Liu Changqing now knows how to promote Orthodox Christianity. From the introduction of Xu Fan at the beginning to the introduction of Xu Jie and Jiajing later, a large number of condensations and deletions have been made in each edition.
Up to now, it seems to be very clear and logical.
The core of Orthodox Christian thought is devotion and loyalty. Compared with Confucianism, loyalty has a higher rank, eliminating the drag of filial piety. The subject of devotion and loyalty is the religious people, and the object is the Lord and the Lord’s agent on earth, the Son of Heaven.
How to maintain this dedication and loyalty? Confucianism relies on the isomorphism of family and state. Treat your parents as you would at home, and treat the king as you go out. But anyone who has had long-term experience at home knows that there are too many times when parents are not good people. Many of them simply use their descendants as tools to provide for the elderly, and then wield a moral stick to slander and exploit them everywhere. Of course, there are many times when children are not human beings. When their parents get old and have difficulty moving, there are also many people who just go to the mountains to let the elderly people become immortals. Moreover, I don’t see any punishment from God. If you treat the king according to the standards of how you treat your parents, you will never be completely loyal from the beginning. There are quite a few of these bad guys, and everyone knows it.
The Orthodox Church is completely different. Since the Son of Heaven is the human messenger of the Lord, or an angel, this loyalty should be unconditional and should transcend the family ties between father and son. They are not the same kind of things at all, so naturally they cannot be compared, and they should not be compared. Any analogy with the family relationship between father and son is paving the way for future accusations that the father is unkind and the son is unfilial. The Orthodox Church will not leave this excuse.
So from this point of view, Orthodox Christianity really regards the king as a god, rather than Confucianism, where the king is just a statue of a god.
How can the people and even the scholar-bureaucrats accept the Eastern Orthodox Church's upgrade to the king? After all, having multiple fathers besides the biological father is already uncomfortable. This directly turns into multiple ancestors. How can people be convinced?
This involves the other four designs of the Orthodox Church.
The first is to uphold justice. The role of the emperor or lord is to provide justice to the people. In this way, the sons can use their ancestors to check and balance their biological father. Who wouldn't want to do this? After all, the emperor only intervenes occasionally. Introducing an occasional intervention can check and balance his biological father who interferes every day. The sons simply don't want to be too happy. . As long as the biological fathers prove to the emperor that they have no problems, they can use their sons completely reasonably and legally. You can fight as hard as you want, no one has anything to say. You can buy legal basis by paying money or surrendering. This is a great deal in the face of the reality where traitors are everywhere. Therefore, the missionary work of the Orthodox Church is all about fairness and justice to the lower classes, and dedication and payment to the upper classes.
The second is to return religious property to the public. Believing in the Lord and the Emperor costs money, so who would want to hand over money to others in vain? Moreover, after the money is handed over, if the emperor does not behave as a human being, takes the money and does nothing, and does not seek justice for himself, the Orthodox Church's design of returning church property to the public can solve the problem very well. First, at least in legal terms, the offerings submitted belong to the people of the world and are not given to the emperor for private use.This in turn also represents the concept of the emperor and the world as the public. Secondly, as long as the common people and gentry truly believed in the emperor and were appointed by the emperor as local bishops, they would naturally be able to freely use the remaining religious property after turning it over to the inner treasury. As for whether it benefits the people under the rule, it can only be based on conscience. Although it is based on conscience, the general mutual aid at the grassroots level has indeed helped the parishioners below.
The third is the dispersion of the Holy See. Only when the Holy See is dispersed and not subordinate to each other can the local Holy See supervise each other. If people feel that the local church is not good, they can go to the church next door. But no matter how the meat rots in the pot, the handed over religious property can automatically be retained in the emperor's inner treasury. If the problem in that place is really too big to suppress, the local Vatican can temporarily push a bishop to take the blame.
Once this thing is allowed, the lower levels will have the belief in dedication and sacrifice, and the combat effectiveness will gradually increase. At least during the Battle of Kazan, the knights of the Muscovite Principality were not weaker than the Mongols in terms of individual combat bravery. Moreover, the Holy See and the principality court have become a mutual restriction mechanism.
This is a re-examination court, which is certainly more stable than the single court of the Ming Dynasty. The re-examination means that audits can be carried out alternately. The quality of local government governance and the development of the Holy See can be mutually audited. If the Holy See's religious property development is not good, the local government is good. This shows that there is a risk that the tail will be too big to lose. If the local government is not good but the Holy See's religious properties are good, it means that someone is using the emperor's religious name to enrich themselves.
Similarly, if the local court has major problems, the Holy See can send someone to take over. If there is a big problem with the Holy See, the court can also send someone to replace it. If both the local Holy See and the imperial court have major problems, it is a rebellion. Unless you can overwhelm so many other papal courts in one go, why take the risk of rebellion if you can control so much public property with one person and achieve personal freedom long ago. In terms of enjoyment, personal consumption and enjoyment are given priority. The local bishop is not much worse than the archangel of the country in terms of food, clothing, housing and transportation. In this way, even if the rebellion succeeds, the legal principle of the religious property is still vested in the public. After going back and forth, personal marginal benefits are limited. As long as he is normal, he will only try his best to maintain this mechanism.
Has anyone suddenly realized that this mechanism is unreasonable? Isn’t there a path to knightly military merit? As long as the knightly military merit is opened up and continues to expand outwards, attracting all capable people, you will either die on the battlefield or become a high-ranking official. Houlu became one of his own, and the remaining ones without force could not do anything even if their conscience found out. Please remember to collect it, the latest and fastest website is free to read without anti-theft