Last-modified 2-Sept-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Save the images: soznanie.gif , Nick32.jpg
Go to chapters: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Nick Kronov


1. Who is a Christian?

Surprisingly, up to what great extent it was possible that church "had expropriated" Jesus Christ and as if on behalf of him had thrust the concepts and dogmas of church on everybody, even on non-believers. One man said to me: how I may name L. N. Tolstoy as a modern apostle - you see, he was excommunicated out from church! This man, obviously, considered that an apostle is a church rank, like a bishop. To this man it has not entered his head that the Christ's doctrine was already being spread by his twelve apostles - that is to say by his envoys - when there were no churches with their hierarchies, "sacraments", rituals and with their own doctrine which "had darkened, had closed" in heads of the people - according to the V. S. Soloviov's expression, that is given in the epigraph - the doctrine of Christ himself. And now my friends sincerely are perplexed, why I consider myself as Christian, if I do not attend church and was not "by fixed ritual" been baptized by the priest who had been appointed to this post by a bishop or a patriarch, which, in turn, were - that quite probably - the proteges of KGB. What have I told? "Probably"? But at that political regime it even could not be differently!

Buddhist, Mohammedan, Hegelian, Marxist, Freudist - these words mean that the man is the disciple, follower, supporter of Buddha, Mohammed, Hegel, Marx or Freud but it does not at all mean that he considers one or other of them as a God. Therefore a Christian is the one who continuously "looks on Christ", consults him and verifies not only the thoughts, desires, acts by the precepts of Christ but understands and estimates everything around with the aid of Christís doctrine, who "is living by his word", by his doctrine. To be a Christian, "to be baptized by the Christ's name" means "to be embodied in Christ", that is to say, by speaking simpler, to follow his example.

But the churches for some reason assert that, if you do not consider Jesus Christ as a God, it means you are not a Christian. May be, the main item of Christ's doctrine is that he, Christ is a God? Nothing of the kind. "A new command I give you: Love one another" - Christ speaks. Also he speaks: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another". This is the main in his doctrine!

And really, you can several hours speak with the church Christians about good and evil - what is good and what is poorly, how it is necessary to live and to act, how it is unnecessary - but, pay your attention, never talking will that all is so because Christ is God. Such the argument never is necessary. Really, it has not any importance he is God or not. So why by all means is it necessary to believe this?

Moreover, the belief in Christ as in a God prevents the belief in his doctrine. Or you have believed in his doctrine because of advantages of the doctrine - as it had been stated by Peter when many people which were following Christ, had left him, and Christ had asked twelve disciples who had stayed: "You do not want to leave too, do you?". Then Peter has told: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). Or you worship Christ, because he is, ostensibly, a God - with his "divine" sacraments, magic miracles, monasteries, priests, liturgies. In the latter case you - as it also is being done by the huge majority naming itself by Christians - may to not read1, to not penetrate, to not execute his doctrine. Either you are an disciple of the teacher Jesus - or you are an admirer of a God Jesus. Either one, or another. Because Jesus himself has told: "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other" (Luke 16:13).

(FOOTNOTE 1: Especially in Orthodox Church it can be seen not so much READING but much REVERENCE of Gospel - like any sacred object. Because the thoughtful reading is already interpretation. But to have the interpretation, own judgement about the read, and furthermore is consecutive, coherently to state the reflections on paper and to publish it - it "is not accordance to the rank", it is "pride". And usually the sole answer, so to speak, "an argument" of the Orthodox against the works of L. N. Tolstoy - "All this is his pride". By the way, Christ had been judged and crucified for "the pride" too.)

2. Who is Christ?

I am a Christian. But I believe not that Jesus Christ is God, but that he is the God's Anointed One - a king, who is anointed to reign, that is to say nominated, so to speak, to this post by God. This kingdom is the spiritual one. That is to say I believe that - as Jesus himself has told - He is the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). A Greek word "Christ" (or Hebrew word - "Messiah") means just "Anointed One". The Jesus' words "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38) and the words "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) should be understood spiritually, instead of literally (see John 17:20-26). In general it is necessary to understand Bible spiritually, instead of literally then many misunderstandings will disappear and it will become possible to appreciate this outstanding book.

Here are some more the passages, from that it follows, that Christ is not a God, that the God is one thing but Christ is absolutely another:

"As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God" (John 8:40).

"Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17:1-3).

"I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17).

"The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinth 11:3).

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9).

"Now God commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:30-31).

"The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever" (Rev 11:15).

On the other hand, the Bible passages, that the churches are quoting as a proof of ostensibly divinity of Jesus, are beneath criticism.

The more simple-minded "theologians" will tell you that Christ is God because he is a son of God, and they will even refer to opinion of Jews (see. John 10:32, 33 and Matthew 26:65), as though speaking, Jews were understanding that a son of God is God too. Thus the "theologians" ignore other place where Jews have named themselves as the sons of God too (see. John 8:41-42). Besides, also Jesus himself in a prayer "Our Father" asserts that not only he, but also all of us are the sons of God (Matthew 6:9).

The main so-called "proofs" of the churches about divinity of Christ are the following:

"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Emanuel" (Isaiah 7:14).

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" (Micah 5:2).

But if to read completely these and other chapters, from where similar "proofs" are taken, you will have seen there is the talking not about Jesus but about wars and circumstances of those older times. Besides, in the initial Hebrew text it is written "a young woman" but not "a virgin". They were the Jews - the translators of Bible, so-called "the seventy interpreters" - who had translated into Greek by a word "virgin", not finding the more suitable word in Greek language.

Here is an example of the difference of a spiritual understanding from a literal one. Jesus tells to Jews: "Before there was Abraham, I am" (see John 8:56-58 in Russian Bible). Jesus meant that he is "more first" , is "more main" than Abraham. Jews had understood it correctly and have tried to beat Jesus by stones. But the church had understood literally, incorrectly and had concocted from it the complete theory: as if God had created ("had given birth"!) his son Jesus Christ even before creation of the world, and as if the world was created at participation of Jesus or even just by Jesus.

Jesus himself spoke: that he is a son of God, it does not mean that he is God but it means he makes the deeds of God (see John 10:30-39).

Thus Jesus Christ is a Anointed One of God, is the King, the Messiah, the Savior. But he had come to save not by the military or magical force - just it is meant in the words, that his saving and his kingdom is not from this world. Jews hoped that he will rescue them from the roman occupation authorities by force or by miracle, and when they were disappointed in this expectation, they had surrendered Jesus and had crucified. Christ rescues first of all not a body but a soul of a man. He rescues by not that he ostensibly had literally bought the sinners back from God by the own death - but he rescues by the own example and the doctrine about God, about life, about sense of life - what a man should do and what should not do, and why its all are just such. He says it himself: "Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24).

3. What is a religion?

Christ doctrine is not simply several commandments of morals but a connected world outlook. In general, the morals are not the behavior ordered by any authority - by father (Freud), by society (Marx), or even "by God" (church). The morals follow from the integral, connected understanding of the surrounding world. Such a world view connecting all with all is named as a religion. Also the word "religion" means "connection". Therefore I prefer a word "religion" to other words used in the sense of integral, connected world view - to such words, as "ideology", "world outlook", "philosophy", "doctrine", "faith" - thus these all are simply synonyms.

Also Erich Fromm agrees with me. He writes: "As religion I understand any shared by a group a system of thinking and acting, allowing to an individual to do an intelligent existence and giving an object for devoted service". The statements of Ortega y Gasset, Yakovenko, Frankl, Soloviov, Tolstoy and once more Erich Fromm that confirms the actual synonymity of the specified words, I shall have brought in two next chapters.

In own way even "anti-religious" Feuerbach confirms it: "Religion is a view, that is identical with essence of the man, - the view about essence of the world and a man... The heart is an essence of religion. Now is asked: well, has a religious revolution happened into us? Yes, now we have not a heart, have not any religion".

Certainly the materialists like Feuerbach may to oppose "faith" and "knowledge", thus they may name world outlook of another as "faith" ("mind"), and they may name their own world outlook as "knowledge" ("science"). But I think that, for example, the high-educated Marxists, before the execution in Stalin's torture-chambers, had found out that their "knowledge" - actually was empty faith but a "faith" of their ideological opponents, as a matter of fact, has appeared as the truth, the knowledge.

Among public the strange, emotional attitude to words "religion", "ideology", "faith" dominates. For the majority "religion" and "faith" are for some reason always something positive but "ideology" is negative. For minority, for "atheists", on the contrary, "religion", "belief" is a synonym of backwardness, nonsense, credulity. But a word "world outlook" both those and others are capable to perceive quietly, objectively.

Seeming to many people the distinction between "religion" and "world outlook" is actually the distinction between nominal, non-true religion of the man, adopted by him in its traditional, frozen, out-of-date form - and his real world outlook - fundamental, generated by cultural surroundings of this man. This world outlook, this his philosophy is actually his true religion.

If to consider, for example, that a religion and philosophy are different things, it is turned out that in Ancient China there was no religion but only philosophy. Or, if to consider a religion is without fail as a worship to a supreme being - God, it turns out, contrary to obvious, that Buddhism is not a religion. If to consider the religion as a faith in the supernatural, it will turn out that ancient Greeks had no religion because their gods were driving along a material sky on a material chariot (Helios), were living on Olymp (Zeus and others), under water (Nepthun), under ground (Plutos) - instead of in any transcendental world. Chaadaiev has noticed: "Even the most perfect of greek temples does not talk to us about heaven".

A Metropolitan A. I. Vvedensky asserted that "the religion is a feeling of connection with the universe". However, you see, there are many religions. Thus what of these "feelings" is correct, instead of is a deceit of feelings? Christianity? Or Islam? Or, maybe, totemism? If, in defiance of the theologians, to consider the religion is not simply as uncertain feeling of connection with the universe but is the concrete doctrine about the laws of this connection, from which observance, as the man believes, it depends the life, the death and the sense, then becomes clear that the large number of religions requires a selecting the correct doctrine from many false ones.

But the correct doctrine can be expressed in the mythical, magic form, this isn't the gist.

4. The essence of man is his reasonable nature, his religion, instead of his "unconscious" animal "It".

A Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote: "Before to do something, the man should decide at own risk what exactly he is going to do. But if the man has no ideas about the things around him, other people, about himself, the decision is impossible. Only having the certain belief, he can prefer one action to another and, generally speaking, can live. Thus a man always stays in any belief. Also the decisive changes in a history of mankind were resulting from the beliefs, their strengthening or easing. A man is his belief. Just it is constituting a man".

Also a Russian philosopher B. V. Yakovenko wrote about the same theme: "Nowhere a world-outlook, ideological underlying reason of life acts so boldly, so convincingly, as in life of the separated personality or individual. The life of a separated specific man, the mental, emotional and willing life is entirely defined by his orientation in the world, it means, how he comprehends and understands the existing and himself and what he wants or requires from the world, from the people, from himself. The most primitive and narrow-minded man, a savage, the most foolhardy and unbridled robber, a red-army-man or a white-army-man, the most perverted and cold criminal, hangman or a chekist is living, at all narrowness, poverty or monstrousness of his spiritual horizon, nevertheless by realization and by a going through the certain world-view. Any experience presupposes some world view. At a child it will be world the view, certainly, children's, at the adult - adultís, at a savage - savage's, at an impressionist - impressionist's, at a chekist - chekist's, at a Black-Hundreder - Black-Hundrederís. But everywhere a man will experience by his world view and his experience will be the partial, specific expression, the voice, the mouthpiece of a philosophy professed by him clearly or vaguely".

But despite of clearness of all, that have been told above, the majority even of the famous philosophers are being confused in the so-called question about "religions and atheism", do not understand that so-called "atheism" is a religion too. For example, a philosopher Leo Shestov wrote: "It is obvious to everybody that a paralytic which is tied to his bed, who has no hope for recovery, already can't has "a malicious will" to disbelief. Most of all in life such a man needs a belief; he cannot have the usual "temptations", by that the people are withdrawn to an atheism".

This is what Leo Shestov thinks. But here is a concrete case: the robber which had been crucified beside Christ but was talking scandal him. This robber literally, using the Shestov's words, "is tied" and "has no hope". However, contrary to the Shestov's statement, this robber appears filled of "malicious will to disbelief" - if, certainly, alike Shestov, to oppose "a belief" and "an atheism". But those cannot be opposed because so-called "atheism" is a belief too, is a religion too.

Why, as it seems on the first sight, the Shestov's statement has not worked? Because this robber actually, as well as all people is a believing man, and in his hopeless situation" a belief is most of all necessary to him in his life" - here Shestov is right. This robber raves in rage because for him, in defiance of self-sacrifice of Christ, is necessary now to convince himself of the philosophy, of the ideology, of the religion, to convince himself of in what he believed and what he did all his life, - that all the world is filth, and all people are filth, therefore also he during all his life was a filth and he made a harm to others - that, as he was considering, the others, at an opportunity, always will make to him2, and that he will have croaked - but also all these people will have croaked, and it would be good, if they will have croaked today, and he - tomorrow, but he is filled with an angry, that it is necessary for him to croak now, but they all, the scoundrels, still will live.

(FOOTNOTE 2: Such is a categorical imperative of this robber and other "realists" (so, probably, they name themselves) - in contrast to the "categorical imperative" of Christ "do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matth 7:12, Luke 6:31) and the one of Kant "don't do to another what you wouldn't want the others have done to you". But you see it is true: all kinds of things someone wants but that is important what is in a reality. It is really that still "love and famine rule the world" (see the explanation in my article about biosphere and noosphere))

This example has shown that the popular division in "belief" and "atheism" - is useless for understanding anything. It is necessary to divide another: in what this belief.

Victor Frankle, author of a method of the "existence-analysis" (in contrast to the Freudís "psycho-analysis") in the book "A Man in Search of Sense" speaks about a main role of a world outlook: "A vital basis together with a social status will form a natural data of the man. This data can always be determined and be fixed by the means of three sciences: biology, psychology and sociology. But the actual human existence begins only there, where any data is over, begins there, adding to natural data, where there is his personal position, orientation, his attitude to any vital basis and to any situation. This orientation, when all is said and done, is the decision and, due to freedom of a personal position, creates an opportunity of an existence reorganization... The "inclinations as such" of a man never are being revealed. The inclinations are always accepted or are rejected. All sphere of inclinations is being transformed under influence of spiritual orientation. And if a man - should each time be identified with inclinations (at such the extent at that he wishes to accept its), the animal - is identical to the inclinations... The notion about a dominant role of a principle of pleasure in all mental life is, as is known, one of the basic dogmas of Freudís psycho-analysis, the principle of reality is not actually opposed to a principle of pleasure, but it is only its expansion and serves to its purposes".

5. True religion and nominal religion.

Why among Christians there are bad people? Because actually these bad people are not Christians. Their world-outlook (belief, religion) is actually another, is not Christian. "An essence of a people, as well as a separate man, - V. S. Soloviov wrote, - is determined by what they believe in, how they understand a subject of their belief and that they makes for its realization... These three definitions are reduced to one: the essence of a people, as well as a man, is what they really believe in. So, what does Russian people believe in?" - V. S. Soloviov puts a question.

Also, by distinguishing true, real religion of the man from his nominal religion, L. N. Tolstoy wrote: "The true religion is such the agreeable with reason and knowledge of the man the relation established by him, to infinite life surrounding his, that connects his life to infinity and guides his acts".

Let's sum up with Erich Fromm words: "There isnít such a man, who would have no religious need - the need for system of orientation and for object for service; but it nothing tells to us about a specific context of its revealing. A man can worship animals, trees, gold or stone idols, unknown god, holy man or leaders with devil faces; he can worship ancestors, nation, class or party, money or success. The point is not that, there is a religion or there isnít, but what kind of religion is there".

6. A morals is determined by religion.

Thus morals, also it is morality, conscience of the man is not something separated from his world-outlook, it is an organic part of the outlook. Above we have established, that a man always has a world-outlook (it is also a religion, ideology, the philosophy), it means, the man always has one or the other morals is the morals appropriated to his world-outlook. Therefore it will be incorrect to say: an "immoral" man, "unscrupulous" man. The point is what is the morals of this man, what, according his ideas, is good and what is poorly. "The basic data of any morals, - V. S. Soloviov wrote, - is that between all actions of the man the certain distinction is necessary, according which some actions have been admitted due, or normal, and others not due or not normal, to put it briefly, the basic data of any morals is a distinguishing of good and evil".

The knowledge of this distinction - true or false knowledge - is given by each concrete religion. Mark Aurelii says: "When you will meet someone, you must understand first of all: what has this man as the main basis about good and harm?". For example, there is such a concept of "the Hottentot morals". May be, it is an unfair slander the African tribe of Hottentots but such concept exists. So the Hottentot morals is approximately like this: "If a neighbor has raped my wife, it is poorly; if I have raped the neighborís wife, itís well". Thus when Hegel speaks: "A state is an embodiment of morals" - it is necessary to specify: what state? What morals? Ours "internal savages" - the "thieves in the law" have the morals - the thieves' "law". Wild Hitlerís state had a morals - the fascist morals. A word "fascism" occurs from the parable about a fascine, about as a father (obviously, any alpine mountaineer) on a death-bed has called the sons and has given them to try to break a bunch of rods - a fascine. The big lads canít have broken it. Then the father, weakened by illness, has disjointed the bunch and has broken the rods one by one: as though speaking, you must be together - then you will be invincible.

And thus in Pakistan the relatives all together go to rescue the relative, which the authorities try to arrest for the committed crime. In a Chechen village the relatives and people from the same village know each other, know who busy with what, know that in the house there are the stolen people as hostages, but everyone are silent, are protecting the crime. Actually, it is not even considered as a crime, it is good business - to steal a foreigner for the sake of the repayment. But if "ours one" is stolen or killed - it is not at all a crime but the life is such. But for him it is necessary to battle, the vendetta is working here - irrespective of that "ours one" was killed justly whether or not.

The fascist morals asserts that it is necessary to justify and to protect any meanness and crime, if it is made by "ours ones" (boys of our courtyard, lads of ours village, men of our kin, our party, our nation, our class, our clan). Sicilian word "mafia", used in this sense, isnít explain anything, a word "fascism" is more proper here, it may be semantically translated into Russian as "our-ism". The fascism is similar to the world-outlook of those savages which name as "people" only the members of their tribe. In general it turns out that in the world-outlook of fascism in relation to "our ones" a concept "meanness" and "crime" does not applicable, does not exist. Here is another example. Four Kazakh lads had given a terrible beating to a pensioner - Russian. At court they had been asked: "Could you also beat so an old man - Kazakh?" They had told: "Oh, no! The respect for the grown-ups is inculcated to us from our childhood!".

Thus strictly speaking, it is senseless to speak in support of "morals" or against "immorality". Because there isnít "immorality" as there isnít "the unbelieving". But there are different beliefs - also different types of morals - depending on the belief (religion, world-outlook). Therefore also Gospel speak nowhere about "morals", it speaks about righteousness, that is to say about "correctness" of a man - certainly, according to a point of view of Gospel too. There are no also "unprincipled" people, but there are people with "peculiar principles" to put it mildly.

Therefore it is necessary to find out "principles", "the main basis about good and evil", the true religion of a man instead of his nominal religion - only then it will be possible to conclude something about a type of his morals. And consequently only when a man will acquire Christian world-outlook (religion, doctrine, philosophy, belief, ideology - you may name it as you want), then only he will not be perplexed but correctly will understand and accept the main commandment of Christ - the commandment of love also all other norms of Christian life, that are following from it3.

(FOOTNOTE 3: On bewildered questions: "How it is possible to force oneself to love someone? And how it is possible to love the enemies?" - Tholstoy answers: "To wish the boon to all people means to love the people ")

7. Christianity isnít a doctrine of church but this is a doctrine of Christ.

( N. A. Berdiayev)

Speaking about Christianity, about Christian outlook (religion), the people usually make one mistake: they do not distinguish the Christ's doctrine and doctrine of churches. Strictly speaking, as "Christianity" it is necessary to name just the doctrine of Christ himself. However usually, making a word "Christianity", people really mean the doctrine of church and so-called "the historical Christianity".

But the church has sinned. Now I speak not about the inquisition and so on. First of all, the church has made a sin, so to speak, dogmatic, the sin concerning the Christ's doctrine. Look: the church itself names Christ as God, that is to say immeasurably elevates him above the people - about which the church speaks: "All are under sin, there is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:9,10). But at the same time the church has united into the same book, and the chief thing, puts on the same level the Christ's words, the Christ's Gospel - and the works of his apostles - of the sinful people, capable to be mistaken - together with the works of pre-Christian authors. And whatís more, also the Gospels are written not by Christ but his apostles. Hence also in Gospels it is necessary to distinguish and to separate the words of Christ himself from understanding and interpretation of these words by apostles. By the way, for this purpose also there are four Gospels but not one - to see what is the chief thing, and what is apostles additions. Also N. A. Berdiayev had stated the similar criticism of church, he wrote: "I am inclined to think that into the language of Gospels there is the human limitation, is the refraction of divine light through human darkness, through cruel nature of a man. The cruel eschatological moment is coming not from Jesus Christ itself, it is attributed to Jesus Christ by those at whom it corresponds to their nature. The judicial theory of the ransom is a human addition".

8. What does "the God-breathedness of Bible" mean?

The equation in value of Christ words and words of his followers the church justifies by so-called "God-breathedness of all Bible". But who composed Bible, included one things into it and excluded the others? Church itself ! Bible "is sacred" and "God-breathed" simply in the sense that it "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Also in the Greek original of Bible the word translated into Russian as "God-breathed", means in Greek simply "filled with spirit of God".

9. Insufficiency of the church doctrine.

One my familiar has told me that there is no God because everything that is spoken about a God, it is a all-round absurdity. Think over: Jesus is a God Ihegova, and he is also Christ, that means "an anointed by God". God is anointed by the same God! Christ is before of times an existing God Ihegova4 (the third personality of Sacred Trinity), and also he is the Son, that is to say born (created!) at one time (when?) by his Father (but whence and when had appeared Holly Spirit - the second personality of Holly Trinity - it is unknown in general). And also he " is conceived by virgin from the Holy Spirit". I emphasize, the conceived not from the first personality of Holly Trinity - not from "God the Father", of which Christ names as "Father" but from the third divine personality - from Holly Spirit, who is actually his father. Christ is God, and also he is praying to God. And also he in desert is being tempted by devil! My, my! Devil offers to God (!) to bow to him, to devil. In that case, devil will give him, to God a power over all the world - to him who has created all the world and already possesses it. God answers devil that he, God, will worship only God, that is to say himself. Absurdity! At last, the God-Christ, dying on a cross, exclaims: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". God has forsaken himself!

(FOOTNOTE 4: The fact that Christ is not Ihegova and isnít God, follows even from his words: "Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you" (John 17:7,8,18,17,21,25)

Also the world, - my familiar was saying, - is not created per 6 days and in that ridiculous sequence, as it is described in Bible. The sky isnít "the expanse", a dome, a tent over "a circle of the earth". Stars arenít "the heavenly troops", that God by appointed order sends out on the sky each evening. As well the serpent, this wild animal, as is told in Bible, even if it was "more crafty than any of the wild animals", but the animal thinking and talking by human language, and for some purpose tempting the man to have eaten a certain "tree fruit" is a fairy tale. And you see, for it the poor serpent must crawl on its belly during the rest of life (whether God had torn off his feet as a punishment?). And from this footless invalid the babies were born, footless too, and from them all numerous kinds of the snakes from anaconda up to cobra had arisen (so, nevertheless by way of evolution). By the way, the absence of feet at snakes is not punishment them but advantage: thus they are better adapted to life in their ecological niche. Just as the black skin of Negroes is a not divine punishment, as the sect of Mormons was asserting, but the boon for Negroes - living in solar Africa. And how many absurdity in the history about the floodwaters!..

Approximately so my familiar spoke. Then I had answered that I agree with him: really, all it are absurdity and fairy tales. But when the churches are telling the absurdity about God, they discredit themselves, their own doctrine, instead of a God, "God cannot be mocked". If someone tells the fairy tales about God, it does not mean that after a word "God" there is no reality. Also it does not mean that there was not such a man - Jesus Christ. A man, instead of God. Though some episodes of Jesus life could be invented subsequently but as a whole to have invented such unusual life and so great doctrine, that has influenced all civilization, and that (life and doctrine) so precisely correspond with the true history, policy and the ideas struggle of Palestine of the first century - to have invented such a thing it is beyond power of the greatest novelists. And especially it was beyond power of any benighted monks of IV century, to which Marxists, our teachers of "the scientific atheism" was ascribing a composing of the New Testament.

Thus, it is completely absurd to doubt reality of existence of Jesus Christ. But it is quite not bad that, together with reality, Bible is full of fairy tales. A fairy tale is a lie, but it contains a hint - a lesson for young men. Poorly - when the churches interpret Bible not spiritually, but literally. Just it leads to contradictions and absurdity, pushes away the educated people, prevents them to understand and to accept the really great and saving Christís doctrine.

But those who has accepted Christ, the church doctrine is disorientating about some important - and not abstract-dogmatic, but really global matters, the most important for a man. For example the church doctrine - as opposed to the doctrine of Christ himself - is full with disbelief that the mankind can have arranged a reasonable and happy life on the Earth. About it I already wrote in detail in the extended variant of the article about a noosphere.

Thus before to consider the Christís doctrine, let us at first settle the contradictions and absurd ideas that strongly had come in culture for many centuries of church influence and had occupied the minds of people, even of the "non-believing" people.

10. God.

A Power that had sent we into the life, we name as God.

( L. N. Tolstoy)

A word "God" is generating probably at all people the inspired by church completely unjustified, though and psyhologically convenient idea about a certain Personality. Though this personality is supernatural but he is exactly like a man - he has the consciousness, character, sensations, emotions, even a sense of humor. This is the personality, with which it is possible to speak: to ask, to promise, to thank. The personality will react to the appeal to him and can have made absolutely everything, if he want. Such idea about a God as about the personality is nothing but anthropomorphism, the providing with human properties to that "who" unimaginably differs from a man.

As well an idea on "embodiment" of God in animals, and then also into a man - together with, on the contrary, "atheistic denying" of God - arise from the children's, naive animalistic or anthropomorphic feeling and primitive understanding of God as a certain personality.

A certain theologian is perplexed: "Why is God hiding, why he does not give us the proofs palpable and accessible to all? Why does his mysterious strategy resemble a hide-and-seek?" But the bewilderment will not be, if understand, that God isn't a personality.

A Swedish mystic Swedenborg spoke, that it is impossible to love God, imagining him not like a human personality but like impersonal Power. But if Swedenborg and other people love God, imagining him as the personality, it is not proved that God is actually a personality. On the other hand, the statement of "anti-religious" Marx, Nietzche and Freud is incorrect also that a religion is always an illusion. By the way, the illusions are not a prerogative of "religions" only. For example, the Marxís doctrine has been compromised by the practicians - communists, has turned out to be an illusion. The Nietzcheís anti-religion had been compromised by Hitler. The Freudís theory is reconsidered, revised by his famous disciples.

Nietzche had declared that "God had died" - but then and there had worshipped "the Earth", to which in one place he appeals with real prayer. The traditional belief in an anthropomorphic God seems so ridiculous to many people, that they not accept these words "God" and "religion" with reference to their own belief. "Religion", they consider, is a belief just in the anthropomorphic God - a personality. The majority of them "believe in a Nature". "What is God? - they speak. - God is nature". But at such notion all the riches of religious experience of mankind, Bible and, the main, Christís doctrine are lost for them. Let alone that, for them it turns out, "everything goes", "everything is allowed" as Dostoyevsky had noticed. Besides, their "religion of Nature" results in the widespread error - that "a civilization is an evil", that a man mustnít, as the phrase is, "to separate himself from a nature", must live "under laws of nature". In the article "A Noosphere - the solution of mankind problems" I prove that the mankind, living under the law of biosphere "Love and famine rule the world", thus attracts on itself also all the disasters of the animal world.

Some people in their world-outlook replace the "God" not with "Nature" but word "World". It is already closer to the truth - but, if it just means "the Godís world", "the universe" - instead of the same short-sighted biological existence with its fuss and fighting of the selfish beings, about that Christ has told: "I have overcome the world".

At school years I had a good book "Life of the Earth", and I "believed in Nature" too and considered that I do not need in the concept of "God". Later on, at institute I had read a book "Einstein" by B. G. Kuznetsov - then I already had begun to consider that "the Nature is God", that is to say I had become a pantheist. But when at 1969 I had read the "Worship to heroes" by Thomas Carlyle, and then the "What I believe?" by Leo Tolstoy - then I had begun to share, to distinguish the nature and God.

in Pavlovsk Nick32.jpg

But nevertheless, if God is not a personality, how a man can build the relationships with him - to love, to ask, to thank? But he can it. Religious also the everyday experience shows that the man - especially in the emotionally intense situations - can treat even to elements and to subjects - to a storm, a sea, the sky, to trees, to animals - as to the personalities, understanding at the same time that these arenít personalities. This attitude to something as to "the other", similar to himself - is a feature of human mentality named as "the dialogueness of consciousness". It is possible to explain this feature by what a human mentality and consciousness are being formed at a child by supervision of other man, first of all, by dialogue with his mother.

And if it is told in Bible that - unlike animals - a man "is made in image and likeness of God", it does not mean that the God has hands, legs, eyes, nose, beard, intestines etc. It doesnít also mean that God is an anthropoid personality. The words "a man is an image and similarity of God" can mean only that the man differs from animal with what he has a intellect, that is similar to the divine Logos. The essence of a man - the intellect is similar to the essence of a God - to the Logos.

Thus, God isnít a personality. We know only that - and this is sole important for us - that the God is a certain Power standing above the material world, having set the laws, by that the world is functioning, and in this sense, having created the world. Erasm Darwin, the grandfather of Charles Darwin spoke: "Itís more usual for the divine greatness to create the general laws, by that everything is appearing, instead of to create each thing separately, as it is described in Bible". This remarkable phrase brings to nothing all "the arguments" of the creationists - the supporters of "the creation of the world" and principled opponents of scientific notions about an origin and evolution of the universe, of life on the Earth and of a man5.

(FOOTNOTE 5: For information of all opponents of the evolution theory: Darwin has not discovered the evolution. This idea was known up to him, then it was possible to argue: the theory of evolution whether or not is correct. But now, when Darwin had discovered the mechanism of evolution, namely cumulative action of three factors: heredity, variability and selection - it is possible to argue only about details: for example, what species has come specifically from what species. Because nobody can deny the existence of each of these three factors, but their joint action just generates the evolution)

From the first chapter of Bible follows, that the Power, that has created the world, - is sole, not divided, not having a counteraction to itself: any separate personalities of Father, Son, Holly Spirit are absent, any angels, devils are absent too. This Power demands to itself of respect, of comprehension on the part of a man, the disobedience will be terminated poorly - Adam is expelled from paradise, Cain is damned etc. Therefore the first commandment of the Old Testament (Exodus 20:2) speaks, that the God is the Lord, that is to say an Owner.

It is turned out that the existence of a God actually does not require the proofs. The questions "Does God exist?", or "Do you believe in God?" have no sense, the answer "There is no God" is not meaningful too. Because as we and the world are existing, it means that the Power, that has created us, exists too. The other question has a sense: "What is God?", that is to say "What are his relationship with us? What this Power "wants" from us? What the man should do and should not do, and why it is just in such a way?". But inasmuch as the different religions (or, the same, different world-outlooks, philosophies, beliefs, ideologies, doctrines) differ from each other just with what those give the different answers to these questions, a formulation of the question becomes the such: "God of what religion is true God?" or "What religion (philosophy, belief, world- outlook, ideology, doctrine) is true or is the closest to the truth?".

11. Five great religions - five different regards for God.

Literally general error - to which even the philosophers and theologians have fallen under - is the idea, as if there is a "religious" consciousness and "non-religious" one, as if one people have religion, but the others have not it, ostensibly some people are "believers", and the others are "non-believers". However Berdyaev had confessed: "I know no one who would be a true atheist. They all are actually the idolaters". Really, it can not be "the unbelieving", "atheism", "nihilism", "agnosticism", there are no people "non-believers", all are the believers. But the question is what are they believing in? To what a man worships and serves is his god6. Many people consider Christian God as untrue, that is to say a nonexistent god, to which should not worship. They worship, serve to everyday pleasures. About such the people - which would now are named as "non-believers" - apostle Paul says: "Their god is their stomach". Hence these, ostensibly faithless people actually have a god, for which they believe, and have a religion consisting in that it is necessary to live for own pleasure and well-being, well, maybe, - also for pleasure and well-being of the relatives, but donít care for anything else, "Anyhow we all shall die".

(FOOTNOTE 6: Martin Heidegger says: "God is a name of sphere of ideas, of ideals". There Is also an appropriate saying in Russian - "It has turned out, I prayed to another God during all my life")

Thus actually a man chooses not between "belief" and "disbelief", not between "religion" and "atheism" - God, belief, religion is present at every man. The choice is a choice of this or that religion: whether you will choose Christian God, Mohammedan Allah, clarified man Buddha or your "stomach". You will be considering the god, chosen by you, as a true God worthy of worship and service, but the others - as false gods, not true, not existing, to which should not serve.

Here many people will agree what to worship and to serve the transitory body, "the stomach" (or even the presumably the immortal soul) as a God -it seems narrow; certainly, God is a certain Supreme Power which has created the world and is ruling it. And consequently, they will say, it is unimportant how to name him - Ihegova, Christ, Allah, Brahman or Krishna, all great religions mean the same God and teach the same public morals, the difference is just in rituals. The representatives of these religions, however, will not agree with a such equalizing of different religions and they will be right.

Really, the people "bow" to God - to one or to other, to true or to false - that is to say the people recognize his power however he has been named. But with a recognition of his power - the regards for God may be different. This attitude in different religions is determined by what their God is, that is to say what God the people imagine in this religion, how, on their notions, God regards a man, what value in God's eyes a human life is, hence in eyes of other man too. Thus, in different religions there is different attitude of a man to himself, to his life, and the attitude of a man to other people. But this is morals. By paraphrasing a saying, it is possible to tell: "Parishioners are the such, as their God is".

Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Hinduism, Buddhism - thus these religions are located geographically, on a map, from the west to the east. Exactly in the same succession these are located on a certain spiritual scale, that contains more information than a unpretentious stereotype "West - East".

12. Mohammedanism is an abasement of a man.

At the center of our scale there is Mohammedanism. The essence of this religion, that is to say its notion about God becomes clear at first sight on the praying Mohammedans. At a muezzin shouts "Allah is great! Allah is great!" the men are gathering on a square, kneel by rows (you try just to not come and to not kneel!) and repeatedly in unison fall on ground by their faces. Thus the inhabitants of a won city are falling in front of Conqueror: oh, you may destroy us but we implore you to allow us to live, we shall be submissive to you at all. Do you grant the life to us?! Oh, glory to you, ours powerful and merciful Lord!

I emphasize specially for the Christians (not for "atheists" - they hardly will understand it at once): the mercy of Mohammedan God isnít the same that mercy of Christian God, and isnít the same one of Jewish God. Christian God is merciful because of fatherly love of people7. As in the parable about a prodigal son the father does not demand an explanation how this coming back son had spent the inheritance, that had been given to him, but simply falls on his neck (Luke 15:20). But Mohammedan God is merciful as a despot, as a conqueror: "If I want - I execute you, If I want - I show mercy to you". The third variant is Jewish God. He is merciful by other way: He had created the man, Adam - to appoint him on the Earth as though the manager of a manor. It turns out that God need a man. He concludes a testament, a contract with the man. For a Mohammedan this Bible notion seems sacrilegious - God needs a man? - delirium! Allah is great! He is self-sufficing. The globe is a little dirt crumb sticking to a Godís boot, also the millions people are bacteria crawling on a surface of this crumb. For Christians the Jewish notion is ridiculous too: the Father loves the son, therefore it is out of the question about any bargains of the Father with the son (also of the son with the Father), "all I have is your" - as it is told in a parable about a prodigal son. In any case, it is out of the question since Christ had given the New Testament, the Testament of love. Therefore nobody should speak that all these three religions - Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism - are based on the same Bible. The conception, the spirit of these are completely different. Though Koran, interpreting Bible, seems "recognizes" Bible and refers to it, but it testifies not to its identity with Bible and not about tolerance of the Jews and Christians, these references to Bible are necessary for Koran to seem authoritative, well-founded.

(FOOTNOTE 7: I have been told: "But how to combine this "fatherly love" with such quantity of sufferings in the world!" Really, the many - just as Ivan Karamazov and a philosopher Berdyaev - consider a question of theodicy - of the justification of God - as the main problem of Christianity. Briefly the answer is: Christian God is not Jewish God (not God of Old Testament), he punishes nobody excessively, but the people suffer for own sins and for sins of other people or frequently simply because IT IS NECESSARY - in any case of their suffering are not senseless. To understand why IT IS NECESSARY is not always possible - but here it is just necessary the trust (the faith) and love of God)

The Mohammedan symbol of belief - the words "Allah is great" is, in reality, an unfinished phrase. Because naturally there is a question: "Well, He is great, but what does follow it?". And what is the phrase termination meant? Anyhow a passion of the exclamation exalting God "Allah is great!" is meaning on the other pole an abasement of a man, contains into itself an underlying idea: "...and a man in comparison with Him is a nonentity, a worm, filth".

In the excesses occurring in the Muslim countries the Europeans see "a terrorism", "a desperation of the destitute Muslim masses" or "the unintelligible cruelty". But it should be clear it isnít a cruelty. Regarding of what is considered as filth, there cannot be a cruelty.

A philosopher Ernst Gelner in the book "Pre-conditions of freedom" names Islam (alongside with Marxism) as the main historical contender of a civil society. And not only historical, but also modern and future8. See more in detail about it in a magazine "Znanie - sila" ("Knowledge is power") No 2, 1997, page 69

(FOOTNOTE 8: The lack of understanding of it results in recurrence of mistakes of foreign policy. As Lenin government and then also Stalin government were helping Germany secretly to revive the military machine after the first world war, and it had been turned back against Russia in II world war, as now Russia helps fascist Islam states - Iraq and Iran - to create the dangerous weapon. I can predict, how III world war will begin. At a moment of the next deterioration of the relationship between Russia and USA Iraq or Iran will have put stealthily to us a nuclear, chemical or bacteriological bomb, because we have already taught them how to make these. We shall have considered that the bomb is American and for the answer shall bomb the USA, the USA will bomb us. Thus Iraq and Iran will rub their hands with joy that they managed to destroy USA, but they will not pity us too)

It is not accidentally that Islam was likable for Nietzche and Hitler which were despising a man.

The disdain for a man, in addition to cruelty, also results in mendacity and insidiousness. All these qualities of, for example, Saddam Khusein are well known but the people - and not only in Iraq - considers him a hero. In Algeria the Islam fanatics had cut a throat already to thousands women, old men and children - but the people is ready to vote for them.

Here is a picture of not so distant past of the Islam world.

(FOOTNOTE 9: One man has objected me: "But what culture it was taking place there! What architecture!". Another man has told: "But nevertheless I do not see a difference between religions. In the Christian countries there were tortures and murders too". A woman of a Caucasian origin had told: "But you? - would you like, that your wife is disgracing you?" Also concerning competition of beauty in Baku one passer-by had told to BBC correspondent (16.12.98): "Would you like so as your undressed sister was passing before another men? If I would have a gun, I shoot them all".)

And here is nearer to our time:

Nietzche wrote: "But between you and me, they (Christians) arenít men at all... Islam despises Christianity, and by right, a thousand times by right: Islam requires of men". On the other hand, softened by "Christianity" and by liberalism the modern European which was contemptiously named by Nietzche as "a last man", that is to say a degenerating man, to take place of which the Nietzcheís ruthless "superman" should come up - so this European says: "There should be a political correctness. It is impossible to condemn and furthermore to struggle and the more also to be at war against ideology of any nation. Can a nation be mistaken? For example, German nation? Can the fascism be a man-hating ideology? Look how Germans love their fuhrer, how at meetings the women enthusiastically pull to him hands!" Certainly, about a fascism so have ceased to speak, when Hitler has attacked Poland, and then USSR but, as a matter of fact, such the logic remains.

Here Gregory Pomeranz writes:

("ŤŤ century and the world" No 11, 1990, page 34)

Why did G. Pomeranz used evasive words "in the East", instead of has told directly: "in the Muslim republics"? May be, a philosopher Pomeranz considers that any religion is a boon, and if Mohammedanism is the great religion, hence it is a great boon? Or he thinks that "it cannot be - that the whole nations were mistaken"? Can be! There is these words in Gospel: "the people living in a land of death shadow". Certainly, the stress in this Gospel phrase is laid not on a word "the people" but on "the shadow of death", that is to say the defect is not in a nationality but in the religion.

How on our scale offered in the previous chapter the attitude of different religions to violence, wars, murders is traced? Not only Mohammedans but also Christians and Buddhists were at war and were killing. But Christian and Buddhism religions if were not preventing, then moderating and constraining wars and murders. A Christian proverb speaks: "You must quarrel with a sin but be reconciled with a sinner". Christ and Buddha were not at war also did not advise to others. Christ taught to love the enemies. Buddha taught to be disposed equally - indifferently to friends and to enemies. Judaism and Hinduism if do not condemn in principle a war but, at least, also do not welcome. But Mohammed was at war himself also was inspiring the supporters to wars, and - just to the religious wars, promising to the lost at these wars a guaranteed and immediate hit into paradise. It is possible and it is necessary to be at war even with Muslims if previously to announce them as the traitors to Allah. But as the history has shown, to make it is easily.

Radio "Liberty" 19.10.92 broadcasted the following reporting from Tadjikistan of the correspondents Andrew Babitsky and Savik Shuster having been there.

"Kurgan-Tiubie city. Lomonosov settlement is one of the city areas. During 5 days Islamists were firing on the settlement by grenade-guns, and then there had come the time of robberies and medieval nightmare: children had been torn up half-and-half, hundreds of them had been drowned in irrigation ditches, ears, noses had been cut off, - those few, whom we meet in the street are telling it. In Kurgan-Tiube there were 70 thousands inhabitants, now them are only 5-6 thousands - alive. Islamists had slaughtered completely, including the old men, children and women, population of one of the richest areas of the city - the Uzbek settlement Urgut-Makhale".

I fancy how Islamists were making in 5 breaks per a day in the middle of these murders for the prayer - Mohammedanism obliges them to this. By kneeling, they were proclaiming "Allah is great! Allah is great!", by implying: ".. But a man is filth! Filth! Filth!" - and then were continuing the murders.

Further in the reporting there is an interview with a Russian-speaking representative of Islam party "Rebirth" (!) mullah Abdurakhman. "We do not aspire, - the mullah speaks, - to create an Islam state, we are the supporters of a secular democratic (!) state. Our prophet Mohammed had told that who does not adhere Islam, he is not considered as a man at all. We are the adherents of vakhabism".

The correspondent of Radio "Liberty" explains: "Vakhabism is a foundamentalist branch of the Islam doctrine. It had been based in XVIII century in Saudi Arabia. It is the extreme form of an asceticism: vakhabists have imposed an ban on music, dances, silk, gold and jewelry. But the most important in the doctrine is the belief that the bases of public life, legislation should strictly be based on Sacred Koran. An example: in 1989 near Jelalabad in Afghanistan I have appeared in a group of modjakheds as a reporter of Radio "Liberty", where there was a group of young volunteers from Saudi Arabia. They have decided to shoot me because in the evening, after hearing an issue of news, I have not switched off a radio but continued to listen to music. For Abdul-Kadir, a commander of the group with which we together have passed through many difficult battle moments, hardly it was possible to convince the Saudians that to shoot me it is unnecessary, it is will play into Kabul regime hands".

Also 12.11.92 Radio "Deutsche Welle" was broadcasting: "The modjakheds of one of the Afghani leaders Khekmatiar - the former peasants from a remote province still fire at Kabul by rockets in November 1992. At a question "How you can do it, you see, the rockets arenít precise, and the peace population are there?" They answer: "All the same, where the rocket will fall, all who live in cities are atheists".

And their religious(!) leader Khekmatiar, as BBC informs, when he was a student, was walking through the town and splashed with acid into faces of women, if the face was not closed with a yashmak. So the foundamentalist Khekmatiar (was he a student-chemist?) struggled for cleanliness of the belief, for revival of the belief. This is such the foundamentalist spirituality, such the Mohammedan belief!

Really, the word "foundamentalism" means aspiration to come back to the cleared sources, to the initial bases of any religion or doctrine. We are told: "Islam can be different". Certainly. But Islam, that Mohammed was teaching, can be only one. Therefore I prefer to speak not "Islam" but "Mohammedanism". Also we must judge the Mohammedanism not by those beautiful words, that there is a lot of in Koran but by the practical requirements and deals of Mohammed. Because Mohammed is the sole indisputable authority for Muslims. One of Islam dogmas says: "There is no God except Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet (messenger, envoy)". When Christians or Budhists are at war and kill, they sin against their religions. On the contrary, a Mohammedan is sinning, when is not at war. Mohammedanism not only encourages but directly demands war and murder. "Fight against enemies until Islam will have triumphed" (Koran, sura II)10. A Mohammedan must be at war against faithless ones not less rarely than once for two years. If he is not at war - he isn't a man, he is a coward and traitor to Allah. The postponement of war can be only on tactical reasons - to strike in the most adverse for an enemy the moment. But till the suitable moment has not come, - "if you can not chop off a hand of the enemy, kiss it" - a Mohammedan proverb says. The won population, which is not wishing to pass on to Mohammedanism, should be destroyed or is inverted into slavery. If you, even out of curiosity, have heard a lecture of a Mohammedanism teacher and haven't passed on to Mohammedanism, that is to say you have rejected "the truth", that has been given to you, - it means, you have announced yourselves as an enemy to Allah, you already should be killed, - so is written in Koran11.

(FOOTNOTE 10: Also are there such the "poetic" lines from Koran: "If a Jew will hide behind a bush, the bush should cry: "the Jew is here!" - so as the faithful could find the Jew and kill him"?)

(FOOTNOTE 11: Radio "Liberty" 15.7.99 has informed that Chechen shura (a council of an Islamic state) has passed a mortal verdict to the Kuzbass governor Aman Tuleyev for he had passed from Islam to Orthodoxy. Tuleyev had to be justifying himself, that he is a communist and did not belong to any religions and does not belong)

Thus Mohammedanism was extended, and this is an underlying idea, that the words "Allah is great!" are containing: it is unimportantly the heads of faithless ones are cut off by sabres or the chemical, bacteriological, nuclear weapon is used, if only the banner of Allah would won.

Someone reply to me that Mohammedans (Arabs), having won all Northern Africa and having reached to Spain, whether they soften in their fanaticism, whether they had ceased to destroy and to invert by force into Mohammedanism the won peoples on military and economic reasons. Probably, the won Christians and Jews managed to buy off. Indonesia, for example, have not been reached by the Islam armies at all, there Mohammedanism was spread only by its missionaries, not encountering a counteraction of any more ancient and strong religion. But the "Christian" Inquisition, on the contrary, showed an extreme intolerance and cruelty in Spain and in won America, - thus someone can object me.

But I say not about the subsequent variations of these religions - Christianity and Mohammedanism - I speak about sources, about "base", that is to say about the Christ doctrine and about the Mohammed doctrine, and also about the influence of these initial doctrines, that is being exhausted, or revives in the later historical Christianity and historical Mohammedanism. I say that the cruelty of the "historical" Christians is a departing from the Christ doctrine just as the tolerance of the "historical" Mohammedans is a departing from the Mohammed doctrine.

As are spoken, Islam can be different. In Turkey and in Egypt, as speak, Islam is not such strict and extreme, as in Saudi Arabia. Well, but at 10.31.99 a plane of an Egyptian airline had taken off from New York for Cairo but a pilot, which should have married some days after, had decided to make even better: to destroy 200 faithless, and for it Allah will at once have taken him in paradise, where he will enjoy with perfect houries, instead of any woman. The pilot had prayed for Allah 14 times, had switched off the robot pilot both engines, and the Boeing with 217 passengers had fallen in ocean. Such version seems rather politically incorrect and undermining the profitability of the Egyptian airline. I think, just because of it the American inspectors under pressure of Egyptians have refused from "the versions of suicide" - because, as they are speaking, the pilot was a man even-tempered and pleased with life. But you see, I also do not speak that there was a suicide, on the contrary, the pilot had chosen - according to the doctrine of the prophet Mohammed - the best share than life, he was lost at Djikhad, at war against the faithless.

The publicists usually state the matter thus: to criticize any religion it is not allowed because any "religion" is well12, but "fundamentalism" is poorly. But actually, fundamentalism is a return to bases, to spiritual and moral sources of any religion. Therefore not in itself the returning to sources is bad but it is bad when these sources and bases are bad.

(FOOTNOTE 12: Any? Even the requiring human sacrifices?)

A Christian foundamentalist - offers the right cheek, if him have struck on left cheek, gives also a shirt, if a coats had been taken away from him. A Buddhist foundamentalist is a homeless in a yellow cassock with shaved head, who is living by alms. But an Islamist foudamentalist is a murderer... I almost has told "a cool murderer". No, an ordinary villain can be cool here. But a Muslim foundamentalist is an enthusiastic murderer-kamekadze, who is going to murder - and certainly to be killed - by joyfully smiling and proclaiming "Allah is great!" - the first principle of Islam.

So the Americans, near which a lorry had passed by, that had been blown up in a minute near the USA embassy in Beirut and that had killed 240 men, were saying subsequently: "It was impossible to think, that cheerful, the joyfully smiling man taking the helm, is a murderer-kamekadze".

Allah is great, a man is a worm. For Allah it is enough to move a little by the little finger to destroy not only the man but all mankind and all the Earth in general. Allah plays with the world as a child is playing, by shaping of clay, of mud the mountains, fortresses, men, and then again by crushing all these into a clot. Only due to his whim Allah allows us to exist. For this his mercy we must fall down at his feet.

Such actually is the world outlook of Mohammedans. However it is necessary also to give Mohammedans the due: just due to their desperate attitude to life, contempt to itself - the Afghani modjaheds have stood up against a totalitarian Super-state. Just over their bodies this colossus on clay feet had stumbled and collapsed - and we had found freedom.

Thus the second principle of Islam is contained into the name itself. The word "Islam" means "submissiveness to a will of God".

13. "Nature" of a man also his biological, cultural and spiritual evolution.

If you really experience and realize these principles of Islam ("Allah is great but a man is a insignificance" and "Submissiveness of a man to a will of Allah") - you receive a complete picture of the world also the program of life. All the rest follows from these two principles. These principles are simple up to primitiveness, but in here are a greatness and strength. Islam reduces the existence of a man to existence of an animal, but are not the greatness and strength in the existence of wild nature? Also Ravil Bukharaev (BBC) confirms: "The requirements of Islam are simple, Islam is a religion, that is the most corresponding to the nature of a man". But what is "the nature of a man"? It was formed in the Cave Age and corresponds to a "natural", wild condition of a man, instead of civilized one. The civilization has arisen just recently but a man is living on the Earth more than a million years.

Islam together with modern science appeal to "the nature of a man", that is his cave, animal nature. As regards this Berdiayev had told: "Anthropology yet remains old-pagan, that is to say teaches about a natural man, about old Adam". Two other religions - Judaism and Hinduism, located on our scale on both hands from Islam, already see a certain alternative. Judaism speaks about righteous ones, and Hinduism - about an opportunity of perfection of the man from a reincarnation to reincarnation. Two religions, that are taking place on edges of the scale - Christianity and Buddhism - resolutely offer an alternative to old "nature of a man". Buddhism offers "a way to the enlightenment", and Christianity speaks about "a new man", about "second birth (from above)".

In the church Christianity there is a doctrine about the triple nature of a man, distinguishing a body, soul and spirit. I would have told in another way: there are three such as evolution - biological, cultural and spiritual. The biological evolution of mankind is slowest: the appreciable changes require tens, even hundreds thousands years. It is almost can not be controlled, also the progressing evolution is slower than degrading one. The cultural evolution of a society goes much faster than biological one: the changes can be achieved for hundreds years, even for tens years. The spiritual evolution is individual, wholly in authority of the man and can take place almost instantly. Theologians will object me: not in authority of a man - but in authority of God. But I insist because is written: "You must be born again". That is to say to achieve it the man must make an effort. "The kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it " (Matth 1:12, Luke 16:16).

Thus the appeals to wild "nature of a man" as the highest instance - are unsound; also Mohammedanism is one of the lower levels of cultural and spiritual evolution. The decline of the Islam countries after their medieval "golden age" testifies also about the latter. The "golden age" it was not due to the essence of Mohammedanism, but due to discipline, severe tyranny, that had concentrated into the hands huge riches and was making the patronage out of the surplus.

14. About Hinduism, about "good and evil".

Now let us look how the firm and simple principles of Islam are being eroded and develop at movement to both ends of our scale. Let's slightly move east. Here is Hinduism. At Hinduism the comprehension of the Unique God, Unique Force, that is situated above the world, is vague. The attention is focused on the antagonistic forces of nature (the gods-elements), between that a man is squeezed as between millstones (the wheel of Sansara). But the man can has found a niche, a loop-hole13 and can has gone out of the game, out of this excruciating circulation. That is to say, unlike the submissiveness of a Mohammedan, a Hinduist, as the Bible Adam, which had eaten from tree of knowledge of good and evil, begins judging of the good and the evil himself - what for him it is most well or poorly - to think not about God but about himself. Just in the such sense it will be correct to understand the parable about the sin of Adam and Eve in paradise. As well in the book of the prophet Micah (6:8) is written: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?". .

(FOOTNOTE 13: It is considered that "a destiny" is what cannot be changed. But according to Hinduism, the destiny (karma) can be changed though to have made it uneasily because it depends not only on our new actions but largely is determined by the last actions - ours and the other's)

Any man does not choose evil, does not aspire to bad, to the evil as such, everybody aspires to good - and if makes bad for another, only because considers it good for oneself. But if the man with his individualism wants by himself, in own way to define good and evil and becomes "a measure of all things", it results to a sin - that is to say to an delusion, a mistake, to a miss the mark. Many philosophers assert that "the struggle between the good and the evil" occurs because of the ostensibly the contradiction between soul and flesh, spirit and matter. But blissful Augustine in this dispute on my party, he speaks: "A man has become similar to devil not because he has a flesh that devil has not, but because he lives in itself, that is to say in a man. Because also devil had wanted to live in itself when he hadnít held out in the truth. So, when a man lives in a man, instead of in God, he is similar to devil".

Also Berdiayev had told well in his variation on this theme: "Individualism in essence (in itself) - is not creative, negative and empty, as deprives the man of the universal contents, only to that the creativity can be directed. Sometimes individualism is being understood as the liberation of an individuality from external weight, natural weight, social, weight of the established morals and established sociality. At such understanding it is necessary to recognize positive value of individualism. But in the strict sense of the term the individualism is opposed to universality, it is separation of an individual man from the universe, itís the self-worship. The liberation of a human individuality from God and from the world is the murder of a man. This liberation is the devilish enslavement".

As well V. S. Soloviov speaks: "Love is the self-denying of a being, the firmly establishing by him another one, and thus, this self-denying carries out his highest self-establishing. Egoism - self-separating - actually appears as the self-denying".

15. About so-called "forces of good and evil".

Generally the theologians and the philosophers have confused a lot on a theme about good and evil. Augustine in the above mentioned citation just denies a prevailing notion about flesh, about matter as, ostensibly, source of evil in the world and about spirit as an indispensable source of good. Another general delusion is the personification of so-called "forces of evil" as devil - as a certain personality and "forces of good" - as angels. The notion about devil and demons is resulting from the children's desire to blame for misfortunes not oneself but someone other. But God may not be guilty, God makes good only. It means, devil is guilty - another as though god - but malicious one.

Thus are there any "forces of good and evil"? Actually, originally there is only one Force - the Force of good - what has created us for life, we name it as God. God, as I spoke, is to what you worship and serve. The forces of a nature, elements are indifferent to us, therefore these arenít counted. A rain or wind, drought or snowfall - its by itself arenít good or evil. Therefore it may be spoken the same also about hurricanes, earthquakes, illness, death. But we, people is a reasonable force, that is to say the force having freedom of choice. And if we work in the consent with that Initial Force of good - our force is good. But if we begin to pursue the own purposes, which we consider as the good for ourselves, but that contradict to the purposes of that Initial Force, we are mistaken, we sin and as a result we appear as a force of evil. As Pascal had told, "In order to be moral you must reason correctly". Thus God and a man are two really existing forces, to which the criterion of good and evil is applicable.

16. Monotheism and the church doctrine about the angels, devil and divine Trinity.

What about the fairy tales about the invisible malicious and kind beings ("spirits") - demons and angels, - if it is been understood literally - it contradict the monotheism idea. Here is how this idea is stated in Bible. When God was addressed to Moses on Horeb mountain (Exodus 3:13-14), Moses had asked: "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, `What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?". Moses meant that the people believe in set of gods both also believe in various kind and malicious spirits, therefore it will be necessary to specify who of them spoke to Moses. God had answered: "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you"14. That is to say speaks who really exists. If to consider that the doctrine of churches is correct: as if there are three personalities of God, also Satan, angels, demons, saints etc., the God answer to Moses will appear senseless. God also was not at the very beginning introduced himself to Moses by the name because to speak to Moses he can only one, there is nobody more. Moses and the people should know it, if they hold the monotheist belief of their forefather Abraham, and to not set the silly questions - who is speaking to them. In effect, the name is unnecessary to God, as he is only one. God as though is reproaching Moses and is speaking ironically: oh, you need My name? Well, that in mind: I am Who I Am, only I am Who I Am. There arenít anybody else!

(FOOTNOTE 14: "Ihegova", "Yagve", "Yahveh" - it is not known precisely, how the words "I am who I am" were sounded at Moses times)

It is easy to see that in all religions the initial strict monotheism, that is the great idea of the founders of these religions, is collapsing when they try to instil it into mass mentality. We see it in Bible too. In its first chapter, where it is a matter of creation of the world, God is working alone, nobody help him. But also there is nobody: other gods, Son of God, angels, devil, spirits, except "the Spirit of God hovering over the waters", that is to say God himself, which is a spirit. But soon, as well as in other religions, the strict monotheism is broken for the sake of poetic imagination. The stars are turned out "the army of God", in the sky "Godís sons" are being multiplied (why not daughters?), also angels of a different rank (seraphs are generals, cherubs are colonels etc.), also demons, and the main demon - Satan. "The sons of God went to the daughters of men" (now don't "go"?), "and had children by them - the Nephilim". Oh, the imagination15!

(FOOTNOTE 15: The cult of God mother in Orthodoxy and in Catholicism already reaches what in Catholicism even has appeared a current offering to pope to proclaim a new dogma about what at heaven God mother Mary is a wife of Holy Spirit also a co-sacrificer (together with Christ) for people sins. Thus Holy Trinity will be transformed into a Holy Quartet)

No! God is single, there are no "Supreme Forces" excepting him. Devil is just the personification of defection of a man from God. As well as "cold" is an absence of heat, and "darkness" is absence of light. The antagonistic "forces of the good and the evil" is the same paganism, polytheism. The later idea of Trinity is polytheism too. Because however Father, Son and Holy Spirit were unanimous, but three divine personalities are three Gods, instead of one.

But in first chapter of Bible all is strict: there are only God, animals and a man. Even the serpent, who has tempted Adam and Eve, is not devil but sheer "an animal", even if it "was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made". God inflict a punishment to the snake - to creep on its belly etc., instead of, for example, sends it into hell.

17. Buddhism.

So, after all necessary deviations, we shall return to consideration of five great religions. We spoke about Hinduism, located on our scale to the east from Mohammedanism. Even more distant to the east there is Buddhism. About the subordination to God here is already out of the question. Also from natural forces a man is being emancipated more resolutely. Let the blind forces to grind though the whole worlds, even the respect is absent to these elements. For Hinduist the liberation is a far promise, during one life it is possible to come to liberation only by one step nearer. But for Buddhist - the liberation is quite real. To take the correct way is already a half the work is made. Buddha spoke: "As the ocean has only one taste - a taste of salt, as my doctrine has only one taste - a taste of liberation". It implies the liberation out of suffering. But it means - out of compassion16 too! The liberation is being achieved by way of akhimsa, that is to say by non-violence, in the broad sense of the word. First of all Buddha was preaching to stop sacrificing animals, by alluding to a man soul is moving into animals. But as a result of this doctrine for Buddhist (as well as for Hinduist) "the liberation" is turned out the leaving into non-existence ("nirvana" means "extinction"), at the best case - into hermits, into a monastery, it becomes the burying not only his talent but also himself in ground. V. S. Soloviov considers that Buddhism has taken root not there, where it had arisen - not in India - but in the Mongolian countries because "this race (Mongolian) equally with the greatest tribe pride distinguishes itself with extreme disdain for life, not only for life of other people, but for own life too". But certainly, the matter isnít in the race but in the former, pre-Buddhist religion, that had turned out as the suitable ground for Buddhism. Similarly and the Pol-Pot atrocities have not only the Marxism as a hidden motive but pre-Marxism of those places, that is to say Buddhism.

(FOOTNOTE 16: As Feuerbach has told, "The One who takes a great interest of nirvana or of any other metaphysical super-sensual reality or the non-existence ["the emptiness"?] as the superior truth for a man, - for him the human, earthly happiness is nothing, but both the human suffering and misfortune are nothing for him, at least if he wants to be consecutive")

Now I speak not about the Buddha doctrine but about actual, the "historical" Buddhism. Because what has remained in Buddhism of Buddha's doctrine - as well as in "Christianity" of Christ's doctrine - if the traditional every-morning prayer of Dalai-Lama includes the wishes that demons (they are also gods) "would have burnt by fire" (by gangrene?) the enemies guts? I donít understand why the Nobel peace premium was awarded to Daly-Lama. Agree also that "the monks of the Shaolin monastery" in Chinese film-hits arenít alike by their manners to our monks. Also "a philosophy" studied by them in the monastery and consisting in how stronger to strike by the foot in a jaw of the opponent, isnít similar to European notions about philosophy and divinity. Certainly the plots of these films are invented, but legends about the monastery, that have been taken as its basis, are not groundless - its philosophy, certainly, is corresponding, is bound up with philosophy of the country - with real, "historical" Buddhism. It already a long time ago had been reduced to paganism. Or what, in your opinion, is behind all these fang masks of the demons-gods at the Buddhism celebrations? It is no wonder that not the Buddhism countries but the Christian ones had become a cradle of freedom, democracy and progress. "For a tree is recognized by its fruit".

But why is Buddhism so much popular today? Because there is an illusion that the truth, certainly, is not here, near to us, but somewhere behind mountains, behind seas, in a far ancient and mysterious country. India and China are being modernized and already so much not attract. Where still is the exotic character today? Certainly, in Nepal, Tibet (also at narcotizied Mexican Indians - perhaps it explains the popularity of Kastanieda?).

18. Judaism.

On the other hand from Islam, to west from it there is Judaism. "Oh yes, God is great and mighty. But why to fall before him by the face into dust like Mohammedans, or to try to run away from him like Hinduists and Buddhists? It is silly. Whether it is better to enter into an honest agreement with him, into the testament? We shall carefully have been performing everything, as you want, oh, Lord, but we shall have the favor of the most powerful Force, we shall become an elected, privileged people!".

19. Five variants of the relationship with God.

Farther to the west from Islam and Judaism there is Christianity. It is already the fifth variant of the relationship with God. The first variant (if to begin from the east) - Buddhism is a relationship of a fugitive slave which has decided that he is free now. But what (and why) freedom is possible, the freedom from Force creating everything and embracing everything with itself? It is only non-existence, nirvana. Where such slave can run away? Only into emptiness.

The second variation - Hinduism is a relationship of a slave at compulsion. Such slave tries to not contradict, to not irritate the mister, bears the burden and hopes that, if he will behave cautiously in this life and in subsequent ones, his situation from reincarnation to reincarnation will be improved and sometime he will become free.

The third variation - Islam is a relationship of a submissive slave. If he has suddenly a rest or a good fortune - he enjoys life, but if happiness was terminated or absolutely never was existing, if the destruction is approaching, it means the destiny is the such. "Allah is great - a man is a worm". It is interesting that "extremes meet": anti-humane Mohammedanism and western humanism converge on the hedonism, on pleasure, as the sense, the purposes of existence. At Mohammedans notion, in paradise the righteous ones are being satisfied by the beautiful girls - huriahs, by a wonderful way each time restoring the virginity, that is especially being appreciated by Mohammedans. Mohammed spoke: "Most of all in life I loved women and aromas. But I was finding the most complete pleasure only in prayer". Oh yes, Islam is simple, it canít be simpler: the purpose of life is pleasure. Just a personage of Arkady Raikin has told even simpler: "First of all, I acquire a car, a wife and a dog".

The fourth variant of a relationship with God is Judaism. This is a relationship already not of a slave but of a loyal mercenary on a field of a mighty, reliable Owner. By working not as an obligation but for clear conscience, such mercenary does not overlook his own interest too. But certainly - not at the expense of the Owner! In the relationships with such Owner it is too silly to be a dishonest.

And the fifth variant of the relationship with God is Christianity. If Christ parable about talents (Matthew 25:14-30) is in Judaism course only: there "a loyal slave" (that is to say a mercenary) - is contrasted with "a slave lazy and crafty" (a slave at compulsion), then a parable about the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) shows that both sons were in the wrong. First son, not having the love of father, had understood the filial relationships as a right to the inheritance. But also second son related to the father incorrectly - as a mercenary to an Owner - and demanded, as though have told now, the social fairness, payment according to the work. Christ shows in this parable that God giving life is Father, is LOVE, what "rights" may be in the face of God, what sharing, what accounts?! The claims for God, like "a tear of a child" of Ivan Karamazov, can arise at humanistic "Christians", but not at the original ones. The ordinary people of XIX century did not know the Ivan Karamazovís doubts and, unlike Berdiayev, did not require theodicy - that is to say the justifications of God. They had reliably assimilated the truths: "God has given - God has taken back", "Christ bore - and ordered it to us too". In "The Book of Solomonís Parables" is told: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". For the humanists putting a man on a place of God - it is appears as a stumbling-block, they are rejected from Christianity by this "fear of God". They do not notice that in the "Solomonís Parables" at once is explained: "The reverence to God is the beginning of understanding". This "fear" actually is the unquestioning obedience based on complete trust, the loving and feeling of the weakness - as at a child it happens in relation to the parent, and all the more at the man should be in relation to God.

Thus the Christian attitude to God is a filial attitude.

On our scale we see that, unlike Judaism and Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity come back, as along a spiral, to the Islam rule that there cannot be no claims for God, no accounts, no gaining. But these come back at absolutely different reasons! Buddhism doesnít entirely want to know God. Islam - because of obedience to the will of God. Christianity - because of the filial love of God.

Whether it means that Buddhism is a religion without God, "an atheistic religion"? No, does not mean. Buddhists pray and worship Buddha, the lucid man having given them a way to liberation. For them Buddha is higher than all the gods-elements which, though have been admitted as powerful and creating one, but are not the objects for worship. Thus the God of Buddhists is a saint man Buddha.

Also it is necessary to note that the moving from center of the scale - from Islam - to the edges of the scale is a movement to freedom. Two religions, that are taking place on edges of the scale: Christianity and Buddhism have reached the freedom. But what different their freedom is!

20. As a child dependant religion of "Witnesses of Ihegova".

The consent of Christian with a God, obedience to God is free, it doesnít follow already from fear of punishment but from the filial love of God. Here, however, there is a danger of bias to another extreme. For example, the members of church (or "organizations" as they speak) of "the Ihegova Witnesses" fancy the relation to God like a dependant relationship of a child to the father. They, again as children, have adjusted the decision of a task to the answer wished by them: they "have calculated" that not later than through one generation after war of 1914 - also formerly they "were calculating" the earlier dates - Ihegova all the same will destroy all governments, will establish his own government and by miraculous force will have made, in the literal sense of the word, the paradise on the Earth. Therefore the Witnesses of Ihegova preach complete civil passivity.

21. The Christ doctrine is a religion of the duty of a man on the Earth, instead of religion of happiness, pleasure in paradise.

Theoretically there are two such as religions: religion of the debt and religion of enjoyment. Christ warns that it is impossible to serve to two misters (Matth 6:24-25; Luke 16:13-15). However the majority of real religions (of ideologies, philosophies, world- views, beliefs, doctrines) are turned out an inconsistent mixture of these two pure types. Buddhism is the most original in this respect. By refusing from everyday pleasures in order, at the same time, to free oneself from sufferings too, Buddhism promises nirvana, that is to say some sort of enjoying non-existence (!)

In the beginning of the Mountainside sermon text (Matth 5:3-11; Luke 4:20-26) - in so-called "the commandments of bliss" (this name is thought up by church) Christ does not at all assert that is necessary to aspire to bliss, that is to say to happiness. He says: "Seek first his (Godís) kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well". But people are inclined directly to put happiness as the purpose17. But then, Christ says, toward bliss, to happiness just the other way leads but not the one that you think. The blessed are not the rich ones but the poor (the have-nots and who are not aspiring to have, that is to say "the poor in spirit"), not who are well fed now - but who hunger now, not who are having fun - but grieved, not those who are praised for indulging - but those who are hated, cursed and pursued for truth.

(FOOTNOTE 17: Blissful Augustine says about it: "It is no wonder that the unhappy people do not receive that they wish, that is to say happy life. The happiness concomitant, without that anybody is not worthy of happiness - namely the correct life, does not cause the same desire in them")

22. The hedonistic bias of churches and especially of Witnesses of Ihegova.

Thus Christianity (that is to say Christ doctrine) is a religion of debt in the pure state. But the churches, giving way to Adam sin (so-called "the primary sin"), lose their way and, if not preach directly, then are considering silently, as self-evident., that the purpose of life of a man is not "the executing a will of God", as it is written in Gospel but happiness, that is to say pleasure. The Witnesses of Ihegova preach it directly. Their sermon is constructed on a principle of stick and carrot. At first they frighten a man: already absolutely soon God Ihegova will destroy everyone who will not enter organization of the Witnesses of Ihegova. You donít want to perish, isnít it? Then enter organization. Especially as the new world government, that for management of the Earth Jesus Christ will establish in the heaven of 144 thousands the most worthy Witnesses of Ihegova, will by miraculous force support the real paradise on the Earth! And then - as the carrot - a question or, rather, a slogan pressing to come in follows:
- "Would you like to live eternally in paradise on the Earth?"
- Oh yes, I should like! I should like!
- Well, then enter organization and do everything that it orders.

23. Absurdity of paradise of the "Ihegova Witnesses"

In description of paradise by the Witnesses of Ihegova the literal understanding of Bible that is characteristic for all churches, reaches the limits of childish fancy. As it is told in Bible "A lion will lie down with a lamb" - it means that the heavenly government of Jesus Christ, in Witnesses of Ihegova opinion, will change lionís instincts, teeth and organs of digestion so as lions together with lambs could eat a grass (imagine: a lion is chewing the cud like a camel!). Thus, it turns out literally like a Krylovís fable "One day God had given a bit of cheese to a crow". It comes out that God should care how to feed the swarms of mosquitoes, that are eating blood at present, it will be necessary to think that every hungry crow will eat, also a pelican, a swallow, a ladybird. Because all of them are the predatory but in paradise nobody may eat other animal. But the small nestlings? They cannot eat grain! The more nutritious, meat food - small worms and midges are necessary to them. What will the poor small nestlings do? But if - God forbid! - somewhere in open spaces of world ocean any microscopic crayfish will have eaten a bacterium instead of an infusorian? An infusorian may be eaten, it is a plant but a bacterium is forbidden for eating, it is an animal. But if also any absent-minded tadpole will have swallowed the microscopic crayfish? An eyesless jelly-fish in its blindness will have digested the tadpole? A calmar will have eaten the jelly-fish? A tunny - the calmar? Because to keep an eye on all these, it will be not enough even 144 thousands officials of heavenly government! And what it will be a calmar and a tunny, a zebra and a lion, if they will not need to pick up speed, saving the life or catching up with the prey? Whether they should go in for sport to not lose the form? And what else can a flounder, a cod, a herring, a dolphin, a shark, a cachalot eat excepting meat? Besides, if each a roe-corn will be turned into a fish (because death is absent!), soon the ocean will be filled with fish completely!

A grass-snake may not eat frogs, the frogs - the flyes, an viper - mouses. But what will they eat? Perhaps it is a punishment of grass-snake and viper that the serpent - their distant ancestor had tempted Adam and Eve? A hedgehog may not eat slugs and worms but only mushrooms and apples. But if inside a mushroom the small worm will have turned out, and the hedgehog unintentionally will have bitten it? Oh, itís a sin! Really, the heavenly government of Jesus Christ will have too much cares. And what will wolves, foxes, owls eat? They may not eat hares. The hares, understanding literally the order "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth", will have been multiplied, will have gnawed trees, the trees will dry up. Also they will have eaten all grass, - if, certainly, earlier this grass will not have been eaten by locust. But it is forbidden both to destroy the locust, and to treat badly a fly! Mice as an alive carpet will have covered the gnawed-round fields. It was already in Australia. Then they were being destroyed by flame-throwers but now it will impossible to touch them!

By the way, not only the Witnesses of ihegova but also many church teachers are appearing in a silly situation and, what really matter, discredit Christianity when they try to argue with the theory of evolution, that has been corroborated now by the genetic analysis, or for example, by archeology, ethnography, linguistics - when they try to prove, as if all races and languages have occurred from the sons of Noah during short term "after the floodwaters".

24. Leo Tolstoy is an apostle of our time.

Notice, I say not about the author of "War and peace" and "Anna Karenina". In the beginning of his main article on the world-outlook theme "What I believe?" Tolstoy writes that approximately at 55 years old he had become a new man. Also apostle Paul at one time was Saul. When he had become a new man, "was born again (from above)", he had changed the name too. Tolstoy, who had also experienced this transformation, regeneration at Christ, had not changed the name. But the art-critics who does not understand and not accept both the Christís doctrine and the Tolstoyís doctrine but nevertheless writing about Tolstoy are covering up this fact of the Tolstoy regeneration. Because of this there are the mess and misunderstanding among public that at the name Leo Tolstoy there are actually two different world-view men. Itís truth, up to the end of 70-th or the beginning of 80-th of the last century Tolstoy was a writer, probably, even a great writer philosophizing as any writer respecting himself. But then he had become more than a writer, he had become a religious teacher and a reformer of religion. We may compare him with the apostles or with Luther. Tolstoy is an apostle, closest to our time. Therefore a modern man has most of all of chances correctly to understand the Christ doctrine just by way of Tolstoy. Being, as the large writer, an acute connoisseur of human soul seeing concealed reasons of human thoughts, words and acts, Tolstoy could restore the course both the sense of Gospel events and Christís doctrine over those "horns and hoofs", that have been remained for us after two thousand years of the church additions and distortions. As, for example, a good paleontologist over only one bone restores all others bones also the shape and physiology of an animal that died out long time ago.

It is accepted to give all the sorts of honors to Tolstoy, name him as a genius but meanwhile it is very difficult to find his main religious and philosophical works not only in sale but in libraries too. In 1991 a Leningrad branch of publishing house "Fiction" in edition as if 70 thousand copy had published a Tolstoy book, that had not arrived for some reason in sale but all edition ostensibly has gone to libraries. But - not into section of the books on philosophy and religion but on a shelf near to "Anna Karenina". Now it is absent there too. "Confession" is written on its cover, you canít guess that under this cover, besides repeatedly issued "Confession", there is also another, more important and because of it at communist time almost not issued his work "What I believe?". Besides, the reader opening the book, at once is being processed in the anti-Tolstoy spirit by the foreword written by Alexander Menn, a priest of Orthodox church, that had cursed Tolstoy.

The Alexander Mennís foreword is named "Leo Tolstoyís "theology" and Christianity" (theology - in inverted commas!). That is to say the understanding of the Christís doctrine by genius Tolstoy contemptibly has been put in inverted commas but the understanding of the Christís doctrine by the church teachers is meant identical to the Christís doctrine and has been named without superfluous modesty as "Christianity" - as though the understanding was being varied never and now equally in all the world at all members of all churches and sects altercating between themselves who of them are the true Christians and true church.

In spite of all respect for Alexander Menn as the preacher and sympathy for him as a martyr, in his foreword is necessary to note also the others, to put it mildly, discrepancies. If at his pre-Christian period Tolstoy had an idea to create new religion, it does not mean that he had such intention later and was putting it into practice. Tolstoy repeatedly spoke that he only transfers the Christís doctrine to the people as he, Tolstoy, has understood this doctrine. And if the church teachers teach in another way, it does not mean that exactly they teach correctly. Also the grievance against church is not that church had cursed Tolstoy but that it had deprived him of the right to print his works.

IIn Tolstoyís "Confession" a reader should not search for an exposing of Tolstoyís new belief. Over the sense of the word "confession" it is a penitential story about the former delusions, mistakes and sins. The Tolstoyís "Confession" is a story about the crisis and crash of his former belief - the scientific-positivist belief. It was approximately the same belief that also today the majority of our contemporaries owns. And Tolstoy in his works speaks about that - why the church teachers of predominant Orthodox church appears unable to have led the majority of to some extent educated people to Christ. Thus just for this criticism of its incompetence Tolstoy was punished by church. Tolstoy speaks that the church teachers - like the same Pharisees - do not enter into a Door (are not living under the Christ doctrine) but also block the entrance for others (are teaching wrongly). The door is the image of Christ: - Christ is a Door, that is leading towards God.

But we shall leave a question how the church teachers live - from Tolstoy time the much has changed - letís look how they teach. You see, who of people in the least degree educated was not repelled from a Christianity by ridiculous church dogmas about the angels, Son of God, innocent conception, life beyond the grave, bliss of spiritually beggars, flesh resurrection. These dogmas are known for everyone - even if he didnít read Gospels. These dogmas are looming in the foreground, cover essence, darken the light, appear as an obstacle to understanding and acceptance by the people of the saving Christís doctrine. Tolstoy helps the people of XIX and ŤŤ centuries to be nearing Christ because rejects aforesaid both other church dogmas and absurd notions. In his works - in a brief work "What I believe?" and in a fundamental one - "Consolidation and translation of four Gospels" Tolstoy shows that many of these church absurdities actually are absent in Gospels and all the more - in Christís doctrine.

25. The church inventions about "the innocent conception", about "Son of God" and "angels".

For example, a man is beginning from the first chapter of Matthewís gospel: "An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said..." And then the reader - under influence of notions inculcated by church about angels, as about any beings with wings - throws the book and speaks: "Why to read these fairy tales? There are no angels!". But if he will not have thrown the book, the unconsciously hidden mistrust will close a way to understanding of true sense.

But firstly, "to see", and furthermore, in a dream, it is possible any image - with wings too. Secondly, may be Joseph saw no image but an idea has arisen at him in a dream as if someone had told it to him. Itís like a schoolboy who was tormented with a task in the evening, hadnít decided it, is going to bed - like a saying "A morning is more clever than an evening" - and in the morning wakes up with the ready decision in the head.

But Joseph was really tormented with a problem. He was shaken. He tracing the lineage back to king David, - Jews in general had the cult of kin and of the continuation of the kin, also Gospels begins with his genealogy, - he suddenly finds out that his bride is pregnant. Not through him. The firstborn, the lawful successor of a kin - will be not his descendant. One more branch of a famous kin will be terminated, from which Messiah, the rescuer of Israel should appear. To expel Mary, disgracing her publicly, and by that as though having removed the shame from himself? Many would do that. But righteous Joseph has understood what the internal voice were prompting to him: "Donít be afraid to take Mary home as your wife because who is born is from God. Not the flesh parents create life but the life-giving Spirit. Also not who is more important who has born but who has brought up. May be, he is the child who should become the rescuer of Israel. You see, just now Israel is humiliated, is occupied and expects the rescuer".

On this example - the analysis of the first chapter Matthewís Gospel - you can see how it is possible to understand Gospels and in general the Bible stories without any mysticism - but also without the far-fetched, ostensibly "scientific" theories that, for example, the Christ resurrection it is, are spoken, a transition into any new form of matter, also where the huge amount of water had come from during the floodwaters and where it had then gone away, and the like.

Certainly the connoisseurs will be investigating, will try to find out through whom nevertheless had Mary become pregnant also had she really remained a virgin thus? But is it necessary to dwell on similar questions, if not physiology but Christ doctrine is important for us?

26. A spiritual sense of the Bible texts.

Tolstoy in general was rejecting and did not want to examine an episodes about Christmas, about wedding at Cana in Galilee and some others because these have nothing to do with Christís doctrine. But I think that these Gospel stories are the good illustrations just for Christ doctrine. The first and second chapters of Matthewís Gospel shows the attitude to children - to our successors on the earth also the attitude to the destiny - on the one hand of a righteous Joseph and on the other hand of a villain Herod. Also unless is it not wonderful how Dostoyevsky in "Brothers Karamazov" had explained a point of the episode of wedding at Cana in Galilee? In general when Gospel stories were being transmitted by oral, these were being selected and kept - not accordingly to the scientific principle of historical authenticity of the described events but accordingly to importance of these stories for education and to its correspondence to the transmitted doctrine. It is necessary always to search for this sense, when reading either episode. But Jesus whether was born "innocently", whether really he was transforming water into wine, was filling the networks with fishes, was walking over water - this is actually unimportantly.

27. There is not a father-god of a son-god, but there is one God - our Father.

Thus, I hope it have disappeared as superfluous the dogmas about angels, a virgin conception and Godís Son. Why to name just Jesus as a son of God if he teaches to begin the prayer with words "Our Father"? God is not only his father but our Father. We all are sons (or daughters) of God!

This - major - part of Christís doctrine is obscured - especially at Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The churches teach: "Christ is God and Son of God". Therefore it is possible to hear from the people even having read Gospels, ostensibly "all religions equally consider a man as a slave of God". But it is the revolution made by Christís doctrine that he asserts the new relation to God - the filial relation. We all are sons of God.

28. The relationships between God and a man determine also the relationships between people.

Just from this central item of Christís doctrine about God as our Father, the comprehension arises that all people are brothers, and consequently, also there appear the ideas about equality and about freedom of the people - of the sons of such Father! An idea and concept about equality of people - ONLY AS BROTHERS, instead of as socialists and communists understand the equality - as leveling of property and slavish depersonalization . An idea and concept about freedom of the people - freedom them ONLY AS SONS IN RELATION TO THE FATHER AND AS BROTHERS IN RELATION EACH TO OTHER, instead of as criminals, hedonists, and militant homosexuals of Sodom, Gomorrah and the modern ones understand freedom. Therefore ideas about intellectual freedom, individual freedom, human rights (in their kind not perverted by the specified misters) - are the outcome just of Christian world-view - the original Christian world-view, instead of the church one. These ideas had been embodied just in the Protestant countries - England, Holland, USA - because Protestantism closer ties Gospel with life, rejecting the churchís invented stories overshadowing it.

But the countries, where the religions belittling a man dominated: Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or religions making no account for a man: Islam, Buddhism, the atheistic materialism - these countries down to the newest time were a stronghold of dictatorial regimes not recognizing of the rights and freedom of a man.

29. Not "the life beyond the grave" but the timeless life of a soul.

What dogmas are left? Immortality of a soul or, in other words, the life beyond the grave? There are nowhere in Gospels the words "life beyond the grave". Everywhere Christ says "eternal life". Tolstoy proves that the more correct translation would be: "timeless life". Really, a soul is not there or here, not in the past, present and future. It is outside of space and time. Also outside of time and space there are God and, for example, such things as truth, the good, beauty, justice, the laws of nature. The road to the "immortality" of a soul, to be exact, to the "eternal", timeless life lies through a choice by the man of his values (interests). "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth but in heaven", - Christ says. Animals or people, which cling to fleeting values, are therefore also ephemeral. The lowest animals are not simply mortal, but die, it is possible to tell, each instant, therefore it is impossible even to say about presence a soul at them. And on the contrary, the more the values of an individual are non-transient - the more immortal, so to speak, it is existence of his soul.

Christ himself has explained, what is the entrance into eternal life and whence it begins: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17:3). But what is it meaning "to know" (to understand correctly) God and Christ? Obviously it means to know the requirements of God also the Christís doctrine explaining these. And in the First Message John specifies: "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death". (1 John 3:14). As you can see, John implies no "future life" or "life beyond the grave".

30. Not "spiritually beggars" but disinterested persons.

What about "the poor in spirit" then Tolstoy evidently completely had got the better of the church teachers which had not understood that Christ speaks not about metaphorical poverty of spirit but about usual material poverty - but occurring from a spirit of non-money-grabbing. For understanding it, it is enough to compare from chapter 6 of Lukeís Gospel, verses 20, 21, 22 - with verses, accordingly, 24, 25, 26. By comparing, we see that the laughing men are opposed with the crying ones, the satiated ones - with the hungry ones, also the rich men, certainly, are opposed with the poor ones - in the most direct, material sense. But certainly, not any poor men, that is to say the have-nots, are blissful but only those who has not, because does not aspire to have, that is to say disinterested, - so to speak, the proletarians by belief, by spirit. They are the people about which Christ says: "Blessed are the poor in spirit".

What about the spiritual poverty, the example of Jesus Christ itself also all Gospel doctrine are directed just against it. Is told: "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness", "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness", "You are the salt of the earth", "You are the light of the world", "whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven", "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened", "Enter through the narrow gate", "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves" etc. etc. But they arenít the spiritual poor at all, isn't it?

31. Other "obscure" passages of the "Mountainside Sermon".

The first part of the Mountainside Sermon was named by church as "commandments of bliss". It creates a false notion as if Christ, similarly to the majority of the philosophers, saw the purpose, sense of life in achievement of happiness, pleasures. But the second part of the Mountainside Sermon, for example, in a church textbook "The Law of God" in general is passed by in silence. But there are some important rules (Christís commandments) opposed to Old Testament also causing the greatest misunderstanding and disagreement. Here these "obscure" passages are.

1) "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment". But I tell you that anyone who is (unjustly) angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, "Raca", is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, "You fool!'" will be in danger of the fire of hell" (Matthew 5, 21-22)..

Tolstoy explains (vol.24, p.219): "In many lists there is no word "unjustly"; is not present at Luther, is not present and in Vulgate, is not present in the edition of Tischendorf too, and this word is recognized as an insert. It is unnecessary to explain evidence of this word as an insert. It is clear for everyone how it rough contradicts with all sense of the doctrine, how it simply is silly. If it is bad to be angry only unjustly, one may be angry not unjustly. But who will be a judge, what is unjustly and is not unjustly? Jesus says: as murder is forbidden to you - as, with the same strictness I forbid to be angry with brother in your heart. A manifesting of this anger by expression of contempt of a man is even more strictly forbidden by me; the even greater manifesting of contempt - "mad", that is to say a man, with which it is impossible to treat reasonably - even more strictly. The degree of strictness of prohibition is expressed by punishment; and Jesus expresses it exactly thus. But, obviously, Jesus order neither Sanhedrin, nor hell. If to understand so, that it will be beyond the grave, is unintelligible, what a Sanhedrin will be there. Therefore it is obvious both Sanhedrin and hell are understood not as something having to be beyond the grave, - all meaning is just in the greater degree of criminality".

2) "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away" etc. (Matthew 5: 29-30). Jesus does not at all call upon to gouge the eyes out. Tolstoy explains (vol.24, p. 224): a words "to cause you to sin" (in Greek, "scandalizo") is coming from a word "a trap". Like a bird, that has been caught by a network, willingly would give back the eyes, that have tempted it, for whole the bird to not be lost, also a fox would give back the pad so as all the fox would not find itself in a trap, and as frequently gives back, tearing off the pad - so it is better for you to reject that is catching you.

3) "You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth". But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" etc. (Matthew 5:38-41). The people, to which Moses had given this law, were wrathful and unrestrained. For a broken tooth or an eye they could kill the opponent. And as a reply to this murder the enmity and war would grow as an avalanche. Therefore Moses had established a strict measure: the punishment should correspond with the caused damage. Thus Jesus, already at his time, goes further: it is unnecessary to exceed the measure of punishment but also is unnecessary to observe it strictly, but the better - to reduce, down to that, for example, that it is absolutely unnecessary to answer a slap in the cheek.

It is necessary to notice, that the question is about the relationship of the "normal" people in a society, in a community - about those who does not begin from violence but are answering by violence, acting so through wrathfulness, through vindictiveness or through false philosophy that it is necessary "to not concede". Quite another matter is criminals, which consciously are the enemies of a society, as a matter of fact, are the savages, wild beasts. Therefore, if in the West speak, that the life of a man is sacred, and at the same time they donít put to death the criminals which had made an armed attack on bank, that is to say really were threatening health and life of the people - I consider it is the depravity. Or you have already forgotten that is to be done to a criminal according to the first Christ commandment sited above? With them it is necessary to act not under our Christian laws but by their beast concepts and laws. You see, Christ himself spoke: "According to your faith will it be done to you". It is necessary not to be in the clouds of humanism, but to take a sober view of things: if a villain kills or really threatens life of a man, he thus chooses also the own destiny - the death, and we should execute this verdict of validity. Some of them not simply must be put to death but the execution should be done painful - to keep the others from crime. They understand just such language. Just to shoot any Chekatilo or Onofrrienko who brutally killed 52 person from babies up to old men only because of the desire to become famous - means to facilitate for him the life and death: simply a flick- and thatís all! He will even have no time to feel the pain. It is necessary to understand the psychology of such criminals: they do not appreciate life of other people just because do not appreciate own life, their own life is a burden for them. According to Freud, it is "Thanatos", attraction to death, hypnotism of death. The shooting is nothing for them, to stop them it is necessary a threat - that they will been cut in parts - in 52 stages - by the number of the people killed by them18.

(FOOTNOTE 18: I have answered a readerís letter with accusation of "sadism": "Why am I better than that criminal? - because I offer to kill for heavy crimes but he had killed for crime purpose. To avoid judicial mistakes it is simply: the mortal verdict is being verified by set of checking instances and is not being executed, if there are ambiguities in the case. It is in Russia now. Not to be accused of sadism, certainly, it is easier to put on the white gloves, to spit upon the sorrow of another, upon justice and to make the immoral law on a cancellation of a death penalty. But not everyone can it. Ten years ago in "Ogonyok-magazine" it was published a pre-revolutionary story by M. Gorky about a thief, which was plundering and killing during all the life but had not been caught and had reached a great age. But he had gone off his head because of it. He spoke: "How may it be! I have killed these people, they have disappeared but I go on and go on to live? What is the justice! It should not be!" Tolstoy was OFFERING instead of was forcing to forgive - so you may forgive when your dear will be killed. You will forgive - and the criminal will leave (or will escape) from prison and will kill somebody else. Do you say, it is incredible? On the contrary, it is almost as a rule! The statistics are displaying, that the threat of simply shooting does not reduce quantity of crimes. Really, craving for glory Onofriyenko has the followers now. Recently one man had burst into a kindergarten and had killed several children and a mistress. Why children? - he had explained: to kill them it is easier, but it will shake the people more badly. Such a man can not been reined by menace of shooting him - but by painful execution only!")

Of course Christ did not say it, he taught not about the state device and laws - but how to arrange, first of all, your own soul. "First take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye", "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". It is quite another matter, it is a conversation not with anti-social elements but with the social people which recognize God and laws. In the beginning he demonstratively refused even to speak with non-Jews, he spoke: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs" (a conversation with a Canaanite woman on a road, Matthew 15:24,26). Certainly it was not the hard-heartedness, he was trying this woman and was emphasizing that the highest truths can be acquired only by the one who already has rather high concepts. "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him", "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs".

4) "You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy ". But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" etc. (Matthew 5: 43-48). It is necessary to understand, who was at those times "a neighbor", then it will be clear, who is "an enemy". The neighbor is a tribesman, a coreligionist. It means the enemy is every foreigner. Also in Russian - a foreigner, "variag" has the root of a word "vrag" - "an enemy". Jesus says it is necessary to try to treat foreigners so well as you treat a neighbor even if they poorly treat you.

However the total Christian goodwill and "pacifism" should be intelligent. Why had the USA entered war, only after Japan had destroyed their fleet in Pearl-Harbor? Because of silly pacifism. Why had Europeans allowed to Hitler to become strong, instead of to destroy him earlier - as soon as he had come to authority? Because of silly pacifism, that was developed in Europe after the First world war. The same thing had repeated with Chechnia too. With fanatical enemies that are maniacs it is impossible to be liberal, as well as with criminals, about which I spoke above. A hundred years ago the European world had thoughtlessly considered to the Marxist idea about dictatorship of "proletariat", then also - to Hitler's "Mein Kampf", and now do not wish to see that is written in Koran: "Fight the unbelievers, till Islam will win". Violence, wars, revolutions - are inevitable, as mankind still lives under the law of biosphere "love and famine rule the world" (see the explanation in chapter 5 of my article about a noosphere), but in the Islam countries the population is breeding especially intensively.

32. The resurrection is a spiritual phenomenon but not corporeal one.

Further. Dogma about the resurrection in flesh. The church considers that true Christian is only who believes that Christ had been resurrected in flesh. But the church itself says: "The Church is the flesh of Christ". Well, just in this flesh Christ had been resurrected! Why should he have been resurrected also in any other flesh?

It is necessary to notice that the Church of Christ is an assembly of the righteous of all times and peoples which are executing Christ doctrine and the will of the Sender. Unlike this sole Church (with capital letter "C"), there are many church organizations with their different doctrines, that is to say the churches (with small letter "c"). But it is known that not everyone, who is speaking "Oh, Lord! Oh, Lord!", belongs to Christ.

The members of a sect of Dukhobors (the Warriors of Spirit) were refusing to serve in imperial army, alluding to commandments of Christ. They were being arrested and in order to convict them, that they are not real Christians but simply are shirking the service in the army, the interrogation was being carried out with participation of a priest. The main question of the priest-examiner, certainly, was: "Do you believe that Christ had been resurrected in flesh?". But then the dukhobors were answering: "We are uneducated people therefore we donít know, what flesh Christ had been resurrected in. But we precisely know that he had been resurrected because now he is with us".

Just thus - spiritually - it is necessary to understand the resurrection of Christ. Christ is with us! Apply to Christ and be present always with him.

33. What are a post and a prayer at the spiritual point of view.

What do it means - "to apply to Christ"?

Firstly, before to accept any doctrine, it is necessary to learn it well and to understand correctly. It is rather difficult, not having a good teacher and chief. Especially as to learn and to understand it is necessary not only by book but by existence, by life, by going through a certain experience, or only by feeling deeply the experience of somebody else. Besides, so as at the beginning you could have the really strong aspiration to find out and to understand - because without such aspiration never something turns out - it is necessary also to have the authoritative certificate that it is the doctrine, that gives the correct understanding of life, of world, of people, gives rescue from delusions, mistakes, destruction. Such an authoritative intermediary for someone it was Dostoyevsky, for someone - Solzhenitsin or Alexander Menn19 but for me - Tolstoy.

(FOOTNOTE 19: The best of Dostoyevsky works are "Karamazov brothers" and "Memories of the dead house", these of Solzhenitsyn - "One day of Ivan Denisovich", "Matrenaís houshold" and "Archipelago the GULAG", these of Alexander Menn - "Magic and monotheism" and "The heralds of God kingdom", published originally under a pseudonym Emanuel Svetlov)

But eventually, all such teachers and intermediaries, including Christ itself, speak to us about Truth, that is to say - about Reality. The highest Reality is named God. To apply entirely to Truth, to Reality, to God as certain center, it is necessary to be released from oneself. Yours "Me" should cease to be your center.

By the way, schizophrenia, as well as other kinds of madness is a loss of ability adequately to perceive a reality owing to concentration on itself. Therefore healing the mentally diseased men ("demon-possessed men", as was spoken formerly) often demands a shock, the patient should forget himself, to be switched to something unusual, strong on the outside of himself. To apply to a reality outside of itself, to perceive itself as though on the second plan is a key to normal, healthy, correct perception of a reality.

Even some church teachers of prayer specify that when you are praying it is necessary not so much to say to God - he already knows everything - but to listen that God is saying to you. Also Tolstoy in one his passage on a question "How it is necessary to pray?" is answering: "Are you literate? Have you a Gospel? Read the Gospel - it will be your prayer".

Also in a Gospel there is such episode. A demon-possessed man, which the disciples of Jesus could not heal, have been brought to Jesus. Jesus had exclaimed: "O unbelieving and perverse generation! how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?" The disciples fairly had taken these severe words as referring to themselves and, after Jesus had healed the demon-possessed man, has expelled from him almost "seven demons" - really, heavy there was a case - the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?". Jesus replied: "This kind can come out only by prayer and fasting". That is to say, you are not enough devoted to God and are too much engaged in your "needs" in order to achieve a success in such difficult business.

This is what the connection of a fasting and a prayer is meaning. This connection is unintelligible, if "the fasting" has been understood simply as a refusal from the certain sort of food, and the prayer - as the telling of any words to God. Actually, the prayer is the directing (devoting) toward God, also "the fasting" is the rejecting, (the turning away) from oneself, the denying of oneself. Also Christ speaks: "deny himself and take up his cross and follow me". Thus, to apply to Christ, to follow him it is possible only by being rejected from oneself at first.

34. The literal (church) understanding of the expiatory victim of Christ also the spiritual understanding of it.

Now it is necessary to return to a dispute of Tolstoy with the church teachers and to recollect one more church dogma - about the expiation by BLOOD. Berdiayev accuses Tolstoy with "old-testamentness" and "anti-Christianity" because, he says, Tolstoy is against the expiation. But actually Tolstoy is against that - how the church teachers understand the expiation - as the literal ransom. But it is necessary to understand it metaphorically, in any case, not too literally.

But what is a victim? Really do you think that God needs meat or fat of the sacrificed animals or that, literally, "it is pleasant to God to feel a smell of the fried", as it is written in Bible? The victim is actually necessary to the endowing people - for their spiritual perfection, and then this perfection is already necessary for God. It turns out that "victim" - not the meat but an offering - is necessary to God.

Something the similar is also about the expiation. Certainly, Christ had given back the life as a victim for the sake of rescue (that is to say for teaching, healing, resurrection) of mankind. But not literally he had replaced, had ransomed, had expiated with the own death the deaths of other people as the church teachers teach. This church doctrine, as Tolstoy had told, is really near from the savage notions that God (or devil) needs an offering of a human life - all the same whose life - and therefore Christ gives back the life to God or devil for our expiation - so as we have remained alive.

But actually, the sense of the Christ victim is in the following. Christ was a Teacher. It was his mission, he had come to have taught and even for this purpose he had died on a cross. Everything that he did, he did for lesson. "A critic of Christianity" the winner of the Nobel premium, a mathematician, a logician, a philosopher Bertrand Russell is perplexed: "What gracious is Christ, if he had dried up the innocent and meek fruitless fig-tree (Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14,20-23)? Especially innocent because the fig-trees are masculine one and female one, and on the masculine in any way fruits cannot be!". But it is easy to understand that Christ had made it not because of hatred to the fig-tree but for lesson to the disciples. For teaching the people it is possible to have sacrificed a fig-tree. Bertrand Russell is shocked by the similar incident but he does not notice here of an element of the shock-therapy. Similarly it can been solved also the Bertrand Russell bewilderment concerning episodes of wedding at Cana in Galilee (John 2:1-11) both beating and exile the traders from the Temple by Christ (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:13-16). Of course Christ rise above to be rude with his mother or to become embittered to the traders. All his words and the actions always were being made for lesson - but, certainly, for lesson not for mother or the traders but for everybody. Christ was the "total" Teacher. And he had used as a lesson not only each act of his life but also his death20. (FOOTNOTE 20: And even, as many think, the words of despair and torture involuntary escaped of Jesus crucified on a cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" - were a LESSON! Christ makes words of 22-nd psalm. This psalm, as well as others the best psalms, that begin with sorrow but come to an end with overcoming it to gladness. Also words "Into your hands I commit my spirit" is another psalm, a prayer, that a man from the childhood had been accustomed to make at night, before falling asleep). Christ death on a cross was necessary that as a result of such shock the disciples and other people were penetrated, had understood at last Christ doctrine, were penetrated and had understood so clearly, so as they could then propagate it widely already themselves. As it is known, till there will be a clap of thunder, a peasant will not have crossed. Christ death on a cross also should become such a clap of thunder, a shock. Recollect that during all Gospels the disciples permanently do not understand Jesus. And after the putting him to death they, shaken, during 50 days all together were recollecting, by exchanging the memoirs, were composing its like a mosaic, anew and more strongly than formerly were experiencing and digesting in their heads and souls all words and events of an earthly way of the Teacher. And at last, per the day of Pentecost the comprehension by jump has brightened up so, that they had begun inspiredly to preach -even in foreign languages!

35. The spiritual sense of the sacrament and a confession.

We have found out sense of a fasting, a prayer and Christ self-sacrifice. But what is the church sacrament? The eating literally of Christ body and blood, "miraculously transformed" into bread and wine? It should be clear that essence of the sacrament is not this but the familiarizing with Christ doctrine. At Last Supper, by observing how the disciples, which famished during the wanderings, now were eating and drinking greedily at the celebratory table, Jesus was thinking: "Oh, if you with the same greed would aspired to get to know and to understand me - almost have been eating my flesh and have been drinking my blood!" As a token of requirement of such famine and such thirst he bequeathed them this sacrament ritual.

But before such "the accepting into oneself" Christ doctrine it is necessary "to puke out", to have thrown up from you the earlier accepted notions, doctrines, religions and to have repented of - not only of the acts-sins, that you have made, proceeding from your these former false notions - but to have revealed and to have rejected just your these false concepts, that caused those acts. The repentance is, first of all, the changing of consciousness ("metanoia" is literally "the changing of mind").

Therefore to a participle are admitted only after a confession. Thus the sense of a confession is the internal repentance before Christ, instead of before the priest. The priest here is only playing a part of Christ, is appearing as his deputy but, as a matter of fact, is unessential.

36. A symbol (a summary, a brief statement) of belief of a Christian.

But you may ask: if to reject the rituals and dogmas, what is remaining of Christianity?

Only the sole that you need will remain -just that is necessary (and consequently it is possible to name it "as a belief symbol" of a Christian), it will be the following doctrine of Christ:

1) God exists and renders to who is looking for him.

2) God is LORD, that is to say the Owner. It is Old Testament.

3) God is Father - or it is the same - God is Love. It is New Testament.

4) Sense or purpose of the life of a man - to execute a will of the Sender, to execute the destination, to bear a good fruit.

Someone reproaches Tolstoy that he had announced the maintenance of the life itself as the sense of life. But it is really. Especially for the ordinary people, to which Tolstoy was being addressed. What is their life destination? To continue the kin, to support the family and also "to maintain two generals", that is to say to maintain the state, the higher classes - with hope that they also will have made something useful to mankind. In life for the sake of others there is not anything bad - on the contrary, Christ speaks that into the kingdom of God just those will be entered who has fed a hungry, has visited a sick one etc. As well in parable about the vine-growers Christ speaks, that it is entrusted to us to cultivate this vineyard - mankind. To someone - to cultivate in spiritual sense, and to someone - in the direct, material sense.

5) The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down (as it suits as firewood only) and thrown into the fire. And it is burning (this is about death and "hell"). Who will the man? - whether will he produce a good fruit - or he will become simply "firewood" (in northern country of forests could said "muck", "fertilizer")?

6) Thus his destination, his role - this or that, in any case - each man will execute, because "at any comfortable house there are the vessels for high use and the vessels for low use", - apostle Paul speaks. What is "the vessels for low use"? Well, it is, for example, chamber-pots. "Thus, - the apostle sums up, - be worthy to become a vessels for high use".

Have you any questions? - read Gospels, read Tolstoy, read the books of the best minds of mankind.

37. Instead of an epilogue. An opinion about Orthodoxy.

Why do the church of "Ihegova Witnesses" - despite of all the absurdity and naivety of their doctrine - manage to win over to their side millions new adherents in Russia and in the world too? Not only because of their rigid, totalitarian organization - there are the sects even more totalitarian, however not such successful. Also not because their main headquarters is placed in rich America - there are also much larger churches. But mainly because by the conviction and moral firmness the witnesses of Ihegova are alike to the Christians of the first centuries. On the other hand, the traditional churches lose the supporters because, as Tolstoy said, they cling to an empty environment of chrysalis, from which the butterfly-soul already has taken off. It is time for Christians to depart from the literalism and the "ritual-belief" of the church doctrine and to come back to essence of the Christ doctrine itself. To it the following fragment of the pre-revolution memoirs of an orthodox missionary in Siberia an archmandrete Spiridon testifies:

A sectarian-prisoner spoke: "Let, father, to be frank with you. I was an Orthodox before, but then I had left Orthodoxy. I was a church headman at orthodox church during nearly seven years. In our church there were two priests, deacon and two psalm-readers. Both the psalm-readers, I will not talk unjustly, were sober and were living piously. One, the senior priest, was very avaricious and loving money. A second priest was very giving himself up to drunkenness and, as widower, frequently was adulterating with women. The deacon, by boasting of the voice, purposely before Mass drank the whole bottle for each liturgy. Almost every holiday they in church and behind church were squabbling, were reproaching each other, were scolding and, there were cases, at home they also were fighting. The deacon had a large family. It happened the deaconess had come to our family and was crying with bitter tears. I nearly fed his children. Firewood, bread, salt - almost all they need I was giving them. But then? For my kindness the deacon had paid back to me with evil. And the fathers had fastened this evil on me. Do you know, father that they have made? - they have instigated the deacon so as he has killed me! But why? - because I ostensibly do the good deeds to him because I fornicate with his wife. You know, father, my wife is such beautiful that I even had not any bad thought. But the deacon had been incited by others so, that I even had begun to be afraid him. One night the deacon had drunk and had begun to break my windows. I had gone out and had shoved him. And he had tumbled down - and directly into a draw-well. Therefrom he had been dragged out already dead. I had been condemned to penal servitude for 8 years. The priests instead of protecting me, even were testifying against me. Then I had renounced the orthodox belief.

I should tell also, father, that, in my opinion, the sectarians are more alive searchers of God. They wish to go through all by the personal experience, to investigate Christian life. Truth, the sectarians have not eucharist, have not priests. But if to speak quite frankly, you see, the members of Orthodox Church are living - in sense of religion - much worse than the sectarians, despite of the eucharist and the lawful priests. At Orthodox Church there isnít life, there isnít movement forward. And though the sectarians evaded out of Orthodox Church but, at least, they evade not to paganism also donít leave the Christian religious way. But exactly the members of Orthodox Church had evaded. And almost all of them - or to any spiritualism, or to theosophy, or to the rough materialism. They are bored with Christianity so, that they yawn even at reading of Gospel in church. And during the church sermon everyone departs. Oh, father! All you see - make you just to shrug. If someone has decided to search for rescue by himself, has decided to live under the doctrine of Christ word - only he is living. But Orthodox Church helps him not enough because the alive examples are absent now..."

And another prisoner - a Persian-Mohammedan spoke: "I, father, many times was reading Koran, was reading also yours Gospel. Our Koran orders to beat the people-giaours, not-Mohammedans. But yours Gospel does not order to beat another people - of another belief. I thought, thought and has told to myself: no, Christ has more honour and more loves people than our prophet Mohammed, peace for him. I so thought: if my children lived poorly - I became angry. If then the children will well live, will love me, will do what I demand from them, I again shall love them and shall have forgiven them. Also Christ speaks: it is necessary to repent - and God will forgive. I had understood it - that Gospel is more correct than Koran. I am surprised only, that Christians have such the belief - but live so badly. Ours Mohammedan belief is worse but we live more correctly than you. If all Persians would become Christians - they did not live like you. You, Russians have such the great God - Christ but you live as if you have no God: at you there are the drunkenness, stealing, people are being beaten unmercifully, the women run away, the husbands run after to the other wives, the small children are being abandoned on a street, children do not obey the parents, the parents curse the children. Your people are praying not enough, the priests are quarreling with peasants. What is this? These are not Christians! Why is it? Father, I heard that soon all not-Christians will become Christians, and Christ will have driven away the todayís Christians from himself. Is it truth?"

An archmandrete Spiridon is concluding:

It is really regrettably. Even the pagans convict us of unchristian life. What will be further? Further it is impossible to go on. I am thinking about it with a heavy heart: actually, to what our life has turned now! All ours Russian land is dotted with churches, monasteries, chapels, but if we look at ours life, however we may justify ourselves, it must be confessed that we are not Christians but we even never were these and we do not know what actually is Christianity.

38. Appendix: materialism or idealism?

The question put in heading is the minor for a man, but at leisure it is possible to think about it too. Marx considered that in philosophy there are two basic directions: idealism and materialism. But Tolstoy - and before him Kant (and even earlier Socrat - that is visible from the epigraph) considered that two basic directions in philosophy are a worldly, everyday, existential philosophy and a professorial philosophy. A basic question of the everyday philosophy: "What should I do?" But the professorial philosophy can put any question and to name it as basic. For example, can name as the basic question of philosophy - "a attitude of matter and consciousness" - what of these is primary and what is secondary. I undertake to have shown that neither this, nor that is not primary, and to find out, in relation to what this and that are secondary.

The materialists say: "Matter is a reality, that is given to us by the sensation". On the other hand, the solipsists, for example, fairly specify that all our sensations are born inside us. By knowing only the sensations, we therefore can not know what has stirred up these. By trying by any way to bypass this objection, other philosophers reason about "the things in themselves", about "the transcendent". These impasses of thinking arise from notion, that is meant as an axiom, that the world around us are the "objects", things, matter.

But let us ponder, what reality does our sensations actually acquaint us with? Pay the attention, that sensations, though are born inside us, but they are connected, correspond among themselves under the certain laws. These connections, ratios are not born inside us, donít depend on us. These laws (Logos), instead of the "matter", are that reality, which is given to us in the sensation.

The materialism, partially recognizing it, shows its inconsistency, when it declares: "There is only matter and laws of its movement"21. This formula not hold water. What are these "laws of its movement"? If these are something subordinated to the matter, these are simply the properties of matter, then it is necessary to tell: "There are only matter and its properties". It is clear that the addition "and its properties" gives nothing and it should be omitted. Then we have: "There is only matter". This is the true credo of materialism, however such formula cannot satisfy a thinking man - for this reason the materialism does not make it aloud but contrary to logic attaches this addition about "laws".

(FOOTNOTE 21: At Marx times the physicists knew only two essences: matter and energy. At ŤŤ century have found out that matter and energy is one essence, these can been transformed each into other. But the physicists had opened a new essence - information. By the way, there was such fantastic film "The intermediary", at it the persons from another planet, trying to win the Earth, are coming here not as any beings, but as the packages of information, that was taking deep root in a brain of the people, by superseding their own personality (soul))

If in used initial (with the addition) formula a conjunction "and" to understand as equivalent existence, on the one hand, matter, and on the other hand - laws of its movement, it turns out the dualism, that is denied by the materialism. The materialists will not agree with such interpretation of the formula: "On the one hand, there is matter, and on the other hand - the laws of its movement".

The third variant is remaining: the Laws (Logos) - are higher, are more primary than matter22. Not the laws are the properties of matter, but matter is a visible incarnation (realization) of the Laws (of Logos). Compare from Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos)".

(FOOTNOTE 22: And when Engels says that so-called the OBJECTIVE dialectics IS REIGNING in all the nature, he thus recognizes that not the matter is primary - NOT IT is reigning. If in "the laws of an attraction and repulsion" it is even possible to not notice anything, excepting "the properties of matter", but "the dialectics" it is already difficult to name as A PROPERTY of the ostensibly one and only existing matter)

It is possible to reach the same conclusion - about a matter, as a visible incarnation of the first-existing Laws also by other way - by the following sequence of reasonings:

1) You see, we get to know not things, not a matter, but the connections (relations, laws).

2) But what we need to get to know for our vital activity? It is necessary to us to get to know not a matter, but just and only the connections (relations, laws).

3) But what in general means "to exist"? To exist is meaning, to act. But not matter, not things are realizing itself, acting but the connections (relations, laws)23.

(FOOTNOTE 23: Wittgenstein spoke: "We are not interested what is a chess figure, what it is made of, but is important, how it is moving")

4) So may be, in the external world there isnít such a thing, as "things" - but there are only the relations (laws)?

By the way, in Hegel system the material world is only an aspect of Spirit.

To the understanding of primacy of Logos (of relations, of laws) even the materialists approach when they speak, for example, "language is a product of the social relations" or that "the spiritual world, the world of ideas is a product of the social relations". But the materialists put an accent usually on a word "social" because for the sake of the political purposes they need repeat that a man is a social being.

But if to make an accent on a word of "relations" - then exactly it is turned out what I say about: the world of ideas is not "a product of a brain", as the materialists assert. A brain is only an carrier, a receptacle of the ideas world. The world of ideas is a product, a reflection of the real relations (connections, laws). But exactly these relations (connection, laws) are Logos.

But all the subjective, that is to say the distortions, is a product of the mirror (of a brain). But the recurrence, the multialternativeness of experience eliminates the subjective distortions and marks out the undistorted (objective) contents, that is not a product of a brain (the mirror), but is identical to the reality, that is to say to the truth. But it is Logos, that is to say relations, connections (laws).

Many philosophers stumble when they, clinging to words "a subject" and "an object", conclude: "Oh! It means, the external world are objects, that is to say things, that is to say the matter"24. It is that distortion, that is a product of the mirror - of our language, of our superficial perception. A man originally perceives the world as the isolated and infinitely various subjects, "things". This initial perception had been fixed in figurative thinking and in language and prevents the deeper understanding. But the philosopher is called upon to see the GENERAL, that is invisible because of the external disconnection of "objects" and their infinite variety, that are confusing us. The recurrence of our experience discovers to us this GENERAL - that is why the truly EXISTING, this is the Laws (relations, connections), that is to say Logos.

(FOOTNOTE 24: Also Ernst Mach was reflecting about it. K. F. Weitzsacker wrote: "Machís idea was that it is possible to do without concept of a subject ("Me") and without concept of a thing (or of an object) if to speak about "elements", by noting, it is possible to name these also as the sensations... But the elements is not the sensations of a subject, that are caused by objects, on the contrary, its are the primary reality... At Mach language a law is always a relation between the possible but not only between the real sensations". ("The questions of philosophy" No 1, 1993))

Thus the contents of our experience is secondary in relation to Logos. And the contents of consciousness is only a part of all experience.

Now it is necessary to specify, what such "consciousness", because in discussion between materialists and idealists this word is used to a place and out of place.

Let the set of points - the area "n" are all mental processes of the man at the given moment, and its shaded part is the being non-realized mental processes.

soznanie.gif 3 Kb

Let the area "C" is "a spot of consciousness", that is to say the being realized mental processes. The spot of consciousness is variable and mobile within the area "n", it is compared to a beam of electric torch in a dark room. An area "BM" is the verbal thinking, that probably wholly is in the area of consciousness. "OM" is the figurative thinking, that probably only partially is in the area of consciousness. "B" - the will, I think, it only partially is in the area of consciousness. "e" are the emotions, that probably everyone will agree, only partially are in the area of consciousness. "O" are the sensations, its just in a small share are in the area of consciousness.

The superior animals, probably, have figurative thinking even if to consider that they donít have consciousness. But by understanding the consciousness as "the spot of consciousness" it is possible to assume that the superior animals have the consciousness too. Obviously philogeneticly the consciousness occurs from a mental dominant. The consciousness is an advanced dominant.

Thus both matter, and consciousness - are secondary in relation to Logos. As I already have told in the beginning, for world outlook - both matter, and consciousness completely minor concepts. But "a soul" is a paramount concept for a man. For this reason Christ speaks about a soul and nothing speaks about matter and consciousness, about their primacy and secondary. For example, raised by Christ the question remains urgent: "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?"

Probably, someone will object: "There is no soul! Give a definition of the soul!"

These Christ words of already are a partial definition of soul - the definition by means of the description of its relations with other things. If you want to know about a soul more, read Gospels.

Erich Fromm also says about it in the article "Psychoanalysis and religion" and supplements the definition of soul: "The Psychology has not put forward any new methods for research of major human problems. Thus psychology, as a science, has lost the main subject - a soul; but had been engaged in "mechanisms", formation of reactions, instincts, bypassing the phenomena the most specific to a man: love, intellect, conscience, values. I use a word "soul", instead of "psychics" or "consciousness" because just it associates with these superior human forces".


Nick Kronov
Home:, Mail:

The first part of this book - "The solution of mankind problems: from biosphere - world of famine and violence - to a noosphere"

Dear reader, if you consider my works important or to say the least of it interesting, I wish you would save the texts because of fatal heart-disease of the author this site can soon has disappeared. Also you could publish this site URL in the catalogues and the guest books - Internet is too expensive for me. Can somebody also assist me in publishing the book? Thank you. I permit noncommercial distributing of the texts free-of-charge. I try to improve the English translation.


Back to my homepage: