Mastodawn

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑸𝒖𝒊𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐 𝑸𝒖𝒐, 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉, 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔' 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 "𝑬𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍" 𝒐𝒓 "𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑳𝒊𝒇𝒆" (𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆)

https://lemmy.world/post/44298032

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑸𝒖𝒊𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐 𝑸𝒖𝒐, 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉, 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔' 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 "𝑬𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍" 𝒐𝒓 "𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑳𝒊𝒇𝒆" (𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆) - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/913c909a-6cf5-45a2-a78e-fac90c99b57d.jpeg] When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he’s referring to his more objective, philosophical, less supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel in Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/42151959 [https://lemmy.world/post/42151959] — “If it be admitted that the doctrine of Jesus is perfectly reasonable, and that it alone can give to men true happiness, what would be the condition of a single follower of that doctrine in the midst of a world that did not practise it at all? If all men would decide at the same time to obey, its practice would then be possible. But one man alone cannot act in defiance of the whole world; and so we hear continually this plea: ‘If, among men who do not practise the doctrine of Jesus, I alone obey it; if I give away all that I possess; if I turn the other cheek; if I refuse to take an oath or to go to war, I should find myself in profound isolation; if I did not die of hunger, I should be beaten; if I survived that, I should be cast into prison; I should be shot, and all the happiness of my life, my life itself, would be sacrificed in vain. This plea is founded upon the doctrine of quid pro quo, which is the basis of all arguments against the possibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus. It is the current objection, and I sympathized with it in common with all the rest of the world, until I finally broke entirely away from the dogmas of the Church which prevented me from understanding the true significance of the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus prepared his doctrine as a means of salvation from the life of perdition organized by men contrary to his precepts; and I declared that I should be very glad to follow this doctrine if it were not for fear of this very perdition. Jesus offered me the true remedy against a life of perdition, and I clung to the life of perdition! From which it was plain that I did not consider this life as a life of perdition, but as something good, something real. The conviction that my personal, worldly life was something real and good constituted the misunderstanding, the obstacle, that prevented me from comprehending Jesus’ doctrine. Jesus knew the disposition of men to regard their personal, worldly life as real and good, and so, in a series of apothegms and parables, he taught them that they had no right to life, and that they were given life only that they might assure themselves of the true life by renouncing their worldly and fantastic organization of existence. To understand what is meant by “saving” one’s life, according to the doctrine of Jesus, we must first understand what the prophets, what Solomon, what Buddha, what all the wise men of the world have said about the personal life of man. But, as Pascal says, we cannot endure to think upon this theme, and so we carry always before us a screen to conceal the abyss of death, toward which we are constantly moving. It suffices to reflect on the isolation of the personal life of man, to be convinced that this life, in so far as it is personal, is not only of no account to each separately, but that it is a cruel jest to heart and reason. To understand the doctrine of Jesus, we must, before all, return to ourselves, reflect soberly, undergo the μετάνοια of which John the Baptist, the precursor of Jesus, speaks, when addressing himself to men of clouded judgment. ‘Repent’ (such was his preaching); ‘repent, have another mind, or you shall all perish. The axe is laid unto the root of the trees. Death and perdition await each one of you. Be warned, turn back, repent.’ And Jesus declared, ‘Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ When Jesus was told of the death of the Galileans massacred by Pilate, he said: ‘Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you. Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ (Luke xiii. 1-5.) If he had lived in our day, in Russia, he would have said: ‘Think you that those who perished in the circus at Berditchef or on the slopes of Koukouyef were sinners above all others? I tell you, No; but you, if you do not repent, if you do not arouse yourselves, if you do not find in your life that which is imperishable, you also shall perish. You are horrified by the death of those crushed by the tower, burned in the circus; but your death, equally as frightful and as inevitable, is here, before you. You are wrong to conceal it or to forget it; unlocked for, it is only more hideous.’ To the people of his own time he said: ‘When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (Luke xii. 54-57.) We know how to interpret the signs of the weather; why, then, do we not see what is before us? It is in vain that we fly from danger, and guard our material life by all imaginable means; in spite of all, death is before us, if not in one way, then in another; if not by massacre, or the falling of a tower, then in our beds, amidst much greater suffering. Make a simple calculation, as those do who undertake any worldly project, any enterprise whatever, such as the construction of a house, or the purchase of an estate, such as those make who labor with the hope of seeing their calculations realized. ‘For which of you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?’ (Luke xiv. 28-31.) Is it not the act of a madman to labor at what, under any circumstances, one can never finish? Death will always come before the edifice [a complex system of beliefs] of worldly prosperity can be completed. And if we knew beforehand that, however we may struggle with death, it is not we, but death, that will triumph; is it not an indication that we ought not to struggle with death, or to set our hearts upon that which will surely perish, but to seek to perform the task whose results cannot be destroyed by our inevitable departure? ‘And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: How much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is not least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.’ (Luke xii. 22-27.) Whatever pains we may take for our nourishment, for the care of the body, we cannot prolong life by a single hour. Is it not folly to trouble ourselves about a thing that we cannot possibly accomplish? We know perfectly well that our material life will end with death, and we give ourselves up to evil to procure riches. Life cannot be measured by what we possess; if we think so, we only delude ourselves. Jesus tells us that the meaning of life does not lie in what we possess or in what we can accumulate, but in something entirely different. He says: ‘The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods lead up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.’ (Luke xii. 16-21.) Death threatens us every moment; Jesus says: ‘Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching; …And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.’ (Luke xii. 35-40.) The parable of the virgins waiting for the bridegroom, that of the consummation of the age and the last judgment, as the commentators all agree, are designed to teach that death awaits us at every moment. Death awaits us at every moment. Life is passed in sight of death. If we labor for ourselves alone, for our personal future, we know that what awaits us in the future is death. And death will destroy all the fruits of our labor. Consequently, a life for self can have no meaning. The reasonable life is different; it has another aim than the poor desires of a single individual. The reasonable life consists in living in such a way that life cannot be destroyed by death. We are troubled about many things, but only one thing is necessary.” - Leo Tolstoy, What I Believe, Chapter Eight

Codrus 3d ago

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑸𝒖𝒊𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐 𝑸𝒖𝒐, 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉, 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔' 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 "𝑬𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍" 𝒐𝒓 "𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑳𝒊𝒇𝒆" (𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆)

https://lemmy.world/post/44297542

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝑸𝒖𝒊𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐 𝑸𝒖𝒐, 𝑫𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉, 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔' 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 "𝑬𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒂𝒍" 𝒐𝒓 "𝑻𝒓𝒖𝒆 𝑳𝒊𝒇𝒆" (𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒆) - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/47118f3d-aed4-4fe4-8b0b-5999aad4adcd.jpeg] When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he’s referring to his more objective, philosophical, less supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel in Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/42151625 [https://lemmy.world/post/42151625] — “If it be admitted that the doctrine of Jesus is perfectly reasonable, and that it alone can give to men true happiness, what would be the condition of a single follower of that doctrine in the midst of a world that did not practise it at all? If all men would decide at the same time to obey, its practice would then be possible. But one man alone cannot act in defiance of the whole world; and so we hear continually this plea: ‘If, among men who do not practise the doctrine of Jesus, I alone obey it; if I give away all that I possess; if I turn the other cheek; if I refuse to take an oath or to go to war, I should find myself in profound isolation; if I did not die of hunger, I should be beaten; if I survived that, I should be cast into prison; I should be shot, and all the happiness of my life, my life itself, would be sacrificed in vain. This plea is founded upon the doctrine of quid pro quo, which is the basis of all arguments against the possibility of practising the doctrine of Jesus. It is the current objection, and I sympathized with it in common with all the rest of the world, until I finally broke entirely away from the dogmas of the Church which prevented me from understanding the true significance of the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus prepared his doctrine as a means of salvation from the life of perdition organized by men contrary to his precepts; and I declared that I should be very glad to follow this doctrine if it were not for fear of this very perdition. Jesus offered me the true remedy against a life of perdition, and I clung to the life of perdition! From which it was plain that I did not consider this life as a life of perdition, but as something good, something real. The conviction that my personal, worldly life was something real and good constituted the misunderstanding, the obstacle, that prevented me from comprehending Jesus’ doctrine. Jesus knew the disposition of men to regard their personal, worldly life as real and good, and so, in a series of apothegms and parables, he taught them that they had no right to life, and that they were given life only that they might assure themselves of the true life by renouncing their worldly and fantastic organization of existence. To understand what is meant by “saving” one’s life, according to the doctrine of Jesus, we must first understand what the prophets, what Solomon, what Buddha, what all the wise men of the world have said about the personal life of man. But, as Pascal says, we cannot endure to think upon this theme, and so we carry always before us a screen to conceal the abyss of death, toward which we are constantly moving. It suffices to reflect on the isolation of the personal life of man, to be convinced that this life, in so far as it is personal, is not only of no account to each separately, but that it is a cruel jest to heart and reason. To understand the doctrine of Jesus, we must, before all, return to ourselves, reflect soberly, undergo the μετάνοια of which John the Baptist, the precursor of Jesus, speaks, when addressing himself to men of clouded judgment. ‘Repent’ (such was his preaching); ‘repent, have another mind, or you shall all perish. The axe is laid unto the root of the trees. Death and perdition await each one of you. Be warned, turn back, repent.’ And Jesus declared, ‘Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ When Jesus was told of the death of the Galileans massacred by Pilate, he said: ‘Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you. Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’ (Luke xiii. 1-5.) If he had lived in our day, in Russia, he would have said: ‘Think you that those who perished in the circus at Berditchef or on the slopes of Koukouyef were sinners above all others? I tell you, No; but you, if you do not repent, if you do not arouse yourselves, if you do not find in your life that which is imperishable, you also shall perish. You are horrified by the death of those crushed by the tower, burned in the circus; but your death, equally as frightful and as inevitable, is here, before you. You are wrong to conceal it or to forget it; unlocked for, it is only more hideous.’ To the people of his own time he said: ‘When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (Luke xii. 54-57.) We know how to interpret the signs of the weather; why, then, do we not see what is before us? It is in vain that we fly from danger, and guard our material life by all imaginable means; in spite of all, death is before us, if not in one way, then in another; if not by massacre, or the falling of a tower, then in our beds, amidst much greater suffering. Make a simple calculation, as those do who undertake any worldly project, any enterprise whatever, such as the construction of a house, or the purchase of an estate, such as those make who labor with the hope of seeing their calculations realized. ‘For which of you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?’ (Luke xiv. 28-31.) Is it not the act of a madman to labor at what, under any circumstances, one can never finish? Death will always come before the edifice [a complex system of beliefs] of worldly prosperity can be completed. And if we knew beforehand that, however we may struggle with death, it is not we, but death, that will triumph; is it not an indication that we ought not to struggle with death, or to set our hearts upon that which will surely perish, but to seek to perform the task whose results cannot be destroyed by our inevitable departure? ‘And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: How much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is not least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.’ (Luke xii. 22-27.) Whatever pains we may take for our nourishment, for the care of the body, we cannot prolong life by a single hour. Is it not folly to trouble ourselves about a thing that we cannot possibly accomplish? We know perfectly well that our material life will end with death, and we give ourselves up to evil to procure riches. Life cannot be measured by what we possess; if we think so, we only delude ourselves. Jesus tells us that the meaning of life does not lie in what we possess or in what we can accumulate, but in something entirely different. He says: ‘The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods lead up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.’ (Luke xii. 16-21.) Death threatens us every moment; Jesus says: ‘Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching; …And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.’ (Luke xii. 35-40.) The parable of the virgins waiting for the bridegroom, that of the consummation of the age and the last judgment, as the commentators all agree, are designed to teach that death awaits us at every moment. Death awaits us at every moment. Life is passed in sight of death. If we labor for ourselves alone, for our personal future, we know that what awaits us in the future is death. And death will destroy all the fruits of our labor. Consequently, a life for self can have no meaning. The reasonable life is different; it has another aim than the poor desires of a single individual. The reasonable life consists in living in such a way that life cannot be destroyed by death. We are troubled about many things, but only one thing is necessary.” - Leo Tolstoy, What I Believe, Chapter Eight

Codrus Mar 8

𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑵𝒐𝒏-𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆

https://lemmy.world/post/43997101

𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑵𝒐𝒏-𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/01a96d56-c491-4de5-8867-5decad1dd737.jpeg] “𝗔 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲” "During my last year in theological school, I began to read the works of Reinhold Niebuhr. The prophetic and realistic elements in Niebuhr’s passionate style and profound thought were appealing to me, and made me aware of the complexity of human motives and the reality of sin on every level of man’s existence. I became so enamored of his social ethics that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything he wrote. I read Niebuhr’s critique of the pacifist position. Niebuhr had himself once been a member of the pacifist ranks. For several years, he had been national chairman of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, His break with pacifism came in the early thirties, and the first full statement of his criticism of pacifism was in 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺. Here he argued that there was no intrinsic moral difference between violent and nonviolent resistance. The social consequences of the two methods were different, he contended, but the differences were in degree rather than kind. Later Niebuhr began emphasizing the irresponsibility of relying on nonviolent resistance when there was no ground for believing that it would be successful in preventing the spread of totalitarian tyranny. It could only be successful, he argued, if the groups against whom the resistance was taking place had some degree of moral conscience, as was the case in Gandhi’s struggle against the British. Niebuhr’s ultimate rejection of pacifism was based primarily on the doctrine of man. He argued that pacifism failed to do justice to the reformation doctrine of justification by faith, substituting for it a sectarian perfectionism which believes “that divine grace actually lifts man out of the sinful contradictions of history and establishes him above the sins of the world. At first, Niebuhr’s critique of pacifism left me in a state of confusion. As I continued to read, however, I came to see more and more the shortcomings of his position. For instance, many of his statements revealed that he interpreted pacifism as a sort of passive non- resistance to evil expressing naive trust in the power of love. But this was a serious distortion. My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. Between the two positions, there is a world of difference. Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power, as Niebuhr contends. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart. In spite of the fact that I found many things to be desired in Niebuhr’s philosophy, there were several points at which he constructively influenced my thinking. Niebuhr’s great contribution to theology is that he has refuted the false optimism characteristic of a great segment of Protestant liberalism. Moreover, Niebuhr has extraordinary insight into human nature, especially the behavior of nations and social groups. He is keenly aware of the complexity of human motives and of the relation between morality and power. His theology is a persistent reminder of the reality of sin on every level of man’s existence. These elements in Niebuhr’s thinking helped me to recognize the illusions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature and the dangers of a false idealism. While I still believed in man’s potential for good, Niebuhr made me realize his potential for evil as well. Moreover, Niebuhr helped me to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗜 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝘁, 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗶𝗲𝗯𝘂𝗵𝗿, 𝗜 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗺. 𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝗜 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀. 𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. I felt that the pacifist would have a greater appeal if he did not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian non-pacifist confronts.” - Martin Luther King Jr., 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 𝘖𝘧 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘑𝘳., Chapter Three, “Crozer Seminary”. “I also came to see that Reinhold Niebur had overemphasized the corruption of human nature. His pessimism concerning human nature was not balanced by an optimism concerning divine nature. He was so involved in diagnosing man’s sickness of sin that he overlooked the cure of grace.” - Martin Luther King Jr., 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 𝘖𝘧 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘑𝘳., Chapter Four, “Boston University”

Codrus Mar 8

𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑵𝒐𝒏-𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆

https://lemmy.world/post/43997045

𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈'𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑵𝒐𝒏-𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5138d6f2-4b14-4b11-bd56-47b3f2b61c61.jpeg] “𝗔 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲” "During my last year in theological school, I began to read the works of Reinhold Niebuhr. The prophetic and realistic elements in Niebuhr’s passionate style and profound thought were appealing to me, and made me aware of the complexity of human motives and the reality of sin on every level of man’s existence. I became so enamored of his social ethics that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything he wrote. I read Niebuhr’s critique of the pacifist position. Niebuhr had himself once been a member of the pacifist ranks. For several years, he had been national chairman of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, His break with pacifism came in the early thirties, and the first full statement of his criticism of pacifism was in 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘔𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺. Here he argued that there was no intrinsic moral difference between violent and nonviolent resistance. The social consequences of the two methods were different, he contended, but the differences were in degree rather than kind. Later Niebuhr began emphasizing the irresponsibility of relying on nonviolent resistance when there was no ground for believing that it would be successful in preventing the spread of totalitarian tyranny. It could only be successful, he argued, if the groups against whom the resistance was taking place had some degree of moral conscience, as was the case in Gandhi’s struggle against the British. Niebuhr’s ultimate rejection of pacifism was based primarily on the doctrine of man. He argued that pacifism failed to do justice to the reformation doctrine of justification by faith, substituting for it a sectarian perfectionism which believes “that divine grace actually lifts man out of the sinful contradictions of history and establishes him above the sins of the world. At first, Niebuhr’s critique of pacifism left me in a state of confusion. As I continued to read, however, I came to see more and more the shortcomings of his position. For instance, many of his statements revealed that he interpreted pacifism as a sort of passive non- resistance to evil expressing naive trust in the power of love. But this was a serious distortion. My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. Between the two positions, there is a world of difference. Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power, as Niebuhr contends. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart. In spite of the fact that I found many things to be desired in Niebuhr’s philosophy, there were several points at which he constructively influenced my thinking. Niebuhr’s great contribution to theology is that he has refuted the false optimism characteristic of a great segment of Protestant liberalism. Moreover, Niebuhr has extraordinary insight into human nature, especially the behavior of nations and social groups. He is keenly aware of the complexity of human motives and of the relation between morality and power. His theology is a persistent reminder of the reality of sin on every level of man’s existence. These elements in Niebuhr’s thinking helped me to recognize the illusions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature and the dangers of a false idealism. While I still believed in man’s potential for good, Niebuhr made me realize his potential for evil as well. Moreover, Niebuhr helped me to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀, 𝗜 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝘁, 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗡𝗶𝗲𝗯𝘂𝗵𝗿, 𝗜 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗺. 𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝗜 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀. 𝗜 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗜 𝗮𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. I felt that the pacifist would have a greater appeal if he did not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian non-pacifist confronts.” - Martin Luther King Jr., 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 𝘖𝘧 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘑𝘳., Chapter Three, “Crozer Seminary”. “I also came to see that Reinhold Niebur had overemphasized the corruption of human nature. His pessimism concerning human nature was not balanced by an optimism concerning divine nature. He was so involved in diagnosing man’s sickness of sin that he overlooked the cure of grace.” - Martin Luther King Jr., 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 𝘖𝘧 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘑𝘳., Chapter Four, “Boston University”

Codrus Mar 1

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 "𝑺𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑾𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒎 𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑨𝒊𝒎 𝑶𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒐 𝑳𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝑨𝒓𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅"

https://lemmy.world/post/43729626

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 "𝑺𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑾𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒎 𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑨𝒊𝒎 𝑶𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒐 𝑳𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝑨𝒓𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅" - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4574ffc6-485a-474f-9263-1e02be9c0db0.jpeg] When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he’s referring to his more objective, philosophical, less supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel in Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/42151625 [https://lemmy.world/post/42151625] — “State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society,’ say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear. But this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under the influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes their continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till at last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence. The progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the better elements in society siezing power and making those who are subject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviantingly toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian attitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the power, and again being replaced, by others. The worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under the sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and less cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence. Consequently others are able to seize their place, and the same process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition [the action of bubbling or boiling]. The majority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest, the least Christain elements of society over power the most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their violence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ’s prophecy fulfulled: “Woe to you that are rich! Woe unto you that are full! Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!” For the men who are in possession of power and all that results from it — glory and wealth — and have attained the various aims they set before themselves, recognizing the vanity of it all and return to the position from which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing the emptiness and evil of power, renounced it because they were incapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done. But they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the emptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power he has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire, every petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten years, every rich peasant who had laid by some hundred rubles, passes through this unconscious process of softening. And not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations, pass through this process. The seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it gives, seem a sufficient aim for men’s efforts only so long as they are unattained. Directly a man reaches them and sees all their vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like clouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes. Men who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their efforts to obtain it. Having learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian influence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men sometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They become less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are expelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked. Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but higher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian conciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst, coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, and are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by violence, and having imbibed [absorb or assimilate (ideas or knowledge)] Christianity, they come down again among the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they oppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as it was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant increase of the number of men who have been brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the Christian conception of life, and with every change — though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and cruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained possession of power. Power selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms them, improves and softens them, and returns them to society. Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the hinderances to human progress resulting from violence of power, gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the consciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but also by means of it. And therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if the power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress the good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since it is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being gradually suppressed in the natural course of things.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, Chapter Ten: “Evil Cannot Be Suppressed by the Physical Force of the Government — The Moral Progress of Humanity Is Brought About, Not Only by Individual Recognition of the Truth, but Also Through the Establishment of a Public Opinion.”

Codrus Mar 1

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 "𝑺𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑾𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒎 𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑨𝒊𝒎 𝑶𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒐 𝑳𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝑨𝒓𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅"

https://lemmy.world/post/43729571

𝑻𝒐𝒍𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒚'𝒔 "𝑺𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑾𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒆𝒆𝒎 𝒂 𝑺𝒖𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑨𝒊𝒎 𝑶𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒐 𝑳𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒔 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝑨𝒓𝒆 𝑼𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅" - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/4574ffc6-485a-474f-9263-1e02be9c0db0.jpeg] When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he’s referring to his more objective, philosophical, less supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel in Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/42151625 [https://lemmy.world/post/42151625] — “State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society,’ say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence grows less and less and evidently must disappear. But this will not come to pass, as some champions of the existing order imagine, through the oppressed becoming better and better under the influence of government (on the contrary, its influence causes their continual degradation), but through the fact that all men are constantly growing better and better of themselves, so that even the most wicked, who are in power, will become less and less wicked, till at last they are so good as to be incapable of using violence. The progressive movement of humanity does not proceed from the better elements in society siezing power and making those who are subject to them better, by forcible means, as both conservatives and revolutionists imagine. It proceeds first and principally from the fact that all men in general are advancing steadily and undeviantingly toward a more and more conscious assimilation of the Christian theory of life; and secondly, from the fact that, even apart from conscious spiritual life, men are unconsciously brought into a more Christian attitude to life by the very process of one set of men grasping the power, and again being replaced, by others. The worse elements of society, gaining possession of power, under the sobering influence which always accompanies power, grow less and less cruel, and become incapable of using cruel forms of violence. Consequently others are able to seize their place, and the same process of softening and, so to say, unconscious Christianizing goes on with them. It is something like the process of ebullition [the action of bubbling or boiling]. The majority of men, having the non-Christian view of life, always strive for power and struggle to obtain it. In this struggle the most cruel, the coarsest, the least Christain elements of society over power the most gentle, well-disposed, and Christian, and rise by means of their violence to the upper ranks of society. And in them is Christ’s prophecy fulfulled: “Woe to you that are rich! Woe unto you that are full! Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you!” For the men who are in possession of power and all that results from it — glory and wealth — and have attained the various aims they set before themselves, recognizing the vanity of it all and return to the position from which they came. Charles V., John IV., Alexander I., recognizing the emptiness and evil of power, renounced it because they were incapable of using violence for their own benefit as they had done. But they are not the solitary examples of this recognition of the emptiness and evil of power. Everyone who gains a position of power he has striven for, every general, every minister, every millionaire, every petty official who has gained the place he has coveted for ten years, every rich peasant who had laid by some hundred rubles, passes through this unconscious process of softening. And not only individual men, but societies of men, whole nations, pass through this process. The seductions of power, and all the wealth, honor, and luxury it gives, seem a sufficient aim for men’s efforts only so long as they are unattained. Directly a man reaches them and sees all their vanity, and they gradually lose all their power of attraction. They are like clouds which have form and beauty only from the distance; directly one ascends into them, all their splendor vanishes. Men who are in possession of power and wealth, sometimes even those who have gained for themselves their power and wealth, but more often their heirs, cease to be so eager for power, and so cruel in their efforts to obtain it. Having learnt by experience, under the operation of Christian influence, the vanity of all that is gained by violence, men sometimes in one, sometimes in several generations lose the vices which are generated by the passion for power and wealth. They become less cruel and so cannot maintain their position, and are expelled from power by others less Christian and more wicked. Thus they return to a rank of society lower in position, but higher in morality, raising thereby the average level of Christian conciousness in men. But directly after them again the worst, coarsest, least Christian elements of society rise to the top, and are subjected to the same process as their predecessors, and again in a generation or so, seeing the vanity of what is gained by violence, and having imbibed [absorb or assimilate (ideas or knowledge)] Christianity, they come down again among the oppressed, and their place is again filled by new oppressors, less brutal than former oppressors, though more so than those they oppress. So that, although power remains externally the same as it was, with every change of the men in power there is a constant increase of the number of men who have been brought by experience to the necessity of assimilating the Christian conception of life, and with every change — though it is the coarsest, cruelest, and least Christian who come into possession of power, they are less coarse and cruel and more Christian than their predecessors when they gained possession of power. Power selects and attracts the worst elements of society, transforms them, improves and softens them, and returns them to society. Such is the process by means of which Christianity, in spite of the hinderances to human progress resulting from violence of power, gains more and more hold of men. Christianity penetrates to the consciousness of men, not only in spite of the violence of power, but also by means of it. And therefore the assertion of the champions of the state, that if the power of government were suppressed the wicked would oppress the good, not only fails to show that that is to be dreaded, since it is just what happens now, but proves, on the contrary, that it is governmental power which enables the wicked to oppress the good, and is the evil most desirable to suppress, and that it is being gradually suppressed in the natural course of things.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom Of God Is Within You, Chapter Ten: “Evil Cannot Be Suppressed by the Physical Force of the Government — The Moral Progress of Humanity Is Brought About, Not Only by Individual Recognition of the Truth, but Also Through the Establishment of a Public Opinion.”

Codrus Feb 22

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑴𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒂 𝑮𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒉𝒊'𝒔 𝑨𝒖𝒕𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒚

https://lemmy.world/post/43452986

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑴𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒂 𝑮𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒉𝒊'𝒔 𝑨𝒖𝒕𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒚 - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c5f92b3c-9c9e-4fad-ba11-0388e44d0ea8.jpeg] “The time has now come to bring these chapters to a close. My life from this point onward has been so public that there is hardly anything about it that people do not know. Moreover, since 1921 I have worked in such close association with the Congress leaders that I can hardly describe any episode in my life since then without referring to my relations with them. For though Shraddhanandji, the Deshabandhu, Hakim Saheb and Lalaji are no more with us today, we have the good luck to have a host of other veteran Congress leaders still living and working in our midst. The history of the Congress, since the great changes in it that I have described above, is still in the making. And my principal experiments during the past seven years have all been made through the Congress. A reference to my relations with the leaders would therefore be unavoidable, if I set about describing my experiments further. And this I may not do, at any rate for the present, if only from a sense of propriety. Lastly, my conclusions from my current experiments can hardly as yet be regarded as decisive. It therefore seems to me to be my plain duty to close this narrative here. In fact my pen instinctively refuses to proceed further. It is not without a wrench that I have to take leave of the reader. I set high value on my experiments. I do not know whether I have been able to do justice to them. I can only say that I have spared no pains to give a faithful narrative. To describe truth, as it has appeared to me, and in the exact manner in which I have arrived at it, has been my ceaseless effort. The exercise has given me ineffable [too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words] mental peace, because it has been my fond hope that it might bring faith in Truth and 𝘈𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘢 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa]) to waverers [a person who is unable to make a decision or choice]. My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is 𝘈𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘢, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain. And, even though my efforts in this behalf may prove fruitless, let the readers know that the vehicle, not the great principle, is at fault. After all, however sincere my strivings after 𝘈𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘢 may have been, they have still been imperfect and inadequate. The little fleeting glimpses, therefore, that I have been able to have of Truth can hardly convey an idea of the indescribable lustre of Truth, a million times more intense than that of the sun we daily see with our eyes. In fact what I have caught is only the faintest glimmer of that mighty effulgence [radiant splendor: brilliance]. But this much I can say with assurance, as a result of all my experiments, that a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realization of Ahimsa. To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself [Matt 7:12 ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV]), Matt 5:43]. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means. Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification therefore must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one’s surroundings. But the path of self-purification is hard and steep [Matt 7:13 ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV])]. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion. I know that I have not in me as yet that triple purity, in spite of constant ceaseless striving for it. That is why the world’s praise fails to move me, indeed it very often stings me. To conquer the subtle passions seems to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms. Ever since my return to India I have had experiences of the dormant passions lying hidden within me. The knowledge of them has made me feel humiliated though not defeated. The experiences and experiments have sustained me and given me great joy. But I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse. I must reduce myself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him [from his mind; his conscience]. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility. In bidding farewell to the reader, for the time being at any rate, I ask him to join with me in prayer to the God of Truth that He may grant me the boon [a thing that is helpful or beneficial] of Ahimsa in mind, word and deed.” - Mahatma Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, the Final Chapter: “Farewell”

Codrus Feb 22

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑴𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒂 𝑮𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒉𝒊'𝒔 𝑨𝒖𝒕𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒚

https://lemmy.world/post/43452888

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑭𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑴𝒂𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒂 𝑮𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒉𝒊'𝒔 𝑨𝒖𝒕𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒚 - Lemmy.World

[https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c5f92b3c-9c9e-4fad-ba11-0388e44d0ea8.jpeg] “The time has now come to bring these chapters to a close. My life from this point onward has been so public that there is hardly anything about it that people do not know. Moreover, since 1921 I have worked in such close association with the Congress leaders that I can hardly describe any episode in my life since then without referring to my relations with them. For though Shraddhanandji, the Deshabandhu, Hakim Saheb and Lalaji are no more with us today, we have the good luck to have a host of other veteran Congress leaders still living and working in our midst. The history of the Congress, since the great changes in it that I have described above, is still in the making. And my principal experiments during the past seven years have all been made through the Congress. A reference to my relations with the leaders would therefore be unavoidable, if I set about describing my experiments further. And this I may not do, at any rate for the present, if only from a sense of propriety. Lastly, my conclusions from my current experiments can hardly as yet be regarded as decisive. It therefore seems to me to be my plain duty to close this narrative here. In fact my pen instinctively refuses to proceed further. It is not without a wrench that I have to take leave of the reader. I set high value on my experiments. I do not know whether I have been able to do justice to them. I can only say that I have spared no pains to give a faithful narrative. To describe truth, as it has appeared to me, and in the exact manner in which I have arrived at it, has been my ceaseless effort. The exercise has given me ineffable [too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words] mental peace, because it has been my fond hope that it might bring faith in Truth and 𝘈𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘢 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa]) to waverers [a person who is unable to make a decision or choice]. My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is 𝘈𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘢, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain. And, even though my efforts in this behalf may prove fruitless, let the readers know that the vehicle, not the great principle, is at fault. After all, however sincere my strivings after 𝘈𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘢 may have been, they have still been imperfect and inadequate. The little fleeting glimpses, therefore, that I have been able to have of Truth can hardly convey an idea of the indescribable lustre of Truth, a million times more intense than that of the sun we daily see with our eyes. In fact what I have caught is only the faintest glimmer of that mighty effulgence [radiant splendor: brilliance]. But this much I can say with assurance, as a result of all my experiments, that a perfect vision of Truth can only follow a complete realization of Ahimsa. To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself [Matt 7:12 ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV]), Matt 5:43]. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life. That is why my devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means. Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream; God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification therefore must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one’s surroundings. But the path of self-purification is hard and steep [Matt 7:13 ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=ESV])]. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion-free in thought, speech and action; to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion. I know that I have not in me as yet that triple purity, in spite of constant ceaseless striving for it. That is why the world’s praise fails to move me, indeed it very often stings me. To conquer the subtle passions seems to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms. Ever since my return to India I have had experiences of the dormant passions lying hidden within me. The knowledge of them has made me feel humiliated though not defeated. The experiences and experiments have sustained me and given me great joy. But I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse. I must reduce myself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him [from his mind; his conscience]. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility. In bidding farewell to the reader, for the time being at any rate, I ask him to join with me in prayer to the God of Truth that He may grant me the boon [a thing that is helpful or beneficial] of Ahimsa in mind, word and deed.” - Mahatma Gandhi, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, the Final Chapter: “Farewell”

Codrus Feb 15

What Are Your Thoughts on King's Thoughts on Nietzsche, Gandhi, and the Fundamental and Liberal Interpretations of Christianity?

https://lemmy.world/post/43175486

What Are Your Thoughts on King's Thoughts on Nietzsche, Gandhi, and the Fundamental and Liberal Interpretations of Christianity? - Lemmy.World

“The only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people” “During my stay at Crozer, I was also exposed for the first time to the pacifist position in a lecture by Dr. A. J. Muste. I was deeply moved by Dr. Muste’s talk, but far from convinced of the practicability of his position. Like most of the students at Crozer, I felt that while war could never be a positive or absolute good, it could serve as a negative good in the sense of preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. War, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system — Nazi, Fascist, or Communist. During this period I had about despaired of the power of love in solving social problems. I thought the only way we could solve our problem of segregation was an armed revolt. I felt that the Christian ethic of love was confined to individual relationships. I could not see how it could work in social conflict. Perhaps my faith in love was temporarily shaken by the philosophy of Nietzsche. I had been reading parts of The Genealogy of Morals and the whole of The Will to Power. Nietzsche’s glorification of power — in his theory, all life expressed the will to power — was an outgrowth of his contempt for ordinary mortals. He attacked the whole of the Hebraic-Christian morality — with its virtues of piety and humility, its otherworldliness, and its attitude toward suffering — as the glorification of weakness, as making virtues out of necessity and impotence. He looked to the development of a superman who would surpass man as man surpassed the ape. Then one Sunday afternoon I traveled to Philadelphia to hear a sermon by Dr. Mordecai Johnson, president of Howard University. He was there to preach for the Fellowship House of Philadelphia. Dr. Johnson had just returned from a trip to India, and, to my great interest, he spoke of the life and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. His message was so profound and electrifying that I left the meeting and bought a half-dozen books on Gandhi’s life and works. Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. I was particularly moved by his Salt March to the Sea and his numerous fasts. The whole concept of Satyagraha (Satya is truth which equals love, and agraha is force; Satyagraha, therefore, means truth force or love force) was profoundly significant to me. As I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of social reform. Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The “turn the other cheek” philosophy and the “love your enemies” philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking. The intellectual and moral satisfaction that I failed to gain from the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, the revolutionary methods of Marx and Lenin, the social contracts theory of Hobbes, the “back to nature” optimism of Rousseau, the superman philosophy of Nietzsche, I found in the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi. “The liberal doctrine of man” But my intellectual odyssey to nonviolence did not end here. During my senior year in theological seminary, I engaged in the exciting reading of various theological theories. Having been raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition, I was occasionally shocked when my intellectual journey carried me through new and sometimes complex doctrinal lands, but the pilgrimage was always stimulating; it gave me a new appreciation for objective appraisal and critical analysis, and knocked me out of my dogmatic slumber. When I came to Crozer, I could accept the liberal interpretation of Christianity with relative ease. Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism. I became so enamored of the insights of liberalism that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything that came under its name. I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason. The basic change in my thinking came when I began to question the liberal doctrine of man. My thinking went through a state of transition. At one time I found myself leaning toward a mild neo-orthodox view of man, and at other times I found myself leaning toward a liberal view of man. The former leaning may root back to certain experiences that I had in the South, with its vicious race problem, that made it very difficult for me to believe in the essential goodness of man. The more I observed the tragedies of history and man’s shameful inclination to choose the low road, the more I came to see the depths and strength of sin. Liberalism’s superficial optimism concerning human nature caused it to overlook the fact that reason is darkened by sin [this may be true, but God(s) and its knowledge brightens reason]. The more I thought about human nature, the more I saw how our tragic inclination for sin causes us to use our minds to rationalize our actions. Liberalism failed to see that reason by itself is little more than an instrument to justify man’s defensive ways of thinking. Moreover, I came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil. I came to feel that liberalism had been all too sentimental concerning human nature and that it leaned toward a false idealism. Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations. On the other hand, part of my liberal leaning had its source in another branch of the same root. In noticing the gradual improvements of this same race problem, I came to see some noble possibilities in human nature. Also my liberal leaning may have rooted back to the great imprint that many liberal theologians have left upon me and to my ever-present desire to be optimistic about human nature. Of course there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to cherish always: its devotion to the search for truth, its insistence on an open and analytical mind, its refusal to abandon the best light of reason. Its contribution to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value.” - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography Of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Three, “Crozer Seminary” “Theologically I found myself still holding to the liberal position. I had come to see more than ever before that there were certain enduring qualities in liberalism which all of the vociferous [vehement or clamorous; vehement: showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense] noises of fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy could never destroy. However, while at Boston, I became much more sympathetic towards the noe-orthodox position than I had been in precious years. I do not mean that I accept neo-orthodoxy as a set of doctrines, but I did see in it a necessary corrective for a liberalism that had become all too shallow and that too easily capitulated [cease to resist an opponent or an unwelcome demand; surrender] to modern culture. Neo-orthodoxy certainly had the merit of calling us back to the depths of Christian faith.” - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Four, “Boston University”

Codrus Feb 15

What Are Your Thoughts on King's Thoughts on Nietzsche, Gandhi, and the Fundamental and Liberal Interpretations of Christianity?

https://lemmy.world/post/43175379

What Are Your Thoughts on King's Thoughts on Nietzsche, Gandhi, and the Fundamental and Liberal Interpretations of Christianity? - Lemmy.World

“The only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people” “During my stay at Crozer, I was also exposed for the first time to the pacifist position in a lecture by Dr. A. J. Muste. I was deeply moved by Dr. Muste’s talk, but far from convinced of the practicability of his position. Like most of the students at Crozer, I felt that while war could never be a positive or absolute good, it could serve as a negative good in the sense of preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. War, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system — Nazi, Fascist, or Communist. During this period I had about despaired of the power of love in solving social problems. I thought the only way we could solve our problem of segregation was an armed revolt. I felt that the Christian ethic of love was confined to individual relationships. I could not see how it could work in social conflict. Perhaps my faith in love was temporarily shaken by the philosophy of Nietzsche. I had been reading parts of The Genealogy of Morals and the whole of The Will to Power. Nietzsche’s glorification of power — in his theory, all life expressed the will to power — was an outgrowth of his contempt for ordinary mortals. He attacked the whole of the Hebraic-Christian morality — with its virtues of piety and humility, its otherworldliness, and its attitude toward suffering — as the glorification of weakness, as making virtues out of necessity and impotence. He looked to the development of a superman who would surpass man as man surpassed the ape. Then one Sunday afternoon I traveled to Philadelphia to hear a sermon by Dr. Mordecai Johnson, president of Howard University. He was there to preach for the Fellowship House of Philadelphia. Dr. Johnson had just returned from a trip to India, and, to my great interest, he spoke of the life and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. His message was so profound and electrifying that I left the meeting and bought a half-dozen books on Gandhi’s life and works. Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. I was particularly moved by his Salt March to the Sea and his numerous fasts. The whole concept of Satyagraha (Satya is truth which equals love, and agraha is force; Satyagraha, therefore, means truth force or love force) was profoundly significant to me. As I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of social reform. Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The “turn the other cheek” philosophy and the “love your enemies” philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was. Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking. The intellectual and moral satisfaction that I failed to gain from the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, the revolutionary methods of Marx and Lenin, the social contracts theory of Hobbes, the “back to nature” optimism of Rousseau, the superman philosophy of Nietzsche, I found in the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi. “The liberal doctrine of man” But my intellectual odyssey to nonviolence did not end here. During my senior year in theological seminary, I engaged in the exciting reading of various theological theories. Having been raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition, I was occasionally shocked when my intellectual journey carried me through new and sometimes complex doctrinal lands, but the pilgrimage was always stimulating; it gave me a new appreciation for objective appraisal and critical analysis, and knocked me out of my dogmatic slumber. When I came to Crozer, I could accept the liberal interpretation of Christianity with relative ease. Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism. I became so enamored of the insights of liberalism that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything that came under its name. I was absolutely convinced of the natural goodness of man and the natural power of human reason. The basic change in my thinking came when I began to question the liberal doctrine of man. My thinking went through a state of transition. At one time I found myself leaning toward a mild neo-orthodox view of man, and at other times I found myself leaning toward a liberal view of man. The former leaning may root back to certain experiences that I had in the South, with its vicious race problem, that made it very difficult for me to believe in the essential goodness of man. The more I observed the tragedies of history and man’s shameful inclination to choose the low road, the more I came to see the depths and strength of sin. Liberalism’s superficial optimism concerning human nature caused it to overlook the fact that reason is darkened by sin [this may be true, but God(s) and its knowledge brightens reason]. The more I thought about human nature, the more I saw how our tragic inclination for sin causes us to use our minds to rationalize our actions. Liberalism failed to see that reason by itself is little more than an instrument to justify man’s defensive ways of thinking. Moreover, I came to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil. I came to feel that liberalism had been all too sentimental concerning human nature and that it leaned toward a false idealism. Reason, devoid of the purifying power of faith, can never free itself from distortions and rationalizations. On the other hand, part of my liberal leaning had its source in another branch of the same root. In noticing the gradual improvements of this same race problem, I came to see some noble possibilities in human nature. Also my liberal leaning may have rooted back to the great imprint that many liberal theologians have left upon me and to my ever-present desire to be optimistic about human nature. Of course there is one phase of liberalism that I hope to cherish always: its devotion to the search for truth, its insistence on an open and analytical mind, its refusal to abandon the best light of reason. Its contribution to the philological-historical criticism of biblical literature has been of immeasurable value.” - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography Of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Three, “Crozer Seminary” “Theologically I found myself still holding to the liberal position. I had come to see more than ever before that there were certain enduring qualities in liberalism which all of the vociferous [vehement or clamorous; vehement: showing strong feeling; forceful, passionate, or intense] noises of fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy could never destroy. However, while at Boston, I became much more sympathetic towards the noe-orthodox position than I had been in precious years. I do not mean that I accept neo-orthodoxy as a set of doctrines, but I did see in it a necessary corrective for a liberalism that had become all too shallow and that too easily capitulated [cease to resist an opponent or an unwelcome demand; surrender] to modern culture. Neo-orthodoxy certainly had the merit of calling us back to the depths of Christian faith.” - Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., Chapter Four, “Boston University”