My Tolstoy Project

CHRISTIANITY MISUNDERSTOOD BY MEN OF SCIENCE.

Now, I will discuss the other perspective on Christianity that impedes its true comprehension—the scientific view.

Church leaders replace Christianity with the interpretation they’ve crafted for themselves, and they believe this version is the infallible one.

Scientists view Christianity solely as the beliefs held by various churches throughout history and the present; however, they’ve observed that these tenets have lost their significance, leading them to conclude that Christianity has outlived its relevance.

To grasp the sheer impossibility of comprehending Christian teachings from such a perspective, it’s crucial to understand the broader role of religions in human life, particularly Christianity, and the significance they hold in scientific understanding.

Just as every individual needs a theory of life’s meaning and unconsciously shapes their actions based on it, societies of people living in similar conditions—nations—must also have theories of their shared life and conduct that arise from those theories. Similarly, as individuals evolve and mature, their life philosophies change, and adults perceive different meanings from children. Nations, too, undergo transformations in their philosophies and resulting behaviors as they progress through their development.

The distinction between individuals and humanity lies in the fact that individuals draw upon the experiences of those who have come before them, having already passed through the stages of growth they are now entering. However, humanity lacks this advantage because it constantly ventures into uncharted territories, lacking guidance on how to understand life and navigate the conditions it encounters, which have never been experienced before.

Nevertheless, just as a man with a wife and children cannot continue to perceive life as he did when he was a child, so too, in the face of the various transformations occurring, the increasing population density, the establishment of communication between diverse cultures, the advancements in methods for confronting nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot persist in viewing life as it once was. Consequently, it must devise a novel theory of life from which conduct can emerge, adapted to the new conditions under which it has entered and is entering.

To address this imperative, humanity possesses a unique ability to produce individuals who impart a fresh meaning to the entirety of human existence—a theory of life from which emerge novel forms of activity distinct from all previous ones. The formulation of this philosophy of life suitable for humanity in the prevailing conditions it is entering, along with the resulting practices, is what is known as religion.

Therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science perceives, a manifestation that once aligned with humanity’s development but later became obsolete. It is an inherent aspect of human life, as indispensable as it has always been, regardless of time. Secondly, religion is always the theory guiding the practice of the future, not the past. Consequently, it is evident that any examination of past manifestations cannot possibly encapsulate the essence of religion.

The core of every religious teaching lies not in the desire for symbolic representations of natural forces, nor in the fear of these forces, nor in the pursuit of the extraordinary, nor in the external manifestations of these teachings, as scientists often perceive. Instead, the essence of religion lies in the human capacity to foresight and it’s ability to guide humanity’s path towards a new theory of life. This transformative theory would reshape humanity’s future conduct, diverging significantly from its past.

This foresightedness is a common trait among individuals, varying in intensity. Throughout history, there have been individuals with exceptionally strong vision, who articulated the collective sentiments of humanity and formulated novel philosophical frameworks that guided humanity for centuries.

We recognize three such philosophical perspectives; two have already been traversed by humanity, and the third is the one we are currently experiencing in Christianity. These three perspectives are not arbitrary categorizations, but rather reflect the fundamental nature of human actions. Our perceptions of life are inherently limited to these three viewpoints.

These three perspectives on life are as follows:

1. The individual view of life: In this perspective, life is seen as a journey of self-discovery and fulfillment, with the individual’s will and desires guiding their actions.

2. The societal view of life: This perspective emphasizes the importance of community and belonging. It suggests that life’s purpose lies in contributing to the well-being and harmony of society, and that individuals should align their actions with the collective will of their communities.

3. The divine view of life: This perspective posits that life is a divine gift, and that individuals are part of a larger whole. It emphasizes the importance of connecting with the divine source of life and living in accordance with its principles.

These three perspectives form the foundation of all major religions throughout history.

The savage perceives life solely through his own existence and personal desires. His interest in life is centered solely on himself. The highest fulfillment for him is the complete satisfaction of his desires. The driving force behind his life is personal enjoyment. His religion revolves around appeasing his deity and worshipping his gods, whom he imagines as individuals solely dedicated to their personal objectives.

In contrast, the civilized pagan recognizes life not only in himself but also in societies of individuals—in tribes, clans, families, and kingdoms. He sacrifices his personal well-being for these societies. The driving force behind his life is glory. His religion involves elevating the glory of those he is allied with—the founders of his family, ancestors, and rulers—and worshipping gods who are exclusively devoted to protecting his clan, family, nation, and government.

Despite the diverse forms of existence, such as the life of a family, tribe, clan, state, and even the theoretical life of humanity conceived by Positivists, all these forms are rooted in this social or pagan theory of life. This theory posits that the life of the individual is not a sufficient purpose for life—that the meaning of life can only be found in societies composed of individuals.

Those who hold the divine theory recognize life not in their own individuality or in the societies of individuals (such as families, clans, nations, tribes, or governments), but in the eternal, undying wellspring—in God. To fulfill God’s will, they are willing to sacrifice their personal, family, and social well-being. The driving force behind their life is love. Their religion is the worship of God in both deed and truth, embodying the principle of the whole—God.

The entire history of humanity is a gradual progression from the personal, animalistic conception of life to the social conception of life, and then to the divine conception of life. The ancient civilizations, spanning thousands of years and culminating in the history of Rome, represent the transition from the animalistic, personal perspective to the social perspective. The entire history from the Roman Empire’s emergence and the advent of Christianity is the ongoing transition from the social perspective to the divine perspective.

This perspective on life is the final and foundational one, upon which the Christian teaching rests. It serves as a guiding principle for our entire lives and forms the basis of all our practical and theoretical endeavors. However, individuals who falsely claim to be scientists, pseudo-scientists, and who only examine this perspective from its external aspects, regard it as something outdated and devoid of value for us.

Reducing Christianity to its dogmatic core, encompassing doctrines like the Trinity, redemption, miracles, the Church, and sacraments, scientists view it as just one of numerous religions that have emerged throughout history. They believe that, having fulfilled its historical role, Christianity is now outliving its era and gradually fading away under the light of scientific progress and enlightenment.

However, this perspective often leads to profound errors in human understanding. Individuals with limited comprehension encounter phenomena beyond their grasp instead of attempting to grasp them. Instead, they resort to judging these phenomena from their own limited perspective, often dismissing what they don’t fully comprehend with unwavering certainty.

For most learned scholars, examining the living, moral teachings of Christ from the state’s perspective of life appears as a mere amalgamation of Indian asceticism, Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophy, and superficial anti-social visions that lack any substantial relevance for contemporary times. Their primary focus on Christianity’s external manifestations lies in Catholicism, Protestantism, specific dogmas, or conflicts with temporal power. Valuing Christianity based solely on these aspects is akin to a deaf person judging music based solely on the movements of the musicians.

The result of this is that all these scientific thinkers, from Kant to Strauss, Spencer, and Renan, fail to comprehend the meaning of Christ’s sayings. They don’t grasp the significance, object, or reason behind his utterances, nor do they even understand the question to which he responds. Yet, despite not bothering to delve into their meaning, they refuse to acknowledge any reasonableness in his doctrines if they’re unfavorable. If they want to treat them with indulgence, they condescend from their perceived superiority to correct them, assuming that Christ intended to express precisely their own ideas but failed to do so. They behave to his teachings much like self-assertive individuals talk to those they consider inferior, often filling in their companions’ gaps: “Yes, you mean to say this and that.” This correction is always aimed at reducing the higher, divine conception of life to the level of the lower, state conception of life.

They often claim that Christianity’s moral teachings are excellent but exaggerated. To make them truly right, they argue that we must discard all that is superfluous and unnecessary to our daily lives. “The doctrine that demands too much and requires the impossible is worse than that which demands what is feasible and consistent with our abilities,” they assert, repeating a long-standing assertion that could only be made by those who crucified the Teacher because they couldn’t comprehend him—the Jews.

It appears that the esteemed scholars of our era deem the Hebrew law, which prescribes retaliation for every wrong with an equal wrong, as a law of just retribution, a concept known to humanity for five thousand years before the teachings of Christ, who introduced a law of holiness in its place.

It seems that all the actions and words of those individuals who interpreted Christ’s teachings literally and adhered to such an understanding, as well as all the teachings and actions of genuine Christians, including Christian saints, and all the ongoing efforts to reform the world through socialism and communism—are merely exaggerations, not worthy of discussion.

After eighteen centuries of education in Christianity, the civilized world, as represented by its most intellectually advanced thinkers, holds the conviction that Christianity is a religion of dogmas; that its teachings regarding life are unreasonable, an exaggeration, and subversive of the genuine moral obligations that are consistent with the nature of humanity; and that very doctrine of retribution, which Christ rejected and replaced with his teachings, is more practically beneficial for us.

To learned men, the doctrine of non-resistance to evil by force is overstated and even irrational. They believe Christianity is much better without it, but they fail to examine what Christianity, as they represent it, truly entails.

They fail to recognize that asserting that the doctrine of non-resistance to evil is an exaggeration in Christ’s teachings is akin to claiming that the statement of a circle’s radius equality is an exaggeration in its definition. Those who make such claims behave like someone unfamiliar with circles who would assert that the requirement that every point on the circumference be an equal distance from the center is exaggerated. Advocating for the rejection of Christ’s command of non-resistance to evil or its adaptation to modern life implies a misunderstanding of Christ’s teachings.

Those who do so clearly do not comprehend it. They fail to recognize that this teaching establishes a new theory of life, aligned with the new conditions humanity has faced for the past eighteen hundred years. It also defines the new conduct of life resulting from this theory. They believe Christ did not mean what he said or that he said what he said in the Sermon on the Mount and other places accidentally or due to his lack of intelligence or cultivation.

Here’s an example of a characteristic view of that kind from the American journal _The Arena_ (October, 1890): “New Basis of Church Life.” The author, unlike the Churchmen, doesn’t feel compelled to conceal the significance of the Sermon on the Mount, particularly the principle of non-resistance to evil. He asserts that Christ actually preached complete communism and anarchy, but it’s crucial to understand him in his historical and psychological context. Like every advocate of human love, Christ went to the extreme in his teachings. Every step forward toward moral perfection is guided by individuals driven solely by their vocation. Christ, in no way disparaging, had the typical temperament of such a reformer. Therefore, we must remember that his precepts cannot be understood literally as a comprehensive philosophy of life. Instead, we should analyze his words critically, accepting what is true, while acknowledging that he couldn’t express himself as precisely and clearly as we can in the spirit of criticism. All that he said about meekness, sacrifice, lowliness, and not caring about the future was accidental, stemming from his lack of scientific expression.

Matt. vi. 25-34: “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Where-withal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek), for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

Luke xii. 33-34: “Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Sell all thou hast and follow me; and he who will not leave father, or mother, or children, or brothers, or fields, or house, he cannot be my disciple. Deny thyself, take up thy cross each day and follow me. My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to perform his works. Not my will, but thine be done; not what I will, but as thou wilt. Life is to do not one’s will, but the will of God.

All these principles seem to individuals who perceive them from a lower understanding of life as an expression of impulsive enthusiasm, lacking direct relevance to daily existence. However, these principles derive from the Christian theory of life, just as the principles of contributing a portion of one’s personal gains to the community and sacrificing one’s life for the defense of one’s nation follow from the state theory of life.

As a person with the state conception of life once remarked to a savage: Reflect, ponder! Your individual life cannot be considered true life because it is fleeting and insignificant. However, the life of a society and the succession of individuals, families, clans, tribes, or states continues to exist, necessitating a sacrifice of one’s individuality for the well-being of the family or the state. Similarly, the Christian doctrine addresses the individual with the social, state conception of life, urging them to repent, meaning “think about yourself,” or risk ruin. Understand that this casual, personal life that emerges today and will cease to exist tomorrow lacks permanence. No external means or construction can give it consecutiveness and permanence. Take time to comprehend that the life you are living is not genuine life—the life of the family, society, or the state cannot save you from annihilation. The true, rational life is attainable for humanity only to the extent that they can participate, not within the family or the state, but within the source of life—the Father. The extent to which they can merge their life with the life of the Father is the measure of their true life. This undoubtedly represents the Christian conception of life, evident in every utterance of the Gospel.

One may not share this perspective on life, reject it, or point out its flaws and inaccuracies. However, we cannot evaluate the Christian teachings without understanding this view. Similarly, we cannot criticize a subject from a lower perspective than its true nature. From a basement, one cannot judge the impact of a spire. Unfortunately, this is precisely what learned critics of the past attempt to do. They share the erroneous belief held by orthodox believers that they possess infallible methods for investigating a subject. They assume that if they apply their so-called scientific methods of criticism, their conclusions will be unquestionably correct.

This reliance on the perceived infallibility of scientific methods is the primary obstacle to understanding the Christian religion for unbelievers and so-called educated people. Consequently, all the mistakes made by scientific figures regarding the Christian religion, particularly two peculiar misconceptions, hinder a correct understanding of it. One of these misconceptions is that the Christian moral teachings cannot be implemented in practice, leading to the belief that they lack any force or should not be accepted as the guiding principles of conduct. Alternatively, it is suggested that these teachings must be transformed or adapted to the limitations within which their fulfillment is feasible in our society. Another misconception is that the Christian doctrine of love for God and its corresponding service is an obscure and mystical principle that lacks a specific object of love. Therefore, it is proposed to replace this principle with more precise and comprehensible principles of love for humanity and service to humanity.

The first misconception about the impossibility of following the Christian principle stems from individuals who hold a state-centric view of life. Unconsciously, they adopt this conception as the standard by which the Christian religion guides them. Consequently, they perceive the Christian principle of perfection as the guiding principle for organizing their lives. They believe that adhering to Christ’s teachings would lead to the end of life. They argue that if a single individual were to fully implement all that Christ teaches, they would destroy their own existence. Furthermore, if everyone were to follow this path, the human race would cease to exist.

They reason that if we neglect to consider the future, we fail to plan for our sustenance, clothing, and well-being. They assert that if we do not defend our lives, resist evil through force, lay down our lives for others, and maintain absolute chastity, the human race cannot survive.

However, they are correct if they interpret the principle of perfection imparted by Christ’s teachings as a binding obligation for everyone to fulfill, similar to how state principles of life dictate the obligation to pay taxes, support the law, and so on.

The misconception arises precisely because the teachings of Christ differ from those based on the lower conception of life. The precepts of the state conception of life merely require the exact fulfillment of rules or laws. In contrast, Christ’s teachings guide men by pointing them to the infinite perfection of their heavenly Father, to which every individual and voluntarily strives, regardless of their current imperfections.

The misunderstanding of those who judge Christian principles based on state principles lies in the assumption that the perfection Christ points to can be fully achieved. They then wonder what the consequences would be if this perfection were attained. However, this assumption is flawed because the perfection held up to Christians is infinite and unattainable. Christ’s teachings, recognizing the impossibility of absolute perfection, emphasize the continuous pursuit of absolute, infinite perfection, which will continually increase the blessedness of humanity. This blessedness can potentially reach infinity.

Christ’s teachings are not meant for angels but for men, living and moving in the animal kingdom. Therefore, Christ applies the new force—the recognition of Divine perfection—to this animal force of movement, thereby directing it through the combined effect of these two forces.

To believe that human life is progressing in the direction Christ envisioned is akin to imagining a small boat on a swift river, defying the current and heading straight against it.

Christ acknowledges the existence of both sides of the parallelogram, the eternal and indestructible forces that make up human life: the force of our animal nature and the force of our consciousness of kinship with God. While the animal force remains constant and independent of human will, Christ focuses solely on the Divine force, urging individuals to deepen their understanding, liberate it from hindrances, and intensify its power.

In this process of liberation and strengthening, according to Christ’s teachings, lies the true essence of human life. In contrast to previous religions, which emphasized adhering to rules and laws, Christ’s teachings emphasize an ever-closer approximation to the divine perfection that exists before each individual and within themselves. This pursuit leads to a gradual and continuous convergence of our wills with the will of God, a goal that represents the ultimate destruction of the life we currently experience.

The divine perfection, the ultimate goal of human life, is always within reach, though it remains an infinite destination.

The Christian religion often misunderstands its teachings, leading to the belief that it excludes life altogether. However, this is not the case. The principles presented in Christ’s teachings are the foundation for true life, not its destruction. Without these principles, life would be impossible.

People often dismiss the requirements of the Christian religion, saying, “One shouldn’t expect so much.” They argue that one cannot expect to completely neglect the future, as the Gospel suggests, but rather to strike a balance. They point out that while one can’t give away everything to the poor, they must still make a contribution. They suggest that while one doesn’t necessarily have to pursue virginity, they must avoid debauchery. They emphasize that while one can’t forsake their wife and children, they shouldn’t place them above all else in their heart. And so on.

But to speak in such a manner is akin to telling a man struggling against a swift river, who is determined to direct his course against the current, that it is impossible to cross the river by rowing against the current, and that he must float in the direction of his desired destination.

In reality, to reach the place he desires, he must exert all his strength and row towards a point much higher up.

To abandon the demands of the ideal means not only to diminish the possibility of achieving perfection but also to extinguish the ideal itself. The ideal that holds sway over men is not an ideal conceived by someone else but the ideal that resides within each individual’s soul. Only this ideal of complete, infinite perfection possesses the power to influence men’s hearts. A moderate level of perfection loses its ability to affect people’s emotions.

Christ’s teachings only hold power when they demand absolute perfection—that is, the fusion of the divine nature that exists within every man’s soul with the will of God—the union of the Son with the Father. Life according to Christ’s teachings consists solely of liberating the Son of God, who resides within each individual, from the animalistic nature and bringing him closer to the Father.

The existence of animals does not define human life alone. Life, as ordained by God, is not solely human. Human life is a fusion of animal life and divine life. The closer this combination approaches divine life, the more life it possesses.

According to Christian theology, life is a journey toward divine perfection. No condition is considered superior or inferior to another. Every condition is merely a specific stage, insignificant in itself, on the path to unattainable perfection. Consequently, it does not imply a greater or lesser degree of life. In this context, increasing life involves merely accelerating the progress toward perfection. Therefore, the progress toward perfection of Zaccheus, the sinner woman, and the robber on the cross signifies a higher level of life compared to the stagnant righteousness of the Pharisee. Consequently, this religion cannot impose mandatory rules. The individual who is at a lower level but is progressing toward perfection lives a more moral, better life, fully embodying Christ’s teachings, than the individual at a higher level of morality who is not progressing toward perfection.

In this sense, the lost sheep is more precious to the Father than those who remained faithful. The prodigal son, the lost money found again, and the piece of money lost and found again were more valuable than those who remained faithful.

The fulfillment of Christ’s teachings lies in moving away from self and toward God. It is evident that there cannot be specific laws and rules for this fulfillment of the teachings. Every level of perfection and every level of imperfection is equally valid in this regard. No obedience to laws constitutes a fulfillment of this doctrine, and therefore, there can be no binding rules and laws.

From this fundamental distinction between the religion of Christ and all preceding religions based on the state conception of life, follows a corresponding difference in the specific precepts of the state theory and the Christian precepts. The precepts of the state theory of life primarily emphasize certain practical prescribed actions that justify and secure individuals in being right. In contrast, the Christian precepts (the commandment of love is not a strict precept but the very essence of the religion) are the five commandments of the Sermon on the Mount—all negative in nature. They only outline what at a certain stage of human development is not permitted.

These commandments, like signposts on the endless journey toward perfection, guide humanity’s progress and reveal the attainable point of perfection at a specific stage of human development.

Christ expressed the eternal ideal that humanity naturally strives for in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as the potential level of achievement in our era.

The ideal is to refrain from causing harm to anyone, to avoid provoking ill will, and to love all people. The precept that outlines the lowest attainable level in this pursuit is the prohibition of evil speech. Therefore, it is the first commandment.

The ideal is absolute chastity, even in thought. The precept that demonstrates the lowest attainable level in this pursuit is the purity of married life, avoiding any form of debauchery. This is the second commandment.

The ideal is to live in the present moment, without worrying about the future. The third commandment, which shows the lowest level of behavior we can avoid, is the prohibition of swearing and making promises in the future.

The ideal is never to use force for any purpose. The fourth commandment, which shows the lowest level of behavior we can avoid, is to return good for evil, be patient with those who wrong us, and treat our enemies the same way we treat our neighbors.

All these precepts are indications of what we are already fully capable of avoiding on our journey to perfection and what we must work hard to attain now. They should gradually become instinctive and unconscious habits. However, these precepts are not the entirety of Christ’s teachings or the end of our journey. They are simply stages on the way to the perfection that the religion holds up. Higher and higher precepts will follow on this path.

Therefore, it is essentially a part of the Christian religion to make demands that exceed those expressed in its precepts; and by no means to diminish either the ideal itself or the precepts, as people mistakenly perceive who judge it from the perspective of the social conception of life.

This addresses one misunderstanding of scientific individuals regarding the significance and purpose of Christ’s teachings. Another misunderstanding arises from the same source, which involves substituting love for humanity, the service of humanity, for the Christian principles of love for God and his service.

The Christian doctrine of loving God and serving him, and only as a result of that love, loving and serving one’s neighbor, appears to scientific individuals as obscure, mystical, and arbitrary. They would absolutely exclude the obligation of love and service to God, asserting that the doctrine of love for men, for humanity alone, is far more evident, tangible, and reasonable.

Scientific men believe that the only good and rational life is one dedicated to the service of humanity. This is the significance of the Christian doctrine for them, and they reduce Christ’s teachings to this concept. They seek validation for their own doctrine in the Gospel, assuming that the two doctrines are essentially the same.

However, this notion is entirely erroneous. The Christian doctrine has no similarities with the teachings of Positivists, Communists, and all the apostles of the universal brotherhood of mankind, who advocate for the general benefit of such a brotherhood. Notably, Christianity provides a solid and unwavering foundation in the human soul, while love for humanity is merely a theoretical deduction based on analogy.

In contrast, the doctrine of love for humanity alone is rooted in the social perspective of life.

The social conception of life revolves around the transfer of an individual’s life purpose to larger societal units, such as families, clans, tribes, or nations. This transfer occurs effortlessly and naturally in early stages, as individuals transition from their individual lives to those of their families and clans. However, the transition to tribes or nations becomes more challenging and necessitates specialized training. The ultimate limit of this process is the transfer of sentiments to the state.

Love for oneself is an innate human emotion, and no external encouragement is required to cultivate it. Similarly, individuals naturally develop affection for their supportive and protective clan members, their wives, who bring joy and assistance into their lives, their children, who represent hope and comfort, and their parents, who have provided life and education. While these forms of love may not be as intense as self-love, they are commonly experienced.

To love one’s tribe, nation, or even a state for one’s own sake, driven by personal pride, is a common sentiment. However, it’s not as strong as love for oneself, family, or clan. Love for a specific nation, like Turkey, Germany, England, Austria, or Russia, is almost impossible. Despite being fervently promoted, it’s merely an imagined emotion without any tangible reality. At this point, human interest transfer ceases, and we can’t feel direct emotions for these fictitious entities.

Positivists and advocates of fraternity based on scientific principles, however, without considering the diminishing intensity of emotions with the expansion of their object, draw further theoretical conclusions in the same direction. They argue that since extending personal interest to the family, tribe, nation, and state was advantageous for individuals, it would be even more beneficial to extend it to societies of men and ultimately to the entire world. Therefore, they propose that we should strive to live for humanity just as we live for our families or states.

Theoretically, extending love and interest to the family, tribe, nation, and state would be logical. This would eliminate the strife and calamities resulting from nation-state divisions. Advocates of this idea fail to recognize that love is a sentiment that can be felt or not, and advocating it is futile. Furthermore, love must have an object, and humanity is not an object. It’s merely a concept.

The family, tribe, and even the state weren’t created by men; they spontaneously formed, like ant-hills or bee swarms, and have a genuine existence. A man who loves his family, driven by his own animal nature, knows who he loves: Anna, Dolly, John, Peter, and so on. A man who loves his tribe and takes pride in it knows that he loves all the Guelphs or all the Ghibellines. A man who loves the state knows that he loves France, bounded by the Rhine and the Pyrenees, and its capital, Paris, and its history and so on. But what about a man who loves humanity? What does he truly love? There’s such a concept as a state, a nation, and the abstract idea of man. However, humanity as a concrete concept doesn’t exist.

Humanity! Where’s its definition? Where does it begin and end? Does humanity end with the savage, the idiot, the alcoholic, or the insane? If we exclude humanity’s lowest representatives, where should we draw the line? Should we exclude people like the Americans, the Hindoos, or the Jews? If we include all men without exception, why shouldn’t we also include higher animals, many of whom are superior to the lowest forms of the human race?

We have no knowledge of humanity as an eternal entity or its boundaries. Humanity is a construct, and it’s impossible to love it. It would undoubtedly be beneficial if men could love humanity as they love their families. Communists advocate for replacing the competitive and individualistic organization of human activity with a social universal organization, where everyone would be for everyone and vice versa. However, there are no incentives to drive men to achieve this. Positivists, Communists, and all advocates of fraternity based on scientific principles promote extending the love people feel for themselves, their families, and the state to the entire human race. They overlook that the love they discuss is personal and could potentially encompass a person’s native country, but it vanishes before it can encompass an artificial entity like Austria, England, or Turkey. We can’t even conceive of loving all humanity in an absolute sense.

“A man loves himself (his animal nature), his family, and even his native country. Why shouldn’t he love humanity? That would be an excellent thing. And by the way, that’s precisely what Christianity teaches.” This is the belief of advocates of Positivism, Communism, and Socialism.

It would indeed be an excellent thing, but it can never be, for the love based on a personal or social conception of life can never transcend love for the state.

The flaw in the argument lies in the fact that the social conception of life, upon which love for family and nation is founded, rests itself on love for self. As love is extended from self to family, tribe, nationality, and state, it weakens and diminishes. In the state, we reach the farthest limit beyond which it cannot extend.

The necessity of extending the sphere of love is undeniable. However, in reality, the possibility of this love is destroyed by the requirement of extending its object indefinitely. Consequently, the inadequacy of personal human love becomes evident.

And here, the proponents of Positivism, Communism, and Socialism propose to draw upon Christian love to fill the void of this bankrupt human love. However, they only advocate for Christian love in its outcomes, not its foundations. They propose a love for humanity alone, separate from love for God.

But such a love is impossible to achieve. There is no incentive to create it. Christian love is the result of the Christian understanding of life, where the purpose of life is to love and serve God.

The social perspective on life has naturally led people from self-love and family love to love for their tribe, nation, and state. This progression culminates in a realization of the necessity of love for humanity, a concept that has no boundaries and extends to all living beings. And this requirement for love that evokes no emotions in a person is a contradiction that cannot be resolved by the social theory of life.

The Christian doctrine in its full significance can alone solve it, by giving a new meaning to life. Christianity recognizes love of self, of family, of nation, and of humanity, and not only of humanity, but of everything living, everything existing; it recognizes the necessity of an infinite extension of the sphere of love. But the object of this love is not found outside self in societies of individuals, nor in the external world, but within self, in the divine self whose essence is that very love, which the animal self is brought to feel the need of through its consciousness of its own perishable nature.

The difference between the Christian doctrine and those which preceded it is that the social doctrine said: “Live in opposition to your nature [understanding by this only the animal nature], make it subject to the external law of family, society, and state.” Christianity says: “Live according to your nature [understanding by this the divine nature]; do not make it subject to anything—neither you (an animal self) nor that of others—and you will attain the very aim to which you are striving when you subject your external self.”

The Christian doctrine brings a man to the elementary consciousness of self, only not of the animal self, but of the divine self, the divine spark, the self as the Son of God, as much God as the Father himself, though confined in an animal husk. 

The consciousness of being the Son of God, whose chief characteristic is love, satisfies the need for the extension of the sphere of love to which the man of the social conception of life had been brought. For the latter, the welfare of the personality demanded an ever-widening extension of the sphere of love; love was a necessity and was confined to certain objects—self, family, society. 

With the Christian conception of life, love is not a necessity and is confined to no object; it is the essential faculty of the human soul. Man loves not because it is his interest to love this or that, but because love is the essence of his soul, because he cannot but love.

The Christian doctrine shows man that the essence of his soul is love—that his happiness depends not on loving this or that object, but on loving the principle of the whole—God, whom he recognizes within himself as love, and therefore he loves all things and all men.

In this lies the fundamental distinction between the Christian doctrine and the doctrine of the Positivists, as well as all the theorists who advocate for universal brotherhood based on non-Christian principles.

These are the two primary misunderstandings concerning the Christian religion, from which the majority of false reasoning about it originates.

The first misconception is that Christ’s teachings, like those of previous religions, provide rules that individuals are obligated to follow, but which are inherently unattainable.

The second misconception is that the entire purpose of Christianity is to teach people to live harmoniously together as one family, and that this can be achieved by simply adhering to the principle of love towards humanity, disregarding any notion of love towards God.

Another reason for the misunderstanding of Christianity by modern scientific thinkers is their erroneous belief that the essence of Christianity lies in the supernatural, and that its moral teachings are impractical.