How to respond to the arguments of militant atheists so that they become humble believers

Encyclopedic dictionary of a believer. Arguments that will help you defeat any militant atheist, peaceful atheist, and even complete blasphemer in a dispute (yes, we tried, and it would have worked if they wanted to think logically...).

Text: priest Dmitry BEREZIN Illustrations: Boris ZABOLOTSKY

We thank Guy Seregin and Maxim magazine for the excellent structure and set of thoughts. This article is a mirror response to the anti-clerical publication, where the word “believer” is replaced by the word “atheist” with minor edits.

It is difficult for a believer (or a person searching, which, in principle, is the same thing) to have discussions with people who “know for sure that there is no God.” This situation, of course, was best described by the unforgettable Ilf and Petrov in “The Golden Calf”:

“There is no God,” said Ostap. “Yes, yes,” answered the priests.”

Both the existence of God and his absence are unprovable in principle within the limits of natural science, which atheists readily take advantage of. According to all the laws of logic, the Creator of the world “out of nothing” should not be an integral part of this world, and therefore should not obey the laws of this world, and therefore cannot be defined within the framework of natural science disciplines. They won't find it, that's a fact.

Therefore, the biggest mistake is to try to influence the atheistic consciousness by proving the existence of God scientifically. You cannot support your conviction by any scientific means, by any logical arguments. Atheists start from a false axiom.

But you have the widest scope for proving that, regardless of an atheist’s mastery of the scientific method, atheists do not believe in the Creator or his commandments, but in the heap of superstitions and outright nonsense they created.

Unlike atheistic fantasies, the books, laws, traditions and rituals of any religion really and undoubtedly exist, and, therefore, they can be easily verified and recognized. In this manual, we have collected the best arguments, which are usually enough to sow at least a seed of doubt in the soul of the average atheist. Of course, we mainly dealt with classical atheists, since we live largely surrounded by them, but with neo-pagans, sectarians, Pastafarians, for example, these arguments can also be applied.

Where do black holes lead? What happened before the Big Bang? Why did dinosaurs become extinct? Science does not yet have answers to these and millions of other questions: the sum of all our knowledge about the world is an insignificant grain of sand compared to the bulk of what we do not yet know about it. Yes, science is not ready to answer many questions, but this is not a reason to think that it will ever answer all questions.

It is quite obvious that critics of the text of the Bible are often very ignorant of hermeneutics, textual criticism, archeology, history, theology and a host of other sciences. From the first attempts to criticize the Bible to the last article in the Maxim magazine, the arguments are replete with the most absurd inaccuracies, distortions, and even completely turning the meaning inside out in the eyes of a modern person.

Critics are trying to find a physics or chemistry textbook in the Bible, and completely refuse to admit that this could be the Word of God to people. They believe that in the beginning there was an egg (or a point, or something else) that exploded, and from it galaxies, stars and much more came out. But they do not believe that in the beginning there was the Word. They believe that then it all randomly self-organized, and finally the planet Earth appeared, so convenient for living beings.

They believe that on this planet, completely by accident, under the influence of hundreds of factors, living cells appeared, which did not die the next moment, from the same factors, but began to live and live. True, they still cannot repeat anything like that. They even believe that these living cells were so intelligent that they were able to improve themselves... while for themselves, higher intelligent beings, forcing themselves off the couch is already a feat.

All this would be unimportant, and these inconsistencies could be attributed to the mistakes of scientists or the misconceptions of illiterate publicists, but the whole point is that this is the view that is considered official, and it is this view that is taught in school as the only correct one. For example, that many millions of years ago there was no life on Earth. Then the first primitive organisms appeared, which gradually changed and transformed, giving way to new, more complex ones...

Single-celled algae evolved from the ancient simplest unicellular organisms capable of photosynthesis. Single-celled algae are the ancestors of the plant kingdom. Along with floating forms, those attached to the bottom also appeared among the algae...scientists have already proven that all modern plant species descended from more ancient forms. Biology textbook, 5th grade

Atheists, trying to defend their faith, are forced to tirelessly struggle with facts that are inexplicable to them, but they believe that someday science will answer all their questions for them. Scientists, for example, refused to recognize the Earth as a ball revolving around the Sun for several thousand years; only in the 17th century did the heliocentric system gain its consistent supporters among scientists.

Galileo himself noted that if the Holy Scriptures are completely understood literally, then it turns out that God has hands, he is subject to emotions such as anger, etc. Galileo quoted Cardinal Baronio that the Bible teaches how to ascend to heaven, and not how how they are arranged. Atheists apparently are not interested in Galileo's opinion.

Atheists are still butting heads with the idea of the Creation of the world by God (and neopagans and Scientologists too), each hastily constructing their own theory of “scientific evolution”; they are still trying to defend in schools the idea that rabbits and plesiosaurs were the result of a confluence of some, we have not yet unknown circumstances. And the singer of atheism, Richard Dawkins, author of the famous book “The God Delusion,” for example, believes that “Darwin’s theory [read – hypothesis] of natural selection is much more economical, that with inimitable elegance it dispels the illusion of the creation of living beings... truth... theory [read – the hypothesis of natural selection cannot solve all the mysteries of the biosphere.”

And the fact that all intermediate forms of life turn out to be unviable for some reason does not bother them. Lizards that grow their wings for hundreds of thousands of years are for some reason not eaten by other lizards, and fish that grow their lungs for tens of thousands of years for some reason did not die from a strange growth in their chest that has been bothering them all this time, and Only after tens of thousands of years did the fish understand the high purpose for which they had this strange thing in their chests. Atheists attribute any minor mistake in the evolution hypothesis to the fact that science has not yet studied everything. But we must fight! If there is evolution, then it must be total, we must fight for it!

Faith is not based on feelings, and faith based only on feelings cannot be complete. Knowledge (mind), will and feelings are the three powers of the soul, the three foundations of faith. Atheists are also driven by these three forces. Their limited knowledge does not allow them to understand the meaning of Scripture. The will inclines a person to satisfy his primary needs, since there is no motivation to strive for higher ones. For some reason, feelings are replaced by instincts. Maxim magazine illustrates all this perfectly.

“I don’t believe it because I don’t believe it” is a very reliable move when they grab you by the tail and ask why your wonderful atheism consists of continuous inconsistencies and factual errors. In response to statements in this spirit, it would be appropriate to note that if a person happened by accident, then there should be no claims against him. The lack of reason and logic is understandable and acceptable.

But it is with their help that we build airplanes, treat teeth and produce electricity, but, being “accidentally created,” for some reason we must throw both of them aside. Cockroaches also have intuition, but only humans have intelligence in its entirety. And when we voluntarily give it up because it “hurts our atheism,” we undoubtedly upset the Creator, since we disrespect his main gift to humanity.

Let’s use the method of reductionism: we won’t stir up all the million errors against reality in atheistic argumentation, but let’s focus on one - the statement that the Sun arose later than the Earth (and later than grass, by the way).

In the second half of the 20th century, string theory appeared and received significant development in the scientific community, which has not yet been fully developed, but may well explain the appearance of light before the appearance of the Sun as a star of sufficient brightness.

And God created two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; and God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light on the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness... And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Genesis 1, 16-19

The movement of the Sun across the sky in the Bible is never formulated in the format of “a star called the Sun revolves around a planet called Earth.” It simply talks about the movement of the Sun across the sky.

And the sun returned ten steps along the steps on which it had descended. Isaiah, 38, 8

Stay, sun, over Gibeon, and moon, over the valley of Analon! And the sun stood still, and the moon stood... Joshua 10, 12-13

And now a little logical exercise. Why do atheists tell us lies? Are they, by definition, unable to hear arguments and facts, or for some reason consider it necessary to mislead us?

Modern atheists have two answers to this: one is simpler, the other is more cunning.

EXPLANATION A. All atheism is strictly scientific - it is science, you cannot argue with facts. Yes, but according to the scientific method, there is no more serious support in science than facts, and the only possible methodology is scientific. And how can we now discern which of the things written by atheists are proven facts and well-founded theories, and which are specific statements that do not allow interpretation? Yes, if believers approached questions of faith with such an approach, the world would have gone crazy long ago, as is the case with the unfortunate Pastafarians. Can't you at least respect your words a little?

EXPLANATION B. Believers are dense people, they will either agree with us, or we will declare them obscurantists. A claim to truth is a serious claim. True, history shows that atheists in their mass represent a much more terrible obscurantism than even not very educated believers.

* — Note from Captain Obvious: “ By the way, one of the first to seriously implement this idea was the atheist Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Lenin, declaring bloody terror to everyone who disagrees with him .”

Amazing. Attempts to bring the atheistic hypothesis to life were a great success, delaying the development of the country for a hundred years, littering it with millions of corpses of fellow citizens. But let's put grievances aside and return to the main question: if atheism is so banal and unscientific, then why do atheists still try to consider it as a guide to action? Where are the positive fruits of atheism? Why haven’t such progressive people created anything tangible?

And it is not clear why atheists look with hope at scientists (among whom, by the way, there are many believers), expecting from them the cherished verdict “Science has proven that there is no God.” Galileo should have dissuaded them of this if they had read him. We have changed, but atheists still think that people who believe in God believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

It is not surprising that modern atheists do not understand at all what the “scientific method” is, what the “rules of discussion” are. They still think in terms of publications and posters of the Union of Militant Atheists of the early 20th century. So how can modern atheists know whether there is a God or not (and impose this knowledge on others)?

By the way, there is a third explanation. Since the sciences are very complex, and one person cannot comprehend all the sciences, there is simply no scientist among atheists who could know geology, astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry and many other sciences perfectly. To this we ask again: what do atheists do, who seem to be weakly, but interested in our understanding? Was it difficult for them to gather all the scientists and close the question once and for all? They're strong!

Don’t they understand that if believers consider the sky to be solid and the earth to stand on three elephants, it will be very difficult for them to go into oblivion together and fertilize the earth with themselves? And how can an atheist now understand the meaning of life? After all, there are so many crazy people around, doomed to fade into oblivion in a state of delusion about the structure of this world...

This is an important argument of atheists against believers: God sanctifies everything with Himself, He is the meaning of life and its purpose. There is no God - and everything around loses meaning, everything is dust, decay and empty vanity. Yes, of course, it is very unpleasant to feel like a small and mortal colony of genes sitting on a tiny ball spinning at wild speed in a terrible cosmic void without purpose or meaning.

Atheists, however, tolerate this calmly - they don’t feel dizzy or seasick; the meaninglessness of existence in this regard is an extremely convenient device: you can push all your fears onto it, trust it, closing your eyes and relieving yourself of responsibility for what is happening. Nevertheless, it seems to us that cowardice, weak-willedness and indecision are not the best material for human life. At three years old it is not a shame to know nothing about life, but for adult citizens to never even read the New Testament is somehow unbecoming.

And that is great! Let's leave aside the relationship between geniuses and the Church; they were not always happy together. But the architecture of cathedrals, Bach's masses, Renaissance paintings - biblical subjects are all around! What about painting? Our names, our everyday speech and everyday rituals are all around the Bible. And thank God. No one is going to rob humanity of its culture. God forbid! The biblical images are beautiful and the stories are captivating. We will be happy to continue to be inspired by them. Even atheists.

Let us not remember the culture of Byzantium or Ancient Rus', so as not to offend the feelings of believing atheists. But they don’t know history well, and they can be forgiven for not knowing that if the Greek gods are mythical and artistic characters, then Christ is real and historical, and so are His words. Something needs to be done about this. Atheists, of course, if they don't like this fact, can bury their heads in the sand. But be careful - the floor is concrete!

Unlike a believer, an atheist has no one to blame; he is obliged to foresee the consequences of his actions and is responsible for them himself. True, he has no one to answer to, so he is completely free in his words, thoughts and actions. Until you meet someone on the road who is stronger or more cunning.

If this ship sank, you built it crookedly, well, okay, next time you’ll do it better, there’s no point anyway. If you pierce a person with a pitchfork, it is not God who administers judgment with your hands, it is your volitional decision. The trouble with atheists is that, unfortunately, they most often talk about Love and Beauty, but the result is Meanness, Greed, Stupidity, and Hatred, which are justified by their doctrine, becoming many times more dangerous.

Yes, an atheist can also bomb a kindergarten, and even an entire country, and with a high degree of probability he will be able to force himself to believe that it was a good, right thing. This is how people are made. The “bright” faces of the NKVD employees are a very vivid illustration of the statement that religion keeps a person from evil.

The weak point of any atheism is its result. If atheism is so useful and good, then why are its fruits so terrible? And if it is not so useful and good, then how can we continue to live? All atheistic hypotheses solved this question in approximately the same way: they see the world as a testing ground full of obstacles, where believers prevent atheists from leading humanity to a bright future.

True, to speed up the process, atheists want to leave the most valuable personnel to live, and send the rest to the “hellish trash heap”. Let's give atheists their due: they are not always so consistent in implementing their ideas. We have free will, a moral law within us, and a starry sky above our heads. Alas, this remarkably clear picture has its flaws. It turns out that man himself not only thus turns into the root cause of all the nasty things that happen in the world, he also clearly insists that these nasty things continue until the end of the world.

All secular powers take their place by human decree, but a true Christian should not protest either against Diocletian or against Stalin, which makes him convenient for destruction.

Let every soul obey the powers that be: for there is no power unless it is from God, but the powers that exist are created by God. Romans 13, 1

Landscaping your public garden and listening to the singing of birds is generally commendable, but truly pleasing to atheism are those who, even now, in this small segment of history, for the bright future of their descendants, dig ditches with an excavator and shoot at their edge those who do not want to live in “ bright future." And a true atheist strives very little for justice now, because he lives in his children, who should live on earth in comfort, convenience, peace and tranquility. And go in your turn into oblivion.

Of course, against the backdrop of the ancient Greeks, who smashed children's heads against walls and Africans, who drank the brains of their enemies, many atheists look prettier. But, say, next to the semi-Buddhist inhabitants of the Japanese state of Heian, in which for three hundred years, from the 9th to the 11th centuries, executions and torture were prohibited by law - atheists, with their torture, prisons, and executions, do not look so peaceful at all.

The idea that all men are brothers and that killing is wrong is not an atheist innovation. This thought naturally came to the minds of a variety of people - regardless of the type of religion they professed, but the ardent belief in the absence of the need to ever give an account of all their actions did a great job of fostering opposite opinions.

The easiest way to grab an atheist by the gills is to ask what he thinks about other religions, preferably Christianity. Some kind of shamanism or Mayan beliefs with their passion for torn out hearts are perfect for contrast. The ridicule that these ignoramuses cause with their wild superstitions does not at all evoke protest in the souls of atheists; they themselves are even ready to tie a ribbon on a tree, or pour the last drops of vodka into the fire for the “spirits of their ancestors.”

But the fact that millions of people have believed in Jesus Christ as the God-man for two millennia drives them into a frenzy. By the way, the fact of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between believers of different religions in Russia does not fit into the atheistic picture of the world. Only information about the priests' extended conspiracy theory gives them slight reassurance. Not for long, of course.

However, the trouble is that ultimately atheism cannot live alongside Christ, Mohammed or Moses. And when this army, shining with atheism, with portraits of Dawkins, Marx and Lenin, begins to prove that there is no God, believers will have to tear out the remnants of hair on their heads and curse the day when, out of sluggish softness, they tolerated Darwinism in schools, which has nothing to do with Darwin, tolerated chatter atheists and go to prison for speaking out against atheism and atheistic authorities. The goddess of atheism Kali will dance gloriously that day, rattling skulls, if the world does not come to its senses and try to reverse as much as possible the wonderful atheistic revival that is now taking place.

1. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God. What if there is? 2. If we are not afraid that we did not exist until we were born, why should we be afraid that we will not exist after we die? But everyone is afraid, that's a fact. 3. Atheists are not afraid of hell. They live in hell already on earth and hope that this will not happen in eternity. 4. Each of the atheists, for all their uniqueness, is only a small part of humanity. Even their thoughts belong to them less than 1%: they borrowed everything else from words, pictures, films, songs, gestures and facial expressions of other people. So when they die, 99% of their consciousness and 99.99% of their genes will continue to exist. What will remain? 5. If we do not consider time solely from a human point of view, then everything that happens to us at this very second will forever happen to us at this very second. So we are actually immortal if we equate time with other space coordinates. I'm afraid physicists are powerless here... 6. Life is a tedious process. The need to breathe, create blood, think, respond to neuronal impulses seems so attractive to atheists only because the mechanism of a thirst for life is evolutionarily embedded in them. Before death, he stops working, and the joy that people who experienced clinical death experienced about this proves that it is simply stupid to be afraid of dying. The death of Voltaire, Nietzsche and other atheists proves this clearly. 7. Atheists have a huge habit of death. Every evening they go to die, and the next day a slightly different person gets out of bed. After a couple of years, atheists will remember themselves today as a stranger and not very clear to them. By the end of his life, Vladimir Ilyich completely stopped remembering himself...

180 252

How to argue in the Orthodox way?

For the spiritual success of a Christian, for the successful struggle with passions, it is extremely important to be able to cope with one’s tongue, to put a bridle on it, which, according to the testimony of the Apostle James, is a very difficult matter. Meanwhile, in our lives there are always a lot of conversations: with family at home, with employees at work, on blogs on the Internet. Sometimes the conversation is calm, but often we begin to discuss burning questions: how far is it to the end of the world, how can we develop Russia, is it possible to eat octopuses during Lent, etc. And so, sometimes, without noticing how, we are already involved in a heated discussion. But are we so sure that we are right? And if you are sure, isn’t it a sign of pride to try to convince others that you are right? Is this good for your soul and for the person you are arguing with?

What are we arguing about?

About all sorts of things. Often about completely unimportant things. For example, in a conversation I quoted the famous lines from “Eugene Onegin” describing the first snow and, wanting to show off my erudition, pointed out that this was from the fifth chapter. My interlocutor objects: no, from the fourth. Of course, I know for sure which one is from the fifth. But what will change if I prove that I’m right? And it’s not difficult to prove it: even if you don’t have a book at hand, we go online via a computer or mobile phone, look for the necessary lines, make sure - so what? The interlocutor is forced to admit defeat.

If this is a person with a light character, then everything will pass without consequences. If he is not alien to touchiness, suspiciousness and other similar qualities, then a loss in this worthless dispute may be followed by a serious cooling of relations. Is the exact link worth it? Is “truth” worth it? Unlikely. Therefore, in relation to such cases, one can only repeat after Dale Carnegie: “Avoid sharp corners!” The same applies to so-called disputes about tastes. Despite popular wisdom, they are argued about, and quite often. “You know, I can’t stand Dostoevsky. Yes, he’s a great writer and all that, but I can’t read.” It’s unlikely to be smart to rush to prove anything. Let's think: what do we want to prove? That our interlocutor still enjoys reading Dostoevsky? But this is absurd! Therefore, there is nothing to argue about.

Easter cakes and salvation

The most acute situations of dispute for a Christian are discussions on issues of faith in the broadest sense of the word: the fundamentals of Christian doctrine, differences between confessions, worship and rituals, certain trends in church and public life, actions and statements of official representatives of the Church and etc.

Sometimes my opponent will be an Orthodox Christian like myself, who, however, has his own point of view on various phenomena of church life. In some cases, this may be a person who, as they often say, “has God in his heart” and who does not trust the Russian Orthodox Church with its “priests in Mercedes.” And sometimes (this happens rarely, but that makes it even more interesting) we can find ourselves face to face with a real atheist and materialist. And the more “external” my opponent is in relation to the Church, the more responsibility I have as a person representing, in the eyes of my counterpart, the Church. And it will be reasonable on my part if I forget about my personal ambitions, if I do not allow passions (pride, vanity, anger) to prevail over me, crawling out of all the cracks under the plausible pretext of protecting God and the Church from reproach, but I will act in relation to to my neighbor based on the principle of “do no harm.”

During our dispute, we may or may not come to some mutually acceptable conclusions, but we must part ways so that my interlocutor does not lose the desire for further communication. Maybe today he talked with Ivan Petrovich about Easter cakes, and heard a rather unexpected thing: salvation is not in Easter cakes, but in Christ. And the fact that so much attention and effort is given to the blessing of holiday food - well, this is how it happened, but nowadays few among church people consider this normal. And today - a conversation with Ivan Petrovich, and tomorrow - with Father Vasily, and then, lo and behold, the first confession. Based on this main goal - not to break off communication, but to give it a chance to continue - we must also build a dispute strategy.

Agree to what you can

We must remember that we almost always argue with a specific person. And if we talk about the art of argument from a Christian point of view, then (and this is not at all excessive pathos) we need to see in our opponent, first of all, a person, our neighbor, the image of God - one of those for whom Christ died. With this approach, the content of the dispute comes in second place, and the tone, the language that we choose to communicate with a person comes to the fore.

The worst type of discussion is one in which we angrily attack our opponent, returning to him a hundredfold every blow. “You know,” the interlocutor tells us, “it’s somehow strange and unpleasant for me to see that the Church is actually seizing territories, seizing property. There was a school here - and now there is no school, but there is a huge cathedral. And here there was a clinic - it was also forced out. And not far from my house they simply fenced off a rather large piece of land. Previously, everyone could walk here, but now you can’t just walk in.” In response, you can often hear something like this from Orthodox people: “What do you want? After everything was taken away from the Church, it is now regaining what is its own. Everything is according to the law! You probably don't like a strong Church? It’s immediately obvious that your grandfathers were atheists, they shot priests. That's it, your time is up! Now justice prevails! Soon the Orthodox Tsar will come and Holy Rus' will be reborn!” Such ardor will be perceived by the opponent - and rightly so! - like elementary stupidity, or even rudeness. And the dispute after this, even if it continues, is unlikely to be constructive.

But which way of arguing will lead to more positive results? Based on my own experience, I would advise the following: agree with everything that you can agree with - this will provide a basis for further discussion.

For example: “Is the Church involved in property disputes?” - “Yes, he is participating.” - “Does it happen that the validity of claims on the part of church structures looks doubtful?” - "Still would!" - “Don’t you think that Christ would not approve of such zeal in returning church property?” - “I’ll be honest: it seems, and quite often.”

Here our interlocutor falls silent for a while in bewilderment. Indeed, it’s strange: he seems to be Orthodox, but he thinks sensibly. And here is the time for a Christian to act as a preacher, a missionary: to tell his interlocutor about Christ, about the Church, that it is by no means identical to an earthly organization, whose representatives often commit dubious acts, to acquaint the interlocutor with episodes from the lives of saints (best of all - one of the new martyrs). No, you shouldn’t think that a person “with God in his soul” will run to confession and receive communion the next day, and an atheist will run to be baptized. Most likely this won't happen. But our opponent will have the opportunity to be convinced: there are different people in the Church, not everyone thinks the same, dialogue is quite real. After all, for a modern person, the very possibility of feedback, discussion, dialogue, and simply a lively, sincere, respectful, interested conversation is very important.

Of course, not every time we have to argue with “outsiders”; not every argument is a reason for preaching. But no matter who we discuss with, the person must come first for us. Sometimes it is much more useful for ourselves not to talk, not to argue, but to simply listen. And this alone can arouse sympathy both for ourselves and, perhaps, for our point of view.

I remember I was fifteen or sixteen years old. I was baptized not so long ago, that is, I was a neophyte and, of course, a “conservative.” Once we were visiting a friend of my father. His church experience by that time was measured in more than a dozen years, and his views could be described as “liberal.” The conversation turned to one of the most pressing topics at the time. I tried not to aggravate the situation, nodded, agreed - and then began to state my position. No, we didn’t come to anything final then, but at parting, Uncle Vova told me: “Listen, Fedka, it turns out we can talk to you!”

O. Theodore Ludogovsky

New in blogs

A very important question is how to generally talk with believers or with those who consider themselves believers. In general, of course, it is better to avoid such conversations, but if you are nevertheless provoked into this conversation, then you need to speak very kindly, very kindly.

Remember that these topics are extremely painful for them, extremely difficult and that they easily get into a state of severe hysteria, so it is better to remove matches, it is better to remove any sharp, heavy objects and really demonstrate patience, affection and goodwill.

Moreover, there is no need to bother with all sorts of stupid talk about some kind of god - this is an empty topic, and any believer, if asked to prove the existence of God, after 3-4 minutes begins to feel like an idiot, and then he can fall into that very frenzy. You don't have to do this.

It is always better to invite the believer to prove that he is truly a believer.

The fact is that collecting icons or other pictures, crosses, some small dried buns, participating in simple performances with or without eating the meat of God, some trips, appropriate phraseology, appropriate outfits - this is not proof of the so-called faith , this is just proof that the person is playing some kind of role-playing game.

Their faith demands from them, quite harshly, many deprivations, many infringements on themselves. And it is always necessary to invite this believer, the so-called believer, to prove that he is a believer directly in the Gospel sense of the word.

Find out to whom he gave an apartment among the homeless, to whom he gave a sheepskin coat, to whom he transferred a car from the poor, how many lepers he kissed on the lips, whether he is going to go, let’s say, somewhere to Sudan or to the shores of Lake Chad and preach there Christianity, as it is commanded to them. Usually such things baffle believers.

But, you see, they proclaim themselves believers and, like the Donkey from the famous book about Winnie the Pooh, they begin to pout their lips offendedly and say: “You know, we are so special, you can’t say the word ball in front of us.”

But in order to make it impossible to say the word ball in front of you, as with Eeyore, prove that you are also Eeyore.

Prove that you are somehow special, otherwise you are only declaring this about yourself.

And here, as a rule, some kind of incident happens to them. It is very difficult for them to prove that they are believers. Leave them alone with these thoughts.

And you can be sure that some seeds of doubt have been sown, some seeds of understanding that everything is not as declarative, not as simple as it is portrayed in the synodal journals, the way things are in this world with the so-called faith.

Moreover, do not insist on any of your points of view, invite them to comment on several facts of completely outright lies. What is an outright lie?

The church says that it preaches faith in some kind of god, right?

Okay, let's accept the point of view of the church, but as it turns out, the church does not preach faith in God, but faith in one of the gods.

The impudence of all the priests is not enough to erase from the history of mankind all the other gods that mankind has known since the times of Sumer and Babylon. There are about three or four hundred such gods.

And why, if you can believe in one of the gods, in the so-called Jesus, why is belief in Zeus, belief in Osiris or Quetzalcoatl, from their point of view, an absurdity? Or why is one god better and why is another god worse?

Here, too, there comes a moment of certain doubts and reflections for them. Then, naturally, the question arises about Russia and Russian self-identification and the connection with Orthodoxy, but here, too, it is better to ask them to comment: how exactly that ideology, exactly that Orthodox ideological system, which was held... By the way, all this spirituality, it was held exclusively on fourteen articles of the Criminal Code, on many by-laws, on the fear of hard labor, on the fear of deprivation of wealth, exile to Siberia, on very many unpleasant things.

And this was precisely at the time when Orthodoxy was considered a folk religion. How exactly did this ideological system lead to the complete collapse of the state in 1917?

Ask them to comment on the thesis that Orthodoxy is an already validated coupon, and trying to ride this coupon a second time on the “tram of history” is, to say the least, naive.

It’s as if we have a historical medical fact: the collapse of a state that for seven hundred years had nothing but this ideology. Nothing at all. And nothing was allowed. And how many articles of the Criminal Code are needed: twenty-eight, fifty, sixty? What punitive measures and means are needed to ensure all this spirituality...

It is clear that Orthodoxy can only hold on with bayonets, that without the appropriate help from the state power it immediately turns, splits into many small sects and turns, so to speak, into one of these sects.

This can and should be suggested for comment, and here we, again, will leave the so-called believer alone with his thoughts.

After all, what is atheism? Atheism is not shouting that there is no God. This is not even a mockery of this or that dogma, of their rhetoric, far from it. This is the right to thought, this is the triumph of free thought, this is the ability to think critically, skeptically and evaluate everything, first of all, by analyzing, independently, and to any words written or spoken, atheism presupposes critical thinking.

The great La Mettrie said this, Paul Henri Holbach said this. And my words also need to be treated as critically as any verse in the Bible. Everything must be viewed critically.

And as soon as this criticism, as soon as this skepticism and the ability and desire to analyze become the norm, then the gods themselves die. Or they emigrate to where there is still a place left for them: somewhere on the shores of Lake Chad or to New Guinea.

How to talk to an atheist about Christianity

Once upon a time, not so long ago, atheism was a belief system whose name they did not even dare to name. Even the most ardent skeptic served with his lips the faith, or at least the blessings humanity received from it.

But now this is not the case. Atheism is a strong and growing influence in our culture. You can see it everywhere, from a bestseller in your local bookstore to Darwin's mutated fish of Christ on the car driving in front of you. Atheists are comfortable declaring themselves atheists, comfortable promoting atheism, and comfortable attacking religions that, according to some of the most prominent atheists, fall somewhere between diphtheria and Nazism on the list of human blessings.

And now that we are confronted with this more and more, Christians sometimes find themselves ill-equipped to combat such muscular atheism. Especially for older Christians, atheistic arguments are so foreign that they do not know how to respond to them, and too often become angry (“How dare you?!”) or fear (“what if they are right?!”), neither one of these feelings does no good, damaging the Christian's testimony and leaving the atheist firmly entrenched in his atheism.

If we are going to encounter more atheists (whether at work or in the laundry room or at our dinner tables), we must be willing to explain our beliefs in a way that makes sense to people outside the faith. As a starting point, I offer the following list of tips:

1. Don't be afraid to admit that you have faith. Christians often report that they have been in situations where a conversation about faith came up, and all they could say was that they had faith, even if they never did any serious investigation. They often seem confused by this defense. If you get caught talking about why you believe and that's all you have, don't be afraid to keep talking. Formulate the phrase as best you can. For example, you could explain that your faith is not just a story that makes you feel good, or talk about what leads you to believe that you have a real relationship with something outside the material world.

2. Don't assume that your atheist friends are secretly angry at God or feel like something is missing in their lives. Make the assumption that this person is an atheist because he or she simply hasn't seen any evidence that God exists.

3. Don't quote the Bible, but know the Bible. The Bible is a source of great wisdom, but if you quote it to an atheist as an authority, it will be like your doctor explaining a diagnosis by reading a passage from Harry Potter. Don't just throw out Bible verses and expect that to convince anyone. There are reasons why the Bible says what it says. Know the reasons for their occurrence and be prepared to explain them.

4. Don't feel like you have to have all the answers right then and there. It's much better to simply say, “Great question! I don't know the answer to this, but I'd like to explore it and get back to you," rather than going into territory you're not familiar with.

5. Explain the big picture. Familiarize yourself with the historical milestones of Christianity, and offer the most plausible explanation for what makes this religion convincing... that the life and death of Jesus were predicted in ancient scriptures, that all historians agree that He existed in those times; that almost all the apostles suffered martyrdom for their faith; that Christianity spread like wildfire despite terrible persecution. Study the Scriptures of the early Christians who defended Christianity in a pagan world that was hostile in many ways for its beliefs (sound familiar?).

6. Be logical. Do not deny the validity of logical and scientific thought. It's true that science doesn't have all the answers, but it does have some of them, and if you try to deny it, you risk writing yourself off as crazy. As Pope Benedict XVI always reminds us, the God in whom we believe is the God of reason. There is a long, learned history of rational arguments for Christianity, and if you can use them, you will be speaking in terms that your atheist friend can understand. Meet some of the great Christian thinkers and apologists. If you haven't read Lewis's Mere Christianity yet, what are you waiting for?

7. Realize that your only goal is to sow the seed. In these discussions, we can sometimes become so focused on the details that we lose sight of the bigger picture. It is extremely unlikely that the person you are talking to will be completely convinced of the truth of Christianity in one conversation. Just defend Christianity as best you can, and remember that conversion is ultimately God's work, not yours.

8. Put yourself in the position of your atheist friend. What if, for example, Christianity were false but Greek mythology was actually true? What does it take to convince you of this?

9. Don't use too many Christian phrases. Christians "give their hearts to Jesus" and "the Holy Spirit indwells us" and we take a "daily walk with Christ" so that we are "at peace, but not at peace." All of these phrases are meaningful and profound and instantly understandable to almost any Christian, but they mean nothing to people who are outside the faith. It's hard to avoid them because we're used to using them as shorthand for some very complex concepts. But you should be able to explain these concepts in a simple sense anyway.

10. Pray. Don't make the mistake of relying solely on your own skills when you have the Holy Spirit at your disposal. Pray for yourself and for the receptive heart of your atheist friend. You might be surprised at the effectiveness of this method. It will be good for you too.

We do not incite anyone to go and argue. But with a little mental preparation, when the time comes, you will be ready to present the work of faith in terms that are familiar to your non-Christian friends and family members.

Authors:

Jason Anderson is a web developer based in Birmingham, Alabama, who posts thoughts on religion and culture at The Cynical Christian. Jennifer Fulwiler is a writer from Austin, Texas who converted to Catholicism from atheism in 2007.

How to remain a Christian in a situation of public controversy

No one will probably argue with the fact that there is no need to argue. At least - without need. Without extreme necessity. A situation of dispute is dangerous for a Christian, for his inner life. A heated argument emotionally inflames, angers, embitters us, ruins us spiritually, deprives us of hope for inner peace and silence; makes it impossible to concentrate on prayer. Really, try to start praying as soon as you leave your favorite social network, where you clashed on a fundamental issue with a whole party of friend-opponents!.. You will feel how difficult it is for you now. What exactly constituted the work? Through the inflamed, blazing layers of the soul, through pain and aggression, to go deep into the heart, to where we meet the Lord and where silence should reign...

Yes, there is no need to argue. But what if... you need to argue? If there is a need to stand up for truth, justice, for people? Is it betrayal if you remain silent?

Task number one is to distinguish between situations when it is a matter of conscience to intervene in a public dispute, and when it is better to ignore this dispute, especially since there will be no benefit from our intervention in the discussion.

Task number two: if we still could not remain silent and decided to speak, then how to protect ourselves from emotional overheating and spiritual ruin? How to prevent yourself from falling into the sinful passion of anger and contempt for your opponent? How to avoid the sin of condemnation and exaltation over others - “I, unlike them, fools, am smart and understand that...”

And how can you avoid actually being... not smart at all? How to avoid mistakes? How to sensibly assess the level of your own competence in a particular problem, topic, event? After all, what seems to us that we are absolutely right may in fact be the fruit of our ignorance, a one-sided approach, and finally, the result of someone’s skillful manipulation of our consciousness.

“Grant me with Thy true light and an enlightened heart to do Thy will,” we pray every morning. But the Gospel is not an instruction for all cases of our difficult, eventful life. The Lord does not dictate our attitude to each of the problems that arise; It does not let us know what position we should take in any given public debate. In order to do His will, in order not to make a fatal mistake, not to mislead others, in order to defend in any dispute exactly what we must defend, our personal spiritual work is needed, repentance is necessary - not as a one-time act, but as a the constant state of being in the Church. And this is probably our most important task.

We will talk about how to remain a Christian in a situation of public controversy, how to protect yourself from the dangers associated with it, in this issue of our magazine.

Is engaging in public controversy a temptation for you as a Christian? If yes, how do you solve this problem for yourself?

Elena Balayan, journalist, Saratov:

“For me, as a Christian, the big temptation is not polemics, but what is happening in our country - in its economy, politics, the consequences of which naturally affect our daily lives.

Evil cannot be tolerated, you need to talk about it, you need to resist it in all its manifestations, but do it in such a way that it does not destroy you. How to do this and where this line is, here, I think, everyone who has the skill of inner life and self-observation must decide for himself. The main thing is not to lose sobriety and the ability to see yourself from the outside.

Since I am a journalist, very often all these negative feelings spill over into public discussion on social networks. And if I am in such a “charged”, non-peaceful state, then, of course, this may also affect the tone of the discussion. I try to never offend people I interact with online or in real life, no matter what their opinions and views. If I get personal, which happens extremely rarely, it means that I am in a completely bad state and I urgently need to do something with myself - stop, calm down and go to confession. As a rule, after such therapy the condition improves.

The rule that I developed for myself while discussing painful topics is to tell the truth all the time, remembering that there is no final truth on earth, absolute truth is only with God, because He alone is the knower of the heart, He alone knows the fate of the world and He alone can and has the right to make final judgment. But this does not mean that we need to get rid of any idea of truth, from any judgment: after all, it was not for nothing that the Lord gave us the ability to think critically and resist evil.

Rule two: be honest with yourself and your conscience, stand up for those who are publicly offended or insulted. Never offend people yourself, speak politely, balancedly, and with reason, but don’t be afraid to put those who behave boorishly (and this often happens) in their place. It is not Christian to see how a weak person or just any person is being insulted and pass by. There is no need to be afraid to expose a lie if it is an obvious lie and your conscience and experience tell you that it is so.

There are many complexities in online public discourse. People sometimes talk as if to themselves, they don’t hear each other, and this reveals how far we all really are from each other, how much we cannot hear and understand each other, how sealed we are in our cases of mistakes, pain and complexes. All this makes the discussion sometimes completely useless. When communicating and reading forums, you see the misconceptions people sometimes have, and you understand that these misconceptions largely determine the life we live and, most likely, will live for a long time. And this makes it very painful, but pain is the “normal” working state of a Christian, and I think it should be treated accordingly.

Rule three: try never to pass by socially significant, painful topics that concern you; don’t isolate yourself in your own box, but try to participate in the lives of other people and the life of society, do at least something useful, or at least, as a last resort, talk and share information. The question is debatable: is a Christian a person with an active civic position or not? Can someone who closes himself off from people be a true Christian if he is not a monk or a hermit? There may be different cases, but for myself I have recently come to the conclusion that Christianity is an active, including a civic position and a desire to tell the truth, not condone lies, not multiply them, not ignore people’s pain, to the extent, of course , you have the strength for this. Because even the state of health of people can be different, and their temperament as well, not everyone should rush into the embrasure: and I’m not calling for this at all, I’m only talking about myself.

One could even say that our level of discussion depends on the level of our life, in this case not material, but spiritual. If we ourselves are in a disheveled state, then the tone of our discussion will be just as disheveled and unconstructive. Therefore, what you need to avoid is not discussion, you need to avoid incorrect reactions to everyday problems, forgetting God and your own soul. We must not forget about Who is Main for us, in Whom our hope should be, what kind of life we are destined for, and that this life, unlike that one, is very, very temporary. It will end sooner or later, everything will pass - both political and economic difficulties will remain only a vague memory. Only the Lord and our soul are eternal. This is how I solve this question for myself, this line of thinking gives me strength and allows me not to take everything that happens on earth too seriously...

* * *

Igor Lunev, journalist, St. Petersburg:

“Controversy as such cannot be considered something sinful or shameful—and Christian missionaries, starting with the apostles, did not and do not disdain it. An example in this, as in everything else, is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself for them - He not only polemicized, but also in a very harsh form outlined the boundary beyond which the polemic loses its meaning: Do not give what is holy to dogs and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample it under their feet and turn and tear you to pieces (Matt. 7:6). The Monk Isidore Pelusiot interprets this passage this way: “...dogs and pigs are those who sin not only in dogmas, but also in active life.” By shrine in the Gospel is meant the preaching of the word of God.

We are sometimes forced to defend some earthly interests, but these same earthly truths only have real meaning when they are based on heavenly truth. And here the advice of St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, expressed in a softer form, turns out to be important for us: “Do not talk in lengthy conversations with someone who does not listen to you with a kind heart.” If you start an argument with such a person, you will fall into temptation and not get confused for long. But am I with a good heart when I get involved in arguments on any topic? After all, I get involved every now and then...

I think the main indicator of kindness of heart is when your interlocutor is important to you. Like any person, you can make mistakes, but you are confident that you are right and that this rightness can be useful to your neighbor, and you are looking for ways to convey to him your thoughts, your experiences. Willy-nilly, you treat the person and his feelings as carefully as possible, because you understand that his offense will make him less receptive to your words. God knows which of you is right, He will judge. But you entered into this dispute not for your own sake, but for the sake of your neighbor. Truth can be born in any dispute by the grace of God, but in such good disputes it is born more often.

Our main temptation is to argue or provoke an argument for our own sake. I see some topic, and I have nothing to say on the essence of the issue, but the topic worries me, touches me - so how can I pass it by? I’ll tell you - it doesn’t matter what I say, the main thing is to express your emotions. Or I have “reinforced concrete” arguments, and I know that only my like-minded people will agree with them, but I really want to get approval from these same like-minded people, to feel how we stand as a united front “for all the good against all the bad,” like me at least for a minute, but I become the commander of this very front... Now, if I see myself as such a “general,” then I need to shut up.

Sometimes we are sincerely confident that we are arguing not for our own sake, but for a “just cause.” But in order to break out of virtual reality, you must first ask yourself: what matters more in God’s eyes? What, for example, is more important to God—geopolitics or the pain of specific living people, some of whom don’t even know the word “geopolitics”? “The honor of the country” at the next Olympic Games or the living conditions of people in psychoneurological boarding schools?

Recent years have brought us many painful topics, the media is fueling passions, and we are happy, because we seem to ourselves to be very serious people, getting involved, even at the level of verbal battles, in other people’s dirty games. But there is not much in the world that really needs to be talked about. And even then not with everyone and not always. And when we refuse to support an unnecessary fire, to participate in another hysteria, don’t we become at least a little closer to the very peacemakers about whom our Lord speaks in the Sermon on the Mount?

* * *

Anton Ovsyanikov, artist, St. Petersburg:

— Is participation in public controversy a temptation for me as a Christian? I think that, one way or another, it is. Due to my natural inclination to defend the truth (as far as I remember, I have been a lover of truth since childhood), I have repeatedly defended my position both in the virtual environment and in real life. But due to the rather closed, non-public lifestyle I had chosen, this happened infrequently. The “landmark” year in this regard was 2014, the victory of the so-called Euromaidan, and everything that followed. A terrible shock from everything that is happening! That’s when my Facebook activity exploded. I couldn’t stand aside, trying to justify my position to my opponents. I must say that there were opponents not only within Ukraine, but also within our country - I was surprised that not everyone supported the return of Crimea. Six months passed in such battles, all this time I, one might say, lived online, until I finally realized that I couldn’t prove anything to anyone, time was running out, and with it, peace of mind (or its remnants). And when I realized, I began to slowly curtail my participation in online battles.

However, I had experience of polemics before that - participation in a liberal Orthodox forum after the well-known events with the “dancers” in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Then I realized that I was taking everything too close to my heart, and it seemed like I couldn’t do it any other way...

Much later, I was asked to write a short note about an exhibition in the Russian Museum, where works of contemporary authors that were very dubious from an artistic and moral point of view were exhibited. Unexpectedly for me, the reaction was quite loud: the artists made a fuss on social networks, and I even had the “honor” of looking at caricatures of myself! It was very unpleasant, and yes, I realized that this was a real temptation, a test of strength. And one more thing - that sometimes you need to suffer a little for a just cause...

However, I am not an active public figure; I know that peace of mind is more important to me. I don’t get involved in any arguments anymore—I don’t want to. The experience of discussions on the Internet has taught me a lot, on the one hand, and on the other hand, I have my main business, the creativity of an artist. And that’s where I need to direct my energy.

However, if it turns out that my life position and my opinion as a citizen and professional are still needed by someone in art again, then I do not rule out my participation in the defense of our traditional values.

For myself, I realized that I need to write or speak (depending on the situation) as balanced and calm as possible. After all, when our passion is mixed in, we can very easily fall into condemnation of this or that person or event (allowed for something by God). Therefore, everything must be done with prayer. It seems to me that if a person is not looking for his own (just to “get noticed”, “to promote himself”), then the Lord will enlighten the person, show him when to speak and when it is better to remain silent. It’s good if there is a confessor, then “for obedience” this issue is resolved more easily.

I remember such a great saint of God as the Monk Paisius the Holy Mountain. When the blasphemous film “The Last Temptation of Christ” was supposed to go on (or went, I don’t remember) in Greece, the elder, who so loved silence, silence and prayer, considered it necessary to leave the Holy Mountain for a while and join the protesters in order to thus support their.

* * *

Stanislav Minakov, writer, Belgorod:

— I adhere to the rule: shouting and hysteria should not be allowed in polemics. When things go wrong on social networks, when they suddenly provoke even insults (most often this is done intentionally, sometimes in the form of trolling), then I stop participating in the exchange of opinions, and in especially malicious cases I block such a “polemicist”. The feeling of unhealthy situation, as well as sometimes personal guilt (when you can’t stand it and answer in tone) is clear to me in such cases.

It’s a completely different thing when a thoughtful and adequate interlocutor speaks to you, when he asks you in an interview format. Or when you yourself write a journalistic article - either on a political topic (I often think about various aspects of life, say, modern Ukraine - about the current confession of the canonical Church, about political prisoners, the social situation, the war in Novorossiya and much more), or about the current life in Russia, in general about the Russian world. In this case, I hope I manage to avoid passion and formulate meanings and messages clearly, without overheating. Although sometimes I cannot do without sharp criticism of certain phenomena and processes.

Most likely, over the years of standing on polemical and very real barricades, my self-criticism has become dulled, the threshold of what is permissible could have shifted due to the emphasis of my position, therefore both my sense of self and self-esteem can be deceptive. Such stands “for the faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland” began for me in the late 1990s, when I, who lived in Kharkov (and was born there, like my father, son and recently grandson), already became unbearable to endure the Russophobia of the “Project.” Ukraine"". This became especially aggravated in the “orange” year of 2004, and even more so since the end of November 2013. I felt what was happening as a spiritual cosmic challenge aimed directly at my heart. Perhaps this is a proud thought, but I was unable to avoid it, and therefore I began to actively oppose the “Ukrainian anti-Russia” as a publicist.

The result is known: we suffered a situational defeat in Ukraine, I was forced to leave my hometown and country, being expelled from the National Union of Writers of Ukraine as “alien stuffing” and facing the threat of arrest for dissent. You can consider this a personal payment for insubordination, and I will say that this situation is very difficult for me - both in the spiritual and physical sense.

It is also clear that the line between analysis, judgment and condemnation is sometimes wavering, conditional and implicit, and therefore you need to discipline yourself, that is, still repent of condemnation and verbosity and pray for those - near and far - with whom you are engaged in polemics, even in absentia , even silent.

* * *

Alexander Mramornov, historian, Moscow:

— Participation in real, not fake (or, as they say now, not fake) public debate is not a temptation for me, but a need, and sometimes even work. Only such high-level discussions are becoming less and less common these days.

Let's take a situation a hundred years ago: the Russian people elected a Constituent Assembly, which the Bolsheviks lawlessly dispersed, and in a broad sense, all legal polemics at the national level ended altogether after that for seven decades. At the same time, the Holy Council was working in the Church - for me an example of high public discussion.

Today, live public dialogue has been replaced by simulacra and substitutes: on television - by false propaganda, often with elements of zombification; around the authorities - various public councils that create only appearances, but do not decide anything. Collegiality in the public sphere has been destroyed. There are big problems with conciliarity in the church sphere. What is temptation under these conditions? It seems that the greatest temptation is the temptation to remain silent, to sit out, not to raise your voice, not to interfere, to indifferently observe lawlessness and untruth. This is where the real temptation lies. And participation in pseudo-polemics and pseudo-discussions is, for most, a duty rather than a temptation.

If we talk about the future, then for Christians who feel empowered, I would call participation in the social and political process mandatory. And the more Christian principles we bring into the political sphere, the better. Yes, My Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), but this is why Christ came into this world, so that we would become different, so that even politics would become different. Therefore, the creation of a real Christian Democratic party in our country will sooner or later become relevant again, and, I hope, then the mistakes that were made by those who tried to create such a party in the past will be taken into account.

* * *

Archpriest Alexander Avdyugin, rector of the Church of the Holy Father Joachim and Anna in Rovenki (Lugansk People's Republic):

— Not so long ago, on local TV in Lugansk, in a morning program, I was asked: what does the average priest, and I specifically, do in the morning. Moreover, the presenter, anticipating the answer, began:

- So, you get up, wash your face, pray, and then what?

I had to break this standard sequence a little, since after washing my face, I check my email and look at the expected letters and messages, and only then pray. Why is that? Because if I pray, and then check the mail and other things that fell into the mailbox overnight, then I need to pray again.

Indeed, online discussions for a priest are an unauthorized journey into a room of embarrassment, temptations and enticements. This is before - you go to the Right Reverend and ask for his blessing to participate in some forum, approximately Orthodox. It's different these days. By default, being on social networks is blessed, e-mail is required, and instructions on how to behave in the Internet space, not only from local bishops, but also from the Patriarch himself, are regular and specific.

I can’t say that I know any new method of getting out of the state into which what I read and saw leads me; that it is completely out of character for me to want to at least virtually beat up an overly annoying interlocutor or an uncompromising opponent. But an Orthodox Christian (especially a priest!) has one undeniable advantage - he knows prayers.

I read the prayer carefully, slowly and thoughtfully, and you look, and before you is no longer the reincarnation of a horned entity with a university education and the aplomb of “putting all the priests in their place,” but a seeking personality; that behind the caustic pathos and tediousness lies the desire to understand something. Of course, there are people who come to a discussion or controversy with one single goal: to offend, to draw attention to themselves with rudeness, but, firstly, they are rare, and secondly, the principle “don’t touch the troll, he will evaporate” works. The main thing is to decide for yourself personally: for what purpose are you accessing the Internet? If only to tell something, to ask to pray, or to find out what sins are forgiven at the Sacrament of Unction or not at all, then everything is simple and clear. The Orthodox Internet solves all this. But if you break into a social network with the desire to expose, set priorities and “bring it to clean water”... then it’s better to talk about the parish cat or share an interesting link.

The distance from exposure to condemnation is so small that you may not notice that you have already turned from a priest into a prosecutor without a confessional affiliation.

To explain, to explain, to tell, or, in our language, to testify - this, it seems to me, is the main purpose of being on the Internet for an Orthodox person and priest.

There are taboos. Where there is outright blasphemy, there is nothing to do; There is definitely no need to go where there is political discord. You can’t convince blasphemers, and political squabbles are an embarrassment, a condemnation, and an outright sin. As one of the apologists said: only the ballot box can know about the political position of a priest.

A priest is needed on the Internet and in social networks. You just shouldn’t go there in order to “show yourself,” but testifying to the Truth is very useful.

* * *

Denis Akhalashvili, journalist, writer, Yekaterinburg:

— Modern television is full of talk shows, where studio guests lively discuss various political and social issues. Today this format is very popular and in demand, there is no place for boredom, the level of emotions in disputes is often off the charts, participants are not shy in their arguments and sometimes switch to sign language, which is liked by viewers and increases channel ratings. It is worth remembering the fight between NTV presenter Andrei Norkin and Ukrainian blogger Dmitry Suvorov on the air of the “Meeting Place” program, where the Ukrainian guest allowed himself boorish expressions towards the residents of Donbass and immediately received a slap in the face for it. Or the fight between Maxim Shevchenko and Nikolai Svanidze on the air of the Komsomolskaya Pravda radio station due to disagreements over victims in the Great Patriotic War. It is worth noting that the topic of the program was “Do we, Russia, need advice on morality?”

Whether an Orthodox person needs to participate in such discussions is a controversial question. On the one hand, participating in a dispute (you can immediately forget about a dialogue where opponents listen to each other) with inadequate and negatively minded people is a direct reason to lose peace in your soul. On the other hand, isn’t it the duty of any normal person, regardless of his religious beliefs, to stop the presumptuous scoundrel and boor, even on a public platform?

I would like to shake hands with my Facebook friend, editor-in-chief of Polit Russia Ruslan Ostashko, who, after the statement of the scandalous Polish journalist in the NTV studio, who called the Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe “red fascists,” gave the impudent man what he deserved. To my friend’s credit, he did not rush headlong into the fight, but in response to the Pole’s boorish cries, he calmly said that if unacceptable insults were made against our veterans from the opponents’ bench again, he would be forced to use force. The Pole ignored this warning and began to dirtyly insult the memory of our grandfathers in inappropriate expressions, for which he deservedly received a slap in the face.

Now let’s imagine how else an Orthodox person and a citizen of his country could react to such boorish and inappropriate behavior if he found himself in a similar situation. Would you begin to quote the holy fathers, look for suitable passages in the Gospel, or, with downcast eyes, would you pretend that nothing happened? As a man and an Orthodox person, after the broadcast, Ruslan accepted the Pole’s challenge to meet in the ring, where in a fair fight, according to all the rules of boxing, he won and defended the honor of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

Saint Philaret (Drozdov) said best about the attitude of an Orthodox person to various disputes, disagreements and contradictions: “Abominate the enemies of God, defeat the enemies of the Fatherland, love your enemies.” It is useless to talk with the enemies of the Church: we cannot convince them, we can only regret them. As for the enemies of your Fatherland, it is your sacred duty to destroy them. And we can forgive personal enemies and pray for them, as our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for those crucifying Him.

And we should not forget that in disputes we often defend not the truth, about which we sometimes have the vaguest idea, but our personal opinion, our “I”, our pride, our claim to know the ultimate truth. Therefore, in many cases, it will be wiser to act according to the words of Archimandrite John Krestyankin, who said: “To yield peacefully in a dispute is to drown a hundred demons!”

I still won’t forget how, when I came to church for the first Liturgy in my life, I decided that the priest was making exclamations “wrongly,” and, without any doubt, I decided after the service to teach him how to do it correctly. It’s good that the priest was in a hurry somewhere after the service, and I was not able to teach him a lesson. And the desire was ardent.

Journal "Orthodoxy and Modernity" No. 42 (58)

Achilles

(A Quick Guide for Atheists)

Preface

I was prompted to write the manual by my many years of personal communication with ordinary believers, as well as with the ranks of the Christian clergy at a time when I myself was fascinated by this religious doctrine.

The manual is mainly intended for atheists who are forced to communicate with those Christians who persistently impose their faith. Therefore, explanations are given of the peculiarities of Orthodox thinking, as well as the methods of influence of Christians on secular society.

On criticism of religion

It is necessary to criticize Christians with an eye on the law on the protection of the rights of believers, since the particularly intolerant of them shamelessly use this law to persecute atheists who allegedly insult them. That is, the right of atheists to freedom of expression, granted by the Constitution, may be interpreted by the judiciary as an insult to the religious feelings of Christians.

How does this happen? Offended Orthodox Christians insist that atheists are insulting not only their beliefs, but also the being they worship. Unfortunately, the court will not take into account that you sincerely consider this creature to be fabulous, since its existence has not been confirmed by absolutely anything (except the words of those who believe in it).

Let us remember that we have a secular state.

Not a single Russian state act indicates the possibility and legality of intervention in our lives by a supernatural being or any other incomprehensible substance.

Since there is no such act, no one is obliged to experience a feeling of respect, tenderness or guilt before some mysterious being. However, in court, when discussing religious issues, this is somehow forgotten.

Just recently, it was hardly possible to imagine the revival of the ancient Inquisition in our time. However, it happened.

About divine truths

The faster science develops, including archaeology, geology and biology, the fewer arguments remain in the truth of the Holy Scriptures and the numerous works of the church fathers.

An attentive reader and listener has long noticed that many modern adherents of Christianity try to remember the so-called divine truths of the Old Testament as little as possible. Some pretend that there was no old covenant at all, but only a new one. The calculation is simple - the fewer mentions of what is dangerous to discuss, the better for believers.

Why is this happening?

Yes, because the terrible atrocities described in the Old Testament, committed in the name of the Almighty and at his direct instigation¹, are simply impossible to justify in any way, unless one is disingenuous in front of oneself and others.

Therefore, when priests are asked to explain those passages of the Old Testament that are impossible to read without shuddering, they admit through gritted teeth the cruelty of ancient Scripture. But at the same time they make a very strange conclusion - since in those days the human race and social relations were incredibly terrible, God treated people accordingly.

Thus, it is indirectly recognized that at present the Old Testament actions of God in relation to humanity cannot be considered, to put it mildly, as good neighborly.

But, no matter what good reasons justify the actions of the deity in ancient times, nothing can hide his calls for the destruction of innocent people. We must remember that at all times the Old Testament is divinely inspired for Christians and Jews. This means that it is the main co-author of this work who is responsible for his misanthropic appeals.

The ancient Scripture can no longer be corrected, although many priests would like to do so. Scientific research has shown that in the history of Christianity, the understanding of fundamental religious truths has changed dramatically more than once.

For example, at the Ecumenical Councils, discussions arose more than once about whether Christ should be considered the son of God. At the same time, many theological disputes often ended in the destruction of dissident Christians; for example, in Russia it was considered normal to burn entire families of Old Believers.

That is why priests diligently keep silent about the Old Testament horrors, emphasizing the love of mankind of the New Testament. However, this is not true - it also contains many cruel and completely immoral calls. Are they inspired by God too? Christians think so.

Is God to blame

The priests invented a strange excuse: God cannot be mocked!

This is another deceit - it happens! After all, if everything is according to his will, it is not difficult to understand what the victims think about him and about this will.

Adherents of Christianity, capable of thinking logically, always find themselves faced with the need to draw conclusions that are very unpleasant for them:

— if “God is Love,” then he cannot possibly be a co-author of the Old and New Testaments, because they contain numerous calls for reprisals, including against the innocent;

- if it was not the deity itself that inspired these ancient books, then they should be recognized as purely human creativity, like all other fairy tales about Greek, Scandinavian, Indian and other gods;

- if the ancient stories are still inspired from above, and the god of all covenants is one, then he is not Love. This is an incredibly jealous and cruel despot, punishing not only for deeds, but even for thoughts.

Let’s remember George Orwell’s utopian novel “1984,” which describes a society where “thought crime” is punishable by death. Many who have read or heard about this novel believe that it is impossible to implement a mechanism for punishing thoughts in real life. However, it is not. For many centuries there has been a religious community that considers it necessary to apply the most severe punishments only for thoughts. Why does it think so?

According to this community, some thoughts greatly offend God. Therefore, an angry god is simply obliged to punish with eternal torment in hell.

What do they believe and what do they pray?

The flock at all times was urged to fervently believe in the High Patron, but not to expect immediate miracles from him. But if someone quickly recovered, or found a treasure, or won another war, then ministers of various cults attributed these successes to the undoubted patronage of the corresponding deity. There was a lot of evidence of his existence - starting from the stars, sun, moon he created, as well as the heavenly punishments he sent in the form of diseases, natural disasters and other trials. It is worth recalling that even now some believers believe that various kinds of man-made disasters and natural disasters are God's punishment for the sins of corrupt humanity. The fact that even babies die does not bother them at all.

This position contradicts the statements of those clergy who claim that faith does not require proof of the existence of God. In fact, this is a direct admission that there is no such evidence at all.

Such an approach to the unproven assertion of the existence of an omnipotent being is called very pathetically: a feat of faith.

But why did the vector of faith swing away from the search and interpretation of various cases and phenomena previously classified as miraculous? At first glance, this is very strange, especially since such actions are incomprehensible to many parishioners and even priests.

The fact is that thanks to science, many so-called miracles have received a natural explanation, and this information is now available to literally everyone. And those facts that have not yet been officially exposed, nevertheless, have long aroused suspicion of their supposedly divine origin, for example, the appearance of the Holy Fire on a strictly defined day and even hour .

In this regard, I would like to ask those who believe in the Creator of the Universe and all things: why are you not surprised by the fact that a great deity obeys the call of some mortal and obediently shows his visible presence every year by lighting candles? Aren't there more serious reasons to show off your great strength? For example, stop a war, put out a volcano, calm a tsunami? This is both more visible and much more useful for beloved children, who, according to the clergy, are people for the Almighty.

You won’t get a serious answer; most likely there will be an excuse like “His ways are mysterious.”

In fact, the priests are afraid that the new “miracle” will be explained or even exposed, and this fact will show them in an even more unsightly light. It turns out a strange situation when the existence of something, on the one hand, is recognized as a miracle, but on the other hand, it is not considered necessary to wait for other miracles.

So it turns out that, according to the assurances of one part of the clergy, almighty God allegedly granted freedom in everything. And another part of the same clergy, on the contrary, insists that God constantly interferes in the affairs of mortals. Therefore, we often hear enthusiastic stories about incredible healings and receiving various material benefits, including in monetary terms.

According to Christians, these pleasant bonuses come to them thanks to prayers addressed to the Master of Fates, or to those whom the clergy has managed to enroll as saints. However, unpleasant questions arise again:

- If the power of the prayer spell is real, then isn’t it a miracle?

- if you don’t expect miracles in the form of benefits, why pray at all?

Indeed, most spells that appeal to a deity are only about obtaining a specific material benefit, and not at all the salvation of the soul. By flipping through the thick prayer book, you can find a spell to suit every taste. After this, how can an ordinary parishioner not believe in miracles? Therefore, one or another Orthodox Christian constantly prays, hoping for a new apartment, a promotion, getting rid of harmful neighbors, and the like.

The clergy constantly quotes those lines of Scripture that say that one must ask and it will be given. Therefore, priests will never tell a parishioner that one should not expect miracles and therefore there is no need to pray. Without prayer, the whole meaning of personal appeal to the deity is completely lost. But what if in real life what you ask for is not given? Pastors explain these cases by insufficient zeal in prayer and sternly instruct those who doubt - faith does not tolerate doubt!

However, what is good for zombified Orthodox Christians is not enough to attract new adherents of the faith, and another eternal question arises - what to do? How to convince potential parishioners of the real existence of an invisible deity in order to continue fooling them?

The idea of the priests is simple, but by no means ingenious.

To be convinced of the existence of the unknowable and invisible, people are offered to read spells of a special kind until they go crazy, calling on Him and asking Him to give strength to believe in Him.

It looks very strange, but such oddities are common among believers.

In essence, these spells are a kind of meditation or primitive auto-training, when you need to focus on one, maximum two thoughts. Any psychologist will say that if a sensitive person (this does not always mean the presence of a shattered psyche) constantly evokes in himself a desire to feel something, it is likely that he will feel this something more clearly and sharply. This is a feature of the psychological structure of the individual, sometimes leading to its disorder (“If you gaze for a long time into an abyss, then the abyss will begin to peer into you” (Nietzsche).

Indeed, people who are exhausted by frequent lack of sleep, malnutrition (fasting) and various everyday troubles may experience some strange sensations during intense prayers that they have not previously experienced. In these cases, the ministers of worship will solemnly proclaim that the efforts of the person praying were not in vain and he felt His breath, His grace, etc.

Only a rare temple minister, capable not of ostentation, but of real everyday compassion, will advise not to rejoice at unusual sensations and visions, but to make an appointment with the appropriate doctor.

So what do you do with those who sincerely believe that they have comprehended something special and offer you the technique that they used so “successfully”?

Votes for the chosen ones

Imagine a person who has never walked along mountain trails, but decided to go on such a hike alone and without any preparation. Fearing for his life and health, his friends dissuade him from taking an unwise step. However, he stands his ground, repeating only one argument in favor of his intention: he feels that he must do it!

-Where did you get this feeling? - friends ask.

- It arose in the depths of my soul and does not give me peace, I feel its indisputable truth, therefore I will gladly submit to it! I'm going to the mountains!

In this situation, there is still a faint hope of convincing a friend, preoccupied with the idea of a mountain hike, of the mortal danger of this event.

Now imagine a similar situation, differing from the one described above in only one way - your friend refers not only to a certain feeling, but also to a certain voice that he clearly hears, saying something like the following:

- Go where I say! Don't listen to anyone but Me! You are much better than others, for you are the chosen one. After all, only you hear My Voice!

Having heard about the voice in the head of the “chosen one,” friends understand that their friend has simply gone crazy and further convictions about the harmfulness of his intentions are completely useless.

As mentioned above, after intense prayers and spells, some strange sensations may appear. If they are short-term, infrequent, and the “chosen one” manages to avoid meetings with the clinic, then he can continue to carry out his usual work activities and communicate normally with other people.

But as soon as you touch on the topic of religion and try to express doubt about the existence of someone who is the object of worship of a believer, everything immediately changes. At best, an adherent of the faith will look at you with mild reproach and condescendingly say:

- You are wrong! He is there and waiting for you to open the door for him.

These words make many believers happy, but the motivation here is often different:

“It’s good that he won’t show up without my invitation!” - those who believe in the Omnipresent, but are not eager to meet him soon, think with relief. After all, there are only two possible options for this meeting - after your death, or during the onset of the apocalypse, which also does not contribute to optimism.

Conclusion

Christians will never agree with the arguments that it was not God who invented man, but man who invented God, because then they would cease to be who they are. Therefore, they will ignore all the contradictions of Scripture - believers are sure that if you do not pay attention to the absurdities, then they do not exist.

Of course, you can try to ask them how they can put up with the heavy hand of the Lord if he is All-Merciful and All-Good? But you won't get a clear answer. Forget about logic, when you communicate with Christians, their minds easily accept the assumption that the Supreme Personality can be both a great villain and a great benefactor. Moreover, many Christians sincerely rejoice at the vengefulness and cruelty of their deity, otherwise how can one explain such mantras, so popular among them:

- He will reward you! He will punish you! He will send hellish torments upon you!

You can try to use this manual to convince the Orthodox, but it will be very difficult, because real religious fanaticism is practically incurable.

And in general, it is advisable to argue with Christians about their faith only in cases where they are able to listen to the arguments of their opponents, and not accuse them of all sins. But there are very few of them. We can only hope that some Christians will be able to think with an open mind about the truth of what they are told to believe, and will find freedom - at least in their thoughts.

I know from myself that this is possible.

¹Recommended: Sam Harris ("The End of Faith"), Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion"), Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Love"), Paul Henri Holbach ("Gallery of Saints or a Study of the Thought, Behavior, Rules and Merits of Those persons whom Christianity offers as models"). In these books, concrete facts confirm the cruelty of religious doctrines, incl. Christianity.

Illustration: painting by Vasya Lozhkin