Текст книги "The Future of the Humankind The Dictatorship of Conscience or the Tyranny of Bible Owners"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 1 (всего у книги 4 страниц)
The Future of the Humankind: The Dictatorship of Conscience
or the Tyranny of Bible Owners.
1. Is the conscience free within the traditional confessions?
On the September 18, 2006 in the Russian newspaper “Izvestia” there was published an article with the title “We swear to destroy your cross in the center of Rome” with the following subtitle “Islamists threaten to revenge the Pope Benedict”. The newspaper informs:
«The speech of Benedict XVI in front of the students and professors of the Regensburg University[1] (where he taught theology, being a professor Joseph Ratzinger in 1969-1977) has caused a wave of indignation in the whole Islamic world. This flood of anger can be compared with the reaction on the caricature of the prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” last year in September. It seems that the Roman pontific has caused by accident a new loop of “civilizations wars”.
He stressed in his statement the philosophic differences of Christianity and Islam and drew attention to the relation between religion and violence. The speech starts with a rather long quotation taken from the letter of Manuel II Palaiologos to the unknown Muslim divine of the 14th century. The governor of Byzantium, “the theorist of the war against Jihad, fighting against Ottomans, writes:
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.
The Pope had emphasized twice that he cited the words of Palaiologos and didn’t share them on his own. Benedict XVI has criticized the Western society and said that its moral crisis is the reason of Islamic extremism distribution. “A reason which is deaf to the divine is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.”[2], – the Pontific says. Then he enumerates the points, uniting the two religions: Muslims as well as Christians believe in a single God, honour Jesus Christ, although not as a God but as a prophet.
Almost all the leaders of Islamic states demanded apologies from Benedict XVI, including the President of Iran – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the prime minister of Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Morocco has called away its ambassador from Vatican. “The Pope used the words, that we reject and that remind us the historical hostility of the Catholic Church towards Islam”, Ahmed Fathi Sorour, the Speaker of the Egyptian parliament, said.
The mass protests took place in the streets of the Turkish cities[3], Palestinian autonomy, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Jordan and Algeria. In Nablus, Palestine, the buildings of Latin and Anglican Churches were attacked by vandals who threw firebombs at the walls. In Mogadishu, the capital of Somali was shot an Italian nun, working as a volunteer in the children’s hospital.
It turned out to be a great suddenness for a Vatican. Benedict XVI insisted on reconciliation of Christianity and Islam, but got an opposite effect. “…I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. In general my statement was and it is an invitation for an open and frank dialogue. This quotation taken from a medieval text by no means reflects my personal opinion[4]”, – said the Pope of Rome during his preaching in Summer Roman residence Castel Gandolfo on Sunday (Sept 17, 2006). In fact, he apologized for some passages of his speech that have offended Muslims.
The whole Europe was up to protect the pontific. “The critics have interpreted his words by contraries”, – said Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany. “We can’t leave the Pope on lonesome. And I’m waiting for solidarity from the Muslim world – both religious and political, that mustn’t use this incident for the sake of violence”, – said Franco Frattini, vice-president of the European Commission.
Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, hasn’t stayed apart either, calling for “responsibility and tolerance”. “I am sure that the leaders of the main confessions have enough wisdom to avoid any excesses in relationships between religions, – said the Russian President at the meeting with the members of “parliamentary 8” in Sochi. – We realize how delicate this sphere is. And do our best to set the dialogue between civilizations» ().
On the next day the newspaper “Izvestia” once again turned to the statement of Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg and to the reaction of the world on it. On the 19th of September, 2006 Maxim Sokolov published an article with the title “the Pope and the Emperor”.
Here is the full version of this article:
«The speech of Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg where the Pope quoted the words of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who lived in the 14th century made a great flutter far beyond the catholic circles. The quotation taken from the theological dispute of the emperor with the Persian interlocutor reads: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The pontific said that the emperor’s words were “rude” and “brusque”, but nevertheless this didn’t save him from blame. Most of Muhammad followers reacted on the Pope’s speech with official protests (the authorities of Iran and Pakistan), some of them with a threat to “wipe off the Vatican from the map” and “to destroy the cross in the center of Europe” (“The Army of mujahidins” of Iraq), some reacted with the pogroms of the churches in Jerusalem (Palestinian patriots, supported by HAMAS leaders).
The only thing that united all these different reactions on the Pope’s speech was incapacity to give a substantial answer for the next quotation of the emperor’s words given by Benedict XVI: “Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm or weapons of any kind or any other means of threatening a person with death…” (marked with bold by us when citing). We won’t talk about bombers, but the official documents of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan (“Why to make an insulting cite from some emperor who lived centuries ago? What does it mean today, when we try to overcome antagonisms dividing us?”) and Iran (which suddenly started conjuring the Pope for tolerance – may be they mean that he should follow Ahmadinejad’s example in tolerance?) don’t fully prove the ability to “speak well” and to give strong arguments.
But the worst thing is – that even now, we don’t have any persuasive answer for the question of emperor who lived many centuries ago, – “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new etc…” Looking back at recent events we can see how Mohammedans answer this question and it seems that they try to do their best to prove rightness of Manuel’s II point of view. If we ask the followers of other religions or atheists and agnostics we will find out that they won’t name something new of what Mohamed had brought, besides those things that the emperor had already mentioned and that each of us observes today.
In the Pope’s speech context, where the main idea was the harmony of mind and faith but not the blame of Muhammad, an overall incapability to answer the question represents weak points of gentile opponents of Benedict XVI. It is obvious that an appeal to reason and an inclination to spread the faith by sword are in inverse proportion. The one whose faith is truly good and reasonable, doesn’t need the sword and on the contrary.
Mr. Putin hinted on the incautious words of Benedict XVI saying that an excessive sensibility of Mohammedans should make everyone dealing with this subject extremely delicate in his words. But if we do agree that it’s not the business of Christians to interfere in the Muslim countries and at the same time admit that Mohammedans can thrust themselves in whatever they want happening in Christian states – including the speech of the pontiff, we dumbly admit who the owner in the house is. Who, if not the Pope, can say things unpleasant for Mohammedans?
What is going on in the world? – The Roman ecclesiastics have been avoiding answering this question since the second Vatican meeting. In the times of the previous pontificate guys under the green colors had made a lot – including the September 11[5], but Vatican successfully evaded that problem, nearly related to it[6]. It was Benedict XVI who didn’t evade this problem and touched upon it with a Bavarian rudeness. “It becomes clear that even the Bavarian rudeness gains a strong support, proving that there should be someone able to ask questions simple as bleat». ().
Certainly, it is a great pity and incredibly dangerous for the future of the humankind that the Muslim world represented by its ruling “elite” hasn’t given a substantial answer to the question, asked by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos[7] in the 14th century and cited by the Pope of Rome. It is frightening that the Muslim states preferred official expression of indignation and threats addressed to Benedict XVI in particular and to the West in general.
All facts mentioned above prove that most of the Muslims over the last 600 years are far from Koran understanding: otherwise the truly Muslim world would have given a substantial answer even to Manuel II Palaiologos. And if that answer were lost, the contemporary Pope of Rome would have got an adequate answer.
On the other hand it’s equally important that in the 21st century both Western and Russian intelligentsia still remain ignorant in issues concerning the differences of historically set confessions and that’s why stay incapable to develop the dialogue of cultures.
Benedict XVI has given a proper ground in his speech: “A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures”.
But he hasn’t mentioned the second reason, because he is deaf himself: It is historically set traditions of culture, including the culture (the procedure) of confession, that make the reason deaf to the divine and divide religion and science, leading them to antagonism.
One of the hierarchs of the Russian orthodoxy – Theophanous, the bishop of Stavropoulos and Vladicaucasus and the member of Public Chamber of the Russian Federation on the issues of tolerance and the freedom of conscience, indirectly admits the last assertion.
On the 18th of September, 2006 during the press conference on the site of educational Internet-portal “Mediakratia” we found the following dialogue:
«Marina Zubareva, Kurskaya obl.: Good afternoon! As you remember the 4th of November is considered to be the Day of good deeds. I wonder if the people in our country (even in the world) do understand what “good things” are. Is it possible to have the common perception of good deeds within different nationalities and confessions? And do young people have the same understanding?
The Sovereign[8] Theophanous: In my opinion it is quite possible. The best criteria to define the good deed – is to listen to your conscience, this is the instrument given to us from the God. If we listen to it we will understand which deeds good are. Still small voice is the voice of the God and is beyond confessional character (marked with bold by us when citing). There is the common answer in different nations concerning such issues as murder, stealing, betrayal and etc. I have talked to the followers of different religions in different parts of the world and I was incredibly interested in this problem». ().
In case we agree with Theophanous’s point of view that “the conscience – is the voice of the God”, we should take in consideration that if the confessional creed is false in some aspects or, even worse, if it is wittingly false in general, and herewith dignified as the revelation, it is namely that factor, that deafens the conscience – the voice of the God and deafens the reason respectively, turning the faithful into donkeys.
If not for this fact, first of all, Benedict XVI would have paid attention to the points that differ the two religions and would have tried to find the reasons of these discords. In this case he would have been able to answer his rhetorical question on his own, given in the form of quotation taken from the dialogue of Manuel II Palaiologos with a Persian interlocutor. But his conscience is not free: he is the main hostage of historically set traditions of Catholicism.
Today in the times of an overall literacy (i.e. the ability to write and to read) and with a free access to the Holy texts, Benedict XVI could have read Bible and Koran in original and comments on them of other authors to define differences and to think of their significance in order to give an answer to the question put by Manuel II Palaiologos to make the representatives of Muslim world think over the problem – how does their life differ from those laws given in Koran and from the way of life preached by Muhammad? Nevertheless, the duty of a professional theologian and ecclesiastic is to make listen to reason not only Roman Catholic flock but other people all around the world either.
So, to set the dialogue of cultures, first of all, Benedict XVI is supposed to find intelligibility on his own and after that to make his flock listen to reason. That will definitely cause discontent within the circles of light-headed and gutless followers of the traditions of Roman Catholicism and lead to the serious problems in the hierarchy.
The same problem regards the journalists as well, including cited above Maxim Sokolov. But it seems that:
Traditionally faithful Jews, Christians, Muslims, public and backstage authorities of these confessions, journalists and sociologists are not interested in the answers for such questions.
The publication entitled “The prior of the church of the Moscow State University supports Benedict XVI” on the site NEWSRU.COM informs:
«Benedict XVI and the Vatican administration have given various explanations and comments, but refused to apologize and moreover to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of the true religion, which we, Christians, are supposed to honor and respect him (marked with bold by us when citing)[9]. There is made a step forward presenting a hope to every Christian: we can observe a shift from a black, false and devious ecumenism of last decades to another kind of ecumenism, which Alexander Solzhenitsyn told about during his Templeton’s Speech.
Actually, the words taken from the book “The Rage and the Pride” written by Oriana Fallaci can’t be addressed to Benedict XVI despite of his predecessor:
“Tell me, the Pope, is it true that recently you have asked the sons of Allah[10] to forgive the jihads where your predecessors were fighting in order to return the God’s coffin? And have the sons of Allah asked for forgiveness for taking the God’s coffin? And have they apologized for enslaving the Catholic Iberian Peninsula, Portugal and the most territory of Spain for more than 7 centuries? And if it not for Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, who sent them away in 1490, we would speak Arabic nowadays.
I am incredibly concerned about this problem as they have never asked me to forgive them for the crime committed by Saracens in the 17th and 18th centuries on the coasts of Toscana and Tyrrhenian Sea. I mean the times when they kidnapped my predecessors and then fettered, took them to Algeria, Tunisia, Tangier and Constantinople and sold them on marketplace. They enslaved them for the rest of their life, locked the young women in harems and brutally punished them for attempts to whip away through jugulating, remember this? Certainly, you do. The Community of white slaves liberation was founded by Italian monks, wasn’t it? It was the Church conducting negotiations to liberate those, who had enough money for ransom[11]”.
Cited above words prove that Oriana Fallaci, who called herself unbeliever, inherits the Christian civilization much more than John Paul II, who disavowed this civilization so often.
Certainly, Christianity is the religion of toleration and Benedict XVI has emphasized it in his statements. Christian can’t but respect an intimate religiosity of people professing other faith. Naturally, we tend to respect the Egyptian peasant or Indonesian fisherman, Malaysian girlie or mother of a big family in Morocco much more than drug-addicts and drunkards in our own country. But such respect of religiosity and natural acceptance of mono-theistic character of Islam (in this respect it has a strong resemblance with Christianity) doesn’t imply the religious indifference and acceptance of religions equality. They are equal in the eye of the law. But the real Christian will never say that all religions are equal, and that all prophets are true, and that everyone has his own verity. There is a single truth and we all know WHO is this truth – The ONE who said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life[12]». ().
This is a typical Laodicean[13] self-satisfaction. In such a way the representative of Church makes reference to Jesus Christ. And in the Creed one never finds a single phrase expressing the Jesus’ thoughts. He refers to Jesus Christ having forgotten his own words, more or less truly recorded in the New Testament[14]:
«21. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven[15], but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23. And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness'» (Matthew, 7).
People tend to follow the historically set of faith traditions, within the frames of which they were brought up and usually they don’t think over to understand whether these traditions are true or false or whether they correspond to the initial Revelations.
The bishop of Stavropoulos and Vladicaucasus Theophanous incite to return to this suicidal-cul-de-sac way of life. Here is the passage from the cited above press-conference:
«Zelimhan Yahihanov (the newspaper “Molodezhnaya Smena”, The Chechen Republic): I have noticed that recently faithful – Christians as well as Muslims – are dropping back from traditional religious canons. This is an inevitable process of the changing world. What do you think is better to save in religion and what can we declare off? And how are these processes going on in the real life?
The Sovereign Theophanous: This is a rather controversial question. In my personal opinion one can drop back only in case he has already been there. Over the last century there was a violent abruption, an uprooting of traditional buttresses. Nowadays we face a return to the roots rather than abruption. But these processes are always complicated. The whole century of atheism characterized as an incredibly brutal epoch with severe crimes on religion basis is not in vain. Christians as well as Muslims have to follow traditions – because of the fact that return to the roots is considered to be acheless. For instance, when one makes organ transplantation he tries to take it from the very same body. And when one tries to impose some new traditions on religious basis – it turns out to be very dangerous. I believe that our country should return to the traditions in order to maintain our culture and religion. Only in this case we will become a peaceful nation» (marked with bold by us when citing)[16]. The thing is that we pay attention to the problem of resistance which actually didn’t exist. I am sure that there is a lot for the West to learn from us. ().
Therefore only those who are not afraid to ask the questions that are perceived as faithless and to accept the possible answers for such questions will have a bright future.
2. God is the best of planners…
Returning to the question of Manuel II Palaiologos, which became with the help of the Pope the question of current interest, we can’t but stress that: Muhammad made no pretence of introducing into the humankind culture something absolutely new. He constantly asserted that:
Koran is not the fruit of his own thoughts but the God’s Revelation. He stated that his duty is to convey this Revelation to the people and to control them in the formative stage of their culture based on Koran;
The purpose of Koran is to confirm the truth of those Revelations, given earlier through Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus Christ and other God’s missioners to the people, who for many reasons ignored them. Therefore there was a necessity to send Koran and that’s why there was in general nothing new in it.
It is said in Koran[17] many times, for instance (we put sometimes the main text in bold to differ it from our commentaries given in italic):
« And We have revealed to you (to Muhammad) the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it (before Koran) of the Book and a guardian over it (from the context it is understood “a guardian over the truth”) , therefore judge between them by what God has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you » (Koran, Sura 5:48).
« Naught is said to you ( to Muhammad ) but what was said indeed to the messengers before you; surely your Lord is the Lord of forgiveness and the Lord of painful retribution » (Koran, Sura 41:43).
The thing is that the very formulation of the question put by Manuel II Palaiologos: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new?” – is one of the signs showing that Manuel II Palaiologos as well as his advisors on theological and political issues (and also their predecessors[18]) were incompetent. And that turned out to be the reason for Byzantine collapse[19].
One should understand that God doesn’t uproot righteousness and the collapse of Byzantine reveals unrighteousness of the dominant creed there and proves that everybody adhered to that untruth.
The reaction of the Muslim world towards the Pope’s speech in which he cited the question of Manuel II Palaiologos contradicts Koran. In Koran it is said:
«196. Surely my guardian is God, Who revealed the Book, and He befriends the good.
197. And those whom you call upon besides Him are not able to help you, nor can they help themselves.
198. And if you invite them (other people) to guidance (i.e. to the life in harmony with God) , they do not hear; and you see them looking towards you, yet they do not see.
199. Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant![20]
200. And if a false imputation from the satan afflict you, seek refuge in God; surely He is Hearing, Knowing.
201. Surely those who guard (against evil), when a visitation from the satan afflicts them they become mindful, then lo! they see» (Sura 7).
«255. God is He besides Whom there is no god, the Everliving, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist; slumber does not overtake Him nor sleep; whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His; who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they cannot comprehend anything out of His knowledge except what He pleases, His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not, and He is the Most High, the Great.
256. There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error[21]; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the satan and believes in God he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and God is Hearing, Knowing.
257. God is the guardian of those who believe. He brings them out of the darkness into the light; and (as to) those who disbelieve, their guardians are satan who take them out of the light into the darkness; they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide» (Sura 2).
With all this Koran in its own text is characterized as an “Arab law book” (sura 13:37 – “true judgment in Arabic”). That means that Koran doesn’t oblige those who don’t speak Arabic to accept the ritual forms of Islam profession, created in Arabic culture and existing nowadays, because of the fact that God gives the right to everybody to appeal to Him in his native language.
«135. And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be on the right course[22]. Say: Nay! (we follow) the religion of Ibrahim (Abraham), the Hanif[23], and he was not one of the polytheists.
136. Say: We believe in God and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub (Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob) and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa (Moses and Jesus), and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them (i.e. all of them taught the same), and to Him do we submit.
137. If then they believe as you believe in Him, they are indeed on the right course, and if they turn back, then they are only in great opposition, so God will suffice you against them, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing» (Sura 2, – marked with bold by us when citing, our commentaries are given in italic).
There is inevitable the following question:
If the Koran is really sent from the God in order to confirm the truth of earlier Revelations – Torah and New Testament[24], what are the reasons of centuries-old conflicts between those who believe that they are the true followers of Moses’, Christ’s and Muhammad’s creeds?
The answer for this question is given in Koran. Koran accuses the historically set Judaism and Christianity of backsliding from the Unified Testament expressed in various versions by Moses, Jesus Christ and other God’s missioners.
It is said in Koran about the historically set Judaism and its followers:
«The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat (Torah), then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of God; and God does not guide the unjust people!» (Sura 62:5).
«It is not meet for a mortal that God should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than God's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves) » (Sura 3:79) [25].
That’s why law-abiding Jews as well as rabbinate will have to answer for Torah distortion and for the following of the distorted Torah in the everyday life. And even “kashrut[26]” won’t absolve them of this responsibility – historical (“karmic”) and religious (before God Himself).
It is said in Koran about the historically set Christianity the following:
«45. When the angels said: O Marium (Virgin Mary), surely God gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa (Jesus) son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to God).
46. And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and (he shall be) one of the good ones.
47. She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, God creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.
48. And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat(Torah) and the Injeel (Evangelium – Gospel).
49. And (make him) a messenger to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with God's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with God's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers.
50. And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden t you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) God and obey me.
51. Surely God is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.
52. But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in God's way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of God: We believe in God and bear witness that we are submitting ones (to God) .
53. Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the messenger, so write us down with those who bear witness.
54. And they planned[27] and God (also) planned, and God is the best of planners» (Koran, Sura 3 – underlined by us when citing, our commentaries are given in italic).
That’s why the adherents of Christianity in all its modifications also have the ground for thinking, as the words from Koran are similar to the cited above words of Jesus Christ.
But the natural question arises: Why should one agree with Koran in these issues and reject other faith traditions, perceiving them as false? What if Koran is actually a “satanic verse”, as Salmon Rushdie stated, with the purpose to turn away from the true faith tradition (Judaism – in the perception of Jews, or Christianity – in the perception of Christians and etc.) and to disorientate?
In attempt to answer this question all the texts seem to be equally unconvincing if not compared to the life itself.
3. Conjecture will not avail aught against the truth…
“One who is going to lead somebody to the belief needs an ability to speak nicely and to reason correctly, but he doesn’t need a skill of making violence and threatening” – this is another citing from Manuel II Palaiologos used by Benedict XVI during his speech in . In the context, which it is used in, it is understood like a reproach to Muhammad with spreading Islam using force, and so this should mean that all Muhammad’s teaching is surely false. Well, but making such blame Manuel II as well as Benedict XVI[28] forgot to tell and comment the following fact: before starting the first jihad – a holy war Muhammad preached peacefully for ten years. And during that time everyone, who wanted, was able to get to know the meaning of his teaching and agree with it or not.
