Guilty and Forgiveness

There was a man. His name was Tertullian (born 150-160, amended 240 AD). A very interesting man. 1 of the future fathers, the dogmatic church. The underdogs, for he was cursed by the church and declared heretic. Tertullian was born in Carthage, He lived peacefully as a citizen of the Roman empire until a mature mediate age. Do not know why he converted to Christianity at the fixed age of 30 plus. At this age, people usually build houses, retire, rise children, possibly look for a fresh younger partner, and not change their lives so radically. At that time – the last decade of the second century – the baptism in the Roman Empire was like a leap from the cliff to the abyss of the head. In 207 Tertullian went to the sect (church?) montanists, where he founded his own sect, named after his name. He spent many years of his life rejected by the Gentiles, by Christians recognized as sectarian and heretic. In another words, as a prophet, mystic, and creator of a fresh faith. Incidentally: Carthage is simply a town close to St Augustine (born 354, 430 AD). Augustine is Tertullian's successor and “student”, though they shared 2 centuries. Tertullian's childhood and youth fall upon the reign of Mark Aurelius (born 121, reigned from 161 until his death in 180 C.E.) and his boy Kommodus (born 161, reigned from 180 to 192 C.E. erstwhile he was murdered). About Mark Aurelius, his life and reign, I wrote extensively earlier.

Summary of Tertullian's life story, and we know small about it, we know only the general outline: he lived about 80 to 90 years. Very long for this time. Of which for more than 30 years Tertullian was a pagan (more than 1/3 of his life) and a heretic of more than 30 years (~ 1/3 of his life). A Christian is only a fewer years old, and he has done so much. Isn't he an interesting man? These violent phrases, spiritual changes, always against the current, in spite of the alleged world, public opinion, gain or popularity. It's a shame he's so completely forgotten. Was Tertullian’s conversion to Christianity not a side effect of increased persecution of Christians during the reign of Mark Aurelius and his son, Kommodus? We don't know that, but it's a probable hypothesis.

The most celebrated sentence, the maxim of Tertulliana: “Credo, quia absurdum” (I believe due to the fact that it is absurd). I love that sentence. The essence of faith, Christianity closed in 3 words. And a deadly blow to those who search a bridge or an agreement between religion and science. Or proof of religion or the existence of God. Tertullian didn't say that. In De Carne Christi (About the Body of Christ) Tertullian wrote: "Et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile est.". And the boy of God died: this is entirely credible due to the fact that it is ridiculous. And laid in his grave he rose from the dead: it is certain due to the fact that it is impossible. Just as strong, but longer.

Only a fewer can afford religion based on absurdity. Most want certainty, what you can see, what you can contact or smell, want proof, or at least they're looking for a minimum probability. Hence, temples, rites, sacrifices, another sacred rituals. Tertullian wasn't original. He virtually read the words of St. Paul. "For the teaching of the cross is foolish to those who perish, and to us who are saved is the power of God. For it is written, I will turn distant the wisdom of the wise, and destruct the understanding. Did Allah not make foolish the wisdom of the world? Since the planet has not known God through wisdom in his wisdom, it pleased God by foolishly preaching the word to save the believers. For the Jews request signs, and the Greeks search wisdom, and we preach Christ crucified, which is simply a stumbling block for the Jews, and foolishness for the Gentiles." (1 Cor 1:18-23).

Jesus' death and salvation are blasphemy to the Jews, and foolishness and ridicule to the Gentiles. Tertullian dealt with the second part of St Paul's conviction – it is Gentiles. Christianity was fought in 2 ways in the Roman Empire in the days of Mark Aurelius and his successors. The first is bloody state violence: arrests, tortures, cruel executions, including on the Roman amphitheatre arenas. The second way is to act as intellectuals, philosophers, artists, another authorities: ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. religion in Jesus, the man, the god who was crucified and then resurrected, is simply a pure mockery of reason. Ridiculous!

Aren't we the same present after 2 1000 years? In many lands Christians are persecuted and murdered. On "tolerant and progressive" Western Christians are fought by ridicule and ridicule. Even arguments and jokes are the same. Hysteria's a circle.

Tertullian followed St. Paul turned his arguments and mocked wise and superb Greek philosophers. What was absurd to them, foolishness, made the foundation of faith. It's an irrepressible foundation. So why did Tertullian leave the Christian church to become a associate of any niche sect? First, Tertullian abandoned the Christian church, not the Catholic church. The Catholic Church (Roman) was established much, much later. Tertullian, known for his harshness and moral rigorism, was displeased at the church at the time by the relaxation of discipline and what we would call moral relativism today. The church of that time, pushed to catacombs, whose bishops and faithful were torn apart and devoured on arenas by lions and another chaotic animals, sinned with moral relativism? For Tertullian and many others, yes. Tertullian felt that the church at that time was besides easy to give absolution for dense sins, specified as adultery, and lacked zeal. The zeal of early Christians!

The main origin of Tertullian's common hostility and church was the attitude towards alleged apostates (lapsi). The apostates are Christians who, in fear of their lives or loved ones, renounce religion in Chytrus. The Apostles are not only those who denied Jesus, but who opposed the church. A higher degree of grievance, treason. Like Julian Apostata, the Roman emperor (332 – 363 C.E.). We forget what the average image of Roman overload looked like. The beginning was usually mild. A Christian faced a Roman official. This 1 gave him a choice. Let him make sacrifices publically to the Roman gods as they all do. Save life and property, If he doesn't, no, it's gonna be very... bad. This is akin to practices from russian Russia, where the unruly were forced to submit self-criticism. Or the 3rd Reich, where it was possible to buy into the favors of the Germans by the tipping and public praise of the Leader. All regimes, governments based on terror, act the same way. Many Christians chose the first option, or life. It's unthinkable these days that so many have chosen martyrdom. Death to losers?

Many of those who disowned faith, or lapsy, who felt guilty wanted to return to church. The problem was peculiarly severe and many after the persecution of Mark Aurelius and Kommodus. What should I do with them? Let them go back to the church? Or not? I remind you that the church was inactive underground, and these were discussions like “in the underground press” like the time of the commune. Only the level of discussion and weight was importantly higher. Tertullian believed that he had committed grave sins after baptism, including apostasy (so-called lapsus), The Church has no right to grant absolution. He believed that penance for specified sins was a individual substance of the sinner, and that it was impossible to return to the church. The position of the Church developed during long years of hard disputes was different: even for dense sins, including the sin of apostasy, it is possible to forgive and return to the Church. Condition: penance, or active grief for sins. Honest, fervent, and severe penance.

What to choose: steadfastness, your own undefiled purity? Or forgiveness and thus consent to sin? Let us scope to the gospel. Jesus speaks differently. “He that is not with me is against me” (Mt 12:30). The conviction of steadfast, irreconcilable, moral rigorists. But Jesus besides said, “He that is not against you is for you” (Lk 9:50). What does Jesus Christ say? Anyone can choose the quote they like.

The Choice of the Church: Grace and Mercy for the Sinners. More, the Church relied on the thought that the power to forgive sins (including apostasy) was given to him by Christ. "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you solve on earth will be dissolved in heaven." (Mt 16:19) Jesus says to St. Peter. The church is the work of St Peter's successors. The acceptance of apostates (lapsi) became a triumph of grace over purity. 1 of the foundations of the church. Time confirmed the right choice of church. The view that men are sinful, weak but deserve a chance to forgive was human, merciful and just... politically. Thanks to it, the church survived the cruel periods it overloaded and flourished erstwhile the reloads ended Clean, steadfast, making their own churches for those one, only righteous shrank into sects, then tiny groups, single individuals, finally... extinct. True, many of them were murdered.

The church is open, inclusive, as they say. However, as I look on tv present at the pilgrimage of the LGBT movement with a large plus under the rainbow banners to the holiest Christian church, to the basilica at St. Peter's call, I ask myself: did this openness, Inclusion, or did this desire to forgive sins go besides far? These people don't want to ask for forgiveness for their sins. They don't want to hear about penance. They are arrogant of what they do, and what Jesus and the Scriptures say is sin. There's a question. Do these people, openly giving themselves up to all fornication, sin or sin? Does sin even exist? Was he not struck down by progressive Christian theologians? And were Tertullian and another rigorists not right?

Another example is erstwhile the alleged "forgive" goes astray. Do German killers from the years of planet War II – counted in hundreds of thousands, but not millions – have a chance to forgive and join the human community? Similarly, Stalinist communist criminals with even more victims? Are they besides allowed to be forgiven?

The first answer, rigorous, a’la Tertullian: from a humanistic perspective, based on fundamental rights and ethics, is virtually impossible to enter the full human community without gathering restrictive conditions, mainly accountability and regret. For most German murderers who have not been tried and have never shown genuine repentance (and many have lived peacefully in post-war Germany denying guilt) there is no admission to the human community in the full sense of the word. Their actions were so complete that they would require an equally full and unconditional act of repentance that never occurred.

The second answer, inclusive and unequivocally positive. German killers don't deserve forgiveness due to the fact that they never asked for forgiveness, And they did not ask, for in their opinion they did nothing wrong. They followed orders at most. They were good and good others. They do not request to be accepted into the community due to the fact that they were members of their community all the time. There's no request to divided hair into four. It was good and it's good. And the bones of the murdered have already absorbed the earth.

Similarly with mass murderers under the red flag, frequently Jewish. They didn't do anything wrong! They fought for a better humanity tomorrow! There's nothing to forgive or ask for forgiveness. They served the roller of progress. And a waltz like that, sometimes it'll crush someone. Where the wood cuts, there the chips fly. What's to forgive? 1 and the other, those from brown and red terror, cry out: Let us forget what was and look to the future.

The future counts. They're most likely right. but our dilemmas are no different from the 1 hundred, 2 100 or 2 1000 years ago. It is so worth returning to Tertullian and his dilemmas of forgiveness. If there's no sin... If everyone and everything should be forgiven, why not them? Why the negative condition, the inferior exclusivity? Here we come to an average human life so far from mass murder. But not free of dilemma: what do you forgive? And under what conditions? What won't I forgive? And who? Where do you put the boundaries? Stealing, lying, bad word, slander, slander? Betraying your partner, your partner? individual slob? What can and can't?

Guilty and forgiveness, sin and forgiveness of sins. That's the kind of question that everyone has to answer. And take work for his own words and deeds. To bear the consequences. That's the way it is. What's done is done. fortunate or unfortunate. Again. Depends on what and for who.

Finally, I will quote the words “Credo, quia absurdum”. But how much fact is in my... credo?

Copyrighted material - all rights reserved. Further distribution of the text only with the approval of the author.