Speech therapy portal / Planning / What to read for newbies. The main sections of Orthodox literature. Food for our soul

What to read for newbies. The main sections of Orthodox literature. Food for our soul

28.08.2020

One becomes a member of the Church through Baptism, before which it is desirable to undergo a course of public discourses. After Baptism, one must regularly participate in divine services and proceed to the Sacraments. Whoever misses a church service for three Sundays in a row without a good reason excommunicates himself from the Church.

What books should a believing Orthodox Christian have?

The Bible, the Law of God, the Orthodox prayer book, the interpretation of Holy Scripture, the lives of the saints and books containing patristic instructions in the Christian life.

Any Christian should deepen his knowledge of faith. Reading the ascetic and dogmatic creations of the holy fathers, a Christian comes into contact with the depth of faith that the saints acquired through their ascetic life.

In what literature can you read about the ten commandments?

A detailed explanation of the ten commandments is given in the Law of God (compiled by Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy).

What book to buy to fast properly?

There are many books in church shops that tell about all aspects of Christian life: about fasting, prayer, the Sacraments. If you have no experience of fasting, it is advisable to consult with a priest.

What book should you buy to understand the service in the temple?

The Law of God, compiled by Archpriest Seraphim Slobodsky, contains a detailed explanation of the divine services Orthodox Church... You can also read the book of Bishop Vissarion (Nechaev) "Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy." In church shops you can find many other books explaining the services of the daily circle: "Liturgy", "All-night vigil".

At the beginning of churching, one should read the Law of God, the Gospel, the lives of the saints, instructions on spiritual life. It is helpful to read books that strengthen your faith. For a believer, especially a person who is beginning to become a Christian, it is necessary not only to get acquainted with Christianity, but to try to study it deeply in order to clearly know what, why and why he believes? Otherwise, faith will remain at the level of stereotypes, sometimes very far from true Christianity.

The point is not who the Bible was taken from, but what is printed in it. The overwhelming majority of "Protestant" Bibles in Russian are printed from the Synodal edition of the 19th century, as indicated by the inscription on the back of the title page. If there is such an inscription, you can read it without embarrassment. Another thing is “free” or “modern” translations of the Bible or individual Bible books (for example, “The Word of Life”), as well as the Bible with commentaries. Naturally, Protestants comment on the Word of God from their heretical positions.

First you need to pray to God to direct your mind to comprehend the Scriptures. It is useful to read the interpretation of Holy Scripture by the holy fathers. Not be content with just reading the Gospel, but try to live by it. The Holy Fathers advise to read the Gospel every day, even if there is not enough time, one should still try to read one chapter.

You can adhere to the reading order that is followed during the worship service. It is listed in the Orthodox Church calendar for every day. In the Bible of the Moscow Patriarchate Publishing House at the end of the Old Testament there is an index of the Old Testament readings, and at the end of the New Testament there is an index of the Gospel and Apostolic readings.

What if not everything you read in the Bible is clear?

To understand the Bible correctly, it is necessary to read books with its interpretation, the availability of which can be found in church shops and parish libraries. Study Biblical history you can also start with the Law of God, compiled by Archpriest Seraphim Slobodsky or groups for adults and children for the study of Bible history. And, of course, one must humbly pray to God that He deserves to hear and fulfill His word.

Reading the Gospel, Apostolic Acts and Apostolic Epistles, Psalms are added to the daily prayer rule during fasting. Changing the prayer rule is agreed with the priest.

Is it possible for an Orthodox person to read anything other than Holy Scripture and the writings of the Holy Fathers?

Orthodoxy does not close the world from man, but opens it up in all its diversity through the prism of the Orthodox worldview. Of course, you can read good secular literature, historical, scientific. It is necessary to avoid only those compositions that arouse base passions, deprive the soul of peace and joy.

When reading the Psalter, there are places where it is said about enemies. What enemies are meant?

These are invisible enemies - crafty, evil spirits who harm people with sinful thoughts and push people to sins.

What to do with non-Orthodox literature?

Non-Orthodox literature must be approached judiciously. “We will be ashamed if we know how to reject food that is harmful to the body, and do not have discernment in the knowledge that feed our soul, and allow good and bad things to come to it” (St. Basil the Great). As in any other area of life, the content of books depends on what comes from the hearts of their authors. If this is sin and passions, then the work is saturated with them and transfers them to other people. A true Christian turns away from such things and tries to protect himself and his loved ones. If the work artistically reflects the richness of life created by God, and even more so the high spiritual and even spiritual aspirations, on the basis of which the author created his creation, then the introduction of such literature to a Christian can be useful.

Spiritually harmful (pagan, magical, occult, sectarian and immoral) books and brochures are best burned. You cannot just throw books harmful to the soul into the trash: other people can read them, which can harm them. If these books contain quotations from the Holy Scriptures, then throwing such books into the mud is all the more bad.

To read or not to read Christian fiction? What makes a book Christian? Someone considers books of fiction to be fiction, and therefore a lie, which can in no way be correlated with Christianity. Others, on the contrary, cannot imagine their life without such books. To find out, we asked several questions to Christian publishers and authors. Here are their answers.

Do you need Christian fiction (HHL)?

Alexander Shaposhnikov, director of the publishing house Biblical view - Christopher, (St. Petersburg, Russia)

I think that it is undoubtedly needed. Fiction, this is a kind of parable... Often the narrative illustrates some kind of deep thought, some kind of spiritual principles, for example, the novels by Frank Peretti "The Darkness of this Age", "Piercing the Darkness", "The Prophet". Peretti reveals the biblical principles of the spiritual opposition of the forces of darkness and light, about the value of human life, even unborn children, about the fact that if there is God, then there is an absolute truth, about the manipulative nature of the media, and so on. If the book is written with talent, then these illustrations, pictures are very bright and easily understandable. They inspire action. There are fiction books written by Christians, for example, quite popular now women's novels in which the illustration of spiritual principles is not so strong, but they are engaging for a specific audience, good reading for recreation based on Christian morality.

* * *

Dmitry Fimushkin,director of the publishing house "Christian education", (Odessa, Ukraine):

Yes of course. HHL performs in the Christian community the same functions as fiction in society.

* * *

Pavel Damyan, Bible for All Publishing House, (St. Petersburg, Russia):

It is needed for those who want to learn to see God in their daily life and learn to trust him. In fact, this is what most Christian novels write about. Although not all of them "hit the mark."

* * *

Irina Vorobyova, Visson Publishing House, (St. Petersburg, Russia):

As an employee of the publishing house, I know that there is a demand for the HHL, therefore, it is needed.

What is HHL: what a Christian wrote or about spiritual things?

Alexander Shaposhnikov:

Probably both. It is good when the book is about spiritual, but here it is possible different degrees or something, spirituality ... The book may be strongly about the spiritual, or maybe not very much, just an interesting touching story based on Christian morality ... I think that it will be difficult for an unbeliever to write a correct book about spiritual, and even more so with good morality. I read quite a lot of non-Christian fiction, and even if there is a grain of truth in it, which is quite common, because truth is truth, regardless of who saw it, believer or non-believer, then it is usually difficult with morality ...

* * *

Vladimir Imakaev, Christian writer, author of the trilogy "Paradise", "The Miracle Worker" and other Christian bestsellers, (Meridian, USA):

I have been answering this question for many years, and almost every time it comes to whether it is possible to watch this movie? is it possible to read this book, is it possible to go to this performance there is a Christian working there? Or, on the contrary, this writer also writes songs for worldly musicians, or he goes to the wrong denomination. The following argument is often made that: “ So every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit"(Matthew 7:17).

Therefore, if a book was written by a Christian, it must be kind? Unfortunately, I know from my experience of working with aspiring writers that this is not the case. Such is an example, you need to buy bread for the breaking of bread in church, you go to the store to buy and you don’t know through whose hands it passed, just as the Bible doesn’t say who made the wine for the Last Supper. But after you took the bread and wine into your hands, prayed, dedicated them to God, they became symbols of the Covenant. When you buy and start reading a book, pray that the Lord will help you see in this book something more, deep, edifying! Any book can become Christian if a Christian reads it and tries to comprehend it. Here the choice is yours and your spiritual maturity, for example, I would hardly look for something edifying in the section of books with intimate covers or flashy headlines about dark magic. But the Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia and (let radical Christians beat me) you can find a lot of great Christian morality in Harry Potter and Disney fairy tales. Another example, a bakery where Christians work, bakes not only matzo, but also cakes and pastries. Will their cakes become saints? Not! Until you yourself bless the food. But the cake you prayed for will become less blessed if you bought it in a simple store where people you don't know baked it. Of course not. To become a Christian Fiction Literature it doesn't have to be just a spiritual book or a book written by a pastor. This is a parable, which, using the example of a fictional story, helps to think, and what you think about is another question that takes roots in your heart and thoughts.

* * *

Pavel Damyan:

In fact, one secular life novel helped me to notice the participation of God in my life, which clearly and clearly shows how God answers our sincere prayers. I believe that not all art written by a Christian is spiritual in nature. Likewise, spiritual things slip among secular writers.

* * *

Dmitry Fimushkin:

This is similar to how we consider the Bible to be the Word of God, it is inspired by God and it is declared by believers. So is the XXL. Traditionally, in our midst, the works of authors with evangelical views, which are noticeable in the work, are considered Christian. Required attributes XXL are: propaganda of Christian values, faith, deeds of God in human life. When these attributes are not so obvious, and we are talking only about the "earthly", the book may not be perceived as Christian. Probably the most important thing is that the protagonist should be (or become one according to the plot) a “Christian”. For example, the novel "Crossing the Ocean", where the main character lived a very difficult life, due to the fact that she was not always a "good Christian", the focus group of readers doubted that the novel is Christian, although the author is a Christian and the actions are accompanied by prayers and etc. The same fate befell the book "Daring Escape", which has a Christian author and a repentant hero, but the plot is too "not churchly".

* * *

Irina Vorobyova:

XXL is literature, in the subject and problematics of which the Christian worldview is reflected in one way or another. Usually Christians create such literature.

* * *

Let's return to "Christian" fiction. If good fiction tells stories that are true to human experience (think of the naive idealism of Miss Jean Brodie's Dawn or the relentless vengeance in Moby Dick), then what makes it different from Christian fiction? Should there be Christian characters, propaganda of the gospel, telling only positive stories, recommendations for a life of faith, or contain miracles and answers to prayer?

God is creative... If the universe itself does not provide sufficient evidence of this, then we have an infinite variety of human nature and human creativity. Many creative people say they draw, write, or compose simply because they can't help but do it.

The Bible is full of poetry, symbolism, prophetic imagery, comparisons and stories. While these are clearly not "fiction", they are certainly creative uses of language.

God is creative, and so are we. Christianity deals with truth, not just facts that are true, but deeper truths about human nature and our relationship with a creative God. Fiction, while not factual truth, describes what it is like to be human.

Perhaps in light of all of the above, a Christian novel need not proselytize, persuade, or be full of Bible references, but should seek to truthfully portray both good and bad human experiences and behavior, and depict how God created the universe, and at the same time what she became afterwards. Like the Bible itself, he must be serious about good and evil, love, hate and guilt, forgiveness and redemption, because that is what the gospel is about.

The Great Gatsby is about arrogance, excess and pride. The Strange Story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is about the awkward coexistence of good and evil in each of us. “Outcast” is about the power of temptation and forgiveness.

Do Christians need to read fiction and why? This is fiction.

A Christian should read fiction in the same way he should eat, drink, exercise, get an education, and socialize with the people around him. Unfortunately, there is a certain stereotype that Christians should reject everything except the Bible.... Such people often do not really understand the Bible very much, but they consider it necessary to express themselves critically every time about books they have never read. Indeed, the argument is often heard that this is all fiction, and accordingly useless. But I'm sorry Jesus Himself Invented Stories with Fictional Plots and Characters... Thousands of people gathered to listen to him. He was and still is the best inventor in the world, and a good Christian author simply follows the example of Jesus. I will say more, a Christian should read not only edifying literature.

A book is an art form. God created many types of art so that man has first of all pleasure. We go to a restaurant to try something new, tasty and aesthetically pleasing. We do not go to a restaurant with the thought: I am here only to satisfy hunger, no more, no less. No, any normal person knows how to enjoy food, because God specially created so many taste buds in us. The reader also uses certain receptors: moral, emotional, intellectual. Scientists have long proved that if a person reads a lot of fiction books since childhood, his brain is constantly developing.

* * *

Pavel Damyan:

There is no definite recipe. Some enjoy reading one Bible. Others learn the truth of life from the generalized experience of different people, which the writer neatly combined into one story.

* * *

Alexander Shaposhnikov:

I don’t think one should speak in terms of “necessary - not necessary”. If you are interested in reading fiction, read, if you are not interested, do not read, why torture yourself ... As I said, I read quite a lot of fiction, I am interested, I am interested in the result of creativity, imagination. This is, firstly, interest from childhood, I read a lot in childhood and adolescence, mainly fiction, science fiction, and secondly, being a publisher, I am interested in what is popular now, what new genres are being invented, where the writer's thought goes, a kind of sociological study of secular society. Reading the classics, we also tune our literary flair, because the classics are good not because they are classics, but they are classics because they are good. But all this is not necessary, you can live perfectly and serve God without reading fiction at all.

* * *

Dmitry Fimushkin:

Fiction is not only about fictional or believable plot circumstances. She models different qualities personalities, relationships that are human, i.e. real to the reader. Reading XXL produces an important educational and developmental effect. Because reading books induces personal imagination, i.e. involves the reader in creating an image, it has a powerful effect on the inner world of the reader. For example, books model premarital relationships, give an "assessment" of actions. It's like “illustrations for a sermon,” though not delivered from the pulpit. And we have the gospel precept to look at those who walk in the image shown by the life of the apostles (Phil 3:17). And about the “necessity” of reading, we have Paul's command to Timothy “engage in reading” (1 Tim. 4:13), but the question of which books to read, he left Timothy to decide for himself.

* * *

Irina Vorobyova:

If Christians like to read fiction, then they have such a need. To be honest, I don't really understand what the meaning of this question is. Theological literature is the fruit of reflection, fiction is the fruit of reflection and artistic creation, the creation of artistic images. In any case, a person passes some truths through the filter of his consciousness, always subjective.

* * *

Caven Forest:

No one claims that the characters in any of the novels, Christian or not, actually said and did what the author describes as their words and actions. It is unlikely that the events in the novel happened to someone, although for the sake of history, we postpone our disbelief, accept what the author tells us and read what happened next. This is fiction. This is not true, and no one is trying to say anything else.

On the other hand, if a fictional character or event is too dissimilar to the truth, ridiculous or contradictory, then the author loses attention, because we instinctively think: "She would never say that" or "Somehow too like a coincidence." Therefore, a fictional story should be close to life.

We are on the side of Bilbo and Frodo, because we all once felt what it was like to be a little man, faced face to face with unreal events. Yossarian in Joseph Heller's Catch-22 resonates with us as we have all faced inexplicable bureaucracy and a sense of doom. The Lord of the Flies is also associated with us, because we, to our grief, all know about the presence of violence and cruelty in the human heart.

Many celebrity autobiographies, conspiracy theories and books on diet and health seem far from the truth. Fiction must "fit life", but what may be "true" may sometimes be unrelated to reality.

In addition to judging fiction, perhaps as well as anything else, we should ask the question, "What did Jesus do?" It turns out that Jesus also told stories that were not literally "truthful". In the Gospel of Luke, He tells the story of "a certain man who went from Jerusalem to Jericho and was caught by robbers." Did his listeners take this as a true story? It is the same with the servants left with different talents to invest, the young man who went to a distant country, and the woman who was looking for her lost ... These stories are not literal "truth", but they have proven their truth hundreds of times in human experience. and have been perceived since then by listeners and readers as such.

Is Christian fiction okay?

Alexey Dekan:

What about Christian rock music? And what about painting? And what about sports groups and hiking in the mountains? This question can be asked about every thing. Fantastic, it's just a tool... The scenery used by the author to convey this or that plot. And here the reader should understand - each decoration is in some way an invention of the author. And it makes no difference whether he writes about a space starship, or describes London in the 18th century. This literary genre has been around for centuries, and many of the classics of Christian literature have resorted to it. But there are indeed people to whom this genre is absolutely alien. But in such cases, the reader just needs to change the scenery - choose books written in a different genre. But you should not criticize the entire genre because of your own preferences. Much misunderstanding with Christian fiction arises due to people's lack of imagination.... It is extremely difficult for such people to abstract themselves from the real foundations, just to accept that this is an artistic fiction of the author, no one is going to lead the reader by the nose. This is such a game, not a new religion, mythology, teaching. But it is thanks to science fiction that a Christian author can convey some spiritual principles much better than using the medium known to the reader, because there are practically no restrictions. Ask yourself a question, why do we read fairy tales to our children, where incredible things happen and fantastic characters meet? If "Kolobok" and " The Snow Queen"That's okay, why should it be abnormal to read Narnia and The Lord of the Rings?"

* * *

Alexander Shaposhnikov:

Of course it's okay. Fantastic, this is just a literary device, and very flexible. If fiction does not speak about our vital, today's, then this is bad fiction. Clive Lewis, for example, wrote science fiction about other planets, aliens and the like, but he illustrated with this, for example, the relationship between the Creator and creation, the nature of temptations, the greatness of the sacrifice of Christ, and so on. I would say that there is not enough good Christian fiction, at least I do not have enough.

* * *

Vladimir Imakaev:

This is another question that critics of creativity often try to catch me with. They say Jesus did not invent aliens to carry the word of God. The word "fantasy" is a derivative of the Greek "φανταστική" - "the art of imagination"! And here I can safely tell you that Jesus was a science fiction! Look at His parables, about the sower, about the prodigal son, about the rich man and Lazarus. Many of the stories he tells are fiction in order to convey deeper meaning. To help an ordinary reader or listener to visually demonstrate a particular situation. When I write about spaceships, or talking animals or armies of clones, I am not trying to convince you that this is the truth that others do not know. I just use these decorations, understandable to today's person, so that he would hear what he would refuse to listen directly, and if he did, he might not understand.

* * *

Ilya Berdnikov. Pastor, science fiction writer, author of the cycle "Rogue by contract" (Astrel, St. Petersburg), biography of Kostya Kosyachkov and gr. Masada (Knigonosha, Kiev), various stories:

I was accused many times: "A pastor cannot write fiction!" Dear ones, if not a pastor, not a Christian, then who? You know, I asked other ministers, pastors, bishops: “What do your children read? What books? What films and TV shows do they watch? " The result is one - worldly. Pastors' kids play Fallout and Metro 2033, read Harry Potter and STALKER, watch Vikings and Game of Thrones. They stare despite the fact that they are filled with lies, violence, idolatry and pornography. They read and play, because there is no alternative. When Christians go to the cinema to watch a film on a biblical theme, filmed by non-Christians, the disgruntled leave, spitting: "Everything is wrong, everything is ruined, twisted!"

Why is this so? Because there is no Christian product. Because the old sinner George Martin is successful, and Christians bury their talents, afraid to dream and fantasize. After all, for a long time religious teachers have hammered into our heads: fantasy is a sin.

But listen, are we not children of the Creator? Isn't thought material? Read the works of Professor Nazhip Valitov, who received gratitude from the Vatican. Are not the ideas of science fiction writers of the past being embodied in our time? But there are organizations looking for rational ideas in the work of science fiction writers. Because pragmatists have proven: everything that a person can think of will sooner or later be realized... Isn't this "Confidence in the invisible"?

Once people dreamed of samogud psaltery, now we have synthesizers with auto accompaniment, various samplers, music players. We have “flying carpets”, “mirrors showing the world” and “self-propelled carts”. Moreover, Christians do not at all disdain to use what was once only a fantastic invention. And before that they could burn at the stake for this.

Better let the righteous write science fiction, make films, compose music than the sinners. Let the bookshelves be filled with authors of Christian honor and morality. So, subsequently appearing before the Lord of all that exists, these authors will be able to boldly say: "I have multiplied the talents that You gave me!"

* * *

Pavel Damyan:

For some it is normal, but for others it is not. There is no big issue of dissent here. The problem begins when one imposes his views on the other.

* * *

Dmitry Fimushkin:

This genre is not for everybody. Given the general shortage of XXL, readers who, in other circumstances, with an abundance of their favorite books of other genres, would not read science fiction, may be skeptical about it. Just as secular science fiction, modeling the future or space, preaches human moral values and technologies, so Christian fiction must preach Christian values when modeling the future or space. It's good.

* * *

Irina Vorobyova:

Fine.

Which of the classics can be considered Christians?

Alexander Shaposhnikov:

Without a doubt Dostoevsky, in terms of the depth of the issues raised and the impression produced, he, I would say, stands apart. Giant. Genius. Tolstoy is not bad, but in my opinion, there is no comparison with Dostoevsky. If you need advice on which of the classics to read, the answer is unequivocal: The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky.

* * *

Pavel Damyan:

The Lord Jesus once said to compassionate Peter: "Get away from me, Satan." All of us in some situations carry Christ in ourselves, and in others - Satan .. Personally, I am closer to Victor Hugo with his "Les Miserables". But who am I to judge?

* * *

Dmitry Fimushkin:

The number of world classics of fiction who believed in Christ is quite large. Bunyan, Tolkien, Lewis, Beecher Stowe, Chesterton ... Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Ukrainka ... and a long list. To assess the "Christianity" of the authors themselves, one must look whether they were perceived as Christians by the people around them and their church. In this matter, it is important to understand that we are dealing with books and images, and not with the authors themselves. Sometimes this comes into conflict, but, as in the case of King Solomon and his Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, we are fenced off by the barrier of time and public (church) opinion. You need to read the book not because its author is famous, but because it is interesting and useful for the soul.... It is no coincidence that when submitting scientific articles for review, the reviewers are not informed about the author.

* * *

Irina Vorobyova:

Of the Russians - Dostoevsky, Leskov, Tolstoy, despite the excommunication and everything else - perhaps the same. I think, and Pasternak - yes.

Is it worth trying to interpret images or themes in the XXL?

Alexander Shaposhnikov:

Well, this is some kind of strange question, but what else to do with it? Interpret, interpret and interpret again! Only interpret! This is the very essence of fiction, a figurative description of the world that we are trying to comprehend. If you don’t interpret, don’t let it pass through yourself, don’t endure something clever, kind, eternal, then it’s just such an intellectual chewing gum, where not the result is important, but the process itself. One should definitely not waste time on such a thing.

* * *

Irina Vorobyova:

Why not interpret it if you want to?

* * *

Dmitry Fimushkin:

Everyone interprets what they read based on their circumstances and inner world. Scripture teaches that we should not endow supernatural attributes with anything other than the Word of God - the surest prophetic Word. Therefore, while God can speak through both donkeys and stones, it is important to understand the difference between the Bible and fiction. But, if the author depicted the development of the character of the hero or the plot in such a way that it evokes in the reader his own associations or a desire to "interpret" them, for example, in the light of the Bible, then the author has achieved something important - something has shifted in the reader's soul.

Archpriest Oleg Kitov, Dean of the Volga District of Samara, answers the readers' questions.

Hello! I would like to know if it is possible for an Orthodox person to read fiction. I am studying to be a philologist and simply have to read it all. I recently went to church. I am in my last year, I have to write my thesis. For this I need to analyze a piece of art. If I don't write the paper, I won't finish the course.
What to do? I do not want to sin again, because I repented that I read worldly literature. But at the same time I don’t want to break the commandment “do not steal”, because the Law of God says that the one who is lazy in teaching also sins against this commandment, that is, he spends the funds invested in it by the state (I study at the budgetary department) ... At first I decided that if you study, it is allowed, but after reading Merezhkovsky during the Christmas post, I fell ill. I think it was an admonition from the Lord, and now I am afraid. But all the same, I do not firmly know how Orthodoxy relates to such books. I was advised to read the book Faith in the Crucible of Doubt. It says that Merezhkovsky is a heretic. Now I have generally lost interest in fiction, but before I read with interest. Is my profession pleasing to the Lord - a philologist, a teacher of the Russian language and literature - and how to relate to fantastic literature, so popular in our time among young people?

Khristina, Moscow

For an Orthodox Christian, self-isolation and fanaticism should be alien. We should not impoverish our lives by rejecting everything so-called worldly without rational reasoning. This applies to literature, music, and visual arts, and cinema, and science. Many of the Christians known for their righteous lives, and even the saints, were multifaceted personalities. Some were experts in many areas of "worldly" knowledge.
Of course, the most important thing for us should be what the Lord Himself gives us through His Church, in which all the best and salutary is concentrated. Holy Scripture, Divine services, church hymns, icon painting, architecture of churches - all this holy treasure was given to us by God for our salvation and the sanctification of our lives. Here we see how the cooperation of God and man has been carried out for thousands of years. When the Lord blessed people for creative work to create masterpieces of true art in all areas of activity. And all the best that man could create for the glory of the Creator - everything entered the Church and was sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
But there is also another huge layer of life, in which it is also possible and necessary to find what is useful for us. As a prospector is looking for nuggets, both small and large, among the gold-bearing ore, so we should notice and take what teaches us to orient ourselves correctly in life among the diversity of life. You just need to do what is really useful. For example, the same gold digger will not shovel waste rock as soon as he is convinced that it is useless. Being an expert in his field, he knows where there is and where there is no gold. In other areas, specialists are needed to skillfully determine what will be beneficial and what, on the contrary, will cause harm. Who else but an Orthodox philologist can give competent advice to a Christian about any literary work - is it worth picking up at all and wasting precious time on it ?! And if it is, it will tell you exactly what its artistic value is and how it can enrich the soul of the reader.
Regarding the specific works that you, as a future specialist, need to study according to the program, then here you must, no doubt, complete the entire course, as expected. And not only that - not only to read, but also to understand what is the truth and what is heresy. And first of all, further churching and spiritual self-education through the study of the patristic heritage will help you in this.
A lot has been written in the history of literature, and in this set there are both genuine masterpieces of creativity, very useful and necessary for any thinking person, and harmful garbage, which carries everything harmful to the reader, from the poison of heresy to the graphomaniac chewing gum that takes time and money.
A philologist needs to know everything in his field. For others, it is dangerous, and even not worth it at all to enthusiastically read heretical speculations, not armed with true knowledge. Burning your time for waste paper, such as science fiction, "ladies'" novels, "pulp fiction" - is simply stupid.

Andrey Karpov

Of course, literature can be of any kind. Any thought can be clothed in an art form. The author may wish the reader only good, or he may try to cause harm. The illustrations created by the word do not always correspond to the canons of aesthetics: the beautiful can be shown to be ugly, and vice versa.Quite often not what is really important is being modeled. Models are created that impose false decisions that contribute to the spiritual and moral degradation of a person. What is written does not need to be read. You should stay away from many texts. And yet a modern person must read.

Today it is easy to do without reading, since there is a cinema that, at first glance, performs the same functions. The film, just like the book, simulates situations. However, the dialogue with the film is less individual. The written text leaves the details unexplored, and the reader thinks them out for himself, already in the context of a personal story. The book gives more room for interpretation compared to the film. The reading process is regulated by the person himself: something is omitted, something is re-read several times. The film does not allow such liberties. Therefore, the benefits of the book are much higher: those models that we take from the book fit us more accurately. The conclusions we draw over the book are much more useful. The book teaches me to live personally, the film is able to give only the most general recipes.

You can not watch movies, but read books. But is it possible not to read books? Theoretically, this can also be admitted. But what does this mean in practice? A person who does not read fiction does not receive material for modeling situations. He will act in accordance with established personal habits or “like everyone else,” that is, using other people's models. Quite quickly, he will come to a situation in which the usual methods of solution will not work correctly. A person reading books can also fall into a similar "mine", for which he will not have the right solution to de-mine. But if he read enough good books, the likelihood of this is not very high.

Does the Orthodox faith relieve one of the problems associated with the lack of models of life situations, which may arise as a result of refusal to read books of fiction? In other words, is there still a need to read books for an Orthodox person?

The answer is ambiguous. If the development of fiction is due to the increasing complexity of human life, then its simplification reduces the objective need for reading. The true Christian life is simple. A person whose earthly needs are minimized and who communicates with God more than with people has no need for models of situations that are unfamiliar to him. But how many of us have been able to achieve such a life? To build oneself in this way within modern civilization, one must be a real hero of the spirit.

One more option can be admitted when there is no need for reading. Real wisdom is to see the true state of affairs in any situation. And then you don't need a model. Such a person does not act according to a model, but in the only correct way for a given situation. Why would he, then, books with their fiction? He reads the open book of life. But such wisdom borders on clairvoyance. Obviously, this also cannot be an option that is open to everyone.

And to the simple and the seer of the book unnecessarily. Let each one ask himself if he falls into one of these two categories. If not, then he is vulnerable. Without reading fiction, he will make mistakes in life, some of which can be very serious. Both the surrounding people and the person himself can suffer. There is, however, another option that insures against mistakes: this is a complete surrender of oneself to the will of a spiritually sighted person, that is, obedience. If you take every step of your blessing, you will be guided by the wisdom of others, and you will not need to become a seer yourself, or use models gleaned from books. Again, the question is: are there many Orthodox Christians who follow this path?

In addition, it should be noted that refusal to read fiction does not bring a person closer to any of the described three states. Although a simple person does not read books, if you stop reading, you will not acquire even a drop of spiritual simplicity, for it is in something else. With a novice it is even easier: you need a mentor, and also - the determination to make his will your own. Reading (or not reading) is not the issue. There is nothing to say about clairvoyance. It is given by God.

Critics of fiction, I think, have read a lot. They ceased to feel an acute need for it, since literature had already given them a lot, and they stocked up with models for different situations. With this kind of baggage, you can skip art tests for a long time. Books will seem boring, and reading will seem empty, useless. After all, interest arises when we can take something new from the book to understand ourselves and the relationship between people. There is also such a problem that modern literature is shallow. Significant array literary texts the last time is either an emulation of meanings (these texts were created for the sake of commercial success, and meanings got into the text only as a technically necessary element) or a direct statement (which indicates the author's unwillingness or inability to work on the text). Such texts obviously cannot give anything to a spiritually demanding person. It turns out that the emerging new aspects of human relations are not worked out at the model level, and more fundamental things have long been modeled in classical texts. And if you've read the classics, then you don't have to read anything else.

This unnecessary reading is the result of the education and reading of the best works of world and domestic literature. That is, we are talking about the result of the cultural process. This is "unnecessary-for-me." And critics, declaring the uselessness of fiction inherent in it by nature, turn it into "uselessness-for-all."

The attitude that reading fiction is not useful (and therefore bad) is created not for someone who has already read everything that follows, but for those who have not yet taken the best literary texts in their hands. They are told: it is not necessary. Don't read it. This will only develop your attachment to the world, and, therefore, alienate you from Christ. At the same time, the world does not disappear anywhere. Those who believe the critics are still among the people. They find themselves in the sea of human relations without knowing possible situations and their correct or incorrect resolution. Accordingly, the likelihood that they will act incorrectly increases. Why is it difficult to communicate with an uncultured person? Because he feels worse about those around him. His actions are clumsy, he easily hurts both himself and others. He can easily trample the good: not by malicious intent, but by accident. And it can give way to evil, not recognizing it. Reading the right books builds sensitivity in a person. Which is ultimately part of spiritual education.

We come to the following conclusion: if a person needs (or, let's say, still needs) spiritual education, he cannot do without reading fiction.

Full text of the article on the site.

I consider it appropriate to consider the phenomenon of fiction in general, to define its main functions and the place it occupies in culture. In particular, one should answer the question, is it permissible for Orthodox people to read fiction, or should it be left to exclusively secular people, and from the point of view of Orthodoxy, fiction cannot have any value? Maybe a person who has chosen the path to Christ for himself should immediately remove all books of fiction from the shelves?

So what are the functions of fiction?

1. Utterance

Any literary text is, first of all, a statement. The author's intention is behind the work; the author wants to say something to the reader.

It can be argued here that modern authors do not really care what the reader can get as a result of reading their texts. They are more worried about something else: the money they can get as a result of their creativity, or fame (big name). However, the paradox is that if the author has absolutely nothing to say, he cannot count on success. His works will be of no interest to anyone, and no one will read them. In order to gain fame and money, the texts need to be sold, which means that the author will inevitably have to put some meaning into them. Those. we return to the idea that the text should be a statement.

Unscrupulous authors will imitate the presence of the author's intention, create an emulation of it. For them, the function of being the carrier of the message embedded in the text is deeply secondary, but since it is still necessary for the reader, they will maintain the reader's conviction that the text was created solely for its content.

Those who write not for the sake of commerce, but because of vocation, of course, sincerely form a message to the reader. This does not mean that the reader will definitely receive the message that the author wanted to attach to the text. The text is semantically autonomous and enters into a dialogue with the reader beyond the author's will. But this is a topic for a separate article.

The author can consider himself as the addressee of the text (as is often the case when the author writes not for publication, but, as they say, “on the table.”) Then the work becomes a form of reflection, a conversation between the author and the other side of his soul (an alternative ego) or with your conscience.

However, the statement does not necessarily require artistic implementation. You can express your thought, and staying outside of fiction. Utterances are philosophical and theological texts, sermons and journalism.

2. Illustration

Artistic presentation allows not only expressing any thought, but also giving it the necessary accent, showing it in the required perspective, highlighting the most significant points. This selection can be done using purely linguistic means (for example, figures of speech, tropes, poetic tools - rhyme, rhythm, alliteration, etc.), or it can be carried out semantically - by creating speculative pictures-illustrations.

The most direct analogy to illustration is verbal description. You can just say "a beautiful view from the window", or you can, like in Pushkin: " Under the blue skies / Magnificent carpets, / Glittering in the sun, the snow lies; / The transparent forest alone turns black, / And the spruce turns green through the hoarfrost, / And the river glistens under the ice". The description can be indirect. Instead of saying “Raskolnikov was terribly worried,” Dostoevsky writes: “ The sun flashed brightly in his eyes, so that it hurt to look, and his head was completely dizzy, - the usual feeling of a feverish, suddenly going out into the street on a bright sunny day". The created picture is a reflection of the hero's inner state.

There is an even higher level of implementation of the illustrative function - this is the plot itself. The events that take place with the hero are just needed in order to illustrate the author's intention. It's one thing to just express a thought, and it's another to show how it might look. A series of situations is a sequential series of illustrations that play the role of both means of expression and author's evidence. The naked thought and the illustrated thought have different persuasive powers.

But for illustration, it is not necessary to resort to an artistic word. Examples that make the stated judgment more clear can be found among historical events(in particular, in sacred history), and in the lives of the saints. The book of books - the Bible - is extremely rich; there is enough material in it to illustrate almost any (first of all, adequate, true) statement.

If we dwell on this function of literature, then the artistry of the text for the Christian consciousness will be excessive.

3. Model

But the functionality of literature is not limited to the functions of expression and illustration. They are the necessary basis for the implementation of the main function, which determined the existence of fiction as a cultural phenomenon of the first magnitude.

The art of the word did not initially involve fiction. From the point of view of our distant ancestors, to expound non-existent, which never was and never will be, is an empty business. Who cares to know what happened to people who are not among the living, or among those who lived before? Literature began as a way of storing historical memory, telling about the events of bygone times, exploits real heroes that should be told to descendants.

Where did the fiction come from? The popular belief that people began to invent for fun is the opinion of a person of a much later era. We, today, think that we have an excess of time, part of which can be spent just like that - on nothing, on an empty pastime. But you can't sit and spit at the ceiling - boredom will get stuck. Therefore, we kill time, taking advantage of the achievements of technology and education: surfing the Internet, watching movies, playing computer games, reading books. The less labor an activity requires, the more popular it is as a way of spending leisure time. Books on this criterion, by the way, are clearly inferior.

But our ancestors did not have pure leisure. Much work was spent on obtaining food and equipping life. The world around was wilder, it needed to be domesticated, and for this, first it had to be known. There were much more dangers - at any moment a disease, natural disaster or an invasion of enemies could cut short the life of a particular person and the history of his society. In order for the story to continue, this had to be especially taken care of. Therefore, the rest was spent with benefit - learning and passing on knowledge. All folklore games have a pragmatic dimension. Listening to legends or fairy tales by the evening fire was also a meaningful action. So why did fairy tales appear next to legends?

Fiction is about the lives of fictional characters. But they behave like real people. The situations that the heroes find themselves in have never existed in reality, but, in principle, they could have been. Fictional text creates a world that, while not real, is still quite recognizable. The literature offers a model on which one can not only show problems (this is also an illustrative function), but also try to find methods for solving them. We put a hero with such and such personal characteristics in such and such a situation. What will he do? What can you do in such a situation?

Fictional text has its own internal logic. If the author observes it, we trust him. This means that we trust the model and can use it for a thought experiment. If the author does not adhere to the rules set by himself, the text turns out to be weak. We do not believe him, which means that it was not possible to build a high-quality model. Leo Tolstoy (a textbook example) did not want his Anna Karenina to throw herself under the train, but he could not violate the logic of behavior corresponding to the character and previous circumstances of the heroine's life. Thus, only those works in which the internal logic is not violated are of value, that is, quality fiction.

The complexity of life is constantly increasing - this is the axis along which technological and social development civilization. Human relations, without changing in essence, change in form all the time. More and more new aspects arise. And a person is lost, not understanding how he should act in view of the changes that have taken place. And the emergence of fiction was a way with which it became possible to handle new challenges (new both in relation to a specific person and to society as a whole). The more difficult life became, the greater the place in culture was occupied by fiction.

Of course, in relation to the function of the model, it is possible to select some analogs for the literary text. For example, biographical genre. Different people, different biographies. A situation that is new to you, most likely, someone has already lived. If his biography is written down, then you can peep in it some options for solving your own problems. However, in the case of a biography, we have two significant limitations.

On the one hand, the biography only shows us the outer facade. We do not know what was going on in a person's soul, but this is the most important thing. An autobiography can tell about this inner dimension of events, but one should not particularly trust autobiographies: a person cannot speak about himself objectively. As a result, we cannot use biography as a full-fledged model: we know what followed what in the story told to us, but we cannot say for sure why.

On the other hand, the biography is always too specific. And it is not surprising, because this is the history of a living person, and people still do not repeat themselves. Just as fingerprints are unique, so are human biographies. To a certain extent, we can project ourselves onto the person we are talking about, but only for a while, and then his life trajectory will write out such a somersault that no trace of our similarity will remain. A biography can only be used as a model when there is no better tool at hand.

Fiction allows the reader to find themselves in the book. Moreover, quite often this is done on two levels at once. In a work written within the framework of the classical canon, there is a main character. He is the main "bench model". What happens to him is at the center of the narrative, our interest rivets to him. The tests that this character endures should become material for us to develop the correct resolution of life situations. If the protagonist is positive, he is endowed with qualities that the average reader would like to find in himself. Seeing these ideal traits in him, the reader identifies himself with the hero. He, as it were, rises to the level of the ideal, and examines the plot twists and turns from the point of view of how one should act in such cases. At the same time, during the course of the narration, there may be heroes of the second plan with our real features. And, recognizing their actions in their actions, we can see them as they look from the outside. Moreover, these actions will be built into the chain of causes and effects, which do not constitute a secret for us, whereas in real life we are immersed in what is happening and, as a rule, do not see anything outside of what is happening here and now. As a result, we better understand why our own behavior is motivated, and what its real cost in the court of conscience is.

An important point: heroes can be negative or do bad things. In these cases, the literature allows us to work out situations in which it is desirable not to fall. Moreover, these situations can be as close as possible to our everyday life. Literature can teach not only to draw a dividing line between good and evil in their external manifestations, but also to find that subtle line that separates me good from me bad. It remains to be hoped that this will help me not to cross it once again.

Of course, literature can be of any kind. Any thought can be clothed in an art form. The author may wish the reader only good, or he may try to cause harm. The illustrations created by the word do not always correspond to the canons of aesthetics: the beautiful can be shown to be ugly, and vice versa. Quite often not what is really important is being modeled. Models are created that impose false decisions that contribute to the spiritual and moral degradation of a person. What is written does not need to be read. You should stay away from many texts. And yet a modern person must read.

Today it is easy to do without reading, since there is a cinema that, at first glance, performs the same functions. The film, just like the book, simulates situations. However, the dialogue with the film is less individual. The written text leaves the details undeveloped, and the reader thinks them out for himself, already in the context of a personal story. The book gives more room for interpretation compared to the film. The reading process is regulated by the person himself: something is omitted, something is re-read several times. The film does not allow such liberties. Therefore, the benefits of the book are much higher: those models that we take from the book fit us more accurately. The conclusions we draw over the book are much more useful. The book teaches me to live personally, the film is able to give only the most general recipes.

You can not watch movies, but read books. But is it possible not to read books? Theoretically, this is possible. But what does this mean in practice? A person who does not read fiction does not receive material for modeling situations. He will act in accordance with established personal habits or “like everyone else,” that is, using other people's models. Quite quickly, he will come to a situation in which the usual methods of solution will not work correctly. A person reading books can also fall into a similar "mine", for which he will not have the right solution to de-mine. But if he has read enough good books, the chances are not very high.

Critics of fiction, I think, have read a lot. They ceased to feel an acute need for it, since literature had already given them a lot, and they stocked up with models for different situations. With this kind of baggage, you can skip art tests for a long time. Books will seem boring, and reading - empty, useless occupation. After all, interest arises when we can take something new from the book to understand ourselves and the relationship between people. There is also such a problem that modern literature is shallow. A significant array of literary texts of recent times is either an emulation of meanings (these texts were created for commercial success, and meanings got into the text only as a technically necessary element) or a direct statement (which indicates the author's unwillingness or inability to work on the text). Such texts obviously cannot give anything to a spiritually demanding person. It turns out that the emerging new aspects of human relations are not worked out at the model level, and more fundamental things have long been modeled in classical texts. And if you've read the classics, then you don't have to read anything else.

We come to the following conclusion: if a person needs (or, shall we say, yet needs) in spiritual education, he cannot do without reading fiction.

Payment instructions (opens in a new window) Yandex.Money donation form:

Other ways to help

Comments 258

Comments (1)

258. Kirill D. : Reply to 256., Lucia:
2017-02-15 at 13:40

Well, maybe so.
These Western thinkers ... On the one hand, they cannot do without arrogance - we remain savages for them; on the other hand, they look at us with a (hidden) hope that in the end we will raise the banner that falls out of their hands and save them.
Well, or with fear - that we will not save, but we will lose. Never mind. A matter of taste, everyone has their own. In general, not bad either. :)))

256. s : Reply to 252., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 20:12

Spengler, with his German neatness, could not systematize his understanding of Russia, which is why it turned out so funny.

Figuratively, yes. But literally, in Europe, a shortage of wood began a long time ago, and there was stone, so they began to build from stone. In general, the ancient Mediterranean faced this. In Russia, on the contrary, there was plenty of forest, and there were problems with stone. So our buildings are wooden. The tree is healthier for health, but it burns. Well, the prerequisites for scientific and technological progress in Europe in this regard turned out to be better.

Are you kidding me? Okay, haha.

254. eka : Reply to 233., Lucia:
2017-02-14 at 20:10

And after a certain length of service, there was also a scientific pension, which, together with a salary, made it possible to live quite satisfyingly, throwing up fuel for their dunce grandchildren.

Lucia, hat off, you're not bad at shit. This is the first time I hear this dregs from you, I can't read it, I take your word for it that this is exactly what it is ...

252. Kirill D. : Reply to 248., Lucia:
2017-02-14 at 15:32

The Stone Age begins through industrialization. Stone worship is European culture and its surrogates ... fossilized souls create stone idols, stone ideals. Everything dries up, fades, and turns to stone in the retort of European material worshiping culture. The architects of the Stone Age are all the humanistic forces of Europe, ”the Rev. Justin Popovich wrote prophetically in 1957.

Figuratively, yes. And literally, in Europe, a shortage of wood began long ago, but there was a stone, so they began to build from stone.
In general, the ancient Mediterranean faced this.
In Russia, on the contrary, there were plenty of forests, but there were problems with the stone. So our buildings are wooden.
The tree is healthier for health, but it burns. Well, the prerequisites for scientific and technological progress in Europe in this regard turned out to be better.

251. Kirill D. : Reply to 246., Lucia:
2017-02-14 at 15:22

Spengler looked a little differently, but his conclusion is exactly the same.
True, if you continue to listen to him, Russia still has a chance. The culture has not yet sunk down, and has not even blossomed about the end yet. And civilization in our country and in general is not yet visible on the horizon. :)))
It is interesting that Spengler called Dostoevsky the apostle of Russian Christianity, who will really show himself, probably, in the 21st century.
Thus, as we can see, he somewhat exposes Fyodor Mikhailovich to the blows of our kultorobots. Such compromising evidence !!!
On the other hand, it is not necessary, of course, to understand Spengler literally, and that for him Dostoevsky is literally equal to the apostles. But one of the spiritual leaders - yes, of course.
In short, we will fight again, including with the help of Fyodor Mikhailovich.
And Europe - yes, it has already rolled away, kirdyk.

250. Kirill D. : Reply to 245., Mikhailov:
2017-02-14 at 15:14

Unfortunately, you have no idea what civilization is.

That's right. Where are we, sivolapy! :)))) We slurp cabbage soup, blow our nose on the floor, what kind of tsyvilizatsya is there! :)))

An ax, a saw, a chisel are not civilization.

Aha, when it is necessary - civilization, when it is not necessary - not civilization.
Meanwhile, all these instruments, along with musical instruments, were created by the descendants of Cain:

// 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city; And he called the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
18 Irad [Gaidad] was born to Enoch; Irad gave birth to Mechiael [Maleleil]; Mechiael gave birth to Methuselah; Methuselah gave birth to Lamech.
19 And Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of one was Ada, and the name of the second was Zillah [Sella].
20 Ada gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwelt in tents with flocks.
21 His brother's name is Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the harp and the flute.
22 Zillah also gave birth to Tuvalcain [Fovela], who was the cossack of all the implements of copper and iron.

So, without the great-grandson of Cain - Tuvalkain, the ark would not have been able to be built.
I have a constructive proposal - to admit that he is not to blame for the sin of his great-grandfather (and that we are not determined by our genes), but, on the contrary, to praise for the benefits he brought to society.

249. Kirill D. : Reply to 244., Mikhailov:
2017-02-14 at 15:06

If we discuss all these Precambrian, this is all for a very long time.
Each concept has its strengths, weaknesses and failures.
That the "creationist", that the "evolutionist" can be asked straight off a number of questions that will baffle him.
For example, Alexander Lalomov writes about this in a balanced way (his articles are on the RNL as well) - a geologist, a serious researcher.
And this naive creationist Protestant pop is better not to get carried away. Moreover, they have there and just fakes slip.
For myself, I came to the conclusion that the truth in this dispute lies in a slightly different dimension. In the plane of "pure science" with its tools, it is hardly possible to find it at all.

Evolutionism itself is, of course, a mythology or a paradigm, not a scientific theory. Moreover, it could not have arisen without the Bible. This is originally the Bible, in Six Days a picture of a phased creation is given, and more or less with the same scheme "from inanimate nature to live "and" from simple forms to more complex ones.
In general, all this is a big mystery.

In the meantime, I propose to fix the fact that no grandiose traces of a great antediluvian civilization, such as huge structures, have been found anywhere.

I do not exclude that they did not exist, and the antediluvian civilization was of a different type. Of course, the technique was, but it did not play such a role as it is now.
We now have a technocratic civilization. In this way we compensate for our physical and mental weakness. And then people were different and in general giants - the descendants of "the sons of God and daughters of men", either demigods, or half-gods, so they ruled.
And the immediate descendants of Cain are ordinary people.

Noah, as far as I understand, was also a "purebred" man. I mean, by himself he could be weaker than these giants, and they could look at him as a representative of a "lower race".

248. s :
2017-02-14 at 13:20

247. Descendant of the subjects of Emperor Nicholas II : Reply to 246., Lucia:
2017-02-14 at 12:54

The basis of culture is CULT.
The presence of a cult implies the ability to experience respect, worship.
Civilization is secondary in relation to culture and marks the withering away of the cult, the loss of the ability of society to worship and respect, and therefore - disappearance.

Luke will certainly make an exception, and on the future philosophical steamer they will give a place for a woman - for her.

246. s : Re: What is fiction, and can the Orthodox read it?
2017-02-14 at 12:34

The basis of culture is CULT. The presence of a cult implies the ability to experience respect, worship.

Everything that arises within the framework of this cult is culture.
Civilization is secondary in relation to culture and marks the withering away of the cult, the loss of the ability of society to worship and respect, and therefore - disappearance.

245. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 10:08

Unfortunately, you have no idea what civilization is. An ax, a saw, a chisel are not civilization. Modern researchers believe that the concepts of civilization and culture are close. Culture should be understood as a complex of material, spiritual, intellectual and emotional features of society, including the way of life and the rules of human existence, the system of values, traditions, and beliefs. Civilization is a qualitative milestone in the history of mankind, a certain stage at which its inherent cultural and social complex is formed. Culture is the basis on which civilization arises.
Civilization is a society of an original type, characterized by the presence of certain features, the main of which are: urbanization, social stratification, economic and political activity, typification human personality, external life activity, etc. In general, modern researchers consider civilization as an external world in relation to man. And culture is a symbol of inner wealth, a spiritual code. This understanding lies at the basis of the civilizational and culturological approaches.

244. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 09:55

In 1989, French archaeologist Eugene Bonifet discovered several simple stone artifacts at Saint-Eble in central France. He determined their age in the region of 2.2-2.5 million years. Nearby is an extinct volcano that erupted 2 million years ago, covering the surrounding area with lava; under the debris of volcanic rocks and found these tools.

243. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 09:54

In 1970, Wayne University geologist based in Detroit, Dr. John Sanford, reviewed all the data collected by Lee and other archaeologists at Sheganda. The scientist said that “the stratigraphic succession of sediments and artifacts contained in each layer has a clear and definite picture. Careful excavation and examination of deposits and artifacts in situ leaves no room for doubt about stratigraphy. "
In his interpretation of these finds, he concluded that these artifacts "certainly date from the early rather than late Wisconsin period." This is what geologists call the last of the four great ice ages that covered North America with ice. The Wisconsin period was about 80,000 years ago. But Dr. Sanford added that the deepest artifacts probably date from the later stages of the previous ice age, the Sangamon, which ended about 100,000 years ago.

242. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 09:50

In Western Australia, a waterwheel was found buried in a rock monolith at Cape Liwyn. (Creation, vol. 16, no. 2, March-May 1994, p. 25. Photo: Bev Lunt)

Inside a massive block of marble, excavated in 1830 from a quarry 12 miles northwest of Philadelphia, the outline of figures resembling letters were found. The marble block was located at a depth of 60-70 feet (18-21 meters). Before the workers reached the horizon in which this block lay, several layers of gneiss, mica shale, hornblende, talc shale and ancient clay were mined in the quarry. Sawing the slab, workers noticed rectangular cutouts, about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) wide and 0.625 inches (1.6 cm) high, distinctly reminiscent of the embossed letters.

In 1844, Sir David Brewster announced that an embedded nail had been found in a block of sandstone excavated from the Kingoodie quarries, Milnfield, Scotland. Dr. A. Medd. In his report to the British Association for Scientific Progress, Brewster wrote: “The rock in the Kingudi quarries consists of alternating layers of hard rock and a soft clay material known as til, or boulder clay, with rock strata varying in thickness from six inches to six feet (15 cm - 1 , 8 m). The slab in which the nail was found was nine inches (22.5 cm) thick.

In the early 1930s, Dr. Wilbur Greeley Burroughs, head of the geology department at Berea College, was brought to a site in the Kentucky Hills, where he discovered ten complete human tracks and several more in Carboniferous sandstone. All accumulated evidence suggests that they were left on the sandy shore in the Pennsylvania period of the Paleozoic era - that is, humanoid footprints are about 250 million years old.

241. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 08:48

The biblical model of education crust:
1. Precambrian. The strata dating from this period must have originated before the flood. They were partially created during the second and third days of creation. These strata indicate that at that time there was only one continent. This assumption is supported by Gen. 1.9 (see chapter 4).
2. Paleozoic (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian). These are the sediments left by the flood. Deep sediments and rock shields at the bottom of the oceans appeared already in the first days of the flood. The study of the structure of strata shows that, due to intense tectonic processes, the original supercontinent had to split into parts, which after some time rejoined.
3. Mesozoic (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous). These strata should have formed partly during the flood, partly after it. For many centuries after the flood, new continental boundaries were formed, accompanied by volcanic eruptions, abrupt climate changes and gigantic destructive floods. These floods washed away soil over large areas and applied it elsewhere, creating new layers of sediment. The period mentioned in Gen. 10.25 the division of the land in the time of Peleg - the separation of America from Europe and Africa. After the division of the continents, the so-called ice age began.
4. Tertiary (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene) and Quaternary periods (Pleistocene and the present era - Holocene): continuation of the ice age. Dinosaurs are completely extinct. In the middle of this period, crustal faults began to form in Palestine. It was only during the time of Abraham (c. 2100 BC) that relative peace reigned on the earth, and it became what we see it today.

240. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 08:42

Numerous surviving traces of humans and dinosaurs have been found in the limestone deposits, while according to the evolutionary model, dinosaurs should have become extinct at least 60 million years before the appearance of man.
There are numerous reports of the finding of traces of human activity and even human bones in sediments preceding the Tertiary period. Obviously, such findings cannot be explained in terms of evolution: descendants could not live millions of years earlier than their supposed ancestors! Therefore, many evolutionists reject or simply ignore these facts, thereby undermining the credibility of their theories. We have seen that both the uniformitarian and flood models offer their explanations for the fact that the lower sediments contain almost only fossil marine organisms, while the upper layers are dominated by the remains of land dwellers. However, only the flood model is able to show why, as an exception, fossils of higher life forms (plants, animals), including humans, are still found in the lower layers.

239. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 08:38

At present, deposits of many known types also do not occur: sandstone, shale, conglomerates, limestone, hornfels and evaporites. Their formation can only be explained by the course of gigantic chemical and hydraulic processes that uplifted and mixed huge amounts of sand, clay and other types of soils with deposits of mineral salts, and these transformations had to proceed so quickly that even huge animals were buried along with the rock. The volume of the raging water masses that it took to mix the sand and clay, forming thousands of square kilometers of sandstone and shale deposits, cannot be calculated.

238. Mikhailov : Reply to 236., Kirill D .:
2017-02-14 at 08:35

The set of layers of the earth's crust (geochronological scale) existing today should have been formed not over millions and billions of years, but quickly and suddenly, under the influence of tectonic forces and flood waters, over several centuries. The latter is also important, since the sedimentation and compaction of the soil apparently took place for some time after the flood, while the fossilization of the layers of sediments with the biomass buried in them proceeded even more slowly. Precambrian deposits, poor in fossils, have survived from antediluvian times, while at least some of the upper layers (Tertiary and Quaternary periods) must have formed after the flood.
The geochronological scale used by evolutionary geologists is true only in the sense that it describes the general sequence of the layers of the earth's crust. Surprisingly, this sequence of (presumed) geological epochs is fully consistent with the prediction of the flood model, the latter easily solving the problems of evolutionary geochronology. So, only the flood model offers an acceptable explanation for the origin of the numerous and huge burials of organic matter, sometimes numbering the remains of hundreds of thousands of animals, probably seeking salvation from a terrible disaster and buried in a common grave. Not only the uniformitarian, but also the flood model explains why in the lower layers of sediments there are exclusively marine animals and plants, and in the subsequent - the inhabitants of the land. However, only the flood model explains the presence in the lower layers of single fossils of terrestrial life forms - trees, mammals, people. In the case of the uniformitarian model, we would expect to find in the lower layers of the sediment a pattern of the gradual development of protozoa, primitive plants and animals, as well as the gradual formation of the main groups of invertebrates. The flood model assumes the presence in the lower layers of sediments of all types of marine life forms found today (including extinct species), which is exactly true. After the almost fossilized Precambrian layers, Cambrian and Ordovician sediments follow, in which not only all types of marine organisms, but also most of the main groups of the animal world are represented in abundance. This fact is one of the biggest problems of evolutionists, from the point of view of uniformitarianism it defies explanation at all. The Flood model offers what the uniformitarian model cannot provide: an explanation of the existing general sequence of layers of the earth's crust (traditionally associated with the geochronological scale), including the many disturbances of this sequence, and the fossils contained in the strata. In addition, the flood model solves the fundamental problems arising from the evolutionary interpretation of the history of the earth's crust. This does not mean that the flood model is free from problems: it is not all unambiguous, and it cannot answer all the questions. But it seems that in the flood model these problems are of a secondary nature, affecting only some of its details, but on the whole it justifies itself very well. We owe this success to those who, despite the opinion of the majority, had the courage to proceed from biblical foundations.

237. Kirill D. : Reply to 234., Lucia:
2017-02-14 at 01:22

The original was taken from piligrim04 in Spartak and Bandera - the national heroes of our homeland. "The history of the Ukrainian people is 140 thousand years old."

ABOUT! You have a great idea. We must put Mikhailov against the Banderlog. This will be for the general benefit.
It means that they are 140 thousand years old. And they created a great civilization even then. So they are demonic Cainites. Let Mikhailov tear them apart.
Well, he will set their brains in the sense of science in general, he is also strong in science, unlike modern scientists (see # 226).

236. Kirill D. : Reply to 226., Mikhailov:
2017-02-14 at 01:12

If artifacts are extracted from the vast depths of the earth, and sometimes from limestone deposits, then the problem of dating recedes into the background.

Ugh! Do not meddle in geology! Limestone is just a relatively young, sedimentary rock, surface bedding.
Yes, yes, you are now getting rid of science. These scientists do not understand anything, because of the crafty they have everything and in general they speak the wrong language.
Of course, any scientific "flock" will laugh at you and ask you to leave - but not because of your Christian faith, but because of your ignorance.
And where did you see the antediluvian "giant structures scattered all over the face of the earth"?
Did you read it in the Top Secret newspaper?
Well, Pyramids of Egypt- so are they really antediluvian?
And what such artifacts were recovered from the vast depths of the earth? From the pages of the yellow press - of course, they were extracted. And from great depths - well, there was no such thing.

Yes, since I have already spoken. I forgot to ask last time.
Here is Noah with his sons - after all, he was building the ark. Large, huge for those times, sizes, "floating craft".
First, the builders needed axes and other tools and other technical devices.
Second, they had to be able to build large, complex objects.
And this is civilization. Were they Cainites too? Or how can you build an ark without civilization?
God told Noah to build an ark. But he did not build it for him, Noah had to cope with the task himself, and he did it.
And what is the moral in this?

235. Kirill D. : Answer to 231., Mikhailov:
2017-02-14 at 00:44

Dear Cyril D., I think that Joyce himself could envy your “stream of consciousness”.

I must admit that at one time I "did not master" Ulysses and, frankly speaking, I am not sure whether it is worth trying again. :)))
In general, yes, sometimes I like to chat, to fountain with consciousness. :)))

In fact, we have essentially exhausted this topic. And I, of course, am far from the illusion that someone will convince someone of something, and that you, for example, will love secular culture.

But what is interesting to me ... Why do you need all this? What is the goal?

Let's say you initially opposed the "creation of idols" from the classics. In my opinion, your fears were unnecessary, but it's good to remind people once again that Eugene Onegin is not equal to the Gospel, and Fyodor Mikhailovich should not be canonized, it also does not hurt.
But along the way, another thing was revealed - you are not against excessive exaltation of secular culture, but you are against it as such - for you it is all from the evil one.

Okay, that's your point of view. As they say, you have the right.
But what sense do you see in publicly promoting this point of view of yours?

In turn, I can say what kind of danger I see in you.
Of course, I'm not afraid that you will start burning libraries or doing something anti-cultural in the style of the destruction of Palmyra by ISIS (banned in Russia). You won't, of course.
But ... your, excuse me, the danger is that you are writing out an indulgence for ignorance and lack of culture for the Russian Orthodox people.
What indulgence many will happily take advantage of, having received such a "pious" excuse. Hooray, I can no longer read these long and complex texts! And not because I am a lazy degradant, but because they are insane and heretical!
You are here objectively working in one team with the liberals and other Russophobes and agents of the "new world order" working to transform the people into cattle.
Or do you really think that people, if they leave reading Russian and other literary classics, will switch to reading Scripture and the Holy Fathers? Here's an honest answer - is it true, you think so?
And if, nevertheless, you do not think so, what is the goal pursued by your publicistic "crusade" against secular culture?

234. s : Re: What is fiction, and can the Orthodox read it?
2017-02-14 at 00:15

The original was taken from piligrim04 in Spartak and Bandera - the national heroes of our country.

"The history of the Ukrainian people is 140 thousand years old"

.
"The Black Sea appeared artificially thanks to the talent and labor of the ancient ukrov. In time immemorial, when our compatriots returned home from distant wanderings and talked about large expanses of water in the transcordon lands, it was decided to create a sea for ourselves. As a result of the heroic work of more than one generation your ancestors and a huge lake was dug.
Another proof is the accumulation of hydrogen sulfide in the lower layers of this reservoir, which is explained by its intensive use for washing and washing our ancestors. "(Edmund Kvasiv." The history of ukrov from the cradle to the present day ", Kiev," Prosvita ", 2006r.

"... People are a fruitful branch of the Ukrainian national tree"
(Candidate of Historical Sciences Y. Dzhedzhula, "A Thousand Years of the Ukrainian Diaspora")

“Arias (orii) is the most ancient name for Ukrainians. The first plowmen in the world. They tamed the horse, invented the wheel and the plow "
(S. Plachinda "Dictionary of ancient Ukrainian mythology", Kiev).

Sanskrit is based on some mysterious language "samsar" brought to our planet from Venus. Isn't it about the Ukrainian language? "
(Kratko-Kutynsky A. Phenomenon of Ukraine. "Evening Kiev", 1993). (C)

"Ancient Ukrainian language- Sanskrit - became the foremother of all Indo-European "languages"
(Plachinda S. Dictionary of ancient Ukrainian mythology. Kiev, 1993). (C)

"The Ukrainian language is antediluvian, the language of Noah, the most ancient language in the world, from which the Caucasian-Japhetic, Prahamitic and Prosemitic groups of languages originated"
(Chepurko B. Ukrainians. "Basis" No. 3. Kiev, 1993). (C)

"Since ancient times, Ukraine has led the civilizational development of the people of the white race, ensured this development in every possible way, favored it, even being in captivity. Will anyone else be able to find that moral and Divine mighty strength and pure historical truth and ability to continue to be a conductor? the last civilization of mankind ".

233. s : Reply to 229., eka:
2017-02-14 at 00:08

Dostoevsky is not in the top 10, Dostoevsky is not in the top 100 either, he was read and read only under duress ...

Brain-bearers and shit-shredders today are perhaps the only professions that agree to finance the Ukrainian budget, which is exhausted from the deriban.

All the rest of the naukovts were ordered to excuse and move. The number of Ukrainian universities, which proliferated rapidly in the 90s and especially in the fat 2000s, is radically reduced, and everyone is sitting quietly like mice. But even 5 years ago, any attempt by the criminal Azarov to swing at some bursa with a modest desire to merge it with another one of the same caused a surge of bilious hatred, a rebellion of Ukraine, mass actions of students and teachers, performances and happenings, Grantos's tantrums and bubonic plague.

Actually, in vain the evil Vlada nursed this horde of useless cisterns for so long, the whole raison d'être of which was that the positions given to them for feeding would bring baksheesh from students willing to pay, hungry for knowledge like a stick dog. For years, an army of docent grandmothers in Orenburg shawls on the lower back rubbed the batteries with woolen threads, knitting warm cocks for their granddaughters. The divisions of other naukovtsi made sure that the students were all over the place with Ukrainian language. Still others timidly tried to move some research, but global science, both in applied and theoretical parts, did not see any particular consequences of these attempts. Rarely, here and there, but all this did not justify the colossal spending on the maintenance of the temples of science.

And so they would sit quietly, without attracting the attention of the orderlies, but no - the Naukovtsi turned out to be the driving force of all Ukrainian Maidans. Not worse than mytsi. True, the former mainly nourished the public with lines of hatred, pity and pain, while the latter naturally stomped on the Maidan in slender columns, leading an armada of students.

If they had at least one non-defective ganglion at all, the scientists would have guessed where their place would be in the event of an association with the EU and total reforms, but alas, the desire to reverse the Asian Yanukovych won, and the gray-haired professors were galloping in pots next to their students. There were also employees of research institutes who, in the general case, were even less useful than from universities, but they still regularly received their modest salary. And after a certain length of service, there was also a scientific pension, which, together with a salary, made it possible to live quite satisfyingly, throwing up fuel for their dunce grandchildren.

232. Kirill D. : Reply to 227., Lucia:
2017-02-14 at 00:04

What does history have to do with it? began to live like in Europe. Much better than there.

"Better" - "worse" are generally complex and multifaceted concepts.
In many ways, it was better than there was in the USSR (another question - this was not understood and appreciated).
And I meant the 1990s versus the 1980s. And if about now, then another 20-25 years have passed, a completely different era has come.
In many ways, we have gotten better after these very 1990s, in many respects, Europe itself has degraded since the 1980s - 1990s.
On the other hand, what happened then backfires on us now and will backfire in the future.

Yes, ask, for example, the residents of Donbass how they feel now. And this is all a direct consequence of the collapse of the country then.

In general, after the political collapse of the USSR, our geopolitical risks and costs have sharply increased. Both in the west and in the south.
We also received a powerful demographic blow in the 1990s. Which is also affecting now.
A blow to science, education, the real sector of the economy, qualified personnel ... It cannot be said that we have recovered either.

And our "better" is still largely illusory. There is no basis for the reproduction of life yet. To a large extent, this is the still unfinished Soviet base.
"Better" came, in essence, due to a sharp decline in investment compared to Soviet times. This volume was partly simply plundered and pumped out to the West, partly went into consumption. And, of course, it got "better" in a certain sense. Suppose you invest part of your funds in the construction of a new house, you deny yourself something ... And then you spit on this house, and free money immediately becomes more, and life seems to be "better".

This is approximately what happened. Now - yes, the situation is being corrected, but it's all hard.
Where is our mechanical engineering? And our mechanical engineering is no longer there. And we are heavily dependent on the technology and technology of our geopolitical and ideological opponents. And not only some kind of nanotechnology, to hell with them, but we do not release our tractors to plow the land. We buy from our sworn western friends. However, now everything in this world is bought from China, including by our western partners. :)
In general, everything is complicated.
And it will be very difficult to get rid of this dependence. And even so far it's not very clear how.
In general, it is difficult to survive in this world, having less than 2% of the world population (and this share is falling) and about the same 2-3% (how can you count) of world GDP.
For you, as a humanitarian person, this is probably boring :).
But, in general, as it is.

This is all me, of course, not to fall into melancholy and sadness about the collapse of the USSR or start a dispute with you or anyone else on the topic "what would have happened if ..." or "it was better or worse then or then. "
I am simply describing the reality in which we now live and survive. With a set of difficult problems caused, among other things, by the collapse of the USSR. But we live and solve them here and now.

Yes, the USSR will not return anyway. It doesn't matter if you perceive its decay as liberation from hell or expulsion from paradise. It is impossible for anyone to restore it. And no one will ever try to do this.
But the senseless enmity between the "red" and "white" patriots is an endless, senseless and merciless pre-war civil war, the present Russia can do a lot of harm.

"That, in fact, is all I can say about the Vietnam War" (c).

228. Andrey Karpov : Reply to 217., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 21:33

You write: "Culture is inevitable." Totally agree with you. However, questions arise. What culture? Which culture is inevitable for whom? Doesn't the free will given to us imply the choice of the culture that I like? You have filled the concept of culture, pleasant for your consciousness, with content and pass this concept off as the ultimate truth. And for you it is quite natural to include everyone who does not share your opinion in the camp of acultural people. You write: "Culture is still outside of religion." This pleasant culture for you is outside of religion. For me and the majority of Orthodox people, true culture is precisely within the boundaries of the Church. But the false one, no matter how the adepts call it, is outside the boundaries of the Church. I have already written here to one uncle to read I. Ilyin's "Foundations of Christian Culture". You are probably familiar with this book. Don't you agree with Ilyin?

Ilyin is a romantic.
He speaks beautiful words and himself is fascinated by them.
I understand that you are pleased with his words. They are generally pleasing to the Orthodox ear. You are imbued with such special enthusiasm.
But culture is all the meanings that a person generates, and not only those to which he pays his favorable attention. You leave the temple and deal with everyday problems. And in this activity, too, create meanings and generate culture. Moreover, it is this part of the culture that speaks more about you than your internal officialdom. An Orthodox Christian today and in the 16th century had the same Creed. But if we compare everyday culture, then we see that fasting today in public life is manifested very weakly. This indicates a weakening of faith.
The everyday culture of fasting is also a Christian culture. We can say that it is within the Church if we understand it by the church of believers. But she is outside the church walls. There is culture inside the church walls too. But she, too, is outside of religion. The carving of the iconostasis has nothing to do with an act of faith ... And the drawing laid out with slabs on the floor, and flowers by the icon, and a tray with open spaces.
Stories, that is, what Christians say to each other. Emotions expressed in songs ... One has only to stop aspiring to God, and culture arises. Do you want to demand from a person that he be directed to God every second? How are you yourself with this?

226. Mikhailov : Answer to 218., Andrey Karpov:
2017-02-13 at 19:04

"I will not touch upon the problem of dating and the absence of the term" antediluvian "in the lexicon of modern science." You are doing the right thing. If artifacts are extracted from the vast depths of the earth, and sometimes from limestone deposits, then the problem of dating recedes into the background. And so everything is clear. There are many things missing in the vocabulary of modern science. Figures of modern science have invented their own "bird" language, and everyone who begins to speak humanly is immediately expelled from the flock. Probably the same in cultural studies?
"Until the 18th century, digging in the ground was not accepted." Excuse me, but what was Saint Helena doing in Palestine in the 4th century? Or did antique statues during the Renaissance filled palaces, having come there with their feet?
“All the more, no one would have dug up the wickedness buried by God himself immediately after the Flood.” Naturally, at that time there were no drilling rigs, bulldozers, etc. But there was no need to dig something up, for example, gigantic structures scattered all over the face of the earth, which the water did not destroy.
"It is impossible to recreate someone else's content." Well, why, the art of the same Renaissance perfectly recreated the ideological content of antiquity. Russian classics-writers have recreated and even surpassed the European novel on their own soil.

225. Kirill D. : Answer to 215., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 18:27

And the very word - "Cainites" - is the same old song.
The desire to explain the world in a way convenient for oneself. At the same time, it has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. Apocryphal amateur performance for self-gratification.
There are good "we" ("Sethites") and bad "they" ("Cainites"). We are warriors of light, they are servants of darkness. We are elves, they are orcs.
And our differences are almost biological and predetermined. The main thing is that we are above them.
Some more talk about Lilith. All the good ones (we) came from Eve, and all the bad ones (they, whom we do not love) - from Lilith.
Grown uncles who have gone overboard with fantasy reading in the context of the general growth of infantilism in the modern world.

224. Kirill D. : Reply to 217., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 18:03

223. Kirill D. : Answer to 215., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 17:41

You, apparently, do not know that there is a whole "antediluvian" direction in archeology. The material heritage of antediluvian humanity is significant. Museum depositories are crammed with it. Read relevant literature

How interesting. Generally speaking, modern science does not even operate with the concept of "Global Flood". And no artifacts are defined in modern scientific language as "antediluvian".
Of course, there are indirect signs indicating catastrophes that took place, roughly speaking, about 10,000 years ago, plus or minus (according to available dates).
But in science this is mainly associated with the melting of the last ice sheet (Valdai, Wisconsin, Wurm), marking the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene, in modern terminology.
If we talk about human civilization and culture, then during this period, the so-called. "neolithic revolution". From that moment on, some tangible heritage appears, in addition to individual bones, broken shards and some kind of stone tools.
But this is, rather, precisely the post-Flood time.
Moreover, the emergence of the first civilizations - in Sumer, Egypt, India ... This is exactly after the flood, and the dating is appropriate - somewhere starting from 5000 years ago.

222. Kirill D. : Reply to 212., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 16:46

He said something well (although what does entertainment have to do with it, if you initially attack not them, but Pushkin and Dostoevsky?), But not original.
In approximately the same way, but brighter, laconic and more poetic, Karl Marx (in 1843 in his work "On the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law") spoke about religion:

"Religion is the sigh of an oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a soulless order. Religion is the opium of the people."

It should also be added that at that time opium was perceived not as a drug, but as a pain reliever.

So, Marx was, in fact, right - in relation to all religions, except for the Christian, which is Truth, and not psychotherapy (although for us this is, to a great extent, psychotherapy too).
And from this it follows that Marx, being an atheist, understood that it is impossible without religion as long as the world is heartless.

And this is quite applicable to art. Your contemporary author made the correct reservation - "with the expulsion from paradise." And you don't seem to notice it. Are we in paradise again, or what? No, with the expulsion from paradise (which took place, as already mentioned, long before the appearance of secular culture) we are experiencing the tragedy of God-forsakenness and emptiness. This void does not need to be filled? If it is not filled with culture, will God settle there? No, demons will settle there.

221. Kirill D. : Reply to 212., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 16:25

And about church culture.
You don't seem to understand.
Athenagoras is certainly right, but there is another side - if there were no artists and painting, there would be no icon painting either.
The point is that church culture is precisely culture. This is the introduction of culture into spiritual life.
You can pray anywhere - in the field and at home. It is not necessary to build temples, "God is not in logs, but in ribs."
Icons are also optional, the iconoclasts have their own rather strong argumentation, and in your attacks on secular culture you are essentially repeating what they say about icons.
Christ did not prescribe all this, did not say that it was necessary to build beautiful temples with icons and chants. And almost the other way around. Read "Our Father" at home - that's all. This is if you understand it in a simplified and literal way (which some do).
And in this sense, the religious culture of both the Old Testament Jews, and our pagan ancestors, and modern Protestants, was much simpler and more ascetic than our Orthodox church culture.
Does this mean that they are closer to God, and we have a lot of secondary "cultural" beauty that distracts us from the main thing and even distorts it? Sorry, but following your logic - yes.

220. Kirill D. : Reply to 212., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 16:13

Now about patristics.
The Holy Fathers condemn low-standard spectacles. I have not seen any condemnation of, for example, the Iliad.
And, even more so, the profound conclusion that the "dancing of effeminate husbands" is a consequence of the work of Homer.
And you make such a conclusion.
Besides ... Let's say, I won't even argue that the classics at one time performed some kind of destructive work.
To put it mildly, I don't really understand what destructive work Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Pushkin, Dostoevsky did ...
But let's say even so. However, it is obvious that in our time of "bacchanalia" they certainly do creative work. And here you are fighting them. As if, if Dostoevsky disappears, the orgy will also disappear. It will not disappear - on the contrary, it will become more.
Cyril of Jerusalem testifies to this. In his time, Dostoevsky was not there, but the bacchanalia was. It was even before Homer - a very ancient cult. High secular culture helps to overcome this Bacchic evil, and does not condone it at all.

219. Kirill D. : Reply to 212., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 15:52

About knowledge of the Bible and the Cainites.
The first violators of God's order were, in fact, Adam and Eve, who disobeyed God. After the expulsion from paradise, the first violator was, in fact, Cain, who killed his brother Abel.
"A tricky question" - what kind of secular culture caused the fall of Adam and Eve and the crime of Cain ???
So, people began to commit grave sins BEFORE the advent of secular culture.
If (let's say, as you say), secular culture is the creation of the murderer's descendants, then this does not mean that secular culture is bad, but that the descendants have corrected themselves by directing their (let's say) inherited criminal energy "for peaceful purposes" ...
By the way, tell us something about the secular culture of the criminal environment. And do people really go to rob and kill, because they have read a lot of books?
Culture (let's say even) is a consequence of godlessness and crime. This does not mean that the culture is bad. This means the presence of "negative feedback", a protective reaction of the human body.

218. Andrey Karpov : Answer to 215., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 15:27

I will not touch upon the problem of dating and the absence of the term "antediluvian" in the lexicon of modern science. But you, right, represent the heirs of Noah as archaeologists? Until the 18th century, digging in the ground was not accepted. Even more so, no one would dig up the wickedness buried by God himself immediately after the Flood. Life started from scratch.

Noah and his family lived among the people of his day and built the ark in front of their eyes. Many people, not to mention Noah, work from morning to night, and at the same time absorb culture like sponges. By the way, Noah had a son named Ham. Some of his actions indicate that he took something from the Cainites

It is unlikely that Noah communicated with the Cainites. Most likely, he lived among his fellow tribesmen. For a patriarchal society, a tribal structure is inherent. Cainite and unclean are not at all identical concepts. There were few righteous people among the descendants of Seth.
As for Ham, he was, rather, the first Pharisee: he condemned his father for inappropriate behavior. We now have many who are ready to condemn at the first opportunity.

Recreate copies, ideological content.

It is impossible to recreate someone else's content. Today's neo-pagans, for example, have nothing to do with ancient paganism. The apostle Paul said about the ancients that the Lord allowed them to walk in their own ways. Therefore, a pagan could accept Christian preaching. Today's neopagans are opponents of God. They initially build their worldview as a rejection of Christ.

Always like this. The new is assembled from the elements of the old. The source is not elements, not building material. The source is the human heart. It is he who is the architect, and everything that can be tucked is used as a material. Including fragments of a foreign culture. Culture is always relevant. It is created by virtue of human nature (without it, a person cannot). But its filling can be different. And the responsibility for filling is borne by the person himself, and not by his ancestors or, in general, some kind of lateral branch - the Cainites.

217. Mikhailov : Answer to 214., Andrey Karpov:
2017-02-13 at 15:23

You write: "Culture is inevitable." Totally agree with you. However, questions arise. What culture? Which culture is inevitable for whom? Doesn't the free will given to us imply the choice of the culture that I like?
You have filled the concept of culture, pleasant for your consciousness, with content and pass this concept off as the ultimate truth. And it is quite natural for you to include everyone who does not share your opinion in the camp of acultural people.
You write: "Culture is still outside of religion." This pleasant culture for you is outside of religion. For me and the majority of Orthodox people, true culture is precisely within the boundaries of the Church. But the false one, no matter how the adepts call it, is outside the boundaries of the Church.
I have already written here to one uncle to read I. Ilyin's "Foundations of Christian Culture". You are probably familiar with this book. Don't you agree with Ilyin?

215. Mikhailov : Answer to 213., Andrey Karpov:
2017-02-13 at 11:57

The flood killed the Cainites, but not their culture. Unfortunately, it was recreated by the descendants of Noah. Think about this phrase of yours. How could it be? 1. The flood washed away everything. There was nothing left but bare earth. No trace. No material heritage. 2. Noah was righteous and did not associate with the wicked. Noah's family built the ark for 100 years. When would they absorb Cainite culture? 3. What does it mean to "reproduce" someone else's culture? Try to reproduce some culture ... It is impossible. A person is always adequate to his culture (or vice versa). Culture is an external reflection of human meanings. You cannot display meanings that you do not have.

I thought "over this phrase of mine."
1. You, apparently, do not know that in archeology there is a whole "antediluvian" direction. The material heritage of antediluvian humanity is significant. Museum depositories are crammed with it. Read the relevant literature.
2. Noah was righteous. But where did you get the idea that he did not associate with the wicked? Noah and his family lived among the people of his day and built the ark in front of their eyes. Many people, not to mention Noah, work from morning to night, and at the same time absorb culture like sponges. By the way, Noah had a son named Ham. Some of his actions indicate that he took something from the Cainites
3. I used the word "recreated." Not only culture, but everything that has ever existed cannot be reproduced in the original. Hedgehog is understandable. Recreate copies, ideological content. It is in this sense that modern mankind has recreated the Cainite culture.

214. Andrey Karpov : Reply to 208., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 11:27

in the so-called "traditional" culture

The main idea to which I addressed you when I invited you to read that article is quite simple: culture is inevitable.

Culture is the interiorization of meanings. People cannot exchange meanings without their external embodiment. People do not read thoughts, and do not hear each other at a distance ... In order for meanings to pass from person to person, they must be materialized. Materialized meanings are culture.

This is the first thing.
Second, meanings give rise to meanings. Everything that a person encounters needs to be understood (we are not given ready-made knowledge). Nature is subject to comprehension, things created by man are subject to comprehension. Already internalized meanings are subject to comprehension. Culture rolls in like a lump: the products of past comprehension are comprehended by new generations.

Where to get away from culture? Nowhere. While a person is alive, he accumulates culture. The only question is what this culture will be.

And further. Culture is still outside of religion. If the center of religion is direct contact with God (for false beliefs - with unclean spirits), then there is no need for internalization. God (unlike man) does not need external things. But human life is not limited to contact with God. In order for life to be equal to contact with God, spiritual experience is necessary, a high spiritual level is required. People are not born saints. They are only born with the potential for holiness. This means that human contact with the world (with nature, with the products of human activity, with other people) is inevitable. And this is where a person enters the culture. Which can enrich him spiritually, lead him to God, and can lead him away.

I understand the horror of some: they see that instead of a solid foundation, there is a certain uncertainty under their feet (they flop into the water and are forced to swim). A person is forced to accumulate culture. And it is he who is responsible for this process. There is not something that will be decided for you. The symbol of faith has been given to us. The canon is given to us. The sacraments have been given to us. Everything is simple here. But no one will fit into you and will not generate your meanings for you. And this is scary ... This is free will ... Some people think they can give it up ... But combining their will with God (giving up self-will) is not at all giving up free will: you still have to make a choice ... And we do it within the culture ... You cannot discard this environment, just as you cannot discard the choice itself, no matter how someone might want it ...

213. Andrey Karpov : Reply to 207., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 11:08

The flood killed the Cainites, but not their culture. She, unfortunately, was recreated by the descendants of Noah.

Think about this phrase of yours. How could this be?

1. The flood washed away everything. There was nothing left but bare earth. No trace. No material heritage.

2. Noah was righteous and did not associate with the wicked. Noah's family built the ark for 100 years. When would they absorb the Cainite culture?

3. What does it mean to "reproduce" a foreign culture? Try to reproduce some culture ... It is impossible. A person is always adequate to his culture (or vice versa). Culture is an external reflection of human meanings. You cannot display meanings that you do not have.

212. Mikhailov : Reply to 209., Kirill D .:
2017-02-13 at 10:55

You write: "In fact, everything in this world is the creations of fallen humanity ... The languages we speak, and our bodies themselves." Apparently, you haven't even read the Bible. Otherwise, they would have known that languages and bodies were created by God.
You write: “Culture and civilization is a way of organizing life, human relations and maintaining order in our fallen world. Fiction - including ". What a naive person you are! Reason like a child. It is through culture that God's order in the world is destroyed. Read modern books, watch movies and computer games. For their time, the "classics" did the same destructive work. It's just that in comparison with the current bacchanalia, they seem to be innocent sheep.
You write: “You didn’t think that the architecture and decoration of churches, icons, the Divine service itself, church chants and music are all just CULTURE”. Don't juggle! I am talking about secular culture and secular fiction, and you, in your usual manner, ascribe to me a negative attitude towards Christian culture. Read I. Ilyin "Fundamentals of Christian Culture", it says it all.
You write: “Some powerful stream journalism or theology from the Holy Fathers directed against secular culture simply does not exist. " You are, apparently, little knowledgeable in patristics.
Tertullian: "Art is a secret idolatry, all who serve it serve the work of the devil." "After all, we have been commanded to renounce all kinds of impurity, therefore, the theater, which constitutes, so to speak, a spectacle of shamelessness, where nothing else can be learned, except that which is universally disapproved, must be closed for us."
Athenagoras: "If it weren't for painting, images of the gods would not have appeared, artists were needed to make them appear."
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem: “The pride of Satan is all sorts of frantic spectacles and horse racing, catching with dogs and all such fuss ... May no spectacular frenzy be desired for you, where you will see the impudence of jesters, produced with shamelessness and all indecency, you will see frantic womanlike men dancing! Run away and horse groaning, a frantic spectacle that kills souls: because all this is the pride of the devil. "
Saint Basil the Great writes that the theater is a "school for debauchery." He: "Let's not praise the poets when they slander, mock, represent lovers and drunkards, or when they restrict bliss to a spreading table and riotous songs."
The modern author said well: “With the expulsion from paradise, the loss of spiritual joy and the fullness of communion with God, in the soul of man, according to the Holy Fathers, an emptiness was formed. Labor and prayer, commanded to restore peace of mind and silence, are perceived by many people as an unbearable, unbearable burden. But spectacles delight the senses and seem to fill the void of a person's inner life. In these entertainments, people are forgotten, distracted from the painful emptiness of their souls. "

210. Kirill D. : Reply to 208., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 00:45

In my opinion, the so-called "traditional" culture already contains the leaven of everything that you do not like in its subsequent natural development. This leaven also fermented postculture, shark culture, etc.

You will decide. And then you first write that evil is in modern culture, which Peter stole in the West and infected Russia, and the fact that culture is inherently harmful.
Probably, after all, in your opinion - this is initially evil. And traditional culture (which means Russian culture - yes, then what claims to the West and Peter? (No. 205) - we also have the wrong leaven.
And culture is "the creation of fallen humanity" (ibid.).
In fact, everything in this world is the creation of fallen humanity.
The houses in which we live (you can't live on the street? Some saints could), the clothes we wear are all creations of fallen humanity.
The languages we speak, and our bodies themselves, as well as, I beg your pardon, some relationships between a man and a woman as we know it, are all the results of the Fall.
Culture and civilization is a way of organizing life, human relationships and maintaining order in our fallen world. Fiction - including.
Of course, in the life of the next century, in the Kingdom of Heaven, none of this will exist in its present form.
But if you believe that the destruction of the earthly order (or the elimination of some of its components) will lead you to this Kingdom, you are mistaken.
Perhaps, in about the same way as people who thought that with the destruction of the USSR they would heal "as in Europe" were mistaken. :)))

209. Kirill D. : Answer to 205., Mikhailov:
2017-02-13 at 00:22

It is good that we had a frank exchange of views. I sincerely thank you for your straightforward presentation of your position.
However, do not flatter yourself. Your anti-cultural drive is rooted not in the ideals of the Ancient Church and Holy Russia, but in Protestantism, in the bourgeois simplification of the picture of the world. I wrote about this in No. 110, I don’t want to repeat myself.

But history is ours, Russian history, it has already shown. The Old Believers also considered themselves to be the defenders of the ideals of the Ancient Church and Holy Russia from Western influences, but life has shown that they, in fact, were Protestants.

Another fact is your mistake. I don't know about the "ideological Cainites". The physical Cainites drowned in the Flood. And the most powerful culture was created by the descendants of Japheth. It reached its peak in the bosom of the Christian civilization.
Yes, and declining - precisely as it departs from God. But you are not striking at decadence, but at the heights of culture illuminated by the light of Christ - by Pushkin and Dostoevsky, for example.

And you, of course, are not the first in this world to see evil outside, not inside.
You are against secular culture in about the same way as the communists are against private property, the liberals are against the state, on the contrary, the nationalists are against foreigners, the vegans are against animal food, or there the Luddites were against machines.

And this suggests that your declared Orthodoxy is purely external - so to speak, political and journalistic in nature. By your inner essence, you represent one of the secularized currents generated by capitalism, the primitivization of consciousness and just a departure from God.

A truly spiritual Orthodox person will first of all differ from you in the way of thinking and acting. He understands that the battlefield is the human soul, that evil is within us. And he simply will not engage in such journalism, fighting with something external.

Note that some powerful stream of journalism or theology from the Holy Fathers directed against secular culture simply does not exist. Or there are no decisions of the Councils condemning secular culture either.
Otherwise, you could rely on all this.

But it is precisely in Orthodox thought that you have nothing to rely on and on anything. You get a journalistic self-consecration. And this is just typical Protestantism - I interpret it as I want.
Your intellectual leader Aleksandr Buzdalov is trying (for example, in the article "The Sun of the Church and the" Moonlight "of Culture") to bring a theological basis under the denial of culture, but he is not very successful either.

Finally. You didn’t think that the architecture and decoration of churches, icons, the Divine service itself, church chants and music are all just CULTURE.

And our pagan ancestors, looking at all this, could call us "Cainites". Everything was easier for them. A clearing in the forest, in a clearing - an idol, roughly carved from wood. The ceremonies are simple - they jumped, shouted something, knocked on the tambourine. Let's face it - no frills and tricks. Unlike the Orthodox.
I just thought ... You say that I (!) "Rode" to your land "with my civilization and culture, almost completely exterminating the world of Holy Russia." Maybe that's what you meant? That I am such a foreigner, like a Greek, I came here with my Christianity to your Ancient Russia, but?

Related materials:

site `s map