Now about faith and the Church - more precisely, about the fact that these things are completely different and the first does fine without the second. I have been hearing about this for twenty years, but this idea is heard especially often in Last year, in the wake of an anti-church media campaign.

The subject is both simple and complex at the same time. Simple - because from a theological point of view, everything is really quite transparent here. If we are talking, of course, about faith in Christ, and not about some kind of spherical faith in a vacuum, faith in "something like that." The Church is not a human invention, it was founded by Christ Himself, and to argue with this fact is the same as to reject the Gospel.

Now about complexity. The difficulty is that this above reasoning means nothing to many people who do not believe in Christ, but in "something like that." This "something there" they can even call a word God, may even Christ call. In fact, the object of their faith is an explosive mixture of their own fantasies, pieces of the Bible torn with meat and ... and some strange sensation, the breath of something unearthly. Calling a spade a spade - the human soul is a Christian by nature and reaches out to Christ, feels Him - not seeing, not understanding. So a person blind from birth can perceive the sun - not as light, but as heat of a special kind, different from the heat of the stove.

Is it faith? Maybe yes. Faith is, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "the assurance of invisible things." Is it faith in Christ? I can't give a definite answer here. On the one hand, the One Whose touch is felt by the heart of such a person who believes in “something there” is indeed our Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the mental construct that such people take as the object of their faith may have the most distant relation to Christ. No matter how they call it: "World Mind", "Soul of the World", "Higher Principle", "Providence", and even Christ - they composed it themselves, molded it in their own image and likeness. They invented for themselves such a god, with whom it is convenient, faith in which gives psychological comfort, caresses the mind with participation in something sublime.

Sometimes such faith does not require anything from a person at all, does not limit anything, and moreover, it helps to justify oneself if one's conscience gnaws. But sometimes such a faith also implies some self-limitations - as a rule, an arbitrary selection of the Ten Commandments (which is typical, the first commandment, the one about loyalty to the one God, is never included in such a selection). A person, having invented a faith for himself, can sincerely try not to steal, not to bear false witness, not to fornicate - because these restrictions correspond to his invention. But if he falls into sins, then he becomes ashamed not before this invented god, but before himself.

In other words, within the framework of such faith, God is perceived as something inseparable from yourself, as some kind of your higher “I”, your ideal image. If you turn to God "You" - in fact, you still turn to yourself.

I know this well myself. He himself was like that from the age of sixteen to almost twenty-six. I felt some breath of God, but no matter how I interpreted it! Both in the self-made understanding of the Gospel, and according to Daniil Andreev (whose poetic I still do not deny the gift), and according to Kabbalah (about which I read one and a half articles in the yellow press), and according to Carlos Castaneda (I studied this thoroughly). But I perceived the Church as a purely human notion, a bunch of dark people, unable to rise to such deep reasoning. Funny.

But even in such a ridiculous, artificial faith, there is still some quiet echo of the true faith. It's 99 percent fantasy, but never one hundred percent. There is always some, albeit microscopic, chance that a believer in a god invented by himself will suddenly come to his senses and believe in the True God. This very “God in the soul” may turn out to be a transitional stage between complete unbelief and genuine Christianity. Unfortunately, many people get stuck on it forever.

In general, Alexander Galich spoke much better about such naive god-building in the poem “Psalm”:

B. Chichibabin

I went out in search of God.

It's already dawn in the foothills.

And I needed a little

Two handfuls of clay in total.

And from the mountains I went down to the valley,

He lit a fire over the river,

And red viscous clay

In the palms he kneaded and rubbed.

What did I know at that time about God

At the quiet dawn of being?

I sculpted arms and legs

And I sculpted my head.

And full of foreboding vague

I dreamed, by the light of fire,

That He will be kind and wise,

That He will take pity on me!

When did he fade, this long

Day of fears, hopes and sorrows -

My god, made of clay

Told me

Go and kill!

And the years have passed.

All the same, but only rougher,

My god, made of words,

He told me:

Go and kill!

And I walked along the path of dust,

Burdock drank into my dress,

And God, made of fear,

whispered to me:

Go and kill!

But again I'm sad and stern

In the morning I go out of the door -

In Search of a Good God

And, oh, God help me!

Galich wrote this in 1971. A year later, he received the sacrament of Baptism in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Served as a private opinion of the author.

With the story of Moses

I disagree with my story.

He fiction wanted to capture a Jew,

He importantly lied and listened to him.

I do not need an important rank of a prophet!

Those figures of the Judeo-Christian cult who are trying to distort everything, from science to the classics of Russian literature, to saddle everything and everything, arranging it to please themselves, who stuck their filthy snouts into the works of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and tried, for example, to replace the "priest" with “merchant” in the work of A. S. Pushkin “The Tale of the Priest and the Worker of His Bulldozer” (referring in this moment to the authority of A. S. Pushkin’s friend V. A. Zhukovsky, who, in turn, made this substitution when publishing Pushkin's legacy due to church censorship) - these figures declare that Alexander Sergeevich was a “believing Christian” (among followers of the Judeo-Christian cult, the word “believer” is falsely identified with the words “church”, “churched”) and, allegedly, he could not write about the priest “such things” .

In order to dispel doubts that the most educated A.S. Pushkin (in the first half of the 19th century!), In fact, was a prisoner of the all-suppressing demonic Judeo-Christian cult (I emphasize, not true Christianity, but Judeo-Christianity!), but remained, at the same time, very appropriate, critical thinking person — below is a selection of his poetic works . These passages very picturesquely show how Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin was adequate to the surrounding reality with his worldview, his worldview, how much he doubted, ironically and mocked these costumed priestly ritual dogmatic ideas, as well as over the very archetypal mores of the so-called "Russian clergy."

When reading Pushkin, one must clearly realize that it was extremely difficult for him to write anything that poses key ideological questions openly, especially in the first person or on behalf of the positive characters of his works, therefore, for example, in Gavriiliada, the passage “I do not agree with the story of Moses my story,” he put into the mouth of the demon. But the questions are raised and the answers are extremely serious. Such a formulation of questions, at least, encourages a normal reader to look for answers on their own. Namely, this was exactly what the poet-prophet, "the belly of the voice," required.

The main milestone in the persecution of Pushkin was his Gavriiliada, in which he debunked (of course, as mentioned above - through the mouth of a demon) the institution of prophets (But, believe me, I am not a court historian, I don’t need an important rank of a prophet!), then is, one of the foundations of church dogma. In the same place, Pushkin ridiculed "church anthropomorphism", that is, giving human qualities to someone who is not a man (God), and, consequently, the whole church concept of God and worship. For this, he, at least, shone a life sentence in Shlisselburg.

When “church clouds” began to gather over Pushkin, Nikolai Pavlovich (Nicholas I, crowned August 22, 1826) summoned him to him for an explanation.

On the night of September 3-4, 1826, a messenger arrives in Mikhailovskoye from the Pskov governor B. A. Aderkas: Pushkin, accompanied by a courier, should appear in Moscow, where Nicholas I was at that time.

On September 8, immediately after his arrival, Pushkin was brought to the emperor for a personal audience. The conversation between Nikolai and Pushkin took place face to face and lasted several hours. The emperor commented on this meeting: "Today I spoke with the smartest husband of Russia." As a result, Nicholas I took Pushkin under his patronage, the poet was freed from the usual censorship, and the emperor declared to the Synod (in writing): “I know who wrote the Gavriiliada. Leave Pushkin alone. This can be understood in two ways: 1. “I know that the author of the Gavriiliada is Pushkin, but he is under my protection. Leave him alone"; 2. “I know that the author of the Gavriiliada is not Pushkin. Leave him alone". And the Synod, due to subordination, could not demand any additional explanations from the emperor, and was forced to obey.

After a conversation with Emperor Nicholas I, Pushkin by no means abandoned his convictions, but now he was forced to encrypt his thoughts with the second semantic series (“... an old woman, long deprived of her intuition and hearing” - this is he about the church in “The House in Kolomna”) .

There is the following fact from the life of the poet: Before his death, Pushkin confessed, took communion of the "Holy Mysteries of Christ" and forgave all his enemies and ill-wishers. The priest who performed the "Sacrament of Confession" admitted: "You may not believe me, but I will say that I myself wish for such an end as he had."

Yes, Pushkin, before his death, "partook of the mysteries of Christ," one must understand, repented and "became churched." But by this formal fact one cannot judge Pushkin as a supporter of the Judeo-Christian cult.

Being near death, he could not help but think about what would happen to his family. And Pushkin had a debt of 200,000 rubles - an amount, at that time, absolutely catastrophic. And then he, being on his deathbed, receives a letter from the emperor. Here is the full text of this letter: “If God does not order us to see each other in this world, then accept my forgiveness and advice to die as a Christian and take communion, but do not worry about your wife and children. They will be my children and I will take them into my care.”

From this letter it appears that:

1. "Counsel to die like a Christian" ..? And who else could the Russian poet Pushkin die in Russia of the 19th century, if not a Christian ..? Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, anyone else..? The fact that the emperor emphasizes, this is what indirectly proves that Pushkin revealed to him in their many hours of conversation on September 8, 1826 as, at a minimum, a person “believer without a church”, that Nicholas I knew that Pushkin, at least, does not belong to the Orthodox Church of Russia, so he will most likely refuse the dying "sacraments". But how then will the emperor explain himself to the Synod - why did he patronize the "godless" and "blasphemer", who, even on his deathbed, challenged the church, and after his death took his family under his protection? And what right, after that, will he have to demand something from the Synod? The emperor knew Pushkin well, and in his last address to him, when much needs to be said, he says: "die a Christian" as the main theme and main discourse of Pushkin's life.

2. The word "advice" from the pen of the emperor takes on a completely different meaning than a banal recommendation. Does he have nothing else to do but delve into other people's problems and give advice? Therefore, one who, having received “advice” from the emperor, ignores him, can no longer count not only on his favor, but also on communication with him, as such. Like that. This, of course, was not an ultimatum, but, due to the lack of other topics in this letter, the urgent request is visible here very clearly: “I know your attitude towards the church. But understand my position and do not set me or your family up, then I can calmly take her into care.

3. Nicholas I, in fact, proposed to agree that the words of the priest who conducted the “sacrament”, in essence, are neutral - they do not prove or refute anything, and they can be interpreted in different ways, in their own way.

* * *

I did not believe in the trinity until now
The triple god seemed to me all wise;
But I see you and, gifted with faith,
I pray to three graces in one goddess

* * *

We will amuse good citizens
And at the pillar of shame
The gut of the last priest
We will strangle the last king.

* * *

GAVRILIADA

With the story of Moses
I disagree with my story.
He wanted to captivate the Jew with fiction,
He lied importantly, and they listened to him.
God rewarded in him a syllable and a submissive mind,
Moses became a famous master,
But believe me, I am not a court historian,
I do not need an important rank of a prophet!

In the heat of love it trembles and coos,
And falls, embraced by a light sleep,
Falling the flower of love with a wing.
He flew away. Tired Mary
I thought: “What a prank!
One two Three! How are they not lazy?
I can say that I suffered anxiety:
I got it on the same day
Evil, archangel and god.
Almighty God, as usual, then
Recognized as his Jewish maiden son,
But Gabriel (enviable fate!)
He did not stop appearing to her secretly;
Like many, Joseph was comforted,
He is still sinless before his wife,
He loved Christ like his son,
For that the Lord rewarded him!

* * *

<В. Л. ДАВЫДОВУ>

Meanwhile, as General Orlov -
Shaved Hymen Recruit -
burning with sacred passion,
Ready to go to measure;
Meanwhile, how are you, smart prankster,
You spend the night in a noisy conversation,
And for bottles of AI
My Rayevskys are sitting -
When spring is young everywhere
With a smile, she dissolved the dirt,
And from grief on the banks of the Danube
Our armless prince is rebelling...
You, Raevsky and Orlov,
And loving the memory of Kamenka -
I want to say two words to you
About Chisinau and about myself. —
These days, [among] the cathedral,
Metropolitan, gray-haired glutton,
Before lunch casually
He ordered to live long throughout Russia
And with the son of Bird and Mary
Went to be christened in paradise...
I became smart, [I] hypocrite -
I fast, I pray and I firmly believe
That God will forgive my sins
Like a sovereign, my poems.
Inzov is fasting, and the other day
I changed my boyfriend<сски>nonsense
And the lyre, sinful gift of fate,
For hours and for lunch,
Yes, dried mushrooms.
However, my proud mind
my raska<янье>scolds
And my poor stomach
"Have mercy, brother, - speaks, -
Whenever the blood of Christ
There was at least, for example, lafitte ...
Or clo-d-vougho, then not a word,
And then - think how funny! —
Moldavian wine with water.
But I pray and sigh...
I am baptized, I will not heed Satan ...
And involuntarily I remember
Davydov, about your fault...
Here is the Eucharist [other],
When both you and dear brother,
Putting on in front of the fireplace
Democratic robe,
Salvation cup filled
Foamless, frozen stream,
And for the health of those and that
To the bottom, to the drop they drank! ..
But those in Naples are naughty,
And she is unlikely to resurrect there ...
The people of silence want
And for a long time their yoke will not crack.
Has the ray of hope disappeared?
But no! - we will enjoy happiness,
blood bowl<ей>let's take communion -
And I will say: Christ is risen.

1821

And “for a snack”, A. S. Pushkin’s announcement-call against bondage, information slavery, which always underlies physical slavery:

* * *

The sower goes out to sow his seeds.

Desert sower of freedom,
I left early, before the star;
By a pure and innocent hand
In enslaved reins
Threw a life-giving seed -
But I only lost time
Good thoughts and works....
Graze, peaceful peoples!
The cry of honor will not wake you up.
Why do the herds need the gifts of freedom?
They must be cut or sheared.
Their inheritance from generation to generation
A yoke with rattles and a scourge.*

Religion is a complex of ideas. They are put into practice by an active subject, i.e. the church (organization) and circles around the church.
The Church is called upon to help the government when the latter expresses the interests of a minority that manipulates the majority in its own selfish interests, that is, when authoritarian regime. Such a regime is forced to fool society so that it cannot resist it in an organized manner, and religion is the best way to fool it. Religion bypasses the critical mind and appeals directly to the feelings of a person, inspiring him in this way with the necessary ideas. Such a person easily becomes a zombie and votes for those who hold candles in the temple during mass prayers widely covered by the media...

Religious faith - not based on logical conclusions and scientific data, confidence in the real existence of supernatural beings. beings, properties, relationships. religion faith. represents the main sign of religion consciousness, determines the cult of religions, experiences and behavior of believers. In theology, the faith of religion. is considered either as an integral property of the human soul, or as a grace bestowed by God, that is, as a phenomenon of a transcendental nature.
In fact, the ability to believe is due to social. human nature, and the transformation of this ability into the faith of religions. caused by social conditions that give rise to the need of the masses for religion. religious faith, as an element of the psyche of believers, is a complex formation, including intellect., emotional. and volitional moments. Intelligence. religious faith element. is a collection of religions. ideas, images that are in the minds of believers. Since these ideas cannot be scientifically proven and substantiated, and at the same time are evaluated by believers as vital, then a large role in the faith of religions. acquires emotion. element. Theologians, trying to elevate the faith of religions, declare it to be the highest. manifestation of the human. consciousness: higher. morals. a value higher than reason, a form of knowledge, which contradicts the data of science and practice.
The elimination of social factors of religiosity, the assimilation of scientific knowledge leads to the overcoming of religious faith.

When a believer begins to think, he forgets to believe. And if he works, and does not sit idle thinking, and in fact, in essence, not knowing what, all the more so. Get busy, believer scientific activity... “In all cases known to me, believing physicists and astronomers in their scientific works do not mention a word about God. They simultaneously live, as it were, in two worlds - one material, and the other some kind of transcendent, divine. They seem to have a splitting of the psyche. Being engaged in concrete scientific activity, the believer, in fact, forgets about God, acts in the same way as an atheist. Thus, the compatibility of doing science with faith in God is by no means identical with the compatibility of faith in God with scientific thinking ”V. L. Ginzburg

"Myths about atheism"
"16 clear theses about what atheism is and what it is not."

"Modern Religion as a Game"
"The article "Modern Religion as a Game" by Sergei Soldatkin reveals new aspects of religious consciousness in modern world: a totally playful, postmodern attitude to religious ideas and cult.

I am baptized, but not converted. My family is not religious, my mother believes in God, but she does not go to church, and my father is an atheist. For me, religion and faith are completely different things. Religion is the observance of some rituals and rules, while faith is what really leads to God. After all, you can be unbaptized, not fast, not go to church and not read prayers, but at the same time lead an honest life, do not violate the commandments, not succumb to temptations, love and help others, turn to God not by prayer, but in your own words, but sincerely from the heart. Do not go to church for confession, but at the same time sincerely repent of your sins and ask for forgiveness from God. And you can outwardly observe all the rituals and wear a cross and at the same time not strive with your soul. I assume that religion is given as a guide. But is it possible that a person who believes and truly follows the laws of God, but does not go to church, can not deserve forgiveness? Moreover, the church itself makes me big ...

With the story of Moses

I disagree with my story.

He wanted to captivate the Jew with fiction,

He lied importantly, and they listened to him.

God rewarded in him a syllable and a submissive mind,

Moses became a famous master,

But, believe me, I am not a court historian,

I do not need an important rank of a prophet!

Those figures of the Judeo-Christian cult who are trying to distort everything, from science to the classics of Russian literature, to saddle everything and everything, arranging it to please themselves, who stuck their filthy snouts into the works of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and tried, for example, to replace the "priest" with “merchant” in the work of A. S. Pushkin “The Tale of the Priest and the Worker of His Bulldozer” (referring in this moment to the authority of A. S. Pushkin’s friend V. A. Zhukovsky, who, in turn, made this substitution when publishing Pushkin's heritage - due to church censorship) - these figures declare, de, Alexander Sergeevich was a "believing Christian" (followers ...

What is the difference between faith and religion, and why it is necessary to follow all the rites and traditions in the Native Faith

Now, on the Internet among Rodnovers, there are rather strange rumors:
all sides hear "it's Dolboslavs came up with baptism",
“baptism was invented by the Jews, go to your synagogue”, “if you want
cross yourself - go hit your head, maybe it will help", "Faith must be
in the heart, and if it becomes a religion, then faith is dead”, “faith and
religion are different things”, “I don’t need any rituals, the main thing is that I
I believe”, “if in order to believe it is necessary to carry out some rituals, then
this is already sectarianism", "and if a person has not passed the rites, then to him
treated like shit?”, “why do you have dedicated only Slavs, faith
it is for everyone, not for the elite, you assert yourself and exalt yourself
at the expense of others”… And the like. The worst thing they say
especially for beginners who still do not know how to distinguish ...

The Contemplator said: ...

Firstly, it seems to me that religion and faith are completely different things. Even the answer to the question “why is it needed?” it will be different for them.

Faith is a subtle matter that everyone “creates” for himself on his own. It may coincide with the church dogmas of the chosen religion, or it may be outside of religions altogether. Real faith is a subconscious belief in something. In the existence of life after death, in the presence of God or gods, in the fact that old people and children should not be harmed, or in the fact that a black cat crossing the road will certainly bring bad luck.

Religion is a system. Quite logical, built by more than one person and not for one person. World religions unite great amount people, and their dogmas have been developed over the centuries. By the way, not least these "rules" depended on the current political, economic and cultural situation in society.

I cannot say with certainty that these are the only reasons for the appearance of religion, ...

Articles - FOUNDATIONS OF FAITH

Does a believer need a church?

From time to time one has to hear that faith and the Church are completely different things that are not connected with each other, that faith can quite do without the Church. Is it so?

The ancient philosopher Aristotle advised to start any reasoning with the definition of concepts - what exactly do we call this or that word? What is faith? This word can mean different things. Sometimes it is just an unwillingness to come to terms with the meaninglessness of the world, with eternal non-existence as the result of everything: “if they bury it - the burdock will grow”, sometimes it is a vague feeling of the presence of something incomprehensibly high and beautiful. sometimes, in a moment of trouble or danger, a request for help and protection addressed to someone is often not even very clear to whom. Sometimes it's just an acknowledgment that God probably exists somewhere out there, outside of my life and everything I deal with.

Such a faith, of course, can do without the Church - and excellent ...

Sanity. Faith and religion are different things. Faith is a state of mind. Watchman Nee wrote that Faith is the norm, atheism is an anomaly. God Himself does not care what clothes Vera dresses in ( New Testament. Acts.) Religion is an INSTITUTE, a creation of people, adapted to state of the art spirituality of human society, culture, way of life, political structure of society. Religion can be altered to the requirements of the moment, adjusted again to please political system and the ruling elite, which is now being done, for example, with the history of Rus'. Faith remains unchanged, regardless of the environment and conditions of life. Religion easily manipulates the masses of people, entire nations (Crusades, etc.). To manipulate the consciousness of religion, they use entire systems of false symbols literally imposed on believers (How and with what to be baptized, the place of Jesus in the Holy Trinity, and the Trinity ITSELF, etc.) You can believe NON-RELIGIOUS. Without rituals, crawling on your knees, without Christmas, but then life will become fresher, won't it? ...

Let's start with the fact that Jesus himself did not recommend drawing icons - "Do not make an idol." Where is the idol, this is an idol.
Well, where you retreat once, so the second time and the third.
but truth is born in a dispute)

Now, if you believed, for real, you'd run every Sunday to church and keep everything.
For you would believe in Hell.
But you are of little faith. And you do not believe in Hell, and therefore in salvation.

and in what God to believe, if the Church does not go? what kind of church is it proposed not to go to?

Read Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is within us"

Let's begin with that…

05.04.2012 00:00

| Print | Email

“The church is stench and twilight,
Deacons smoke incense.
No! And it's not like that in the church
Everything is not right.”
V.S. Vysotsky

Curious statistics were published by the Nezavisimaya newspaper in the Religions supplement (dated April 4, 2012). The question that was asked to the respondents was: “Do the scandals now being discussed in the media influence your attitude towards the Church?” Of interest are the statements of some respondents about their attitude to the church, the understanding that faith in God (faith in God) and faith in the church are two completely opposite things.

Below is the publication in full. The following books are devoted to the issues of religion and faith in God in KOB: “Master and Margarita: a hymn to demonism? or the Gospel of Selfless Faith?”, “Issues of the Hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church”, the training course “Comparative Theology” and other works.

Scandals of faith are not a hindrance

The Russians have decided on their attitude towards…

I believe in God but I don't believe in religion

Explanatory Dictionary of V.I.Dal

FAITH
confidence, conviction, firm consciousness, the concept of something, especially about higher, immaterial, spiritual objects; | belief; the absence of any doubt or hesitation about the existence and essence of God; unconditional recognition of the truths revealed by God; | the totality of the teachings accepted by the people, religion, confession, law (God's, church, spiritual), religion, church, spiritual brotherhood. | Confidence, firm hope, hope, expectation; | old oath, oath. Blind faith is contrary to reason.

RELIGION
faith, spiritual faith, confession, worship, or basic spiritual beliefs. religious rite, a rite of faith. A religious person, a believer, firm in faith.

Quite often I ask myself the question what does a person mean when he says that he believes or does not believe in God? As it turned out, this is an interesting question, because the answers can be shocking. May be…

Religion is the form in which a person's desire to join something lofty is clothed. Faith is a feeling that comes from the very depths of human essence, giving an understanding of the correctness of actions. Faith is content. Passing off religion as faith, people started wars and destroyed other people's lives by the millions. Believing in themselves, in God and their deeds, people committed deeds that should not be forgotten. With the help of religion, a person joins the common thought. He is in society and he is comfortable as long as he follows the interests of this society. Faith gives a person freedom for any chosen business and does not limit anything. The substitution of the concepts of religion and faith is obvious, and reasonable people see through such a phenomenon, always realizing what is good and what is evil. Faith serves as a shield and sword for a person in the struggle with himself and life's troubles. Man serves religion and gives his all, thinking that the "truth" of society's values ​​is unshakable. A believing person is very good at distinguishing between good and evil, understanding ...

Religion and Faith are two different things! Religion- for the most part hypocrisy. Faith is always needed by a person, and religion is fanaticism and window dressing ...

I say it exactly the opposite.
I am religious, but not devout, I do not believe.

Quote(Maariet@27-02-2006, 2:47 pm)

faith - faith in the god of thunder - this is a kind of worship, because any
faith is part of worship, just distorted

Hello to you! Where do people hear that the pagans WORSHIP the gods? Worship implies slavery. The pagans HONORED, HONORED the gods as their ancestors. That is why we often remember the names of our girls and great-great relatives for interest or in search of a name.
It was so, so it was, so it will be!
Worshiping the gods is fanaticism. The window dressing that the media occupies is generally a sin according to Orthodoxy. Try asking to take a picture with a monk from the Pechora Monastery… the answer will be a slamming door in front of your nose. Every monk who got into ...

Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun):
The church is a place of fellowship with God, but you can often hear from people "outside" that they do not need "intermediaries". Why is the Church needed if you can communicate with God on your own?
– Christ said: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). The Church implies both vertical and horizontal fellowship, and the first cannot exist without the second. The way the world works is that in order to meet God, people must first meet each other. The nature of communion with God implies participation. Otherwise, a person may be in the grip of illusions, his mystical experience may turn out to be a fantasy, being fundamentally subjective. This may seem unconvincing to some, but there are questions that remain a matter of faith. Faith is impossible to prove. It can only be accepted, cognized, experienced on one's own experience.

priest Daniel (Sysoev):
The Church is not an administrative institution, and not even just a gathering of co-religionists. This…

Are Faith and Religion Different Concepts?

Are Faith and Religion Different Concepts? I am completely entangled in my own contradictions. My religious upbringing as a child was zero. My grandmother, whom I went to instead of kindergarten and after classes at school, was absolutely unbelieving, had an angelic character and was generally a golden person.

Are Faith and Religion Different Concepts? I am completely entangled in my own contradictions.

My religious upbringing as a child was zero. My grandmother, to whom I went instead of kindergarten and after classes at school, was an absolutely unbeliever (she comes from a family of pre-revolutionary teachers), had an angelic character and was generally a golden person. She devoted her life to the family, raising children, often had to move around the cities (industrial construction sites) with her grandfather. A wonderful hostess, she cooked well, but she never baked pasok. There were no icons. Yes, and imagine my grandmother, even at 70 years old in a scarf, I ...

Now, on the Internet among Rodnovers, there are rather strange rumors:
all sides hear "the Dolboslavs came up with baptism",
"baptism was invented by the Jews, go to your synagogue", "if you want
cross yourself - go hit your head, maybe it will help", "Faith must be
in the heart, and if it becomes a religion, then faith is dead", "faith and
religion are different things", "I don't need any rituals, the main thing is that I
believe", "if in order to believe it is necessary to carry out some rituals, then
this is already sectarianism", "and if a person has not passed the rites, then to him
treated like shit?", "why do you only initiate Slavs, faith
it is for everyone, not for the elite, you assert yourself and exalt yourself
at the expense of others.” And the like. The worst thing they say
especially for beginners who still do not know how to distinguish right from left, not to mention
already about how to recognize the catch.

Now let's try to deal with these provisions.
First.
What is faith and religion? Once upon a time, about 15 years ago, when I was
As a Christian, I got a little carried away with Protestantism. Protestants lead
active preaching, but they do not conduct any rites at all, except
communion. This was somewhat embarrassing for the new converts, because it was precisely
Orthodox. Therefore, Protestant theologians have deduced the formula that Faith and
Religion - different things. Priests are engaged in religion, but after one and a half
they have no faith left for a millennium, and waving a censer in itself is still
not faith, and indeed, the actions of the priests clearly show that by faith
they don't smell. Maybe that's how it is in Christianity. But after so much
time, they applied this formula against resurgent paganism.

Our
ancestors, pagans, were very religious people. They zealously
performed most of the rites of the annual cycle, even after
Christianity destroyed the priestly class. And not only performed, but also
taught children. It is thanks to this that so many rituals have come down to us and
traditions. Remember how mothers and grandmothers, even in Soviet times,
painted krashanki on Velikden, baked pancakes on Maslenitsa, cooked kutya
for all new year holidays and so on. Many traditions have been lost, but
they were lost only at the time of the scoop, when the violent
collectivization and "fight against survivals".

All this is clearly
shows that our ancestors had exactly religion, and with a very
developed cults. And do you know why? You don't know, but Christians do. IN
One of Paul's epistles says "Faith without works is dead." And "deeds" are
nothing but ritual. Our ancestors believed that if no one
does not paint Easter eggs on Great Day, then in that year the world will collapse. Don't know,
whether the world will collapse or not, but in this example you can imagine, on
how important it was for our ancestors to follow traditions. And exactly
thanks to this, traditions have come down to us, even if through the prism
dual faith.

And now the Christians have decided to strike at our traditions. Without them, our faith will not survive more than one generation.

Know
if a person tells you about the mythical "faith in the heart", then he himself either
our enemy, or be deceived by the enemy. Only those can be considered Rodnovers
of us who not only follow traditions as far as possible, but also teach
follow the traditions of their children and even grandchildren. The rest just came
hang out.
Further. About Dolboslavs and baptism. Many people think that
baptism is a ritual invented by the Jews, which was picked up by
modern dolboslavs.

And how are things really?
First, baptism indeed exists among many peoples, including Jews, but this does not mean that all these peoples are Jews.
Second: no matter how Christians puffed up, but they themselves have an interesting rite of de-Muslimization.
Third: one of the magical laws says "for every [magical] action there is a reaction."
Fourth: DESCEPENSION NOT ONLY HAPPENED TO OUR ANCESTORS, IT EVEN HAPPENED TO HISTORICAL SOURCES!!!

Here
one of them: "Heinrich of Latvia notes mass cases of baptism
population of the Baltic states at the end of the 12th century. Livs "began to pour water over
Dvina," saying, "So we wash away the water of baptism with river water, and together
Christianity itself; the faith we have accepted we forever abandon and send away
following the departing Saxons."

Moreover, even the Christians themselves carried out the desensitization:

"The Nikonian Reform:

N. Nikolsky "History of the Russian Church":

"IN
In the 80s, the prophet Vasily Zheltovsky appeared in the Voronezh district,
who even generally denied any prayer in the temple, for "God is not in
temple, but in heaven,” and denied the sacraments (“the body and blood of Christ in no
what was imputed"). A baptism performed in a church was considered an imposition
the seal of the Antichrist; she had to be washed away (literally) by a second baptism in
"Yerdan", i.e. in any clean river, and the baptists were
also local prophets, like Vasily Emelyanov and Vasily Zaitsev in
Vologda region."

What is actually baptism and why do Christian waiters react so aggressively against it?
First. It is absolutely in vain that you think that the Christian deity is not
exists. It still exists, but what kind of deity is this? In the book of Genesis
it is described how Yahweh attacked Yaakov in the middle of the night and Yaakov defeated him. A
then Yahweh asked to be released, because he was afraid of the dawn, and wounded
Jacob's leg so that he limped.
Now think about what it is
a deity that even a man who is afraid of the dawn can defeat,
and which causes lameness? We also had such a deity, but
it was called the Devil - just as afraid of the dawn and his followers, as well as
he himself, limped, and it was not difficult for the heroes to defeat him. No,
of course, Yahweh is not a Devil, but his close counterpart from the Semitic pantheon.

Second.
Baptism, like circumcision of the foreskin, is nothing but
connection to this deity. Only baptism for the servants of God, and
circumcision for those who made a covenant with him.

Yahweh pulls from people
energy, which by the way distributes among his followers - this is
explains Christian healings and other jokes that otherwise
cannot be explained by magic. But those he draws from look depressed
emotional, often commit suicide, etc.

In
the time of baptism, this connection is interrupted. The person becomes free.
And the subsequent rite of naming attaches a person to his family and
Gods Ancestors. The fact is that our ancestors did not consider children to be complete.
people, before going through a series of initiations and the rite of naming, which
meant adulthood. Why? Because there was a very large nursery
mortality, and in order to be called a man, one had first to grow to
adult age. By the way, the Slavs bathed every evening and washed their children,
as they believed that this would wash away the evil eye or corruption from them. They
intuitively guessed that hygiene improves health, although they did not know
how to explain it. Other nations did not even do that. Especially
Christian, since Christianity just forbade washing "because
baptism can be washed away."

I also observed such Rodnovers whom
Dolboslavs did not baptize when they named. In particular
famous untermensch Bogumil Murin, due to monkey intelligence (and why
you wanted from a chock?) held a name for one minor
boy, but did not conduct a baptism. This boy has now moved to
Kyiv and I have the opportunity to observe how it is literally torn into two
parts. He even dreams of laying hands on himself. If he does this, then
only Murin will be to blame, and the Slavic Gods will ask him for
that he called himself a Slavic sorcerer, not being a Slav, and for the fact that
did not observe rituals and thereby ruined his life, like this boy,
and the rest, whom I also forgot to baptize. And he himself is already after death
earned in full.

Now let's talk about the psychological aspect.
baptism. If a person refuses to pass it, then the head of the community
one should think: what is this person doing here if he is not going to
abandon Christianity? Are his intentions really that serious?
Native Vera? Doesn't he conduct subversive activities within the community? A
does he not, by refusing to baptize, leave a path of retreat? After all, in
you can always return to the bosom of the church, the main thing is not to go through the “Dolboslav
rites."

Yes, it should be noted that many were not baptized. But
even they will have to undergo purification rites before naming, because
initiation is like a birth in a new status, which means you have to be clean and
body and soul for such an event.

Now with regards to the ceremony of naming. As we know, there are Rodnovers
of two types - those initiated into the Native Faith and those not initiated. Gossips
call it sectarianism. But note that any religion conducts
initiations for their followers, whether they are coming-of-age initiations,
as in all ethnic religions, or conversion as in religions
revelations. And what, they are also sects?
At each new level
initiations, new knowledge is given that is not available for the previous circle, but for
not initiated into the Faith and not known at all.

The layman does not know
as much as a priest should know. And that's okay - why
so much trouble common man? By the way, no one forbids us
becoming priests is the main thing for a person to study.

But there is
people who don't go through naming at all. Motivations vary from
unwillingness to change the name given by parents (although no one changes it
asks - it will remain in the passport) until, again, the mythical "faith in
heart” and unwillingness to prove something to anyone.

We people
Those who refuse to accept a name are called sympathizers. These people
sympathize with the native faith, and sometimes even help in many
organizational matters. But what is the price of such help?

Many do not
want to undergo this rite, so that their origin would not be revealed. After all
naming is allowed only for the Slavs. Half-breeds don't even
allowed, but in view of the prevailing circumstances (globalization under
Christianity and the scoop) nevertheless, the half-breeds with the white peoples are escaping,
provided that they never become ritualists or priests.
Half-breeds from the Untermensch have no right to naming. And
when purebred Jews climb into Rodnoverie…. In general, Khinevich and Asov
have you seen.

The second do not want to go through the rite of naming,
because they are Christians who, however, like the exotic,
interesting parties, drinking with pagans in nature, entourage
barbecue trips. Although it may be Christian saboteurs.

Recently,
the Ukrainian denomination ORU got burned that allowed a sympathizer to
management of the confession, and also allowed to maintain the website of the organization. It's about
about Victoria Omelchenko. This is the PR manager of one of the Ukrainian
nationalist parties. She clung to the outdoor switchgear for necessity
get an electorate. She also sat down a couple of people capable of
engage in websites (ORU is a confession of old people, the Internet is far from
everyone, and those who have, they do not know how to use it). About a year and a half
she ran their website, communicated on behalf of the ORU. At the same time, it was frozen
passing the ceremony, then she needs Lozko herself to carry out, then a shirt
I didn’t finish it, then some more stupidity. And then suddenly got married
Orthodox Church and without the slightest twinge of conscience posted
photos from this action on all nationalist resources,
Ukrainian traditional wedding, mln. Like this.

But there were also real Rodnovers, whom Omelchenko imprisoned and kicked out of the organization ...

That's why,
sympathizers cannot be trusted, at least not until they are
showed how serious their desire to become Rodnovery.

Further.
Many do not like that Rodnoverie is a faith only for the Slavs. Which
only the arguments are not given by dolboslavs. They operate on
philanthropy, then to our self-affirmation at the expense of other peoples and races,
then they cite as an example the Einsteins and Newtons, who, despite all their
merit, we would refuse ...

Let's talk about it in order:
1.
Slavs are children Slavic Gods. Other nations are children of their Gods. You
can you take someone else's child who has a mom and dad? No it's
will be called kidnapping. Why do you think the gods are different?
2.
Self-affirmation? Well imagine a hypothetical situation. Human,
being a Western Asian, he passed a name with us and lived all his life as
righteous Slav. And when he died, his spirit comes to Veles. A
Veles to him from the threshold: “Who are you? What came here? You are a descendant of Mihra,
go to Mihra!” The spirit went to Mihra, and Mihra said to him: “How are you
you dare to come here, traitor?! You have honored foreign gods all your life,
lived by their laws, but did not fulfill our laws, did not honor their Gods, children
did not pass on the tradition, and was not even buried according to custom! And after that you
dare you to come to me?" So the soul will rush from side to side,
because she made the wrong choice during her lifetime. And of course, we are like priests,
should anticipate such a situation and protect a person from the wrong
choice. After all, the same will be asked of us later for this soul.
3. Above all
other things, representatives of other peoples do not know our culture, do not
feel it, they did not suck it in with their mother's milk, they were not sung to them in childhood
our lullabies, they didn’t tell our fairy tales, they didn’t introduce them to
our culture. Their mothers and grandmothers never celebrated our holidays
with our traditions, did not prepare ritual dishes, did not learn with them
carols. What can such a person bring to the Native Faith? Him
completely different mentality. Let's imagine, they converted to the Native Faith
caucasian. And now, at some holiday there is a brother. There is something Caucasian
took it personally from the conversation, jumps up and throws himself with a knife at
imaginary offender. Did the Slavs do this? Yes, never in my life! Or to
for example, a Slavic girl is sitting, as expected, without a hijab and without
dads with brothers. And the Caucasian begins to treat her like a whore, no
for nothing, for nothing. Would a Slav have allowed himself such behavior? But this
just flowers. Where do you think Racomols and Ynglings come from?
No, they don't fly on Whitemars, 90% of them are non-Russians and half-breeds.
They do not feel the Slavic Gods, the poet Ramhat Lokum is the same for them
native as well as Kryshen. They do not see the difference between the Slavic gods,
Gods of other pantheons and fictional ones. Like orphanage children of all
passing by aunts and uncles are called "Mom and Dad", and spiritual
orphans do not distinguish between their parents and strangers.
4. No Einsteins and
The Newtons during their lifetime did not express a desire to become pagan Slavs. Yes and
not every modern scientist expressed this desire. And all because
scientists, as a rule, know their origin, and if they become
Gentiles, then precisely HIS people. By the way, not a few scientists from the Slavs,
adopted Rodnoverie. In addition, we do not need the achievements of foreign peoples.
We do not encroach on the Egyptian pyramids, so we will not encroach on
foreign scientists. This will only serve us as a disservice - they will say that
The Slavs don't have their own brains, so they steal other people's. For theft, by the way,
our ancestors punished very severely...

So we have considered
some of the most important issues relating to the ritual side
Rodnovery. Hope this helps you understand more
tradition and not fall for the bait of dolboslavs and Christians.