Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
NEW CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
original was published in Russian: ALEV-V Publishing House,
CAESAR’S – TO CAESAR
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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