work this way? Is there in the world
of harmony, are there universal laws? And if there is, then where are they?
In other words, is there a God?
III
This question is cared for all and always, and
the existence of God was trying to prove to many philosophers. Even in
conversation with Woland Berlioz in his novel "Master and Margarita"
was mentioned proof of the existence of God, which had five, who then denounced
Kant, who then built a sixth proof"...
So what was this evidence?
Orthodox tradition rejects the evidence of God's
existence, in principle, considering them harmful to the faith. The Western
theological thought worked very hard in this direction, and this need to talk.
Bulgakov Berlioz, most likely meant five of the
evidence given by Thomas Aquinas. But in fact such evidence was offered in a
variety of theologians and philosophers, and they were much more than five.
It is believed that the first proof was developed
by Augustine of Hippo. He argued that a person loves only the good, and all
things like as long as they is good. We love all things different, so you need
to in our minds was a good standard, and they can only be God - like good absolute
and unchanging.
Strangely, though, why Augustine brought his idea
to its logical absurdity and did not offer the unit benefit. Why not, if there
is a standard?..
However, Thomas Aquinas potential absurdity did
not notice and did a proof of Augustine the basis of his theological system,
generalizing it on the following basis: we constantly compare things to each
other, operate with the concepts of "more" and "less than",
and this method of comparison involves the presence of some maximum, absolute
God.
It is not clear why Thomas the comparison
requires a maximum absolute God. And what if a minimum - "absolute"
the devil? And if the poor have a hundred rubles, and the rich man - million,
the latter is closer to God? The absurd.
The so-called "ontological" proof
(coming from our perceptions of being) invited Anselm of Canterbury, and
finalized Rene Descartes.
The essence of the proof is the following: I, the
man, being imperfect, but I have the idea of being committed and compelled to
think that this idea was suggested to me by a being who possesses all
perfections of God. Same with the idea of infinity, which man, as a being
finite, could not be imagined without the infinite God.
Can't resist another comment: the idea of a
perfect being an average businessman, I am afraid, very different from the
Cartesian...
Will not overburden the book cosmological,
physico-teleological, and many other evidence. Kant in his work "Critique
of pure reason" was subjected to all existing evidence of complete
defeat due to the fact that our subjective thoughts in no way should the need
for an objective reality. For Kant, there is an insoluble contradiction between
the limited experience and infinite output.
However, the tradition of championship Kant
stronger fact: actually understood William Occam, who believed that the concept
of God as an infinite being cannot be justified by means of rational knowledge.
Moreover Occam understood and the inability to
strictly prove the existence of anything in the world except himself. The
famous "Occam's razor" - "should not multiply entities beyond
necessity" - theoretically leads to solipsism, as extremely
necessary is the existence of the subject.
However, to solipsism Occam not reached, because
of the possible illusory world and unprovable existence of God has made the
following output: information about the world and about God we must draw
primarily from the faith. Conclusion sounded quite in the style of Thomas
Aquinas, and Ockham, despite his opposition to papal official information
received from the Catholic Church the title "invincible doctor".
But if you do not fall in any of the extremes
(either solipsism or Thomism), it actually "Occam's razor" is some minimum
necessary (but not limiting) set of assumptions, accepted as axioms.
And because strong evidence is not available,
then any thinking subject, assuming the objectivity of existence and matter,
and God as harmonizing and tselesoobraznaya beginning in nature and man,
Willy-nilly, considering all of the above in light of their subjective
attitudes.
IV
Actually in the "subjectivity" of the
latter statement there is nothing wrong. Even Kant, correspondence arguing with
Berkeley, saw the obviousness of the last reality of the existence of things
and wrote: "it is Impossible not to recognize the scandal of philosophy
and universal mind the need to only take on faith the existence of things
outside us".
Now the term "scandal of philosophy" is
used quite often, and it implies the absence of any meaningful totality of
universal philosophical positions that could be shared by all
professionals in this field.
However, Karl Jaspers considered permanent
"scandal in philosophy" normal and natural situation, justifying it
as follows: "what of the immutable grounds recognized by every person,
becomes thus, scientific knowledge, not being more of a philosophy, and refers
to specific areas of knowledge.
It's hard to disagree.
However, the question about the source positions
continued to stand, and Marxist science in the USSR interpreted it as "the
basic question of philosophy".
The Soviet ideological system liked to divide
people into "us" and "not ours". Not have passed the Cup
and philosophers.
Now the basic question of philosophy is already
perceived as an archaism, but all students of the Soviet Union learned about
the following: "the Basic question of philosophy - about the primacy of
existence and consciousness. One who believes the primary Genesis, is a materialist.
One who believes that consciousness is an idealist".
Strictly speaking, the first such division made
Hegel, who believed that when the resolution of the opposition between being
and thinking philosophy breaks down into two basic forms: realistic and
idealistic". Although realism and materialism is not the same, the
copyright on the phrase "the basic question of philosophy" should be
recognized for Hegel.
But the recognition of the primacy of
consciousness in the history of philosophy actually meant the recognition of
the existence of God that does not suit the "historical
materialists". Regardless of whether they lived in the USSR and elsewhere,
"the basic question of philosophy" they will apply the principles of
jurisprudence: "that is not proven, that does not exist".
The existence of matter seems to be proved by the
totality of our physical sensations, but the existence of God - prove, say, and
then we in Soviet schools and universities will study the Law of God! And while
it's not proven - teach historical materialism!
Actually this position is nothing more than a
vulgar speculation on "everyday" common sense: the fact is that the
combination of physical sensations do not have a rigorous proof of the
existence of matter. Each of us knows many examples when the physical senses
(five senses) are deceptive - delusions, hallucinations, and even simple errors
of perception...
V
About solipsism we have already spoken. Now, if
we approach the evidence of the objective existence of the outside world to the
same positions as the Marxists came to the existence of God, then there is a
"solipsistic output: cannot strictly prove that the collection of
physical sensations exist in reality and not only in the perception of the
feeling of the subject.
In other words, there is the theoretical
probability that the world is objectively not exists and exists solely in our
minds. Together with our body, family, apartment, neighbors, street,
passers-by, the Earth, the Sun...
And this is solipsism, that is a violation of
"tofiloski" initial positions "men among men" and attempt
to eliminate "stop the world".
So the circle was closed. Either we try to strictly
prove all manifestations of objective reality and inevitably moving into
solipsism or something, but still accepted as an axiom. In other words, faith.
Somehow, it is believed that the axiom is the destiny of science, and faith -
only religion, but actually and in fact, and in another case we are talking
about only a certain initial point of reference.
And if you believe in the objective
existence of matter, why not take the next step and do not believe in God as
the source of its structural feasibility and harmony? After all, the matter,
indeed, has a definite structure - atoms, electrons, organic and inorganic
materials, cells and blood cells, all this is more or less adequately described
in mathematical formulas, fit into the periodic table...
Therefore, if we take for granted millions of
different concepts of the material world, step up faith in God turns out to be
negligible, and from a logical point of view, unprincipled. If we did 1000000
assumptions, then why not make 1000001-e?
Philosophical thought of humanity to so, at first
glance, a simple conclusion was long and painful, coming closer to him, then
away.
In fact, on a purely material matters (how many
atoms of oxygen and how many hydrogen is a molecule of water is in the center
of the Galaxy "black hole", and so on), is joined by another, much
more complex - what is man? What is "I"? What is "We"? How
we perceive the world? What is the mind? What is civilization and what is its
place in the universe? Are we, the people, in a more or less rational structure
of the world described by mathematical formulas and spatial-temporal
correlations?
And then there is the question of harmony and
appropriateness has been questioned. Positively or negatively impact human
civilization on nature? And nature on humanity? And on a particular person? The
extent applicable to the humanity of the natural mechanisms of self-regulation
and self-reproduction? Than man is fundamentally different from millions of
other species of living organisms?..
And so on. All questions it is impossible to
list, and it is hardly necessary. Let's try to keep to one thing: not falling
neither into solipsism, or in vulgar materialism, we assume in the nature of a
certain structure and usefulness. Is it possible with the same minimum degree
of axiomatically to prevent human and humanity of such expediency? At least
potential?
And speaking in the context of this book: can it be
justified to prevent the existence of God as the source of structure and
expediency, not only in nature and the universe, but in the human and humanity?
Of course, you can try to "clean up"
philosophy and of any assumptions, and subjective preferences.
But then, as we have shown, even Marxism with his
belief in the objectivity exclusively of matter has no right to exist, and the
destiny of any pure philosophical thought remains only solipsism.
Thus, the existence of God-absolute in any
interpretation of not more unprovable, as the existence of the surrounding
material world. And the words "not more than unprovable" can be
formulated differently: "as provable".
Therefore, the assumption of the existence of God
is absolutely justified.
VI
But there is another question. To prevent the
objective existence of matter require our "tofiloski" the original
position. And do we have the following assumption - the existence of God? Maybe
"leave" the material world without him?
To answer this question again, remember what we
talked about in connection with the "scandal of philosophy": the core
of any philosophy is man and the subjective, the personal ,
dostovernosti in one way or another issue.
And such an important attribute of the human
person as moral, and will help us to find the answer to the question, do
we have the assumption of the existence of God to the same extent as the
assumption of existence of matter.
To deny the existence of morality in humans is
impossible. To interpret it can be different, and completely undeniable. This
concept is inextricably linked with the person and expresses the totality of
the spiritual attitudes of the latter.
However, the concept of "totality of the
spiritual attitudes" is very vague, so let's take a more in-depth analysis
of what we call morality.
Household goods often used the phrase
"immoral", but it is only a metaphor, similar to the more vulgar
statements - "headless" or "armless". It is clear that most
recent "terms" are statements not of the absence of the person
corresponding part of the body, and inability to think logically or repairing
household items.
We take as the terminology: if a man is and his
morality, and it is from the individual as an integral, as thinking or
mentality. And morality should not be confused with morality - morality may be
different for different social groups (exists "class morality", and
even "thieves morality"), and the concept of "morality"
refers only to the concept of "man".
Kant believed that morality is absolute,
universal, universally valid, having the form of a universal law "goodwill".
It with one hand. On the other hand, Kant believed that the principle of our
"goodwill" is the desire of turning maxims (personal "law")
in universal law. "Act as if the Maxim of your action should become a
universal law of nature".
Combining these two approaches, Kant developed
the basic concept of his "metaphysics of morals" is a categorical
imperative, identified with the "good will".
In terms of good, Kant could not agree more.
But, unfortunately, many people not only quite
sincerely commit evil, but so sincerely (subconsciously) want their "Maxim
became a universal law of nature. Similar arguments can be put forward against
the Kantian assertion that the practical expression of the categorical
imperative are reduced to the sense of duty to man and mankind.
You can give an example: when the children cry
because of the Gray Wolf ate little Red riding Hood, they are unlikely
subconscious compassion caused by any sense of duty. However, their cries, a
phenomenon exclusively of the moral order.
There is another example: the executioners, as a
rule, believe that doing their duty, and yet this profession cannot be
considered moral.
Therefore, the sense of duty is not a necessary
and sufficient practical manifestation of the totality of the spiritual
attitudes of mankind, which Kant called the categorical imperative.
So I suggest to use instead of the Kantian
categorical imperative the concept of moral imperative and to imply
underneath the totality of moral interpretation of Kant (absolute, universal,
universally valid, having the form of universal law and the nature of
"goodwill").
As for the characteristics of the practical
manifestations of the moral imperative, we will use a more modern term - humanism,
postulates a Supreme, self-sufficient and self-conscious, a person's
importance, priority of his personality.
VII
First of all, let's see what attitudes can be
considered to be humanistic.
Perhaps the most comprehensive (though not
exhaustive) enumeration of the modern components of the universal understanding
of humanity listed in article ISA Mainstream. To the spiritual foundations of
education and culture of the future. These components can be called and
practical manifestations of the moral imperative, and in this article they
called "mainstream" (from the English "main stream" or
"main stream"). Quote:
"The ethos of mainstream comprehensively
specifies the number of clear and basic norms, values, attitudes, not always
formalized or codified.
It includes the following 10 components:
- the value of individual freedom;
- the value of interpersonal and intergroup
tolerance;
- inadmissibility or even in displaced
situations, as a minimum, naisimpatichneyshie violence and aggression;
- the value of property and material wealth;
- respect for the work;
- respect for life;
non - discrimination of various kinds, the idea
of the principle of legal equality of people (this is the sense of
"equality" - which is not, of course, the identity of different
ethnic and cultural traditions;
reverence before the real altruism and sacrifice.
- a sense of natural values ("spontaneous,
"natural") diversity and, consequently, a sense of doubtfulness
artificial unificati;
- rethinking the dignity and value of nature,
"environmental idea."
Mainstream carries persistent allergic to all
ideas of spiritual, cultural, racial, ethnic and other exclusivity"...
End quote. But neither the
"mainstream"or the abstract humanism we could not stop, and that we
now understand in simple literary example.
VIII
In accordance with our definition of morality,
character "Odessa stories" Babel Mendel Creek (father Beni Creek), as
well as any man, had a certain moral attitudes.
But that's what this says about another character
"Odessa stories", "are You twenty-five years. If heaven and
earth were fastened rings, you grabbed the ring and pulled the sky to the
earth. And dad you have a drayman Mendel Creek. About what he thinks this dad?
He thinks about to drink a good glass of vodka, about to give someone in the
face, about their horses - and nothing more. You want to live, and he makes you
die twenty times a day."
No matter what "moral guidelines"
father Mendel Cry deserved condemnation even from his son benny is a
professional gangster. This attitude, according to the same laws of humanity,
has the right to exist along with its carrier. However, the translation of the
"life" of the plane in philosophy it does not stand, and that we now
understand in another example.
On the same philosophical seminar I once heard
someone say: "I trample under their feet the Kantian categorical
imperative". A situation arose, at first sight impossible. Indeed, if a
professional philosopher of some fundamental considerations "trampling
feet categorical imperative", how to convince him?
But really the question here is, as in the case
of acceptance or rejection of the objectivity of the world and the existence of
God, only in their original positions.
For clarity, let us consider another example. In
the most acute and brought to its logical absurdity form anti-humanistic
position occupied many of the heroes of the books of the Marquis de Sade, whose
"philosophy" was reduced approximately as follows:
"Look at the morality and ethics - there are
no rigorous proofs need to be good people there. Look at the nature of all
living beings each other devour. Look at the society - it is criminal, corrupt
and selfish. So why should I care about the middle, and generally to do someone
some good? In a world of evil no less than good, so I'm going to Rob, rape,
kill - I like that better. And if someone likes to help people - well, that's
his business. Don't let him get caught on my way"...
But actually we are in such a position in life we
see the application of the same principles of humanism, only in respect of one
single person - himself.
Hence, the main argument against the position of
masters such as the Marquis de Sade and his characters - that someday another
victim does not want to be robbed and raped, and will do the same with the
maniac-philosopher. Say, today me, tomorrow I will.
It turns out that antihumanism in conflict with
yourself - if you build the value of their own personality on the recognition
of the values of other individuals, then sooner or later the value of this
"Central" person will be questioned by others, and often in the order
of self-defense. Inevitably, there is a situation of perpetual war, which
greatly increases the likelihood of suffering and death the subject of
antihumanist.
We see the contradiction with "tofiloski
source positions, which we call "men among men". And allow his
character of the Marquis de Sade may only having declared antihumanism and
against himself.
And it is a logical absurdity, as solipsism, only
lying not in theoretical and in practical terms, and as a result have a much
wider range of "everyday" negative consequences from more or less
harmless masochism to registration in the mental hospital, and even to suicide.
Therefore, logic, and basic understanding of
peace in the household, "neighborly" sense dictates that we call
modern humanism. And brought to an absurd limit antihumanism is in line with
solipsism is a phenomenon of the same order and the same historical fate, rather
unenviable.
But if the situation with the philosophers who
try to "trample feet categorical imperative", a more or less clear,
the "philosophy of life" drayman (lombego cab) Mendel Scream
"live and work", and she, in varying degrees, followed by millions of
people.
And may, as we have seen, this problem in theory
easily solvable, but its practical aspect cannot be ignored. About the sources
and historical perspectives position "about to give someone in the
face" we have to talk throughout the book, in parallel with a review of
sources and historical perspectives of moral imperative.
IX
And to start this review with the question of
what (or rather who) is the source of moral imperative.
Remember the words of Bulgakov's Woland on
"the sixth proof of the existence of God", developed by Kant. Apparently,
this "sixth proof" meant "moral argument" that, although
the existence of God cannot be proved, it can and should be recognized.
"The moral argument" Kant was the
following: we have a commitment to excellence and happiness unattainable in
this world, so moral considerations require to recognize that the harmony of
happiness and perfection can be achieved, provided the immortality of the soul
and the existence of God.
Again, the tradition of championship Kant
stronger facts: one hundred years before him, this view was expressed by Blaise
Pascal, and in a more explicit form.
Due to our limited thought Pascal, we cannot know
whether God exists or not, but to choose one of the two versions we can. Get
something like a lottery: "I guessed right or not". What version to
choose? There is no doubt that God exists, because if you win we get
"eternal bliss", and in the case of loss, in fact, nothing to lose.
Thus, we together with Pascal and Kant went on
terminology, use of the word "humanism", "harmony of happiness
and perfection," "eternal bliss"...
And it is no coincidence.
Pascal and Kant is not simply considered
necessary existence of God as a source of harmony and appropriateness. They
considered this harmony and expediency it is in the moral aspect, and this is
for us the most important. Even such a highly controversial term, as
"eternal bliss", in any case implements primarily humanistic
installation.
Of course, the moral aspect is not a strict
logic. But, speaking about "the main question of philosophy", we saw
that when determining the worldview of the original positions of the latter is
powerless, and nothing but permanent "scandal"isn't waiting for us.
Therefore, it is necessary to stand on one side.
Based on all said about humanism and
antihumanism, I propose to follow the Pascal and Kant, and to accept the
existence of God necessary.
Correctly we did or not, trusting moral reasons -
will see to the end of the book, but for now we'll take as a given that the
Creator of the universe, the source of world harmony and appropriateness is
God, and acceptance of God's existence is just as important as the acceptance
of the existence of the material world.
And since we have defined the moral imperative as
a set of moral attitudes in the interpretation of Kant (absolute, universal,
universally valid, having the form of universal law and the nature of
"good will"), then take as another reality: God is the source of
moral imperative.
No internal contradictions in this position
there, so will rely on human intuition. Throughout the book we will
continuously "to confide algebra harmony" and if you see the logical
inconsistencies with our original positions, observe it directly.
So, with faith in the material world we believe
in God the Creator of the universe, the organizer of harmony and
appropriateness in the world, the source of the moral imperative.
As we have defined moral imperative postulates a
Supreme, self-sufficient and self-conscious, a person's importance, priority of
his personality. And the identity of the person, his personal dostovernosti in
one way or another the problem is the rod (at least the original position) of
any philosophy.
Hence, we can make one fundamental conclusion:
the moral imperative, explicitly or implicitly, is the core of any
philosophical system (with the exception of solipsism).
In the case of vulgar materialism (Marx,
Feuerbach) in the role of God is matter itself, and the role of the moral
imperative of socio-economic relations and cultural-historical tradition. But
we have already determined that the assumption of the existence of God is as
necessary as the assumption of existence of matter, so vulgar materialism for us
as unacceptable as solipsism.
X
Perhaps it is time to move from theory to the
study of the practical manifestations of the moral imperative.
First of all it is necessary to formulate the
most important for us postulate: equivalent alternatives to religion as
the expression of the moral imperative today is not, and the study of
philosophical issues in moral aspect sooner or later leads to theology.
Generally speaking, the concept of moral
imperative more widely than any religion, even the scale of Christianity, Islam
or Buddhism. Theoretically, he doesn't need any registration of religious or
moral attitudes.
But if we want to translate our research from the
theoretical plane to the practical, we are without religious context will not
cover it. Why - explain.
The most versatile is the definition of religion
as the understanding of the connection of man with God. This connection is
realized in many aspects, but at the moment the most important for us is moral.
Kant believed that the religion of the knowledge
of our duties as divine commandments, and not in the form of arbitrary, random
for myself regulations of some outside force, but as essential laws of any free
will.
Add to all that is said about religion is another
word "worldview", and understand that we have the right to speak
about religion as the moral basis of personality.
The same we have identified and moral imperative.
Making elementary "substitution", we can say the following: based on
moral assumptions, the transition from General philosophical context in
religious, in theory, possible, and appropriate.
But in practice, we gain important - credibility
and accessibility.
The last statement may make me accusations of
"populism"and the need to bring our research to the public must stop.
XI
The fact that against the "abstract"
humanism is a serious argument made by Boris Diabecon the review on my book
"Jesus of Nazareth's life and teachings".
In the book were these words: "the twentieth
century no genocides and failed to discredit the ideals of humanism. Let's not
confuse humanism with democracy: "democratic values" until they show
their performance is not everywhere. The main achievement of humanity can be
expressed as follows: the life and personality of each person is sacred and
everyone is entitled to their own opinion".
On this Boris Georgievich noted as follows:
"In this formula is the source of all pathologies "humanism". Noble
declared intention to attempt to protect against force effects dissidents,
foreigners and weak, but the creative members of society, it automatically
extends the concept of "man" and those who consciously, or obeying a
natural inclination to exclude himself from the human race, choosing the path
of eternal perdition. While the liberal mind she pats them on the back until
you bite him personally, liberal, finger or anything else".
This quote from the review is not antihumanism. It
is the realization that in the modern world, far from perfect, any humanist
surrounded babaevskii Mendalami Cries, thinking primarily about giving someone
in the face". It is not surprising that the object of their "goal
setting" is primarily an alien element - humanist broadcasting something
obscure about universal values.
Such "worldly" contradiction insoluble
in a particular historical period, because of Mandela Cries, as a rule, more
than philosophers. And separately, the average wagon the driver is physically
stronger than the average philosopher.
But in the future a way out of this situation for
humanism and humanists one to Express his doctrine in a public form, is able to
penetrate into the hearts of millions. If not Mendeley Cries, their descendants.
This, at least, a historic chance. How
real he is, we have yet to speak. But more convincing and public expression of
the moral imperative than religious, mankind for several thousand years of
civilization invented, and is unlikely to be invented in the near future.
So I'm in this book (as well as in others) refuse
to "pseudo-scientific" language.
Therefore, I do not drink those special
philosophical terms that can adequately replace common expressions (such as
"axiology - the system of values").
So we go from the moral imperative to religion,
from philosophy to theology.
Chapter II
Christianity
I
The religious worldview of the people belonging to the European
civilization, in the last two thousand years is inextricably linked with
Christianity. This fact, and from him we will not escape. In the East there are
their counterparts, but we will begin by looking at the practical
manifestations of the moral imperative from Europe - this will be more clearly
and effectively.
Even almost to each of the ten cited in the previous Chapter, the
provisions of the "mainstream" AA Pinsk we can find a quote from the
New Testament, translating the notion of abstract humanism (General
philosophical or moral imperative, not less abstract) in Christian spirituality
deeply rooted in the subconscious of millions of people.
Of course, attempts to replace Christianity with something
"new" would have been numerous. Remember the slogan of the French
revolution "liberty, equality, fraternity" or communism is "from
each according to ability, to each according to needs". In reality all it
was was another speculation.
The teaching of Jesus Christ was and remained the basic system around
which to build their doctrines the vast majority of European philosophers. Break
with Christianity began to declare many of them (most famous in this respect,
Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, and Marx) with only the first half of the nineteenth
century, that is, in comparison with two thousand years of Christianity
recently.
What did it - we know. Marxist social utopia in the USSR is not the only
example. Sartre and Barthes with their "death of the subject" and
"poststructuralism" in the end came to cooperate with the Communist
party, and Heidegger, as we know, in the years 1933-1945 was a member of
Hitler's NSDAP...
The moral imperative, "cleaned" from Christianity, proved to
be fertile ground for political speculations. And the anarchists, and the
military "junta", as a rule, also exploiting the concepts of good and
justice.
In this regard, revealing the historical fate of the teachings of the
philosophers of the so-called "Russian religious Renaissance". They
managed to turn an unconscious (or taken for granted) using the Christian
understanding of the moral imperative of European philosophers in conscious and
structured forms. This is of great importance to the philosophy of NF Fedorov,
V.S. Soloviev, S.L., Frank, N.O. Lossky, N.A. Berdyaev...
But their teachings are closely associated with Russian Orthodoxy, was
waiting for a tragic fate: they were contemporaries and actual opponents of
Lenin and Plekhanov.
The philosophers of the "Russian Renaissance" did not create
parties and preached to the victory of socialism in one country, but they
relied on a much more ancient and deep-seated tradition of the teachings of
Jesus Christ.
And they got what can be called a bitter absurdity: in the early
twentieth century when the collision of the teachings of Christ with the
teachings of the minor German philosopher first lost, and it took a few
"stolen generations"to the story again has put everything in its
place.
Like Christianity and Marxism is a doctrine not comparable in importance
or scale, and yet the vast majority of "Orthodox" of the Russian
people in 1917, followed by Marxists and began enthusiastically to destroy the
temples.
That was speculative substitution of Christianity other subconscious
manifestation of a moral imperative - the idea of social justice is a fact, but
a little explaining. Because such ideas permeated and Christianity! What
happened then, in the early twentieth century?
Over this terrible historical lessons we still have to work and work. Now,
after many decades of a ban on such research, we have again and again to view
the formation of Christian dogma and try to understand why the Russians in 1917
took Marxism as a deliverance not only from the king, but from Orthodoxy.
Not only the Russians in the early thirties of the twentieth century in
a similar situation in Germany, and this led to no less tragic consequences. Not
only destroyed six million Jews, but also for the German people.
II
And the current situation poses a moral problem with unprecedented
sharpness. The fact that never before in its history, humanity could not (at
least theoretically) be destroyed one lucky nuclear maniac.
Yes, nuclear weapons has a huge number of degrees of protection. Yes,
nuclear war to provoke a challenge. And still remember the accident at the
Chernobyl NPP without any malicious intent, from one failure of circumstances,
multiplied by irresponsibility, depopulated whole regions, and the number of
genetic faults in subsequent generations unpredictable.
In Chernobyl there was not a catastrophic explosion or full release of
nuclear fuel, and the wind carried the radioactive cloud in the direction of
populated areas. And if there was still evil intent, and considering the
absolute emission fuel, and the "right" direction of the wind?
The potential danger of nuclear destruction, from the sixties of the
twentieth century hanging over humanity, cannot be underestimated.
I think it's time to cure sickness "geocentrism" (the raising
of humanity to the rank of a single and a priori immortal civilization), which
suffered from many philosophers, afford to ignore or to deny the Christian
moral principles.
Remember Baratynsky:
Though, taking the wrong flight
And reverse paths are not acquiring,
Star of heaven in the infinite depth of leaks;
May replace it by another;
Not seen earth damage to one,
That does not strike the ear of the world
Drop her a distant howl,
As in the heights of ether
Her sisters newborn light
And heaven enthusiastic Hello!
Unfortunately, in the same way on any other planets will not notice and
the destruction of the Earth.
All ideas about the ascent of humanity to the different scientific and
technical heights must be continuously poveritsya "moral tuning fork, or
at any time may cause the destruction of our civilization. And it will happen
with the same "existential" commonplace, as in the novel "the
Plague albert Camus.
Vulgar materialism, in the hands of the Marquis de Sade seemed funny
literary toy in the hands of Lenin was an ideological bomb that brought the
world to the military dictatorships. Extreme Islamic fundamentalism lead to
bombings not only ideological, but also quite real.
What philosophical system will be armed potential nuclear maniac?
III
So don't play with fire and try to replace Christianity with something
"new". Starting from the deadly doctrine of "nuclear
deterrence", say: there is a tool "moral restraint",
time-tested, and in our book we will work only with him.
Of course, it is not necessary to go to extremes types of statements:
"Philosophy must be subservient to theology, but not a slave" (L.P.
Karsavin). The use of the terms "servant" and "slave",
which usually differ only in the form of wages, to determine the relationship
of philosophy and theology, to put it mildly, incorrect.
To put it differently: the Christian religion is the core of any
European philosophy, its moral (ultimately, personal) basis, and theology is a
science on this basis.
In light of this approach, the question of which of the Sciences -
philosophy or theology is more important, as abstract as a question, what color
is more important than white or red. On the one hand, the red color from the
point of view of physics is part of the white, on the other hand, formally the
white color does not exist, as it is composed of the seven colors of the
rainbow...
So we will not delve into a discussion about what is more important is
the philosophy or theology. Recognize that both Sciences entitled to equal the
existence of and refer to their objects of study - the moral imperative and the
Christian religion.
First of all we must examine itself the right of European
philosophy based on Christian understanding of the moral imperative.
Simply put - is it true what we know about Christ? True if the gospel is
historical evidence about it? True if the New Testament? Maybe the Marxists,
who announced Christ legend, I must say thank you for what they "corrected
age-old delusion of mankind"?
However, the palm of the Marxists in this matter is questionable: the
historicity of Jesus Christ is not recognized even Voltaire, and in the early
nineteenth century ideas developed Arthur Drews, and David Strauss, but
actually it does not change.
And in order to show the validity of Christianity as the spiritual base
of the European understanding of the moral imperative, we have to analyze the
authenticity of the New Testament and the information contained therein.
Have to start with historical and biographical review - we will place
emphasis on a number of fundamental points that we will need to determine the
authenticity of the New Testament, and for further theological studies.
IV
First briefly recall the history of the first century, associated with
Christianity.
It
is believed that Jesus Christ was born at the junction of 1 BC and 1 ad In any
case, the chronology is exactly and 25 December 2000 or January 7, 2001
seemingly had to be fulfilled 2000 years since the birth of Jesus.
But
let us recall a well known fact: Jesus was born during the Jewish king Herod
the Great, who, having heard from the Magi about the birth of Jesus and seeing
this as a threat to his Royal power, he ordered to cut all infants in and
around Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16).
Herod
the Great died in the spring of 750 years from the Foundation of Rome, and the
monk Dionysius Small (VI century) the chronology of "Christmas"
started from December 25, 753 years (easier to conditionally accept 754, from
the Foundation of Rome.
Turning
on the chronology of Dionysius, which we still use today, Herod died in 4 BC,
Recall the rule of translation: 1 year ad - 754 from the Foundation of Rome, 1
BC - 753:2 BC - 752 etc.
Accordingly,
Christ was born not later than the spring of 4 BC. It turns out the calendar
paradox - two-thousand-year anniversary of Jesus took place much earlier than
2000. And as for how absurd it sounds, the phrase "Christ is born at least
4 years before the birth of Christ", I do not say.
So,
in 2000 we actually celebrated only round date very strange chronology,
introduced in 525 year by the monk Dionysius Small.
Let's
try to understand what was happening - couldn same Dionysius, the originator of
the first meeting of the "Apostolic and Conciliar rules", in fact,
one of the creators of "Holy tradition", just to be mistaken with the
year of Christ's birth.
V
To
do this, first try to figure out when Jesus was crucified because of his
crucifixion know much more than about his birth.
All
the evangelists - Matthew, mark, Luke, and John agree that he was crucified on
Friday (Matt. 27:62; Mark. 15:42; LK. 23:54; Jn. 19:14). But what specifically?
This
Friday occurs on one of the days of the Jewish Passover. The first day of
Passover - the 14th of the month "Nisan" (the first month in the
Jewish calendar), as in the old Testament: "In the first month, on the
fourteenth day of the month is the Passover of the Lord" (Lev. 23:5).
All
evangelists, but John suggests that the famous last Supper, the last supper of
Jesus before the crucifixion, was the first day of Passover: "then came
the day of unleavened bread, which was supposed to slay the Paschal lamb"
(LK. 22:7). On the same say and mark and Matthew (MK. 14:12; Matt. 26:17). It
means that the last Supper took place the 14th of Nisan, and Christ was
crucified on the next day, the 15th.
The
words of the Evangelist John on the day of the crucifixion: "it was the
Friday before the Passover" (Jn. 19:14) contrary to many other testimonies
of the evangelists of the Paschal character of the last Supper, so there most
likely is philological inaccuracy John could talk about Friday as one of the
days of the Passover.
On
this subject, perhaps, one could argue, but the inaccuracy of the gospel of
John in the middle of the second century drew attention to his disciple
Polycarp of Smyrna, and was led to this subject dispute with the Bishop of
Rome. Note that Polycarp was not to defend the point of view of his teacher,
John, and took the Dating of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which was not personally acquainted.
This largely confirms its objectivity.
In
the end, thanks to Polycarp Dating of the last Supper, the 14th of Nisan, and
the crucifixion of the fifteenth, already in the fourth century became
generally accepted and based on it so far calculated the date of the Christian
Easter.
Remained
relate the Jewish calendar of the Roman (European) and see what year the 15th
of Nisan fell on a Friday. Dionysius did by putting restrictions in the form of
a certain well-known fact that Jesus was crucified when the Procurator of
Judea, Pontius Pilate spoke even Tacitus and Josephus), and Pilate was
Procurator from 26 to
In
these years there were only two Friday 15 Nisan - 30 and 34, had to choose one
of them.
So,
30 or 34 year?
In
early Christian times there was a legend that Pilate for the death of Jesus was
summoned to Rome by the Emperor, gave an explanation and was dismissed. It was
even said Justin the Philosopher and Tertullian.
But
we know that was the Emperor Tiberius, and, of course, he would not have
demoted him for someone else's punishment, especially a preacher. Besides, the
Roman emperors are extremely hostile to the emergence of new religions and
cults.
However,
in the middle ages it was customary to provide the bloody rulers harsh, but
fair. It is not surprising that the "loyal subject" of Dionysius the
Small desire to choose the date of the crucifixion, closer to the dismissal of
a "good" Emperor "evil" of the Procurator.
And
further including the famous tradition called "the age of Christ."
Pay
attention to the most important testimony of the Evangelist Luke: "In the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was being
Governor of Judea... was the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in
the wilderness" (LK. 3:1-2).
Since
then, John the Baptist began to baptize people. After some time (what exactly
is Luke did not say), and Jesus was baptized, which meant the beginning of his
Ministry - preaching activity.
Then
Luke says, "Jesus began His Ministry, was about thirty years old..." (LK.
3:23). So, not before the 15th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, Jesus was
about 30 years.
The
previous Emperor, Augustus, died in the 14th year. It turns out that Jesus was
about thirty years not earlier than 28 years.
The
Ministry of Christ is most fully described by the Evangelist John. Jesus began
his preaching for a few days before the Jewish Passover (Jn. 2:12). Then he
mentioned three of the feast of the Passover (Jn. 5:1; 6:4; 11:55). Thus, from
the first Passover to the last (tragic) three years have passed. Hence the
famous "age of Christ" - thirty years before the baptism (Luke), plus
three years after (the gospel of John). Thirty-three years.
So,
before Dionysius Small (and before us) had a problem: if you select as the date
of the crucifixion 30 year Ministry of Christ does not fit in three years, even
if he was baptized in the same 28 year when began operations John the Baptist.
And
if you choose to 34 year, it happened to a large "reserve", so how
could Jesus be baptized and later 28 years. For example, John began to baptize
in the 28th year, and Christ was baptized only in 31-m Why not?
Dionysius
and chose the 34 year. According to his calculations, everything was
"normal" - Jesus was born at the junction of 1 B.C. and
And
about the fact that Christ was born under Herod the Great, Dionysius could
forget. Maybe he didn't know the date of the death of king Herod. Or maybe
(most likely), he chose to focus on the testimony of the 15th year of the reign
of Tiberius and the date of "dismissal" of Pontius Pilate...
But
we do nothing we will not forget, and we will discuss further.
VI
As
we know, Jesus was born when Herod the Great, that is not later than 4 BC, Can
we determine the "lower limit" the date of his birth?
Little,
very little Evangelical about Christmas. Some researchers even try to rely on
the testimony of "the star of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:2), attracting highly divergent
data on comets, meteor streams and the "parade of planets". But such
astronomical phenomena occur almost every year. Have we nothing more can not
help?
No,
there is another important evidence of Luke: "In that year he went out
from Emperor Augustus commanded to make a census of all the earth. This census
was the first in the reign of Quirinius of Syria" (LK. 3:1-2).
The
census of the Roman Empire were necessary for the efficient collection of
taxes, and therefore held periodically, every five years, with each new censor
(the so-called consistent with the Rome office). Any census had a legal basis
in the form of an Imperial decree.
Thus,
evidence of the command in August to conduct a census, we can not help - plus
or minus five years, the spread is too large.
But
we will help the historical fact that Quirinius (some Roman sources - Quintile)
became Governor of Syria in 6 BC, It narrows the range of possible year of
Christ's birth to two years: 6-4 BCE
And
the year of the crucifixion?
Taking
a 34 year, we do not fit in "the age of Christ" - if Jesus was born
in 4 B.C., he was in
It
seems that should be taken as the year of the crucifixion 30, but what to do
with the evidence of Luke about Jesus ' Ministry began a 28 year - in the
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius? "In the fifteenth year of the
reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was being Governor of Judea...
was the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness"
(LK. 3:1-2).
The
Ministry of Jesus does not fit in two years. Besides, the "age of
Christ" then get thirty-two, and if he is a 28 year was thirty, he was
born in 3 BC (don't forget to deduct from age zero year)? And we found that
after 4 years BC he could not have been born.
What
can you do?
It
turns out, just something to read "Lives of the twelve Caesars Suetonius. Tiberius
became co-Regent in August during the life of the latter, not 14, and 13 year! Moreover,
"answered" Tiberius is for the province, that is, to the Jews, his
reign began in the 13th year, and the fifteenth year of the reign was not 28,
and 27 year. In the Roman Empire was not yet an established tradition of the
transfer of Imperial power by inheritance, and this "joint rule"
stressed the continuity of the reign of Tiberius.
Here
we have "found" that year, which we lacked. Consider:
27
year Jesus was about thirty years old. Accepted without any "about" -
was thirty.
He
was crucified after three years, i.e. in 30 year. So at the moment of the
crucifixion he was 33 years old - the age of Christ."
Subtract
from 30 years thirty-three, consider the "zero" year and get 4 B.C.,
the birth when Herod the Great. Everything converges.
Hence,
we can with certainty say, the birth of Jesus Christ: 4 BC, the crucifixion:
In
fact we can say more precisely. In the beginning of XIX century astronomical
tables was calculated that 15 Nisan 30 years corresponds to 7 April.
Therefore,
Jesus could have been born in the second half of 5 BC, and early 4 B.C. In any
case, the death on 7 April 30, as they say in the obituaries, "followed by
the 34th year of life, although the words "death" and
"obituary" for Christ is hardly applicable.
So
we have the opportunity to observe another tradition and leave the generally
accepted dates of Christmas: Catholic - December 25, Orthodox - 7 January. Because
collegiate dictionary, 1997, "legitimized" 4 BC as the most likely
date for Jesus ' birth (and more modern encyclopedia is saying), then take the
"Orthodox" version.
So,
the most fair and compromise in both historical and theological terms are dates
in the life of Jesus: 7 January 4 BC - April 7,
The
exact date of the crucifixion, 07.04.30,, can be regarded as proven
historical fact.
In
any case, once again count on years: if Jesus was born in the early 4 BC, 1
year he was at the beginning of the 3 BC, 2 years in 2 BC, 3 years - 1 BC - 4
years-1 ad, 5 years at 2, and so on. As we can see, in order to know the age of
Christ, in any year of our era, we must add 3 years. In the beginning of 30, he
was 33, and in early 1997 - 2000 years.
However,
most people still perceive as self-evident and that Christ was born a few years
before the birth of Christ, and that anniversary is celebrated at the junction
of 2000-2001. How can you not think about the enormous power of tradition...
VII
In order to understand what the old Testament tradition relied Christ in
their activities, remember that the Foundation of the Jewish religion was a
belief in God is not a specific person, but people in General.
But for many centuries generations of the ancient Jews lived under the
rule of the invaders and died, not waiting on God for help in the fight against
the occupiers. In the VI century BC Judah was conquered by the Persians. Then
the Jews managed to briefly restore state autonomy and to 516 BC even rebuild
the temple in Jerusalem. In the IV century B.C. Judea was conquered by
Alexander the great, then ruled by the Egyptian Ptolemies, the Syrian Seleucids
in the second century BC, was a popular uprising under the leadership of the Maccabees
and the short period of independence (140-63 BC), then the Roman occupation,
the restoration of autonomy when Herod the Great and deprivation.
During the time Jesus Christ began a continuous series of uprisings
against Roman rule (it is believed that Barabbas, Pilate released to freedom
instead of Jesus, was one of the leaders of the resistance"). In
Not surprisingly, the decline and death of States have created the
Jewish people have some spiritual vacuum that could be filled only hope for the
future disposal of continuing slavery and humiliation. This led to a very
specific result - the expectation of the Messiah.
The prophecies about the coming Savior dedicated to the books of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve "minor" prophets, written
in the VIII-VI centuries BC, However, the prophetic tradition in the West has
always been very strong - even in the Psalms of David, which belongs rather to
the "literary" part, there are many prophecies. And in the Pentateuch
Moses periodically serves as a predictor of the fate of his people.
Prophecies about the Messiah were very specific, even called the
tentative dates. The latter was left open to interpretation, but the Messiah,
no doubt, was:
to be a Jew (Gen. 22:18; Num. 24:17);
- to be called Jesus (Zech. 3:1);
to come from the lineage of David (ISA. 11:1; Zech. 13:1);
to be the Son of God, conceived by the Virgin from God (PS. 2:7; IP.
7:14);
- to be called the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13-14);
to come to the people (cf. 3:37);
to be born in Bethlehem (Micah. 5:2);
to accept the adoration of the Magi (ISA. 60:3);
- to visit Egypt (Hos. 11:1);
to be relevant to the city of Nazareth (the Court. 13:5; IP. 11:1-2);
- to perform miracles and heal (ISA. 29:18; 61:1-2)
to tell Proverbs (ISA. 77:2);
- to enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9:9);
to be sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12);
- to be tortured or to be executed (Is. 53:5; jer. 11:19; Dan. 9:26; PS.
21:17-19);
to rise and rule the world (PS. 2:8);
to bring the world a New Covenant (jer. 31:31-33);
to judge all Nations (ISA. 42:1-4);
- to save the people of Israel (ISA. 25:8).
Jesus walked in the footsteps of his earthly father, Joseph, and the
beginning of his preaching activity was a carpenter (MK. 6:3). Despite the
"proletarian" profession, he led his descent from king David, that
were in Judea quite frequent - the country was small, David had many sons (2
Sam. 3:2-6), and for a thousand years his family has diverged greatly.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but grew up and lived for many years in
Nazareth (Matt. 2:23), a small city in the Galilee region in Northern Israel. More
precisely, the Roman province of Judea.
Surnames in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire was not, therefore, in
his native city people used to call by name or occupation. There was also a
respectful form of address - the name of the father or the founder of the
genus. Jesus, therefore, for "eye" might call a "carpenter"
or "carpenter's son", "eye" - "son of Joseph" (in
Hebrew - "Ben Joseph"), and in special cases - "son of
David".
When you move to another location the name was usually added to the name
of his native city. Hence the name, which was written on the sign, nailed to
the cross, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn. 19:19).
Generally speaking, the word "Nazarene" has the additional
meaning of "people who have dedicated themselves to the Lord" (JUD.
13:5), and the consonance of "Nazareth-Nazareth" was used by the
disciples of Jesus in order to emphasize his Messianic identity.
But in fact, the usual Jewish rules Christ was called Jesus of Nazareth
(LK. 4:34). In more modern translations - Nazareth or even Nazareth. It all
means the same - origin from the town of Nazareth. Therefore, in order not to
depend on translators, I suggest that the most indisputable option - Jesus of
Nazareth.
He himself was often called by the old Testament tradition of the Son of
Man (Matt. 10:23; 16:28; LK. 9:56; 19:10 and others)
It is clear why Jesus began his Ministry (preaching), relatively late,
thirty years old. In order to thoroughly study the old Testament in those days
required a much longer time than now - interpretation were mostly oral and
extremely confusing. And Jesus was not enough to know from the old Testament
only the Law of Moses - was required was a clear reference to a great number of
prophets and prophecies, he declared himself the Messiah, the Savior of the
Jewish people!
Bitter historical irony - that for him and his people did not recognize.
Despite the old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would first be executed
(Is. 53:5; jer. 11:19 and others), and only then will rise again and rule the
world in the beginning of our era the vast majority of Jews have a stereotype
of the Messiah as some sort of Archangel slaying a fiery sword of the hated
Roman occupiers.
And Jesus was "only" a former carpenter, who died a shameful
death. Stress - death, disgrace to the Jews far more than the Romans, for
"cursed before God just hanging on the tree" (Deut. 21:23).
And when Jesus of Nazareth April 7, 30, was crucified, the cause for
which he went to the cross, there were not many chances for the historic
triumph.
So does not cause confusion his requests to God on the night before his
arrest in the garden of Gethsemane, "carry past the Cup" (Matt.
26:42; LK. 22:42).
And the tragic meaning of his cry on the cross: "my God, My God! Why
hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27:46) leaves no doubt - it's almost a
verbatim quote from the Psalms (PS. 21:2), which further States: "Far from
my salvation the words of my cry. Oh my God! I cry in the daytime and You not
hear me at night and I have no peace" (PS. 21:3).
Grounds to doubt that in the future Jesus really were. Students were not
enough, and neither talented organizer, or "charismatic" none of them
shone.
The first disciple of Peter, except the lack of education (he was a
professional fisherman), was still weak. Remember, he three times denied
Christ, when the Savior was arrested? (Matt. 26:69-75; MK. 14:66-72; LK.
22:56-61; Jn. 18:15-27).
John, son of Zebedee, who is also the Evangelist, the beloved disciple,
has been very strong in the written word on paper, but organizational data is
unlikely to have.
James, brother of Christ, or "charisma" of Jesus, nor his
knowledge not possessed. It is often confused with the Apostle James, the elder
of the sons of Zebedee, but he actually got involved in the
"movement" only after the crucifixion of his older brother and has
been in the community a place of honor only as "the Lord's brother"
(Gal. 1:19; acts. 12:17).
However, after the death of Jesus, Peter and James, his successor. In
fact, Christianity was a sect of Judaism, one of the many that existed in
Jerusalem at that time.
The founder of this sect, Jesus of Nazareth, had no chance to remain in
the memory of his people, neither Christ, nor even one of the "small"
of the old Testament prophets type of Zechariah because he himself is nothing
written't leave.
Besides, it was then formed hard Judaism, the Jewish nation rallied in
the face of mortal danger, not less than in times of Auschwitz. New religious
movements and sects nation was divided, were mercilessly persecuted by the
Sanhedrin (Jn. 11:48), and subconsciously rejected Patriotic configured part of
society.
However, James and Peter firmly believed that preaching should be only
in Judea, and only among the Jews. About the failure of their activity says
that when in Jerusalem in 62 year started another rebellion against the Romans,
Christians, preachers of non-violence, were "traitors and
Compromisers", and the crowd of rebels Jacob was killed.
But in the early thirties of the first century on the historical scene
appeared to the Apostle Paul.
One of the twelve apostles, Paul is not. Its history is very
interesting: people unfamiliar with Jesus, the original active opponent of
Christianity who participated in the stoning of Stephen (acts. 7:58), some time
later took on Christian ideas and fully dedicated to Christ. The Apostle, by
the way, he himself declared.
That Paul was within ten to twenty years to create a powerful Church
organization and to spread Christianity on almost the entire territory of the
Roman Empire.
It is a remarkable fact that, apart from the Christian Church, a
Christian theology. By the early 60-ies of the first century Christianity was
already a coherent religious and organizational system.
Despite the declarative negation strict observance of the law of Moses,
the image of Jesus Christ in the theology of the Apostle Paul differs little
from the old Testament Messiah. The only difference is that, according to Paul,
Christ came to save not only the Jews, but all mankind.
Paul was an idealist, but a pragmatist (concept, as we see, is quite
compatible at that time), and realized that any complication of the image of
Jesus Christ will only hurt the young Church. It was enough to make the
approach to Jesus as the Savior, the Messiah, the Anointed of God, ranked in
the heavenly hierarchy above the highest of the archangels, "the right
hand of God" (in modern terms, right).
According to the teachings of Paul, the first coming of Jesus Christ
confirmed that the old Covenant has been fulfilled, the Messiah came, atoned
for our "old Testament" sins, suffered for us and ascended into
heaven. And not the Law of Moses governs our spiritual world, and faith in
Jesus Christ, that is, in fact, that our Savior, Jesus. And we must first
perform the covenants of Christ to love one another and do good to others.
By the way, referring to this, he declared the Jewish circumcision is
not obligatory for Christians. Practical Apostle understood that to please the
Gentiles it was too burdensome and painful, this procedure in adulthood...
Then, in full accordance with the Gospels taught by the Apostle Paul,
Christ ascended into heaven, gave us time to believe and to live according to
his commandments, and then he will come a second time and will rule the world
(1 Cor. 15:23).
Note that Paul managed to convince Christians that the next coming of
the Savior could not happen today and not tomorrow, and maybe not in this life
or the next generation.
But in this regard, the Apostle Paul had to overcome the resistance of
not only the Roman and Jewish authorities, but "senior" fellow
Christian, especially Peter and James. The idea of Paul that the Christian
doctrine of the goodness and love, together with the Jewish concept of a
unified and invisible God will have wide resonance precisely spiritually
corrupt pagan world, none of them took. Moreover, the rights for Paul
considered the Apostle did not recognize.
Here's what he says on this subject in his letter to the Galatians:
"When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face
because he was to be blamed. For before that certain from James, he ate with
the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing
the circumcision. Together with him were false and other Jews, so that even
Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
But when I saw that they are not acting according to the truth of the
Gospel, I said unto Peter at all: if thou, being a Jew, live as a heathen, and
not in the Jews ' language, then why the Gentiles are forced to live in the
Jews ' language? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles;
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law (of Moses
- SZ), but only by faith in Jesus Christ, and we have believed in Jesus
Christ... for by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.
If, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also are
found sinners, is therefore Christ the Minister of sin? No. For if I build
again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Through the
law I died to the law, to live for God. I Salaspils Christ, and I no longer
live, but Christ lives in me. And I now live in the flesh I live by faith in
the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the
grace of God : for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in
vain" (Gal. 2:11-21).
As we can see, the position of Paul in this short episode is described
quite consistently and logically. His conflict with Peter was more ideological
than political or economic, and after much debate, Paul went to preach in Asia
Minor (modern Turkey).
The logic and sequence position of the Apostle Paul, no doubt, played a
role in the fact that this brilliant organizer by the end of his life, managed
to create a Church community in many major cities of the Roman Empire. Moreover,
there is a Church legend, Paul persuaded Peter to his right, and the latter
became head of the community in Rome.
The latter, however, is very doubtful, although the popes because of the
words of Christ: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
Church" (Matt. 16:18) declared himself the successor of Peter, not Paul,
and in the official list of popes in the first place is always worth the
Apostle Peter. We will have the opportunity to more carefully analyze the MOF.
16:18.
According to legend, the Apostle Paul in Rome during the Jewish pogroms
of the Emperor Nero (64-65,) beheaded. Seems to be true, because crucify him
had no right - although he was a Jew, but a Roman citizen. The city of Tarsus
in the province of Cilicia, where Paul was born, gave this "saving"
status.
Concluding our brief historical and biographical review, say that the
Apostle John the Theologian relatively survived the pogroms of the sixties and
"escaped" a reference to the island of Patmos, and then settled in
Ephesus. He survived all the apostles, and died in another era - at the
junction of the I and II centuries.
X
The proof of the authenticity of the Gospels is not an easy task, as in
the original, no gospel, no General Epistle is not reached us. The earliest
list of New Testament books, which offers modern science date back to the IV
century.
However,
as evidence of the authenticity of the Gospels can, paradoxically, lead to
numerous contradictions in them.
The
Gospels were written by different people for many years after the crucifixion
of Jesus, and the contradictions just shows their truthfulness. Of course, in
conditions of incomplete knowledge. But if frankly invented " it would be
very smoothly, and any conflict would be argued.
Yes and it is unlikely that within a few decades of the first century
there were so many literary geniuses of the authors of the books of the New
Testament, together vidumavi such a complex character, like Jesus, have agreed
among themselves on key theological questions, but described him in our own
way, with many chronological and conceptual contradictions.
And yet...
"Look, Matthew, Luke, mark and John - company idlers gathered at
the party, they organize a competition, think of the main character, briefly
recite the story forward. The rest depends on the abilities of each. Then four
options checked in the workshop. Matthew is quite realistic, but pinched line
Messiahship, mark - not bad, but not gracefully, Luke writes best of all, it is
impossible not to admit it, John the philosophical bias towards... In General,
the seminar and join the others, take a read of coursework, when the guys know
what all happened, it's too late, Paul had already traveled to Damascus, Pliny
began its investigation on behalf of concerned Emperor, the Legion of writers
of the Apocrypha pretend that they, too, know enough... Peter takes too much
himself in the head and seriously himself, John threatens that tell it like it
really was, Peter and Paul adapts his arrest, John chain in a chain on the
island of Patmos, and the poor hallucinations grasshopper sits on the headboard
of the bed, remove the locust, stop these tubes, where so much blood... Its
starting to chastity: the drunkard, sclerotic... What if in fact this was
so?"
This is a quote from the novel by Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum".
It is unlikely, of course, the position of the hero of the novel, making
the above reasoning, enjoys the sympathy of the author. Rather, there is a
Cartesian "radical usamanee".
In accordance with the methodology of Descartes, "doubt" and
we assume that Jesus Christ is fictional. But the question arises: if fictional, then what?
Not so many options, and
I propose to consider each of them.
XI
Suppose Jesus Christ
somewhere in the middle of the first century made up of people who had no
relationship to the Christian Church, and nowhere in the New Testament is not
mentioned.
But, first, a
hypothetical "inventor" had to have such extensive contacts in Judea
and use of such unquestioned authority that his invention was taken up by a
large number of "gullible", and for the shortest possible time (ten
to twenty years) based on it was a strong and extensive Church organization.
And the "forger"by doing tremendous organizational and propaganda
work, managed to stay in the shade and not play any role in life, in fact he
created the Church. It's very strange.
Secondly, no one doubts
the historicity of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (approx. 130-202), analysis of
Scripture and the originator of the New Testament. Irenaeus, as we know, was a
disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (about 80-about 169), and that, in turn, was a
disciple of the Apostle John.
We have a chain of
witnesses, which stretches from Irenaeus to Jesus Christ - the Apostle John was
the beloved disciple of the latter (Jn. 19:26).
Therefore, none of the
"outside" could not invent Christ.
Then suppose that Christ,
along with the entire "chain of witnesses" invented Irenaeus of
Lyons.
But he was not the first
Bishop of Lyons, his predecessor was executed during the reign of Emperor Marcus
Aurelius, that is, the Christian Church existed long before Irenaeus.
Therefore, Irenaeus of Lyons to invent Jesus, Polycarp, John and the other
could not.
For the same reason
Christ could not invent and Polycarp of Smyrna in the second century the Church
had become, and Christians were attacked by lions.
He could think of Christ
in 80-90th years of the first century the Apostle John the Theologian. In 111
year the Emperor Trajan answered the request of the writer Pliny the Younger,
Governor of Bithynia, what to do with widespread in the province of
Christianity. It is unlikely that the Christianity of the Jews in such a short
time managed to be widely distributed in Bithynia (North-West Asia Minor).
Strange that John in his
hypothetical "falsification of the New Testament" has taken such a
significant place to the Apostle Paul. If the Church on the basis of his
"inventions" was organized by John himself, and the role of himself
in the New Testament he certainly took would be appropriate. Or, at least, would
represent himself as a mediator between Christ and Paul. And it so happened
that if John invented Christ and on the basis of this invention has created the
Christian Church, he would have undermined his authority.
Therefore, if Christ was
invented, not John the Theologian in the second half of the first century.
Then say that Jesus
Christ and the entire New Testament in the thirties and forties of the first
century invented the Apostle Paul, and then he based his fiction over the next
ten to twenty years has created the Christian Church and Christian theology.
Another option is Christ
who invented some friends Paul and invited the latter to participate in the
fraud, and then Paul "pushed" his friend and depicted in the New
Testament himself in the main role.
But Paul writes that he
had a lot of conversations with people who personally knew Jesus (Peter, James
and the other apostles). Describes Paul and the phenomenon he Christ on the
road to Damascus (acts. 9:3-6).
So, if there was fraud,
"the Apostle of the Gentiles" was aware of all of its subtleties and
actively participated in it. He was assisted someone or not is not important.
We even may assume that in the course of "fiction" was John the
Theologian, UDOVOLSTVIE the role he "took Paul, and continue the
"game" after the death of the last.
Chronology hypothetical
"fiction" Paul practically coincides with its missionary activities,
and here it is difficult to argue. There are stronger arguments in favor of the
fact that Paul could not invent Christ and to write on behalf of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, the four Gospels.
First, if you invent the
founder of the doctrine, it makes sense to classify it as "life" in
the mists of time, otherwise the probability of disclosure of fraud increases
dramatically - would the inhabitants of Galilee were not outraged, knowing that
any Jesus-preacher ten years ago, no? It would be better then Paul used for his
own purposes the prophet Isaiah - his main ideas in many ways similar to
Christianity, there is even a legend of his martyrdom.
Secondly, it is unlikely
that Paul invented the story of the stoning of Stephen (acts. 7:58),
representing him in a very unfavorable light. The same applies to his conflict
with Peter and other "senior" by the apostles.
Thirdly, if he invented
Jesus of Nazareth as his contemporaries, would have declared personal
acquaintance with him, and don't tell complex and unconvincing story about the
phenomenon he Christ while traveling to Damascus. There were twelve apostles,
was seventy other disciples (LK. 10:1) - do not Paul would put myself in their
number, even if not in the first row?
Therefore, the Apostle
Paul could not invent Christ.
Remains the
"hypothesis" of the hero of the novel by Umberto Eco: the falsifiers
- Matthew, mark, Luke, and John. And then Paul believed them and was actively
involved in the "movement".
But to agree with this
"hypothesis" is hindered by the Apostle Peter. In its historicity
impossible to doubt, as about the conflict with Peter Paul says in the Epistle
to the latter.
Don't know about the
falsification of Peter, the first disciple of Christ, could not.
But if Peter was aware of
the falsification of the Gospels (or was its organizer), so would he permit the
placing themselves in such a negative light? I mean the story with three
denials (Matt. 26:69-75; MK. 14:66-72; LK. 22:56-61; Jn. 18:15-27).
And Paul would sooner or
later he learned of the fraud (it would have surfaced during his conflict with
Peter), and hardly missed an opportunity to use against his opponent so
powerful argument. It turns out that the Apostle Peter is an
"indicator" of the authenticity of all four Gospels.
Therefore, no one
could not falsify the gospel as a whole.
Small additions,
substitution and translation manipulation for two thousand years Christianity
was made repeatedly, and with such facts, we are within our research will face
more than once. But in General true gospel and, therefore, Jesus Christ
is historical.
XII
Around the sequence of writing
of the Gospels and their authorship disputes are also not going away.
Most "unlucky"
gospel of Matthew. Its in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries because of the
large number of references to the old Testament, proving the identity of Jesus
and the Messiah, began to consider almost the result of collective efforts of
the beginning of the second century, that is the latest at the time of writing.
If and to recognize the author of a certain Matthew, it does not associate it
with the Apostle Matthew and argue that the first gospel was short the gospel
of Mark, and professional historians, theologians Matthew and Luke wrote at the
base of his gospel, colorful details and references to the old Testament.
In fact, everything is
much easier. For the Apostle Matthew in the profession, the publican (Roman
collector of taxes and duties), modern scholars do not recognize the ability
for deep analysis of the old Testament is absolutely unfair.
Publican were literacy
and educated people, because they are not picking up the rulers of the Jews,
and the Romans! And the latter knew frames. Caste publicans were closed and
privileged, educated in the spirit of devotion to the Roman Emperor and Roman
law. Of all the disciples of Jesus at the time of his death, the Apostle
Matthew was the most educated, and only he was capable of "hot
pursuit" to write his sermons and parables.
Hence, perhaps, and a
certain "economic" and "loyalty" slope parables of Jesus in
the transfer of Matthew, and some "anti-Semitic" orientation of the
first gospel - for example, a friendly cry of Jerusalem crowd: "His blood
be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). However, the latter can be
interpreted in different ways, and it is doubtful that the crowd screamed such
a complex and intelligible words.
But in any case, the
publicans did not like people, and people did not like tax collectors - the
situation is similar with most tax inspectors observed in our time. Note that
among the apostles after the death of Jesus Matthew was once an outcast, and
quickly disappeared from the historical scene.
With the authorship Mark,
a disciple of the Apostle Peter) and Luke (disciple of the Apostle Paul) is
more or less clear. It's the middle of the first century. Judging by the fact
that "the acts of the Holy apostles, the continuation of the gospel of
Luke, written in Rome shortly before the Jewish pogroms
("persecution") of the Emperor Nero (
Accordingly, the gospel
of Matthew, which is largely based, and mark, and Luke, could be written at any
time with 30 to
The Apocalypse, the most
widely read and widely read part of the Bible that was written after Aronovich
persecution in the mid-sixties.
Few disputed, as it has
references to the ruling at the time of the Church community, but we often
write that the Apocalypse was the first book of the New Testament.
We have seen that the
first three Gospels were written earlier. But many generations so badly wanted
the first book was just "Revelation" (based on it is still calculated
the probable end of the world)that has replaced the desired reality.
John already belongs to
another era - the end of the first century.
John the Evangelist, the
beloved disciple of Jesus, was the son of a fisherman, had a weak basic Jewish
education, but then, apparently, had the opportunity to closely come into
contact with Greek philosophy, as in the sixties in exile on the Isle of
Patmos, and then living in Ephesus. He began to write his works, being already
an old man, and saw the loss of many comrades, and the transformation of a
small community in a European Church organization. Accordingly, the fourth
gospel style differs from the others.
Speculation about the
fact that the fourth gospel and the Apocalypse by different authors, both John,
no more than speculation. The Apocalypse, as we said, dates back to the mid
sixties, and the gospel of St. John the Theologian wrote no less than twenty or
thirty years later. Sufficient time for evolution and style, and worldview.
From all this it follows
that the available evidence for the authenticity of the Gospels can be
considered sufficient to have the right to base our philosophy on Christianity.
Chapter III
Welcome and "the paradox of
Christianity"
I
We
have already talked about the illegality of the use of the philosophy of the
principles of jurisprudence: "that is strictly not proven - that doesn't
exist." But unfortunately, a similar principle, many modern philosophers
(especially the existentialists), convincing us that scientific and
philosophical point of view, the concept of good and evil as relative and
contingent, as the terms "right" and "left."
If
this idea is developed further in the strict logical direction, it inevitably
turns out that there is neither good nor evil.
The examples are many. Nuclear power is good or
evil? Because it can give and the power to receive, and to destroy humanity...
Even if you follow the simplest definition of
goodness as a creative beginning and evil - as destructive, we are still many
items and substances cannot be attributed neither to the one nor to the other.
For example, the fire: it is possible to cook food, but he can burn the house.
You
might say it's not the thing itself, but how to use it. Ultimately,
good and evil depends on the people themselves.
This
is true, but going from "good" and "evil" things to
"good" and "evil" actions, we will never be able to
determine.
Simple example. The old man suddenly fell in the
middle of the street. Rushed him, lifted, carried on the bench so that it does
not lay on the cold asphalt, called an ambulance, and when the ambulance came,
was pronounced dead from a heart attack. And as you know, a man with a heart
attack in no case can not move anywhere, and in General it is better not to
touch. If it is not carried on the bench, and left lying on the pavement, most
likely, he would have stayed alive. Question: good or evil deed done passers-by?
Jaroslav
Hasek in the book "the adventures of the good soldier švejk"
brings this tragic example (albeit used in a comic context): man found on the
street freezing dog, took pity and brought it home. And the dog
was rabid, thank perconal all in the house, and the baby pulled out of the
cradle and killed. Question: is it any good deeds? May be, the rights of one
who lives by the saying: "do not do the good - will not receive evil?
Another example: an old man, again, fell on the
street. He competently rendered first aid, called an ambulance and, ultimately,
saved. And the name of this person was Chikatilo, before he raped and killed
his tenth victim, and after discharge from the hospital, went in search of the
eleventh...
Such
"everyday" examples confirming relativity and ambiguity of good and
evil, can be cited. Even the giving of alms to a beggar (and especially the
child-beggar), we from the social point of view, doing more harm than good.
And yet we and alms served and fallen passers-by
raised, and frozen dogs rescued... Most importantly, we do this primarily
intuitively, without thinking about philosophical questions.
So what happens? Why our intuition is at odds
with the modern achievements of the "science of science" philosophy,
talking about relativity and ambiguity of good and evil?
II
And
the fact that we came again to stem the philosophy and moral imperative. Around
it can be built any speculative reasoning, but on a subconscious, intuitive
level, it says " help your neighbor! Save a drowning man, not thinking
about the fact that he's a good man or bad!
Sometimes,
indeed, it turns out that the moral imperative plays a negative rather than a
positive role in the world by zoo feed the animals, knowing that the animals
are well fed, and that animals from this it can become bad, and then die...
And yet something makes people feed rolls polar
bears, and personally I didn't raise his hand to throw at these people rock.
Today they feed animals in the zoo, and tomorrow, you see, and hungry stray dog
on the street will save.
It is
tempting to call for help on probability theory and say, for example, if you
raise the fallen man up the street, then with probability 99% will do good, and
only 1% of cases is evil. But actually, of course, to calculate
these percentages cannot, therefore, a subconscious manifestation of the moral
imperative at this or that person still remains the only tool for the
understanding of good and evil.
But
we have long understood that all philosophy is, ultimately, dependent on
specific people, so let's get on with these positions not to go.
So,
to state: the good is determined by the thoughts and actions of people, the
relevant moral imperative. Accordingly, evil thoughts and deeds,
he is inconsistent.
The
rod on the rod to be somewhere inside the subject. The degree of approximation
to the core of personality and moral imperative can be different, and therefore
there are no clearly good and evil deeds, as there is no completely
black or completely white. But this does not mean that we cannot
use the concept of "black" and "white", though with some
approximation, due to the specific situation. It's the same with good and evil.
In
this case, if we talk about the moral imperative as the source of all goodness,
we have to understand: how does Christianity? Is it adequate
expression of the moral imperative?
Simply
put, teach Jesus Christ people are good, only good and nothing but good?
III
At
the beginning of the third Millennium essence of the teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth intuitive almost all. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall
inherit the earth" (Matt. 5:5), "blessed are the peacemakers, for
they shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9), "thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself" (Matt. 22:39), "love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matt. 5:44)... Seemingly
obvious things.
But
these things have become obvious to most people not so long ago, a maximum of
two or three hundred years ago. Prior to this, in the teachings of Christ
emphases were placed quite differently. Remember the fires of the Inquisition,
the Jesuits, the state claims the Church and these unpleasant facts of life of
the middle ages. Unfortunately, they too relied on the sly
selected quotations from the Bible.
A
typical example is the phrase of Jesus, on which was based the Inquisition:
"if a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; such
branches are picked and thrown into the fire and burned" (Jn. 15:6). There
is an obvious allegorical, but because of the literal, to the same unfair
interpretation of these words, thousands of people were burned at the stake.
Yes, and Mohammed in the seventh century,
creating the Koran, it is logical to rely on the old Testament prophets and the
teachings of Christ, and religion turned out to be very different...
So,
the Christian doctrine it is necessary to understand correctly, and it's
not as easy as it might seem at first glance.
Therefore,
our methodological approach must come from the challenge, that is, from the
necessity of understanding the teachings of Jesus Christ. Stress
is not the "Holy fathers" (Aurelius Augustine, John Chrysostom, John
of Damascus and many others), not even the Apostle Paul, or evangelists, namely
Jesus Christ.
It
may seem that the last statement makes the problem intractable, for whom do we
have to rely in understanding the teachings of Christ, if not on the
testimonies of the apostles, who listened to his words?
But
actually no fundamental insolubility is not here, for hearing - does not
properly understand. From the witnesses, the latter is
usually not required, they must faithfully transmit heard and interpretation -
an entirely different goal.
In
principle, the witness and the interpreter can be one and the same person (as happened
in the case of the Apostle John the theologian), but here our methodology
should be the same: review of evidence separately and interpretations
separately. As soon as we use the concept of "evidence", you should
not go beyond the law, shows that good evidence is facts, and the
interpretation may be due to the short-term motives, personality traits
interpreter, lack or excess of information and a huge number of other factors.
We already showed that in the good faith of the
evangelists, no doubt. So first we will consider the evidence, and then any
interpretation. This is our methodology works with the Scriptures, and with its
help we will solve the acute problem, which can be called "the
fundamental paradox of Christianity".
IV
The
fact that in the first three Gospels there are many phrases of Jesus, at first
glance, questioning the moral foundations of Christianity is love and goodness.
Here are some examples:
"Think
not that I came to bring peace on the earth; not peace I have come to bring, but
a sword; for I came to divide a man from his father, and the daughter against
her mother, and daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law. And the enemies of man
- of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not
worthy of Me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of
Me" (Matt. 10:34-37).
"Fire I have come to cast upon the earth,
and how I wish it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with;
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Do you think that I am come to
give peace on earth? No, I say to you, but rather division; for from now on
five in one house divided... father against son and son against father..."
(LK. 12:49-53).
"If
anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be My
disciple" (LK. 14:26).
"I say unto you, that unto every one which
hath shall be given, and everyone him that hath not shall be taken away even
what he has, but those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign, bring
hither, and slay them before me" (LK. 19:26-27).
"For
unto every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance : but from
him that hath not shall be taken away even what he has, but useless servant
into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt.
25:29-30).
"Another
of the disciples said to Him: o Lord! Let me first go and bury my father. But
Jesus said unto him, follow Me; and leave the dead to bury their own dead"
(Matt. 8:21-22)
These
are just some of the many phrases of Christ, simply does not fit with the idea
of his teaching as the most adequate expression of the moral imperative is good
and only good.
These phrases relate to the mundane, earthly
life. They could or not "see"or something to interpret. But the
situation is much more complicated, because of the moral imperative in
contradiction key Christian concept of redemption in "life after
life" (facilitiy): for good - Paradise, for evil is hell.
To illustrate the latter will give a stunning
intransigence of the story of Jesus about the beggar Lazarus.
"A
certain man was rich... there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid
at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell
from the rich man's table... the poor man Died and was carried by Angels to
Abraham's bosom. Died and the rich man, and buried him.
And
in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away and
Lazarus in his bosom, and cried and said, father Abraham! Take pity on me and
send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am
tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, son! Remember that you have
already received your good in your life, and Lazarus evil; now here he is
comforted, and thou art in anguish; and above all, between us and you a great
Gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, and thence
to us.
Then
he said, I pray thee, father, to send him to my father's house, for I have five
brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of
torment.
Abraham
said to him: they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham, but if someone
from the dead goes to them, they will repent.
Then
Abraham said to him, if Moses and the prophets did not listen, though one rose
from the dead, they will not believe" (LK. 16:19-31).
And
remember a couple of "good" phrases of Christ to the sinners:
"Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you
escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).
"Depart
from Me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his
angels" (Matt. 25:41).
V
Frank
paradoxical discrepancy quoted words of Jesus Christ and his teachings about
kindness and love!
Indeed, if sinners waiting for God's punishment
of hell is the place of the old principle of evil for evil retribution: an eye
for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell for our sins.
But
as Christ said: "Ye have heard that it was said: eye for eye, tooth for
tooth. And I say unto you, resist not evil. But whosoever
shall smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other..." (Matt. 5:38-39).
Christ said that we should forgive not until seven, but seventy times seven (7
x 70 = 490), that is actually infinite (Matt. 18:22).
And here it turns out that the righteous will be
in heaven forever to partake of peace and happiness and the wicked will be so
forever tormented in hell without any hope of forgiveness.
"The
paradox of Christianity led to theological absurdity. Indeed, if sinners will
be eternally endure unimaginable torture, it becomes clear redemptive meaning
of the passion of Christ. Intuitive understanding of justice
does not accept the fact that the Savior for all the countless sins of mankind
suffered on the cross for several hours, and some petty thief for his minor
sins eternally tormented in hell...
Of
course, from the point of view of theoretical philosophy one minute and a
thousand years of suffering almost the same, the cross and the fiery furnace is
almost the same, the sins of one thief and all the sins of mankind are almost
one and the same. But since we are considering Christianity as an expression of
the moral imperative, it is necessary to take into account the intuitive
understanding of justice - it too is based on a moral imperative.
Therefore, the redemptive meaning of the passion
of Jesus Christ because "the basic paradox of Christianity" becomes
bare abstract character, losing its importance for the formation of the
worldview of people.
While
still a fundamentally incorrect stereotype perception of Christ as a person.
Even many historians represent Jesus as the bearer of whether the old
Testament, whether Persian-Arabic prophetic tradition. It's kind of
a "dervish-the sorcerer threatening in that world to deal with murderers,
thieves and corrupt officials, throwing them into the hot oven...
The
summary says it all: "the paradox of Christianity has led to the fact that
few modern educated people seriously believe in hell, and in heaven.
And
there we substituted the doctrine of "life after life" Buddhists,
Hindus, Mexican magicians and the like. The increased
level of awareness, astral vision, karma, chakras, Yin-Yang, the worldwide
energy, meditation, reincarnation... modern people who have access to any
information, just makes you dizzy from the abundance of alternatives. Books on
chakras, astral and other similar overwhelmed with all the stores, and Newspapers
are full of advertisements about the courses of magic, psychic and even
shamanism. And everywhere we promise to "other worlds".
It
turns out that "they" all logical and relevant, and "us"
are still trying to scare the devils in hell.
The
concepts of heaven and hell are closely related and the prediction of a
catastrophic end of the world ("the second coming"), and here
"the paradox of Christianity" brings not only theoretical but also
practical "fruit", even more sad.
In the first three Gospels with the predictions
of the "second coming" focus of attention " (Matt. chief 24; MK.
chief 13; LK. chief 21). They sound out of the mouth of Christ himself, so
arguing with them is difficult. Based on them was written and "Revelation".
So,
indeed, the New Testament as if it turns out that after we die we are likely to
wait the torments of hell. And then another, and "Armageddon" (the
end of the world) will come - and do not hide anywhere from hell-fire, even if
you by this time have not yet had time to die.
And
speculation on this fear, please. I think everybody remembers
the last ten years, at least two or three "loud" predictions of
global catastrophe, but a dozen more "local".
What
a fertile ground for sectarianism!
For
example, you have a chance to get into the 144000 chosen the righteous (Rev.
14:1), so zapysuysya in sect type "White brotherhood of Maria Devi
Christos", give them all their property and shivering in anticipation of
the "last judgment", relying solely on the fact that you will not be
144001-m as a member of the sect and will have time to go to heaven.
However, usually in sects where fewer members,
but that "Jehovah's witnesses" almost three million, and everyone
else waiting for the imminent end of the world...
Now sectarianism
slightly diminished enthusiasm, members usually just operate for the benefit of
the sect and its leadership, and earlier because of self-immolation often took
place - say, better a few minutes to pomuchitsya in the earthly fire, than to
burn for eternity in heaven. However, still sometimes on TV broadcast something
like someone had burned himself, somebody somebody blew up...
So - in the sufferings of these unfortunate
people indirectly to blame for Jesus of Nazareth?
If we
do not solve "the paradox of Christianity", it turns out that is to
blame.
VI
Modern
attempts of the Orthodox churches to justify the torments of hell and the
catastrophic end of the world sound at best casuistically, and at worst naive.
I'm
not even talking about such "trifles"as the problem of "private
court" immediately after the death of each with "judgement" for
all " has the Lord is unable to immediately make the right decision?
Church
theologians believe that between these "courts" is
"procedural" difference.
For example, regarding "private court"
Saint Basil the New (X century), followed by Pavel Florensky write that at the
bedside of the deceased on the one hand are the Angels, on the other devils,
and "measured" good and evil deeds of the deceased. Then the soul of
man must be twenty "ordeals" (something like the circles of hell,
where the soul "impose" certain sins, but she "bribes" for
his good deeds. Enough good things - get to Paradise, not enough is left in the
"circle of hell", where the exhausted good...
About the "doomsday" dominates over
"progressive" stereotype perception, leading back from Ephraim the
Syrian (IV century): on the throne sits the judge - Jesus Christ, the advocate
(the angel) reports to him about the good deeds of a person, the Prosecutor
(Satan) - the sins. And then the verdict is final and without appeal.
The
fire was understood by different scholars in different ways. Augustine
and John Chrysostom interpreted it literally is as unimaginable physical
torture. Basil of Caesarea and John Damascene leaned towards his symbolic
interpretation as suffering primarily spiritual, though not made this easy.
However,
for someone easier, but for someone heavier - almost all of the Church's
theologians degree infernal torments different for different degrees of
sinfulness, which is linked to the "judicial" stereotypes.
Not linked to any understanding and any
"court", and then hell only with Christian kindness and forgiveness
(Matt. 5:38-39; 18:22), and any attempt to combine these fundamentally incompatible
concepts eventually lead to absurdity.
For
example, Metropolitan Macarius in his fundamental work "Orthodox dogmatic
theology" wrote:
"God,
they say, is good: how to reconcile the eternal torment of sinners with His
infinite goodness? God, indeed, infinitely good; but goodness is not
only His property, He together and infinitely true, infinitely Holy, infinitely
just, and all these, like all of His perfection, correlate with one another in
His actions against the creatures... What is unnatural, if such a manifestation
of the infinite goodness of God towards sinners, you will be finally the
manifestation of the infinite and His truth? He will not cease to be good when
the sinners will be tormented in hell; but only in relation to them will not act
in his goodness, which, so to speak, already all poured out on them before and
have not found anything decent, and the absolute truth".
In other words, a classic Church theology
believed that within God there is a "balance of conflicting forces, that
is, God leads "double bookkeeping" in respect of goodness and truth.
Actually,
this usually is not the goodness, and the dishonesty that God is unacceptable
even to "creatures" (this is humiliating for any modern man of the
Church the term we will remember more than once).
It is
widely known statement of Descartes: "God is not a deceiver." Indeed,
any "double accounting" and other tricks from God irrelevant. The
goodness of God itself is the truth, and to share their absolutely
inappropriate in this case, it turns out that goodness is not true, then God is
evil.
And
Christ said: "why do you call Me good? No one is
good except God alone" (MK. 10:18).
Are
we after these words will be followed by Metropolitan Macarius to imagine a
"good" God, indifferently (and happily) betraying sinners to eternal
and inconceivable torments of hell, and then an equally indifferent (or as
happily) looking at them?
VII
I
don't want to say that Christ was wrong, threatening sinners of hell and the
catastrophic end of the world.
But I
want to say that we misunderstood. I will try to explain it.
Let's think: Christianity, there are around two
thousand years. A lot or a little?
The
first thought is not enough. Indeed, our planet there are five or
six billion years. Dinosaurs lived about a hundred million years ago, the
Neanderthals tens of thousands, and Christ is "only" two thousand...
And
actually in the scale of human civilization - a lot. A
lot. From the ancient Egyptian pyramids (mid-third Millennium BC) until Christ
took slightly longer than from Christ to the present day. And from Moses to
Christ, much less - about one thousand three hundred years.
At least a third or even half a "conscious
life" humanity has lived under the sign of Christianity.
And still
no end of the world or "the second coming", despite the fact that
Christ said, "this generation shall Not pass till all these things be
fulfilled" (Matt. 24:34), and by John in the revelation described the
horrors of as coming very soon.
You
can, of course, be interpreted expected John Christ's millennial Kingdom (Rev.
20:3) as beginning with the birth, or the resurrection of the latter (as done
in the middle ages). It turned out that the last judgment
was to fall on 1000-1030 years. Panic at the beginning of the second Millennium
was unimaginable, but nothing happened.
In
the XIV century "calculations" were lead by 313 - "edict of
Milan" Constantine the Great, predicting the end of the world in 1313, but
again nothing happened.
At the end of the twentieth century-Dodgers
casuist found in the revelation hints at 2000, but again nothing happened. So,
let's wait for the next? By 2030? Or even a thousand years?
And maybe still time to understand what Christ
really meant?
Yes, without a rigid opposition of "Paradise
good ad evil" Jesus Christ would be hard to "reach out" to
millions of poorly educated people the beginning of our era.
Moreover, without a prediction close to the end
of the world Jesus could not do - he preached Christ, the Messiah, in keeping
with the old Testament canonical tradition! And on the expectation of the
Messiah, the great judge, who, with thunder and lightning will come upon the
earth, save the righteous and sit "at the right hand of God, built the
whole religion of the Jewish people. Even the fact that Jesus was called
Paradise "bosom of Abraham" (LK. 16:22), refers to the traditions of
the old Testament.
But under the guise of the old Testament the
Messiah was born the world is not the triumph of one single nation, and the
Christian doctrine of love and kindness.
VIII
We have long realized that Jesus Christ was
carrying his teachings not only Jews, but all other peoples.
We have long realized that hell is not a large brazier
in the center of the Earth, and heaven - not angels on a cloud.
We have long realized that the end of the world
if it comes, not necessarily in our lifetime or in the next Millennium.
We learned a lot during these two thousand years,
but the habit still continue to perceive stereotypical Christian doctrine of
heaven, hell and the end of the world as "believe" in the middle ages.
So, let us finally understand that the old
Testament principle of evil for evil retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for
a tooth, hell for sins), allegedly backed by uncompromising sayings of
Jesus, or his personality, or his business, or his teachings do not have the
slightest relation.
And the proof here is quite simple. Christ
himself said, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20). That
is, to judge a person can only be based on its activity.
"Believe Me that I am in the father and the
Father in Me : or else believe Me for the very works. Verily, verily, I say
unto you, he that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and
greater than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father" (Jn.
14:11-12).
Consider this example: many "confuse"
the miracles of Jesus - numerous healings (Matt. 4:24; 8:2; 9:2; MK. 5:41; LK.
17:14 and others), the five loaves of the five thousand (MK. 6:33-44), the
resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11:1-44), and others.
Soothe the strongest skeptics: let us not forget
that Jesus, as the Christ-the Messiah, was simply a "must" to work
miracles. This was spoken of by the prophets (ISA. 29:18; 61:1-2), and if Jesus
miracles and did not, they would have been invented by his admirers and
followers.
Miracles "worked" and the old Testament
prophets (3 kings. 17:21; 4 cars. 4:41; IP. 38:6; Dan. 6:16 and others), and
the apostles (acts. 3:6; 8:6; 19:11 and others), and the early Christian saints
("saints"). Historiography of the time, it was decided to splash thus
cause all the "good" preachers.
And yet by the end of the book we realize that
there is nothing "mystical"and especially "unscientific" in
the miracles of Jesus were not.
But now we are basically as follows: Christ
worked miracles or not, in any case they form the outline of his doctrine of
the good, and that's enough. Moreover, the gospel descriptions of Jesus '
miracles are one of the main proofs that Christ brought to mankind the values
of goodness and love.
And if we talk about the "practical
results" of the earthly Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, they were many
healings, raising of Lazarus (Jn. 11:1-45) and a single case of causing
harm to people.
Here is an example. "And they went and
entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for Him; but there did not
accept Him... Seeing that His disciples James and John saw this, they said,
Lord! Wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them,
even as Elias did?
But He turned to them, he charged them and said:
do not know what spirit you are of; for the Son of Man came not to destroy
men's lives but to save them" (LK. 9:53-56).
For comparison, note that the old Testament
prophet Elijah destroyed a hundred warriors (4 cars. 1:10-12) just for the fact
that they offered him to go with them to the king.
But more typical is an episode from the life of
the prophet Elisha (student Elijah), also famous for many miracles and had
considerable political influence:
"When he was on the way, some small boys
came out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, go up, bald head! go
bald! He looked around and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord.
And there came forth two she bears out of the woods and tore forty-two of them
children" (4 kings. 2:23-24).
There is a difference between the lifestyle of
Jesus and the largest of the old Testament prophets? I would say, radical.
IX
Even the apostles did not immediately embraced
the teachings of Christ as the system of values exclusively goodness and
love.
Recall the case when, shortly after the ascension
of Jesus, the Apostle Peter actually killed Ananias and Sapphira, utaivshy from
the Church money for his sold possessions (acts. 5:1-11). But this unfortunate
episode was in the New Testament, the first and the last.
Sometimes referred to another - when the Apostle
Paul was blinded sorcerer, but this blinding had the character of a "lesson"
and was temporary (acts. 13:11). In his time, was temporarily blinded and Paul
himself (acts. 9:8).
Very typical of what the Apostle John, writing in
the mid-sixties of the first century sinister "Revelation", in twenty
or thirty years came to the fourth gospel, in which nothing is said either
about the "last judgment", nor about the torments of hell.
"For God sent not his Son to condemn the
world; but that the world was saved through Him" (Jn. 3:18).
"'ll come forth done good, unto the
resurrection of life, and done evil to the resurrection of condemnation"
(Jn. 5:29).
"Do not think that I will accuse you before
the father: your accuser is Moses, in whom ye trust." 5:45).
"The will of him that sent Me, that of what
He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the
last day" (Jn. 6:39).
"I have come that they may have life and
have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life
for the sheep" (Jn. 10:10-11).
"And if any man hear My words and believe
not, I judge him not : for I came not to judge the world but to save the world.
He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has one who judges him: the
word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day" (Jn. 12:47-48).
Explain why John and other contemporaries of
Christ, not once, but realized allegorical words about the cast of
sinners in hell fire".
The fact that "hell" is merely a ravine
Gene under the walls of Jerusalem, which at the time of Jesus were thrown urban
sewage and which is constantly burning fire, as in many modern landfills. There
under king Ahaz idolaters burned his children in the furnace in honor of Moloch
(2 Pairs. 28:3), hence in the words of Christ about hell appeared and "the
fiery furnace".
And ominous apocalyptic Armageddon (Rev. 16:16)
is actually a small valley in Israel, where in 608 BC there was a bloody battle
of Egyptian troops with the Jews and was killed king Josiah (4 cars. 23:29; 2
Pairs. 35:24). In the past, it was the last stop of idolatry in the ravine Gene
and made it dump (4 cars. 23:24; 2 Pairs. 34:33).
Summing up a brief analysis of contextual
interrelated concepts of "hell", "furnace" and
"Armageddon", let's ask ourselves: how would we today call perceived
sinners throw in a landfill? Allegorical. A word about the fact that sinners
would be worse than the Swedes at Poltava? At least figuratively.
X
So, if you are already a half-century after the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ to his beloved disciple John the Theologian
reasonably decided not to mention in the fourth gospel all frightening words
about the hellish fire, two thousand years later, the more it is possible to
interpret heaven and hell only in the symbolic context of spiritual
compromise.
Yes, we live in an imperfect world, where victory
of goodness and love is very, very far away, and in the time of Christ was
still on. Yes, life forces us at every step to make compromises, and Jesus said
"Give to Caesar what's Caesar's, and to God what is God" (Matt.
22:21).
But no spiritual, moral compromise with evil
should not be! "No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the
one and love the other; or one will hold to the one, and despise the other. You
cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
So, Jesus ' words about the hellish fire and the
end of the world in our time are to be interpreted primarily as a passionate
and persuasive appeal to the full intransigence in the spiritual plane.
Note that all the largest Christian Church
gradually come to similar positions, though with the caveat that heaven and
hell is still some specific state of man after death, that is good then it will
be very good, and the bad - very bad.
Actually, heaven is the whole range of
positive consequences of good and for the individual and for the world. Hell,
respectively, the entire range of negative consequences of evil.
This spectra in practice is extremely wide, and
we are going to touch them in various aspects, talking about good and evil, the
Kingdom of God, righteousness and eternal life.
But this conclusion allows us to resolve
"the paradox of Christianity" and to show that the Christian
spiritual system consistent expresses a moral imperative.
XI
It remains to estimate the importance of
Christian expression of the moral imperative in comparison with any other
abstract duty, abstract conscience, good abstract, abstract humanism...
Components you can list many, but it is
components. The Christianity they were completely absorbed with only one word -
spirituality.
The word in the last decades it has become
common, and few people think about its origin. Use it in dozens, if not
hundreds, of different contexts. It is sometimes equated with religion,
sometimes with intelligence, sometimes with education, sometimes with culture...
In any case, this description of the person,
indicating the involvement of a higher and positive values. Speaking in our
usual terms, adherence to a moral imperative.
And now I propose to think about the origin of
the word "spirituality".
The analogy with the word "soul" is
inappropriate in the soul includes the character, and temperament, and
abilities, and knowledge, and thinking, and much more - even what Descartes
called the "God damn minds."
In short, is the soul of all people, but not all
can be called spiritual people. Some biologists and psychologists believe that
the soul is there and in animals (in any case, her likeness), but to give a dog
or tiger spirituality - until then, thank God, nobody has thought.
The words of Ecclesiastes: "Who knows the
spirit of man rises whether upward, and the spirit of animals beast, whether it
goeth downward to the earth" (the EC. 3:21) is an example of confused
concepts of spirit and soul, and it is solely on the conscience of the
translators. However, the word "soul" in the ancient Greek
philosophers too often translated into English as "spirit".
The word "spirit" has other meanings,
it means ethereal and mystical creature, and even the breath (take a breath)...
So let's clarify that we are talking about the concept of "spirit"
only in the sense of "spirituality".
So where did this notion of spirituality,
infinitely capacious, and includes almost all possible aspects of the
expression of the moral imperative?
Let us on this question was answered... the
apostles.
"You are not in the flesh but in the spirit,
if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you" (ROM. 8:9).
"The Spirit himself testifies with our
spirit that we are children of God" (ROM. 8:16).
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not,
proves to me my conscience in the Holy Spirit" (ROM. 9:1).
"The natural man receiveth not the things of
the spirit of God, because it is foolishness unto him; neither can he know
them, because these things must be spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14).
"And all ate the same spiritual food; and
all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that
followed them; and the rock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10:3-4).
"No one speaking by the Spirit of God will
say Jesus is anathema; and no man can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy
Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
"The spirits of prophets are obedient to the
prophets, because God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor.
14:32-33).
"The Lord is that Spirit : and where the
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).
"The fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal.
5:22).
"In recent times appears rater coming after
their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves from the unity
of the faith, sensual, having not the spirit" (Jude. 18-19).
As seen in these quotes contains virtually the
entire conceptual apparatus associated with the fact that we (often
unconsciously) call spirituality.
The apostles Paul and Judas (brother of Jesus) was
used, based on essentially blurred, but intuitively clear Evangelical concept
of the Holy spirit.
And in the Gospels somewhere so called God the
Father (Matt. 1:18), some where the Holy Spirit is the messenger of God (Matt.
4:1), even in the form of a dove (LK. 3:22). But in most cases the Holy Spirit
(Spirit of truth) is what we call spirituality (LK. 4:1; 11:13; Jn. 3:34;
15:26; 16:13 and others). And Catholic Epistles we have already quoted.
So, considerations based on copyright law,
require to admit that the word "spirituality" comes from the Holy
spirit, that is, belongs exclusively to Christianity. The words
"spirituality" and "Spirit" are cognate and in most
European languages.
This confirms the position of Christianity as a
comprehensive system of spiritual values, to fully and adequately expressing
moral imperative.
XII
We covered a lot of material, but actually it was
only a preparatory stage - definition of the original philosophical positions
for further research.
So, our initial positions are as follows:
First, we acknowledge the existence of God as a
source of harmony, expediency and moral imperative. It is as provable as the
provable existence of the material world, and from the moral point of view to
consider a world without God illegal.
Secondly, we found: equivalent alternatives to
the Christian religion as the expression of the moral imperative today is not,
and the study of philosophical issues from the moral point of view inevitably
leads to theology.
From this it follows that in order to understand
who we are, where we come from and where we are going, you need to do Christian
theology.
Let's first of all let us formulate the basic
question of theology".
It may seem that the main question of theology is
the existence of God. But it is not the concept of "theology" means
its recognition.
Actually this question is somewhat different: the
existence of any God we recognize? Good or evil? Single, dual, triple or
multiple? Knowable or unknowable? Current or idle?..
In parallel with these indigenous issues we will
address and "local"associated with Christian dogma. But the solution
to these problems is also necessary, as we are speaking about Christianity, has
not yet determined what it is.
In addition, we have not yet answered the question
posed in the beginning of the book: why is Russia in the early twentieth
century Marxism won Christianity?
All that we managed to understand at the moment -
objective prerequisites for this was not. Christianity was and remains
the most adequate expression of the moral imperative, and speculative ideas of
social justice put forward by Marx and his followers, themselves serious
spiritual competition doctrine of Christ be not could.
So, in effect a set of other factors, and we
still have him going to work.
Chapter IV
Evil and theodicy
I
Most philosophers believed the question which we will talk, side, and
not as principal, as the ratio of existence and consciousness, the knowability
of the world and others. But in fact, without his decisions questioned the
existence of God, and for him and all what we have said is right on the
existence of a moral imperative, Christianity, humanism...
The name of this issue given the composition of Leibniz '
Theodicy". This word is translated from Latin as "justification of
God", and the formulation of the problem consists in the following.
The moral imperative dictates faith in God as in the good, wise and
Almighty power that created the world. But how to explain that, along with good
on the ground there and evil, with hardly less? Why did God allow the existence
of evil (or the devil, or Satan can be called whatever you like)?
Consciously - then God is not good, in fact - the originator of evil?
Or God can overcome evil, then he is not omnipotent, and the devil is as
strong as God?
And if the creation of the world as a whole physical and moral initially
suggested the presence of evil, wouldn't it be better if God was all this world
to create?
Opinions on this subject were many. Let's start with the most
"materialistic": Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Spencer with some other
variations considered morally indifferent God's power and thus seems to be
successfully resolved the matter in the same formal manner, of which we have
already said: for God (and ultimately, for us) neither good nor evil does not
exist.
The question seems to be removed (together with the moral imperative),
but it's actually not.
Here's a simple example: we, walking through a meadow, don't think about
that at each step we break the grass and crush bugs. And in the case of
theodicy Spinoza and Schopenhauer in the role of these insects are we, the
people are the victims of ruthless elements, natural instincts and other
large-scale manifestations of divine indifference.
It turns out that moral indifference of God turns into evil, and this is
at odds with the premise of theodicy - we believe in God as in the good, good
power...
Therefore, we will consider the illegality and the inconsistency of this
approach further confirmation of the correctness of our understanding of the
moral imperative and will move on to the second variant of the solution of the
question of theodicy - dualism.
It will need to stay in more detail.
Some of the early religious and philosophical directions, like a number
of contemporary Eastern religions, Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism),
addressed the question of theodicy as: good and evil, God and the devil are two
completely equivalent of the world's beginning.
The approach is effective and logical - so, God is in evil is not to
blame and fighting for good in every way, just no way to win. Results in two
separate, unrelated and even opposing God - one good, the other evil. This is
exactly what is called dualism.
And to prove the inconsistency of a dualistic approach will try "on
the contrary".
In any case, this approach results in two almost equal strength -- God
and the devil. Hence, any human being tempted by the devil to agree.
For example, what did Faust in the book of Goethe.
The story of "Faust" is well known. Signed a drop of blood the
Treaty of Alliance with the devil, the second youth Faust,
"organized" Mephistopheles his tragic romance with Gretchen,
wandering on Walpurgis night and the Sabbath, Emperor in the victory over the
enemies, try to build an "ideal" city, the death of Faust and his
ascension to heaven, despite the fact that he had "tarnished" his
contract with the devil.
It's all upside the works of Goethe. But it is crucial for us the second
plan, and this need to talk more.
In any case, the task of Mephistopheles was to seduce Faust in the way
of learning and development, to force him to "exalt the individual
moment". Faust knew, but for the opportunity to continue an active life,
and even having an assistant devil, took the risk. And, apparently, won -
thanks to Mephistopheles extended his life, learned a lot, but in the end still
got to heaven.
But let's remember what a serious and decent man Faust appears in the
beginning of the book, when on a walk to suit him and the peasants and thank
you for your dedication during the epidemic. And not only in this episode - all
the actions and words of Faust appears independent thinking and great force of
personality.
And what he is after a contract with Mephistopheles?
In the first part of the book there is a feeling that Faust does not
know what to do with inherited his second life. Mephistopheles, in order to
force him to exalt the individual moment", "Woo" him poor
innocent girl Gretchen. Love is not forced Faust collapse in the way of
learning, but led to the tragedy: he became an unwitting killer Gretchen, her
baby, mother and brother Valentine.
But Faust is at least capable of feelings about that, and in the second
part of the book before us is quite soulless and faceless people.
By Mephistopheles he has enormous possibilities, but he almost never
uses. An example is his "romance" with caused by the Mephistopheles
spirit of Helen. The spirit soon disappears, but Faust from this, as they say,
is neither heat nor cold.
The city on the dried area of the sea, which he in the end decided to
build, absolutely ephemeral and useless. Poor blind Faust walks on the beach
and thinks that is built around the "garden city", but actually it is
several imps dig his grave.
Note that in the framework of his book Goethe intuitively allowed
"the paradox of Christianity - God took the soul of Faust at the sky,
having forgiven him, and a contract with Mephistopheles, and numerous deaths,
the perpetrator of which he became.
And yet state: after the Pact with the devil nor knowledge, nor the
activities of Faust any purpose, much less the results were not. Specifically,
the results were, but nothing but evil, others are not brought. And the
conclusion of the book is clear - this unenviable fate awaits any, entered into
a contract with the devil.
By definition, the devil is evil, respectively, all of his actions can
be both for individuals and for humanity to be evil.
But in a pragmatic twentieth century in the contract Faust with
Mephistopheles appeared another aspect, not so harmless as a fly on the Sabbath
on Walpurgis night.
I thought elephants and odd, and odd,
And I still fell asleep.
And there was me, my hell,
And sat astride the chair.
And told me the devil: "Well, old fellow?
Well, what we decided?
Sign the Union, and let's go in the stirrups,
And erred a bit!
And you can lie, and you can wander,
And friends to bring the herd!
And that will then pay -
So it's, you must understand, then!
But you know how sweet sin
This sometimes bitter gray hairs.
And that happiness is not that one for all,
But that all as one!
And you will realize that there is no court above you,
No curse of the past years,
As with all you say - Yes!
And together with all " no!
And you will be wolves in the land produce,
And to teach them how to wag his tail!
And what will then pay
So it's, you must understand, then!
And what is soul? - Last year's snow!
And who knows, maybe you will carry it!
In our atomic age, in our stone age
At the price of conscience - snout!
And who needs it - it is "good",
If all the road - in the ashes...
So come on, take it, old man, pen,
And here sign in the corner".
Then the devil touched the little finger nail,
And pulled me a bottle.
And I asked him: "This blood"?
"Ink", he replied...
This is a poem by Alexander Galich, written in the sixties of the twentieth
century, has become almost axiomatic. Reading it, it is natural to ask whether
we are living in the beginning of the third Millennium, to sign an Alliance
with the devil, that is, lie, fornicate, and bring friends for money and power?
Dualism says is right. In fact, if the devil actually equivalent to God,
suggests the following "logical" move: he is not worse than God?
Therefore, worse than evil good?
And this inevitably leads to the following conclusion: evil is not evil,
but a special form of the good. Not to kill is good, and to kill is good. And
the moral imperative, and it is a moral imperative.
But if imperatives two (or more, as in the case of polytheism), this is
not a moral imperative, as continuous moral choice between ravnokonechnymi and
usually contradictory options. And this situation in itself is evil.
The moral imperative one, and God is one.
The last statement may seem questionable. It turns out that monotheism,
in contrast to dualism, restricts the freedom of the will and replaces it with
uncontested moral imperative - something like a commandment to think so and to
act so.
Perhaps the idea of limiting the freedom of the will by the moral
imperative of readers could be formed before, so this should especially talk.
IV
It is often assumed (especially in the humanitarian intelligentsia)that
the presence of a rigid moral (that is, the freedom of our will from the moral
imperative) guarantees unrestricted freedom of will in all other respects.
Including in the social and physiological. So to say, "the body is weak,
but the spirit of cheerful". And the prohibition to cross the street at a
red light, our "true freedom" does not limit, we just give Caesar
what's Caesar's...
The examples are many, and, perhaps, the most striking medieval
philosopher Boethius, who, while in prison and awaiting execution, he wrote his
seminal work "the Consolation of philosophy". It turns out that as a
philosopher Boethius was free, and as a citizen is not.
In principle, this approach is understandable and consistent. But I am
somewhat concerned over this "double accounting" of free will.
Erected an insurmountable barrier between morality and other aspects of life,
the moral imperative becomes otherworldly nature, becomes abstract and ceases
to be public.
And in the latter case, as we have said, in the modern world, far from
perfect, any humanist is surrounded babaevskii Mendalami Cries. Yes and boetia
in the end still executed, and this fact is a tragedy, regardless of whether
there was or not a philosopher spiritually free in the moment when the axe of
the executioner fell on his neck.
At the time this conclusion we are forced to move from the moral
imperative to religion, from philosophy to theology. And now we have the right
for the same reasons to assert that there should be no "double
accounting" of freedom - for boetia one, for Mendel Cry another. Freedom
for all is one.
But then what is freedom?
Philosophical textbooks, reference books and encyclopedias often define
freedom as the activities and behavior in the absence of any external goal
setting.
This in theory, but in practice the absence of any external goal setting
does not happen. Any activity, any behavior caused by many external factors
(congenital to random), which, essentially, and are therefore goal setting.
For example, in Russian folk tales knight at a crossroad in my life
makes his choice ("to the left you go, the horse will lose, right go - he
will disappear"), also based on a number of factors. It usually feel sorry
for the horse, and the notion of (standard medieval chivalry) is a typical
external goal setting. But it's hard to deny that the knight is free to choose
and, after analyzing a number of factors, he deliberately goes wherever he sees
fit.
This and many other possible examples bring the requirement of "no
external goal setting" to its logical absurdity: freedom is just a
coincidence. If the knight wondered where to go, and did not analyze any of the
factors of choice, then he would be completely free...
But we are talking about free will, and no volitional act in this case,
no. In the logical limit is reduced to chance only a kind of abstract
freedom, and freedom of will implies recognition.
The element of chance, of course, cannot be excluded. First, the knight
at a crossroad in my life might throw a dice, where to go. Secondly, the famous
paradox of the French philosopher Buridan (donkey, being equidistant between
two equal haystacks, will not be able to make an informed choice between them
will die from hunger) no element of chance is also unsolvable.
There is the other extreme: determinist, including Marx, understood
freedom as a conscious need. But actually this position replaces the selection
prior to the act (judgment, intention, action), in the very act. This is a
typical speculative approach, as necessary, which takes a conscious act, you
should not need the act. It can be done, and may not be done.
And if freedom is not an accident and not a perceived need, there's
this: freedom is the opportunity for informed choice, taking into
consideration both the necessity and randomness.
It is a conscious choice, in accordance with the nature and level select
(reject) options implemented by the Agency.
We do not accidentally made a reservation in accordance with the nature
and level". Without it we will not be able to resolve the following
paradox: for example, people in prison, therefore, he is not free. But he is
given the choice of single or shared camera, therefore, he is free. He can't
get out of jail, so he is not free. But he can move the camera in any
direction, therefore, he is free. And so on.
A similar example we have already discussed, referring to Boazii. Yes,
and freedom of thought and freedom of imagination in any prisoner nobody can
take away.
Thus, any situation has many different aspects and pocitace", and
is crushing on forever. Let's call it situational levels and state:
freedom of the will as a conscious choice options may be exercised (or not
exercised) at the same time on any situational levels.
"Everyday" example: selecting a costume due to material
prosperity and plans for the day, and the choice of the tie due to the choice
of costume. At both levels are different (and in varying degrees available)
acts of choice, but they both implement the Agency.
Our definition of freedom as informed choice is suitable even for such
acts relating exclusively to our consciousness as thought and imagination.
Thinking and imagining, we also choose from a variety of options, and,
as a rule, consciously, because it lies solely in the sphere of consciousness.
But the possibilities and our thinking, and even our imagination are limited
(they are determined by age, education, life experience and many other
factors), so they can be considered as situational levels, where, in comparison
with everyday life, just more choices.
And then it all happens, as in the example with a suit and tie: the
choice at the situational level "imagination" leads (but not dictate)
the choice on the situational level of "thought", then this chain can
be made via the "solution" to the level of "action", and
each of these levels has an infinite number of "sub-levels".
The basis of all this freedom, we have no reason to believe that higher
situational level - moral - people deprived of freedom of will as the
possibility of conscious choice.
The moral imperative is a requirement, but not coercion.
In society there is a variety of factors, both objective and subjective, due to
which the person is not acting in accordance with moral imperative, but on the
contrary.
This is the freedom of conscious moral choice between good and evil.
This freedom cannot be called more or less limited than any, the strict
understanding on other situational levels.
V
Now we can return to dualism, which actually equates evil and moral
imperative, and ultimately leads not to the choice between good and evil, and
to choose between two "dopami against each other.
To show the inconsistency of the dualistic approach, let us recall once
again our definition of free will that is fair to all situational levels, down
to the left or the right path to go strolling through the Park: the true
freedom of the will is able to make an informed choice, due to the specific
situation.
If we talk about the highest moral level, the freedom of the true
is the freedom to consciously choose good and evil, to the best of their
abilities evaluating positive and negative consequences of their choices.
And dualism leads to the freedom of the imaginary - the choice
between the two conflicting "dopami".
Imaginary freedom of will means the deprivation of a person to freely
and consciously choose truly good, actually replacing the conscious freedom of
choice as a coincidence.
However, it is possible not only randomness but also self-deception, and
"split personality", the latter in its extreme expression is within
the competence of psychiatrists. The person should not be bifurcated, and is a
key to our psychological comfort, and just the normal state of health.
"Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and
every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matt. 12:25).
As always, there are many intermediate options - as many gradations of
black and white. But as in the determination of a particular grayscale color
need to understand what is black and white, and in any moral choice must consciously
orientirovatI for good, and not to engage in self-deception.
So, for a particular individual unity - good, split - evil. The true
moral freedom, provided a moral imperative, unity of personality does not
violate, imaginary (dualistic) breaks.
Now, speaking about that can bring the freedom of a particular person to
others, we can designate critical humanistic aspect of the problem: today's
realities suggest that people, in principle, can choose not only good, but also
evil. But in terms of the moral imperative by the informed choice probability
evil is reduced.
In other words, if the offender knows that commits a crime, there is a chance
that at some point the moral imperative from his crimes will hold.
But if the offender, killing and plundering, believes that he is doing
good work (and this happens in case of acceptance of dualism), this chance is
not likely the crime is greatly increased.
Therefore, the dualistic point of view comes into conflict with the
moral imperative, and we have to abandon it.
Everything said about the dualism fully applies to polytheism
(paganism). In moral terms is indifferent, whom to serve is to Apollo, Ares,
Athena, Aphrodite, Dionysus or Hermes. They are all equal children of the
thunder of Zeus.
It is monotheism. Strict Christian monotheism. But then we need to
continue addressing the issue of theodicy.
Let us consider the position of the author of the term
"theodicy" - Leibniz, supported by modern Church theology.
Leibniz quite reasonably believed that God was free to create the world
or not to do. But God, by definition, always makes everything better, so he
created this world as the best of all possible worlds.
Why in this world are evil and suffering - Leibniz seems also explains
that nothing can be equal in perfection to God, then the suffering of
individuals lead quite permissible imperfections of this world. But since
everything in this world is subordinated to the purpose for which it was
created, then our suffering is also necessary for certain great General
purpose, known only to God.
Very similar is the position of the official Orthodoxy. In the
"Epistle of the Eastern patriarchs of the Orthodox faith says: "I
Believe that everything that exists, visible and invisible, is controlled by
Divine Providence; however, evil as evil, God only sees and allows, but does
not trades about him, because He had not made it. But the incident has already
evil goes to something useful by the Supreme Goodness, which itself does not
create evil, but only sends it to the best extent possible".
We see that the Orthodox "divine Providence" has a clear
parallel with leibnizstr "the subjection of the world to some great
purpose known only to God", and "foreseen and allowed evil" -
with "allowable imperfections of the world."
All this seems to be logical, and this at first glance may seem
philosophically and theologically sound. Intuitively open its failure has been,
strangely enough, not a philosopher or theologian, and writer - Fyodor
Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.
One of the brothers Karamazov, Ivan tells his brother Alyosha:
"This poor little girl five years, these educated parents were subjected
to various tortures. He was beaten, whipped, kicked her feet... Finally came to
the highest refinement: in the cold, in the cold, locked it on all night in
okogie place, and that she never asked the night - for it was covered all of
her face in the feces and forced to eat the feces, and this mother, her mother
made!.. Do you understand it, when the little creature, still not able to
comprehend that it is done, beat their old place in the dark and cold, his tiny
fist in the torn breast and crying its bloody, gentle, meek tears to "dear
God"to protect him - do you understand what this nonsense is so needed and
created! Without it, they say, and to stay could not have people on the ground,
because it did not know good and evil. Why learn a damned good and evil, when
it is the cost? But the whole world of knowledge is not worth while these tears
baby to "dear God". I'm not talking about suffering large, the Apple
has been eaten, and to hell with them, and let them all fuck took, but these, these..."
On Ivan says: "...From Supreme harmony is absolutely refuse. Not
worth the tears of at least one tortured child who beat his fist into his chest
and prayed in a stinking hovel unredeemed tears to his "dear God!" It
is not necessary because his tears left unredeemed. They must be redeemed,
otherwise there can be harmony. But what, what do you redeem them? Is it
possible? Surely the fact that they will be avenged? But why would I want
vengeance on them, why me hell for the torturers, that there may be hell to fix
when they have tortured? And what harmony, if hell: I just want to hug you
want, I don't want to suffer more."
And now Ivan turns to Alyosha: "Tell me straight, I call you "
answer: imagine that you were the one who erected the building of human destiny
with a goal in the final to bring happiness to people, to give them, finally,
peace and quiet, but it is necessary and inevitably would need to torture just
one tiny sozdaniya, the baby biting his fist into his chest, and unavenged
tears him to start this building, did you be the architect on those
conditions?.."
As we can see, emotionally Ivan Karamazov was fit to bring God to the
court and put him in the dock together with their parents-sadists. Yes and
without any emotions, it turns out that on any dock next to every murderer,
rapist, robber as an accomplice sitting God not only permitted, but directed
all this.
And if the moral imperative is the "Kingdom of God", which are
inconceivable, immeasurable and, worst of all, the necessary human
suffering?
In order to understand how did this contradiction, let us ask ourselves
the question: how Ivan Karamazov perceived God?
We still have to say that the efforts of the medieval Church the concept
of God, Christ, and the king had come together. In the meantime, just think
about it: if we even Jesus Christ, our intercessor before God, atoned for on
the cross for our sins, often present themselves as ruthlessly punishing the
sovereign, then what can we say about God?
God became the absolute dictator of all of our thoughts and actions, and
Orthodox theologians (and Leibniz) tried to solve the problem of theodicy,
starting from this premise - "the divine".
And since God is evil "only anticipates and allows, but does not
trades about it, the solution turned out to be internally inconsistent: either
God is not absolutely omnipotent, or he allows evil" consciously,
indirectly the culprit.
However, Ivan Karamazov built his angry rebuke, also based on the
premise of absolute dictatorship of God, and with him everything was logical:
the dictator not only dictates subjects what to do, but also gives them some
responsibility. However, as any absolute ruler.
As an analogy, while Stalin and Hitler were alive, he was considered the
inspirers and organizers of all victories, and when he died, it was at fault in
absolutely everything. Even in what were not to blame.
Of course, it is unacceptable to compare God with bloody dictators, but
according to the logic of Church theology, it was. There is some hypothetical
future is bright, the way it is known exclusively all-knowing and all-seeing
leader, and to achieve this bright future you have to sacrifice the interests
of individual citizens, including minors.
And, in fact, the question of good and evil is replaced by the question
- to what extent you can use the "human material"with which the
mysterious future construction?
Stalin killed millions of people - the measure exceeded. God has made a
mockery of young children - a measure exceeded. And kill not millions, but
hundreds of thousands, or prevent the suffering of children older than seven
years - it measures the excess or not?
Come from the other side. Ivan Karamazov brother asks the question,
would he build a "Kingdom of God", if for the happiness of all people
and of Supreme harmony was necessary to torture just one child?
Alesha said no, and he was absolutely right.
But nowadays, many pragmatic-minded people feel the desire to say
"Yes". Indeed, only one child's torment, but a blessed the whole of
humanity, a billion people!
Unfortunately, then there is the next reasonable question - but if you
have to grind down the two children? Too?
Then asked a similar question on. And torturing three children? Too? And
four?.. And twenty?.. And fifty?.. And four hundred?.. And a thousand?.. And a
million?.. A hundred million, and not only children?..
Where is she, this measure is whether it is and whether it can generally
be applied?
Someone will understand the second question, someone may need five or
ten times to understand: no, and no again. People are not material and not a
mechanism, and we do not calculate the maximum permissible load on the car
springs.
The main achievement of Christianity and modern humanism) in
understanding moral imperative States: the sacred and inviolable every
human life. Otherwise, we will conduct the arithmetic disputes, and maniacs
will kill children, because we have arithmetic, in the Criminal code of the
other, and the third maniacs.
These were our original position, and we have won another moral proof.
So the dictator God?
Let us formulate this question in greater detail. Although we talked
about free will as the possibility of conscious choice, but not touched on one
important aspect: while we have the opportunity any choice? Not does on countless
situational levels for us this choice is Almighty and all-seeing dictator - God?
No, does not, and this can be prove by contradiction".
Imagine that humans have no free will, our freedom is imaginary and for
us, directly or indirectly, God works.
Then people inevitably turns into "human material" a higher
mechanism - history, society or any higher power. And the material is
nothing sacred is present, and any politician (and any maniac) for their own
purposes could destroy any number of people.
We come to a contradiction with the moral imperative dictating the
sacredness of human life. Then the person has true free will, what we wanted to
prove.
So, every man has freedom of will, limited on many situational levels of
moral imperative, "local" morality of certain social groups, state
laws, material well-being and the infinite multitude of other factors.
And it eliminates the guilt of God in those sins, crimes and deeds that
people do freely is making a conscious choice between good and evil in
favor of the latter.
Let's call this evil "social" is solely dependent upon the
people.
In fairness, we note that both Orthodox and Catholic Church Agency
people recognize, but are in irreconcilable contradiction with "God's
Providence".
We managed to solve this issue is consistent, although for this and had
to abandon the perception of God as an omnipotent dictator. In fact, from the
Church's understanding of "the divine".
However, let us not doubt the omnipotence of God. To rule the world
without direct intervention, and without petty regulation - by means of the
laws of nature and laws of morality. In the last Chapter we will have an
opportunity about this in detail to talk about.
But the question of theodicy, we managed to solve it.
However, so far only partially only in the area bounded by social
relations.
There are still many situations when a person suffers directly from the
forces of nature: first, an irresistible force of nature (hurricanes, tsunamis,
floods and so on), and secondly, social untied internal diseases (cancer and
many others), and thirdly, just accidents.
Let's call it evil "natural", but to his analysis, we are not
ready yet, and will be ready soon. We have not yet understood the nature and
causes of social evil, and without it we cannot approach a much more complex
understanding of evil "natural".
And "social" evil in varying degrees commits (or is tempted to
do) each of us is sinless because people, as you know, there is no (ROM. 3:10).
Therefore, it is necessary to understand how it happened and how to deal with
it.
Theologians serving the largest Christian Church, referring to the
so-called "original sin". The disobedience of Adam and eve (Gen. 3:6)
raised to the rank of "separation from God", and our free will is declared
leads only to evil. However, the saints have a chance to reunite with God,
while sinners, of course not.
We knowingly took the words "original sin" in quotation marks
is actually the name of the "original" is not entirely correct, but we'll
discuss this when we analyze the well-known stereotype information of
"original sin" to sexual relations of Adam and eve.
Now we are talking about freedom of choice, first appeared in our
ancestors did exactly this freedom has resulted in their numerous progeny of
evil?
Of course, if there is an alternative "to disobey, disobey
no", means that you have freedom of choice. Could disobey, he could not
disobey...
Yes, disobeyed, but disobedience in itself is not evil. Sin - perhaps,
Yes, but the sins are different.
About what is sin and what is not, we will have the opportunity to
speak, and so far only state that it did no harm to the disobedience of
Adam and eve do not have (unless, of course, entirely based on biblical texts
and nothing to think).
And even more disobedience may not be a compelling reason to consider
our freedom "separation from God", thereby placing us in a row with
Satan ("broken angel") and creating a stereotype of man as a
"loathsome vessel of sin."
Besides, God made, and "provoked" is disobedience.
We will not refer to the well-known joke: well be there sins and crimes
of billions of people - but it Adam and eve, God just might and stricter ban,
and knowing their curious nature, something the tree of knowledge of good and
evil fence...
Without any jokes, "original sin," God was consciously made.
'll prove it.
To eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of God forbade under pain
of immediate death (Gen. 2:17), but after disobedience God has not been so
strictly punish neither eve nor Adam. Moreover, they personally did not even
curse, but a perfectly peaceful "expelled" from Paradise to populate
the Earth. Characteristically, the generations of Adam on Earth begins not with
the curse and blessing (Gen. 5:2).
Given that some time later God, according to the old Testament, the sins
of organized humanity, "the flood" and spared only the righteous Noah
(Gen. 6:7), such softness in respect of Adam and eve suggests that their
disobedience to God was conceived deliberately admitted and, most likely, was
"test of freedom".
Moreover, personally I am inclined to believe that Adam and eve finding
the strength to disobey, this test is passed, and only after that God sent them
to populate the Earth.
Note, that Jesus Christ is the "original sin", apparently did
not recognize. Remember:
"And passing by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked
Him, Rabbi! Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus
answered, neither hath this man sinned, neither he nor his parents" (Jn.
9:1-3).
Speaking of "original sin", religious scholars usually refer
to the words of the Apostle Paul: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, because all
sinned" (ROM. 5:12).
And although the Apostle gave this as an example, not asking to
seriously analyze the sin of Adam (by the way, forgetting about eve), yet,
let's try to understand what Paul meant by "death passed upon all
men".
Not withstand any criticism, the most modern version of Church
officialdom that God threatened Adam is not physical, but spiritual death, and
Adam, after disobedience died spiritually.
Actually after the knowledge of good and evil Adam, likely acquired
divine essence ("And the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like
one of Us, knowing good and evil" - Gen. 3:22). To interpret the word of
God "has become like one of Us" can be different, and we will have
the opportunity to pay attention to them. But about the spiritual death of
Adam, it just does not go is with the divine essence is incompatible, as if the
latter were not interpreted.
Other "stereotypical" version, followed by Augustine and John
Chrysostom: Adam before the fall was immortal in the physical sense, but then
ceased to be.
But, first, God forbid everyone to live as much as was given to Adam
(930 years), and most importantly, Adam was not physically immortal and
before the fall - or else God would not feared that he, after partaking of the
fruit of the tree of knowledge "take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and wouldn't want to live forever" (Gen. 3:22).
But if Adam's sin did not lead to spiritual or physical death, what is
meant by the Apostle Paul, saying that one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin?
For this we need to understand what life is to us, unlike Adam, Christ
came to bring. Read "Romans" on: "So that as sin reigned in
death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord" (ROM. 5:21).
So, I mean death is not in physical or spiritual plane, and death
without hope of resurrection and the afterlife". About these basic
concepts of Christianity, we have to talk separately - they are infinitely
important for each of us.
As for the "original sin", we realized that Adam and eve have
to say thank you and not to curse them. They took on the heaviest burden of the
knowledge of good and evil (in fact, became the first native of the moral
imperative) and paved the way for us.
And if to consider, that the disobedience of Adam and eve had led
mankind to evil, God deliberately made this disobedience, as consciously made
and evil, which contradicts our solution to the problem of theodicy.
Hence, the humanity of evil led not "original sin".
To evil (remember, while we are talking about evil "social",
which in one degree or another, voluntarily or involuntarily, but makes each of
us) of mankind in a different way, and for this we have to recall another
well-known episode from the Bible is one of the temptations of Christ.
In Matthew it is the third temptation, Luke - second.
"The devil takes Him to a very high mountain, and sheweth Him all
the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to Him: all these will I
give Thee, if falling down, worship me" (Matt. 4:8-9).
"And, taking Him up into an high mountain, the devil showed Him all
the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and the devil said to him: to
Thee will I give power over all these kingdoms and the glory of them : for that
is delivered unto me; and I, whom you want, give it; if Thou therefore wilt
worship me, all shall be Thine" (Luke. 4:6-7).
It would seem - take, conquer, and plant the good, fight evil and build
the Kingdom of God in every country, city, home and family. But Jesus refused,
and the arguments - "the Lord thy God, worship, and Him only shalt thou
serve" (Matt. 4:10).
However, even if it were not for this temptation is all the same Christ,
and did not think of any way of seizing power and forcibly bringing people to
goodness and love. Nowhere in the Gospels do not, and could not be.
Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah were many, but Jesus most
fully followed one from the book of the prophet Isaiah:
"Lord! Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the
Lord?
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant and as a root out of
dry ground; he hath no form or Majesty; and we beheld Him, and There is no form
that would attract us to Him.
He was despised and rejected before men; a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief, and we hid his face from Him; He was despised, and we did It.
But He took upon himself our infirmities and our sorrows; and we thought
He was stricken, smitten and afflicted of God.
But He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we
are healed.
We have all gone astray like sheep, have turned every one to his own
way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
He was wounded, but were afflicted and did not open his mouth; like a
sheep He was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its Shearer is silent,
so He did not open His mouth... For He was cut off out of the land of the living;
for the transgression of My people was he stricken.
But it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief...
He will see offspring durable, and the Lord's purpose will be fulfilled
by His hand" (ISA. 53:1-10).
And if Jesus walked the path predicted by Isaiah, and did not seize
state power and to punish evil with the help of the police and the army - why
we follow Ivan Karamazov expect from him or from God, to heaven descended
lightning and struck the torturers small child?
Apparently, Jesus knew (and let's us)that while the torturers still desire
them to be - they are not afraid of prison, no executions, no hell, no
lightning that showed convincingly legendary incinerate cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24), whose inhabitants are massively indulged in
homosexuality, and rape saradush travelers. Well, let's say, was on the Ground
after Nashestvie divine fire a few hundred less aggressive libertine, but not
extinct are they?
And in order to understand why is happening around us evil, and why each
of us feels a certain temptation to do, will ask another question relating to
the temptation of Christ:
- What right had the devil to offer Christ all the kingdoms of
the earth?
Theoretically, from the side of the devil, of course, was possible
attempt of deception.
But, first, it is very unlikely, because Jesus is the Son of God and
Messiah, of course, was not the "fire"order something to offer him,
not having a real right.
And secondly (and this is important): the temptation would have been no
temptation. The fact of the matter is that the devil had full right to
offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, and Christ found the strength to
refuse them. If we were talking about the deception, and to refuse would be no
reason for it.
So who is this devil?
Turns out - something like Supreme ruler of the earthly kingdoms (we
will use the more modern term - state). Christ was called "the Prince of
this world" (Jn. 14:30).
And to avoid the primitive ideas of volando or mephistophelean Lord,
from the evil hands of presidents, Ministers, oligarchs, generals and other
"powers that be", let's move on to understanding the fundamental
essence of the devil: it States themselves.
At first glance, this seems paradoxical, but other adequate options for
the interpretation of the words of the devil, that he committed the earthly
Kingdom (LK. 4:6), no. Yes and it seems paradoxical only at first glance.
Remember the "business card" of any state social injustice,
oppression, money, political intrigue, military, police, corruption,
bureaucratic tyranny, war...
There are tears of one innocent "Karamazov" baby for that long
to move the state border for several miles, killing millions of people. And if
the death of the soldier remains at least in the statistical calculations, many
thousands of dead babies, no one believes. And if they believe it is only
because the baby sooner or later grow up to be able to pick up a gun and go
kill too...
And that all this is God?
No, the devil, even if it is a crusade or any "Holy" war! It
is precisely those cases when for some "noble" (also unlikely), the
goals should be to kill many innocent people and their blood to erect something
short-lived and ephemeral. Empire, as we know, don't live long. Anyway, none of
them managed to live for two thousand years - as long as Christianity has lived
and die, thank God, is not going to.
And money is a powerful tool of state power? Much blood was shed for
them, that the only people not ready for them to give, who not only bring...
Will not once again denounce the imperfection of modern States. Each of
us has experienced it many times myself.
The question is, objectively whether this imperfection, and whether it
somewhere and sometime become in perfection without losing the current economic
and political attributes of statehood? Whether it is possible (at least
theoretically) completely honest, fair, decent and humane system of government?
Many people say - Yes, possible. Remember the "Utopia" of
Thomas more, let us recall the theory of Marx-Engels (before over it
"worked" Lenin and Stalin), remember the "theocracy"
Vladimir Solovyov...
And in order to show that in fact this system of government is
impossible, have to go completely the other side. As in the case of Ivan
Karamazov, we will come to the aid literature. Specifically one episode from
the book "White Fang" by Jack London.
As we remember, in the beginning of the book for two travelers being
chased by hungry wolves. One of the travelers wolves eat quickly, and the other
is fighting to end.
And now, when a person has almost no strength left and the wolves
approached quite close, he was surprised to see that their faces have no
malice, no fangs. Henry counted about twenty wolves, looking at him with hungry
eyes, or simply sleeping on the snow. They reminded him of the children who
gathered around the table and are just waiting for permission to pounce on a
treat.
Right idyll, except for the fact that wolves are "quench his hunger
as he does not just satisfy the hunger of elk meat and the hare."
These are the "relationship". Who will say that they do not
present the honesty, integrity, naturalness, justice and even
"humanity"? After all, if the wolves do not eat the traveler, then
you will die of hunger. Or die of their children - the cubs. What
"humane" from the point of view of the wolf to tear small traveler
(someone else), or let die cub (its)? Where's the evil?
Evil is here, and very serious, although it is on the surface and not
"lies". The fact that the wolf pack problem of good and evil is
solved by the method of complete elimination of problems from consideration -
the wolf just don't know what it is, and therefore behaves completely organic,
natural and attractive.
"Basic instincts" ingeniously simple - preservation and
procreation. Sometimes called the third "basic instinct" -
relationships with their own kind, but actually it is a consequence of the
first two. The pack easier to hunt, herd easier to defend, and for procreation
also need a partner.
Every wolf from birth instinctively understands that out of the pack -
biting and tear all who see (preferably weaker and not alone), and the inside
of the pack - keep the hierarchy and not Grises with parent without full
confidence in victory, not "tear" and you. And don't forget that in
order to one day win the opportunity to "multiply", you need the
strength and health.
It seems to be good, but when projecting the model of a wolf pack on the
usual forms of human social organization (family, tribe, various national and
state education), things are not so smooth.
Since we are widely involved examples from the literature (solely
because of their clarity), remember the story of Rudyard Kipling's
"Mowgli" is a typical case of giving an animal of honesty and
integrity "of the human person.
In this tale occurs a characteristic paradox. Remember how
"nice" predators wished each other "happy hunting"?
We have a child read this book and have never thought about hunting
whom? And now let's think - not on us do you? At least for rabbits or deer, so
they are in Kipling too animated, too, sorry...
Have you noticed - "joined" the moral imperative, and
immediately it became clear that the wolf pack is not so great? Not only in
relations with the external environment, but also inside the pack. Remember the
sacred phrase "Akela has missed"? And it is, indeed, from the point
of view of the wolves is about to tear small leader and "elect" in
its place new...
It turns out that the wolf pack is a useful and needed by the community,
ensuring the preservation and continuation of the species in accordance with
"natural selection", but not peace and happiness of each individual
wolf, much more than other animals - potential victims.
"If you each other presale and eat, take heed that ye be not
consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15). Probably no coincidence that the
Apostle Paul used the words "bite" and "eat".
So why did Jesus Christ refused to manage the earthly States? Is it
because, as he understood that any "Kingdom based on the tears of
innocents", which was so earnestly said Ivan Karamazov, in the best case
scenario is a modified model of a wolf pack?
Yes, it is true, and is confirmed by the fact that Christ is believed to
control the States means to serve God and the devil (Matt. 4:10; Jn. 14:30).
Therefore, I propose to talk about good and evil in human society only
in the context of countering moral imperative (humanistic, Christian
spirituality) with basic natural instincts". Now we come to this
theological way, but in the last Chapter we will have an opportunity to
consider this issue and in the philosophical aspect.
In the meantime, let us remember the words of Christ: "the Spirit
that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing" (Jn. 6:63).
And the words of the Apostle Paul:
"I say then, walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust
of the flesh, for the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against
the flesh: and they oppose each other, so that ye cannot do the things that I
would like...
Works of the flesh, they are: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions,
heresies, hatred, murders, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as
I did before, that those who so the Kingdom of God shall inherit.
The fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness,
goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Gal. 5:16-22).
Thus, in accordance with the New Testament, our spirit lives by the same
laws, and the flesh of others.
Paul because of the limited scientific knowledge of that time could not
say one word on how exactly the laws of living flesh, and lists: adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness...
And we, armed with the achievements of modern science, we can specify:
the flesh of our lives in accordance with the "basic instincts,"
inherited "by inheritance from our ancestors, that is, from monkeys. And
if we talk in social terms, rather in accordance with the "sample"
wolf pack, like monkeys in a natural jungle occupy the very highest step (they
are hunted by many predators).
And the identification of any king or President (even the most
intelligent and talented) with the conductor of the divine goodness is the same
as giving Kipling similar qualities wolf Akela. Besides great Akela sooner or
later miss, and who then comes to his place? Unknown.
Thus, any talk about "good" wolf pack, and about the
"ideal" state is nothing more than wishful thinking.
In modern conditions the government has to "play" with the
citizens, to organize the campaign, to advertise certain politicians, etc. But
now in any, even the most democratic, the state of man is a cog in the overall
mechanism. Absolutely quiet and commonplace these screws when necessary,
lubricated when necessary, discarded.
The development of civilization softens extremes such as "do not
kill - do not eat", but there is war, and plagues...
This is the objective essence of the state - the subordination of the
interests of the individual interests of society. In the constitutions of most
democratic countries now declared the priority of the individual over society,
but it is rather a propaganda move, than a reflection of the real situation.
That is why, from the point of view of Christ and his teachings, any
state lives under the laws of the wolf pack and, therefore, is evil.
Chapter V
"Caesar what belongs to
Caesar"
I
So, good thoughts and actions dictated by the moral imperative, evil
thoughts and actions dictated by basic natural instincts".
The reality, of course, is always somewhere in the middle. In addition,
there are many situations when a moral imperative does not contradict the
"basic instincts" - for example, the protection of humanity from
nuclear weapons, or creating a family. But we have already said that for the
perception of one or another shade of gray it is necessary to understand, what
is white and what is black.
So sorry to state that today, in a social system prevails evil, which we
have called "social". In the vast majority of States it is almost
completely built and the economy, and politics. And the very notion of the
state as "repressive apparatus" is a reflection of the first
"social" evil.
Christ said to his brothers (not spiritual, and family, not yet accepted
his teachings): "You the world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth, because
I testify that the works thereof are evil" (Jn. 7:7).
Hence the methodology of our further research: the division (of course,
to the extent possible) moral and socio-economic elements, focus primarily on
the first and making the second aside. Let's call this methodology, similar to
MT. 22:21, "Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what is God".
For the sake of brevity: "Caesar what belongs to Caesar".
I may be accused of socialty. But, starting to work on the methodology
of "Caesar what belongs to Caesar", dares to ask a methodological
question: in what sense we consider socialnet in moral or social?
Morally I really modern (and even more medieval or ancient) society does
not accept, at least for the fact that in a world where he rules, the prophets
are condemned to be crucified, and "Karamazov" babies suffering.
"Not love'the world, neither the things that are in the world; he
who loves the world, the love of the father;
For all that is in the world: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is from the world" (1
Jn. 1:14-15).
Many philosophers and theologians of the NINETEENTH and twentieth
centuries, in varying degrees, affected by Communist ideas, tried to
"play" with the modern society with the aim of identifying some light
social perspectives of humanity.
But now we can say frankly that the society in its present form, and
even more than two thousand years ago evil. And will not build illusions. While
the determinants of social relationships are money and power over their own
kind (actually, it turns the endless spiral: more money - more power - more
money and so on), the society will be evil.
Is the opposite situation - "flirting" of society (usually
represented by the state) with the spirituality for the purposes of setting a
moral imperative to their service.
But we have adopted a strict monotheism - one God, and the moral
imperative one. Thus, the use of the name of God, and the moral imperative
without a moral purpose is a substitution of concepts, popularly often called a
lie. Probably not in vain in the mosaic Decalogue on a par with murder and
perjury appeared commandment: "thou shalt Not take the name of the Lord
thy God in vain" (ex. 20:7).
But uncompromising moral stance - "you cannot serve God and
mammon" (Matt. 6:24) - does not mean uncompromising social position.
The fact that the imposition of the brackets is not excluded from
consideration. On the contrary - identify in each human and universal social
element, we ease the task of understanding and, ultimately, adaptation.
And to adapt to one degree or another you - "wolf" the essence
of modern society can destroy only rooting spirituality, and until that happens
from this entity nowhere, unfortunately, will not go away.
Moreover, while the people live "animal" nature, statehood is
necessary to maintain some order in the world, otherwise Christ was not going
to compromise with authority (Matt. 22:21 is just the case). But it is very
significant that the word "Caesar what belongs to Caesar" in the
minds of the Russian people took the form of Proverbs to live with wolves -
wolf-howl"...
Therefore, we formulate our position regarding the ratio of
"social" evil and moral imperative as follows: today the world is
ruled by evil, but shoots good punch and actively take root. And it's safe to
say that the day will come when evil will cease to rule the world.
II
This position corresponds with the teaching of Christ, who refused to
control kingdoms, but not refused to address global social problems, declaring
the opportunity to build on Earth the Kingdom of God (Matt. 6:33; LK. 12:31;
17:20; Jn. 3:3). And this is not an empty Declaration.
After all, if Jesus offered the Kingdom of the earth, not God, the
devil, it follows that none of the earthly kingdoms (empires, republics, etc)
unable to build the Kingdom of God is not on its territory, much less to
someone else.
On the other hand, we realized that there is no need after Ivan
Karamazov to expect from Jesus or God the Father, to heaven descended lightning
and struck the torturers small child, so as long as the criminals still desire
them to be, they are not afraid of prison, nor hell, nor lightning. Time
medieval theatrical productions with the intervention of God in the final
("Deux ex machine") has passed.
Then, analyzing the possibility of building on the Land of the Kingdom
of God, we come to the only remaining option, corresponding to our General
philosophical approach: able to build the Kingdom of God only each of us.
And the victory over evil is not the state of human society, where
everyone will be like in a hypothetical communism, "to work according to
their abilities and receive according to his needs". Yes and no any state
of society. Simply no man will be tempted to do evil.
What state of society when this will be - we can only guess. But it is
clear that if the people will continue to kill, torture and deceive each other,
and the state must oversee to kill, tormented and deceived only those who
"need" - what kind of Kingdom of God?
No sooner is useless to talk about the absolute extinction of the state.
I, like the vast majority of modern people do not imagine the social system
without legislative, Executive and judicial powers, money, police and even the
army. Indeed, even if all States make peace and open borders - what if aliens
attack? I may be Christian, but if, God forbid, will begin a "war of the
worlds" - really I will not take up arms and go to defend our civilization?
And the money - if they do not, then that will govern the economic
relations? Love? How else is on the cards, as in the socialist distribution
system? Or everyone will just tie? And if someone turns a little more, surely
no one would envy him and not try to take away?..
Let's be realistic: the Christian concept not yet linked with the harsh
routine of Economics and politics. But, as we have shown in us, and if even a
few generations in the psychology of the people that will link all - God forbid.
"Being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God comes, he
answered them: never will come the Kingdom of God is conspicuous way, and say,
behold, it is here, or, lo, it is there. For behold, the Kingdom of God is
within you" (LK. 17:20-21).
Therefore, the task of Christianity is not utopian (happiness of
mankind, or one single country, but very real - to make it easier and a
specific person, and the people around him.
Clearly, if people really took the Christian doctrine, that he is
unlikely to want to lock my five year daughter at night in the street toilet
and coat her face, feces, as in the story of Ivan Karamazov.
Thus, the eradication of evil is ousting Christianity's
"spiritual" basis (the love of power, violence, money), but the
inevitable consequence is the improvement of society and reducing the total
amount of evil and suffering in the world. In that order, but not the reverse.
Not the "top"and "bottom".
So you can talk, I'm sorry if God in tears tortured child, but this does
not absolve us from the obligation to fight to keep these tears became less.
Just for that, and fought, and was crucified Jesus of Nazareth.
And since "Karamazov" five-year child, ignorant of theology,
is unlikely to become easier because once he suffered for Christ, then our task
is that this child has become easier thanks to those who call themselves Christians.
That means we need to fight for good, and just as Jesus Christ - the
good and the personal example, for evil (the devil) has a fundamentally
different moral nature than good (from God). Therefore, evil to produce good unable.
The state has its own methods of struggle (not for good, but for what it
considers to be good), in Christianity - their own. Face, as usual, is erased.
Without the Criminal code, of course, also impossible, and without the army and
the police have not yet obtained. Moreover, as we have yet to speak, and
sometimes "force" resistance to evil can hardly be called a sin.
But "force" the resistance can be solved only momentary
"tactical" problem, and the global strategic guide for each of us can
only be a Christian understanding of goodness and love, fully and adequately
expressing moral imperative, given by God to mankind.
III
I propose to consider from the point of view of methodology Caesar what
belongs to Caesar" several important practical problems associated with
society, and with the moral imperative. Solely as an example of universal
application of our methodology.
Immediately reveals the absurdity of such notions as "humane
state" or "good government".
And it's not that the goodness of a ruler (usually "everyday"
- personally, nobody was killed, and exemplary family man) to manage the state
has nothing. Concepts like the ones mentioned above, absurd in themselves,
their language, the "state" and "humanity", "good"
and "ruler" incompatible by definition.
Any state and any ruler, if they want to survive, have to be ruthless
and pragmatic - it is dictated by the ruthless modern society. The detail of
the system (in this case, any state institution) depends primarily on the
system, and the variances can only be within tolerances, issued by the same
system. If the deviation exceeds the allowable, the item is replaced with
another, more suitable. It is the law of any of the known societies.
Since we are talking about the variances, let us examine the causes of
crime.
Genetic, anthropological tendency to crimes (theory of Lombroso) -
private factors not always. Addressing this issue in the framework of the
methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar", we make a more General
conclusion: any mentally sane person is prone to crimes only to the extent in
which it "base instincts prevail over moral imperative.
We can assume that it depends on the will of God, but then we desafuero
our solution of the question of theodicy - God is an indirect perpetrator of
crimes. There is a more simple reason - social: child "disadvantaged"
parents are usually in an unsafe environment and growing, and all his life
dictates install, simply does not fit with Christianity and humanism. Hence the
"reproduction" of the crime.
You can remember the position of the Church theologians, bringing the
crime of distant action of "original sin", and to note that our
explanation is much more simple and satisfactory, and at the same time does not
affect the fundamentals of the Christian faith. On the contrary purifying our
faith from accusations of God in the infinite "reproduction" of sins
and crimes.
And if so, will leave the analysis of specific causes of crime (as well
as poverty and social oppression) Karl Marx - indeed, if he had not undertaken
to develop a spiritual utopia, it would have remained in the memory of
posterity largest specialist in the field of socio-economic analysis. But,
unfortunately, to separate the "caesarean" from "God" he
could not. Or did not want.
IV
There is another question - scientific-technical progress. Good or evil
brings people change carts and carriages to cars and aircraft?
It would seem that this question is not out of the context of our study.
But actually the methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" can be applied
here, and for this we need to start with a more "human" question:
good or evil be considered a professional activity? And in General work?
You can say that "labor" issues belong to the same society,
which to this day is organized by type of wolf packs and, accordingly, is evil.
But labor labor strife. Not because there is a "spiritual"
work (e.g., creativity), but because fundamentally important not labor itself,
and its result. We have already quoted the words of Christ: "By
their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20).
Therefore, we must analyze not work as the process and work as a result.
Here is an example: the creators of the atomic bomb it was impossible to deny
the creative impulse, but the result of their work objectively brought to
mankind more harm than good. Using their scientific achievements in peaceful
purposes illustrates the ambiguity of good and evil, but if we want to
"isolate" the moral components of both, our methodology says: atomic
bomb - more harm than good, no matter what excuses "peaceful atom".
We now run the risk of going deeper into the subject of "good"
and "evil" things and it stuck, because the volume of Dostoevsky can
be hard to hit, and not moral, but it is physically. Remember: in the beginning
of the book we have moved from "good" and "evil" things to
"good" and "evil" actions, exclusively in the context of
the moral imperative.
But in moral terms for us the purpose of the work is no less
important than its result. So good is the work, the goals of which are dictated
by the moral imperative, and evil - when in work goals are pursued enrichment,
violence and achievements of the government.
Note that professionalism is usually defined as the ability to get a
result in accordance with the selected order. So good work is not any, and professional,
for purposes relevant to the moral imperative.
And incompetence in this case can lead to the well-known saying:
"wanted as better, and it turned out as always".
It turns out that two workers of the same skill in the same machine can
for the same cost to work with a completely different purpose (one - to earn
money and to drink, and the second to the details is well served by the people),
and their work will be as different moral evaluation. Yes, and the percentage
of defects in the second case will be less.
Paradoxically, we are not in contradiction even with the theory of Marx
- he interpreted monotonous work with machines as the cause of the hatred of
the proletariat to these machines and to the owners of the means of production,
which assigns the result of labor. The peasantry, according to Marx, less
"revolutionary", as the hatred of "the earth is the nurse"
is the exception rather than the rule.
But if Marx's theory led to the conclusion that acts of evil - violent
revolution - unskilled labor, hated people, separated from the means of
production, then we are on the same provisions do the opposite conclusion - for
an act of goodness is more suitable skilled labor of the owner, interested in
the results.
It is in theory. As practice shows, that all ideas of social equality
are broken down primarily by the realities of unskilled labor, which even in an
ideal society (for example, in a hypothetical communism) someone will still
have to perform.
Indeed, occupations, such as plumber or plumber, to die so far, not
going. Moreover, the Declaration spiritual (rather than civil) equality
of the philosopher and the porter in the modern world leads only to the fact
that the latter stops qualitatively sweep the street. From here, far to the
Leninist thesis "every cook can govern the state", which, as we know,
nothing good has resulted.
But we already talked about the fact that the goal of Christianity is
not utopian, but absolutely real.
Therefore, we must understand that while there is unskilled labour, any
conversation about genuine social equality utopian, and the guarantee of
equality will never go out of civil context in the spiritual.
Therefore, we must recognize the positive role of scientific and
technological progress, leading to the increase in the share of skilled labor
and the transformation of the proletarians and peasants in educated engineers.
Creativity in the industrial sector, by and large, not less spiritual and
deserves no less respect than in the so-called "non-productive".
It may be objected: unskilled labor is a "safe haven" for
those creative people who are unable to earn their creativity to life. Example
- a whole generation of leaders of the Soviet underground of the sixties and
eighties.
Without delving into the moral and social aspects of market relations in
art, we can only say: Woe to the society, which forces the creative
intelligentsia to earn a living by working in the boiler. And rather than this
ugly phenomenon will cease, the better.
Where unskilled labor, there is a "social evil. Where
"social" is evil, there is unskilled labor. The circle is closed.
Hence, mechanization, automation, robotics, computerization - the good
and not evil. And the fact that the computers are in the library, and in the
control centers of ballistic missiles is another example of subsidiarity
results and scientific-technical progress in comparison with the purposes for
which these results are achieved and used. The "reference point" is
again the man and his system of values.
Therefore, to deny the scientific-technical progress because of the
danger of nuclear war is as absurd as to reduce the crime to withhold from the
townsfolk axes, kitchen knives, as well as all other household
"sharp" items.
Until people are willing to kill each other, they will find something to
do.
V
Negative consequences of the scientific-technical progress is usually called
global environmental disorder on the planet. But look: progress whether to
blame?
To come to the understanding that we can, again, only by a specific
person, his life and health.
Life and health are closely related, and concepts of humanism cover not
only the first but also the second. Health is a form of assistance to the
person. It is dictated by the moral imperative, and in Christianity this is
confirmed by the multitude of the sick, healed by Jesus and the apostles.
Objectively speaking, any state interested in these issues
"because"as the disabled, the sick and the disabled in the
"pure" model of the state wolf pack is doomed. And what of the modern
state in varying degrees, preventing their death is an undeniable progress and
is an example of deep rooting moral imperative.
Health at the state level, pension security in old age is also positive
examples. A positive trend is almost universal abolition of torture and the
death penalty (at least in the civilized world). Even such a purely political institution
of democracy can be considered a great achievement of the moral imperative, as
it enhances the role of personality in social "mechanisms".
Slowly, with periodic "kickbacks" in the side of the fascist
dictatorships, but still lends itself to the society the influence of the moral
imperative, putting on the identity of the person, his freedom, life and
health.
If the development of human society applies the word
"progress", it is precisely in this.
Therefore the environment, is closely associated with the health of the
people is the most important task and society, and state, and human rights. And
the negative impact of anthropogenic factor on the global ecology - the example
of insufficient attention to this problem and the reluctance of merchants (or
officials) to spend money on the introduction of scientific developments in
this area.
Again we came to the conclusion that in unscrupulous hands of the
achievements of scientific-technical progress can lead to disaster.
However, the history knows many examples of bad faith and spiritual
values, up to the Christian religion. The Inquisition and the Jesuits we have
already recalled.
But good or evil, according to our methodology, is art?
First thought - the Christian religion and art are irreconcilable
enmity. This stereotype is under a dogmatic basis - Orthodox faith believes the
word "art" is derived from the word "art"that is a kind of
diabolical temptation.
Pavel Florensky in the book "the Pillar and ground of the
truth", for example, writes: "it is a mysterious and seductive smile
all persons Leonardo da Vinci, expressing skepticism, falling away from God and
Samobor human "know", there are actually the smile of confusion and
disorientation: themselves lost, and this is especially evident in "Mona
Lisa". In essence, it is the smile of sin, seduction and charm, a smile
prodigal and corrupted, no positive expressing (that's the mystique of it), but
some kind of internal embarrassment, some internal bustle of the spirit, but -
and proscannot".
He was echoed by Archimandrite Raphael (Karelin) in the book
"Christianity and modernism":
"Human art, literature and poetry is in large part the nature of
human passions, only very subtle, evil manifests itself under the guise of
good, and gross vices opetition and are attractive. Passion for worldly art,
full integration into the worldly perspective separates, separates man from all
eternity. People who are in captivity to his dreams and dreams, lives in a
false, self-made world, where there are demonic forces".
Not going after Pavel Florensky and Rafail Karelin search "demonic
forces" in the works of Michelangelo or to accuse van Gogh in "full
involvement in worldly perspective". With a strong desire to see the
diabolical machinations and "Moonlight Sonata"and "War and
peace"...
Better ask the question: in the middle ages art was almost exclusively
ecclesiastical. More than a thousand years... How does the Church tolerate such
a diabolical art?
I will most likely answer that the art at that time did not exist at
all. Street actors do not count, and icons obeyed the canons and art were not.
The icon is not a work of art, and "the image, elevate the thoughts and
feelings of the faithful to his subject".
There is another question: why the Church in General need such
complexity?
Not only is the Church for many centuries compelled to explain the
difference between an icon and a work of art and, accordingly, to convince
people that properly consecrated work of a country "painter" of the
nineteenth century has the same divine power and Holiness, as a masterpiece of
Theophanes the Greek.
It may seem that the Christian Church went on clear and blatant
violation of the second commandment of the Holy: "you must Not make for
yourself any graven image that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Do not worship them nor serve
them..." (ex. 20:4).
A violation of the second commandment of the Holy, as it is known, is
called idolatry. Why did violate the commandment? Wouldn icons in the first
Millennium, and the problem would be a no. Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques
are perfectly happy without icons...
Have to make another excursion "to the roots".
The Apostle Paul, spreading in the Roman Empire, Christianity struggled
not only with paganism, but with a very "free" Roman mores. And he,
Jesus himself, in moral terms, were followers of the ascetic Jewish tradition,
Moses is introduced.
Will not try to refute the traditional Jewish asceticism and remember
hundreds of wives of king Solomon - he lived a thousand years before Jesus
Christ was a different time, and in Judea of the first century B.C. one of the
reasons hit the country misfortunes believed the sins of Solomon.
Major role in shaping the ascetic tradition played a fiery denunciation
of the old Testament prophets VI-IV centuries BC - Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah,
and others.
Israeli asceticism end of the pre-Christian era and was economic and
political framework. The country was occupied by Rome, constantly fought for
independence, and this situation was not conducive to the accumulation of a
large number of wives and concubines, and especially to the sumptuous feasts
and celebrations. And the vast majority of Jews did not have the financial
possibilities - Jew was poor and robbed the province.
So, the Apostle Paul, along with Christian teachings and Jewish
asceticism led a relentless ideological war with the Roman mores.
Art came "under fire" of Christian preaching. Not surprising -
continued the Greek tradition of Ovid and Horace sang the praises of sexual
perversion, feasts, pagan gods and stuff like that. Fat beauty of the frescoes,
of course, provoked not only the apostles, but a large part of the Roman
intelligentsia. And still the art of ancient Rome, especially the fine is
considered to be decadent, and not even just remember, that it is in Roman art
first appeared scope and perspective, and architecture - arches and vaults.
War Christian ideology with the Roman art ended with the victory, when
Christianity survived two centuries of persecution, received a powerful
supporter in the person of Constantine the Great in the early fourth century
was the "state religion" of the Roman Empire. Manners were (at least
outwardly) is much more austere, and more importantly, the art has become
pronounced "Christian" in nature.
What official Church considers the first iconographer Evangelist Luke -
Frank is a legend, not supported by any facts or evidence.
Teacher Luke, the Apostle Paul, and already have enough problems with
the Orthodox Jews, and he hardly was once again irritate violation of the law
of Moses (the second commandment of the Holy), in addition he talked about the
unjust people: "And the glory of the incorruptible God changed in the
way..." (ROM. 1:23).
Theoretically, of course, you can assume that the Evangelist Luke
suddenly demanded to the Holy sacrifice of Apollo" and he decided to give
up the second Sacred commandment on its own initiative, but it is more than
doubtful for professional writer and theologian in the first century A.D.
In fact, the formation of Christian art was gradual and natural.
Although the sign of the cross was used already in the third century spoke
Tertullian), the cross became the official symbol of Christianity only when
Constantine the Great and ancient symbols were fish and bread, which Christ fed
the multitudes in Galilee.
Why were we chosen fish is the fact that the first letters of the Greek
word "atios" ("fish") was the monogram of Jesus Christ (J.
C.). These characters in a purely utilitarian purposes of this secret society
was depicted on the walls of the famous catacomb churches. Most likely, this
"Masonic signs and started Christian art.
In the II-III centuries of the Christian symbols were gradually
penetrate into the official Roman art. So, to have survived the images of
"the good shepherd" - the encrypted image of the Savior (Jn. 10:11),
made entirely in the Roman style.
At the same time passed and the transformation of artistic forms.
Muscular, handsome and fat beauties classic ("pagan") Roman style
lost on Christian images place clumsy "icon" man.
Most critics consider "Christianization" art is a consequence
of the destruction of Rome in the fifth century. How to teach in schools and
colleges, the classical tradition in art were lost due to physical destruction
of the artists.
This is another outdated stereotype. Rome never to the base is not
destroyed, the population of polls is not exterminated, the secrets of Roman
art were not catastrophically lost, and just art has become another.
And emperors of Constantinople formally call themselves Roman, and the
rulers of the "barbarian" kingdoms in the West inherited from the
times of Constantine the Great already formed Christian art and do not promote
the image of naked beauties or the chanting of the verses of homosexual love.
But the gods used to depict - and in the Christian era continued to
represent only a fresh and new. And not only God, Jesus Christ and the Holy
saints of well - known portraits of emperors and statesmen, and executed in the
same "icon" style. You could say - Romanesque, but the critics
somehow believe that the Romanesque style appeared only at the end of the first
Millennium, and before that was nothing but early Christian iconography.
Actually, even the arch of Constantine the Great in Rome depicts big men
brand in the Romanesque style. Formally speaking, in the icon. The same can be
said about the frescoes 321 year in residence Crispus, son of Constantine, and
the sarcophagus of Junius bass (359 year), and about a portrait of a
politician-philosopher boetia (early sixth century), and about the helmet of
the king of the Lombards about the same time.
By the way, another argument against the "loss of skill":
Constantine the Great or king of the Lombards could find any artists and
depicted in their Imperial symbols perfectly composed, powerful and muscular
men.
But once again, art has become another.
VIII
In order to understand why it's different, at least remember some of the
teachings of Jesus Christ, which was based spiritual awareness of early
Christian ideas:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of
heaven" (Matt. 5:3);
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt.
5:8);
"Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become like
children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven; so whosoever therefore
shall humble himself as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of
heaven..." (Matt. 18:3-4).
It is known that the desire for goodness and spiritual purity in the
minds of the vast majority of people associated with childhood. Children's
drawings every seen (I mean pictures of mentally normal children). And not only
now, and in the middle ages, the children drew.
Apparently, so spiritually pure people and is perceived as a
large-headed, narrow-shouldered, megapode - as if drawn by children. And the
children, in turn, draw these fellows, because you yourself are such -
swollen-headed, narrow-shouldered...
In parallel with our main study, we made an interesting conclusion: in
the icon... children.
This is an example of how art operates Christian subconscious, and it is
very important to understand whether or not art is an expression of the moral
imperative.
Now we can say with certainty why the masters of the middle ages, with
the sight of a huge number of perfectly preserved masterpieces of ancient Greek
and Roman art, not take them for samples. Christian subconscious way.
The child, as we know, instinctively afraid of muscular men and ashamed
of the naked body (with rare exceptions such as hereditary nudists, and there
are instincts just suppressed). Why, well reviewed Freud. For us, unprincipled
- why, it is important that similar feelings experienced at the beginning of
the first Millennium "good Christian", looking at the life around the
pagan Roman Empire.
That's no longer in the IV-V centuries depict Venus de Milo and the
Apollo Belvedere, and not portrayed throughout the middle ages. And only in the
Renaissance, when the society, in turn, "tired" from the hypocrisy of
the papacy and the Inquisition (for reasons we will discuss later), the
installation of the Christian subconscious were forced (too Freudian term)
units "enlightened antiquity."
So, in the middle of the first Millennium art under the influence of the
"Christianization" of manners took new forms, but no lump sum, a
radical change, especially about the death of art or his full transformation into
any other phenomenon, can not speak.
Early Christian art and its integral part, icons - first, absolutely
adequate expression of the Christian subconscious, and secondly, an organic
continuation of the ancient Greek and Roman traditions.
IX
But why in the IV-V centuries victorious Christian Church violated the
second commandment Holy, and not tried to "undo" the fine arts? And
right to left as "secular" - as it is in the Church in the form of
icons allowed...
It is possible that the bishops simply was not up to art - I had to save
Christianity from the barbarians. But this version is very doubtful we will
consider the history of the early Christian theological currents
(monarhianstva, Arianism, Donatism, Pelagian, Monophysitism). What are the spears
were broken for some delicate questions!
And with icons - a clear violation of the commandments, and nothing.
Until VIII century, no dispute, no debate!
In fairness, we note that there was another argument in favor of icons.
According to the old Testament, God, in spite of the second commandment,
commanded Moses to carve two cherubim of the ark (ex. 25:19). But this argument
is not used - did not seem the case.
Seven hundred years no one seemed not to notice the flagrant violation
not some vague hint of St. John the Evangelist or Apostle Paul, and the second
commandment of the Holy!
And the explanation is very simple: the Christian Church, despite all
the declarations, could not live without art.
If the icons were just one of the tenets of the Church is really for so
many centuries, there would want to spend on this topic of global debate and
brand icons as heresy?
No, the icons, and not just the canonical (there were no strict rules
images of saints), but the real art is advantageously distinguished the Christian
Church from the Jews and did the perception of Christianity more understandable
to the Gentiles.
By the way, it is likely that art has played a significant role in the
General circulation of the barbarians to Christianity in IV-V centuries. Barbara
could read something bad, the Scriptures for them was tricky, but the picture
looked...
Here is a more typical example of how the Church was to be art, and how
she was saved from the "external enemy" - iconoclasm.
Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. fought not with Christ,
and with the Christian Church. Among other things it is because of the
veneration of icons accused the Church of idolatry. And when the Islamic
caliphs conquered the middle East, and conquered a great part of the Christian
world, their charges has become difficult to ignore.
Constantinople, Emperor Leo III the Isaurian was to solve the problem
globally, starting in 726, the relentless struggle against the icons of the so
- called iconoclasm. The struggle was continued by his son Constantine V, then
Leo IV...
We will see that in Byzantium on theological questions the word of the
Emperor almost always been "the ultimate truth". But with the icons
was a unique case - the Church came together and stood up to death! The
veneration defended Constantinople Patriarch Germanus, the Patriarch took the
Pope, in this struggle became famous John Damascene.
Emperors began the persecution of the iconodules. Did not work:
throughout the Empire, so that there were bloody riots, the Church of Greece
has raised a popular uprising, a significant part of the Italian Empire's
territories placed under the rule of the Lombards, not wanting to put up with
iconoclasm...
The Cathedral, held close to Constantinople in 754, under the pressure
of Constantine declared that "to restore the images of the saints through
the material of paints and colors are useless, idle, and even impious and
diabolical".
The 7th Ecumenical (2nd Nicene) Church 787, using the death of Leo IV and
sympathy icons of his widow Irene, the newly established veneration of icons.
Further, depending on the personality of the Emperor, the struggle went
on with varying success, and the situation was for the Church losing: how easy
is the state organization to fight against the state?
But the Church survived! In 842, the Council of Constantinople was
finally installed the veneration of this argument: "the Honoring of icons
and worship them refers not to the substance of the icon, not the wood or the
paint, and to him who is depicted on the icon, therefore, has no character of
idolatry."
The arguments, of course, weak.
First, the icons represent not only God, Christ and the Angels, but also
in houses and trees and people and animals, and even the devils in hell. With
the icon of "the last judgment", for example, it turns out that we
worship, but Jesus, many who, while not all deserve.
Secondly, this argument does not apply to "secular" art, and
it remained behind the Church dogmatics.
Thirdly, the second commandment Holy, yet so clearly prohibited to
portray whatever it is that even God commanded Moses to carve the cherubim (ex.
25:19) looks very convincing counterargument, and so the Council's resolution -
and even more so.
Actually there are far more serious theological arguments in favor of
and iconography, and any other art form. We will talk about this in one of the
following chapters. But the reasoning of the Cathedral 842 year, may not stand
up to serious criticism, saved the icons, and with it the Romanesque and Gothic
art. Yes and Rebirth, probably, in case of victory of iconoclasm would be quite
different.
And most importantly, we realized that would not say the official
theology, the Church considered art as its principal component, so more
important than any of the canons, and I even key type "Trinity"),
which is not allowed on this occasion, no discussion, and when in the eighth
century the Church has the right to art tried to take - she defended it.
Hardly can then be considered to be legitimate the position of the
Orthodox Church, identifying the cognate origin of the words "art"
and "art" with alleged diabolical essence.
Art has played a huge role in the formation of Christianity, and,
respectively, and moral imperative.
This historical review could bring to our days and to see that the
Christian religion and art phenomena of the same level in the same order, and
in the course of history only changed places in the consciousness of humanity.
History clearly shows that art and the Christian religion are closely
connected with the ways of society, but they live by their own laws, and no
state can these laws affect willed order. The system of spiritual values and
religion, and art is above all social changes and upheavals, it has no control
over nor rulers, nor the government.
And today, after the collapse of the Communist utopia, art and the
Christian religion is no competitors in the spiritual world of people belonging
to the European civilization.
Let's not forget about the close relationship of art with this concept
of aesthetics. In the most prosaic sense of the word domestic.
For example, every child knows that it is impossible to litter on the
streets. Why not? What about this "says" moral imperative, if the
garbage on the street doesn't hurt anyone, hurt anyone not a health hazard? The
same can be said about shabby facades and covered the walls in the hallways...
But in this case the moral imperative "says the voice of
aesthetics, and it is difficult not to listen. And the formation of aesthetic
taste without art is impossible, and this is only a small addition to the great
moral force that carries the art.
Of course, not every piece of art belongs to the system of values
expressed by a moral imperative. But with Christianity, and in fact the same
situation - and the largest Church, and an enormous number of sects interpret
it in their own way, not always in good faith, and often for selfish purposes.
Thus, one of the most important problems of mankind on the path of
understanding the moral imperative of the purification and of the
Christian religion, and art from the speculative, opportunistic and selfish
layers.
From the above we can conclude: art, along with the Christian religion,
corresponds to the development of humanity, given the moral imperative, and it
is good and not evil.
In the book "Jesus of Nazareth's life and teachings" after a
much more detailed historical review I argued more: the Christian religion and
art today are the most significant evidence of the existence of God.
In principle, now we come to the same thing, only a few other way. After
all, if we assume that the moral imperative was given to people by God, proving
the validity and effectiveness of the practical manifestations of the moral
imperative can be considered evidence of the existence of God.
Of course, the evidence is weak, because philosophy is not mathematics,
and the amount of private does not necessarily equal the total. And we have
"components" that's three.
First: the Christian religion and art are good.
Second, an intuitive understanding of good people due to the action of
moral imperative.
Third: the moral imperative comes from God.
And I still think that we of these "terms" have the right to
draw another conclusion: evidence of the existence of God are not only the
Christian religion and art, but also the presence of people have an
intuitive understanding of the good.
We managed within the local research to solve an important problem, and
this again suggests that things in philosophy no.
XI
Let's try to position our methodology Caesar what belongs to
Caesar" to consider the so-called "national question".
It may seem that national self-awareness refers to the moral imperative,
as belonging to a particular nation often not detected at a conscious level. Is
a kind of subconscious "we", and used not only in
"everyday" context "today we won in football, but in the context
of quite spiritual: "our culture, our art, even our faith"...
Remember Pushkin: "Hurrah! We are broken! Bend the Swedes!"
But despite immortal Pushkin's lines, will regret to state that we are
not dealing with the moral imperative, and impressed on the subconscious of the
strongest social stereotype.
We give the proof here it is not so simple.
The whole history of mankind proves that nationality is closely
associated with the state, and Vice versa - state is associated with ethnicity.
The self-awareness of oneself as a person belonging to a particular nation,
gradually merges with the self-awareness of oneself as a citizen of a
particular country.
Proof - mass liberation of third world countries and the collapse of
colonial empires in the twentieth century.
It all seems to be good. For example, the legally elected President of
the "state forming" the nation is usually better knows the needs of
his subjects, than "sent" the Governor-General (although this is not
an axiom). It seems to be acceptable and culturally - promotion of national
cultural and historical traditions, the study of their native language
(although it is not an axiom). In any case, based on General assumptions, the
self-determination of Nations, most likely, the process is positive.
But does this positive process to the moral imperative? Let us formulate
the question more concrete: shall reign on the earth peace and quiet in the
hypothetical case of complete self-determination of all Nations?
But such a hypothesis is simply incorrect: without exception, all of the
nation to self-determination" can't, because there will always be groups
of national minorities, for whom the national majority of the right to
self-determination does not recognize. In the end, a nation can declare
themselves and the inhabitants of one region, and the inhabitants of one city,
and this will always be confirmed in ethnic, cultural and linguistic
traditions...
Split the nation can, and logical limit it. And if so, without the
"hot spots" on a national basis, world will not.
Now remember the childhood and cry in the yard: "Our beat!
"Our" here is used in a different context, but it's also intuitive
community! And if tomorrow this "scream" will be distributed on a
national scale - is the same subconscious force will not stir up millions of
people and not lead them to kill their own kind?
It may be objected: in each country, enough of the Nazis, fascists and
extremists, and such cries are heard very often. But because people do not take
the axes (or more modern weapons) and not going to kill...
Someone is not, and someone is coming. This is a first. And secondly,
what prevents most people are willing to respond to any such cry?
As a "brake" is a moral imperative. And he is the
"brake" not only massacres and wars based on ethnic hatred. He
opposes any destructive tendencies, until robberies and murders.
Hence, the contradiction of the moral imperative of national
self-awareness is just as justified as the contradiction of the moral
imperative with any subconscious manifestations of evil.
Therefore, to the moral imperative of national self-awareness is not
true, moreover, contradicts it.
Our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar" treats this
situation as follows: national self-awareness is potentially a source of not
good, but evil. Someone moral imperative from the evil hold, and someone,
unfortunately, no.
The question arises: national culture? And the national art? Is it
possible that they are evil?
Of course, no. But here we are dealing with quite another situation when
"national" is not as self-awareness, and as a material. Language,
tradition, geographical features... If English works on the factory Buryat folk
crafts, this does not mean that he necessarily feels the Buryats. Although
Boris Pasternak and Osip Mandelstam - the great Russian poets, they felt
themselves to belong to the Jewish nation.
And if ever national self-awareness of the people will sink into
oblivion together with other manifestations of "social" evil,
national cultural traditions are unlikely to disappear, although it will mutate.
Nothing wrong in the denial of national self-awareness there is no
history of mankind suggests that Nations come and go, and their culture
remains. There are lots of examples - Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Ancient Greece,
Ancient Rome... Can we call these Nations disappeared? In social terms, but in
spiritual - no.
There are more sad example contained in the title of the book Fenimore
Cooper's "Last of the Mohicans". Indeed, many peoples goes into
oblivion, and after them there's not a "Museum" of culture. But whose
fault is it - not whether those "national most", which absorbed and
then physically destroyed "minority", not allowing them to develop?
Again we come to the "social" evil...
As additional confirmation of our position, and comfort all unknown
missing peoples remember the words of the Apostle Paul: "...is being
Renewed in knowledge after the image of him that Created him : where there is
neither Greek nor Jew, neither circumcision nor uncircumcised, barbarian,
Scythian, slave, free, but all in all Christ" (Col. 3:11).
I can ask the subconscious "we" takes not only a national
form. For example - "we Europeans", "we men", "we, the
Orthodox," "we, Christians," "we, earthlings", and
even "we, the inhabitants of the Universe"? Surely this does not apply
to the moral imperative?
Yes, and this does not apply to the moral imperative, for which there is
only one "we" - "we, the United moral imperative". And all
the other "we" - a variety of subconscious stereotypes. Both positive
and neutral, and negative.
XII
Thus, we examined the notion of "social evil, and a number of local
issues related to compliance of certain plants society's moral imperative.
Having spent a lot of time on the issue of theodicy, we also realized
that the free will of people eliminates the guilt of God in their sins and
trespasses.
But we haven't talked about the evil nature - hurricanes, tornadoes,
floods, accidents and illnesses. To the latter also include mental illness,
depriving people of the opportunity to realize their criminal actions, and here
we see the entwinement of "social" and "natural" evil.
Moreover, analyzing evil "social", we all sooner or later will
reach its "natural" roots - after all, wolves, and human society is
also created by God.
Yes, and why God gave civilized mankind moral imperative, would not
eradicate our "animal" nature, and gave them to coexist, not quite
peacefully?
So, until the end of the question of theodicy is not decided. After all,
if the creation of the world as a whole physical and moral initially suggested
the presence of evil, then wouldn't it be better to God all this world is not
to create?
And may we showed that our suffering is not the fault of God, but
through the fault of society or nature, but to solve the main question - why
did God created nature, and society as a potential source of evil is the us so
far. We were at the level of "microcosm" of man, and the question
just asked, refers to the "macrocosm", and it we are not yet ready.
Explain why.
In our study the causes and forms of "social" evil main
"tuning fork" moral imperative was Christianity, and in those subconscious
forms in which it is rooted in the people belonging to the European
civilization.
Not so many people who delves into the problems of theology. Something
understood by the mind, something intuitively feels, and that's usually enough.
Still we have in this book could do without the theological subtleties.
But now we have the transition from philosophy to the practical ("metaphysics
of morals") to the theoretical philosophy (understanding the structure of
the universe and in this universe). And since the main tool of this
understanding, as before, will remain Christian theology, then, before this
tool to work, it must "adjust" to the solution of theoretical
questions.
XIII
It would seem, why Christian theology "configure"?
And then that his theoretical (conceptual) part differs significantly
from the practical (rooted in the subconscious of many generations), and this
situation is a source of tremendous amounts of abuse and speculation. And while
we do not Dene what is meant by the words "Christianity" and
"Christian religion", to move forward we will not be able.
As you remember, similar to "configure" we had to do, analyzing
"the paradox of Christianity, calling into question the very right of the
teachings of Christ to be called the most complete and adequate expression of
the moral imperative. We then are faced with many layers of medieval
stereotypes (for example, of hell as a fiery brazier and heaven as angels on a
cloud), and the transition to a clear understanding, expressing Christianity
only as the teachings of kindness and love, took a lot of time.
However, we time not spent in vain - not deciding this issue, we would
not be able to develop a methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar". And
since we managed to do it, let's try to apply this methodology to Christianity.
Let's ask ourselves: fully corresponds to whether the moral
imperative of Christianity is the core of any European philosophy?
Remember: analyzing "the paradox of Christianity", we did
exactly what separated the moral imperatives from the old Testament principles
of evil for evil retribution (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell,
sin), effectively applying the methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar",
was not yet developed.
This "setting" we've done well and I can confidently say, Christianity,
understood as the doctrine of Christ and in the Holy Scriptures, the moral
imperative corresponds completely.
But since the writing of the New Testament has been almost two thousand
years, during which happened multiple division of the Christian churches and
the formation of the so-called "sacred tradition".
And if Christianity is the teachings of Jesus Christ exists as an
objective reality from the moment when he gave us Christ, the Christian
religion is the philosophy of people - largely depends on the subjective
attitudes of the people themselves.
Therefore, in the same way the Christian religion (I emphasize - not
Christianity, but formed on the basis of his religious worldview) depends on
the society and history and Economics, and policy.
And in this case, the answer to the question of whether or not there today
corresponds to the moral imperative of the Christian religion, will
be negative.
And should such a disappointing conclusion of the additional question:
what religion are we talking about?
About the Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant? Lutheranism or Calvinism?
Maybe about Socinians or Adventism? If there are hundreds of different options,
which expresses the moral imperative with all (or at least maximum)
completeness and adequacy?
Trying to answer this question directly, listing all sorts of
interpretations of Christianity and analyzing them, we will have to consider
many thousands of volumes of theological works and it is unlikely that you will
succeed.
The approach, in accordance with our methodology Caesar what belongs to
Caesar"must be fundamentally different: to identify those Christian
religious concepts, which are formed exclusively on the basis of the moral
imperative, and to single out" the rest of them, seeing them as layers
"social" evil hindering integration, understanding, and often
peaceful coexistence of Orthodox and Catholics, Catholics and Protestants,
Protestants and Baptists, Baptists and Jehovah's witnesses, Jehovah's witnesses
and seventh-day Adventists"...
Chapter VI
"Trinity"
I
The "tuning" of Christian theology we will start with a question
that any Church - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant - ready at any moment to give
the detailed answer. So the question is:
The base of the Church dogmatics is the Trinity of three divine persons:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is an independent personality, and each of
them has their "responsibilities". However, the latter are not
strictly separated, and in one way or another "action" includes all
persons, though in different degrees.
So, tied if this approach with a rigorous monotheism, without which the
Christian religion inevitably becomes vague moral system? And the first
commandment Holy, the sound is clear - God is one (ex. 20:2).
The Church confidently say - linked.
Going deeper into the Nicene-Constantinople (in the old Russian
interpretation of the Nicene - Constantinople Symbol of faith. This is the most
concise expression of Church dogma, and this "Character" recognize
and Catholics, and Orthodox (except for the addition of the
"filioque" - the procession of the Holy spirit "and from the Son").
"Character" in ancient Greek means "gathering together" or
"expression", so this approach is quite justified.
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and
earth, all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, begotten, begotten of the
Father logically before all ages; light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Whom all things
were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was
incarnate by the Holy spirit and the virgin Mary, and became man. Crucified for
us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And resurrected on the
third day according to the Scriptures. And mossedegh to heaven, and Sidama at
the right hand of the Father. And shall come again with glory to judge the
living and the dead. Whose Kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. Who proceedeth from
the Father; Who with the father and the Son together is worshiped and
glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. Resurrection of the
dead, and the life of the century. Amen."
Orthodox creed written in old Slavonic language of the XV-XVI centuries,
and in modern English Church it does not translate, as well as prayers.
However, writes thus not through the "izhitsa" and "Yat", a
modern alphabet.
Out of respect for the readers, I still think it is necessary to
translate the "Symbol" in modern English, while not giving any
comments:
"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and
earth, all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the Father, born before
all time, light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created,
consubstantial with the Father. They all was created. For us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy spirit and the
virgin Mary, and became man. Crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and
suffered, and was buried. And resurrected on the third day according to the
Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the
Father. And come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom
will have no end.
And in the Holy spirit, the Lord, Creator of life, from the Father
outgoing. He, who spoke through the prophets, together with the Father and the
Son worship and glory.
And in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. Believe in the
resurrection of the dead and the afterlife.
So be it."
Key wording, which give the appearance of solving the problem of
polytheism, are the words about "God the Son": "From the Father,
born before all time...born, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father".
So, "God the Son" is born - in the son. But because he is God,
then nesotvoren. Consubstantial to God there is no accusation dvubozhii, once
the nature of God and God the Son are one.
If we consider all three positions - "born nesotvoren,
consubstantial" - separately, then, indeed, appears to resolve the problem
of polytheism. But only an appearance, and as soon as we begin to consider
these provisions are complex, there is a lot of controversy.
If "God the Son" is born, then he created. How can I give
birth, not made?
The Nicene-Constantinople formulation could not be applied to "God
the Son", and to ordinary people, born from women. All mother bear and
give birth, do people physically, but not all spiritually. In principle, the
physical creation of son mother, too, can be challenged and attributed to the
"competence" of God, or at least genetics.
But if "God the Son" born of God, "before all
time"when there were no women, no genes, then nobody, except God, created
to be.
And "consubstantial with the Father"?
When the old Testament God created man "in his image and
likeness", it's more or less clear. But if you understand
"consubstantial" literally, that Christ was not God himself took his
form and came to Earth himself prayed and talked to myself (as taught in the
beginning of the III century Sabellius is one of the founders of the religions
called "monarhianstvo").
If not, then, "consubstantial" cannot be taken literally, that
is, Christ was an independent person. This Church does not dispute. But, then,
if he too is God, God with us two (and with the Holy Spirit - three), and we
are polytheists (i.e. pagans).
There is only one version of the concept of "consubstantial":
Christ is the image and likeness of God. We are also known (Gen. 1:26). So,
"consubstantial" Jesus first of all we, the people, and we still will
have the ability to re-verify.
And if we talk about the "third person of the Trinity, the
situation is even more strange.
Despite the fact that the Holy Spirit is considered to be composed in
the same relationship with God as "God the Son", not
"born"and "comes", "Symbol" does not contain any
language about his uncreated and consubstantial - he just announced the third
God ("the Lord the giver of life", "together is worshiped and
glorified"), without any reservations. Seems it should be understood of
course, that what is the second hypostasis of the Trinity, so is the third.
But to imply you anything, and yet what we see in the official creed is
nothing like polytheism. In relation to "God the Son" is hidden, and
in relation to the Holy spirit - Frank.
In the Nicene-Constantinople creed, there are other controversial
moments. For example, Christ was incarnate from the Holy spirit and the virgin
Mary, and after a few words we read about the Holy Spirit coming from God. It
turns out that the Holy Spirit was something like a mediator at birth "God
the Son".
How such a strange phrase, in principle, of course. In the Gospels, the
concept of the Holy spirit, as we remember very many meanings, but according to
Matthew, Mary got pregnant from "the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:18). We
will have the opportunity to ensure that the Apostle Matthew was not familiar
with the concept of "Trinity", and its wording in the Nicene creed
simply moved from the "Apostolic".
The so-called "Apostolic creed was formed at the end of the second
century, that is, to the apostles, nothing had. However, give it a whole - it
is short and, unlike the Nicene-Constantinople, a relatively simple and logical.
"I believe in God the Father Almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His Son, our Lord, born of the Holy spirit and the
virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, the third day was
resurrected from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat down at the right hand of
the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy spirit, the Holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the
resurrection of the flesh".
The last words of this "Character" we still remember, when we
talk about "the afterlife" - facilitie. Now let's just say that
neither Apostolic nor the Nicene creed is nothing about the origin of the Holy
spirit is not mentioned, and in
We could talk about the enormous power of tradition, which for sixteen
hundred years the Church has not corrected these "editorial" error.
But the creed is not a simple prayer. In it, each word is of great
importance. And if we found so many inconsistencies already in an extremely
precise and polished "Symbol", the multi-volume "Holy
tradition" number of contradictions increases by many orders of magnitude.
In order to understand these contradictions mere coincidence or unfair
layers "social" evil, you must seek the origins of the Christian
religion.
We have already said that, despite the declarative negation strict
observance of the law of Moses, the image of Jesus Christ in the theology of
the Apostle Paul differs little from the old Testament Messiah. Church
theologians this is not to argue and believe that a fundamentally new
interpretation of the nature of Jesus Christ was given at the end of the first
century the Apostle John the Theologian.
We have almost completely quote the introduction to the gospel of John,
initiating all subsequent ecclesiastical interpretation of the nature of Jesus
Christ. Recall that this gospel was written in twenty-thirty years after the
death of the Apostle Paul when the Church was already a large and diversified
organization. So, read:
"In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things were made through
Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and
the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God whose name was John (the Baptist - SZ). He
came for a witness, to testify about the Light, that all might believe through
him. He was not that light, but was sent to bear witness about the Light.
Was the true Light, Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him
not. He came unto his own, and His own received him not. And for those who
received Him, who believed in His name, he gave power to become children of
God, are not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but
were born of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace
and truth; we have beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the
Father.
John bare witness of Him, and crying out, saying: This was He of Whom I
said, he who cometh after me has surpassed me because he was before me. And
from His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace, for the law was
given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. God no one has
ever seen; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the father, He hath
declared him" (Jn. 1:1-18).
This passage has become a major theological basis for justification of
view of Jesus Christ as "God the Son". I emphasize - not for the
dogma of the Trinity, but only for the transition from the Evangelical concept
of "Son of God" dogmatic "God the Son", which then turned
into "second person of the Trinity".
But in order to see how was the transition and how it was justified, you
will need a relatively detailed historical overview.
And in the late I - early II century sect of Christianity became a
separate religion Imperial scale, and faced a problem: how to explain the
masses of pagans who worship the Christians? God - Yes, but what? Besides, the
Jews, or not?
This question was to ask any infidel is not idle - if I must not pray to
Zeus and Apollo, to whom? Jewish Jehovah? And then what's the difference
between Christianity and Judaism?
In order to understand the explanation about the Messiah need to know the
old Testament. He was in Judea not everyone knew...
Therefore, in the second century, to distinguish it from Judaism,
Christians needed their "own" God. Then began Jesus to call God.
Questions why monotheism were two gods, in the beginning of the second
century have not yet been asked. Christianity was primarily a religion of the
poor, and educated people among the poor then met few. And yet the theological
justification of the divine nature of Christ, sooner or later, should have been
required.
So, Jesus Christ in the beginning of the second century had to declare
God and not to incur charges dvubozhii.
The task was not just difficult, but theoretically intractable.
"Cancel" God and put on his seat of Christ no one could - too
it was contrary to the Gospels, not to mention the old Testament. But, as you
know, if you think of something you want, it will be thought no matter what.
Justin (Justin) Philosopher (approx. 100-165), came up with the
following: referring to the familiar passages from the gospel of John,
"the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1) and "the Word became flesh"
(Jn. 1:14), he interpreted them literally and declared Jesus Christ "God's
word", which gained flesh and came to Earth.
The tension of this approach at that time was not evident, because
Justin, based on ancient Greek philosophy, identified the expression "the
Word was God" is often used by the Greek term "Logos".
Generally speaking, the "logos" means "word", but
Socrates "Logos" means "true word" (logic, source and criterion
of objective knowledge), Heraclitus is reasonable nature of nature, the Stoics
: self-organizing principle, independent from God, Plato's mind, calculation,
reasoning, proof, language, and Aristotle - the true essence of each thing.
Contrary to popular belief that Philo of Alexandria had a great
influence on early Christian dogmatics, his interpretation of "Logos"
is very different from that which gave Justin.
In Philo the Logos did not exist separately from God, and was himself
intelligible world "idea of ideas". In fact, the "Logos"
was one of the manifestations of God, which Cardston any person.
And Justin "Logos" has come to mean the divine mind, which
gained flesh and came to Earth in the person of Jesus Christ.
And there was this synthesis of Christian theology and Greek philosophy
- the identification of Jesus with the Logos.
And since the "Logos" in Greek, as we have seen, was
considered something of a higher mind, this identification in the context of
Christian doctrine actually meant the recognition of Jesus as God. Rather,
"God The Son".
Like "Son of God" and "God the Son" - sounds almost
identical, but actually received a key difference and formed the basis of the
dogma of the Trinity", which appeared two hundred years after the death of
Justin Philosopher.
Now, referring to the fact that "the Word was God" (Jn. 1:1)
and "the Word became flesh" (Jn. 1:14), Justin announced Jesus Christ
"God the Son" Is "Logos".
The fact that in the second century this was in line with the
political objectives of the Church, which had been necessary to
"your" God, we get it. But is it alright for the identification of
Christ with the Logos from the point of view of theology, which, in theory,
should be based on Scripture, and not to resolve political issues?
Remember the beginning of the book of Genesis: "In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and empty,
darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water.
And God said: let there be light. And there was light" (Gen. 1:1-3).
We see that God created the world by the word, and the first words of
God were: "let there be light" (Gen. 1:3).
And now look at the quoted beginning of the gospel of John.
John calls Jesus "the word" indirectly and once (Jn. 1:14),
and "light" directly and repeatedly (Jn. 1:7-9; 3:19; 12:46).
Besides, John has used the term "word" in contexts completely
excluding the identity of "words" and Christ:
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My words has one who judges
him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (Jn. 12:48).
"You are already clean through the word which I have taught
you" (Jn. 15:3).
"I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and
Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was (in the link - SZ) on the island that
is called Patmos, for the Word of God and for the testimony of Jesus
Christ" (Rev. 1:9).
Many professional philosophers II-III centuries, absorbed by
Christianity as a "fashion" idea, could not help but try to build on
its base "full" philosophical system.
For these purposes, in Christianity "insertion" many
teachings. Used the concept of Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism,
and many other philosophical and religious systems, but on the first place on
"popularity" was the ancient Greek philosophy.
Gnosticism is the common name of these "synthetic"
philosophical systems.
The immediate forerunner of Gnosticism was a contemporary of Christ
Philo of Alexandria, with its synthesis of Judaism and Greek philosophy, and in
the second century Gnostics were called a variety of philosophers,
"adopting" the Scriptures. The most famous of them Valentinus and
Basilides, who lived in the first half of the second century.
What the Gnostics were not invented! And "demiurge"and
"Archon"and "365 astral angels", and
"panspermia", and "Sophia with her husband Desired", and
"Pleroma", and "Achamoth" - all this eclecticism found a
place in their teachings, the Central figure of which "opportunistic"
reasons was Jesus Christ.
Jesus declared that the Ghost, the "fragrance of the Holy
spirit", then "new EON"... the World of the Gnostics was the
illusion, the trial, the punishment consisted of three levels, from 365
spheres, then 30 "eons"...
In short, the Gnostics believed that Christianity itself is too simple
and axiomatic, and if it is not colour specific philosophical terms and not to
give all concepts catchy and eye-catching name, serious people will not
perceive.
This view was widely held.
From the Gnostic concepts infiltrated into the Church dogmatics and
durable it rooted, the most famous "Logos" ("word of God")
and "Sophia" ("God's wisdom"). The first was destined
predecessor "Trinity" and one of the Central dogmas of the Church
officialdom, and the second was "the banner of the Russian religious
Renaissance."
"Logos" and "Sophia" is closely intertwined, and the
spectra of their "competence" is almost completely coincide - the
Gnostics made the Greek word "Sophia" (wisdom) the proper name and
gave "Sofia", the person is female, a wide range of
"authority."
In the Scriptures about the wisdom of God has said repeatedly (Prov.
8:22; LK. 11:49; 1 Cor. 1:24; apocryphal book the Wisdom of Solomon), but no
personal issues she had. However, as the word of God.
But the ancient Greek pagan tradition of deification of all phenomena of
nature (dawn - EOS, death - Tanat, war - Ares, love is Aphrodite and so on)
have borne fruit. The same thing happened with the "Logos", only he
was identified with Christ.
However, Sofia has long been identified with the mother of God - the
Gnostics and their followers missed the "feminine" in the world.
About "Sofia" is often mentioned when we were talking about
the creation of the world, as, undoubtedly, the Creator of wisdom was difficult
to refuse. It turned out that "Sophia" - something like
"matrix", by which God created the world, and "Logos" - the
specific content of this "matrix".
In the first Millennium "Sofia" is also used as an analogue of
the Holy spirit, and as a symbol of the Christian Church, and as the
personification of the state and of all medieval notions of "order"
on Earth. Not surprisingly, the greatest of the Byzantine and Russian churches
- St. Sophia of Constantinople, Kiev and Novgorod were devoted to the "God
of wisdom".
However, in Russia the cult of "Sophia" has existed for a
relatively short time and even in pre-Mongol times was replaced by the cult of
the virgin. Gradually the Church from "Sophia-the wisdom of God"
refused, as it was found much more convenient to assume the role of
"Keeper of the Holy spirit", which in Scripture is mentioned much
more often and, in contrast to the "Sophia", in a personal context.
Now the vast majority of people identify the "Sophia-divine
wisdom" with St. Sophia, the mother of great Faith, Hope and charity. The
Gnostic "Logo" lucky - thanks to the dogma of the Trinity, he
remained in the Church dogmatics.
However, and "Sophia" completely forgotten was not.
Most philosophers "Russian religious Renaissance" was fond of
Gnosticism as a synthesis of Christianity and the "real" philosophy.
For example, Vladimir Soloviev turned in their teaching, along with the
canonical Christian concepts and some of the Gnostic, first of all,
"Sophia". His footsteps went and Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov,
and brothers troubetzkoy.
And now sophiology" is a direction, a very "fashionable"
in Russian philosophy.
Anyway, when you read modern philosophical works, where mixed concepts
of God, Christ, "Trinity", "absolute", "Logo",
"Sophia", "Nirvana", "Shambala",
"karma", magic, the occult and other things - first of all recall the
Gnostics, nedootsenivaet the enormous potential of Christianity to answer the
spiritual needs of not only the most serious people, but professional
philosophers.
Now that we understand the fundamental difference between Christianity
and Gnosticism, it is necessary to state that the Church theology II-III
centuries gone the way of Gnosticism. In this same way and went all
subsequent Patristics (the study of the so-called "Church fathers") -
from Athanasius of Alexandria to John of Damascus.
As we shall soon see, all attempts at least a partial return to the
teachings of Christ and the apostles were declared heresies and ruthlessly pursued.
Unfortunately, it is quite logical that the founder and the first
representative of the patristic Church thinks of Justin Philosopher who
declared that Christ "Logo" and in fact was gnostica.
In Soviet times, this has led to a curious "syndrome Philo of
Alexandria, a philosopher, synthesized the old Testament and Greek philosophy,
Marxist ideologues believed predecessor... Christianity. To discredit the
teachings of Christ were required to identify its "sources", and
thanks Ustinovka "Logo" was found "useful" parallel with
Philo.
Like Christianity, and Philo was based on the old Testament, and in both
exercises use similar terminology, so that such a parallel look convincing.
Actually Philo was a contemporary of Christ, did not live in Judea, and
in Alexandria, so it is unlikely that Christ in any way relied on his doctrine
was enough and the old Testament prophets. Yes and all the philosophical and
theological standards to Christianity the teachings of Philo nothing had.
Philo of Alexandria was the predecessor is not Christianity, and
Gnosticism, on the road which went Patristics.
For example, "Logos" became the Central dogma the doctrine of
Tertullian, who believed that the coming of Jesus to Earth in one form or
another existed, but in unity with God the Father, as "the word".
After birth, he became "a word pronounced.
In the books Tertullian was present and the Holy Spirit, which gave
occasion to some Church theologians to declare him the father of the dogma of
the Trinity. But actually his teaching to "the Trinity" nothing had,
and the dogma appeared in more than a hundred years after his death.
About the Holy Spirit of Tertullian, indeed, he wrote, but only as a
Christian spirituality - divine power, "alternates" of Christ on
Earth after his crucifixion. This was discussed in the Gospels (Jn. 20:22), so
that Tertullian was simply stating a well known fact.
This representative of the early Church fathers, like Origen, it is
necessary to emphasize here. The thing is that, whatever we treated Gnostic
"Logo", the divine nature of Christ has many confirmations and in the
Gospels, and in the Epistle.
Origen tried to do it, and not without success. He, unlike Justin and
Tertullian, was not talking about the identity of the Logos with Christ and
operated the terms of the potential and actual energy. Before his birth, Christ
was a potential internal energy of God, therefore he existed eternally. And
then he came into the world, and has become an important energy.
It is believed that Origen laid the Foundation for the doctrine of the
Trinity as "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost divine hypostasis. But actually he
analyzed the relationship primarily of God and Christ, as a result of
recognizing God in the absolute sense, only the Father. Christ, according to
Origen, is the second God. The Holy Spirit, in turn, came from "God the
Son" and treats him like "God the Son" to God not being God.
To summarize the above, then all logical Origen: Christ is born of God,
created and left us with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
But remained slippery question - as in monotheism were two gods, and to
ward off accusations of paganism, Origen called all the other people are also
gods. And Jesus ' soul, and the souls of all people existed from eternity,
before the creation of the world (the so-called doctrine of "pre-existence
of souls"). Remember the Psalm: "I have said ye are gods and sons of
God - all of you" (PS. 81:6).
Thus, Origen began with the recognition that Jesus is God, and graduated
from the recognition of the gods of us all.
In the III century Church dogma does not extend beyond the analysis of
the Scriptures, and it was the main argument in the philosophical and
theological disputes.
But there was one exception - the deification of Jesus of Nazareth. We
took up position on this issue three philosophers and theologians - Justin,
Tertullian and Origen. But was the fourth Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.
The latter believed that the theory of the origin of Christ as a
"Logo" is not necessary and even harmful, because they complicate the
understanding of the believers of the Christian religion. Putting at the corner
of the simplicity of Christianity, the masses of the Gentiles, but at the same
time not abandoning "own" the Christian God, Irenaeus said that faith
is sufficient that there is a God and "God the Son". Charges
dvubozhii Irenaeus was not disturbed.
This position has found considerable response among "ordinary"
priests engaged in missionary activity and not unicasa in theological
subtleties.
But there were many priests who do not agree with Irenaeus and nominated
precious slogan, something like "you need to hold onto the monarchy".
In other words, they understood that the Church will sooner or later face
charges of paganism, and therefore must adhere to the absolute and
unquestionable monotheism.
"Keep the monarchy" could be two ways.
The so-called "Monarchianism-modalists" (from the word
"mode" is a way of manifesting) saw in Jesus the God who took human
form, walked the Earth and was crucified.
For it appeared Sabellius, Bishop Ptolemaidsky, who lived in the early
third century. About him we know almost nothing, but the "costs" of
its teachings, the Church is still exactly Sabellius (not Tertullian or Origen)
first introduced in the relationship of God and "God the Son" third
"person"of the Holy spirit, and declared them all
"consubstantial".
But it did not save the Savelli, and he was posthumously named a heretic
Cathedrals 261 and 262 years, since the "consubstantial" in the sense
meant the complete unity of the one divine person in different forms. Hence, by
Savelli implied that Christ, praying to God, praying to himself, and talking to
God, talking to himself. It was quite strange.
In addition, the doctrine of "modalists" is very reminiscent
of Docetism, an early heresy of the second century (from the Greek
"dokes" - "to seem").
We have not paid Docetism enough attention because he did not have a
clear line clear leader, and broke up into a number of local flows, many of
which were included in Gnosticism. Briefly the essence of Docetism can be
expressed as the negation of the physical existence of Jesus. He came to us
some spirit, talked, povisel on the cross and flew back to heaven. In short,
not Christ, and the hallucination of Matthew, John, Peter and others.
In such a mass hypnosis, even in the second century could not believe,
and Docetism few people seriously.
But back to the monarhianstvo. The so-called
"Monarchianism-dinamisty" believed that Jesus Christ is the man of
the earth, which operated the divine power. Hence the name
"dinamisty" - from "Dynamo", which translates from Greek as
"force".
It is believed that the first "Monarchianism-dinamistami" were
legendary Theodotos Tanner and Theodotos banker, who lived at the junction of
the second and third centuries. And in the middle of the third century is
headed for a Christological Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch.
Last, having a good relationship with Synovia, Queen of Palmyra and
Syria (vassal of Rome made Christianity already in the third century the state
religion of the local (Syrian) scale, even combined the office of Bishop with a
high post in the Syrian government. However, the opponents of Paul of Samosata
claimed that he was conceited, considered himself a great man, and even in some
of the hymns in honor of the Savior put your name. However, in tiresomely it
was difficult to refuse.
But the Church was needed Christ as "God the Son", and the
teachings of Paul of Samosata in 269 at the Council of Antioch condemned as
heresy.
As we began to consider the most famous early Christian heresy, note
that in the II-III centuries for them yet no one was burned. Christianity
periodically hit by persecution, and the role of the Inquisition were the Roman
emperors, killing all the Christians in a row. Theological debates often took
place in the famous catacombs, were quiet and the cultural, and the heretical
bishops demoted rare - a new candidate for such a dangerous position was
difficult to find.
While, however, Paul of Samosata after conviction at the Cathedral of
269 demoted and power was expelled from the Bishop's house, and all because of
persecution at this time subsided, the rulers of Syria consistently favored
Christianity, and the place was warm.
So, to the beginning of the fourth century monarhianstvo practically
ceased to exist, and to the flourishing of the Church under Constantine the
Great Christian dogmatics came with a relatively simple, albeit blurred
understanding of Christ as "God the Son".
Both the "official" point of view of Irenaeus and Justin -
enjoyed almost equal rights.
Replaced monarhianstvo half a century later came the most widespread
heresy of all times and Nations - Arianism, but age is radically changed - the
Emperor was Constantine the Great.
In 318, amid the General euphoria of the victory of Christianity, the
Alexandrian priest Arius entered into a dispute with his Bishop Alexander. In a
short time in their argument to include not only the whole Church, but a large
part of the population of the Empire.
Arias was based on "dynamic" monarhianstvo Paul of Samosata, but
with a fundamental difference concerning the identity of Christ and the
"Logo".
Paul of Samosata completely denied the Gnostic idea of Justin
Philosopher and radical thought that the identification of Christ and the
"Logo" is absurd. According to Paul, Jesus Christ - man, and
"Logos" - the divine substance, given to him by God.
Arius so far not went and followed the line of Justin, with the only
difference that claimed that "God the Son" is not eternal, not
eternal - he and the son. And even if he is born, as it "Logo",
"before all time", before his birth, he still did not exist.
Opponent of Arius, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, was defended by one
of the provisions of Origen, became the official position of the Church:
"God the Son"born "before all time", if only because of the
eternal and beginningless - how to determine the beginning, if there was no
countdown?
From the point of view of modern understanding of eternity such dispute
does not make sense, as both events, "the birth of God the Son" and
"the beginning of all time, infinitely removed and the opponents are
trying to determine what happened before. Which of the two infinitely large
numbers anymore? In our time no need to be a mathematician to understand that
such a question is incorrect.
But if we reject the theological and mathematical delights, intuitively
Arians understood: since we are talking about the relationship between
"father-son"means "God the Son" in any case appeared later
God the Father and, as said Arius, "there was a time when it was not."
Perhaps, intuitively the same understanding and opponents of Arius, but
further development of this idea has led to very undesirable for the Church to
conclusions about the divine nature of Christ.
In recognition of the position of Arius, in any case receive two divine
persons: God the eternal and original, "God the Son" is "less
than" the eternal and not the original. So, no casuistry could not
disguise the fact that there were two different gods, and to avoid accusations of
paganism had to assume the point of view of a convict in 269 Paul of Samosata,
and recognize that Christ is man.
Arius so far not dared to go, and coined the term "podobosuschnost
Son to the Father" - a cross between divine and human nature of Christ.
However, the masses and the "ordinary" priests Arian doctrine still
was perceived closer to what Christ is a human like everyone else.
The most implacable opponent of Arius was Athanasius, the successor of
Alexander the post of Bishop of Alexandria, later called the Great. This is
also the nickname received his disciple and follower of Basil of Caesarea.
There was another "great" enemy of Arianism - spiritual writer
Macarius of Egypt.
Note that of the theologians of all previous and subsequent time the
title "the great" was awarded the only teacher of Thomas Aquinas,
albert von Bolshtedt, and then primarily because he was lucky with the student.
"Great" popes were only two Leo I and Gregory I, the great patriarchs
were not. More "magnified" a few very ascetic monks, and that's all.
It turns out that three of the four "great" theologians have
distinguished themselves in the struggle against Arianism, and this shows the
extent of the latter.
Note that in the polemic of Athanasius of Arieh last triumphed view of
Origen, sway public opinion, paradoxically, to the position of Athanasius. As
we remember, Origen said that Jesus is God, but we are all gods.
Against the Aria is played beautifully, because Arius, denying unoriginate
Christ, and denied the doctrine of Origen. The latter admitted without
beginning ("pre-existence"), the souls of all people, including
Christ, and people always wanted to stay a little gods. Very impressive, and
most importantly, promptly said Basil of Caesarea: "God became man so that
man might become God".
In relation to the position of the Church was soon changed when in the
middle of the fourth century it was necessary to appeal to the masses,
Athanasius and Basil all were called gods, and when defeated Arianism, this was
quickly forgotten, and people already at Aurelie Augustin, just fifty years,
was "vile vessels of sin" and "creatures".
And let the "creature" is just the Church's interpretation of
the concept of "created being, anyway, for anyone that term is derogatory.
Open the dictionary Ozhegov " : "Creature.
But digress from Church terminology (although it is also very revealing)
and I must say that even now, we at all desire can not figure out who was
right-in fact, Arius and Athanasius.
The fact that their dispute quickly turned into a purely scholastic
dispute, and it took Aria is the only chance to win an appeal to common sense.
Ultimately, as we said, they were both wrong, comparing the events of infinity
- "the beginning of eternity" and "the birth of the Son from the
Father".
Not surprisingly, the debate about whether there should Arianism heresy
or Canon, lasted for at least three centuries amid essentially insoluble
theological problems arose also a lot of political problems.
And politically, it looked as follows.
When Emperor Constantine the Great in 324 after his victory over
Licinius took over the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, he was faced with a
complete confusion in the minds of bishops and primarily ordered to stop the
"empty arguments". The debate did not stop. Then Constantine convened
the Council of Nicaea 325, and personally presided.
The Cathedral was won by the opponents of Arius, and the latter, along
with several bishops were excommunicated and exiled. Was adopted the Nicene
creed, which is about the "Son, Father born", said: "the
uncreated, consubstantial with the Father". Therefore, Christ was
officially recognized "God the Son".
The winners were called by the word "omousiane"
("omous" in Greek means "consubstantial"). Interestingly,
the position of Arius was called "omiusianstvo" ("omus" -
"podobosuschnost"). How many human lives were broken because of one
letter...
But homoousian winning at the Nicene Council, had a lot of tests. Their
main tenet of "the Son consubstantial with the Father" did not stand
up to any criticism: he was still in the year 269 proposed at the Council
condemned monarhianina Paul of Samosata, but was rejected for the apparent
inconsistency as two individual, God, and "God the Son"may be
"consubstantial" enough to be one God?
Moreover, the term "consubstantial" enjoyed "the
opposite" monarhianin - "modalist" Sabellius. And in his
understanding of "consubstantial Father and Son", as we know, meant
just one person that was no less absurd - it means that Christ, praying to God,
praying to myself...
It is not surprising that after three years Arians managed to win the
favour of Constantine the Great. In 328, Arius and his associates were returned
from exile, and in 335 at the Cathedral in Dash deprived of the Episcopal
dignity, and sent into exile already Athanasius.
Arius of Alexandria died in 336, After the death of Constantine in 337
omousiane led by Athanasius returned from exile and received the Episcopal
chair, but not for long: the Arian Eusebius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 339,
Athanasius again "demoted". The latter went to Rome, to Pope Julius,
who acquitted him on the Cathedral 340,
In order not to bore the reader with details of political intrigue that
both sides wove around emperors, except to say that Athanasius was again
demoted in
Athanasius of Alexandria died in 373, but his case was continued by
Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, surnamed the Theologian.
Marsianam (supporters of "consubstantiality of the Son to the
Father") was required to shift attention from stress Arians personality of
Jesus on the scholastic "God the Son". We saw that it was very hard,
he wanted a "fresh idea", and in her late thirties IV century put
forward Athanasius, and in the sixties-seventies developed Basil and Gregory.
XI
This idea is the Declaration of God the Holy spirit - was in the forties
and fifties of the IV century trump card in the political game of two
omousianskih Church groups.
One of them was headed Macedonius I, Patriarch of Constantinople. The
other belonged to Paul I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Julius I, Pope and
bishops, theologians Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of
Nazianzus.
And Macedonia, and Paul were omousianami and active fighters against
Arianism, but that their relationship is no better. Paul was the Patriarch of
337 to 339,, then with 341 to
Can you imagine the heat of political struggle in the Church?
Policy Paul had a theological justification for the struggle against the
policy of Macedonia. Theologian Athanasius gave it, and it was the Holy Spirit,
transformed into "the third person of the Trinity".
Macedonia considers the construction of the spirit in the rank of third
God unnecessary and redundant. Athanasius, Basil and Gregory took advantage of
this and moved into the mainstream debate pure scholasticism, which, as a
professional theologians, was stronger.
Of these leaders omousianstva until the early eighties he lived only
Gregory Nazianzen. He succeeded in becoming a 379, Patriarch of Constantinople,
to win over the Emperor Theodosius the Great, and in 381 approve the dogma of
the Trinity at the second Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral.
Characteristically, about the procession of the Holy spirit in the
Nicene creed of 325 nothing was said, and the words about "the Holy
spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with
the father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the
prophets" are the addition of the Council of Constantinople of 381, which
did not do unfurled. Presiding at the Council Gregory Nazianzen avoid
unnecessary conflict with the followers of the former Patriarch of Macedonia
and not put emphasis on controversial issues.
What a blatant polytheism in the result, we have said, analyzing the
Nicene-Constantinople creed.
However, the "Trinity" suit and the Emperor, and the majority
of bishops at that time, I only at the time) she was in dogmatic terms of
stabilizing compromise, and politically - worked on the image of the Christian
Church.
First, Athanasius, Basil and Gregory, developed and defended the dogma
of the Trinity, was erected by the Holy Spirit, symbolizing the Christian
religion at the head of the Church, the cult , along with Jesus Christ.
Secondly, they brought Christian theology to the very effective
"Trinity" form.
The number "three" fascinated by the ancient world no less
than "seven". In the Bible you can find a lot of threefold praise the
Lord, and the threefold repetition of the phrase gives an instinctive balance
in any utterance. Remember faith, hope, love. And if we talk about folk
traditions - and the three heroes and fairy kings always had three sons, and
anecdotes of our time before the final acute premise often repeated three
times...
No wonder why the three. The triangle is known, defines the plane is the
simplest geometric shape, the shape of pyramids, the three pillars on which
stands the Earth, and so on and so on and so forth. By the way, the last said
too, three times.
Thus, the dogma of the Trinity has become a powerful psychological
factor. When Father was "consubstantial", except the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, the Church theology has become a spectacular complete system,
completely self-contained and detached from any reality.
The third God, the Holy Spirit, was very comfortable and for the
state, and property claims of the Church, which declared itself its a
"Keeper", and it has become a decisive political factor.
That "Trinity" was based on the teachings of
Monarchians-"modalista" Savelli, nobody cared.
XII
What can you say about the "Trinity" in the theological aspect?
About Jesus Christ we have already spoken, and will speak again. No firm
basis in Scripture proclaiming him "the second hypostasis" is not.
About the Holy spirit we see a huge range of opinions of the
evangelists, to the extent that it left us Christ, Dunav (Jn. 20:22). But it is
important for us that the Holy Spirit as a separate God never appears.
Some so-called God himself (Matt. 1:18), in some places the Holy Spirit
acts as the messenger of God (Matt. 4:1), sometimes in the form of a dove (LK.
3:22), but in most cases it spirituality or Christian teaching (LK. 4:1; 11:13;
Jn. 3:34; 15:26; 16:13 and others)
The Holy Spirit in the New Testament attaches enormous
importance, up to what Jesus says: "And whosoever shall speak a word
against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy
spirit will not be forgiven" (LK. 12:10).
From these words of Jesus can make a huge number of far-reaching
conclusions. For example, it turns out that Christ was even ready to forgive
the rejection of Christianity - his teachings, if people are willing to live in
accordance with Christian spiritual precepts...
But again, all of the above to the dogma of the Trinity has nothing. On
the contrary - Christ in the phrase "encapsulates" the son of Man and
the Holy spirit, that is, their dogmatic "consubstantial" speech
cannot be.
Often quoted phrase of Jesus: "make Disciples of all Nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
spirit" (Matt. 28:19) about the nature and relationship of the latter says
nothing and for our study is useless. It is referenced by the defenders of the
Trinity, and totally in vain - nothing but a simple transfer of already known
concepts, not here.
Opponents of the "Trinity" branded the sentence as a sham that
is the other extreme. To be baptized in the name of God, Christ and
Christianity - and beautiful sounds, and in fact normal. The dogma of the
Trinity" includes much more than a simple enumeration of the names of the
Father, the Son and the Holy spirit, and here we have no "consubstantial"or
"nestorenko".
Usually in defense of the dogma of the Trinity" is a quotation from
the first Epistle of the Apostle John the theologian. But we are going to prove
that this Message is a little fake.
Who is the "author" is hard to say, but the earliest
manuscripts of the New Testament extant, dated to the fourth century. And this
is the height of the struggle against Arianism.
Is it any wonder that some of the "interested" copyists
inserted in the first General Epistle of the Apostle John's words: "For
there are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy
Spirit; and These three are one" (1 Jn. 5:7). This is almost verbatim the
dogma of the Trinity. Mention all three persons, and consubstantial.
The Authenticity Of 1 John. 5:7 was questioned by the Protestants in the
nineteenth century, but cited the arguments associated only with no words about
the "Trinity" in some manuscripts and their isolation from the
General context of the surrounding phrases. However, in modern German translations
of the Bible (and they made together Catholic and Protestant churches) these
words are missing.
But Germany, of course, for the Russian Orthodox Church is not an order,
so here is another argument against the authenticity of 1 John. 5:7.
The phrase "the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" unknown
forger stuck, but to explainwhat "the Word", I forgot! At the
beginning of the Message slips "Word of life" (1 Jn. 1:1), but it is
impossible to understand about Christ or not.
And in the gospel of John, as we have seen, Christ is not directly
interpreted as "the Word." Moreover, the first Epistle of John dates
back to the late sixties, and the fourth gospel was written at least twenty
years later.
All this "the author of the forgery" did not consider, for
him, after heated debates IV century the identity of Christ and
"Logo" seemed natural and well-known fact.
And the Apostle John the Theologian, not knowing what falsification of
three hundred years exposed to his message, ibid writes: "Who is the liar
but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (1 Jn. 2:22). So, actually,
John and his Message was presented Jesus as the Messiah (Savior) in accordance
with the old Testament and about the "Trinity" did not say anything.
Let's see, wrote anything on the subject of "Trinity" the
Apostle Paul.
"Trinitarian" Orthodox tradition holds that place
"Romans", which says about God: "For from Him and through him
and to Him. To him be the glory forever. Amen" (ROM. 11:36).
Where is the dogma of the Trinity"? We see nothing but triple the
glorification of God. We have already talked about this psychological factor is
the impact of triple.
We note only that in Church publications can be traced unfair tendency
to interpret any threefold repetition in the Bible (for example, "Holy,
Holy, Holy" - Rev. 4:8) as evidence of the dogma of the Trinity.
Actually the Trinitarian and three times is completely different
concepts, and we must not confuse cause and effect. We analyzed when the
appearance of the dogma of the Trinity, spoke about his origin from the
fascinating numbers "three". The triangle would have continued to be
the most stable and harmonious geometrical figure, regardless, would have
developed in the fourth century dogma or not.
"Old Testament Trinity", despite dedicated to her masterpieces
iconography (including Andrei Rublev), and does not stand up to scrutiny.
Usually in her defense provides the following quote: "And the Lord
said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil"
(Gen. 3:22).
Based on the words "one of Us", the Church theologians suggest
that the world was created not by God, and "Trinity", and the result
seems to be logical that in this episode, God speaks about himself in the
plural.
But logically it is up to the moment when Adam did not become "like
one of Us". Obtained is not three gods, but four (or even many billions if
you count Adam's offspring).
Actually, most likely, the use of the plural "us" in relation
to God - the subtleties of the solemn style of the Hebrew language. The same
applies to the words of God: "let us Make man" (Gen. 1:26).
Perhaps because God has set to protect the Paradise of the Cherubim
(Gen. 3:24), the word "Us" refers to the so-called "heavenly
Host".
The latter, of course, nothing like the improbable juxtaposition
legends. So far we have no means of knowing how many hierarchical levels,
Archangels, Angels... But the "Trinity" in any case nothing to do
with it.
In the absence of more meaningful references "Trinity" is the
phenomenon of Abraham God and two Angels (Gen. 18:2).
Indeed, at first, Abraham saw "three men". On the basis of
this is built all dogmatics "old Testament Trinity"and the icons of
these "three men" is commonly depicted eat food under the tree (Gen.
18:8).
But then the Lord departed, leaving the two Angels (Gen.. 18:33; 19:1).
Not "God the Son" and not the Holy spirit, namely, the Angels, and in
the future it has been repeatedly pointed out.
Moreover, the last few later almost raped in Sodom (Gen. 19:5). Agree,
if Angels were Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, then the situation would look
at least strange, and the maximum is undermining the foundations of faith.
And finally, remember that the word "Trinity" is nowhere in
Scripture does not occur.
Chapter VII
"God-man"
I
We saw that the dogma of the Trinity is no compelling reason in the
Bible has not.
Considering its formation on publicly available historical material, we
realized that it was created solely as an instrument of political struggle
of the fourth century.
And although at that time "Trinity" was a compromise, who
arranged the Emperor and the majority of bishops, in accordance with our
methodology to Caesar what's Caesar's," we must conclude that the doctrine
of the "Trinity" is not an expression of the moral imperative, and
the juxtaposition of "social" evil in the doctrine of Christ -
Christianity.
Look confirmed whether our conclusion historical facts. Good or evil has
brought Christians this dogma?
To answer this question don't have far to go from early Christianity.
The fact that the creators of the dogma of the Trinity, limited to
questions of the divine essence of Christ and his descent from God, forgot
about the fact that Christ still born from the earth women, walked, ate, drank,
slept, tired and suffering (Jn. 4:6; 19:28; 11:33; LK. 22:44; 4:2; Matt. 14:4;
MK. 3:5 and others)
Discussions on this subject were, but had the character of a Supplement
to the much more ambitious disputes about "the Trinity".
And at the junction of the fourth and fifth centuries of the Church's
theologians had to develop another dogma to answer the question, what is the
relationship between Christ's divine nature, "legitimized" by the
dogma of the Trinity, and the human, which still have not been able to
"cancel".
In the late twenties V century, this question has been instrumental in
the next outbreak of the struggle for power in the Church.
The major religious centers at that time there were four: Rome (which is
on the outskirts of the Empire and shaken by the attacks of the barbarians),
Constantinople (the capital), Antioch and Alexandria (two huge prosperous
cities in the provinces of Syria and Egypt). Jerusalem, the fifth (and
technically first) Church center, and never recovered after the collapse of the
I-II centuries.
In the 419 on the relation in Christ the divine and human nature came
into the discussion Nestorius, the head of the theological school of Antioch
and Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria.
Nestorius claimed that the virgin Mary as a man could give birth only
human and therefore should not be called Theotokos, and Christological, and his
divine essence of Christ is received directly from God immediately after birth.
Cyril of Alexandria believed that divine power descended upon Christ in
the womb, and accused Nestorius in the repetition of heresy monarhianina Paul
of Samosata: if Christ was born a man, they remained, regardless of when you
received the divine force.
As we remember, it was Paul of Samosata was the forerunner of Arianism,
and, indeed, in the end it turned out that the doctrine of Nestorius close and
clear barbarians-Arians, of which at this time almost exclusively composed the
garrison of Constantinople.
Nestorius could take this and be in 428 Patriarch of Constantinople.
But the Patriarch Nestorius had been long - up to 431 BC, when Cyril of
Alexandria, bowing to his side most of the monks, raised in the capital of the
rebellion against Nestorius (though still relatively bloodless). Force applied
by the Emperor Theodosius II, a supporter of Nestorius did not help, and in 431
at the 3rd Ecumenical (Ephesus), Cathedral of the latter was deposed.
We will not deal in terms of "divine child" (Canon) and
"children of God" (heresy). Nestorius spoke first, Kirill accused him
that he had spoken second. The Council of Ephesus was extremely scandalous,
under the terrible noise of the crowds of people, led by monks supporters of
Cyril, and seriously consider the complex theological questions could not.
The upshot was that the Emperor Theodosius II "passed Nestorius.
Last sent first to the monastery, and in
Note that the case of Nestorius did not die: if at the time the Arians
received a huge response in the West, among the "barbarians",
Nestorianism spread across the continent to the East. Asian peoples to
Christianity mostly in the interpretation of the deposed Patriarch.
And in the year 431 Patriarch of Constantinople became Maximian, a
protege of Cyril. Alexandria chair into a powerful Empire in, and flushed with
victory Cyril of Alexandria, forgetting caution, at the end of life has stopped
trying to find a "balanced" relationship between the human and the
divine personalities of Christ and was in his Epistles to speak in a more
definite form: "we Confess one Son, not two natures, one of the worshipped
and the other Nepoklonov, but one incarnate nature of God the Word".
And although he said that the two natures United in Christ in something
unique, but it turned out that the connection still was divine essence - the
dogma of the Trinity" for nearly half a century as won, then what else a
single entity could have "God the Son", if not the divine?
Turned out that Cyril of Alexandria, unbeknownst even to himself, was
the founder of Monophysitism - flow, alleging, that Christ, though born out of
two natures, divine and human, is not in two, but only at first, and human
nature became a part of his divine nature.
Immediately after the death of Cyril in 444, these ideas were developed
Dioscorus, the new Patriarch of Alexandria, and Eutyches, an Abbot of a
monastery in Constantinople. They have issued Monophysitism
"organizational"and Eutyches attracted to his side many of the monks.
By the way, because of this Monophysitism sometimes referred to as
"eutechinst.com".
Against Monophysitism immediately made Pope Leo the Great and United
with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, 448, achieved condemnation of
the Monophysites in Constantinople Cathedral. The arguments of the opponents of
Monophysitism were quite significant: Christ still ate, drank, slept, prayed,
and wondered...
But common sense is very few people cared, and Evtimiy with Dioscorus
managed to win the favour of the Emperor, Theodosius II.
In 449 BC at Ephesus was convened by the so-called "predatory"
Cathedral, acquitted Eutyches from Dioscorus to replace Flavian and elected
Patriarch of Constantinople Anatolia protege of Dioscorus.
Immediately after the Council, Pope Leo the Great Alexandrian Patriarch
Dioscorus betrayed each other anathema than set a precedent that marked the
beginning of a centuries-old process of Church schism.
New trafficking case adopted after the death of Theodosius II. The
Empress Pulcheria and her co-Emperor Marcian were opposed Monophysitism and
convened in 451 at Chalcedon the 4th Ecumenical Council. Patriarch of
Constantinople, Anatoly caught between two fires - the Empress and his patron Saint
Dioscorus, gave the last. In Chalcedon arrived yet, and the legates of Pope Leo
the Great, and the opponents Monophysitism most.
Council of Chalcedon was held, as usual, very rapidly, but still on the
basis of the message of the Pope developed the dogma of the
"God-man", which all churches use today. Dioscorus was deposed, which
led to a local Church schism in Egypt and Armenia decision of the Council of
Chalcedon were never adopted, and Monophysitism still profess the
Armenian-Gregorian, Coptic (Egyptian) and the Ethiopian Church.
We got to the second core of the Church's doctrine concerning the nature
of Jesus of Nazareth.
The 4th Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Church 451, ruled: "the God-man,
Jesus Christ there are two natures, God and man, and the believers are obliged
to confess one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, as understood in
two natures Paradise, invariable, indivisible, inseparable, so that the
connection does not violated the distinction of the two natures, but more
remains the property of each nature, and unites in one person and one
hypostasis".
"Apologetic" tone regulation ("not at all
broken...") suggests that the dogma was formed in bitter struggle.
And plenty of consoles "not" leads us to suspect that won the
Council of Chalcedon theologians have solved all the problems in the good old
principle: "all left out.
Indeed, for each key issue appears to be:
God or man? Both, just nature "nality and unchanged", and
their properties are preserved.
This Christ - one person? One, just "nature indivisible and
inseparable".
Okay, let's think: what is "nature"? Origin?
If only the origin! This desire and will, and energy, and action.
The last statement is my
personal guess. This is a "clear" at the 6th Ecumenical
(Constantinople) the Council in the year 680, analyzing the ratio is two
"desires, wills, energy and acting" in Jesus.
The above four concepts
are almost exhaustive description of personality.
Very intricate and
casuistic definition of the 6th Ecumenical Council about when the divine will
in Christ became human desire and how it weighed the divine and human energies,
unprincipled. Fundamentally, the presence of the "God-man" two unmerged
"desires, wills, energy and acting" means the presence of two
personalities.
In the end, with the
tenet of "God-man" at the 4th Ecumenical Council in 451 happened the
same thing with the "Trinity" for seventy years earlier: solved each
of the problems separately, closing her eyes to rest.
The main thing is that
with the "Trinity" was connected: there is a "God-man" self
divine essence - so here it is, "God the Son", "the second
person of the Trinity", "nesamoney, consubstantial with the
Father", "existed before all time"... And human nature - Yes,
she's Jesus too was, but to the divine nothing had.
In short, separately,
both God and man.
And in General left a sea
of paradoxes such as the one divine person of Jesus all knew existed
"before all time", but could not "whisper" of man that we
should not doubt the success of the case, in vain, to survive and to pray in
the garden of Gethsemane that need to preach in Asia Minor, not in Jerusalem...
Actually, something
similar in our time is called dissociative identity disorder. In the best case,
this constant mental anguish, at worst mental illness, and depending on its
severity is assigned outpatient or inpatient treatment.
And in the gospel we
read: "Every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and
every city or house divided against itself shall not stand" (Matt. 12:25).
But theological paradoxes
is little anyone cared about in the V century, when there was a Frank struggle
for power.
Returning from Chalcedon
Monophysite priests raised a rebellion in Jerusalem (the city was sacked) and
Alexandria (in the temple was locked and burned a large detachment of
government troops, and during the next rebellion in 457 BC was killed by the
Orthodox Patriarch Proterias). Gradually Monophysite riots spread to Syria,
where at the end of the fifth century the population terrorized by gangs of
fanatical monks, and the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch shared the fate of his
Alexandrian colleague.
The Emperor Zeno in 482
published promonofizitsky conciliation decree, the so - called
"Henoticon" (another translation is "Enotik"), which only
worsened the situation, as consistently anti-Monophysite Roman Church after 35
years ceased communication with the East.
Not surprising -
ownership of the Pope was surrounded by barbarians-Arians, and with them had to
be considered. Monophysitism (the priority of the divine essence of Christ) was
the complete opposite of Arianism (the priority of human nature), and the dogma
of the "God-man", as we have seen, was a certain conditional
compromise, no wonder it insisted on the Council of Chalcedon legates of Pope
Leo I "the Great".
But in Constantinople
Henoticon support not found: Metropolitan priests, the phrase "Christ is
one and not two" seemed Monophysite and was considered a heresy.
After a complicated
tangle of political intrigue, in which participated and the ruler of the
greater part of Italy, the famous king of the Ostrogoths, the Arian Theodoric
(approx. 454-526), Constantinople took the throne Justin Senior.
At the same time
"changed" and the Patriarch of Constantinople. We considered the
nominations and the Arians, Monophysites, but in order to calm the raging
passions of a new Patriarch was John II of Cappadocia, a supporter of Chalcedon
compromise.
This time the compromise
prevailed on the firm - a hundred years, the Monophysites in Constantinople
position passed, but the Roman Empire, then often called the Byzantine, almost
lost Syria, Egypt and Palestine. Last, despite the strong hand of the Emperor
Justinian (the successor of Justin the Elder) are out of control and were soon
conquered by the Persians, and at the end of VII century by Arab Muslims.
The once thriving city of
Alexandria and Antioch fell into decay and gradually disappeared from the map.
Modern Alexandria was built in the XIX century and again and in another place,
and the place Antioch, now a small village. Jerusalem "lucky" and he
survived only because the prophet Muhammad considered him a Holy city.
We see that the
discussion of the doctrines of the Trinity and the God-man" turned out to
be the catalysts of the schism of the Byzantine Empire and the actual death of
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchy.
In the sixth century by
Emperor Justinian in the Christian Church came a period of relative calm, the
peak of which was the 5th Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral 553, which once
again condemned the Monophysite "finished off the remains of the
Nestorians and decided it possible to burn heretics, anathema posthumously (in
particular, the anathema was devoted to Origen).
But in the seventh
century again flared up passions. Emperors, trying to restore the unity of the
Empire before the face of an unsuccessful war with the Persians, began to seek
compromise with the Monophysites.
Patriarch of
Constantinople Sergius in agreement with the Emperor in 619, declared that
Christ in two natures there is only one will. Hence the new theological course
- monothelitism.
Note that this was a step
towards common sense, but a heated debate has begun again. "Tree options"
balance of nature, wills, energies and actions in Christ branch out directly
proportional to the flow of time. Virtually every major diocese in response to
the appeal made by St. Sergius of his vision problems, and attempts to find a
new compromise lasted for many years.
In 638, it seemed that
the deed is done, and monothelitism leaned even Pope Honorius (and dad were old
enemies of Monophysitism), but this year both died and Pope Honorius, and the
Patriarch Sergius.
The new Pope John IV
declared strong opposition to monothelitism and allegiance to the Council of
Chalcedon. His successor Martin I continued this line, in 653, he was arrested
by order of the Emperor of Constantinople, and in 655, condemned and exiled.
The chief opponents of
monothelitism in the East, the philosopher Maximus the Confessor, typical for
that time sholastitsizmom argued that, if the two natures of Christ, the wills
of the same must necessarily be two. Common sense his speculative logic was not
able to overcome, and he chose to accept martyrdom: in the same 655, he was
sentenced along with Pope Martin, cut out the tongue, cut off his right arm and
sent.
Methods of dealing with
dissidents gradually took more and more radical forms. It seemed that by force
emperors succeeded celebration monothelitism.
But during the reign of
Constantine Pogonat Rome, remained an opponent of monothelitism, threatened to
split, and the Emperor preferred to avoid conflict - was another unsuccessful
war, this time with the Arab Muslims, the political situation was extremely
difficult, and the loss of Rome would have been a terrible blow.
The main defender of
monothelitism, Patriarch Theodore, was deposed, and in 680 was called the 6th
Ecumenical (Constantinople) Cathedral.
Last on the basis of the
message of the Pope brought the compromise of Chalcedon 451 two
"unmerged" natures of Christ until the full and final absurdity,
declaring Jesus of Nazareth the presence of two desires, two wills and two
energies and two energies.
With this dogma, the
largest Church live today.
In our time, to justify
the dogma of the God-man" churches used a psychological trick: separately
justified the divine nature of Christ (with many references to Scripture and
human nature (with equal number of links).
This kinda assumes of
course, that the reader is initially configured on the tenet of
"God-man", will draw conclusions about what these entities are in
Christ "Paradise, invariable, indivisible, inseparable, in accordance with
the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, 451
Actually about any such
relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ in the Holy
Scripture says nothing.
That Christ is God, says
a lot. His so-called "non-believer" Apostle Thomas (Jn. 20:28), his
divine nature talked a lot and he (John. 8:58; 10:30; 16:28), this was also
confirmed by the Apostle Paul (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 3:9; Rome. 8:3;
9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16, and others)
But, so to say, God is
the God of strife.
The task of Orthodox
churches was the announcement of the gods are not all men, but only of
Christ (of course, without derogating from God the Father), resulting Jesus of
Nazareth became descended from heaven (literally) "the second person of
the Trinity", and "God-man", completely torn away from us -
"sinful creatures.
In fact, Christ is the
same God as we all are. Hence the same person, as we all are. No fundamental,
insurmountable differences between the divine essence of Jesus and the other
people there.
Supporters of the
doctrines of the Trinity and the son of God" say: if Christ is man, it
turns out that he was deceiving himself, or us, speaking of his divine nature.
But the question is, what
do I mean by "man".
If the person, in
accordance with Orthodox theology, is "sinful fallen creature", then
Christ must have really cheated.
But if you put in the
word "man" (not necessarily even write with a capital letter) the
humanistic understanding, which sets a moral imperative, then Christ was a man.
And he was a man of honest, because all the words about his divine
essence was applied to all other people.
There is still more
indisputable proof of this.
"The Jews said to
Him in answer: not for a good work we stone You but for blasphemy, and because
Thou, being a man, make Yourself God.
Jesus answered them, is
it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"? If He called them gods,
unto whom the word of God, and cannot be disturbed by the Scripture, "
Tom, Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, you say,
"blaspheme, because I said, I am the Son of God?" (Jn. 10:33-36).
It turns out that Jesus
Christ himself, to prove their divine essence appealed to the divine essence of
other people, referring to the Psalm: "I have said ye are gods and sons of
God - all of you" (PS. 81:6).
The Orthodox Church to
separate Christ from us, and goes on outright fraud.
Orthodox Jews asked
Jesus: "Who are you?" (Jn. 8:25). Open the Bible in Church Slavonic
and read what he replied: "First, as I call you."
And in the translation of
the nineteenth century the word "firstfruits" ("start")
turned into "Things". As we can see, the interpretation is rather
arbitrary and biased.
By the way, Christ taught
us one very fundamental and seemingly well-known things. The main and, by and
large, the only Christian prayer "our father". Any other prayer Jesus
Christ believed paganism (Matt. 6:7-9). But that's not it. Will say to himself
only the first two words "our father" and let us consider: we turn to
our Father! It means that any man is God's son (or daughter).
Absolutely illegal is
read in modern Orthodox temples of this prayer with the words of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy spirit" after "for Thine is the Kingdom
and the power and the glory". Another tendentious manipulation of the text
of the prayer is fully described in Matt. 6:9-13, and the Russian Orthodox
Church is not entitled it "edit".
Remembering the prayer
"our father", we moved on to the first three Gospels, and they often
emphasized the human nature of Christ.
When Christ healed the
paralytic, "but when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified
God, which had given such power unto men" (Matt. 9:8).
Jesus said: "why do
you call Me good? No one is good except God alone" (MK. 10:18).
And the phrase of Jesus
in the sermon on the mount": "blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called sons of God" (Matt. 5:9)?
To finally understand
that Jesus is the same God as we are, and we are as gods, as he is, we should
note that Luke leads the genealogy of Jesus to God directly, but through
Joseph, David, Abraham, Eber and Adam (LK. 3:23-38). And we are all descendants
of Adam, therefore we are the same as Christ.
IX
The Apostle Peter said,
"Men of Israel! Hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested to you
by God with miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him among
you..." (acts. 2:22).
And in his Epistle Peter
just one sentence puts out of common sense, all future delights about existence
of Jesus Christ is "before all time": he sees Christ,
"foreordained before the existence of the world, but manifested in these
last times for you who have believed through Him in God" (1 Pet. 1:20-21).
Agree that the exclusiveness and "pre-existence" is not the same.
The essence of Christ in
the teaching of the Apostle Paul interpreted rather vague - however, as the
essence of the Messiah in the old Testament prophets. But the word
"Messiah", as we know, means "Anointed of God", that is,
that man, endowed with some divine powers.
However, Paul was hardly
concerned with the problem of a clear definition of the nature of Jesus - for
he was quite sufficient to continually emphasize his Messianic role.
Here is a typical
example. It is believed that Paul wrote a solemn hymn: "And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed
on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Tim. 3:16).
And from this it follows
that in the flesh was God himself. As we recall, a similar view was expressed
monarhianin-"modalist" Sabellius. But wait from the solemn hymn (and
even more dubious authenticity is very much not in the spirit of Paul
"bsprecovrate") theological depth is not necessary.
And let Paul calls Christ
the God, the man - about any "unmerged, immutable, indivisible,
inseparable," the confluence of personalities he has no speech.
Moreover, the vast
majority of phrases Paul about the essence of us and Christ tells us that Jesus
is the same as we. Quote:
"For He (God SZ) has
appointed a day in which you will judge the world in righteousness, through
foreordained by her Husband, giving identity to all by raising Him from the
dead" (acts. 17:31).
"The Spirit himself
testifies with our spirit that we are children of God" (ROM. 8:16).
"For if by thy mouth
will confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (ROM. 10:9).
"If there is no
resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen" (1 Cor. 15:13).
"Knowing that he
which raised up the Lord Jesus will raise through Jesus and us, and put before
Him with you" (2 Cor. 4:14).
"So then, brethren,
the saints, the members of the heavenly calling, settle Apostle and high Priest
of our confession, Jesus Christ" (Heb. 4:1). By the way, the appeal of
"saints" is used by Paul in all the Epistles to the Christians.
"So Christ also
glorified not Himself the glory to be the high Priest, but He Who said to Him:
"Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee" (Heb. 5:5).
"For there is one
God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim.
2:5). This phrase is short and clear answer to all questions.
And let's pay special
attention to the phrase: "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son;
and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ" (Gal. 4:7).
On later attempts to
"modernize" and "update" Chalcedonian dogma "of the son
of God" we will have the opportunity to speak, and so far only state:
"nelinet, permanence, and inseparability inseparability" of the two
natures in Christ is no basis in Scripture is not. As well as the announcement
of Jesus of Nazareth, "the second person of the Trinity".
No difference between the
divine nature of Christ and the other people there.
But as in the middle ages
were able to triumph this point of view, if the understanding of people as the
gods began to interfere with the claims of the Church in state domination?
On this subject there is
an interesting analogy. Let us ask ourselves the question: why in the armies of
most countries of the person primarily humiliated?
And the so-called
"hazing" has nothing to do with the humiliation inherent in the
military system. First of all, as you know, soldiers dressed in the same form
and display on the parade ground, where long and hard to teach different
builds, front step, "left alignment" and other things seems to be
useless from the point of view of common sense and military art.
Indeed, it would seem
that the case of a soldier to shoot, run "forced marches", dig
trenches, throwing grenades... And March, why? Coordination of train movements
was crawling on their bellies, the battle is much more useful. The traditions
of the times, when soldiers in the attack were taken in close formation and
built in the "square"? Since then it has been over a hundred years,
and drill, and now there. And well if only "ceremonial" shelf, but
it's on the parade ground keepers of all who wear shoulder-straps.
And the fact that ill
drill drill is under a centuries-old Foundation is to create a soldier's
subconscious belief that he is a pawn, whose life does not belong to him and is
little purpose. If the command is "left dress" follow "go to the
light", unquestioning execution must be recorded on the child".
As you know, in the
middle ages the state management guidelines were indistinguishable from the
army and was based on ill hierarchical coercion.
Naturally, the soldiers
on the parade ground" absolutely inappropriate to recall that they were
gods. To cultivate in them "complex sinful creatures much more efficiently.
And so it happened that
when the Orthodox Church adopted a complex and contradictory dogmas of the
Trinity and the God-man", for the divine nature people places left.
Chapter VIII
Christianity and modernity
I
The author of this book
can specify the logical question:
- "Still, why are
You so uncompromising abandon the Orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the
God-man"? Nowadays, few people seriously talking about the suggestion of
certain dogmas directly by God or the Holy Spirit. It is clear that in the
early middle ages there was a fierce political struggle, in which these dogmas
were formed.
Yes, and the Church
recognizes this struggle - it is considered in detail in all Orthodox
theological books, both scientific and popular.
But one God or three
"consubstantial" - which, by and large, is the difference?
"Trinity" is so merged with the Orthodox tradition, which is seen by
the overwhelming majority of people as it is organic and absolutely essential
part. In the end, not only clergy Florensky, Men, and entirely secular philosophers
Soloviev, Rozanov, Berdyaev is implicitly acknowledged the dogma of the
Trinity, and, for example, Karsavin his theory of personality is fully built on
this dogma.
As for the
consubstantiality of Jesus and us, at the end of the NINETEENTH century
Vladimir Solovyov was developed the doctrine of "manhood", speaking
about the potential of people to be like "God-man".
Philosophers
"Russian religious Renaissance" was also expanded the use of the term
"deification"in the middle ages used only against the saints. So, in
principle, each of us can be almost the same as any "person of the
Trinity".
So why break the spear in
the fight against the "Trinity"? Thank God, now the Orthodoxy in
Russia enjoys the esteem and respect, so let it be the way it is"...
In this question instead
of the word "Orthodoxy" you could substitute "Catholic" or
"Protestant", and instead Russia - any European (and not only
European) country. Anyway, this issue is very serious, and to answer it we need
a whole Chapter.
But first of all I must
say that I am in any case not going to "break the spear in the fight"
against "Trinity"nor against the Orthodox or the Catholic Church, nor
against anyone else. Moreover, I, the Ecumenical advocates the unification of
all Christian (and in the long run - not only Christian) churches.
And for what I have shown
that the dogma of the Trinity" and "man" are outdated and in
need of radical revision - explain.
Here is a very extensive
and very revealing quote from the writings of Leo Karsavina On personality (all
the italics belong Karsavina):
"Hypostasis is the
true identity (but not the mask!). But the hypostasis - God personality;
and if we calmly called of God, Incarnation of God, Personalities and even the
Persons of God, we feel uneasy when they start to call the human hypostasis or
person created. Wicked and wrong. And this is undoubtedly due, in Christ the
two natures or two usii (and therefore two energies, two wills, two
"souls"), but only one person - Hypostasis of the Logos, which, of
course, is not something a third between God and man is not different from God,
but is God himself.
So, in His humanity the
God-man personal only because He is in God's Hypostasis (enypostasis),
prichastvuet hypostasis of God and God, has God's alter ego and God, as himself.
But, as the God-man is the perfect man, it is impossible to admit that it was
not something inherent in the person, but the person was anything beyond the
inherent. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is not and cannot be created,
or human hypostasis or Person, if we are talking about human beings, it is
only in the sense of possess and prichastvuemoy man of God Hypostasis or
Person. And how could it be otherwise, since the true identity of God's
Hypostasis and two people can't both be true?
So in God we find unity,
higher than the individual personality, for He is tripartisan, and, moreover,
the unity that gulino be called personal, for the hypostatic existence
is not out of His usii and she does not resist, being in the form of its
existence, and He is a personal God. This eliminates as misleading, the
recognition of individual identity for the only concrete personal existence,
i.e. denied any nominalism, and, on the contrary, affirms the reality symphonically-personal
the existence. And thus - and "structure" the individual personality,
as mnogoedinstva. But, recognizing God as the only true person, we must
understand the human created, and in General a person, as pricesthere man of
God Hypostasis or possessed by the person, the name of God. Hence the need
for a special way to understand a person, it is to understand it as the
created substrate impersonal, unknowable and unfathomable like his God and fully
samodvizhny. The sense of human and creaturely existence will be revealed
then, as his "litsetvorenie" or "deification"
(theosis)".
End quote.
III
Note that in the quoted
passage is an attempt to make the dogma of the "God-man" is more
logical, recognizing in Christ only one "true identity" is divine.
What heresy it reminds us
of? Of course, Monophysitism.
Another important point.
By Karsavina, man is "created an impersonal substrate, uncertainty and
incomprehensibility of his like God", and the meaning of his existence -
"litsetvorenie" or "deification".
Despite the use of the term
Orthodox officialdom "created"humiliating to the modern man is Lev
Platonovich could not write "created"?), does it look like the
teachings of Origen about the "pre-existence of souls and the divine
essence of people branded as heresy at the fifth Ecumenical Council?
It seems.
In the end, no matter how
you try to "peacefully coexist" with the Church officialdom, anyway,
any attempt to link the medieval with the modern tenets of common sense will
lead to the fact that the new is well forgotten old. More precisely, the old
heresy. And the Orthodox Church will not tell you thank you, and will not
accept your point of view, and will not develop on its basis a new dogma.
And to common sense as
you arrive - even Christ said, "neither do men put new wine into old
bottles; else the bottles break, and the wine flows, and the bottles
perish" (Matt. 9:17).
As a result, this
approach results in unimaginable intellectual strata, and cited a philosophical
text Lev Karsavin - not the most complex and unreadable from a variety of
written on this topic.
Hence, we must seek
spiritual support solely those sources of Christian doctrine, when there
was neither Orthodox nor Catholic, nor heresy, but only Jesus Christ, the
apostles and the New Testament.
And since, as we have shown,
there was no dogma or "Trinity"or "God-man" - well, we'll
have to do without them. Help us anything they can't, but to prevent it. We
have just seen, in which the trap they fell Lev Karsavin, so let's learn from
the mistakes of others and their own, as they say, to make make it.
Without errors has not
been costed, but it was wrong and Christ! What is his main fault, that it was
only to preach in Israel! (Matt 10:5-6). We have already said that if not for
the Apostle Paul, the work of Christ could die.
And certainly Jesus
(Matt. 26:37-39)? How do they reconcile with the doctrine of the
"Trinity" and "consubstantial Son to the Father"? Is
"the second person" prayed the night before his arrest "first
person" "to get past the Cup? What a strange communication, unworthy
of divine omniscient beings... And that, interestingly, this time doing the
"third person"?..
Won't laugh at the
medieval delusions, just a pity that they still dominated in all the main
Christian churches. I wonder who and when did the first dare to abandon the
canonical dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man" - Orthodoxy, Catholicism
or Lutheranism?
And "Trinity"
could remain the same category of purely philosophical and historical
attractions, as, for example, "Sophia-divine wisdom." The latter, as
we have seen, also had a convincing justification in the canonical Scripture,
and the Church renounced the cult of "Sophia" in the early second
Millennium. Do not worry if this does not happen, and Christianity is not dead.
Note that in the twentieth
century about "Sofia" remembered not only philosophers "Russian
religious Renaissance". We remember and we all St. Sophia in
Constantinople, Kiev and Novgorod, thank God, are in place and are equally
unparalleled architectural masterpieces as the Trinity Cathedral in the
Trinity-Sergius Lavra.
But the dogmas that have
no convincing justification in the Scriptures, the Foundation of the Christian
religion cannot be.
If no convincing
justification in the Bible was the only argument against the doctrines of the
Trinity and the God-man", I could be accused of dogmatic conservatism.
But the rejection of
these doctrines, there are other aspects, in addition to the theological.
The historical aspect we
have already considered and seen how these doctrines were formed in the early
middle ages and what bloodshed resulted. However, this is not surprising - lack
of orientation on the moral imperative inevitably leads to the escalation of
the "social evil.
Now let's look at the
social aspect of the problem.
All the major Christian
churches consider the manifestation of the divine nature "of God"
that Christ rules over the dead and the living (ROM. 14:9), has the power of
judgment (ROM. 14:10), is a "recipient" of prayer (1 Cor. 1:2), the source
of grace (ROM. 1:7), the source of salvation (ROM. 10:9), the founder of the
Church (1 Cor. 5:4)...
First, again rearranged
cause and effect - if Jesus all of the above received ascended into heaven and
siwsi the right hand of God, it is about its origin and essence says nothing.
Secondly, all of this is
the Apostle Paul refers to the Messianic role of Christ as the Messiah, as we
know, means "Anointed of God", that is, of man with God, some special
powers, rights and abilities.
This we have already
considered. Interestingly another.
The medieval Church,
relocated the cause and effect, gave the "Anointed one" in accordance
with the dogma of the Trinity" primordial divine entity (other than the
divine essence of people)that are very suited kings of all times and peoples,
too, "anoint" in the Kingdom and call themselves the "Anointed
of God". The emperors, kings and emperors were not enough to imagine
himself on a par with the Messiah, they wanted to be equal with God.
Really, an analogy with
the Roman Emperor Caligula, all the statues of pagan gods ordered to put his
head together with a halo. Regarding the latter, I'm not kidding: images of
Christian saints halo moved with statues of Roman emperors, and on them he (in
the form of a pointed rays) was needed in order for the August head did not sit
down pigeons and other birds...
Okay, this is a personal
matter emperors - a cult to install and what statues sculpting. All this would
not be so bad, but it started and "feedback" - Jesus Christ in the
middle ages people were perceived not as our intercessor before God, as well as
punishing the sovereign.
It is no coincidence that
the people was so popular cult of the blessed virgin Mary, patroness" -
she intercedes for us before Christ, the Savior!
Still, in the minds of
the people to be someone's "good", hence the huge number of icons
dedicated to the virgin Mary, and the magnificent celebration of the life
stages, and addressed to her prayers. Sorry, but it turns out as something
disreputable "good mother" reasoned with "evil son",
aspiring to send us all fry in hell...
And don't blame the
teaching of Jesus in these paradoxical folk traditions. They absolutely should
flow logically from the desire to link the medieval Church in the whole concept
of God, Christ and king.
Of course, the sin of
blaming Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the fact that in the middle ages any
Almighty Emperor confessed to God. It is not clear another - who are afraid of
the Church now?
Ignoring the simple and
accessible teachings of Jesus and the apostles, the largest Christian churches
still don't want to admit that the divine origin of Christ is similar to
ours. And yet, until very recently, the divinity was conferred earth
"Anointed of God" - the kings, kings and emperors.
Begs extremely
disappointing and hopefully unfair conclusion: the Church waiting for new
dictators to solemnly declare their gods, and their subjects to leave the rank
of "sinful creatures. This conclusion caused by the medieval dogma of the
Trinity" and "God-man", harmful to the Christian religion, and
for any Church.
But, unfortunately, that
like the policy of the Russian Orthodox Church against state power, we see the
correctness of this conclusion. The convergence of Church and state leads to
fruitless attempts to "sanctification" those who do not deserve it.
Though not in the form of "anointing of the Kingdom", but the essence
remains the same.
You cannot serve both God
and the President. "No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate
the one and love the other; or one will hold to the one, and despise the other.
You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
The rejection of the
dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man" is and cosmological aspect.
The fact that both
Orthodox and Catholic dogma was formed during the reign of ptolemaios
geocentric system of the world, claiming not just the exclusivity and
uniqueness of the earth civilization.
But today, with much
greater knowledge about the Universe, we must assume that rational, and
spiritual forms of life exist anywhere else. What's more is that not all forms
of life "humanoid" (anatomically similar to humans).
Speaking about the moral
imperative emanating from God, we with enough confidence can assume its
function in terms of any intelligent life forms. But the Church dogma of
the incarnation of God the Son" in terms of extraterrestrial civilizations
takes a very strange character.
Of course, you can assume
that "God the Son" in the choice of its physical shell and method of
execution took into account the specifics of a particular civilization, and
"incarnate" in each queue.
But it sounds funny, and
leads to a theological absurdity. In fact, according to the most Orthodox
concepts, atoning for human it is passion of Jesus. And if the pain became just
one episode of a long "detour" of various civilizations, lost and
uniqueness, and significance of the work of Christ.
A much more logical and
convincing looks assumption that on other planets goodness and love teach any
local preachers, and every civilization comes to understanding God and the
triumph of the moral imperative in their own ways.
For us, this conclusion
is particularly important because on Earth we see some of the biggest
(so-called "world"religions, seeking their path to goodness and love.
We, if you want to call
themselves true Christians, may not be considered a Buddha or Mohammed
below or above Christ. Just Buddhists your spiritual path, the Muslims have
their own, the Christians call their own, but the goal (in a good faith
interpretation of the corresponding teachings) is one and the same - improving
life on Earth and the triumph of the moral imperative.
All of the above applies
to different Christian denominations.
The building of the
Kingdom of God is our common task, and religious hatred have no place among the
people, United by a moral imperative.
In this regard, we note
another aspect of the contradictions of the dogma of the Trinity and the passion
of Jesus - moral.
It consists in the fact
that Christ as the second person of the Trinity", "the uncreated and
consubstantial", for modern man is intuitive and therefore perceived in
isolation from any moral, usually lying exactly in the subconscious plane.
But the power of
Christianity, as we have shown, that it is the most complete and adequate
expression of the moral imperative. Moreover, moral alternatives to
Christianity in millions of poorly educated people do, and a separation of
Christianity from morality means for them the loss of any spiritual orientation
and leads to the triumph of the "social evil.
Theological death of
Christ is interpreted as the atonement for our sins, but as the man Jesus died
for his teachings, showed us an example of how intense desire for goodness and
love, time for you to go out and painful death.
And if Christ is not man,
but "God the Son" or "God-man", then what is the example?
The opinion of the Church
theologians that the suffering on the cross "God the Son" had to be
much more severe than the punishment of an ordinary person, completely fits
into the fabric of traditional humiliation Orthodox churches. Actually the
suffering of any person committed to a painful death, infinite and
incomprehensible. God forbid, of course, none of us know them myself...
And it turns out that the
vast majority of modern people may think (and think) the following: "In
Christ and "God the Son"to preach the goodness and love, and for it
to go to the cross. God, then hang on the cross and rise again - no problems,
but that's what us mere mortals do? It's better we get along somehow without
kindness and love"...
And here comes a man in
Church, listening incomprehensible set of chants and all. Before he can get
there?
And if you would make an
image of Christ is clear to everyone! And if often heard preaching goodness and
love, including many hours of air time provided by broadcasters Church! And if,
for example, the Patriarch was periodically applied to the Orthodox Russians
with calls to eradicate drug abuse, corruption and other evils of society, to
observe certain moral norms (up to clean the streets), and to their government
to stop the next "local" war and accelerate the process of nuclear
disarmament!
Maybe in our life,
something would actually improve? After all, what a huge force - Christian
spirituality, and it's a shame to see how it is spent on medieval rituals...
Hence, the need maximum simplification,
not complication Christian dogma.
But the limits of
this simplification are dictated by Scripture - document today (as well as
during the previous two millennia), most fully expresses the moral imperative.
The use of any other
dogmatic constructions repeatedly and unnecessarily increases the likelihood of
a "social evil.
Drawing on historical,
social, cosmological and moral aspects rejection of the dogmas of the Trinity
and the God-man", we can move toward ecumenism.
The fact that the
rejection of these doctrines could be the basis for uniting all faiths and
create "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church".
In order to show the
objective necessity of ecumenism, it is necessary to understand why the
presence of the name of the religious organization of the word
"Church" (in particular, "Russian Orthodox") is not a
synonym for compliance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To do this, let's
remember once again the devil's temptation, this time all three.
"Then was Jesus led
up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and when he
had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered.
And came to Him the
tempter, and said, if Thou be the Son of God, say that these stones become
bread.
He said to him in
response: written: not by bread alone doth man live, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Then the devil takes Him
into the Holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto
Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written he shall
give his angels charge concerning Thee, and on hands they shall bear Thee, and
will not stumble against a stone Thy foot.
Jesus said to him: it is
written: thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Again the devil takes Him
to a very high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world and
their glory, and said to Him: all these will I give Thee, if falling down,
worship me.
Then Jesus saith unto
him, get thee behind Me, Satan, for it is written: the Lord thy God, worship,
and Him only shalt thou serve.
The devil leaveth Him,
and behold, Angels came and ministered unto Him" (Matt. 4:1-10).
Very, very not like the
official Church in the middle ages to remember these temptations, and now the
Church theologians to try to "ignore".
Why?
Not only because this
episode is a serious argument against the dogma of the Trinity: why is the
devil suddenly began to tempt "the all-knowing and Almighty God the
Son", "existed before all time, "the uncreated and
consubstantial with God the Father?
And not only because
there is a contradiction in translation: until the end of XIX century in
Russian translation of the gospel of Luke was written not "get thee behind
me, Satan", and "go behind me, Satan", that is, something like
"use your brains, Satan, and go with me to serve God."
By the way, this is one
of the arguments against the analysis of the Bible in the level of sounds,
letters and words - God knows how many inaccuracies have crept in a long chain
of translations, even of the New Testament, not to mention the old.
But still it's the little
things that do not change the overall effect. The main thing - the Church does
not like to remember the devil's temptations because of their symbolic meaning.
Let's think about it:
In the first temptation
(make stones bread) Jesus Christ gave up worldly pleasures.
In the second jump from
the roof of the temple) - cheap "pretentious".
In the third (control
kingdoms) - from the government.
Very unpleasant for the
majority of clergy precedent. They, of course, would need to be on Jesus and
renounce material wealth, pomp, and power, but wanted so much and hoping to
live, and to wear clothes embroidered with gold, and manage the States...
What did they do? Rewrite
the two Gospels, throwing huge chunks of text about the temptation? It is
unrealistic.
And the saving idea for
the Church was found even in the fourth century, and it turned out the third
hypostasis of the Trinity: if the Holy Spirit is the same God as "God the
Son", then he does all that he considers necessary.
Where in the Gospels, for
example, says that the Holy Spirit must renounce worldly pleasures, kingdoms
and other "useful" things?
And "Sacred
tradition"? As I wanted the Church to the decrees of Councils, popes and
patriarchs "quoted" on a par with the Bible! Of course, already in
the fifth century a "spiritual" interpretation "Trinity" -
the old Testament (God the Father), the New Testament ("God the
Son"and "Holy tradition" (the Holy Spirit). Convenient, right?
However, in a futile
attempt to convince the Church to go on "awkward" way of Christ were
numerous, and in this regard it is useful to remember this religious movement,
as Donatism.
Referred it back to the
days of diocletianic persecution beginning of the fourth century, was named
after the Carthaginian Bishop Donat and consisted in the fact that for any
priest necessary personal infallibility, or "Holy sacrament"committed
them to lose their force.
Of course, the vast
majority of priests were not happy, Donatist Church hated, and finally to brand
Donatism as heresy managed to Augustine in Carthage Cathedral 411 year. The
Council decided that God's grace operates independently of the Holiness of the
Church.
Of course, don't do that
Augustine would have done someone else, and still get that Aurelie Augustin
blame for a huge number of abuses of the clergy, as in the middle ages, and in
our time. And a secret Vice, and financial fraud, and political intrigue, and
more, until the duty-free vodka and cigarettes, the Russian Orthodox Church in
our time.
Against Donatism usually
put forward the following "poetic" argument: the pipe can be rusty,
and the water flowing through it, clean. But this "poetic pragmatics"
we can say: it is not necessary to be a plumber, to know that from rusty pipes
can flow only rusty water.
And aside from poetry,
then, of course, no dogma can not force a person to be Holy. We really look at
the world and understand that perfectly.
And yet, if the Church
hierarchy "hung" donatistskoe of the necessary personal Holiness of
the Church from the many unsavory acts that would keep them.
The laity, and even more
traders live by the same rules, and the priests still have to live on the other
and, if possible, to give others the example set by Jesus Christ: selfless
dedication and willingness to sacrifice for the sake of it all. Even life.
But it is in theory. In
practice, however, everything was different.
As we know, in the fourth
century the Church became a state.
In the middle ages, the
West went on the way so-called "parietaria", and the East is on the
way "Caesaropapism". In the first case, the priests sought to gain
state power, in the second, the state sought to subjugate the priests.
Will not again conduct a
historical review of the situation and popes, and with the Moscow Patriarch and
the Holy Synod is well known. Suffice it to say that "papocesarism",
and "Caesaropapism" not only are the typical manifestations of
"social" evil, but disastrous for the Church.
And it can be proved.
Our methodology Caesar
what belongs to Caesar" says the notion of "state Church" is as
absurd in its essence, as "good government". The Church (at least
ideally) is God, and any state, as we know, is the devil.
"You cannot serve
God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
And for those who still
believes that our methodology abstract and detached from the realities of life,
explain the perils of the concepts "state Church" on our main
"social" example - wolf pack.
We talked about the
"happy hunting", which is the base of the "social evil. But
let's see whether cloudless relationships within schools? Does not play any
situation "Akela has missed at all hierarchical levels of society, where
neighbors and try to tear small neighbor and to take his place in the hierarchy
(or the den, or burrow, or apartment)?
And it turns out that
even being inside a wolf pack the rights of its equal member does not guarantee
nor life, nor peace, nor happiness. Moreover, reduces the likelihood of having
both, and third.
The fact that, for
example, moose is a potential victim may think that we should not go to places
where yaws wolf pack, quietly grazing in remote swamps and raise elk.
But the wolf inside of
the pack, the rest can only dream of. Through blood and dust, as in the poem of
the Block. And the probability of death of the wolf is not less or more than
the elk. Biologists will confirm this - the predators have no natural enemies,
so if they are not killed in intraspecific combat, he would be multiplied in
large quantities.
Let's return to human
society. The fact that modern society does not like conductors moral imperative
and absolutely objectively seeks to crucify me.
But the Church refuses to
serve God and started to "play" by the rules of the state, sooner or
later will have no less difficult: getting involved in the hierarchical social
relations, it becomes an object of intrigue "neighbors on society".
Turns a sad situation,
when first in the fight social evil with the moral imperative of the Church
together with the state together crucifies the prophets, and then the state,
according to the laws "vnutrioblastnoy" struggle,
"crucifies" Church.
In the latter case, of
course, the main object of envy of neighbors in the society is the wealth (in
the form of money, and property), and begin trivial lawsuits. For
"Patrimonio St. Peter", for profit, churches, monastic lands... For
that only for two thousand years the Church did not litigation! She not only
bought that she had not only been selected!
And in the early twenties
of the twentieth century, the Orthodox Church on "the laws of war
communism, the Bolsheviks confiscated all. And temples, and property, and...
believers.
The vast majority of
parishioners in the best case stood as security officers trampled by the feet
of the robe, and at worst, actively participated in the "expropriation of
the expropriators". No wonder in their eyes, the Church was the same
"bloodsucker of the working people", as the landlords and the
bourgeoisie, and the Royal family...
It is hardly necessary to
regret about "expropriated" icons, vestments, and the censers, and
the chalices - thousand shot and killed in the camps priests are far more
worthy object of pity. But it is characteristic that Patriarch Tikhon was in
1922 arrested by the Bolsheviks, not because of ideological struggle against
Marxism-Leninism, and because of the resistance to the mass looting of churches.
So again and again, let's
recall of St. Tikhon, but still regret primarily in the politics of the Russian
Orthodox Church during the whole time of its existence was to follow the state
"fairway". Peter, by abolishing the Patriarchate in Russia and
creating Sacred Synod, chaired by the chief Prosecutor (layman), brought this
process to a logical absurdity.
And the Bolsheviks only
took advantage of the "fruits" of the centuries-old policy of merging
Church and state.
And we agree: in the
early twentieth century there was no spiritual victory of Marxism over
Christianity. Was a political victory of the Bolshevik party over the
other political parties and fledgling Russian democracy.
And the fate of the
losers were separated and the Russian Orthodox Church, completely fused with
the state and ceased to be perceived by people as spiritual power.
IX
The Bolsheviks in the
twenties and thirties not only separated the Church from the state, and almost
defeated her. In 1939, on the territory of Russia was only about a hundred
temples, and on freedom - four of the Bishop.
But in 1943, Stalin,
realizing the need for a cohesive national idea, allowed to open temples,
seminaries, restored the Patriarchate, albeit under the control of state
security.
And once again began the
process of intimate intergrowths of Church and state, who after the death of
Soviet power exaggerated form.
Communists from close
cooperation with the Church at least kept Marxist ideology, and when the last
is gone, the Russian government turned its attention to religion as an
ideological basis of the state.
Of course, better to let
the state at least from the outside based on Christianity than Marxism or any
other social utopia.
But what Christianity?
With the dogmas of the
Trinity and the God-man", is absolutely incomprehensible to the majority
of believers? With hopelessly outdated stereotypical notions of heaven and
hell, questioning the right of Christianity to the expression of the moral imperative?
With many medieval rites? With a rigid hierarchical structure?..
In philosophical books
fiery denunciation irrelevant, so just to quote an interview with Archpriest
Alexander Me, this Sergei Bychkov in 1983. Men have seen the situation in the
Russian Orthodox Church from within, so that he could see.
Question: "what are
the main disadvantages of young priests?"
Answer: "the Early
Christians called themselves disciples. The young priest strive as soon as
possible to become teachers. They do not strive for spiritual and intellectual
growth. Stop in complacency or workmanship. Daily life quickly jammed, and
pastoral conscience is drowned out by complacency. Go deaf to the problems of
ordinary people, especially secular. Look at all usmagazine point of view. This
contributes to our General emphasis on the cult, which turned into
"work"that takes a lot of time and effort. The rest do not have the
time, sometimes even for those who would like to serve in spirit and in
truth." The priest must be the interests that come into contact with
"profession"and one "profession" can lead to a terrible
rut."
Question: "what,
briefly, in your opinion, the main tragedy of today's Russian Orthodox
Church?"
Answer: "today's
position in a tragic collision come two facts. Live undercurrent of interest in
spiritual issues in people, the abundance of spiritual needs, the search for
truth and the great creative potential of Russia - but it should not receive
food from us, the Church. The reason the current type of the Church, which is:
a) obrazovanie,
b) obscurantism (the
rejection of cultural achievements - SZ),
the conformism,
g) failure to respond to
requests of the people,
d) complacency closed
caste, which looks with contempt on all the "worldly",
e) nostalgijom - i.e. the
belief that "used to be better". Hence the reference to the archaic
form of godliness,
g) separation from the
gospel and the Scriptures in General.
This is a tragic
contradiction leads to:
a) spiritual decline of
those coming into the Church,
b) the conversion of the
people to surrogates of faith (the occult, yoga, parapsychology, etc.)
All this is compounded by
pseudoskepticism ideology lazy mind people who, brandishing the
"Philokalia", live much more widely than other irreligious
intelligent".
End quote.
I'd add: in ten or
fifteen years after this interview, the Russian Orthodox Church also became the
largest supplier to Russia alcoholic drinks and cigarettes...
XII
In the Holy Scripture
about the Church says a lot. But about what?
The Apostle Paul wrote,
"are at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus" about God, who
wrought in Christ, when he raised Him from the dead and set him at his own
right hand in heaven, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion,
and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the future, and
hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the
Church, which is His body, the fullness filleth all in all" (Eph.
1:20-23).
So the Church is a global
community of people who believe in Christ. So, symbolically interpreted Paul's
words about the "body of Christ", and this is not to argue neither
Orthodox nor Catholic nor Lutheran Church.
And all other places of
Scripture devoted to the Church (Matt. 16:18-19; 18:17; ROM. 8:14-17; acts.
2:47 and others), referring to the global community of believers. About
the "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", as referred to in the
Nicene-Constantinople creed.
No other Church in the
Scripture of the question. The seven churches which the Apostle John the
Revelator (Rev. 1:11) - just a diocese of the Church community in Asia Minor,
no "Orthodoxy" (single correct), or the "Catholicism"
(samirnet) is not claimed, and certainly not United the followers of Luther,
Calvin or Cocina.
The same applies to the
dioceses, which are called "churches" the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:17;
2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2 and others)
The Scripture also says
nothing about what any Bishop is the "vicar of Christ" - this dogma
was developed at the junction of the I and II centuries and was first seen in
Ignatius the God-bearer, supporter rigid Church hierarchy and
"monarchy" of the episcopate. Yes, and God forbid anyone from the
bishops to be "Locum Tenens" at Calvary...
The well-known phrase
Jesus said to Peter: "upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the
Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:18-19).
I noticed immediately
that "bind and loose" is a traditional old Slavonic translation, in
our time, obsolete so that lost the symbolic meaning of the phrase. Much rather
would have sounded "to bind and to loose", or to "bind and
loosen"that symbolic essence close to ecclesiasticae: "a time to rend
and a time to sew" (the EC. 3:7).
Apparently, in MT.
16:18-19 we are talking about the approval of the actions of Christ the Apostle
Peter (most likely, and his "successors") on Earth. The Church, of
course, that's not argue.
But the question
immediately arises: what is the Church to consider the question? Orthodox or
Catholic? And maybe a Protestant? Or Socinians? Or "Jehovah's
witnesses"? Or "seventh day Adventist"? And so on - to list of
contenders for the succession" in respect of the Apostle Peter endlessly.
Moreover, what is meant
by "succession"? Peter was first called to the Apostolic Ministry
(Matt. 4:18), and it is very likely that the building of the Church on the
rock-Petra" means a statement of the fact that Peter was the first
Christian. And then does this mean that the "keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven" and the right "to bind and loose" is every Christian?
On the other hand, you
can say that while on Earth will not be "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church", i.e. the global community of Christians, is not the Church,
mentioned in Scripture. And while that "bind and loose" on earth has
a right no one.
But in any case, neither
Orthodox nor Catholic, nor Protestant, nor any other Church in MT. 16:18-19 we
are not talking.
And very sorry that the
above-mentioned Church (as well as many sects) rarely remember the following
words:
"But you do not be
called teachers; for one is your Teacher, the Christ, and all ye are brethren;
and call no man your father on earth, for one is your Father Which is in
heaven; and do not be called teachers; for one is your master, even Christ.
That is greatest among you shall be your servant" (Matt. 23:8-11).
Let nowadays ideas of
ecumenism - the unification of all Christian churches seem utopian. But in a
historical perspective they will triumph together with the moral imperative -
that is, as they say, the will of God.
And these are not empty
words. Without the Association of churches (at the first stage - Christian, and
then the other) flashes religious hatred can not be avoided, and no Kingdom of
God speech can not be.
Many believe that in the
Kingdom of God Orthodox will be "live" separately, Catholics separately,
Russian separately, the British separately and Muslims or Buddhists there
entrance, of course, is completely closed.
But let's look at things
realistically: "the Kingdom of God will not. Evil cannot be considered
defeated until there is the slightest potential danger.
We said that the basis
for uniting all faiths and create "one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church" would be a failure from the medieval dogmas and rituals.
Now we can say more:
ideally, the dogma of any religion must fit in one line, clear to all,
and this line should be the most complete and succinct expression of the
essence of the moral imperative.
Of course, religion is
not only an expression of the moral imperative, and not just faith in God.
Religion is an integral worldview.
But almost all aspects of
any religion (the essence of God, the creation, the person and teachings of
Jesus Christ, facilitie) describes those or other Sciences, from philosophy and
theology to the history and physics.
And for expression of the
moral imperative and its rooting in the mass consciousness, by and large, just
one line.
What will this line is
hard to predict. Personally I am a supporter of the phrase of Christ:
"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:39), and in subsequent
chapters we will have an opportunity to talk about the enormous power of these
words.
But what would this line
was not, it would not have called this "superamerica" religion -
Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or anything else, it must be one of the most
full and open expression of the moral imperative.
And if people are to love
one another and not to do each other harm, generally without any religious
dogma (even fit in one line) - God forbid.
And the sooner religions
of the world will be purified from the medieval accretions that interfere with
the moral imperative, the better. Therefore, in particular, I oppose the
doctrines of the Trinity and the son of God" and thus, no doubt incur the
wrath of most organizations that have in their name the word "Church"
and use for their own purposes the doctrine of Christ.
For the last ecumenism is
harmful to the ambitions and managerial unpredictable organizational form merge
(sort of a forced merger of corporations), and it once again demonstrates the
social orientation of most of these organizations. Yes, and the word
"organization" is a product of modern society, with all the
consequences in the form of a "social evil.
What happened to
Alexander Menem, a strong Ecumenical and courageous critic of Orthodox
officialdom, we know. Unfortunately, he's not the first, not the last.
Chapter IX
Righteousness
I
We realized that the
dogmas of the Trinity and the God-man", that separates Christ from people
who objectively are not good and evil. And the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul,
and Jesus himself has repeatedly stressed that the Savior consubstantial with
us, each of us was given the opportunity to be like Christ.
But the theoretical
possibility is not yet practical. Finally make sure consubstantial us and
Christ prevents one important point: how to teach the Orthodox and Catholic
churches, Jesus was "immaculately conceived" and led a perfectly
righteous life, and we are in sin, conceived in sin, born in sin and remain.
These arguments cannot be
ignored, although we see here another inconsistency of the position of the
Orthodox churches and the Holy Scriptures.
The Church does not
question the righteousness of the saints, isn't it? And let us remember the
words of the Apostle Paul: "therefore, brethren, saints, members of the heavenly
calling, settle Apostle and high Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ"
(Heb. 4:1).
And because conversion
"saints" is used by Paul in all the Epistles to the Christians! Goes,
the Holy Apostle Paul believed that all true Christians are saints, and the
Church does not agree with him...
About the
"immaculate conception" we'll talk in the next Chapter, but now let's
look: can any of us to draw near to Christ not only by birth, but by
righteousness? What is righteousness and what it means for a person?
Accordingly, what is sin?
Wrong Apostle Paul, calling all Christians "Holy brothers", or not?
Note that this is the
most important question of the practical aspect of the moral imperative, and we
don't waste will be a waste of time, considering it in detail.
The main problem of
understanding of Judaism and Christianity has always been apparent
contradictions in the old and New Testaments. Orthodox Jews at the beginning of
our era, Christians were accused of denying the law of Moses. In the middle
ages, the Christian Church has won officialdom because of these same
contradictions raised anti-Semitism in the state policy...
Globally, in theological
terms, Jesus of Nazareth fully relied on the old Testament concept of Messiah,
that there are no fundamental differences with the old Testament there could
not be. With regard to small contradictions, a lot of them and inside of the
Gospels, and if detailed comparison of the old and New Testament has much to
gain, what to list this book will not suffice.
But in moral terms, it
may seem that Christianity and the Law of Moses, especially the Decalogue (the
ten commandments - Exodus. 20:2-17) - things are absolutely incompatible.
Let's see: the iconography
and Sacred second commandment: "you must Not make for yourself any graven
image"... We have already seen that they do not relate in any way, and
that the Christian Church decided to use the great power of art - not a reason
to close their eyes to the glaring contradiction between the icons and the
prohibition of the second commandment to portray whatever it is.
Fourth Sacred
commandment: "Remember the Sabbath day Holy and honor him." In modern
Israel, the Orthodox of his revered to such an extent that a command to turn on
the light or microwave oven on Saturday gives the computer, but it's even flick
the switch - sin. But in the Christian world to such absurdities, thank God, do
not reach, and this has started Jesus Christ said to the Pharisees: "the
Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8).
Let's not get carried
away by the enumeration of apparent contradictions. Home
"strangeness" that Christ, claiming that he came not to abolish the
Law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17, LK. 16:17 and others), actually did not
recognize the many requirements of the law of Moses. Jesus freed the students
from fasting (Matt. 9:14), and not followed by washing their hands (Matt.
15:2), and the mother is not that he worshipped (Matt. 12:47), and so on.
And in "the sermon
on the mount," he revises and many moral Law (Matt. chapters 5-7).
There is no doubt that
Jesus, as the Messiah, had the right to cancel or modify any of the
commandments ("All things are delivered to me of my Father" - Matt.
11:27). And the Apostle Paul, Jesus ' suffering on the cross atoned for our
"old Testament" sins.
Yet, in purely human
terms it is not clear why Christ in earthly life was in conflict with the
Pharisees on such things as the Sabbath? Maybe because of the
"quarrelsome" nature? It is unlikely. For "doing things on the
Sabbath" according to the mosaic Law formally has the death penalty (ex.
31:15), so it's no small thing, and just so nobody would violate this
commandment did not.
The situation is much
deeper and is not psychological, and moral plane.
Pay attention to one more
"inconsistencies". Christ, profound connoisseur of the old Testament,
almost verbatim zithromaxe and the Psalms, and the prophets, when asked what
the Law is "the greatest commandment", suddenly interpreted the Decalogue
absolutely at ease:
"Jesus said unto
him, thou shalt love the Lord God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind: this is the first and great commandment; and the second is
like it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; on these two commandments
hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).
Actually in the old
Testament the first commandment reads: "I am the Lord your God... you
shall have no other gods before me" (ex. 20:2)and the second (actually it
is the tenth and last): "you shall Not covet the house of thy neighbor, do
not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his field, nor his manservant... anything
that is thy neighbor's" (ex. 20:17).
Cited according to Lev.
19:18 is not entirely justified, as it says: "Not IFRC and do not bear
malice children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself", which significantly narrows the context. Therefore, in MT.
22:37-40 we can talk only about inaccurate quoting of the book of Exodus. How
to explain?
Very simply: it is
"inaccurate quote" is not a quotation, a sound and profound
interpretation of the old Testament by Jesus Christ.
What is the "love
thy neighbor as thyself"? Here, briefly expressed the essence of Christian
doctrine: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. "So all
you want to you treat people, and so do you with them; for this is the law and
the prophets" (Matt. 7:11).
And the interpretation of
the first commandment - to love God means not only to believe in him, but to
comply with its covenants "not in service and love."
Christ could not fail to
understand that many threats for disobedience, God through Moses and the
prophets poured upon the people of Israel, as malodeystvennoe, as, for example,
in our time, the criminal code, along with all sorts of "security
agencies".
Without the latter, of
course, until that too is impossible, but it is known that the main cause of
crime is the desire to do it, and the fear of punishment does not always
hold. In the middle ages, for example, criminals on the wheel and cooked in
boiling water, but they still had no less than in our relatively humane...
And if God truly loves
and understand that violated God's commandment - that is, indeed, the penalty
can be much worse than a fine or jail.
Pangs of conscience of
modern man "intimidate" as something disreputable - too often they
are speculating all sorts of people, even parents, to report child for the food
jam. Importantly, and as we soon realize, the only truly effective punishment -
deprivation of peace and hope for happiness.
This is the result and
the rejection of the Christian system of values, and the breach of the
covenants of Jesus Christ. And if some people are satisfied with the nervous
and restless life without any hope of future happiness, it is because from
childhood they have no alternatives.
But this is related to
the question of the establishment of Christianity in the minds and hearts of
the people. Not in the form of a set of doctrines, but as a moral system,
understandable to everyone.
And the rest of the
commandments of the law of Moses?
Some of the commandments
directly follow from the two listed in Matt. 22:37-40 (for example, "thou
shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal"). And some...
Are some commandments,
believed Christ, once they are out of common sense, and only interfere with the
perception of God and the destiny of man?
For example, the same
Saturday. Christ because it "removed" not just as appealing to common
sense.
"And asked Jesus to
accuse Him: is it possible to heal on the Sabbath? He said to them: which of
you, that shall have one sheep, and if it is a Saturday will fall into a pit,
will not take it and lift it out? How much is a man better than a sheep! So, on
the Sabbath to do good" (Matt. 12:10-12).
And if so, the veneration
of icons - a violation of the second commandment is not a sin because it harms
no one, but on the contrary, many benefits. If the person at the initial stage
of understanding of Christianity, you first need to look at the pictures - nothing
wrong with that. We all childhood preferred picture books, and many adults read
only colorful magazines.
Still modern man sooner
or later realizes that God is not an old man with a white beard sitting on a
cloud, and Jesus Christ is not necessarily thin brunette. But the artistic
Convention" has the full right to exist, including in iconography as an
integral part of the fine arts.
It's the same with any
other artistic works. As soon as the Chapter devoted to our methodology Caesar
what belongs to Caesar", we realized that art is no less significant
expression of the moral imperative than the Christian religion, to abandon it -
this is, indeed, a sin.
However, the Church, as
we have seen, and had not refused, but, in my opinion, unnecessarily build on
this theme mountains declarative casuistry like the following quotes from the
book the monk Gregory Circle "Thoughts on the icon:
"The image venerated
by the Church, must be consistent with the Prototype. It can not replace or
interfere with Archetype ascent prayer consciousness to it, but should be
involved in this endless existence, must indicate the divine Glory, Trisanna
the Light of the divine. The icon is a Holy end inconclusive damaged human
efforts to create an image-image...
Now that we have learned
a lot in the moral part of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, offer to speak
on a very relevant topic: what is sin?
The word is used by all,
to the place and out of place - so what is it?
It is clear and logical
that in the old Testament sin is understood as a violation of the law of Moses,
and not only one of the ten Holy commandments, and any of several hundreds of
provisions that are mandatory for execution.
But the trouble is that
the Law because of the excessive detail and specificity is outdated in the age
of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the repeated statements of Christ that he came not
to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17; LK. 16:17 and others), meant
the simplification and modernization of the Law in accordance with common sense.
And the
"modernization" has been so successful that the Law in the
interpretation of Christ in our time has existed much longer than the old
Testament Law from Moses to the beginning of the Christian era.
What was the moral law of
Jesus Christ - we already knew. And sin is the transgression of the law,
lawlessness (1 Jn. 3:4).
Accordingly, Jesus Christ
understood sin as the absence is to love God "with all thy heart and with
all thy soul and with all your mind" and the lack of love for one's neighbor
"as yourself".
And that's all. Short and
clear.
"For the commandment
"thou shalt not commit adultery," "do not kill", "thou
shalt not steal, not bear false witness", "don't steal someone
else's", and all others are summed up in this word: "you shall love
your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore
love is the fulfilling of the law" (ROM. 13:9-10).
This was said on this
subject the Apostle Paul. Too short and clear.
Therefore, any
complication of the notion of sin is an attempt to return to the antiquated old
Testament Law and to understand God not as an object of love, and how vengeful
despot.
But, unfortunately, the
medieval Church went exactly this way, and began to form a kind of another Law,
designed not only to Christ or Moses, but many generations of Church
fathers". Here appeared the dogma of the Trinity, which gave the Church -
"the Keeper of the Holy spirit - the right to personally define what sin
is, and it is not free to forgive.
And so it happened that
in the middle ages the complexity and flexibility of the concept of sin has
become a powerful tool for Church-state power.
And in our time, all
Orthodox churches interpret the sin is very broad and ambiguous, in full
compliance with the famous saying "the law - that pole. And where is the
"drawbar" turn - decides, again, one or the other Church, despite the
fact that she is (and not her, and Ecumenical Church) has the right to forgive
sins (Matt. 18:17; Jn. 20:23), not to determine what is sin.
Look at
"Orthodox" lists of sins. There are "seven deadly sins",
there are sins "disorders", there are sins of "omission"is
"forgiven", is "free", is "serious"...
This is only General
division, and the specification takes a lot of pages. For example, Bishop
Ignatius (Brianchaninov) among hundreds of other named and such sins as
"shifting from place to place to avoid hardship and deprivation, clouding
of the mind and heart", "LineageII", "nehranenie senses,
especially touch, what audacity pogublyayuschaya all virtues", the "desire
to receive gifts", "search bestrode salvation", "slow in
the thoughts of anger and revenge", "clipping hope in God"...
Hardly anyone except
specialists able to work out. But for the possession of power is
"good"! The Church knows since the middle ages, that believers must
be kept in continuous subconscious fear: "what if I this morning forgot to
pray?.. And suddenly I Psalm No. 115 confused words?.. Is it possible to
"lent" to eat eggs?.. And to drink milk?.. And today, I gazed at a photograph
of models and experienced seductive thoughts, so it will be for me?" And
so on.
So imagine the existence,
right? And all because instead of crisp and clear understanding of sin by Jesus
Christ, we are trying to understand the medieval scholastic (Yes even unfair)
layers.
Let's for example look at
the "seven deadly sins". They, according to the teachings of the
Church fathers, came from the "root of all evil - pride", and this
particular vanity, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony and extravagance.
Immediately begs the
question - where to talk about fraud, theft and murder? In The Decalogue? That
is, the seven deadly sins alone, but "thou shalt not kill"
separately? The situation is strange and unnecessary.
Let's move on. Christ
said: "do Not resist evil. But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39). And if I don't turn the
other cheek when I was beaten, and gave the date, then how is this a sin? In
the Decalogue not, then this is one of the seven deadly sins, such as anger?
And if I wasn't angry, but simply applied the results of many years of training
in karate? It is a sin or I can wipe my feet on the defeated enemy and move on
with a sense of accomplishment?
And what is considered
wasteful? And that gluttony? And that ambition? What pride? What envy? A
"healthy capitalist competition" in the last term is included or
not?..
From the standpoint of
Jesus Christ of any of these concepts are ambiguous and is a sin only
when it creates around the problems and inconvenience, pain and the like. But
everything else, including "seven deadly sins" - not more than
beautiful words.
But as you know, the less
people understand, the official churches (and many sects) easier to manage them
for their own purposes. Including using create a "complex sinful creature."
Indeed, in one degree or
another we are all vain, jealous, angry, prone to depression, chrevougodlivy,
stingy... Wanted to continue wasteful, began to consider the possibility of simultaneous
presence of the same human avarice and prodigality, but realized in time that
will fall into the same trap that we substitute the medieval scholastics.
Actually all is much
easier. To love God and people is righteousness. The reverse is a sin. So
Christ taught, and only from this point of view, the sin may be made accessible
to our understanding. And the understanding of sin is the first step on the
path to abandonment.
I may ask a provocative
question - what to do with self defense? You can, of course, following after
Christ declared: "If you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other",
but if it comes down to it, it fills a distinguished author of the other cheek
or it will change?
The question is really
complicated, and far more General than specific behavior in a specific
situation. It can be formulated as follows: what to do if, as the saying goes, "life
makes sin"?
But such cases are
encountered at every step.
Remember one typical
episode from the gospel of Luke.
To Christ rich young man
approached and asked what you want to "inherit eternal life". Christ
reminded him about the observance of the Law, as well as additional conditions
put the following:
"All that you have,
sell, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and
come, follow me. He (the youth - SZ)heard this he became very sorrowful, for he
was very rich.
Jesus, seeing as he was
very sorrowful, he said, how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the
Kingdom of God! Because it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
Those who heard it said,
who then can be saved?
But He said the things
impossible with men are possible with God" (LK. 18:22-27).
Almost the same way this
episode played in MT. 19:16-26.
It is clear that
everything said about the wealth must first be understood in spiritual terms.
If you build money in the cult, then Willy-nilly start to be "social"
evil - with all the ensuing consequences.
Christ is not in vain
said:
"You cannot serve God and
mammon. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall
eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will wear. Is not
life more than food, and the body than clothing?..
So do not worry and say, "what
shall we eat?" or "what shall we drink?" or "what to
wear?" Because of all this the Gentiles seek, and because your heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and
his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you" (6:24-33).
But let us not forget that we now
consider the theoretical and practical aspects of moral imperative.
And earthly life dictates its own
laws, rather hard and unsightly. First, each in varying degrees, have to worry
about food and clothing. Secondly, today's realities do not allow any give to
the poor all that you have, or to turn the other cheek when hit.
Theoretically, of course, this can be
done, but in practice it may be the last act in life. And Christ, of course,
did not want us to death from starvation or beatings - it would be no less a
contradiction of his own teachings.
But then who can be
saved, that is, to live completely righteous? No one? Hence, the Apostle Paul
was wrong, calling all Christians are saints?
The Orthodox Church
offers "otherworldly" solution to this problem: sin is atoned for the
sins with good deeds, and after his death (and then on "the last
judgment"), all the sins and good deeds will count, compare and decide who
is righteous and who is not.
We have said that
"the last judgment" is not linked with the teachings of Christ about
the infinite forgiveness of our sins (that was "the paradox of
Christianity"), and solved the problem of interpretation of heaven and
hell as the full range of consequences of good and evil, first of all in this
life.
But even apart from the
concepts of heaven and hell, and "lifetime" atone for the sins of the
Church is about the same position. Simply put: sin "stuff" - pray for
a week. Sinned seriously - pray the month. I have sinned very seriously - go on
a pilgrimage to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra...
It seems that everything
is logical. Moreover, this approach can be useful in cases when a person
sincerely believes his act of sin and makes every effort to redeem and no
longer do.
Stress - sincerely.
But then the prayers (like any other so-called "penance") will be
primarily symbolic.
But for some, the
characters are important, but for someone or not. And suddenly pragmatic and
experienced modern man wants to compare their sins and good deeds, in order to
"estimate"can he be considered righteous or not?
It turns out that the
canonical approach of the Church to atone for the sins rather harmful than
useful. Why - explain.
In this approach, the modern
man certainly will want to imagine something like "the scale of good and
bad deeds". In the "plus" will help others, raising children,
donations to the temple, charity... In the "minus" - intrigue,
denunciations, crime...
And let's reason together
with the common man, "armed" with this scale and wish to achieve a
positive "balance":
Yesterday I unfairly
yelled at the wife hit a child, drunk etc). But today I helped a neighbor fix a
car (or gave alms to a poor old woman), so that seems to be a sin atoned
for".
Everything is fine? But
the next step of reasoning may already be frankly absurd:
- "Today I helped a
neighbor fix a car. So I do not deserve this right next to shout at his wife?
Or on the same neighbor? Day after tomorrow we will make it up, I told him
again to help repair the car, and everything will be fine"...
Unfortunately, in a
similar way not only argues (albeit subconsciously), but there are a lot of
people.
It turns out that such a
"good" person, and have people around him life turns into hell
without any "doomsday". But "the average balance on the scale of
good and bad deeds" says he's all right.
"Sin shamelessly,
deep,
The expense of losing the
nights and days,
And, with the head from
hops difficult,
Go off into the temple of
God.
...Putting in the plate
gresik copper,
Three, even seven times
in a row
Kiss a hundred years old,
poor
And kiss salary.
And upon returning home,
measure
On the same penny someone
And hungry dog door,
Iknow, leg to
throw"...
Is it possible to add
anything to what is written by Alexander Blok?
It turns out that,
because so far we talked about purely domestic matters. "The scale of good
and bad deeds" can have far more dire consequences.
"I have that damned
old woman was killed and robbed, and I assure you, without the faintest
conscience... See: on the one hand, stupid, senseless, worthless, evil, sick
old woman, no one needs and, conversely, all harmful, which itself does not
know what he lives for, and tomorrow she herself will die... on the other hand,
fresh young lives thrown away for want of support, and it is in the thousands,
and it is everywhere! A hundred, a thousand good deeds and undertakings, which
can be arranged and improve on the old woman's money, buried in a monastery!
Hundreds, thousands, maybe beings on the road; hundreds of families saved from
destitution, from decay, from death, from fornication, from venereal hospitals
- and all her money. Kill her, take her money, in order to then devote
themselves to the service of humanity and common cause: how do you think, is
not whether one leads a tiny all the thousands of good deeds? One death and a
hundred lives in exchange - it's simple arithmetic!"
Raskolnikov overheard
this conversation in the tavern and made the final decision to kill that ugly
old woman-percent-counter. We know that nothing good came out - this is
dedicated to the entire novel "Crime and punishment". And the
conclusion is straightforward Dostoevsky - crime can be no justification, no
"arithmetic".
So let's not talk about
people's ability to associate certain sins and good deeds - in any case come to
an absurdity. But if even after Orthodox churches to admit that the comparison
of disparate thoughts and actions capable of God or Christ, this still leads to
disastrous consequences.
The fact that the
primitive way of redemption through good works (the so-called "continuous
repentance") can be interpreted as permission to sin as much as you
want. Do not forget then to confess, pray, give alms to the poor, and
everything will be fine.
But it can and the two
old women-lender to kill, and three, one hundred, and not only old
women-lender...
Unfortunately, the Church
of its canonical understanding of the atonement (sin - read it five times,
"our father"), she suggests the modern man the idea of such
"arithmetic".
But we have to admit:
focus solely on the redemption through good works gives people a moral right
to sin.
To atone for the sin -
not the main thing. Most importantly - sincere reluctance to commit. Then, even
forcibly committing a sin, the person he would not voluntarily repeat.
Therefore, the teachings
of Christ and is directed to the fact that the person had no desire to
commit sins. Hence, this emphasis on love for people and for God. And how to do
good deeds in order to "block" the evil - it is really math, but not
love.
As for the canonical
position of the Orthodox churches...
Yes, the priest in the
confessional is easier to tell people: "I have Sinned - read it five
times, "our father"than to seek his sincere repentance.
Yes, not all priests are
capable of profound psychological revelation of the Christian worldview.
Yes, priests are few, and
many penitents.
But to create a person's
illusion of the remission of sins formal reading a few prayers - this is,
indeed, wrong, and harmful. If a priest is not enough time for deep and
thoughtful conversation with each penitent is better to postpone the confession
and replace it with a common message.
Neither Orthodoxy nor in
Catholicism this, unfortunately, has not yet been decided.
It turns out that give a
true cleansing from sin (in fact, this is equivalent to acceptance of the
Christian system of values) can only sincere repentance. Christ said
that he "came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance"
(Matt. 9:13).
But it is very, very
difficult. Of course, theoretically possible. And Church Canon is allowed. And
in movies, and in books are also frequent. But in life...
I was always interested
in people like Khrushchev, Churchill, Marshal Zhukov, General Eisenhower and
the like. Can such a man at the end of life, pensions, repent at least some of
their sins, which in large-scale public career had to make a lot?
For example, as a
"public confession" to write completely truthful memoirs? Even if not
for themselves, then at least with an objective analysis of his life among his
contemporaries?
More and more convinced
that it can, and not because he is banned or told to write the truth. Read
"uncensored" memories, like the memoirs of General Sudoplatov, the
chief saboteur of the Stalin-Beria security, and understand if these people
something of his many crimes were considered sins, they would have gone mad or
died of horror before retirement.
Successful social career
deprive people of the opportunity to speak the truth and repent of their sins,
and in "retirement" age that we expect from them is not necessary.
They have long forgotten how it's done, and the Affairs of the Kingdom of God
they do not care either in youth or in old age.
Same with their scores of
friends and associates - corporate cohesion even in the face of death is
stronger than the truth. Of course, there are exceptions, but not many. Sincere
repentance may not be a lot of insincere people.
In these cases, as a
rule, the moral imperative is powerless in the face of evil, which man
"faithfully" served all his life.
But, fortunately, General
Sudoplatov, the conscience of which hundreds, if not thousands of lives - a
rare case. The vast majority of people is another problem. They would be glad
to sincerely repent, but can't even remember what their sins are scandals on
domestic violence and petty intrigues at work.
What do they do? Do
remember all the details? So in fact you can walk to the absurd, until the phrase
in the confessional: "Today in the day my boss three times gave me a note
and I looked at him with irritation and have not experienced the attitude of
Christian love".
But this, though absurd
from the point of view of common sense, but from the point of view of
Christianity is actually a sin!
And if, God forbid, died
tragically and suddenly, without having to confess even to himself? It turns
out that he has no chance of salvation?
Let's not get carried
away by listing the many situations in which puts people cruel and
unpredictable life. When brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultery, which was
supposed to be stoned, he said, "Who is without sin among you, let him
first cast a stone at her" (Jn. 8:11).
As you know, was not
sinless.
"For we have before
proved both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. As written, there is none
righteous, no, not one" (ROM. 3:9-10).
So, in the end, who can
be saved, i.e. the right to consider themselves the true Christian, to which
the Apostle Paul spoke of as "Holy brethren"? We have just seen that
the same Paul said, "there is None righteous, no, not one".
Is obtained an insoluble
contradiction?
You will have to repeat
the last lines of quoted Jesus ' conversation with the rich young man:
"and they that Heard it said, who then can be saved? But He said the
things impossible with men are possible with God" (LK. 18:27).
Let's try to understand
what Christ meant by saying this phrase, in the middle ages caused a huge
number of theological debate about the so-called "God's grace".
Usually in the latter
concept was invested in the possibility of forgiveness of our sins God, while
the Bible the concept of grace is extremely multivalued - this force acting in
man (1 Cor. 15:10), and the preaching of the gospel (Jn. 1:16), and the gift of
God (ROM. 3:24), and a few dozen different contexts and meanings.
Not surprisingly, it is a
universal concept of God's grace, to which it was possible to attract a lot
raznokontekstnymi of references to Scripture, was elected at the beginning of
the V century Aurelian Augustine to ensure that nothing depends upon the will
of man, because the latter is prone to sin from birth.
According to Augustine,
descended on the man of God's grace - and no matter how much he sinned, it will
be saved and enter the Kingdom of heaven. So please God, and not us trying to
understand the motivation of his actions.
Let me remind you, as
Augustine on this subject debated with Pelagius. The latter is not only
recognized the freedom of the will of the people, but was of the opinion that
man is born sinless. Augustine defended his doctrine of "original
sin", after which the person is not able not to sin, and must rely only on
God's grace.
The teaching of Augustine
on grace is intimately associated with his doctrine of absolute predestination.
The fact that inevitably the question arises: if a person is given the grace of
God, then why believe and be saved not all? Answer by Augustine was this: God
predestined the former for good, others for evil.
Speaking our terms,
Augustine denied the freedom of the will on the moral level.
Thus, grace, and free
will was in theology directly related, and all subsequent scholars have tended
either to the Augustinian, or to the Pelagian view. For example, the first
adhered to Thomas Aquinas, the second - Duns Cattle.
Lutheranism and
Calvinism, oddly enough, looking at the relationship of grace and free will
entirely, "Augustinian". Calvin generally denied the freedom of the
will, and brought salvation solely to the unknown "divine
Providence". Luther approached this somewhat softer and believed that the
opportunity to gain grace gives a sincere faith.
However, faith is at the
time of the reformation was the concept is so diverse, that the teachings of
Luther and Calvin some of their contemporaries have been interpreted as
allowing any number of sins.
For example, the
so-called "libertine-spirituali" believed "Because God saves or
condemns at its whim, it does not pay attention. It would be better with the
same freedom that allows itself to God, to try to arrange a more pleasant and
joyful life in this absurd world," Calvin himself wrote about their
position.
However, John Calvin not
only wrote, but acted. It is unlikely that his party was ethical tradition of
the Chapter "libertine" Quentin Thierry in the hands of the French
Catholic court - in fact, he himself provoked the emergence of this sect to
their doctrine of grace. But whatever it was denounced by Calvin in 1547,
Quentin Thierry was burned at the stake. As you know, on the conscience of
Calvin penalty and academic antitrinitarian Miguel Servet.
Not all of the
reformation was so "progressive"as we now may seem, and it's no
wonder why neither Luther nor Calvin did not abandon key medieval dogmas of the
Trinity and the God-man": in the XVI century, the society was still not
ready.
But we are talking about
God's grace. So far, we could based on the teachings of Augustine and Calvin to
make a very absurd conclusion: sin is not sin, repent-not repent, confess not
confess, the hope still exclusively on unpredictable forgiveness of God for our
sins.
But it follows
necessarily that freedom of the will of the people. We have this situation
already considered, when we solved the problem of theodicy, and saw in this
approach, God is the direct culprit of all the evil done in the world, and
people inevitably turns into "human material" a higher gear.
In this regard, of
course, the point of view of Augustine, we can not accept.
Orthodoxy has provided
two kinds of God's grace: "anticipating" (universal and
unpredictable, as in Augustine) and "special" (justifying a specific
person by his deeds). "Grace works in freedom, and freedom in grace; they
vzaimnovhodny" (Bishop Feofan Prokopovich).
If to break through the
traditionally dark style Church-Orthodox theology, we can understand the
following: a certain freedom of will, that is, the choice to sin is not
sin," we have. Accordingly, we have the potential to receive "special
grace", that is, to understand that sin, and to atone for sin, repentance,
good works, and similar actions. But we also affects "anticipates"
grace, that is, if it is not - no repentance will not save.
So, in the Orthodox
doctrine of grace, we see only a few relaxed form Augustinian predestination.
Let's try to determine
the possibility of forgiveness of our sins God is more just and fair than does
the official Orthodoxy.
I suggest not to delve
into logical construction, and to give a definition of God's grace in
accordance with the moral imperative and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
Ironically, Augustine,
Luther, Calvin, and Orthodox theologians, fascinated by General philosophical
questions of the balance of grace and free will, they have forgotten that there
is a public teaching of Jesus Christ.
Will there be a sin of
the people, sincerely accepted this doctrine?
If so, then the only
refuge and, as they say, in extreme cases. To predict all such cases it is
impossible to be a Christian living among the people, not everyone who shares
his beliefs.
And if a man walks down
the street and sees, for example, gang hooligan teenagers, insult a woman -
surely he must, "armed with" the Christian doctrine, to pass? And if,
God forbid, the bandits attacked the man himself - surely he must, with folded
hands, to submit to their fate? It is unlikely.
So while there is a
"social evil, and there are sins that even a Christian can not commit.
Such involuntary sins not contradict moral imperative and considered sins can
not be.
Thus, God's grace can be
defined as given us a moral imperative, and our righteousness is as sincere
allegiance to the moral imperative and action in all situations in accordance
with it.
Moving from theory to
practice, we can say: the Christian values of kindness and love, fully and
publicly expressing moral imperative, must be unconditionally accepted into the
spiritual plane, but can be applied practically every Christian not as a single
and inflexible template, and in accordance with the specific situation.
Therefore, the practical
aspect of the Christian moral system can be formulated as follows: if there is the
slightest opportunity to do good and avoid evil, then it should be used.
And the deeper
Christianity is rooted in each individual, the more he perceives the limits of
the possibilities.
So, distributed to the
poor all that you can at the moment, but know and a reasonable limit on the
basis of their financial capabilities, otherwise tomorrow you will have nothing
to give. Will you have tomorrow more money - and then give more.
And you are slapped on
one cheek - turning the other, until you realize that the ability to expose and
thereby morally disarm the enemy anymore.
I can not remember one
sentence of Leo Tolstoy. When in Yasnaya Polyana, he slapped at a mosquito on
his forehead, he chided a companion, that, say, You preach non-resistance to
evil by violence, and they now Komar killed... In this, Tolstoy said: "it
is Impossible to live in such detail."
In this light, it is
possible to give an answer to the provocative question, will put whether I
personally left cheek when struck on the right (more precisely, I take the
position of non-resistance to evil by violence at any "power"
conflict).
If there is at least some
chance, I will do everything to violent conflict has not occurred. Moreover, if
there is a chance to preserve life and human dignity - will turn the other
cheek, that is not going to take any retaliatory action.
But if this chance will
not - Yes, have to fight fire with fire. And let me know that it is a sin -
there are times when sin is not the answer. To protect a woman or child - is
that a sin? And so on, all possible cases are not listed, and there can only be
guided by the Christian common sense.
Importantly, the
likelihood of violence, and in General "social" evil, when this
approach repeatedly reduced. Completely eliminate it and to live a life without
conflict is not managed nor Jesus Christ, nor the Apostle Paul, or anyone else.
But the more people truly
perceive the Christian doctrine, the lower this probability.
And when it reaches zero,
depends when on Earth the Kingdom of God. We've already talked about this, so
just remember again the words of Christ: "there shall come the Kingdom of God
is conspicuous way, and say, behold, it is here, or, lo, it is there. For
behold, the Kingdom of God is within you" (LK. 17:20-21).
Chapter X
"Immaculate conception"
I
We understand what sin
is. We understand what righteousness is. But there is another argument of the
Church officialdom in favor of the fact that Jesus Christ had a certain
"special" righteousness is the dogma of his "immaculate
conception".
This dogma, one statement
declaring any physiological conception of sin, led to the fact that the
so-called sin of adultery (the seventh commandment of the Decalogue) holds the
record for the number of interpretations and speculations.
First, think about: what
is "adultery"? To have sex at all? Or without the purpose of
procreation? Or outside of marriage? Or homosexual? Or...
However, it is enough to
open any Church leadership to "sacrament of penance" - there all is
in detail painted.
For example, in
accordance with the "Meditation of a penitent sinner" (edited by
Archimandrite Vladimir) violations of the seventh commandment are: adultery,
Fornication, malacia, sensuality in all its forms - passionate kisses with the
other floors, unclean feel, zasmatrivalis on a beautiful face with lust, profanity,
love songs, obscene gestures, locationsto, volokita, pandering, delight unclean
dreams, arbitrary pohotnaya the kindle, excessive attachment... Satiety in
eating and drinking, reading novels, watching seductive pictures, free
treatment and games other floors, excessive panache..."
Unfortunately, can't
remember where the Bible says about the sinfulness of reading novels, and what
is "arbitrary pohotnaya the kindle" - and does not know. Frankly, and
don't want to know the popular benefits, which include quoted must be written
clearly and publicly available, and the use of such terms is linked in the
General outline of the desire of the Church to the management of believers
through blurred and ambiguous notion of sin.
So let's look at
"adultery" from the point of view of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
To get started, read that
on this subject in the old Testament. About "adultery" was first
mentioned in it, and all of the ten commandments in the Pentateuch are
specified and discussed in detail. And so I suggest carefully reading of the
Law - Moses preferred the clear language and usually leaves little room for
misunderstanding.
For violation of one or
the other commandments of the Decalogue usually has the death penalty, and so
death had to indulge in:
"If anyone is to
commit adultery with the wife of a man; if he will commit adultery with his
neighbour's wife"; "the man that lieth with his father's wife";
"a man lie with his daughter-in-law"; "a man lies with a male as
with a woman"; "a man take a wife and her mother"; "who
will smeetsa with a beast"; "if a man shall take his sister";
"if a man lie with his wife during disease traveocity" (Lev.
20:10-18).
More gently Moses spoke
of "the man that lieth with his aunt" and "a man shall take his
brother's wife (Lev. 20:19-20) - the death penalty for this was not supposed
to, but sin (breaking the Law) was considered.
We will not go into the
details of the manners and customs of the ancient Jews, derived from Egypt. If
Moses believed all of the above prohibitions are necessary for the normal life
of his people, he is, as they say, was visible.
To maintain peace and
tranquility in the small nation was required to ban adultery - of course, Yes.
Avoid genetic degeneration wanted to ban closely related marriages - of course,
Yes. In order to strengthen the family and promote its creation, needed a ban
on homosexuality - of course, Yes. In the unsanitary conditions of life in the
desert sex during menstruation is extremely dangerous and it needed to ban
" of course, Yes. And so on.
Thus, the concept of
adultery was formulated by Moses, clearly and reasonably.
Of course, in the tribal
system of ancient Israel, the woman plays a subordinate role, but no deliberate
humiliation of "the weaker sex", prohibition of sexual life and an
exaggerated attention to the "intimate" questions in the Law is not
observed.
Note that Moses insisted
on the virginity of brides (Deut. 22:6), but were allowed divorce under the
following conditions: "If any man take a wife, and become her husband, and
she does not find favor in his eyes because he finds in it something nasty, and
write her a bill of divorcement, and give her hand, and sends her out of his
house" (Deut. 24:1).
But in early Christian
times, the situation changed radically. Humiliated by the people, as you know,
easier to manage, and the medieval Church to create in man "complex sinful
creature could not take advantage of such a wonderful occasion as
"adultery".
Exploring the formation
of early Christian art, we have seen that the "good Christian" was
unconsciously unpleasant to look at "whore of Babylon". But centuries
passed, the mores have changed, and the Church's attitude toward women and sex
life - no. And that Jesus of Nazareth is still perceived by most people as a
notorious misogynist, rests entirely on the conscience of the Church
officialdom.
"First violin"
is owned by Augustine of Hippo. Fair to say that he adopted many things from
his teacher, Ambrose of Milan, who, in turn, from Origen and Philo of
Alexandria, but the essence remains the same.
Let's see what Augustine
writes in "Theological treatises": "Expelled after the sin of
Eden, the man and his seed, infected by sin in it, as in the root, bound
punishment of death and condemnation; so all his posterity and convicted along
with him his wife was born from carnal lust".
And then, as you know,
the "original sin has infected all of humanity. So, for Augustine, because
of this relationship our ancestors, we are not divine beings, as "vile
vessels of sin." Moreover, since any sex is a sin, because God
objectionable. Because sexual attraction and Adam were driven from Paradise,
and all the ills of mankind occurred.
But all this is pure
fiction! Actually, just open the first pages of the Bible and read them to
read. It will be helpful for us in the future.
In the first Chapter of
Genesis speaks of God creating the world, and together with them (the sixth
day) - man. Note - not Adam and mankind in General.
"And God said, let
us make man in Our image and after our likeness, and let them have dominion...
over all the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God
he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and told
them God: be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue
it"... (Gen. 1:26-29).
And then, already in the
second Chapter:
"And the Lord made
man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden
in the East, and there he put the man whom he had formed" (Gen. 2:7-8).
"And he took the
Lord God of the man who created it, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it. And God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of
the garden you may eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou
shalt not eat of it : for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt
surely die" (Gen. 2:15-17).
"And was created by
the Lord God from the rib taken from man into a woman and brought her to the
man. And said: " this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she
shall be called woman, because this was taken from her husband. Therefore shall
a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife : and they
shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, Adam and his wife, and were not
ashamed" (Gen. 2:22-25).
"And the serpent
said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die, for God knows that in the day ye
eat thereof, then your eyes will open and you will be as gods, knowing good and
evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was
pleasant to the eyes and longed for, because it gives knowledge; and took of
the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her, and he
ate. And opened the eyes of them both, and they knew that they were naked; and
they sewed Fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen. 3:4-7).
So the first
"sin" (as we talked, his sin can hardly be called such), and there
was - people disobeyed God.
Stress the first,
but not "original". The word "firstborn" implies that we
are all in this "sin" is born - again is an indirect allusion to sex.
And that is no hint and no.
The fact that Adam and
eve became ashamed of their nakedness, too, somehow associated with sex,
although actually a sexual relationship, as a rule, lead to the opposite -
people are no longer ashamed of each other...
Then God, having learned
about the violation of his ban, he cursed the serpent (it is believed that the
image of the serpent was the devil, but this is also speculation). Eve, the
Lord said, now that she's in pain you will give birth to children and will rule
over her husband, and Adam had to eat from the ground with grief and have their
bread in the sweat of his brow, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it
wast thou taken, for dust you are and to dust you shall return" (Gen.
3:19).
If someone is still
waiting descriptions of sexual relations between Adam and eve, they had to
disappoint. "And Adam knew eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare
Cain" (Gen. 4:1) much later, and it was normal and natural - no wonder God
said: "Be fruitful and multiply".
So, we have carefully
read the beginning of Genesis and realized that only God knows where in the
imagination of Augustine have passages like the following:
"And has opened the
eyes of both of them. What? Not for nothing but the mutual lust is born of
death, the punishment of the flesh of sin... Therefore, immediately after the
crime commandments they lost internally left them grace that they insulted
arrogant and proud love of his own power, stopped the eyes of its members and
felt the lust in them, which you did not know before".
Well and further already
known Augustinian "logic": if "original sin" was
"lust" of Adam and eve, then we get it through the passionate
sexuality" of our parents. In sin we are conceived in sin, born in sin and
lives. And hope we now exclusively on the unknowable God's grace.
Gyrus Western
"dogmatic development" alienated Catholicism from the Augustinian
understanding of "original sin" as "lust", and now it
dominates the view of Anselm of Canterbury, consisting in the fact that man as
a result of "original sin" lost "grace primitive righteousness."
However, the "righteousness"
in the ecclesiastical interpretation, as we have seen, includes so many
conflicting ideas that fit with nostalgia to recall Augustine - that at least a
clear and articulate their thoughts.
The same problem with the
Orthodox understanding of "original sin" - it is just as blurry as
the understanding of sin in General.
But the reformation left
Augustinian concept of "lust" in integrity. There are several sects
(for example, Socinians), which completely deny the dogma of "original
sin", but few of these.
Dogmas dogmas and
stereotypes stereotypes. But in terms of creating stereotypes to Aurelius
Augustine far all theologians together. And so it happened that the
"original sin" in the mass consciousness is still perceived as a
sexual relationship of Adam and eve, and every one of us already by right of
birth is sinful creature".
Let us estimate the
viability of theological base hatred of the Church officialdom to sexual life.
Usually referring to the words of Jesus Christ:
"You have heard that
it was said: "thou shalt not commit adultery". But I say unto you,
that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust for her has already committed
adultery with her in his heart. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and
cast it from thee; for it is better that you lose one of your members than that
your whole body to be cast into hell" (Matt. 5:28-29).
And then Christ adds:
"It was said also,
whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a divorce. But I say to
you: whoever divorces his wife except for the cause of fornication, he causes
her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery" (Matt. 5:31-32).
There are more
"radical" (and less known) statement of Jesus: "And there be
eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven"
(Matt. 19:12).
With her and will start
the analysis quoted Scripture, as we immediately see the catching
"need" quotes out of context. And the context is the following:
"And there came unto
Him the Pharisees tempting him, saying unto Him: for any cause for a man to
divorce his wife?
He said to them: have ye
not read, that he which Made them at the beginning male and female he created
them? And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall
cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh... what therefore God has
joined together, let no man put asunder.
They say unto Him, why
did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses
for the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives : but from
the beginning it was not so; but I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except it be for fornication (my italics - SZ) and marries another woman
commits adultery; and married divorced committeth adultery.
Disciples said to Him: if
that is the duty of man to his wife, it is better not to marry.
He said to them: not all
receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who
from their mother's womb were so born; and there are eunuchs who were made
eunuchs of men : and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for
the Kingdom of Heaven. Who can hold it, let him hold" (Matt. 19:3-12).
From the above it in this
episode of the gospel shows that it is only on the norms of the law of Moses,
and we already know that meant Moses by the word "adultery". Any new
definition of the term Jesus did not give.
It may seem that Christ
has tightened the Law of Moses - forbade divorce "just so" and left
the only reason is adultery, that is, adultery, homosexuality and so on.
Actually about the
tightening of the Law is not necessary to speak, as Moses for adultery and does
provide for the death penalty, then the problem of divorce, of course, has
disappeared by itself.
But in this episode is
even more important aspect.
We've learned that if
Christ says to his disciples: "Not all receive this saying, save they to
whom it is given", it seems that the disciples ought to hold it, and the
rest may not be given.
It is as if it turns out
that he's disciples were commanded not to marry, or to be eunuchs. Hence, all
followers of Christ, which "is given to accommodate this word, it seems to
be desirable, and if the Church does not require us to mandatory celibacy, or
ostopenia, it was only "doing a favor" of our sinful nature.
Anyway, the medieval
Church interpretation was just that, and hence the degradation of women, and
monasteries, and prohibitions on sex, and many skopcheskih sects... Here are
just a veil on women still have not guessed to wear, and it is probably
accidental.
And in actual fact the
opposite - "the word", which was desirable to "fit"refers
not to the words about eunuchs, and to the doctrine of prohibition of divorce!
Hence, the phrase
disciples, "it is better not to marry" Jesus considered the inability
(or unwillingness) to accept his teaching on the inviolability of the family.
And to him the position of students did not like, as he said to them: "Not
all receive this saying, save they to whom it is given".
But he allowed the students
not to accept his opinion, telling a parable about eunuchs. There are some
eunuchs, there are others... Just come to the word eunuchs, and he brought them
in as an example. When Christ told the parable about the husbandmen (Matt.
21:28-46; MK. 12:1-9), it does not mean that he sent students to gather grapes?
So Jesus of Nazareth did
not insist on binding and indissoluble marriage, and especially on sexual
abstinence or emasculation.
Yes, and the specific
provisions of the law of Moses on the theme of adultery (except divorce), he
said nothing, and wonder - not our business.
A similar position
regarding the creation of a family became the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:1-17). And
something for the Orthodox Church to listen to his words about this: "Only
one doing so, as God, he was assigned to, and each as the Lord has called. And
so ordain I in all churches" (1 Cor. 7:17).
Now let's go back to the
saying of Christ: "Ye have heard that it was said: "thou shalt not
commit adultery". But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to
lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If thy right
eye offend thee..." (Matt. 5:28-29).
It turns out that
everything is normal and logical - if you are married (that is covered by the
mosaic concept of adultery), so no need to look longingly at other women and to
hurt the legitimate wife. This contradicts the main Christian commandment to
love one another.
Thus, none of the
humiliation of women, nor about the undesirability of sexual relations in the
teachings of Christ we are not talking. The Christian concept of adultery is
different from the old Testament only in terms of the prohibition of divorce,
and then nebezuslovnogo - if one of the spouses has changed (at least "in
his heart"), then the divorce can be.
And who, according to the
teachings of Augustine and all the major churches, sinless from birth, that is,
free from "original sin"?
Only Jesus Christ, he is
"God the Son". And if so, he could not be born from sin, hence the
dogma of the "immaculate conception".
And sinless virgin Mary,
accordingly, could not have sex - not only before marriage to Joseph, but
after, and remained a virgin for life. It is unclear, however, as it has
preserved virginity during childbirth. However, birth is not sex, so it seems
to be "you", but the Cathars in the thirteenth century, still
believed that Christ entered the world through the ear of his mother.
Catholicism went even
further. In 1854 (and theological standards recently) Pope Pius IX proclaimed
the dogma of the "immaculate conception" of the virgin Mary, to nip
in the Bud any rumors and to make Jesus the "immaculate" in the
second generation. They say so "original sin" before Christ certainly
did not get.
All of the above have
tried to reconcile with common sense, inventing the legend that is still the
official position of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Archimandrite Raphael
(Karelin), for example, writes:
"In the Jerusalem
temple, Mary gave God a vow of virginity. In the 13 years she was engaged to
80-year old man Joseph, a distant relative, who became the guardian of her
virginity, in fact, a second father... residence of Joseph the betrothed
consisted of two carved out of rock, one above the other rooms, which led to a
stone staircase. In the upper room lived the virgin Mary. Downstairs, in a
small yard, a workshop was righteous Joseph, where he studied carpentry... the
mother of God came out of the house only to the source, which flowed near their
homes.
It is not surprising that
in the background the Church of the virgin Mary a woman who worked all his
life, raised children, a loving husband, and he never changed, looks almost the
slag. What a chance for the clergy, which in Catholicism and Orthodoxy belong
exclusively to the male sex, once again humiliate women!
In pursuit of
"purity" religious scholars even refer Mary to the genus of king
David, and then in the Gospels, Jesus is called "Son of David" and,
God forbid, believers will think that Joseph of David (Matt. 1:6-16) still had
something to do with the birth of Christ...
We have already seen that
nothing of the fall of Adam and eve to have sex was not, so let's see what is
said in the gospel of Matthew about the family life of Joseph and Mary, as well
as the "immaculate conception" of Christ.
Why Matthew - Yes,
because in no other gospel about the "immaculate conception" in
General it is not. From the evangelists about the birth of Jesus told only
Matthew and Luke. The last "physiology" conception tactfully ignored
(LK. 1:31-34), besides talking about Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus (LK.
2:27; 2:48).
But according to Matthew:
"The birth of Jesus
Christ came about: His Mother Mary to Joseph, before they came together, She
was found with child of the Holy spirit.
Joseph Her husband, being
a just man and unwilling to expose Her, wanted to put Her away secretly.
But when he thought on
these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,
Joseph, son of David! fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which
is conceived in Her is of the Holy spirit; she will bear a Son, and shalt call
his name Jesus : for He shall save His people from their sins.
And all this was done
that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet,
saying: behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
name Emmanuel, which means God with us.
Joseph did as the angel
of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know Her. Till
She had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus"
(Matt. 1:18-25).
And this is all that is
generally referred to in the New Testament on the subject of "the
immaculate conception".
Personally, I consider
myself not entitled to conjecture on the subject, how exactly was conceived as
Joseph and Mary was about and what were their future intimate relationships.
And if Augustine of Hippo, Archimandrite Raphael or Pushkin (in
Gavrielides") undertook this courage is, in any case, their own ideas.
For me personally
convincing are the following evidence that Mary was a normal woman, lived with
her husband Joseph in a normal family relationship and had many children:
"Then one said unto
Him (Jesus - SZ): thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak
with Thee" (Matt. 12:46).
"And he came into
his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were
astonished, and said to Him: where is the wisdom and strength? Is not this the
carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brethren James, and
Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And not all His sisters with us? Where did He get
all this?" (Matt. 13:55).
"Is not this the
carpenter if He, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon?
Whether here, between us, His sisters?" (MK. 6:3).
We see that according to
the translation of the Bible 1860-ies, which we use to this day, Joseph was a
carpenter (Matt. 13:55). In Church Slavonic version of the Bible was reproduced
the Greek word "tekton" (as in old Russia was called builders). And
Archimandrite Raphael (and he is not alone) speaks of him as the old carpenter.
It would seem, what's the
difference?
And in fact, we have here
another example of "adjustment" precious gospel of the information
under the pressing needs of Church theology.
As you know, the Builder
(and especially carpenter) on the nature of work required to climb the walls
and roof, putting the rafters and do other heavy physical labor. It was hardly
possible for Joseph, if he is on the Church version, it was over eighty.
A carpenter can even a
hundred years of sitting in his quiet courtyard and grind wood products (the
same legend about Joseph yoke for the oxen and scales).
So contrary to the gospel
texts the Church has made of Joseph the carpenter, 80-year-old carpenter.
Of course, the official
theologians can invent something else. For example, young Joseph was a
carpenter and his men remember exactly, but the carpenters, he "was
changed to" old age. Therefore, Jesus Christ "old memory"
continued to call the carpenter's son, although the last few decades of his
life, Joseph worked as a carpenter. Say, for forty years the people of Nazareth
did not forget carpentry art of Joseph!
But this Fudge looks so
implausible that the Church prefers to substitute the profession of a carpenter
"related" profession of a carpenter. And sometimes officious
theologians used "stylized" version "driedel", which can
mean both, although the mere use instead of the old "tekton" old
"driedel" raises doubts about the integrity of this approach.
But all this
"juggling" professions is quite transparent. Much more difficult is
the case with the interpretation of those biblical passages that speak of
brothers and sisters of Jesus.
The Church we here offers
two options.
Let's start with the more
ancient interpretations found another Ambrose of Milan and is the official
position of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Is it that we are talking
about pivot brothers of Jesus, the sons of "elderly" Joseph by his
first wife. Called even the name of this wife - Mary the wife of Clopas,
standing together with the Virgin Mary and other women at the cross (Matt.
27:56; MK. 15:40; LK. 24:10; Jn. 19:25).
All this seems to be
logical. Moreover, even when the MC. 15:47 says about Mary Iveway, is that we
are talking about the mother of Josiah (brother in Christ), that is about the
same Mary sleepaway (a wife of Cleopas).
Suppose that this is so.
But then Joseph had with Mary sleepaway, his first wife, mother of four sons
and several daughters before marriage with the Virgin Mary to divorce. It turns
out that "righteousness" Joseph is highly questionable for a young
girl to expel from the house of the mother of his children?
And if we assume that the
first wife from him she went to Cleopas, leaving many young sons and daughters,
it is not worthy of the Scriptures, and adventurous-domestic novel. What if
this were to be the vicissitudes of life Mary sleepaway that she eventually
followed Jesus, the son of her first husband from his second marriage, when he
preached in Galilee (MK. 15:41), we can only guess.
In MK. 16:1 tells us more
about a certain Mary a James, and the Church believes that this is the same
Mary the wife of Clopas, the mother of all the four brothers of Jesus, the
first of which is named Jacob and Josiah (Matt. 13:55; MK. 6:3). And in MK.
15:40 mentions Mary the mother of James "youngest" and Joses, who is
identified with the same Mary sleepaway.
But then to whom James is
"less"?
If we are not talking
about family, and about pivot brothers of Jesus, let's see, how old was Jacob,
the eldest of them.
After James Joseph was
born several children, then there was a break for divorce with Mary sleepaway,
then his betrothal to Mary, and then Christ was born. Thus, Jacob
"lesser" had to be older than Jesus 10-20 years. And if you consider
"restorelist" Joseph, 30-40.
What then could be
"senior" James - you can only guess. One of the sons of Zebedee? But
if James Zebedee in the time of Jesus ' crucifixion was in his fifties, his
younger brother John (the Revelator) is under the age of at least thirty years.
More than doubtful. Yes and how many years was their father Zebedee (Matt.
4:21) and mother (Matt. 20:20)?
Doubtful that the elder
brothers of Jesus humbly requested, but not strictly required that the younger
brother spoke to them (Matt. 12:46). And that "brother of the Lord"
James in his Epistle called himself a slave of Christ (jam. 1:1) - in its
historical era for the elder brother is very unlikely.
From all this it follows
that the brothers of Christ were younger than him, that is, children from the
first wife of Joseph they could not be.
And the second option
(non-canonical, but the "permitted" by the Church) is the following:
we are talking about cousins or second cousins, brothers and sisters of Jesus,
the children of the same Mary sleepaway, sisters, or Joseph, or Mary.
But because of the
Gospels follows that brothers and sisters lived with Joseph, Mary and Jesus in
the same family (Matt. 12:46; MK. 6:2-3; Jn. 2:12), it turns out that Joseph
the carpenter (and the same "Orthodox" version - the poor, the
elderly and lived in a cave carpenter) opened his almost orphanage, which is
also very doubtful.
Against the fact that
Jesus had brothers and sisters, sometimes there is such an argument. Jesus from
the cross said to John: "Behold thy mother! And from that time on, this
disciple took Her into his home" (Jn. 19:27), " is about Mary could
not take care of her own children?
It is possible to say:
because Jesus ' brothers were younger than him, and Joseph certainly was not
alive, it is not surprising that Mary has sheltered house "Mature"
master of Zebedee (Matt. 4:21). Moreover, in the environment of Jesus by this
time is dominated by the concepts of the Christian Church community.
And Mary the wife of
Clopas could be anyone for Christ walked the multitude of the faithful women
(LK. 8:2-3). James "youngest" could, for example, be Jacob alfeim,
and he could talk about his mother. Anyway, what makes you so sure that Mary
the wife of Clopas, the mother of James and mother of Josiah is one and the
same person? After all, the cross of the women there were many (LK. 23:27).
IX
I am forced reluctantly
to admit: after a sufficiently detailed analysis of the Church's position about
the existence of Jesus brothers and sisters, we spent time almost in vain.
In order to show the
meaninglessness of any speculations on the topic of intimate details of the
lives of Joseph and Mary, it was enough to quote the following: "Joseph did
as told him the angel of the Lord, and took to him his wife, and did not know
her, as She finally gave birth to Her firstborn Son; and he called his
name Jesus" (Matt. 1:24-25).
And it's not even that
Matthew calls Jesus the "firstborn" of Mary, that is the first but
not the only son. But the word "how", which in this case means
"until". Joseph did not know Mary until she gave birth.
In Greek and in Latin,
and in English, and in German, and even in Church Slavonic text of the New
Testament it sounds that way - "yet". Why the translators of the
nineteenth century was rather ambiguous "like" - let it be on their
conscience.
Thus, Mary, wife of
Joseph, was an ordinary woman, and her husband lived a normal sex life and gave
birth to many children, the eldest of whom was Jesus.
But the medieval Church
theologians so wanted to convince people that Joseph was unable to any sexual
relations with his legal wife Maria that they were ready to go on explicit
substitution, just any sex was considered a sin.
Why medieval state Church
needed to convince the people, too, becomes clear if we draw a parallel with
recent - Stalin and Hitler.
Remember, as in the USSR
and Germany in those years was cultivated sculpture cold muscular handsome men
in overalls, asexual women with a paddle, and sexuality was superseded by the
cult of sport and emotional mass rallies with banners and torches?
We will not delve into
Freud's "eviction" and "the sublimation of libido. To put it
more simply: if a person lives a fulfilling family life (and this concept
includes normal sex), it is very difficult to pull out from under the warm side
of a beloved spouse and send to conquer the world.
And if a person is only
able flawed like sex, is also experiencing constant "complex sinful
creature, it is unlikely that he will be satisfied and happy in family life. Is
"well" - this one is easier to send to the front to die for the
ambitions of the dictator.
And in the middle ages,
people had to be raised to the Crusades, against heresies, the endless wars
with neighboring countries - which there could be sex?
Deny it "on the
vine" was impossible without it still did not give birth to children, that
is, the future soldiers and future soldiers ' mothers. But to turn a normal sex
in his flawed like this Church and state is very successful. You can laugh at
the hypocrisy and secret debauchery medieval clergy, from popes to ordinary
monks, but a constant reminder to people about "the sin of passionate
sexuality" could not give fruit.
So maybe that will be
enough? Life has cancelled all unreasonable restrictions on sex, so don't
cancel them, and the Christian churches, and do not cease to be considered a
normal sexual life of sin?
As we have seen, neither
in the old nor in the New Testament are no prohibitions on sex was not, and
could not be. And Moses, and Christ, and the Apostle Paul wanted people to
goodness and not trying to turn them into soulless robots.
X
Our conversation about
the righteousness cannot conclude without referring to the most important
Christian ritual ablutions.
So it would be necessary
to call the baptized to cross this ritual has nothing. Only in Russian
Orthodoxy emerged is somewhat strange name, but all over the world the symbolic
ritual of cleansing from sin is called "washing" or
"immersion".
The ritual ablutions
practiced by a number of Jewish sects in the pre-Christian era, and John the
Baptist turned it in preparation for the coming of the Messiah - Jesus Christ.
Whether John and Jesus were "institutionalized" - you can only guess,
although in favor of this version says that they were relatives (LK. 1:36).
After the crucifixion of
Christ and the apostles did the ceremonial washing procedure adopted in the
bosom of the Christian Church. When in the fourth century Christianity became
the state religion, this procedure took on a mass character and to wash, to
baptize started all in a row, including in infancy. This rite is preserved up
to our days.
Theological essence of
the Christian baptism is not easy. The Apostle Paul said: "know ye not
that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, into His death were baptized?
Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death : that like as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should
walk in newness of life" (ROM. 6:3-4).
Such a complex symbols in
the time of the baptism of Rus was but little understood, and for simplicity,
the word "baptism" has become a substitute for long phrase: "the
washing away of sins in order to attract to the Church, confessing the
resurrection of Christ, crucified on the cross." Most of it sounds even
easier, though not theologically - "bringing to the cross."
And actually in the
Russian language the basic meaning of the word "baptism" -
"crucifixion". When the Apostle Paul says: "I Salaspils
Christ" (Gal. 2:19), it sounds logical. However, when immersed in the
baptismal font of infants, such as pity, that they "crucified"...
But I still suggest,
despite the linguistic paradoxes, followed the usual Russian version and call
the washing of baptism.
In the
Nicene-Constantinople creed States: "I acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins".
Actually from the point
of view of modern Orthodoxy these words are somewhat dubious. Most people are
baptized in infancy and clear only from the "original sin"from which
we are, in theory, already cleansed Jesus Christ.
However, you can
understand how in the creed is that language in early Christian times was
baptized only in conscious age, and "original sin" serious value was
not given.
As usual, for two
thousand years, and in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and Lutheranism, and in
various sects had many discussions about whether to baptize in the name of God,
or "God the Son", or Holy spirit, or all of the persons of the
Trinity", to pour water or immerse, once or three times, to be
"baptized" in the "white clothes or no clothes at all...
Actually nowadays you can
relate to baptism, and in the sense of symbolic cleansing from sin, and in the
sense of the solemn procedure of adoption rights in the bosom of the Christian
Church. Baptism in "irresponsible" age of course more than doubtful,
but will not raise a huge reservoir of theological disputes.
In any case, the rite of
baptism primarily symbolic, as well as other rites and "Holy
sacrament". Personally I have nothing against the characters do not have
and treat them with due respect - this is part of the spiritual system of
humanity. Of course, there is a Christian cross, and there are Nazi swastika,
but in this book "broken spears" because of the symbolic rituals
still not worth it.
There are far more
important question of the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth.
"Then cometh Jesus
from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad Him,
saying, I have need to be baptized of Thee, and COMEST Thou to me?
But Jesus said unto him,
suffer it now : for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he
suffered Him" (Matt. 3:14-15).
Now, the question is: why
Jesus insisted on his baptism, moreover, stressed the need "to fulfill all
righteousness"?
Orthodox Church
dogmatics, usually tend to look for symbolic meaning in all things, in this
case changes its principle and says that Jesus is "God the Son" - of
course, was not baptized, but he was required to submit to the people an
example.
I, in principle, not
opposed to such pragmatic simplifications, but in this case it is absolutely
unjustified, because no sense in this example there was no John had baptized
people (Matt. 3:5). On the contrary, the "adjustment" of the
Christ-the Messiah and other believers could in the first stage preaching
activity of the Savior's call to the people unwanted rumors.
So the answer here can
only be one: because the Christian Church was not yet the baptism was in the
form of extremely clean, Christ began his Ministry thirty years old (LK. 3:23),
who considered it their duty to be cleansed from sin.
So, Jesus of Nazareth,
like all people, was not infallible.
And if so, there is no
need for the dogma of his "immaculate conception".
The latter becomes purely
symbolic fulfillment of ot prophecy, what drew the attention of the Apostle
Matthew: "And all this was done that it might be fulfilled what was spoken
by the Lord through the prophet, saying: behold, the virgin shall conceive and
bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God with us"
(Matt. 1:22).
After that you can only again repeat
what has been said in previous chapters: Jesus Christ is the same person, as we
all are.
Chapter XI
immortality
I
So,
we realized that the dogma of the Trinity" and "man" have no
basis in Scripture for the modern people in any aspect unacceptable.
We
have seen and consubstantial us and Christ. If we are gods, then he is God. If
we are created beings, and he too.
In
the sense of righteousness we and Christ are initially equal conditions.
In
fact, we have made a great leap forward: it turns out that everything we know
about Jesus of Nazareth, applicable to each of us. I stress to everyone, solely
by right of birth.
But
about Christ, we know very little, and this will help us to understand the main
thing: who we are, where we come from and where we are going?
Repeat
again: if Jesus is God, and we are gods. If he created, and we are too.
Got
two options. Which one to choose?
Maybe
you can come up with something that unites us?
Such
attempts have been made repeatedly, and first of all think of Solov'ev's
"manhood".
But I
have to say: I strongly disagree neither with Vladimir Solovyov, with anyone
else, when the term "God-man"and especially "manhood" is
used in any other context except the dogma of Chalcedon 451 ("Paradise,
invariable, indivisible, inseparable"). In the end, there is a copyright,
and elementary scientific integrity.
Therefore,
speaking about "manhood", we are obliged to recognize each
person two "unmerged" personality, which, as we have seen, is absurd.
You
can certainly work around this problem, again, "celovekoboga", but
it's still just words. The question is, who we are, where we come from and
where we are going? How to call our essence is the case, as they say, the tenth.
To
start again, remember the key biblical quote about this:
"And
the Lord said unto God, behold, Adam has become like one of Us, knowing good
and evil; and now, no matter how he stretched forth his hand, and take also of
the tree of life, and eat, and didn't live forever" (Gen. 3:22).
"I
said ye are gods and sons of God - all of you; but ye shall die like men, and
fall like any of the princes" (PS. 81:6-7).
"Yet
to all who received Him, who believed in His name, he gave power to become
children of God, are not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will
of man, but were born of God" (Jn. 1:13).
"Knowing
that he which raised up the Lord Jesus will raise through Jesus and us, and put
before Him with you" (2 Cor. 4:14).
"According
as He hath chosen us in Him before the Foundation of the world, that we should
be Holy and without blame before Him in love" (Eph. 1:4).
"So
then, brethren, the saints, the members of the heavenly calling, settle Apostle
and high Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ" (Heb. 4:1).
II
The
question of "who we are, where we come from and where we are going"
has three parts, and I propose to begin with the decision of the last (most
difficult, because we are talking about the future - where are we going?
In
this regard, first of all it is necessary to recall the words of the Apostle
John: "he Gave power to become children of God" (Jn. 1:13).
Note
that the literal interpretation of these words is closely associated with the
famous theological during the VIII century - adoptianism
("adoption"). It consisted in the fact that Christ is the only Son of
God "by adoption" - "adoptione".
In
fact, adoptionist repeated the doctrine of the deposed Patriarch of
Constantinople Nestorius that Christ was born as an ordinary man, and was later
"adopted" by God. And after Christ, believed adoption, has the
ability to be "adopted" each of us.
Paradoxically,
Adoptionism was a famous monk of the American Orthodox diocese Seraphim rose
(1934-1982), in particular, spoke in his book "Orthodoxy and the religion
of the future: "For us Christians, He (God - SZ) the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ through adoption (Eph. 1:5)".
In
fact, in Eph. 1:5 says "adoption" of Jesus Christ, and about the
"adoption" of people through Jesus Christ, and in the subsequent
verses of Ephesians provides a detailed description of this
"adoption". The basic idea of the latter, according to the Apostle
Paul, is that through Christ we are spiritually become heirs of God (Eph. 1:11).
I
suggest not to pick up the next layer of the theological debate about adoptionthe,
as we have seen consubstantial us and Christ, and therefore "adopted"
or "born" dogmatic "God the Son", matter to us.
Importantly,
the "adopted" whether God we. Yes, definitely, if talked about this
and Paul, and John ("he gave power to become children of God").
But
what does this mean in practice?
Russian
philosophical-theological tradition, speaking about the practical aspects of
adoption to sonship"usually applies the term "deification".
Remember, we quoted Karsavina: "...the Need for a special way to
understand a person, it is to understand it as the created substrate
impersonal, unknowable and unfathomable like his God and fully samodvizhny. The
sense of human and creaturely existence will be revealed then, as his
"litsetvorenie" or "deification" (theosis)".
About
the possibility of "theosis" people spoke Origen and his teachings
have adopted such "pillars" of Orthodoxy, as Athanasius of Alexandria
and Basil of Caesarea. As we remember, last said: "God became man so that
man might become God".
Unfortunately,
Athanasius and Basil of "deification" has not made the most logical
conclusion is that the first "oborowsky" was Jesus Christ, and in
accordance with the dogma of the Trinity as a model of "deification"
led "consubstantial divine hypostases".
In
other words, they tried as practical examples of abstract concepts,
ignoring the original example set by Christ to the people ("Knowing that
he which raised up the Lord Jesus will raise through Jesus and us," 2 Cor.
4:14).
It is
not surprising that soon after the death of Athanasius and Basil (already in
Augustine) the idea of "deification" official Church were abandoned
and replaced by stereotypical notion of Paradise somewhere in heaven, in which
"sinful creature" - people - can be reached only by unpredictable
God's grace.
The
only exception was made for the "deification" of the saints -
otherwise their worship and the construction of temples in their honor was
accepted openly idolatrous character. John Damascene, for example, wrote:
"we Should venerate the saints as friends of Christ, as children and heirs
of God... How not to read animated temples, animated dwelling of God?"
Only
one and a half thousand years later the Church-Orthodox theologians, followed
by the philosophers of the "Russian religiozno Renaissance" has
returned to the "deification" of man, using this concept in parallel
with the concept of Paradise for the righteous.
As in
the IV century, as an example of the relationship "objivsia" God has
given "Trinity"that is so as questionable shot the problem that the
gods were many billions, just like the "Trinity" - the fact that the
three gods.
In
this regard, it is indicative of the position of Vladimir Lossky, who believed
the "Trinity" "the primordial fact of the absolute
reality". Man, Lossky, "deification" is connected with God, but
is not soluble in Absolute and retains its identity in altered form, and
becomes a God by grace."
But
if man United with God and did not lose his identity, he is with God in such
relationships, as well as any "person of the Trinity"!
In
this case, no reservation about the fact that the new "obvivshayasya
hypostasis" is God not by birth, but by "grace," the problem of
polytheism does not remove. The result is that God is composed of many
individuals, which is similar to the same number of individual gods. Otherwise
violates the principle of conservation of the human person in the
"deification".
This
contradiction is irresolvable.
We
are in some sense simpler: we have shown the inconsistency of the dogma of the
Trinity and can not focus. Let's see: does the "deification" from the
point of view of our methodology Caesar what belongs to Caesar"?
Formally,
of course, is unacceptable to God alone, and no "orogeny" (either
after death or during life) theoretically can not be. But there is one
practical aspect that is not simply "give up" on
"deification" and immediately begin to look for alternatives.
The
fact that "deification" in life is the goal of Hesychasm, which is
worth to emphasize here.
III
Attempts
to impose Orthodoxy methods "mystical contemplation" has been known
since early Christian monasticism. It is called the Greek word
"Hesychasm" (calm, silence) and is practiced in some monasteries and
parishes.
The
essence of Hesychasm is the following: if a certain way to focus, thousands of
times to read "the Jesus prayer" ("Lord Jesus Christ, Son of
God, have mercy on me, a sinner"), to fast and to perform a number of
other regulations, sooner or later, you can enter into a state of mystical
awareness of God, Christ, the devil, the Heavenly Host, and any other Christian
concepts. Can "prointuichit" the date of his death, eternal life, the
creation of the world and much more. You can heal, to talk, to remove the
damage," "cast out devils"...
And
the main goal of Hesychasm, as we said, "deification" of man in life
(usually with flesh), and that Hesychasm is fundamentally different from the
medieval Western mystics limited to solely the task of the knowledge of God.
Each
makes it possible goes to the "deification" of their ways, and
consensus about what exactly happens with man, does not exist. But there is no
doubt that this is a fundamentally new level of understanding of the essence of
things and fundamentally new opportunities and spiritual, and mental and physical.
In
1341 Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, "legitimized"
Hesychasm as the practical methodology of the Orthodox Church. Moreover,
already in the first Millennium appeared practical guidance on how to achieve a
state of mystical awareness: how many times prayers, how to breathe, where to
look, in what posture to sit... Many of these manuals are included in the
Philokalia, composed of the Athonite monks in the XVIII century.
I
have to say that there are a number of reasons why, despite the formal
unacceptability of "deification" as the actual polytheism, I didn't
raise his hand to throw a stone in Hesychasm.
First,
Hesychasm is the method excellent in moral terms, and our methodology Caesar
what belongs to Caesar" is required to isolate precisely the moral aspect
of any problems.
In
the second place, there is the theological justification of Hesychasm - the
Transfiguration of the Lord. As you know, Jesus and his disciples went up to
mount Tabor, and shone with a wonderful light " (Matt. 17:2), thereby
giving the earthly people the potential to contemplate the divine light.
Thirdly,
the author of this book not once practiced isihasticheskie methods, and the results
they really give stunning. However, I have no right to call yourself a
Hesychast - all copyrights to this term belong to the Orthodox Church, and
without the "Episcopal blessing," he inapplicable. But to ban someone
to live and work in accordance with the recommendations of the
"Philokalia" impossible.
Fourth,
regardless of whether it was possible to "deified" or not, Hesychasm
gives the ability to endure any adversity in life and suffering. For example,
Archbishop Anthony Golynskaya-Michael's (1889-1976) survived in Stalin's camps
only because he was the Hesychast.
Fifth,
even the rare and short-lived classes isihasticheskie methods have a beneficial
effect on health, and on the psyche. And it would be great if people
(especially young) instead of wandering courses on "magic and
healing" read "the Jesus prayer".
The
problem lies elsewhere. Itself the Orthodox Church calls Hesychasm "the
Royal way", and that says it all.
Religion
should be available to all, and Hesychasm even more elitistthan philosophy,
and similarly remains beyond the perception of the vast majority of people.
We
have already said that in the modern world, far from perfect, any humanist, any
Christian (respectively, any makes it possible) is surrounded babaevskii
Mendalami Cries, thinking primarily about giving someone in the face". And
if you do not provide a practical expression of the moral imperative to an
accessible form, out of this situation.
At
the time this grim conclusion we are forced to move from the moral imperative
to religion, and from philosophy to theology.
That
is why there should be no "Royal path". The moral imperative one, and
the path to God is one for all.
And
about the Transfiguration immediately the question arises - whether Christ has
revealed no more divine light? And the Word (doctrine)? And the resurrection?
And, finally, the Holy Spirit (not as a third God, and as a Christian
spirituality)? This, in contrast to Hesychasm, really large-scale and mass
manifestations of divine light.
Of
course, the "professional contemplatives" - Athos, Pskov, or the
Trinity-Sergius elders - could not develop their own practices, including
isihasticheskie. But these methods have remained a local phenomenon. Few people
know that Hesychasm practiced Sergius of Radonezh, nil Sorsky, St. Seraphim of
Sarov, Pavel Florensky and Alexander Men - the Church about this silent, so as
not to "confuse" the faithful. It is significant that many thousands
of "white" clergy are very few priests are blessed to Hesychasm.
There
is one "but" - in any "mystical contemplation" is extremely
difficult to distinguish reality from hallucination, but the truth from
fiction. To remove this problem, the Church has to base isihasticheskie
knowledge on the canonical doctrines like "Trinity" and
"God-man", and all that in them is not fit, take "demonic
obsession".
And
it turns out that individually Hesychasts see very much, but to share what they
saw with other Christians, the Church prohibits them.
Naturally
- since the goal of the Church is the most effective management
"ordinary" monasticism and "ordinary" believers, to the
extent Hesychasm rather harmful than useful. Any Hesychast inevitably lost the
"complex sinful creature, he himself goes to the "deification",
and then how to manage it?
However,
the Church in this case can not worry. Hesychasm is extremely difficult and
very few people available. Perhaps with the development of mankind and the
establishment of moral imperative will be to develop people's ability to
"theosis" with the help of Hesychasm, but it's still only speculation.
So
about the "deification" you can say: I'd be for it, if it would in
theory lead to polytheism, but in practice was not available only a very narrow
circle of people.
IV
So
where are we going?
Let what
I say now, don't sound gloomy and hopeless: we go to the death of our physical
body. This is the only event in our lives that comes with the need for,
and alternatives to him today, mankind does not know.
Physical
death is waiting and sinners, and the righteous, and criminals, and of the
Hesychasts.
But
the physical body and the personality are not identical. And whether by the
death of our personality is another matter entirely, and Christianity at him,
he replies " no. We all go to the "life of the next century, or
so-called facilitiy.
This
position is well-known, but not widely recognized. So let us ask the following
question: is it possible to prove the possibility (or even necessity) of life
eternal?
If we
took such proof in the beginning of the book, it would be extremely difficult.
But we have already learned a lot, and so will not give evidence, but two. One
theological, the second philosophical.
The
first (theological) the proof is a personal example, served to us by
Christ.
And
since we're talking about a personal example, it is necessary to talk about the
personality of Jesus of Nazareth.
Analyzing
"the paradox of Christianity", we are already faced with a
fundamentally incorrect stereotype perception of Christ as a person - it's kind
of a "dervish-fanatic threatening in that world to deal with murderers,
thieves and corrupt officials, throwing them into the fiery furnace, and then
to come a second time and to punish those, who by this time have not yet had
time to die.
What
the hell for sinners and heaven for the righteous shall be interpreted solely
in terms of spiritual compromise, we have already understood. Now let's see
whether Jesus of Nazareth similar to dervish-fanatic with an unhealthy gleam in
his eyes, rushed headlong to die on the cross. Then, indeed, his example did
not make sense.
But
Christ was not a dervish and not a fanatic, a man very "solid"
according to the most modern standards.
V
Being
twelve years old, Jesus spoke in the temple of Jerusalem with the sages, and
all that heard him were astonished at His understanding and answers" (LK.
2:47).
Perhaps
during the speeches before crowds of people's eyes blazed Jesus really
oratorical fire, otherwise he might have succeeded in the short term (two
years) to become a famous preacher. But you must admit, oratorical fire and
unhealthy sheen is not the same.
As a
preacher, he became so famous that his "affair" took not any smaller
regional authorities and the Jewish Supreme Council - the Sanhedrin.
"Then
gathered the chief priests and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto
the Palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they plotted to
take Jesus by trickery and kill him; but they said, not during the feast, lest
there be resentment among the people" (Matt. 26:3-5).
It is
significant that the Sanhedrin was doing "business" of Christ, even
two years before his crucifixion (Jn. 7:32). Would do this "honor"
ragged dervish? In no case.
By
the way, oborvannost Jesus - yet another unfounded stereotype.
Even
such a small detail, as "without seam, woven from the top throughout"
the tunic of Jesus (Jn. 19:23), we can also say a lot. Such clothes could
afford only very wealthy people - is it easy to manufacture entirely on the
loom coat, that is a difficult form of clothing with sleeves?
Old
and cheap clothes Jesus was not - remember how after the crucifixion by Roman
soldiers divided it by casting lots? (Matt. 27:35). So, was that divide, and
the Romans, who received a considerable salary.
And
the word "dervish" to Christ does not apply - this was a man with
remarkable organizational skills. He managed to create a cohesive group of
followers, not running away after his death and continue the work. The traitor
Judas is not in the bill - such people can be in any organization.
It is
believed that the latter had sold Christ for any penny, and that's wrong too.
First,
the thirty pieces of silver meant 30 shekels of silver (ex. 21:32). Given the
fact that 1 shekel was approximately
Secondly,
the amount could be another " how was evangelists to know the details of
the secret deal? Most likely, the thirty pieces of silver appeared in the
Gospels as a symbolic fulfillment of ot prophecy (Zech. 11:12-13). But in this
case it was a large sum, as in the days of Moses so paid, if the ox has gored a
slave (ex. 21:32), and because large-scale aggressive wars of ancient Judea did
not, slaves were expensive.
But
in any case, Jesus was a serious opponent of the Sanhedrin, and the "price
of blood" was considerable.
The
community, led by Jesus, "was his goods" even the wife of the steward
of king Herod (LK. 8:3) - there is no doubt that we were talking about large
financial means.
Had
this community and support in different cities. During the three years of his
preaching activity of Jesus managed to bypass almost all of Israel and adjacent
regions. Was he in the vicinity of tyre and Sidon (Matt. 15:21-28), and Magdala
(Matt. 15:39), and at Nain (LK. 8:11), and the Decapolis (MK. 7:31), and at
Caesarea Philippi (MK. 8:27), and in Samaria (Jn. 4:4), and on the East Bank of
the Jordan (Matt. 8:28; MK. 5:1; LK. 8:26). On his native Galilee and
Jerusalem, I do not say.
Great
organizational work! Now in some editions of the Bible even print a map of
Jesus travels to Israel and the surrounding countries.
And
leaned Christ, paradoxically, to publicans. Yes, the collectors of taxes and
duties is a serious force in modern - tax Inspectorate. Apparently, a
"relationship with power structures" replied the Apostle Matthew, a
publican.
"The
Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say: here is a man who loves to
eat and to drink wine, a friend of publicans and sinners" (Matt. 11:19).
"And
when Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came
and sat down next to Him and His disciples" (Matt. 9:10).
Think
about it: why Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold
and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and
the seats of them that sold doves" (Matt. 21:12), and none of the
merchants did not dare to confront it?
Socio-economic
relations since then little has changed, and we can with reasonable probability
to say that small shopkeepers were afraid to resist the "friend of
publicans, all the more so with Christ at this time was the Apostle Matthew.
In
this case, the understandable reluctance of Pontius Pilate to execute Jesus
(Matt. 17:24; MK. 15:10; LK. 23:4; Jn. 18:37), as the publicans served Rome
and, of course, they said the Procurator listened.
Around
the "shroud of Turin" is a lot of debate, and its authenticity can
hardly be regarded as fully proven. But if it is still true, the growth of
Jesus was
VI
We
have listed is the number of components of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth
to understand: if attractive, educated, secure, well-known people in the
country, talented and brilliant orator voluntarily went to the penalty - it
means a lot.
First,
undoubtedly, Jesus knew that his death on the cross fulfilled the old Testament
prophecy (ISA. 53:5), will be a powerful engine of his teachings. Jesus
knowingly died for his cause.
And
secondly (and this is important): if Jesus Christ is consubstantial to each of
us, rose from the dead, then is a convincing example for all people, and theological
evidence for the existence of life eternal.
"If
there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen" (1 Cor.
15:13);
"Knowing
that he which raised up the Lord Jesus will raise through Jesus and us, and put
before Him with you" (2 Cor. 4:14).
It
was our first proof, but we now understand that its not enough.
The fact
that all the quoted words of the Apostle Paul applies only to Christians. Yes
and we have the example of Christ proved the existence of the resurrection, but
not its availability.
And
every life path leads to the resurrection? And that murderers, thieves and
addicts, too, awaits the resurrection? The resurrection of Christ, of course,
is the example of true Christians, and what to do, for example, with Islamic
fundamentalists? Or torturers "Karamazov" baby, which if called
themselves Orthodox, only formally?
If we
worked in the mainstream Orthodox Church theology, this question has been
answered stereotypical: the last waiting for this Sunday and, accordingly,
facilitie that God forbid anyone. Quite simply, hell.
But
no wonder we are in so much attention was paid to the "basic paradox of
Christianity" and found that the concept of hell for sinners implements
the old Testament principle of evil for evil retribution (an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth, hell for sins).
Besides,
if you stand on the theological position of the largest churches, the example
of Christ in General can not speak. "Second person of the Trinity",
"the Almighty God the Son", of course, the immortal, and the
resurrection of the immortal God example for people to be unable regardless of
the degree of righteousness latter.
There
is another problem: the resurrection and consequent facilitie do not mean
immortality. Will this "life of the age to come" is even shorter than
this, and never will there be after it is a real death?
All
these problems are very acute, and their decisions would have to go beyond
theology. Therefore, our second proof of the existence, accessibility and
eternity of life eternal philosophy.
VII
As we
have said many times, we accept God as the source of the moral imperative,
which is the "tuning fork" of the good.
Now
let's ask the question: does the moral imperative... God himself?
Medieval
stereotypes, perceiving God as ruthlessly punishing the dictator, they say that
does not apply. Each of our subconscious firmly imprinted "winged"
phrases like "God has punished", "God sent these misfortunes as
punishment for our sins, "God, please punish Germany, England, Russia, and
others)", "God damned country" and so on.
But
is it acceptable "double accounting" for us and God?
From
that moment, as people got a moral imperative - it is up. If the moral
imperative from God alone, and we have another, this is in conflict with
monotheistic affirmation of the uniqueness of the moral imperative.
It
turns out that one of the two "moral imperatives" actually is not.
Either God is evil (which is contrary to the theodicy), or we do not have a
moral imperative (which contradicts our reasonable initial positions).
It
means that God has given us moral imperative fully apply to God himself, that
we wanted to prove.
And
since we are on the monotheistic position and know that "every Kingdom
divided against itself is brought to desolation" (Matt. 12:25), the
presence of God any evil we cannot allow it. Perfect God, in contrast to the
imperfect of modern society, fully should a moral imperative.
That
no murder to good relations does not and cannot have, we have already spoken.
Therefore,
we may not recognize that at the end of life, God kills us all.
I consider
it my duty to the famous phrase of Descartes ' God is not a deceiver" add:
"God is not a killer." Otherwise the whole point of God-given
moral imperative is reduced to nothing.
Therefore,
there is no death, and cannot be. All the people waiting for the resurrection,
facilitie and immortality.
"And
die already can not, for they are equal unto the Angels; and are the sons of
God, being sons of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses
showed at the Bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not God of the dead but of the living, for
to Him all are alive" (LK. 20:36-38).
VIII
So
God is not a murderer. Yes, and Jesus of Nazareth by his own example showed that
awaits us eternal life.
But
what it will be?
For
this to at least some understanding, it is necessary to recall the words from
Genesis: "And the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken" (Gen. 3:22-23).
I
think, it is not necessary to discuss in detail what is meant by the
cultivation of the earth - a planet called Earth. This cultivation of potatoes,
and forging metal, and construction, and writing computer programs, and books,
and raising children, and so on and so on and so forth. I believe that this
also applies to the development of Terran space, as it is primarily in the
interests of human civilization.
Note
that in Paradise and Adam was with the same purpose (Gen. 2:15), so that the
cultivation of Land (work, activities - let's call whatever you like) - in any
case not a punishment for sins, and the natural destiny of man.
And
we face another paradox Church stereotype: to compel a man to work honestly,
decided to lure him to Paradise, where he after death will forever rest in
conditions of unimaginable bliss.
But
if people honestly worked all his life and received from the labor of the moral
and material satisfaction, the pleasure whether he will ever relax?
It is
unlikely. Or "stereotypical" Paradise for people radically changed
psychology (and not for the better), or they go insane from boredom and
idleness. However, the madness, too, means the replacement of psychology...
We
actually talked a lot about how the medieval Church ruled the state powerless
subjects with purposeful interpretations of Christian teachings. Before us
another similar situation.
How
to make a slave work well, as a soldier to fight well, paying him a salary and
without creating conditions for a normal life? Of course, promising him a
reward after death in eternal rest and prosperity. Easy to understand,
convenient and, most importantly, cheap.
But
in our time, when work, thank God, is becoming less and less servile, we can
and should take a future life, not as an eternal idleness, but as a full and
challenging activities in some other world.
In
theological terms, too, it all fits. Adam was created for the cultivation of
Paradise (Gen. 2:15). Then he was expelled from it for the cultivation of the
Earth (Gen. 3:23). What will he do, earning a return to Paradise? Most likely,
continue to cultivate it.
So
"they" will work, and the complexity of the problems - and what is
life without them? This is not life, even if it is "the next century".
IX
Where
"there" - so far we can only guess.
Perhaps
in other dimensions is not in our four-dimensional "space-time", but
somewhere between, for example, the seventh, forty-eighth and one hundred and
tenth axes.
Or on
some planets in other star systems.
Or
not available for observation" part of the Universe (as we know, it is not
due to the weakness of our telescopes, and due to the properties of space
itself).
And
possibly on Earth in the future. Christ said, "the damsel is Not dead, but
sleepeth" (Matt. 9:24). So it may be dead now sleeping, and in the day
"the second coming" (or in accordance with the science of the future)
will Wake up?
If a
person sleeps, how long does the sleep - no matter. It is important revival.
Jesus,
too, rose up immediately, and "the third day according to the Scriptures."
Medieval legend says that he during the time elapsed between physical death and
resurrection, descended into hell, and saved out of the old Testament
righteous, including Adam and eve. But you can come up with anything, and
earthly concepts Christ at this time slept.
We
will put ourselves in facilitie - until that too can speak only in the form of
hypotheses.
Maybe
we are in accordance with the Apostolic creed and the teachings of Nikolai Fedorov
awaits the resurrection of the flesh - of course, in altered form, is not
burdened by sickness and old age.
You
may raise a "unrationalizable I" (mind, character, temperament and
other components of our personality).
Perhaps
husserliana "single consciousness, are excluded from the
communication."
Perhaps
Cartesian "thinking substance".
Perhaps
the stereotypical "soul" or even "will, desire, energy, and
action" (the definition of a person in accordance with the decree of the
6th Ecumenical Council)...
The
options are many, but if you take based on the example of Jesus Christ, it is
preferable first - resurrection of the flesh.
How
incredible would today seem to be this Sunday (NF Fedorov was criticized by
many people for the fact that he is dead will rise from their graves), but
because Christ did it! So why cannot we? Our body has time to rot or to be
cremated? But the risen Christ signs of decay, as we know, was not observed.
Yes, and if his body was burned, would he not risen?..
But
this is only conjecture. "For now we see as through a glass darkly, dimly,
but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I
am known" (1 Cor. 13:12).
Will
someday these hypotheses in scientific facts " we'll talk at the end of
the book. Now we are not ready yet to convincingly substantiate our position on
the question of principle posewaemost of life eternal.
X
Now
we can try to answer another question: in equal or unequal initial conditions we
find ourselves in facilitiy? Do these conditions the number and severity of our
sins?
"The
paradox of Christianity" we have been able to resolve, refusing as hell
retribution of evil for evil and interpreting it exclusively in symbolic terms,
as the impossibility of spiritual compromise with evil. But there is another
important tenet of the largest churches - the so-called "degree of bliss
of the righteous."
Really,
why would God not to return good for good and for evil is also good, only a
smaller amount? All good, just a little different?
In
the system of our reasoning again knocked "the last judgment"somewhat
"modernized" and taking the form of "handing out awards for
good. Have to stop and try to understand whether facilitie "degree of
happiness"that depends on our earthly life.
If
you don't even use the term "degree of happiness", then expect the
righteous more "favorable" initial conditions than sinners?
No,
wait, because in this case there is the following paradoxical situation: the
more sinful he was a man on Earth, the worse will be its original living
conditions in facilitiy and, accordingly, it will be even more envious of those
conditions better.
It is
easy to predict that this will lead to escalation of the "social"
evil in a much more aggravated form than in the earthly life.
Remember
the parable of Jesus about the Kingdom of heaven is like the owner, who is
equally paid to all workers regardless of the number of hours worked (Matt.
20:1-16).
There
is another, more modern Church a solution to the problem of retribution for
good and evil: good - Paradise (or any other form of life eternal), evil is
nothingness.
But
in this case, the boundary between good and evil requires absolutely clear
conduct, as degrees of bliss of the righteous can be countless, and it requires
the choice of one of two things: either Paradise or actual death. But to draw a
clear line between good and evil (and even more throughout all of human life)
is impossible.
In
addition, we have realized that God is not a murderer.
XI
For
scientific integrity, it is worth remembering the point of view of some
philosophers of the Gnostics, closely woven with the Eastern theories
"transmigration of souls" and working off karma". It can briefly
be described as follows: the world is the Kingdom of evil, and our existence in
it - test. Passed the test, moved to the next "level", failed - your
soul after death moved in a newborn baby (or even a dog or a tree), and the
test is started again.
In
this position, no doubt, there is some logic. But not the truth. And destroyed
it logical and building another quote from the novel of Dostoevsky "the
Brothers Karamazov", and all from the same story of Ivan. Then as an
example was cited of a five year old girl, now eight-year-old boy accidentally
oshibki leg Barsky dog.
"Tell
him! - commanding General, "run, run!" - screaming at him psari, the
boy runs... "SIC him!" yells General, and blow the whole flock of
greyhounds. Made fun of in his mother's eyes, and the dogs killed that baby to
pieces!.."
So
has passed or not "test" the lost child?
All
Eastern "canons", of course not: he had not had time to know, to
learn, and it has already been torn to pieces by dogs.
Then
the question arises: why did he fail the test"? Sinned? No, more or less
serious sin in eight years he had not.
Thus,
there remains only one answer: this child... ran slower dogs, so they caught up
with and killed. So we came to the point of absurdity.
No
less absurd will be "working out of karma this unfortunate boy in the
hereafter - so, again and again to torment the dog until he learns to run
faster or stronger biting? It absolutely does not fit in any understanding of
the moral imperative.
No,
it is impossible to imagine the world as a kind of abandonment by God of our
souls and bodies in a cage with wolves and indifferent viranyi, will we survive
or not survive. This contradicts our postulate "God is not a
murderer", and about this we have much to say in the near future.
And
if God was trying to help the unfortunate baby, but could not, it is dualism
(the devil was stronger than God), and this position is unacceptable because of
moral considerations. We talked a lot in the recent past.
We
have also talked about the fact that God can not repay evil for evil. Otherwise
(bringing, again, the situation to the point of absurdity) facilitiy on the
place of General ought to be hunted boy and to poison the General's dogs.
XII
So
what remains?
Forgiveness!
Endless Christian forgiveness, first of all from God!
Symbolic
and "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together" (ISA. 65:25) means
first of all that facilitiy will all be in equal conditions.
But,
tell me, Stalin died in his bed, surrounded by loving children and caring
doctors, many murderers and maniacs go unpunished and also die peacefully in
their beds, and "Karamazov" General only "took care", that
is somewhat limited in the civil rights... So, and forgiveness?
Yes,
and forgiveness. Absolute and unconditional. Only that Christ went to the
cross, and therefore are not empty words that the suffering of the cross atoned
for our sins (ROM. 5:9).
But
then the question arises: we have long understood that there is no need to wait
on God, to heaven descended lightning and struck the torturers young children.
Now we realized that these torturers will be forgiven and facilitie.
So
what to do, how to fight evil?
And
the fight should be - otherwise, in spite of forgiveness in facilitiy and
eternal life, on Earth we have to remember with bitterness.
Actually
we have already talked about this, analyzing the possibility of building on the
Land of the Kingdom of God: the goal of Christianity is not utopian (happiness
of mankind, or one single country, but a very real and vital to make it easier
and a specific person, and the people around him.
If
people really took the Christian doctrine, that he is unlikely to want to lock
my five year daughter at night in the outdoor toilet. Or to poison the baby
dogs.
The
eradication of evil is the displacement of Christianity's spiritual base (the
love of power, violence, money), and doubtless a consequence of the improvement
of society and reducing the total amount of evil and suffering in the world. In
that order, but not the reverse. Not the "top"and "bottom".
And not by intimidation sinners Penal code or the torments of hell, and with
the help of missionary work.
And
for this first of all requires that the true essence of the Christian view of
the world became clear to everyone.
The
famous missionary Ulfila, who preached in the IV century barbarians not
"patristic Christianity, but much more simple Arianism, was absolutely
right. And since the number of "barbarians" since then has greatly
increased (both literally and figuratively), even Arianism, with its blurred
"podobosuschnost Son to the Father" is unacceptable to us.
The
necessary return to the origins of Christianity - to the teachings of
Christ and the apostles. Each time it is necessary to ask: what fought Jesus of
Nazareth? For that he was crucified? What must we fight as Christians?
And
since God is not a murderer, not evil avenger and "good to the unthankful
and to the evil" (LK. 6:35), facilitiy and "good"and
"bad" will again be equal. As we are at the beginning of our life on
Earth.
The
last statement may seem questionable: some are born in palaces, while others in
the slums, that is initially located in an absolutely equal footing.
But
actually we are all human, and before God we are all equal. As is well known,
and the crown Prince become drug addicts, and children working shopped in
academics. Jesus of Nazareth, too, was not born nor a Prince, nor a Levite, or
even a Roman citizen. As could be from the lineage of David and not born in
Bethlehem, so we would not have Jesus Christ?
Won't
replace the actions of God elementary probability theory. Parents, as you know,
we do not choose. Besides, about the causes of social inequality we talked and
realized that in the "social" evil God is not to blame.
XIII
Catching
himself on the word: we talked about the causes of social evil, and not the
root causes.
Analyzing
the solution of the question of theodicy, we realized that the free will of
people eliminates the guilt of God in our misery, crimes and sins. We reviewed
the concept of "social evil, and a number of local issues related to
compliance of certain plants society's moral imperative.
But
we haven't talked about the evil nature - hurricanes, floods, accidents and
illnesses.
Moreover,
analyzing evil "social", we all sooner or later were required to
reach its "natural" roots - after all, wolves, and human society is
also created by God. Like Satan, and all mystical "forces of evil",
whoever they were.
Yes,
and why God gave civilized mankind moral imperative, would not eradicate our
"animal" nature, and gave them to coexist, not quite peacefully?
So,
until the end of the question of theodicy and has not decided if the creation
of the world as a whole physical and moral initially suggested the presence of
evil, then wouldn't it be better to God all this world is not to create?
Of
course, this question as not constructive, as, for example, "why I gave
birth to my mother?" The world God created, and this is a fact. And yet,
although we showed that our suffering is not the fault of God, but through the
fault of society or nature, but to solve the main question is why God created
nature and society as potential sources of evil - then we have failed.
And
without addressing this issue, all our efforts are fruitless - questioned our
understanding and moral imperative, and of life eternal.
But now, "configuring"
Christian theology in the solution of theoretical questions, we are ready to
move on to understanding the structure of the universe and ourselves in this
universe.
Chapter XII
"Pulse theism"
I
To start again will
outline the terms of our views on the role of God in this world.
Recall: moral
considerations dictate the need for the adoption of the existence of God as the
source of global harmony, appropriateness, and, ultimately, what we call the
moral imperative. The adoption of the objective existence of God is as
necessary as the adoption of the objective existence of the material world.
So, with faith in the
material world we believe in God the Creator of the universe, the organizer of
harmony and appropriateness in the world, the source of the moral imperative.
All types and
modifications of the teachings that the source of all of the above is matter
itself, is unacceptable for us. And not for any ideological reasons, but
because "the uncreated, eternal and infinite substance is actually playing
the role of God, and then all the evil in the world is inevitably derived from
the properties of this matter. In other words emanating from God. And this is
at odds with our desire to solve the problem of theodicy.
Pantheism (God is
contained in each particle of this world), is unacceptable for us for the same
reasons. Anyway, pantheism is a hidden form of materialism: God and matter are
essentially identical.
Deism (God created the
world and left him in the lurch) is absolutely incompatible with Christianity.
Again, not for any ideological or dogmatic reasons.
First, the
"deistic" God is impersonal and infinitely distant.
Secondly, deism means the
absence of God in this world that negates all our conclusions concerning the
life eternal. Really, can a moral imperative to spread God himself, if in fact
God exists in the world? Of course, we can say that God, in creating the world,
"programmed", that in a few billion years, people will be moral
imperative and, therefore, facilitie, but this is just speculation, besides
contradicting our justified their original positions.
Thirdly, the very fact
that God shortly after the Foundation of the world (no matter, six days or in a
few billion years) gave people a moral imperative, is proof that God created
the world, at the mercy of fate have not dropped.
For these three reasons,
deism for us also unacceptable.
Remains theism,
claiming that God is constantly present in the world and somehow affects things
in it.
But how to reconcile the
presence of God with the evil that exists on Earth?
The free will of the
people responding to this question - the question of theodicy - only partially,
only in the area bounded social relationships. There are still many situations
that we call "natural" evil.
First, an irresistible
force of nature (hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, etc.)
Secondly, social untied internal
diseases (cancer, heart diseases and many others).
Thirdly, many painful,
and even fatal accidents (frozen, burned, stumbled, lost and so on).
In short, we are talking
about the unhappiness that people traditionally considered to be emanating from
God and almost inevitably ask the question: "what am I (wife, husband,
mother, father, friend)?"
Church theologians give a
brief answer: "For sins".
In fairness, remember that
the free will of people recognize and Orthodox, and the Catholic Church. But,
unfortunately, only declarative and, so to speak, of necessity, really, without
it you cannot create a visibility solution of the question of theodicy even in
the field of evil "social".
Besides our freedom
Church theologians believe the falling away from God, thereby placing the
person in a row with the devil, "fallen angel". Brutally, but thus
appears to resolve the contradiction of God's Providence and free will, which
leads to a visibility solution of the question of theodicy in the field of evil
"natural".
The Church dogma says
that God has hunted the world harmonious and appropriate and the person is
sinless. But first, "seceded" from God one of the angels, Satan, and
then, in obedience to the last, Adam and eve committed the original sin, which
was infected all mankind. Accordingly, the hypothetical person has a chance to
return to God, and until that happens, all the misery he sent for his sins. And
for personal and grandparent.
Perhaps you can even try
to "modernize" this point of view and to think about in that
direction: the doctrine of "broken angel" correlates with our
understanding of the "social evil, that is from God "fell" not
one angel, and society in General. And since "social" evil has the
ability to replicate in subsequent generations (heredity, upbringing, the
influence of others and the like), such an approach from the Church of the
concept of "original sin" does not seem to be very fundamentally
different.
But actually, there are
several contradictions, unresolved or in the framework of the official Church
dogma or not.
First. If the world is
God as industrial harmonious, then why did God allow the "falling
away," and Satan, and Adam? Speaking in our terms: why the nature
of society is such that he was the source of evil?
Second. God, bringing
punishment for the sins in the form of hurricanes and malignant tumors, is not
good, and evil, realizing the old Testament principle of retaliation, "an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". And we have seen that Christianity
this principle should not be.
Third. God "makes
His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on
the unjust" (Matt. 5:45). And not just rain. Tsunami, unfortunately, too.
Say openly and frankly,
in the framework of classical theism (God is not only present in this world,
but also exerts a constant influence on events in it) the problem of theodicy
against evil "natural" not fundamentally solved.
Therefore, we will not try
any "configure"or "modernize" this area of Church theology
is in vain to lose time. Any attempt to describe earthquake or cancer coming directly
from God makes the last enemy of mankind and cause the destruction of millions
of people, not everyone who deserves such a fate.
And any oddities like
"God hastened to summon the righteous" here is powerless. It is
because so that when the accident submarine dozens of innocent twenty guys a
few days choking on the bottom in sealed compartments, and God is in no hurry
to call them to himself, despite the complete absence of hope for salvation.
And painful death from
cancer and does not require any comments.
I intentionally focus the
problem of "natural" evil. The fact that any of us have lost their
relatives and friends, any of us from TV and Newspapers every day learns about
the many terrible disasters, any one of us at least once in your life thought:
why God all this, at least, admits, and as a maximum, sends? Maybe it gives
people not good and evil? And what, then, righteousness, goodness, and all
things, what can we learn from Christianity? The Church says that all will
receive "merit" in facilitiy?..
But the hell of the
modern man, too, will not be frightened, and he with a high degree of
probability comes to a complete denial of moral values. With all the ensuing
consequences.
Speaking in our usual
terms: if, together with the moral imperative from God come endless suffering
of innocent people, it turns out that God begets not only good, but also evil.
In this case the idea of the moral imperative is subject to repudiation, as
"every Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation"
(Matt. 12:25).
The situation is
extremely complex and, as we said, in the framework of classical theism insoluble.
Have to refer to
"the origins of the origins of" the origin of the world and
civilization - and to try to understand why God made the world that way and
what role he plays in it.
And along the way we will
try to answer the question who we are and where we come from. Wherever we go,
we already knew - we are all waiting for facilitie. But this is still too
little, for if God is angry, "the afterlife" may be much worse, worse
and more tragic than this, and the rationale of life eternal (God is not a
murderer) is more than doubtful.
So without deep analysis
of the causes of "natural" evil we cannot do.
And will have to start
with the creation of the world.
We won't delve into the eternal
debate about if God created the world in six days, or one day God is billions
of years old. On this subject written many books, and for us, this question is
not important.
Fundamentally, we
postulated God as the source of harmony in the animate and inanimate nature.
Before we get in turn, in the meantime, we have to seek harmony in the chemical
elements, amoebae, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals, not related to Homo
Sapiens.
First came the inanimate
world in the book of Genesis and the data of Geology are the same. And for
harmony in the inanimate world are not far to seek - it is described by the
periodic table of elements, Ohm's laws, Newton, Einstein and many others.
Fiction writer and
humanist Arthur C. Clarke in physico-mathematical formulas and equations even
saw evidence of the existence of Supreme harmony - God. In particular, in the
formula of Euler, connecting completely independent from each other, but very
important in mathematics number as the base of natural logarithms, e (2,71828...)
and the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter "p"
(3,14159...).
It's hard to disagree.
But before you jump from inanimate nature to live (from "the fourth day of
Creation" to "fifth"), it is necessary to isolate the most
important law of inanimate nature: the absorption of some substances
with the formation of the third.
In nature there is no
death, there is the absorption and transformation, and it is as natural and
familiar as the redox reaction, which each took place in school chemistry lessons.
Two atoms of hydrogen combines with one atom of oxygen, cease to be hydrogen
and oxygen, but form a third substance with different properties of water.
Under certain conditions
possible and reverse the process of decay of water molecules into atoms of
hydrogen and oxygen, and few would call it "death water" - this
metaphor is appropriate only in poetry.
The transition from
inanimate nature to live as if he did not happen (again, we won't argue about
the "hypothesis academician Oparin and many others), there is nothing
fundamentally new in this process of absorption of one substance with another
is not made. Bacteria devour each other, and this is normal and natural.
Insects do to each other the same thing, and it's just as normal.
Moving on up
"evolutionary ladder", we are also nothing new to see. As we have
said, that the wolf preys on deer, quite naturally, be fair and honest.
Certainly, from the point
of view of "humanization" deer pity. But if the wolf is not going to
kill a deer, you will die from hunger. Let's imagine a skinny, poor, dying wolf
and understand that this is just as pathetic as bleeding deer.
You can, of course,
"to offer" the wolf more than a small game, but in the wild is no one
else. Besides dying scream and crunch of bones eaten partridge no less
unpleasant for the modern man.
So, unfortunately, any
notions of humanism, or the moral imperative to wildlife are not applicable.
Animals, including higher mammals, in vivo absorb each other as well as water -
sugar. And the words of the prophet Isaiah: "the wolf and the lamb shall
feed together, and the lion, like the ox, shall eat straw" (ISA. 65:25)
are a wonderful symbol of goodness and love, but not a practical recommendation
for the wolf and the lion, which in this case is waiting for starvation.
In the process of
evolution have been developed and forms of social life". From colonies of
bacteria and anthills nature came to the wolf's flocks and herds of antelope.
Hierarchical systems become increasingly complex, but everything was subordinated
to the most basic instincts: the conservation of this species and procreation.
The pack easier to hunt, herd easier to defend the hierarchy necessary for the
optimal organization of hunting or protection, and all again, of course, be
fair and honest.
You cannot "do"
and no earthquakes, no volcanoes - this is a normal natural phenomenon
associated with geological processes. And hurricanes are caused by changes in
the weather, which, in turn, is inextricably linked with the rotation of our planet
around the Sun.
And after a hurricane on
the place of the fallen forest grows a shrub, then you receive the new forest,
to replace the dead fauna comes a new, often higher standing on the
evolutionary ladder, and life goes on.
In all of the above within
the first five days of Creation" to talk about good and evil is
meaningless because there is no "indicator" - a person with a moral
imperative. You can, of course, would be to brand the whole of nature as a
solid evil, but this is absurd, because in this case we would have to admit
evil and digestive processes, and oxidation-reduction reactions.
But we have not yet
reached the "sixth day".
The Darwinian theory of
the origin of species in the XIX-XX centuries, so vehemently opposed and
speculative biblical creation of Adam, which is still in the minds of most
people that things are absolutely incompatible and mutually exclusive.
Moreover, when setting
the "stem" platform, the Bible at first sight "loses" to
Darwin. On the side of the last - biology, genetics, embryology, paleontology,
archeology and many other Sciences, to challenge that is just silly. While the
first side is "only" a few pages of the book of Genesis, frankly
legendary and largely contradictory.
There is, however, a
"but"that "Darwinian" science has not yet given a
satisfactory answer. From dinosaurs to monkeys for several hundred million
years, and from monkeys (or, let's say, Australopithecus) to albert Einstein -
not over a million.
And if you take the "civilized" the period of human
development - from Ancient Egypt to the present day - if not get a negligible
time period, six or seven thousand years. By the way, perfectly coinciding with
the ancient chronology from the creation of the world and of man",
starting with
Again, six or seven
thousand years, in accordance with the Bible, separate us from the creation of
Adam is not the topic of this book. Yes and it would be unwise to deny
Darwinian evolution and anatomy, and physiology, and embryology convincingly
say that we really descended from apes. Though not directly from chimpanzees
and orangutans, but from some common ancestor with them - no matter.
It is important that the
negligibly small time interval from APE-like species has been unprecedented
growth in spiritual and intellectual abilities, unexplained by any
Darwinism.
And Engels, who argued in
his book "the Origin of family, private property and the state that a
monkey in a man transformed work, convincingly to prove his theory could not.
All animals in varying degrees, work for a livelihood, and why the monkey
became man, and fantastically quickly?
Indeed, if we take five
or six billion years of existence of our planet for the first five days of
Creation", "the sixth day"when God said, "let us Make man
in the image and Our likeness" (Gen. 1:26), only lasted a few
seconds" - the first apes, with varying degrees of probability can be
called the ancestors of man, there were about a million years ago.
But these mathematical
delights unprincipled. The symbolic meaning of the first pages of the book of
Genesis is more important than geochronology that the Hebrew authors, of
course, was not supposed to know.
Pay attention to the fact
that man created God in his image and likeness", designed to "rule
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the beasts,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth" (Gen. 1:26) - not yet Adam
was created after "the seventh day when God rested from all His work"
(Gen. 2:3).
But the tight Parallels
that of the biblical man"deadmeat"created in "the sixth
day"is any of prehistoric apes, is also inappropriate. It is unlikely, for
example, in Australopithecus you can see the image and likeness of God"
only because he appeared to be inclined to walking upright and his vocal
apparatus was somewhat more developed than in orangutans.
It's not so easy, and,
armed with modern achievements of anthropology, "the sixth day"
should be considered in more detail than the first five.
We will not go into the
details of scientific debate about how many "links" was in the
evolutionary chain between Australopithecus (about a million years ago) and
CRO-magnon man, the first representative of the biological species Homo Sapiens
(about 30 thousand years BC). Note that during this time has been a significant
evolution of the skull, musculoskeletal system, brain, tools, living conditions
and social relations, and this limit.
We will not delve in the
late Paleolithic (30-10 thousand years BC). Undoubtedly, the development of all
of the above continued. If we do not see any significant changes in the skull
and musculoskeletal system, simply because in such a short period of time,
these changes did not have time to go so far, to become noticeable on the
background of the enormous diversity of races, tribes and Nations of the
species Homo Sapiens. In the end, all the biological parameters of the
Australian aborigine is different from the Europeans much more than the CRO-magnon
man from Neanderthal.
And yet, we note that the
speed of the evolutionary process of humans compared with other species of
animals in the last million years has increased markedly. In this evolution
came huts, tools, cave paintings and prehistoric sanctuary.
The
Mesolithic and the Neolithic period, which began about 10 thousand years ago,
in principle, differ little from the Paleolithic. Appeared agriculture, animal
husbandry, pottery, weaving, rock carvings took a somewhat more abstract and
generalized form.
VI
But
have you changed anything in the nature of man in that moment, when he received
from God a moral imperative?
VII
Now
back to the question: I'm sorry if God in "natural" evil?
VIII
One
problem is left is painful, and even fatal accidents (frozen, stumbled, lost,
burned, etc.). In fact, they are directly related to the laws of nature and,
accordingly, belong to the "natural" evil, then God is not to blame.
IX
So
we've seen a fairly extensive material and realized some essential things.
X
Maybe,
there were other "pulses"?
I believe that the
emergence of single-celled organisms are not as fundamentally as the two really
need to "pulse", which we called the creation of the world and the
creation of Adam. The result was the first "pulse" appeared Genesis.
In the second "pulse" appeared human consciousness,
"crowned" moral imperative.
No
bacteria, no dinosaurs, no consciousness, no moral imperative, therefore,
between the first and second "pulses" no action of God on Earth, most
likely, was not.
Toledo Cathedrals were
merely national Assembly barbarian Visigoth Kingdom (part of modern Spain). The
Visigoths were Arians, besides, in any case, the Cathedrals in one state could
not have influence on Christian theology.
However, the addition of
the "filioque" was the trump card in the political game of the West
and East. The Pope accepted this addition in the early ninth century, wishing
to flatter Charlemagne, who was in confrontation with Byzantium. The Patriarch
announced "inviolability" of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed of
381 and refused any additions. To any compromise, the parties failed to come,
and in 1054 from Constantinople left the papal legate, which marked the
division of the churches.
Unfortunately, any
attempt to understand who is in a dispute about the "filioque"
rights, is doomed to failure. Indeed, if the Holy Spirit comes from God, then
Christ is to us it just brought. If from "God the Son", Jesus created
it, at least partially.
Theological to prove
anything too was extremely difficult (in Scripture the concept of the Holy
spirit, as we know, very multivalued), and therefore this difficult issue has
been very useful when the division was interested in everything.
That is why we are conducting
a historical review of the formation of the doctrines of the Trinity and the
God-man", did not comment on a purely scholastic dispute about the
"filioque".
And since the problem,
consider the emergence of the Christian doctrine third "pulse" or not,
is directly related to the identification of the source of the Holy spirit,
then actually we are waiting for the same dispute. Offer him not to get
involved.
I'm even willing to
"give up" and say: in principle, I'm not against thinking that Jesus
Christ brought us the word of God directly from God and, therefore, to
recognize his teachings third "pulse". Here the identity of
Christ and the "Words"that led to the announcement of Christ's second
God is really unfounded and harmful to the faith. We talked much about it, and
will not be repeated.
But
still I will allow myself to Express my personal point of view: Jesus of
Nazareth understood, what is a moral imperative, and has devoted his life to
the belief that people, in the end, taking a painful punishment.
XI
And
can there be another "pulses"?
XII
We
have just shown that "pulses" were only two. Even if we count
"pulses" the transition from inanimate nature to live and the life of
Jesus Christ, we get a maximum of four.
And "pre-existence" does
the soul as "the created substrate impersonal" (by Karsavina), the
interesting question, but beyond the scope of our study. E.g
"substrate" is impersonal, and we're talking about a person first and
foremost as a person.
From
the proposition that somehow God intervenes in our transition to facilitiy,
with great probability that he manages and our "physical" death. And
that will disavow the decision of the question of theodicy.
From
"programmed" life eternal, you can draw another conclusion: it, like
all natural phenomena, in principle, can be grasped by science. Moreover, the
normal - physics, astronomy, anthropology, chemistry, biology and other natural
Sciences.
Equally comprehensible
and all other events and phenomena, which are now considered to be
"mystical". Because nothing on Earth, in addition to the global
"rate"does not come directly from God, then all the so-called
"mystic" (not to be confused with the "hoax") - not
miracles, but the normal manifestations of those laws of nature that modern
science still does not know.
We do not know very much,
and don't know how even more. But humanity is steadily knows the world, and
this process cannot be stopped.
Five hundred years ago,
those who claimed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Church burned at
the stake. But now we have taken the first steps in space - so far, not even
near, neighboring, but still.
Help comes to him and he
created the technique. One hundred years ago, humanity could not build aircraft,
and now it will not surprise anybody. Accordingly, no one now will not surprise
quick and sure movements in any direction on planet Earth.
But let us a little
consider the scale that humanity has yet to learn!
Before the star Deneb (Cygnus),
for example, light with a speed of three hundred thousand kilometers per second
is five hundred years, i.e. up to the star about 5.000.000.000.000.000 (five
million billion miles. This distance is impossible to imagine, much less to fly
at speeds of modern spacecraft, not exceeding one hundred kilometers per
second. But it does not mean that the star Deneb is closed for studying and
there is no chance that someday science and technology will bring the earth
astronauts to the planets of its system?
Deneb is not the most
distant star, and is within our galaxy. And the science has been known for
thousands (if not millions) of galaxies, and the nearest of them is the famous
Andromeda Galaxy is from us at a distance of about two million light years, that
is 4000 times further than Deneb.
And there are
"unavailable for observation of the Universe"...
Impressive scale that
attains the population of one of the planets, satellites of stars called
"the Sun", having the status of a "yellow dwarf" and
situated on the edge of one of the countless galaxies?
And life on Earth? We
have not yet learned to overcome the disease, have not learned to deal
effectively with natural disasters, could not get rid of the "social"
evil...
Marxist ideologues
interpreted religion as a means of mystically to explain what is not known by
science. Indeed, the Orthodox and Catholic churches use the word
"sacrament" is not only when we are talking about the "seven
Holy sacraments - baptism, communion, marriage, priesthood, confirmation and
other. This word sounds when speaking about the existence of God, about the
relationship between the "hypostasis of the Trinity, the incarnation of
God the Son", about the resurrection, about facilitiy,
"sanctification by the grace of the Holy spirit"...
But we can say the
following: the only genuine religious "mystery" is faith in God.
Despite the fact that it
is not natural, and moral character, to come to her is very difficult. This can
help keeping the moral imperative, and any Ecumenical or "superamerica"
religion should be primarily focused on this task. Remember the words of the
father of the possessed boy, converted to Christ: "Lord, I Believe! help
my unbelief" (MK. 9:24).
And everything else is
completely understandable earth science. Including all that the Church calls
the "ordinances," and all the so-called "mystic". Who
knows, maybe someday will be found and strict scientific proof of the existence
of God?
But in any case, religion
was decided, decides to meet no less complicated and moral.
And in the conditions of
scientific-technical progress, when millions of people could die because of one
"nuclear maniac", the relevance of moral is not decreasing but
increasing.
Let
us at this new level of philosophical understanding back to the conclusions we
did, doing Christian theology.
I believe that in order for the most
stringent standards to be called gods, enough of our immortality.
It is called symbolically.
Because God is one, and we all were created by him. Though not directly, and in
accordance with the laws of nature - does it matter?
Again remember the words of Jesus: "is it Not written in your law:
I said, ye are gods? If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God, and
cannot be disturbed by the Scripture, " Tom, Whom the Father sanctified
and sent into the world, you say blasphemy because I said, I am the Son of
God?" (Jn. 10:34-36).
And that God intervenes in earthly
Affairs ' rarely - it doesn't matter, because it combines moral imperative. And
to those about him and remembers him should include words of John: "But as
many as received Him, who believed in His name, he gave power to become
children of God, are not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will
of man, but were born of God" (Jn. 1:13).
Therefore, we may call them gods. As
well as saints and sons (daughters) of God, and people. All these definitions
are fully applicable to any of us, doing their best to live according to the
moral imperative.
So let us to do good and to fight
evil, not expecting rewards from God, but simply justifying his human destiny.
And what awaits us in the hereafter
- so far known to God alone, but the day will come when it will be to know and
earth science. If we are not destined to live to this day on Earth - nothing
terrible. What is facilitie, each of us learns after physical death.
But in reality there is no death.
Even over death of the physical body victory theoretically possible, and the
achievements of modern science to it are. And immortality cannot be defeated
either theoretically or practically.
"So when this corruptible shall
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then
shall come to pass the saying that is written: death is swallowed up in victory.
Death!
where is thy sting? hell! where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15:54-55).
© Sergey Zagraevsky