CHAPTER I: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
CHAPTER III: GOOD AND THE “FUNDAMENTAL PARADOX OF
CHRISTIANITY”
CHAPTER IV: EVIL AND THE THEODICY
CHAPTER V: CAESAR’S – TO CAESAR
CHAPTER VIII: CHRISTIANITY AND THE PRESENT
CHAPTER X: THE “IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”
Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
NEW CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
The
original was published in Russian: ALEV-V Publishing House,
CHAPTER V
CAESAR’S – TO CAESAR
I
So, thoughts and acts, which are dictated by the moral imperative, are
good. Thoughts and acts, which are dictated by the “basic natural instincts”,
are evil.
Reality, of course, is somewhere in the middle. Moreover, there are a
number of situations when the moral imperative does not contradict to the
“basic instincts” – for example, the protection of the humanity from nuclear
terrorists or a creation of a family. But we have already spoken that for the
understanding of either tint of gray color it is necessary to know what is the black and what is the white.
That is why let us establish that, unfortunately, evil nowadays prevails
in the social structure (we have called this evil as “social”). Both economy
and politics base on it in the overwhelming majority of states.
Christ told his brothers (not the spiritual, but the own, who had not
yet accepted his teaching): “The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are
evil” (John 7:7).
So the methodology of our further research will be the following: the
division (of course, to the extent of possibility) of moral and social
elements, the orientation toward first ones and taking second ones out of
context. Let us call this methodology, by analogy with Matt. 22:21, by the
following: “Unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things
that are God’s”. For short, by “Caesar’s – to Caesar”.
I may be accused of anti-sociality. But, starting to work according to
the methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”, I would like to ask a methodological
question: in which aspect do we examine anti-sociality – in the moral or
social?
In the moral aspect, I, really, do not love contemporary (especially
medieval or ancient) society – firstly since in the world, where it rules,
prophets are condemned on crucifixion, and “Karamazov’s” children – on
suffering.
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life, is not of Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:15-16).
Many philosophers and theologians of the
19th–20th centuries, who were to some degree touched by Communist ideas, tried
to “flirt” with contemporary society in an effort to determine some bright
social perspectives of the humanity.
But now we may say frankly: society in its today’s form, moreover two
thousand years ago, is evil. And let us not create illusions for ourselves.
While money and state power are the determinants of social relations (in actual
fact, that are the convolutions of an infinite spiral: more money – more power
– more money etc.), society will be evil.
An inverse situation often takes place – society “flirts” with
spirituality for the purpose of the placement of the moral imperative at
states’ service.
But we have accepted strict Monotheism – there is single God and the
single moral imperative. Consequently, the usage of the name of God (or the
usage of the moral imperative) beyond moral purposes is a substitution of
concepts, which is called by lie in everyday life. The Commandment “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” (Ex.
20:7) did not appear in the Decalogue accidentally near the murder and the
false evidence.
But the uncompromising moral position – “Ye cannot serve God and mammon”
(Matt. 6:24) – does not mean an uncompromising social position.
The point is that the taking out of context does not mean a taking out
of examination. Quite the contrary. Having picked out
social elements in every problem of a human and the humanity, we facilitate the
task of its understanding and, in the end, of the adaptation to it.
And it is necessary to adapt (at least to some extent). The “wolfish”
essence of contemporary society may be overcome only by the widest spread of
spirituality, and while that has not taken place – unfortunately, it is
impossible to avoid it.
Moreover, while the “animal” nature lives in people, the state system is
necessary for supporting of some order in the world, otherwise Christ would not
have had compromises with the authorities (Matt. 22:21). But it is very
interesting that the phrase “Caesar’s – to Caesar” (and its folklore analogue
“When in
That is why let us formulate our position concerning the correlation
between “social” evil and the moral imperative as follows: evil nowadays rules
over the world, but sprouts of good are taking roots and developing actively.
And it is possible to say confidently that the day will come when evil ceases
ruling over the world.
II
This position completely conforms to the teaching of Christ, who refused
to rule over the earthly kingdoms, but did not refuse of solving of global
social tasks and declared the possibility of the building of the Kingdom of God
on the Earth (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31; 17:20; John 3:3). And that was no void
declaration.
If not God but the devil offered the earthly kingdoms to Jesus then no
earthly kingdom (empire, republic etc.) is capable to build the
On the other hand, we have understood that it is useless to wait
(together with Ivan Karamazov) that Jesus or God the Father will send a
lightning to burn the torturers of the little child. While criminals wish to be
criminals, it is impossible to frighten them by either prisons or hell. The
time of medieval theatrical performances with God’s intervention in the final
(“Deus ex machine”) passed.
Then, analyzing the possibility of building of the
And the victory over evil is not a condition of society, when everyone,
as at hypothetical Communism, was to “work by capabilities and consume by
needs”. And no condition of society at all. Simply no
one will wish to commit evil.
What condition of society will then be, it is possible only to guess.
But it is clear that if people go on murdering, robbing and deceiving each
other, and a state has to provide that only “necessary” people were killed,
robbed and deceived – what
For the present, it is early and useless to speak about the
unconditional withering away of states. Like the overwhelming majority of
contemporary people, I can not imagine a state structure without legislative,
executive and judicial powers, money, police and even army. Actually, if even
all the earthly states make it up and open the borders, – what if some extraterrestrials
attack the Earth? Though I am a Christian, but if the “war of worlds” begins,
shan’t I take arms and defend our civilization?
And money – if not it, then what will regulate economical relations? Love? And how otherwise – according to ration cards, like in
the Communist distributing system? Or everyone will have everything equally?
And if somebody has a little bit more, won’t somebody be envious of him and try
to take the “excess” away?..
Let us be realists: basic Christian concepts in the meantime do not
coordinate with the severe commonness of economy and politics. But, as we have
shown, that depends only upon ourselves, and if in some generations that
coordinates – let us hope so.
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the
That is why the task of Christianity is not utopian (to make the
humanity or one separate country happy), but quite real – to make the life of a
human and the humanity better. Little by little, step by step. And the size of
that step is the acceptance of Christianity by one human.
And if that human accepts Christianity truly (and we speak only about
the true acceptance), it is unlikely that someone will wish to shut his
five-year-old daughter in a cold lavatory and to smear her face with excrement,
as in the story, which was told by Ivan Karamazov.
Thus, the extirpating of evil means the supplanting of its instinctive
basis (love to power, money, violence) by
Christianity, and an unavoidable consequence of that is the improvement of
society and the reduction of the total amount of evil and suffering in the
world. Only in that order – not from “above”, but from
“below”.
That is why we can debate as long as we like, if there is God’s fault of
tears of the tortured children, but that does not exempt us from the duty to
struggle for the abatement of these tears.
Jesus of Nazareth struggled and was crucified for that.
And since “Karamazov’s” five-year-old child, who is not well-informed in
theology, will scarcely feel better because two thousand years ago Christ
suffered for him, our task is to make this child feel better thanks to people,
who call themselves Christians.
Consequently, it is necessary to struggle for good, only by the method
of Christ at that – by good and with an own example, since evil (which is from
the devil) has another moral essence than good (which is from God) in
principle. Consequently, evil is not able to cause good.
A state has its own methods of struggle for good (to put it more
precisely, for that, which it considers as good), and Christianity has its own
methods. Borders, as usually, are indistinct. For the present it is impossible
to do without a Criminal Code, and army with police are also unavoidable.
Moreover, soon we shall have to understand that even a forced resistance to
evil sometimes may not be called a sin from the Christian point of view.
But a forced resistance may solve only a momentary, “tactical” task, but
the global, “strategic” guiding line for each of us may be only the “unlimited”
Christian understanding of good and love, which mostly fully expresses the
moral imperative, which was given to the humanity by God.
III
I propose to examine, from the point of view of the methodology
“Caesar’s – to Caesar”, some important practical problems concerning both
society and the moral imperative. Exclusively as an example
of the universal adaptability of our methodology.
For example, we can immediately ascertain the absurdity of such concepts
as “a humane state” or “a kind ruler”.
And that is not the point that the “kindness” of any ruler (who
personally murdered nobody and is an exemplary family man) has no connection
with the ruling. The concepts like the mentioned above are absurd in their
formulating – a state and humanism, a ruler and good are incompatible by
definition.
Any state and any ruler, if they wish to hold out, have to be cruel and
pragmatic – so the pitiless contemporary society dictates. A detail of a system
(in this case, any state institution) depends first and foremost upon the
system, and the deviation may be only in the limits of tolerance, which are
determined by the system. If the deviation exceeds the allowable, the society
tries to replace that detail by another one, which is more convenient. This is
the law of any known society.
Since we have begun to talk about deviations, let us try to analyze
causes of criminality.
The genetic and anthropological criminal disposition (the theory of
Lombroso) is a particular factor, which is applicable far not always. Solving
that question according to the methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”, we draw a
more general conclusion: any human is inclined to crimes only to the extent
that his “basic instincts” prevail over the moral imperative.
It may seem possible to suppose that it depends on the will of God, but
then we disavow our solution of the problem of the Theodicy – God turns out to
be an indirect culprit of crimes. There is one more simple reason – a child of
“a bad stock” is usually brought up in the same way, and all his life dictates
positions, which do not correlate with Christianity and humanism. From here the
“reproduction” of crime is.
We can remember the position of the theologians of the major Churches,
who derive the criminality of an ultimate effect of the original sin, and can
note that our explanation has turned out to be much more simple and satisfying,
not touching upon the basis of the Christian faith at that. Quite the contrary,
this position “purifies” our faith of an endless reproduction of sins and
crimes by God.
And if so, let us leave the analysis of specific reasons of
criminality (also of poverty and social oppression) to Karl Marx – really, if
he had not engaged in the elaboration of spiritual utopias, he would have
remained in history as an outstanding specialist of the social-economical
analysis. But, unfortunately, he did not manage to separate “Caesar’s” and
“God’s”. Or did not want to.
IV
One more question arises – about the scientific-technical progress. Does
the replacement of horses and coaches by cars and aircrafts bring good or evil
to people?
This question seems to be not of the context of our research. But in
fact, our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar” may be applied even here, and we
must start of a more “human” question: would the professional activity be
considered as good or as evil? And labour in general?
We could have said that “labour” questions
concern society, which today is organized by the type of a wolf pack, and,
consequently, is evil.
But there are different kinds of labour. Not
because there is also a “spiritual” labour (for
example, arts), but because labour itself is not
important in principle, but its result is important. We have already
quoted Christ’s words: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt.
7:20).
Consequently, we have to analyze labour not as
a process, but as a result. Let us cite an example: it is impossible to refuse
the creative search to the creators of the atomic bomb, but the result of their
labour objectively brought rather evil than good to
the mankind. The usage of their scientific achievements in peaceful purposes
illustrates the ambiguity of good and evil, but if we want to single out moral
constituents of either of them, then our methodology says: the atomic bomb is
evil in spite of any attempt of its justification by a “peaceful atom”.
Now we are risking to deepen into the theme of “good” and “evil” things
and to stick there, because it is possible to kick painfully even by Dostoyevski’s book, not morally, but quite physically at
that. Let us remember: already in the beginning of Chapter 3, we have turned
from “good” or “evil” things to good or evil acts, exclusively in the context
of the moral imperative at that.
And purposes of labour in the moral
context are not less important for us than its results. That is why labour, purposes of which are dictated by the moral
imperative, is good. And when labour pursues aims of
enrichment, violence or the state power, it is evil.
Let us note that professionalism is usually determined as the ability of
the obtaining of a result according to selected aims. That is why professional labour with aims, which conform to the moral imperative, is
good. And non-professionalism may lead to the well-known Russian saying: “We
wanted as better, but did as usually”.
It turns out that two workers of the same qualification on same machines
may work for the same payment with absolutely different aims (the first aim –
to earn money and drink it away, and the second – so as his products could
serve good to people), and their labour
would have different moral estimations. And a percent of waste in the second
case will be less.
However paradoxically, we have no contradiction even to the theory of
Marx – he interpreted exactly the monotonous work on machines as a reason of
proletariat’s hatred against these machines and against owners of the means of
production, who appropriate the results of proletariat’s labour.
According to Marx, peasantry is less “revolutionary”, because peasants’ hatred
against the land, which feeds them, is rather an exclusion
than a rule.
But if Marx’s theory led to the conclusion that for the committing of
evil (of a violent revolution) unskilled and hated labour
of people, who are separated of the means of production, is useful, then on the
basis of the same thesis we do a contrary conclusion: skilled labour of owners, who are interested in its results, is
useful for committing good.
That is in theory. And practice shows that any idea of social equality
breaks at the reality of unskilled labour, which even
in an ideal society (for example, at hypothetical Communism) must be done by
someone.
Really, such professions as a plumber or a nightman
are not going to disappear. Moreover, a declaration of the spiritual (but not
civil) equality of a philosopher and a yard-keeper, in the contemporary world,
makes the yard-keeper cease to sweep the street cleanly. From here, it is not
far to Lenin’s thesis: “Any cook can rule over the state”, and that thesis, as
we know, lead to nothing good.
We have already spoken that the purposes of Christianity are not
utopian, but quite real. Consequently, we must understand that while unskilled labour exists, any talk about the true social
equality is utopian, and guarantees of equal rights will never turn from the
civil context to the spiritual one.
Consequently, we must acknowledge the positive role of
scientific-technical progress, which leads to the increasing of the part of
skilled labour and to the changing of proletarians
and peasants into educated engineers. The creative work in the sphere of production,
by the highest standards, is not less spiritual and less worthy of respect,
than in so called “nonproductive sphere”.
It may be said against that: unskilled labour
is a “refuge” for that creative people, who have no possibility to earn their
living by their creative work. An example is the whole generation of the Soviet
“underground” of 1960–1980s.
But we should say without penetrating into aspects of the art-market:
woe is that society, which makes its intellectuals earn their living by the
work in boiler-houses. And the sooner such an abnormal phenomenons disappear, the better.
There is “social” evil where unskilled labour
is. There is unskilled labour where “social” evil is.
The circle has enclosed.
Consequently, mechanization, automation, robotization
and computerization are good. And the fact, that there are computers both in
libraries and in centers of mission control, is one more example of the
minority of results of labour and the
scientific-technical progress in comparison with purposes of using of that results. A human and his system of value is the
“starting point” again.
That is why it is as absurd to refuse of scientific-technical progress
because of the danger of the nuclear war, as to confiscate axes, kitchen knives
and other similar things from citizens with the view of reducing of crime.
While people wish to murder each other, they would find how to do that.
V
The global violation of ecology on our planet is usually called a
negative consequence of scientific-technical progress. But let us look: is it a
fault of scientific-technical progress?
We can come to the understanding of that only from the direction of a
specific human, his life and health.
Life and health are tightly connected, and concepts of humanism spread
to both of them. Protection of health is a form of help to a human. The moral
imperative dictates that, and that is confirmed in Christianity by a number of
sick people, who were healed by Christ and the Apostles.
Saying objectively, any state is interested by these problems only to
some degree, since disabled people and invalids in a “pure” model of a state –
a wolf pack – are doomed to the death. And the fact that contemporary states to
a greater or lesser extent hinder from their death is a doubtless progress and
an example of the deep striking root of the moral imperative.
Health protection by a state, provision of pensions in an old age –
these are also positive samples. The abolition of tortures and of death
penalty, which has occurred practically everywhere (at any case, in civilized
society), is also a positive tendency. Even a political institution – democracy
– may be considered as a great achievement of the moral imperative, because it
is conductive to the increasing of the role of a person in social “mechanisms”.
Human society yields to the influence of the moral imperative, which
puts in the forefront the person, freedom, life and health of a human. Yields slowly, with periodical “recoils” to fascist dictatorships,
but still yields.
If it is possible to apply the word “progress” to the development of
humanity, then it is exactly the progress.
That is why environment protection, which is tightly connected with
health of people, is the most important task of society, a state and a human.
And the negative influence of the man-caused factor on global ecology is an
example of insufficient attention to this task and of the unwillingness of
businessmen (or of officials) to spend money to the introduction of scientific
researches in that area.
We have come again to the conclusion that any achievement of
scientific-technical progress may lead to a catastrophe in unfair hands.
However, history knows a number of unfair usages of the spiritual
values, to the extent of Christian religion. We have already remembered the
Inquisition and the Society of Jesus.
VI
Let us try to solve the “national problem” from the point of view of our
methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”.
It may seem that the feeling of nationality relates to the moral
imperative, because the belonging of a human to either nation usually is not
determined at the level of consciousness. Some subconscious “we” takes place,
and that “we” is used not only in the “life” context – “today we’ve won in
football”, – but also in a quite spiritual one – “our culture”, “our art”, even
“our faith”.
But, unfortunately, we have to ascertain that we are dealing not with
the moral imperative, but with the strongest social stereotype, which embodied
in our subconsciousness.
Let us adduce a proof.
All history of humanity confirms that a nationality is closely connected
with a state system, and vice versa, a state system is connected with a
nationality. The self-feeling of a human, who belongs to either nation,
gradually interflows with the self-feeling as a citizen of either state. Its
confirmation the mass liberation of countries of the “third world” and the
collapse of colonial empires in the 20th century are.
It seems to be good. For example, a justly elected president of a “state
forming” nation usually knows needs of citizens better than a “sent”
governor-general (though it is not an axiom). It seems to be not so bad in the
context of culture – the encouragement of cultural-economical traditions and
the studying of a national language (though that are
also not axioms). In each case, basing on democratic presuppositions, the
self-determination of nations is a positive process most likely.
But does this positive process relate to the moral imperative? Let us
formulate the question more specifically: will peace and rest be established on
the Earth in the hypothetical case of the full self-determination of all
nations?
But this hypothesis in incorrect: all nations without exception can not
self-determine, because national minorities will always remain, for which
national majorities do not acknowledge the right to self-determination.
Finally, even inhabitants of one region, or one city, or one village may
declare themselves a nation, and a confirmation may be found for that in either
ethnic or cultural or language traditions...
Nations may split up arbitrarily, and there is no logical limit for
that.
And if this is the case, the world will not do without “hot spots” on
the national basis. Let us remember the childhood and the cry: “We’re beaten”!
“We” is used here in another context, but that is also a subconscious
community! And if tomorrow such cry sounds in the all-national scale, won’t the
same subconscious force stir up millions of people and lead them to murder each
other?
It is possible to say against it: in each country, there are many Nazi,
fascists and extremists, and such appeals are heard very often. But people do
not take arms and go to murder.
Someone does not go, but someone does. It is firstly. And secondly, what
does prevent the majority of people to respond to any similar cry? The role of
“brake” is played by the moral imperative. And it is the “brake” of not only
pogroms and wars on the national basis. It stands against any destructive
tendency, to the extent of robberies and murders.
It turns out that the contradiction of the moral imperative with the
national self-feeling is as well-founded, as the contradiction of the moral
imperative with any subconscious manifestation of evil.
Consequently, the national self-feeling does not relate to the moral
imperative, moreover, contradicts to it.
Our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar” interprets this situation as the
following: the national self-feeling is a potential source of no good, but of
evil for a human. Someone will be kept from evil by the moral imperative, but,
unfortunately, someone will not be kept.
VII
The questions arise: what about national culture? And
national art? Are they also evil?
Of course, no. But here we
deal with quite another situation, when the concept “national” appears not as a
self-feeling, but as a material. A language, a tradition, geographic traits...
If a Russian works at the studio of Tatar folk art, that
does not mean that he necessarily perceives himself as a Tatar. And though
Boris Pasternak and Osip Mandelshtam
are the great Russian poets, they perceived themselves
as belonging to the Jewish nation.
And if some time the national self-feeling of people sinks into oblivion
together with other manifestations of “social” evil, national cultural
traditions will hardly disappear, though they will change.
There is nothing terrible in the rejection of the national self-feeling.
History of the humanity says that nations come and leave, but their culture
remains. There are many examples – Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Ancient Greece,
Ancient
There is one more sorrowful example, which contains in the name of Fenimore Cooper’s book “The Last of the Mohicans”. Really,
a number of nations disappear, and even the “museum’ culture does not remain of
them. But whose fault is it? Isn’t it the fault of that “national majorities”,
which took up or even physically annihilated minorities, having not let them
develop? We have come to “social” evil again...
As an additional confirmation of our position and as a consolation for
all unknowingly disappeared nations, let us remember the words of Apostle Paul:
“And have put in a new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of
him that created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scyth’i-an,
bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:10-11).
I may be asked: the subconscious “we” does not take only national forms.
For example: “we, Europeans”, “we, men”, “we, Catholics”, “we, Christians”,
“we, people of the Earth” and even “we, inhabitants of the Universe”. Does even
this not relate to the moral imperative?
Yes, even this does not relate to the moral imperative, for which only
one “we” exists – “we, united by the moral imperative”. And all other “we” are
different subconscious stereotypes. Either positive or
neutral or negative ones.
VIII
Thus, we have examined both the concept of “social” evil and a number of
the “local” problems, which are connected with the conformity of either social
problem to the moral imperative.
Having spent much time to the solution of the problem of the Theodicy,
we have also understood: the freedom of will of people excludes the guilt of
God in their sins and crimes.
But we have not yet spoken about “natural” evil – hurricanes, tornados,
accidents, illnesses and even mental diseases, which deprive a human of the
capability for realizing of his criminal acts, and here we see the close
interlacing of “social” and “natural” evil.
Moreover, analyzing “social” evil, we shall sooner or later reach its
“natural” roots – aren’t a wolf pack and human society also created by God?
And why God, having given the moral imperative to the civilized
humanity, did not want to extirpate our “bestial” instincts but let them
coexist, not quite peacefully at that?
Consequently, we have not solved the problem of the Theodicy finally. If
the creation of the world as of the physical and moral whole primordially
supposed the presence of evil in it, then wouldn’t it have been better for God
not to create it at all?
And though we have shown that our suffering is no guilt of God, but the
guilt of society or the laws of nature, we have not yet managed to answer the
main question – why God created both nature and society as potential sources of
evil. We have been at the level of a “microcosm” – of a human, but the
question, which has just been cited, relates to the “macrocosm”, and we are not
yet ready to its solution.
Let us explain, why.
In our research of reasons and forms of “social” evil, Christianity was
the basic “tuning fork” of the moral imperative. And we have examined
Christianity in the subconscious forms, in which it took roots in people who
belong to the European civilization.
Few people get deeper into problems of theology. Something is understood
by reason, something is felt intuitively, and, as a rule, that is enough.
Hitherto, we could manage in this book without theologian niceties.
But now we are in for the change from practical philosophy (Metaphysics
of Moral) to theoretical philosophy (understanding of the structure of the
world and of ourselves in this world). And since Christianity remains the main
instrument of this understanding, it is necessary to “tune it up” to the
solution of theoretical problems before to work with it.
IX
It may seem strange: why must we “tune up” the Christian theology?
Because its theoretical (conceptual) part essentially differs from the
practical one, which has taken roots in subconsciousness
of a number of generations, and this situation is a source of a great number of
abuses and speculations. And while we do not determine how to understand the
words “Christianity” and “Christian religion”, we shall not be able to go on in
our research.
As you remember, the similar “tuning” we had to carry out, when we were
analyzing the “fundamental paradox of Christianity”, which casts doubt on the
right of Christianity to be called the mostly full and adequate manifestation
of the moral imperative. Then we have faced a number of depositions of medieval
stereotypes (for example, of hell as a red-hot furnace and paradise as angels
on a cloud), and the changing to clear concepts, which express Christianity as
the teaching of exclusively good and love, took rather much time.
Nevertheless, we have not lost that time in vain – having not solved
that question, we would not have elaborated the methodology “Caesar’s – to
Caesar”. And since we have managed to do that, let us try to apply this
methodology to Christianity itself.
Let us ask the question: does Christianity – the shank of any European
philosophy – completely conform to the moral imperative?
Analyzing the “fundamental paradox of Christianity”, we have engaged in
the separation of the moral imperative from the Old Testament’s principles of
the retribution of evil for evil (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hell
for sins). Actually we have applied the methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”,
which had not yet been elaborated at that time.
That “tuning” we have successfully done, and now we can say surely:
Christianity, which is understood as the teaching of Christ and is based on the
Holy Scripture, completely conforms to the moral imperative.
But since the times of writing of the New Testament almost two thousand
years passed, and within these years multiple schisms of the Church and the
forming of so called “Canon law” took place.
And though Christianity – the teaching of Christ – exists as an
objective reality since the moment when Christ gave it to us, Christian
religion – the worldview of people – in many respects depends upon subjective
positions of people themselves. Consequently, Christian religion (I emphasize –
not Christianity but a religious world view formed on its basis) depends upon
society, the historical epoch, economy and politics to the same extent.
And in this case, the answer to the question if Christian religion
completely conforms to the moral imperative, will be negative.
And this unfavorable conclusion follows from an additional question: what
Christian religion are we speaking about? About the Orthodox,
Catholic or Protestant one? About Luther’s or Calvin’s
teachings? May be, about Socinianity or
Adventism? If hundreds of different variants exist, then which of them
expresses the moral imperative with the whole (or at least the highest)
fullness and adequacy?
Trying to answer this question directly, enumerating all possible
interpretations of Christianity and analyzing them, we shall have to examine
many thousands of volumes and will scarcely succeed in that.
The approach, conforming to our methodology “Caesar’s – to Caesar”, must
be another in principle: we must determine Christian religious concepts, which
are formed exclusively on the basis of the moral imperative, and take all the
other concepts out of context, considering those concepts as depositions of
“social” evil, which prevents from the integration, mutual understanding and
often even from the peaceful co-existence of Orthodox believers and Catholics,
Catholics and Protestants, Protestants and Baptists, Baptists and “Jehova’s witnesses”, “Jehova’s
witnesses” and “Seventh-day Adventists”...
Sergey Zagraevsky
© 2004
CHAPTER I: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
CHAPTER III: GOOD AND THE “FUNDAMENTAL PARADOX OF
CHRISTIANITY”
CHAPTER IV: EVIL AND THE THEODICY
CHAPTER V: CAESAR’S – TO CAESAR
CHAPTER VIII: CHRISTIANITY AND THE PRESENT
CHAPTER X: THE “IMMACULATE CONCEPTION”