I am posting several excerpts from the new book “God. True. Falsehoods." About the essence of the main problem posed in it:

Does it matter how and what to believe? This issue is being discussed very lively today. Sometimes it’s even hot, emotional, tough. Sometimes a priest comes to a secular audience or appears on social networks - and is immediately asked defiantly:
- Why did you decide that your faith is correct? I’m probably a Muslim (Buddhist, pagan, supporter of “God in the soul,” an agnostic or even an atheist) - but let your faith not reject me, and let your God (if there is one) lead me into heaven!
Until recently, in the 90s, most people did not ask this question. As soon as Soviet and early post-Soviet people began to come to faith, the opinions of Western authors and our “sixties” intellectuals were already waiting for him. Most of them said: if God exists, then all paths lead to Him if you good man and you have a certain “spirituality”.
A similar position was preached first by “advanced” Soviet writers and publicists, then by Roerichites and neo-Tolstoyans, then by all kinds of semi-believers of the “conscience of the nation.” Soon it reached the popular magicians, sorcerers, “psychics” in post-Soviet society, and then a significant part of the sectarians. Believe what you want - the main thing is to listen to us. Almost the entire “thinking” population of Russia and other post-Soviet countries agreed with this “approach” for a long time.
Sometimes such speeches were echoed by gray-haired or young figures in robes - why, we are not retrogrades, in any faith there is a grain of truth, the Creator gave every people his faith, let’s not be narrow... The intelligentsia nodded touchingly: that’s how well-mannered they are, not like the Black Hundreds of the beginning century, some kind of John of Kronstadt...
And at this time, the timid voice of Orthodox missionaries sounded - in particular, Father Andrei Kuraev, one of whose books was called “Does it matter how you believe”? Post-Soviet society, which easily jumped from atheism to religious omnivorousness, suddenly heard something extremely unexpected for itself: real, that is, Orthodox Christianity, believes that there is only one truth. And there is one true religion, and the rest are false. Not all paths lead to God, only one. Because Christ Himself said: “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).
Many people who believe that they worship God actually worship someone who does not exist (for example, the same “god in the soul”), or even demons. Because God is such and only such as He revealed Himself in the Bible through the true Church. Distorted “versions” of Him are not the true God.
Moreover, even within the framework of conventional “Christianity,” not every teaching is correct. There are heresies and sects. They not only lead a person away from the Kingdom of Heaven, but also pass off as Christ someone who is strikingly different from the Son of God described in the New Testament and in the Tradition of the Church - that is, in the decisions of Councils, the works of saints, the texts of worship (and for Orthodox Christian all this is no less an authority than the Bible). That is, this “someone” is not Christ.
After all this was said, a terrible howl arose. What were the poor missionaries accused of? What kind of monsters they imagined! But they were supported by the voice of the elders, who continued the pre-revolutionary tradition. And then - the voices of many active lay people. And then - and a whole series of bishops.
As a result, very soon millions of people realized: the real teaching about God cannot but lay claim to the uniqueness of truth. This teaching must be known - otherwise one cannot be called a Christian. And there can be difficult debates around this teaching, in which it is necessary not only to show eloquence or discover the volume of knowledge, but to understand what God Himself said and is telling people. This means that there is no escape from studying and writing theological texts.

Head of the missionary department of the Sergiev Posad deanery
father Dimitri Bezhenar

Dear brothers and sisters! We cordially congratulate you all on the holiday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy! This is one of the most joyful holidays for everyone who rightly professes the true God. And today’s conversation, which is called “Does it matter how you believe?”, I would like to start with one parable.

There is one wonderful book by our contemporary monk Simeon of Athos, called “The Road Illuminated by the Sun.” There are collected many parables that the Lord admonished him to compose. And a parable is always a form of presentation of some idea: after reading it, thinking about it, we draw some spiritual conclusions specific to ourselves. This parable is like this.

One smart elderly mother had one only son, whom she loved very much. She wanted him to be happy. And she says: “Son, if you want to be happy, you must enter the service of one great and good king.” “Where can I find him?” - asks the son. “And you walk along the road and you will definitely come to him. But remember, son, on the way, no matter who you meet, no matter what they say to you, remember only one of my testaments: “Be patient with everything, my son, and then you will live!”

This young man went, he goes, and in his heart, in his thoughts - this testament to his mother. Suddenly a beautiful girl appeared before his eyes and spoke to him tenderly. His heart trembled, he wanted to stay with her. And staying with her means deviating from his path. But he remembered his mother’s behest: “Be patient with everything, my son, and then you will live!” And he went further.

Suddenly he sees: a lot of jewelry, gold, silver are scattered. And, it would seem, no one needs it - take it, and you can use it all at your own discretion! Again his heart trembled: he paid attention to the gold, remembered his elderly mother, and thought: this gold could bring them great benefit! But he again remembered her behest: “Endure everything, my son, and then you will live!” And he passed by the gold further.

Suddenly he sees an army standing, ready for battle. They pointed spears at him, arrows flew in his direction, and the whole formation moved towards him with threatening shouts. This heart trembled again young man, fear seized him: army! You can expect anything from them! But again in his heart he heard the same words of his loving, wise mother: “Be patient with everything, my son, and then you will live!” And at that moment, when he decisively took a step towards the army, this army disappeared before his eyes.

He walked for a long time, and met many different obstacles on his way. In some mountain gorge, he once met many terrible monsters who attacked him and began to torment his body. And, bleeding, he trembled and wanted to abandon that idea, the path he had taken at the beginning. He even lost faith for a moment that it was possible someday, walking along this path, to meet a good king and, naturally, to be happy. But again he heard in his heart: “Be patient, my son, and then you will live!”, and at that moment all those monsters disappeared.

He felt himself falling and fell into the arms of the good king. The good king brought him into his palace, introduced him to all the courtiers and made him, this young man, his son. And above the throne on which he sat him, that young man saw the inscription that his own mother had once told him: “Be patient with everything, my son, and then you will live!”

This parable, as you understand, dear brothers and sisters, has a very deep meaning. And, probably, each of us, when we read or listen to any parable, definitely draws some conclusion for ourselves. And in the context of our topic today, this parable could be interpreted as follows: the loving and wise mother of each of us is the Holy Orthodox Church, to which you and I are fortunate to belong. This is true happiness, which was not given to us because of our merits - it is a given, we are happy that the Lord led each of us at different ages, in different states to Holy Orthodoxy. And on the path of our lives we may encounter a variety of obstacles. Obstacles, at first glance, do not pose a threat to us, but on the contrary, some chances to get carried away with something, become interested in something, love something more than the sole purpose for which we came into this world.

And here is the behest of our mother, the loving Orthodox Church, we must always remember: “Be patient with everything, my son, and then you will live!” You yourself understand who is meant by the image of a good king - this is the Lord Himself, Who awaits the soul of everyone who remains faithful to Him to the end.

We all have the honor of belonging to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, that the only Church, which is promised in the Word of God invincibility by the gates of hell: “I will build My Church,” said the Lord, “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). This is precisely the Church that in the Holy Scriptures is called “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), that is, the one that is infallible: the Church as a conciliar Church, and the conciliar mind of the Church is infallible. This Church will always be true! Until the Second Coming of Christ the Son of God, she will carry out her saving ministry on earth. And this Church in our earthly reality, the Orthodox Church, exists as a community of Local Orthodox Churches, between which there is prayerful and eucharistic unity.

Let us briefly explain what this unity means: there is the Serbian Orthodox Church, or the Bulgarian, or the Georgian, we belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, and there is Eucharistic unity between these Churches.

But we, as you understand, my dear friends, are not the only ones on earth. According to approximate, rather arbitrary estimates, there are now more than six billion people on earth! Do you think we Orthodox Christians are the majority among this number? Of course not! And now it will be possible to briefly recall some statistics, how many of the most different religions and there are confessions on earth.

Of the approximately six billion people on earth, about thirty-three percent, according to estimates in 2000, a figure that is unlikely to change dramatically in ten years, are Christians. The largest religion in terms of number of followers is Christians. But as you understand, Dear friends, Christians are all together: Roman Catholics, Orthodox, pre-Chalcedonians, and many Protestant denominations.

In second place - approximately twenty percent of the world's population - are people who profess Islam, worshipers of Allah, who believe that Allah created this entire world, and that the Koran is the only and most reliable source of faith.

Approximately eight million people living on our planet profess Hinduism. And although Hinduism is called a world religion according to the religious classification, in fact this religion is quite a certain number of people who do not live all over the world, but live quite compactly in Southeast Asia.

Approximately six percent of the world's population professes Buddhism. And there is one more phenomenon, a phenomenon that became relevant precisely in the 20th century - before the 20th century there was no such mass phenomenon. These are people who position themselves as atheists, as not belonging to absolutely any religion and any denomination or religious tradition. And there are actually quite a lot of such people on earth. This, again according to rough estimates, is one billion two hundred eight million people.

What do you think, dear friends, where do the vast majority of these people live? You know, probably. They live in the People's Republic of China. About a billion-odd people not only position themselves as being completely irreligious, but their very lives, as they say “by their fruits you will know them,” show that they are outside the religious tradition. And this is a fairly significant number of people who live, if I may say so mildly and tolerantly, only by material, these horizontal interests.

How many of us, Orthodox, we will consider a little ahead, but of the Christian denominations the most big number followers - one billion three hundred fifty approximately thousand people - these are people professing Roman Catholicism. In second place are the Orthodox. In third place in number are the pre-Chalcedonites. These are representatives of the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian and other Churches who labor in the territories where monasticism once formed (Egypt, Thebaid). And in their doctrine, in their theology and dogmatics, they are closest to those Christians who did not accept the resolution of the IV Ecumenical Council. That is, in their doctrine they are closest to the Monophysite heresy.

And, by the way, the very word “heresy,” although perhaps for us, for Orthodox believers, it is identified with something offensive, in the purely theological sense of the word it does not even mean an insult, but a statement of fact. Heretic - from Greek wordαίρεση (heresy) is a person cut off from a certain unity, a certain part cut off from completeness. That is, heretics, without insult, but as a statement of fact, the Orthodox Church can call all those who at different times historical era for various reasons, primarily doctrinal and theological, they cut themselves off from the fullness of the faith, the Holy Catholic Faith and Apostolic Church.

It is briefly necessary to recall, at least in general terms, schematically, what representatives of other so-called world religions believe in. One of ancient religions- This is Hinduism. Hinduism believes in the existence of an Impersonal Absolute. You have probably often heard this definition from the lips of modern Russian para-church intelligentsia, who, one way or another, consider themselves knowledgeable in all religious matters. Such intelligentsia likes to say that they believe in the one who is beyond good and evil - these words are painfully familiar, because this is precisely the creed of Hinduism. The Absolute is on the other side of good and evil, it can manifest itself both as good and as evil, and this whole world is Maya (in Sanskrit - a kind of illusion).

Hinduism believes in the reincarnation of souls. That is, there is nothing stable and permanent and nothing truly valuable in this temporary life. Why? Because you lived past life, and the time before last, and the pose before last, and in this life, no matter how you live, you are subject to this wheel of reincarnation, an inexorable fate. Whether you want it or not, you will be reincarnated. Eight hundred million people on earth sincerely believe in this, let’s say, doctrine.

Followers of Islam. Islam is the most dynamically developing religion in modern world. And if, as we know, in the People's Republic of China there live a billion-odd people who are absolutely irreligious, then on the globe, if you look geographically, not far from them live almost a billion people who actively profess Islam, that is, actively believers and actively strive for reorganization of the world.

What we are going to talk about now is not an insult to any religion, in particular Islam, but a statement of their religious beliefs, those beliefs that are set out in their own doctrinal sources. Islam believes in Allah, but Allah is not a person, it is not God Holy Scripture, to whom we can turn “on you,” to whom we can turn in prayer, this is not the Person whom we can love and to whom we can strive to unite with Her. And this is some higher power from the point of view of Islam, which created this world, gave it laws, predetermined who will be a criminal and who will be a virtuous person. And none of the created beings can do anything against this force. What does this power expect from those who believe in this power? He expects only humility and obedience.

Muslims themselves, if you talk to them, honestly and sincerely admit that it is impossible to pray to Allah, it is impossible even to love him: you just need to listen to him and obey him. And the Sharia laws that operate in the countries of the Islamic world and which, from the point of view of Islam, should, in some distant future, spread to the entire globe, this is nothing more than a project for world reconstruction, so that the whole world lives as the Koran teaches.

It is impossible to love Allah, it is impossible to pray to him, he has many attributes. And you’ve probably seen or maybe read lectures about Islam by religious scholars who are interested in this religion, and you’ve seen, of course, Muslims who wear small rosaries on their hands. When they go through these beads, they go through the many names of Allah. This is not a prayer at all, it is not synonymous with our christian prayer Jesus.

Next world religion, which is professed by about fourteen million of the world's population, is the religion of Judaism. It should not be confused with the religion of Old Testament Israel, because the religion of Old Testament Israel and modern Talmudic Judaism are completely different things, despite the commonality of the ethnic group that professed this religion before the coming of Christ and those who profess it now.

The main cornerstone of modern Talmudic Judaism is the conscious, decisive and consistent denial of our Lord Jesus Christ as the true Messiah. They deny that in Jesus of Nazareth, in Christ, about whom we know from the pages of Holy Scripture, that in Him all the prophecies were fulfilled Old Testament, starting from the promise given to our forefathers in Paradise that “the seed of the woman will bruise the head of the serpent” (see cf. Gen. 3:15), to the promise to Abraham that “in your seed all nations will be blessed” (cf. cf. Gen. 18, 18; 22, 18;

Here, one might say, the cornerstone of the faith of Judaism is unbelief in Christ and consistent clear opposition to the Church created by Him, Christ, on earth, the Church, which is the invisible mystical Body of Christ, united with Him, with Christ, as its Head. And the Lord Jesus Christ, as we know, as our loving mother the Orthodox Church teaches us, is at the same time the Head of the body of the Church, and He is the foundation of this Church, an unshakable foundation, as you remember from the Gospel: “The stone rejected by the builders was laid down.” at the forefront. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (cf. Matthew 21:42). This stone that lies at the forefront is faith in Christ, the true Messiah.

The religion of Buddhism, which, as we just talked to you, is also professed by six percent of the world's population, strictly speaking, it is difficult to call it a religion, because in its original form Buddhism is nothing more than religious philosophy. Many of the near-church intelligentsia, which we have already mentioned today and, perhaps, will remember more than once in vain, are our fellow citizens who, perhaps, due to the fact of baptism in childhood, were Orthodox, but, carried away by the wind of all kinds of teachings, stood in opposition to Orthodoxy, to the native, saving, fatherly faith. And they easily get carried away by a variety of teachings. It is precisely from their lips that you can hear that Buddhism is one of the most peaceful religions. Have you probably heard this statement? That Buddhists will not break off a twig or crush a bug, that they are pacifists.

Historically, this is, of course, not entirely true, but we won’t go into that now. That is, Buddhism, one way or another, is a religious philosophy that denies the existence of God in general, denies the immortality of the human soul and the reality of anything in this world. Therefore, for a Buddhist, the greatest sin is the desire to live. Wanting to break out of the meaningless wheel of reincarnation, the founder of this religion, Siddhartha Gautama Shakyamuni, meditated for a long time, not without the help of one character - we, Christians, know for sure who could talk some sense into him - came up with a religious system in the worldview of which the existence of God and the immortality of man are completely denied souls and the reality of this world.

And so he just came to the conclusion that the purpose of human existence on earth is to achieve nirvana. Have you heard this concept, right? Now, thanks to the works of the Roerichs and Blavatsky, it has become, in a sense, better known in society, even than such concepts as the Kingdom of God, grace, repentance, sin. Many people know about nirvana. And even, unfortunately, it happens that when a person strives for something good, fortunately, he says: “Here, I strive for nirvana,” not understanding what nirvana is in the original sense of the word, what meaning is put into this concept traditional Buddhism. Nirvana is a state of complete non-existence. You can put it this way: it’s like a salt doll immersed in the ocean. She completely dissolves, we can say that she is all there, but at the same time, she is nowhere there. This is the purpose of human life on earth from the point of view of Buddhism.

And of the Christian denominations, Roman Catholicism is the largest in number. And it is rightful for the Roman Catholics or, as they call themselves - there is such a religious term: “Roman Catholic Church” (not in the dogmatic, but sociological sense) - the Roman Catholic Church can well be called heretical. From the word “heresy” is a society of people who have separated themselves from the fullness of faith.

The year 1054 is the tragic date of the fall of the Roman See from the See of Constantinople and, in its person, from the entire Eastern Orthodoxy. And from that date – to my deepest regret, to this day. We must specify why “unfortunately”. Saint Gregory the Theologian, one of the great fathers of the Church, who suffered a lot from the Arians, when he came to Constantinople, he saw that there was not a single one there Orthodox church, and worked hard to restore and revive Orthodoxy. He was one of the fathers who prepared the Second Ecumenical Council, and he has these words addressed to the Arians - note: addressed to those from whom he suffered so much! “We do not strive for victory, but for the return of our brothers, separation from whom weighs heavily on us!”

Therefore, when addressing Roman Catholics, we, Orthodox Christians, can also be guided by the following words: “We are not waiting for victory, say, over them, not for some kind of endowment, not for insulting them, but we are waiting for their return to the bosom of the Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church! » That only Church, let me remind you once again, which is promised insurmountability, invincibility through the gates of hell. But the concept that this community of people is heretical is rightfully applied to them. Why? Because they distort one of the most important dogmas of the faith, the apostolic Christian faith, the revealed faith.

And first of all, they grossly distort the Trinitarian dogma! Not even some minor doctrine, but precisely the Trinitarian dogma - the divinely revealed faith about the Holy Trinity! This is their filioque dogma about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son.

In order not to bore you now, and not to shy away into these theological nuances and subtleties, let us draw attention to another very important stumbling block of the Roman Catholic faith, which they, at least consistent honest sincere Catholics, are unlikely to ever abandon. This is the dogma of papal infallibility, that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, and that he is infallible. The majority of Orthodox Christians, unfortunately, and what is surprising: the vast majority of Roman Catholics, ordinary believers, not theologians, do not even fully know the original text of this formulation! This is very surprising, because if they fully knew all this formulation about papal infallibility, this common sense religious feeling in any person would certainly begin to protest.

Now we will watch a video with you, this is a film by Galina Tsareva, which is called “The Vatican Crusade against Orthodoxy.” And pay attention: here we will hear exactly the exact formulation of this dogma of papal infallibility. Let's listen together and think about whether Christians, that is, people who believe in Christ as the Son of God, can simultaneously profess such a dogma?

So, in Bishop Bougaud's book "The Church", published in 1922, the pope is equated with the Sacrament of the Eucharist; Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is really present under the cover of bread and wine, so in the Pope Christ is really present.

“In the sacrament of the Eucharist,” says Bishop Bugo, “we have, so to speak, only “half” of Christ. For He is “mute” in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Where can we look for the other “half” of Jesus Christ, who actually resides in the Church? – She is in the Vatican: she is in the Pope. The Pope is the second way of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Church. Jesus Christ created for Himself two ways of real presence, completely different, both inexplicable and which, united together, form the fullness of His incarnation...

Oh, the great mystery of the two veils under which Jesus Christ is hidden in his entirety! Seek to Jesus saying: go to the Pope. This is the mystery of Christianity: it is the miracle of the real presence of the Incarnation, offered and spread under two veils. What Jesus Christ did not put under one of these two covers, He put under the other; and one can possess Him in full only if one knows how to move from the Eucharist to the Pope and from the Pope to the Eucharist in an ardent impulse of the heart. Outside of these two mysteries, which actually form one mystery, we have only a reduced Jesus Christ (He Himself established this), who is insufficient for the needs of both individual souls and society, who is not even able to defend Himself.”

“The mystery of faith! Here is a word that needs to be said about the Pope after we have said it about St. Eucharist, for the Pope is Jesus Christ, hidden under the veil and continuing through the medium of the human organ his public service among people...

Therefore, the Church, more sensitive than we are to Divine things, does not know how to talk about the Pope. No expression seems to her too strong to express this mutual penetration which makes of Jesus Christ and of the Pope her Head, at once visible and invisible, and her only Spouse. She attributes to him all the love she has for the Lord. She surrounds him with the same reverence...

Oh the sweetness of the feelings that you experience in front of the Tabernacle and at the feet of the Pope, in whom Jesus Christ - gathered, condensed the entire Church, and moreover: - He “previously created the Pope.” This is a great secret: the church is the unceasing and constant creation of the pope... So, everything comes from the pope. He creates the Church; and in her and through her he enlightens and sanctifies souls.” There is no doubt that Bishop Bugo reflected in his work the official teaching of the Roman Church about the pope.

The Roman theory of the primacy of the Roman bishop emanates horror. Inextricably linked with the question of the primacy of the pope is another question - about his infallibility. In 1870 Catholic Church recognized the infallibility of the Roman high priest as a dogma. Here is his text.

"The Pope (Roman) is divine man and human God. Therefore no one can judge him or about him. The Pope has divine authority, and his power is unlimited. The same thing is possible for him on earth as it is in heaven for God. What is done by the pope is the same as what was done by God. His commandments must be fulfilled as the commandments of God. There is only one God like the Pope; the pope commands heavenly and earthly things. The Pope is in the world what God is in the world or the soul is in the body. The power of the pope is higher than any created power, for in some way it extends to objects in heaven, earth and the underworld, so that the words of Scripture are justified in him: “thou hast subdued all things under his nose.”

Everything is given to the power and will of the pope, and no one and nothing can resist him. If the pope took millions of people with him to hell, then none of them would have the right to ask him: holy father, why are you doing this? The Pope is infallible like God, and can do everything that God does.

The will of God, and therefore of the pope, who is GOD'S VICIRE, has supreme power everywhere. He is girded with two swords, that is, he rules over the spiritual and temporal: over patriarchs and bishops, over emperors and kings. All people in the world are his subjects. He is everything, Above everything and contains everything. What he praises or blames, everyone must praise or blame.

Dad can change the nature of things, make something out of nothing. He has the power to create truth out of untruth, he has the power to do whatever he pleases against the truth, without the truth and in spite of the truth. He may object to the apostles and to the commandments handed down by the apostles. He has the power to correct everything that he recognizes as necessary in the new covenant, he can change the very sacraments established by Jesus Christ. He has such power in heaven that he has the power to raise from dead people to saints whomever he wants, even against all extraneous convictions and despite all cardinals and bishops who would think to oppose him.

The Pope has power over purgatory and hell. He is the Lord of the Universe. With his unlimited power, he does everything solely according to his own will; he can do even more than we or he knows. To doubt his power is sacrilege. His power is higher and more extensive than the power of all the holy angels and archangels. No one has the right to even mentally protest against his sentence or trial.

The power of the pope has no measure and limits. Whoever denies the sovereignty and supremacy of the pope sins against the Holy Spirit, divides Christ and is a heretic. Only the pope is given the power to take anything from anyone and give it to someone else. The Pope has the power to take away and distribute empires, kingdoms, principalities and all property. The pope receives his power directly from God, and emperors and kings from the pope.

The Pope is God's vicegerent, and whoever denies this is a liar. The Pope is instead the ruler of God over the good and evil angels; what is accomplished by the authority of the pope, i.e. done by the authority of God.

He who does not obey the pope does not obey God. Everything dad does pleases God.

No one can judge the Pope, because it is said: “He who is spiritual judges all things, but no one can judge him” (1 Cor. 2:15). His power extends to the heavenly, earthly and underworld. He is the likeness of Christ, and the Holy Spirit lives in his body.

The Pope is the sovereign of all, the king and the cause of all causes. Dad is the groom and the head Universal Church. The Pope cannot be mistaken, he is omnipotent, he has all the power. He is higher than the Apostle Paul, for in his calling he stands on a par with the Apostle Peter. He can, therefore, object to the Apostle Paul and give orders contrary to his epistles.

Blaming the Pope is the same as sinning against the Holy Spirit, which cannot be forgiven either in this century or in the next.

The pope's triple crown signifies the triplicity of his power: over angels in heaven, over people on earth and over demons in hell. God has placed all laws in the power of the pope, and the pope himself is above all laws.

If the pope pronounced a sentence against the Court of God, then the Court of God must be corrected and changed. The Pope is the light of faith and the reflection of truth. Dad is everything above everything, and can do everything...”

This is the literal decree of the First Vatican Council, made under Pope Pius IX in 1870! Not in any distant times of the Middle Ages, but only in the last century - about a hundred years ago! Do all Orthodox Christians know about such a decree? Do even the Roman Catholics themselves know the full text?

Dear brothers and sisters, the English writer Chesterton once said that when people stop believing in the truth and seeking the truth, two extremes happen to them: either they become skeptics, that is, they do not believe in the truth at all, or a moment happens to them that can call it religious omnivorousness. That is, they begin to believe in everything, in any manifestations of spirituality.

And in today’s rapidly changing, secularizing world, these two dangerous trends are emerging. That is, one category of people does not think at all about what truth is, at least in matters of worldview, but there are those - we probably met some - who are ready to believe in any spirituality and, as you know, look for this spirituality everywhere .

Somewhere a new section on hand-to-hand combat has opened, and they can strike with some kind of energy at a distance of ten meters - such a person will go to this section in order to master these energies. And somewhere some specialist arrived who opens the third eye, but does not promise that he will close it - and off we go! Then they went to some witch or some “Orthodox” psychic, who says that she has a 100% guarantee that she can remove any damage, do a love spell, a turn-around, and much more.

And, that is, people who may call themselves Orthodox, they either believe in all spirituality, or become skeptics. And not without bitter humor we can say that there are people now among our fellow citizens who position themselves as Orthodox. You ask them: “Are you Orthodox?” He says: “Yes. But I don’t believe in God.” And if you try to find out in a live conversation what he understands by Orthodoxy, it turns out that “since we live in Russia, I am really Orthodox, I hate such and such, such and such!” That is, they call hatred of some other religions Orthodoxy, that’s the nuance.

Or they say this, this happens many times at the beginning of Lent, such conversations occur, especially if the priest is in public place somewhere, on public transport. One of the men, perhaps even in a good mood, says: “Father, I am Orthodox! True, I don’t fast, I don’t go to church, I don’t pray. But I’m celebrating Easter!” This is such a manifestation of “Orthodox” spirituality.

A very important milestone in the history of the movement, which we will now briefly discuss, occurred in 1893. This year the so-called Parliament of Religions took place in Chicago. Representatives of various religions and many Protestant denominations gathered. And the most outstanding highlight of this symposium was the speech of the Hindu guru Swami Vivekananda. His quote is so important for understanding the processes that follow in religious consciousness a huge number of people, that I will read you his words verbatim, which amazed everyone.

“If one religion is true, then all the others must be true too. So the religion of India is as much yours as it is mine. We Hindus are not just tolerant, we unite ourselves with all religions, praying in a mosque with a Mohammedan, worshiping fire with a Zoroastrian and kneeling at the cross with a Christian. We know that all religions are similar and from the simplest fetishism to the highest worship of the Absolute are only attempts of the human spirit to embrace and realize the Infinite. Therefore, we collect these flowers and, tying them together with a thread of love, we create from them a wonderful bouquet of worship.”

Well, it’s not hard to guess, dear friends, that Protestants, and Protestant denominations - they arose as a protest against the abuses of Catholicism - received the words of this preacher of neo-Hinduism with great delight. And thus, a phenomenon of the 20th century arose, which can be called ecumenism. Ecumenism in Christian sense The words seek to unite all Christian denominations that in one way or another believe in God the Trinity and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to this world to save the human race. And ecumenism in in a broad sense the word, as the unification of all the most different, sometimes diametrically opposed religions in their beliefs, into a single whole.

And if Christian ecumenism sets itself the task (briefly, in general terms) to try to find something common that unites all Christians, then ecumenism in the broad sense of the word tries to unite all religions, finding some common denominator between all religions.

Why did Vivekananda's words cause such delight? Because he says that it doesn’t matter what you worship, the main thing is to be able to love your neighbor, your interlocutor or your opponent. And it is precisely for the sake of love that we can unite. Is this fair? Is it possible to say that completely opposite doctrines can be united for the sake of imaginary love? It’s not difficult for you and me, how Orthodox people, make sure that it is impossible to simultaneously believe in the senseless endless reincarnation of souls and at the same time equally sincerely believe that a person, as the Apostle Paul says, lives once on earth, and then judgment (see Heb. 9:27)!

These are two, as you understand, mutually exclusive doctrines. It is difficult to believe that God is the impersonal Absolute, which is on the other side of good and evil, which in this illusory world manifests itself as both good and evil, and at the same time believe that God is the Creator, that He is separated from this world, being the Creator , and that He is a Person, and a Person who endlessly loves a person.

It is difficult to simultaneously believe, as Buddhists teach, that we should strive for complete dissolution in nirvana, and at the same time also sincerely and seriously believe that human soul is also personal, that we live on earth once, and every moment of our life is very responsible, because we will someday appear before that Supreme Person, one in the glorious Trinity, who created us and gave us every moment so that we to this eternal goals were sought.

And, of course, as you understand, it is difficult to be simultaneously a consistent Christian and a consistent Muslim, to believe in the one true God, glorified in the Trinity, and at the same time in some impersonal higher power that awaits only submission.

One of the Indian religious and at the same time political figures, Mahatma Gandhi, after a long, so to speak, search for the truth, saw that many atheists with whom he had serious conversations were sincerely struggling with religion. And he came to the conclusion, and this has become popular in the modern world, that the most important thing is simply the truth and to sincerely believe in something. If you are sincerely convinced of this, then it does not matter what you are convinced of. Either you are sincerely convinced that there is no God, or you are sincerely convinced that He exists - the main thing is that you are sincerely convinced of this...

I am posting several excerpts from the new book “God. True. Falsehoods." About the essence of the main problem posed in it:

Does it matter how and what to believe? This issue is being discussed very lively today. Sometimes it’s even hot, emotional, tough. Sometimes a priest comes to a secular audience or appears on social networks - and is immediately asked defiantly:

Why did you decide that your faith is correct? I’m probably a Muslim (Buddhist, pagan, supporter of “God in the soul,” an agnostic or even an atheist) - but let your faith not reject me, and let your God (if there is one) lead me into heaven!

Until recently, in the 90s, most people did not ask this question. As soon as Soviet and early post-Soviet people began to come to faith, the opinions of Western authors and our “sixties” intellectuals were already waiting for him. Most of them said: if God exists, then all paths lead to Him if you are a good person and you have some kind of “spirituality.”

A similar position was preached first by “advanced” Soviet writers and publicists, then by Roerichites and neo-Tolstoyans, then by all kinds of semi-believers of the “conscience of the nation.” Soon it reached the popular magicians, sorcerers, “psychics” in post-Soviet society, and then a significant part of the sectarians. Believe what you want - the main thing is to listen to us. Almost the entire “thinking” population of Russia and other post-Soviet countries agreed with this “approach” for a long time.

Sometimes such speeches were echoed by gray-haired or young figures in robes - why, we are not retrogrades, in any faith there is a grain of truth, the Creator gave every people his faith, let’s not be narrow... The intelligentsia nodded touchingly: that’s how well-mannered they are, not like the Black Hundreds of the beginning century, some kind of John of Kronstadt...

And at this time, the timid voice of Orthodox missionaries sounded - in particular, Father Andrei Kuraev, one of whose books was called “Does it matter how you believe”? Post-Soviet society, which easily jumped from atheism to religious omnivorousness, suddenly heard something extremely unexpected for itself: real, that is, Orthodox Christianity, believes that there is only one truth. And there is one true religion, and the rest are false. Not all paths lead to God, only one. Because Christ Himself said: “I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Many people who believe that they worship God actually worship someone who does not exist (for example, the same “god in the soul”), or even demons. Because God is such and only such as He revealed Himself in the Bible through the true Church. Distorted “versions” of Him are not the true God.

Moreover, even within the framework of conventional “Christianity,” not every teaching is correct. There are heresies and sects. They not only lead a person away from the Kingdom of Heaven, but also pass off as Christ someone who is strikingly different from the Son of God described in the New Testament and in the Tradition of the Church - that is, in the decisions of Councils, the works of saints, the texts of worship (and for an Orthodox Christian all this is no less an authority than the Bible). That is, this “someone” is not Christ.

After all this was said, a terrible howl arose. What were the poor missionaries accused of? What kind of monsters they imagined! But they were supported by the voice of the elders, who continued the pre-revolutionary tradition. And then - the voices of many active lay people. And then - and a whole series of bishops.

As a result, very soon millions of people realized: the real teaching about God cannot but lay claim to the uniqueness of truth. This teaching must be known - otherwise one cannot be called a Christian. And there can be difficult debates around this teaching, in which it is necessary not only to show eloquence or discover the volume of knowledge, but to understand what God Himself said and is telling people. This means that there is no escape from studying and writing theological texts.

| | | | .

A lot of them. But they are all tactful enough not to impose themselves on those who have no desire to understand them or simply lack either the experience of life or the experience of thought in order to discern their correctness.

The most traditional argument points to the intelligence of nature as a manifestation of the Creative Mind. Imagine that we found a log house in the forest. Would it even occur to us to say that there are simply frequent hurricanes here and one of them tore out several trees, twisted them, hewed them, sawed them and then accidentally stacked them in such an order that a log house appeared, and the hurricanes of the following years accidentally inserted window frames into it and doors, laid floors and laid a roof? It is unlikely that there is such an “evolutionist”. But the structure is not only cells, but even DNA molecules are incomparable in their complexity, not only with a forest hut, but also with a modern skyscraper. So is it reasonable to persist in the belief that many, many blind hurricanes gave birth to life? It was Shakespeare's medicine man who could say: "Take a little dirt, a little sun - and you have a Nile crocodile." But today, using reason, trying to prove that there is no Reason in the world is not a very reasonable activity.

By the way, Darwin’s “theory of evolution” proved only one thing - its boundless confidence in its own merits. What did Darwin see as the “engine of progress”? - In the “struggle of species for survival” and in “natural selection”. Both, of course, exist (although modern ecology says that species cooperate rather than fight, and Darwin was too quick to transfer the mores of early capitalist society into nature). But explaining everything by “natural selection” is the same as saying that AvtoVAZ is developing and releasing new models only because it has a technical control department that does not release defective cars outside the plant. It’s not OTK that creates new models! And “mutations” can’t explain much here. They undoubtedly exist, but if they are only random in nature, then they are nothing more than a series of hurricanes. More likely, a hurricane sweeping through an airplane graveyard will assemble a brand new superliner than random “mutations” - hurricanes at the molecular level - will create a living cell or a new species. In the end, in “neo-Darwinism” the theory of evolution looks like this: if you beat your fist on the black and white “Horizon” for a long time, it will eventually become a color “Panasonic”. If you beat a roach on the tabletop for a long time, someday it will develop wings and sing like a nightingale.

Does this prove that God exists? No - this only proves that you cannot go unpunished (to preserve your mental abilities) to claim that “science has proven that there is no God.” This proves that there is a superhuman Mind at work in the world. And it proves by pointing only to the terrible, inhuman absurdity of the opposite statement... And whether a person identifies this Reason with the God of the Bible is already a question of his intimate and completely free choice...

Or here is another argument - cosmological. Everything that exists has a cause, doesn't it? The world also exists. And that means it must also have a reason for its existence. What may be outside material world? Only the non-material, spiritual world, in which there are no reasons, but there is Freedom, and which therefore itself does not need any higher reason outside of it... To be honest, this is not a mathematical proof. Rather, it is an aesthetic argument. If a person has some philosophical taste, if he feels the aroma of the words “being” and “universe,” he will feel the disharmony, the ugliness of the opposite assumption. In any case, Hegel called the attempt to build an endless series of matryoshka universes, which madly and senselessly, mechanically and aimlessly generate each other, “bad infinity.”

In general, as is easy to see, all arguments about the existence of God are built not on statements, but on reducing the opposite opinion to absurdity.

Have you ever wondered what kind of world you have placed yourself in with your own unbelief? If not, look at the people who thought about it for a long time, thought painfully: they thought not only with their minds, but also with their hearts.

“So what should we rely on? Where is that place in the universe where our actions would not be dictated to us by our cruel need and our cruel coercion? Is there somewhere in the universe where we could sit without a mask and without the fear of being driven out into the chilly cold of the December hour before midnight? Can there even be such a place in this world for our naked soul, where it can warm up, where we could take off all this baggage that is alien to us and finally give rest to the tired muscles of our body and the even more exhausted muscles of our face? Where, finally, is that place in the universe where we would like to die? For it is precisely this and only this that is the place where we should live.” It was in the seventies that the philosopher Nikolai Trubnikov, who had now gone into the world he sought, wrote not for the press or for searches.

But for these lines, written in the late twenties, Alexey Fedorovich Losev paid with years of camps: “The only and exclusively original creativity of new European materialism lies precisely in the myth of the universal dead Leviathan, the universal dead monster. You live in the cold fornication of a numb world space and mutilate yourself in the black prison of nihilistic natural science that you yourself built. And I love the sky, blue-blue, dear-native... Incredible boredom emanates from the world of Newtonian mechanics, from the absolute darkness and inhuman cold of interplanetary spaces. What if this is not a black hole, not even a grave, and not even a bathhouse with spiders, because both of them are still more interesting and speak about something human. Then I was on earth, under my native sky, listening about the universe “that does not move.” And then suddenly there is nothing: neither the earth nor the sky “no longer moves.” They kicked me out somewhere, into some kind of emptiness. Reading an astronomy textbook, I feel like someone is driving me out of my own home with a stick. For what?"

The most interesting argument - it is called “ontological” - says simply: God simply logically cannot but exist. That is, to say the phrase “God does not exist” means to say a logical contradiction, because the attribute “to exist” is included in the logical definition of the Supreme Being... Tell me, is it impossible to prove anything this way? And you will be wrong. There are three things in the world to which such proof can be applied. First of all, it's me. Remember Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.”

This was precisely an attempt, contrary to total skepticism and doubt, to prove that at least something really exists and was not just a dream for me (or some space wanderer). If I doubt the existence of myself, then I already exist, for if I did not exist, there would be no one to doubt. To say “I do not exist” is to say absurdity; it means that I really exist. Secondly, this line of argument can be applied to existence as such. To say “being does not exist” is also to say something absurd. But God is Absolute Being, and to say about Him “Absolute Being does not exist” is absurdity to an infinite degree.

Earnestly? Yes, but only for a person with a culture of philosophical thinking. Einstein’s arguments are also understandable only to people with a culture of mathematical thought...

But in the end, no one can be forced to think logically and rationally...,

Now it’s time to say what the participants in the historical conversation at the Patriarch’s Ponds hinted at.

As you remember, Ivan Bezdomny, a worthy representative of a country in which “no matter what you miss, you don’t have it,” advised sending Kant to Solovki for three years. The Kaliningrad thinker deserved such a harsh measure in the eyes of the Soviet poet for his “moral proof of the existence of God.”

Kant begins with a premise already known to us: nothing happens in the world without a reason. The principle of determinism (that is, cause-and-effect relationships) is the most general law of the universe. Man also obeys him. But the fact of the matter is that - not always. There are times when a person acts freely, not automatically forced by anything. If we say that every human action has its own reasons, then it is not people who should be rewarded for their exploits, but these same “reasons”, and they should be put in prison instead of criminals. Where there is no freedom, there is no responsibility and there can be neither law nor morality. Kant says that to deny human freedom is to deny all morality. On the other hand, even if I can see in the actions of other people the reasons why they act this way in every situation, then as soon as I take a closer look at myself, I will have to admit that, by and large, I act freely . No matter how the surrounding circumstances or my past, the characteristics of my character or heredity influence me, I know that at the moment of choice I have a second when I could become higher than myself... There is a second when, as Kant puts it, the history of the entire universe as if it begins with me: neither in the past nor around me there is anything that I would dare to refer to in order to justify the meanness on the threshold of which I stand...

This means that we have two facts - 1) everything in the world lives according to the law of causality and 2) man, in rare moments of his freedom, does not obey this law. And there is one more principle: on the territory of a given state, only those persons who have the right of “extraterritoriality” are not subject to its laws, i.e. diplomatic corps. So, man does not obey the Basic Law of our Universe. This means that the person is not part of it. We have a status of extraterritoriality in this world; we are messengers. We are ambassadors of that other, immaterial world, in which it is not the principle of determinism that operates, but the principle of Freedom and Love. There is a Being in the world that does not obey the laws of matter. And we are involved in it. In general: we are free - which means God exists. Kant’s Russian contemporary, Gabriel Derzhavin, came to the same conclusion in his ode “God”: “I am, which means you are too!”

In general, “proofs of the existence of God” should not be given undue importance. Faith that is pulled out by the pincers of arguments is worth little. The existence of God, as Ivan Kireevsky wrote in the last century, is not proven, but shown.

A person becomes a Christian not because someone pinned him against the wall with evidence. It’s just that one day he himself touched the Shrine with his soul. Or - himself; or - as one said Orthodox theologian: “no one would ever become a monk if he had not once seen the radiance of eternal life on the face of another person.”

The Church does not seek to prove the existence of God. The path of her proof is different: “Blessed are pure in heart; for they will see God.” That's what Christ said. And after one and a half thousand years, Pascal will advise a skeptic he knows: “Try to strengthen your faith not by increasing the number of proofs, but by decreasing the number of your own sins.”

Theology is an experimental, experimental science. A believer differs from an unbeliever in that the circle of his experience is simply wider. This is how a person who has an ear for music differs from a person who cannot hear the harmony of consonances. This is how a person who has visited Jerusalem himself differs from a person who claims that this cannot happen, because Jerusalem and what is told about it is a myth of ignorant medieval barbarians.

If a person has the experience of the Meeting, how much changes in his world! And if he loses it, how much becomes dim. One young man wrote at the dawn of the 19th century: “When a person has been granted this virtue, union with Christ, he meets the blows of fate with calmness and inner silence, courageously resists the storms of passions, fearlessly endures the fury of anger. How can you not endure suffering if you know that by persisting in Christ and working hard, you glorify God Himself?!” Then, having renounced Christ, the author of these wonderful lines about union wrote only about alienation for the rest of his life. This young man's name was Karl Marx...

1. K. Marx. The union of believers with Christ according to the Gospel of John (15:1-14). Graduation essay from high school (cited by G. Küng. Does God exist? 1982, p. 177).

Why do I believe but not be religious?

First, let's separate the wheat from the chaff. Faith is a human need, completely natural and clear. Believing is a way to understand, know and taste the world. It doesn’t matter what you call what you actually believe in - God or, say, the Higher Mind - what matters is that the soul works. Neither in regular trips to the temple, nor in the daily reading of prayers does God manifest itself in a person. This is external. And God manifests itself in a person from within, and it is called conscience. A conscientious person who reflects - that means he has that same divine spark in him. In my understanding, if a person notices the imperfections of the world and prays that they do not exist, this is laziness. If a person sees shortcomings in the world and strives to correct them with action, this is faith. So in this sense, I am a completely religious person.

A believer - but not religious. Religion is a human invention invented to maintain social order. Bridle. More often - a strict bridle: he pulled - everyone crouched down in fear.

In general, the idea of ​​​​dividing God into religions seems strange to me. I don’t care at all what his name is - Jesus, Allah, Vishnu or Sergei Vasilyevich, I don’t care what he might look like - whether he wears a turban or a perky bikini with strawberries. What is more important is the understanding that everything that happens around is not a random chaotic process, but a System. System of patterns and miracles. Therefore, God is not the “guy” from the Old Testament and not the “guys” from the Mahabharata. God is an essence above all names and personifications.

...Of course, this is all personal. There is probably something surprisingly good in the religious system that I do not see - either due to lack of intelligence, or due to insufficient education or excessive narrow-mindedness. But I see it like that. Religion is alien and scary, faith is necessary and natural.

Tina N.,

online community "Live Journal"

Answered by the first deputy editor-in-chief of the Foma magazine Vladimir Gurbolikov

It seems to me, Tina, your definition of faith is too general. You can “taste” the world around you through sensations and mental movements, which do not necessarily imply faith. A person is able to live a “full life”, taste grief and joy, love and hate; he can create, be a magnificent artist, writer... And at the same time have no faith, consider everything that happens to him to be the fruit of his desires, luck or bad luck, and nothing more.

But faith is different. First of all, the confidence that life has a special meaning, that there are various values ​​inexplicable by natural, biological, and sociological reasons. You can be an atheist, think: I will die, disintegrate into molecules and atoms... but believe that my children will live under communism. And for the sake of this communist tomorrow, kill or go to death. But you can believe differently... When Christ says: whoever lays down his life for Me and the Gospel will save his soul - how to understand this? After all, the very phrase “salvation of the soul” has no meaning outside of faith! And someone believes that there is a soul, and that one can live and die for the sake of Christ, and in this - higher meaning life.

All this is faith. And at first glance, it really seems: what you believe doesn’t matter. At one time I myself was interested in Tolstoyism, Roerich, and the Gospel. It was enough for me that, unlike science, which answers the question “how does the world work?”, there is faith with its own question: why does the world exist? And the answer to this “why” is God. We live, the Universe is filled with galaxies, the Sun burns, grass grows - and God is everywhere. It seemed to me that the rest was a figment of human imagination. And that it doesn’t matter how you believe, what to believe. I looked with delight at the world as an endless treasury of magical wonders and secret signs and reveled in my spiritual breadth. But once you've encountered religious faith, with faith as an institution - I immediately began to despise it.

I considered my Orthodox friends to be monstrously ignorant (although they were smart and educated people). When I heard that they communicate with God, considering Him a Person to whom they can say “You,” I internally laughed. My upbringing did not allow me to argue with them, but it seemed to me the extreme primitiveness, the greatest naivety.

This is how I thought about Christianity, which - regardless of how one views Christ - is certainly an example of deep faith. And here’s the paradox: it turned out that as soon as I came into contact with Christianity, for some reason I began to care how to believe and what to call God.

I took a boxing stance: oh, you primitive clerics, how dare you appropriate God to yourself!.. It turned out that I did not want to see Him through the eyes of the Orthodox, Muslims, and Jews. And preaching a “universal God,” I turned out to be not a universalist at all, because I constantly rejected the God of the Bible, the Gospel, the Koran...

It seemed to me that the truth was on the side of my wise friends, who equally revered Christ, Tolstoy, and Roerich. It didn’t bother me that Lev Nikolaevich shamelessly scribbled for the sake of his ideas New Testament and removed from there everything that he didn’t like. It was “obvious” to me that Roerich carried the true light one faith West and East - and it was not embarrassing that his high-mountain teachers enthusiastically wrote to “Mahatma” Lenin... And when I finally thought about it and asked my agni yogi friend how Lenin, who exterminated priests, turned out to be “Mahatma”, I heard: because, having put an end to the omnipotence of Orthodoxy, he cleared Russia for the future “enlightenment” coming from the East. And for some reason, for the first time, I did not experience admiration for such a breadth of views...

A lot of time passed and we talked again, but I was already Orthodox. And I told my friend with pain: after all, in India, where your fellow believers are going, many of them die during their ascetic experiences! They are dying, from your point of view, without salvation! “Yes, they are dying,” my friend calmly agreed.

His voice didn't waver. Because he firmly believed that those who were not saved would face “just” another reincarnation, new life- and so on until they leave the wheel of samsara. And I - I was already convinced that these people were deprived of the main thing - the one life given to them for salvation. I was scared and sad. And to my friend - not at all...
***

I cannot agree that Christ and the goddess Kali, for whom hundreds of thousands of people were sacrificed (strangled) are one and the same! You can, of course, recall the victims of the Inquisition - yes, this happened in the history of Christianity. But the conscience of Christians is still uneasy, and this in itself is evidence of difference. The conscience of fans of the monster with a crocodile head cannot hurt! – they accept him as he is. And Christ Himself, in all His thoughts and deeds, leads to the fact that slavery is bad; that a woman is not inferior to a man; that there should be no division into “Greeks” and “Jews”...

A person, believing, tries to take an example from the object of his faith. And the one who loved the Fuhrer of the “great Reich” will look at things completely differently than the one who loves the crucified Christ.

This may not be so easy to explain right away, in one conversation.

It is equally difficult to immediately convince that it is impossible to invent the same Christianity with the human mind. You know, the expression “I believe because it is absurd” is attributed to Tertullian. He does not have this phrase directly, but he and many other apologists in the very first centuries of Christianity said: look, our faith is true, because it cannot be invented!..
***

Confusion about such a God was present in other times, among other peoples. Here is a dialogue from a novel by the mid-twentieth century Japanese writer Shusako Endo Samurai.” The novel is dedicated to the events of the 17th century, when, on the eve of the persecution of Christians in Japan, the last Japanese delegation left for Europe. Along the way, the samurai visited Mexico. And in this episode, the writer depicts a meeting between the main character of the novel and a Japanese man, who at one time converted to Catholicism, became a monk, moved to Central America, but here he fled from the monastery, seeing how the Spaniards beat and tortured the Indians.

However, contrary to the expectations of the Samurai, the Japanese remained a believing Christian. And so they talk about Christ:

“No, I can’t stop thinking about this man,” the Samurai whispered in an apologetic tone.

- It doesn't matter. Even if you don't give Him your heart, He will still give you His.

- I can live without it.

- Are you sure about that?

The former monk looked with pity at the Samurai, fiddling with a sheet of paper in his hands...

- A person who cries is looking for someone who will cry with him. The one who laments is looking for someone who will listen to his lamentations. No matter how the world changes, those who cry and groan will always cry out to Him. This is why He exists.

- I do not understand this.

- Someday you will understand. Someday you will understand this.

By the way, this passage from the novel by Shusaku Endo sometimes keeps me from despair - if for some reason I am suffering. After all, suffering is also a path. It makes me raise my head and see that there is a single purpose in my life, for which only I can live and die one day.

Christ comes not to the prosperous, but to the crying and suffering. And this has a deep meaning. Suffering can lead to truth; something very important and deep is revealed to a person in the experience of suffering. Believe me, I’m not talking about what I read in books, but about real experience, about what I felt, as they say, “in my own skin.”

When the longing for love and compassion reaches its extreme point, no other god can come and be with me. Only Christ. And I am not ashamed before Him for my weakness.

Faith is paradoxical. Moreover, this is not a bare statement. If you read the text of the Gospel with an open mind, you will be convinced that not only the Romans, but even the disciples of Christ themselves, the apostles, could not understand much of what was happening. Hence Thomas’s disbelief that Christ was truly resurrected. Gospel story“from the inside,” from the point of view of its direct participants, the apostles, was, at least before the Resurrection, a series of events that were not logically linked to each other. They were comprehended not by logic, but by the heart and living faith. The Pharisees, very pious people, but logical, spiritually prudent, ultimately hated Christ completely: their entire logical system collapsed before Him, all their authority, all their instructions. The Savior turned out to be “not the same” as the Pharisees imagined Him to be!..

I don't know if it's possible to come up with a story like this. In all the works of literary genius, despite shocks, moments of surprisingly strong empathy with the author and characters, I still have not come across anything written that could be so believed. The gospel is unique. But it doesn’t even have a single author - but why is there the same power and authenticity everywhere, regardless of the name of the narrator or the author of the message? Where?..

You might be asking about holy books other religions... Perhaps there are the same incredibly living things there too. And it is quite possible that all of them are also not the fruit of the author’s imagination, but a revelation sent from the other side. But for me, in this case, not only the fact of the manifestation of the beyond is important. Before I respond to the call, I must understand exactly whose voice is calling me.

Why is that? When people begin to say that everyone has one God, I, as a Christian, ask myself: how can I combine my faith in Christ God with the point of view of Eastern faiths, for which tears and pity are a manifestation of weakness, one of the lowest traits of adherence to earthly passions ? Christ cried in front of the grave of His friend, Lazarus (whom he resurrected a minute later)... What is this - the highest manifestation of love, or weakness unworthy of a Supreme Being? There is a Buddhist parable about how the mother of a deceased child came to Buddha to ask for help. He agreed, but on one condition - that she would bring him a handful of land on which no one had ever died. The woman searched and searched and realized the naivety of her dream. Compare this with Christ, who raised a dead girl (Gospel of Mark, chapter 5, verses 35-42). How to combine one with the other? Shouldn't this be important to me, a Christian?

Yes, every religious system has a belief in a higher power, but that higher power comes in too many different guises for one to be complacent. A person becomes like exactly what he believes in! If he professes the cult of the goddess Kali, then he submits to the terrible beauty of a carnivorous creature that demands human lives, he becomes a priest-strangler of people. What does this have to do with the Christians' idea of ​​their God? Maybe conscience works differently?

After all, a person is ashamed for a reason! Conscience is like a wave, a radio transmitter, and the source of the signal, the “voice of the announcer”, is the one in whom you believe.

A Nazi, confident that Aryans are superhumans and foreigners are subhumans, can sincerely be tormented by his conscience for a rude word addressed to his partygenosse. And at the same time, calmly send “Jews” and “communists” (regardless of gender and age) to the gas chamber. Why is conscience silent? Because “at the other end of the line” is not Christ, but the Fuhrer. If we recognize the unity of One and the other, it will be even more absurd than the statement that Pol Pot and Mahatma Gandhi are one and the same, since both were politicians.

To say that the gods that people worship are one means to admit that it makes absolutely no difference who is in front of a person’s eyes - a creature thirsting for blood, or a Martyr who shed Blood for us on the cross. Agree, in order to come to terms with this, you need to break something in yourself. But I can't do this. I don't want to either.

This is impossible. Impossible. And precisely because faith, contrary to your statement, is never lazy. It combines prayer and the desire to transform the world. A desire of such incredible strength that both power and the elements retreat before it.

Which of our compatriots prayed more than many? Sergius of Radonezh? Seraphim of Sarov? But the first one built a monastery with his own hands; he, together with the princes, decided on the question of whether there should be a Battle of Kulikovo! And the second one is not “just a hermit” at all. He lived in the Sarov forest with the obedience of the guard of the monastery forest (for which he was almost killed by thieves), worked, received thousands of suffering people...

If you take a realistic look at believers, then be sure to note: those who pray for an imperfect world are definitely trying to change this world. And what can be annoying about religious people is that they are too active! Here is another paradox of faith. The believer is active. Look: in our time, the most active “heroes” are religious extremists of all stripes. Don't they pray? They pray, and how! But the fruit of their prayer only makes us think more seriously: could it be that we have the same God? My conclusion is no, not the same. And I turn to Christ again. The only God, besides Whom there are others - I don’t know.

On the screensaver: a still from Mel Gibson’s film “Apocalypto”

Dream Interpretation