nevynosynij

For a long time, homosexuals have been unfairly compared to sodomites and driven away from the Church, away from Christ. This was done either out of a reluctance to understand the issue or simply with the evil intent of alienating more people from God.

In this article, I will be speaking about homosexuals: men who are attracted to men and do not consider themselves women, who do not imitate women (they do not cross-dress, take female hormones, or undergo sex-reassignment surgeries), do not imitate female behavior, do not distance themselves from their male nature, and are men both outwardly and in their soul.

Definition of Homosexuality

First and foremost, it is a form of love similar to that between a man and a woman. If this were not the case, homosexual couples simply could not form lasting unions. Statistically (according to UCLA, CBS, ONS), we see that such unions are even more durable than heterosexual (and lesbian) ones: the average divorce rate among homosexuals is 14 %, compared to 16 % for heterosexual couples respectively. One cannot build something reliable on sand, can one? And what foundation in a relationship can be stronger than love?

It must be acknowledged that homosexuals are also united by love, and this is the most obvious spiritual legitimization, since God is Love (1 John 4:8, 4:16). When a person experiences true love, God is revealed to them; otherwise, it is impossible to be ignited by this fire — there is only one source, God, and love cannot be taken from anywhere else, only from the source. The assertion that a man cannot love a man is arrogant, for if a woman can truly love a man, it means a man can be truly loved in principle, and I see no reason why God cannot ignite two sincere hearts with love. Naysayers should not point to the nature of homosexual physical relations, because essentially the very same acts are accessible in heterosexual physical relations, where they are not labeled a terrible sin, unnatural behavior, or a mental disorder, nor are people repressed, lobotomized, or stoned for them — except perhaps in some primitive, savage societies, but there one can receive a death sentence for anything. Therefore, one should either be consistent or substantiate one’s claims. If choosing the latter, one must remember: a man’s body contains nothing unclean; Jesus proved this through the act of incarnation, as God clothed Himself in the same coats of skins (organic body) (Gen. 3:21) in which all humans are clothed. And if someone simply dislikes all of this, if someone does not understand it, well — to each his own! I, for instance, do not like horror movies, but I do not forbid anyone from watching them, nor do I extrapolate my personal dislikes into a global ban. I can hate horror movies, kholodets (meat jelly (food)), martial arts, but I can’t hate people who like it. Even if I recognize some people as my enemies, I cannot hate them, but I must love them (Matt. 5:44).

It is also illogical to call homosexual sex “unnatural” because, first, homosexuality exists in nature, and second, it does not utilize pathways absent in the body’s design. Only if the body were specially damaged or altered for this purpose could such sex be called unnatural; otherwise, this definition is a banal rudeness. There are homosexual couples who do not practice penetrative sex — what about them? There is also platonic homosexuality, that is, without any sexual act at all — what to do with that? Does this not prove the purity and genuineness of same-sex love?

If you believe that homosexuality violates God’s order because it is said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Matt. 19:5) and nothing similar is said in a same-sex context, recall Jesus’s words about the resurrection: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30), and what the Apostle Paul said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). This means that love unites not merely bodies, but souls, and a union of love is a union of souls, which essentially have no gender. Nor can it be said that homosexuals outside of platonic relationships violate biological teleology, since such sexual determinism as “every ejaculation for the sake of procreation” is false, simply because a man has “nocturnal” emissions — this natural function refutes the rigid binding of bodily functionality to the execution of specific tasks.

Homosexuality cannot be called a fruit of the Fall, an aberration, a mutation, or a deviation either, since sexual orientation is established before birth according to clear rules. According to these rules (Fraternal Birth Order Effect), each subsequent son born to the same mother has a 33 % greater chance of being homosexual than the previous one, which reveals a pattern rather than a sporadic phenomenon. And if it is a pattern, it means it is part of the Divine design.

Homosexuality is not uncommon in the wild; as of 2023, homosexual behavior is known in about 1,500 animal species, such as sheep, penguins, lions, giraffes, and dolphins. So if humanity suffered the Fall, why are homosexuals also found among animals that did not eat the forbidden fruit? The universe decays and dies — this is the result of the Fall — but “sin” does not extend to animals that lack free will; there are no sinners or saints ones among animals. The perspective is also important: cannibalism is commonplace in the wild, but is cannibalism inherently a sin? If a man gives his body to feed another man in conditions of famine so that the latter might surely survive, is that a sin or the ultimate degree of self-sacrifice?

Of course, not everything customary in the wild is beneficial to man, for the diversity of nature is vast, and it possesses countless behavioral models inherent to certain species and uncharacteristic of others. For example, predators display aggression and kill to survive, but humans are not predators — neither biologically (fear of blood, nocturnal sleep, lack of built-in weapons, non-sharp teeth, etc.) nor in spirit (Luke 9:54–56); therefore, predatory traits are inappropriate for us. In the Gospels, people are compared to sheep (Matt. 10:16, John 10:16), and Jesus Himself is called the Lamb of God (John 1:29) and the Shepherd (John 1:11). Shared natural traits between humans and animals are normal (not aberrations); they are not a sin or the result of sin, but aspects of the diversity of life.

Civilization actively applies and adapts natural achievements in technology, mechanics, and engineering — this is called biomimetics or biomimicry. The imitation of behavioral markers could be called “psychological biomimetics”; however, homosexuality is not an imitation, but a reflection of the natural order both among humans and among animals. What is a true imitation, instead, is the adoption of predatory traits: murder, hunting, and the bearing of lethal weapons.

In the philosophical tradition, it is customary to distinguish four types of love: agape (sacrificial, selfless, sincere, faithful, active, divine love), philia (friendly, affectionate, brotherly, fond love), storge (filial, familial, parental love), and eros (romantic, passionate love that strives to dominate, possess, and unite). The divine love spoken of in the Gospel is agape; when the Apostle calls God Love, he means Agape. God loves humans with agape love — this is the all-encompassing, supreme love. Philia is love for friends. Storge is love for family members. Eros is love for a beloved one. But this does not mean that four distinct types of love exist; in reality, love is one — it is agape. But when agape is given to a man, when agape passes through a human heart, like white light passing through a prism, it acquires a certain color depending on whom this love (agape) is directed toward: if toward a friend, it will be philia; if toward a family member, storge; if toward a beloved one, eros. Because a man in whom agape shines is ready for deeds of agape for the sake of a friend, a family member, and a beloved man alike — he is ready for self-sacrifice, faithfulness, devotion, sincerity, beneficence, mercy, and so on; this proves the unity of love. Agape is the divine foundation and contains all types of love. Agape is the source of true love and the sanctification of relationships.

A man in love with a man displays all the attributes of true love, just like a man in love with a woman. This means that in both cases the source of love is one: God. Otherwise, a homosexual man in love would be incapable of deeds of love, which is self-evident; without divine inspiration and sanctification, noble actions would yield to fear or selfishness.

Sodom and Gomorrah

A classic example used to intimidate homosexuals is the destruction of two wicked cities by a rain of fire. Now we will see that this example is the result of haste (as in the case of Onan (Gen. 38:8–10), where interrupted intercourse came to be viewed as any ejaculation outside the context of fertilization, and masturbation was erroneously called a sin) in examining the issue, and does not apply to homosexuals.

The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is told in Genesis chapters 18–19. What actually happened there: the inhabitants of these cities committed all kinds of lawlessness, mostly, as one can infer, against travelers. Of the righteous, only Lot was in Sodom; God sent three angels to him, and their visit to the city was also an act of Divine verification: “…I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know” (Gen. 18:21). The angels came to Lot and stayed with him until evening, and then wished to spend the night in the street. Lot persuaded them to stay at his place, and at that time a crowd came and demanded that the travelers be handed over to them to be raped. In an attempt to protect his guests, Lot asked the crowd to take his daughters instead. The crowd did not like that a stranger (Lot) was deciding for them what to do, so they refused and tried to break down the door. The angels struck the crowd with blindness and led Lot and his family out of the city, after which Sodom and the surrounding area were destroyed by fire from the sky. This happened, in particular, because the last righteous man (Lot) left Sodom, and this is an important nuance for understanding the essence of the story:

• If homosexuality were a sin and that were the only problem with the inhabitants of Sodom, would Lot have offered them his daughters?..
• If Sodom were inhabited exclusively by homosexuals, how could such a city fail to die out? And if not only homosexuals lived there — that is, not only sinners — then such a city would have stood, for God told Lot that He would not destroy the city if there were at least one righteous person there.
• Why did the angels want to spend the night specifically in the street? Obviously, to test whether they would be attacked.
• Genesis 18:21 speaks of the “cry” reaching God because of those cities; such a figure of speech fits the description of a desperate state in which a victim of injustice and violence finds themselves. Hardly anyone would cry out to God simply upon learning that homosexuals live in the city. Compare: Gen. 4:10 (Abel, killed by Cain, “cries” to God), Exod. 22:22–23 (God hears the “cry” caused by the oppression of a widow or an orphan).

Thus, the main problem lies in violence and rape, not homosexuality. Rape (of a woman or a man) is undeniably a severe sin, and if travelers are being raped in a city, then such a city is undoubtedly an abode of darkness.

Furthermore, in this example, one cannot logically emphasize homosexuality, because there is the fact of (attempted) rape. This is equivalent to accusing a murderer of homosexuality because he shot a man: imagine a homosexual shooting someone and being tried not for murder, but for homosexuality — this is absurdity! Not all homosexuals are rapists, but all rapists are criminals. This is elementary logic, which Jesus taught in His polemic with the Pharisees (Matt. 23:16–22).

In the Bible, there is no indication of a specific single sin for which Sodom was destroyed; from the context of chapters 18–19, it is evident that this “sin” is a combination of sins, including rape and possibly murder and torture, since the crowd threatened Lot with “worse” for hindering their intentions — if, of course, murder and torture can be called worse than rape. Ezekiel in 16:49 does not mention homosexuality among the causes of Sodom’s destruction: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, abundant in food and careless in ease; they did not help the poor and needy.”

A similar story occurred in the city of Gibeah (Judges 19:22–25), where the townspeople also surrounded the house containing a stranger and demanded that the master of that house hand over the man. The master of the house, like Lot, offered women instead; one woman they raped all night, and such brutality subsequently caused a civil war in Israel.

Therefore, rapists — not homosexuals — should be compared to sodomites.

Paul’s Face Control

Nearly all Christian churches have inherited Judaism’s strictness regarding same-sex relationships. This was facilitated by the Apostle Paul, one of the earliest preachers; only in his epistles is homosexuality mentioned, and this reference points back to Judaism, to the Old Testament book of Leviticus. That is, Paul does not attempt to rethink this issue, but simply quotes the Tanakh without regard to the teachings of Christ. This apostle was not one of the twelve closest disciples of Christ; initially, Paul even persecuted Christians alongside the Jews and belonged to the Pharisaic tradition. Then, on the way to Damascus, Jesus appeared to him — an event that became a revelation for Paul and changed his life. Paul had a traditional Pharisaic education and studied the Torah, so it is not surprising that his preaching of Christianity is intertwined with the Old Law. After all, the apostles were human; their preaching reflected not only the truth of the Holy Spirit, but also their personal qualities, life experience, stereotypes, mindset, worldview, culture, and the knowledge of their time.

In two of his epistles (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy), Paul acts as a kind of bouncer at the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven, taking it upon himself to determine who will enter the Kingdom and who will not, refusing to let gay men in. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, he begins with the question, “Know ye not…?” and then lists the “undesirable elements,” among whom are homosexuals who, according to Paul’s concepts, will not inherit the Kingdom. The apostle places them on the same level as murderers, despite the fact that homicide is a direct act of violence (aggression), whereas homosexuality is not an act of violence at all. One can understand why wicked people will not enter the Kingdom, and if all murderers are wicked people, are all homosexuals wicked people? No, homosexuality does not make a man wicked, because homosexuality is not evil. The evil of a murderer is expressed through an act of violence; how is the “evil” of a homosexual expressed? A sexual act is not evil, and love is not evil — homosexuality contains nothing more than this. Thus, a homosexual can be a good man; why, then, cannot a good man inherit the Kingdom?

Such face control is supposedly justified by the Old Testament book of Leviticus, where in 18:22 homosexuality is called an “abomination,” and according to 20:13 of the same book, gay men should be stoned to death, because Moses allegedly said so — or someone attributed those words to Moses. In any case, those words are an abomination and a lie, because calling love an abomination is blasphemy, and commanding the execution of a human being is a crime. Could a merciful God give such commands? No, these commands are human, and the fact that they are broadcast as if on behalf of God reveals their deceitfulness. This conclusion is not built on sand; God Himself exposed the authors of Leviticus in a lie by stating that He gave no command to offer animal sacrifices to Him, even though the authors of Leviticus spammed half of their book with such commands in God’s name.

Although the Old Testament does not concern us as Christians and we do not live by the laws of Judaism, let us look closer at this book of Leviticus and see that it is deceitful. Half of that book is occupied by gruesome descriptions of animal sacrifices: slaughtering animals, digging through their entrails, draining their blood, ruining God’s creatures — what is this? It is a true abomination and a lie! God would never command anyone to cosplay pagans with their hecatombs. Furthermore, it describes animals: which are “clean” and which are “unclean,” which may be eaten and which may not, which may be sacrificed and which may not, which is essentially nonsense, for God created nothing “unclean.” Next, it lists prohibitions on incest, which is self-evident and scientifically confirmed: offspring from such unions are most often genetically defective — the clearest example of the degeneration of a lineage practicing active incest was shown by the Habsburg dynasty. In Leviticus 24:16, the death penalty is promised for blasphemy, even though Jesus said, “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme” (Mark 3:28). It also forbids tattoos and piercings, even though one of the main themes of Christ’s preaching is regard for the internal rather than the external. It also forbids touching dead animals (which goes hand in hand with the prohibition on touching dead humans in another Old Testament book) and the sick (lepers), yet Jesus freely touched dead people and lepers. That is, the rhetoric of Leviticus diverges from the rhetoric of Christ.

No one knows who exactly wrote the Old Testament; chronologically, its writing spans hundreds of years. Only the naive would consider the Tanakh divinely inspired from the first letter to the last. What is truly divinely inspired in it are the commandments confirmed by Jesus and what pertains to the coming of the Messiah (prophecies referenced by the apostles and Jesus Himself). The episode in Matthew 22:41–45 perfectly demonstrates the “logic of divine inspiration”: Jesus isolates a single verse from David’s psalm (110:1), in which David calls Christ his Lord (and not his son, for the Jews believed the Messiah would be David’s son, an earthly king who would exalt Israel and defeat all its enemies); similarly, individual fragments are quoted by the apostles, such as John in 19:36–37. Contextually as well, the Tanakh is not composed exclusively of God’s commands; there are secondary descriptions, actions, dialogues, and information outside the didactic material. God warns against idle words (Matt. 12:36); accordingly, any contextual secondariness lacking real utility in teaching is not divinely inspired — one must separate the Decalogue from the punctuation.

One of the most obvious examples of rewriting the Old Testament is seen in Genesis 6:19–20, where God commands Noah to take a pair of every animal, but in Genesis 7:2–3 God supposedly clarifies: take seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of unclean animals. This is despite the fact that in Noah’s time the concept of “clean and unclean” animals (kashrut) did not yet exist. Why specifically seven pairs of clean ones? Because in Genesis 8:20 Noah supposedly builds an altar and offers burnt offerings to God from the clean animals (there must be more clean ones because they are sacrificed and consumed as food; why the unclean ones were taken remains unclear). Thus, this episode is a later insertion, an attempt to introduce kashrut retroactively.

Know Ye Not That Animal Sacrifices Are an Abomination?

Who will believe that God commanded animals to be sacrificed to Him, as the first half of the book of Leviticus claims? Why would He need this? Indeed, He Himself says that He does not desire sacrifice: “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice” (to the ancient Jews through the prophet Hosea 6:6; Jesus repeats this twice in Matt. 9:13; Matt. 12:7); and again: “Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats? Sacrifice thank offerings to God, fulfill your vows to the Most High” (Ps. 50:13–14); and again: “to love God and one’s neighbor is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mark 12:33). And further: “If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it” (Ps. 50:12). Most importantly, through the prophet Jeremiah, God directly states: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices” (Jer. 7:22), which simply erases everything invented in the book of Leviticus and exposes it as a lie, while the prophet Isaiah adds: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats” (Isa. 1:11).

Apparently, the ancient Jews simply did not want to look like black sheep among the surrounding tribes, so they imitated this ugly, bloody ceremony. And this is not the only thing they imitated; the same thing happened, for instance, with kings: the ancient Jews were led by God, but suddenly wanted a king for themselves because their neighbors had kings (1 Sam. 8:5). God gave them a king (1 Sam. 8:7) and stepped back from reigning over them Himself. Kashrut, purification rituals, circumcision, cherem (genocide) — all of these were likewise borrowed from their neighbors.

We are not predators who enjoy killing, who go mad at the smell and sight of blood; for a human being, this is unnatural. Man is not of such a spirit, and God would never have commanded such things to be done. All of this points to the human authorship of these and similar commands.

Know Ye Not That Homicide Is an Abomination and a Crime?

To kill a human being, to cast stones at a human being, as stated in the book of Leviticus — this is an abomination and a lie. Who will believe that God commanded people to be stoned to death, when prior to this He said: “Do not kill”? When Eve stumbled in Eden and led Adam astray, they broke God’s command; and what happened? Did God kill the humans? Why did He not destroy them and create new ones? God directed humanity onto the path of correction and reconciliation, while at the same time demonstrating the greatness of His love through the example of Jesus. Therefore, all calls to kill or stone people are not divine, but human. When the Pharisees brought to Christ a woman caught in adultery (John 8:3) and said that Moses commanded such women to be stoned, what did Christ answer? Did He confirm the correctness of such a commandment? No, He said that whoever was without sin among them should cast the first stone. Handing down death sentences — such an abomination — was invented by humans, not God.

Furthermore, killing gay men will never rid the population of homosexuality, because people are born gay, not made gay; it is impossible to eradicate homosexuality. Therefore, the stoning of gay men is ineffective — would God issue an ineffective commandment? Such a nightmare action is a banal manifestation of cruelty and savagery; it is not in the nature of a merciful God, and the fact that God is merciful was known and the ancients: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exod. 34:6). If God did not want gay men to exist, they simply would not be born. And do not rush to draw parallels here with the birth of murderers or the sick: people become murderers by their own choice, and homosexuality is not a disease.

Know Ye Not That War Is an Abomination and a Crime?

Wagging war against human beings — this is an abomination and a lie. War is evil and the multiplication of suffering; no one will ever believe that the true God commanded the Jews to wage war, as in Deuteronomy 2:31 or Deuteronomy 20:15–17. Hiding behind God’s will is typical Pharisaism: Deus Vult! An abomination and a lie! Supposedly by God’s command, the ancient Jews fought all their neighbors, capturing and plundering territories (Deut. 20:14); in the name of God, the Crusades were conducted, myths about “in this sign you shall conquer” were invented, and crosses were painted on flags; Moscow’s war against Ukraine in 2022 was also called “holy” by proponents of violence, the modern Pharisees. All of this is sheer abomination and a lie.

When Jesus was seized by the servants of the Sanhedrin in the Garden of Gethsemane, He said that the Father could send Him more than twelve legions (70,000+) of angels. So if God had wanted to, could He not have dealt with the enemies of the Israelites on His own? He did not say to Noah: destroy sinners with fire and sword; nor did He say to Lot: slaughter everyone in Sodom and then move on to Gomorrah. This is because, once again, humans are not of such a spirit as to kill humans (Luke 9:54–56), which means all Old Testament instructions to wage war are human invention, ordinary political manipulation to sanction aggression. In Old Testament times, it was standard practice among the aggressive tribes of the Near East to justify their cruelty by the “will of the gods.” The Jews acted similarly and arbitrarily, disregarding the merciful nature of God and in essence, they became the very same idolaters as those they fought against: for by inventing a commandment that God had not given, they were inventing a god of their own. That was is the same clumsy military propaganda we see now in Moscow with its “God is with us” on chevron patches. God is merciful and does not wage war against humans; He does not care for politics (human games). The fact that someone hides behind a cross on a banner or the name of God on chevrons does not justify aggressiveness and cruelty; it is the problem of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Be not deceived: there is no truth in that, and God does not stand behind those people!

Jesus said: blessed are the peacemakers; and also: all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; and the Apostle Paul says to the Ephesians (6:12): “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Dear friends, what war, militarism, or army can we speak of when Jesus said: “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44)? And to whom did Jesus say: “If someone hits you on the cheek, offer the other as well” (Luke 6:29)? For whom did Jesus say: “and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic as well.”? Any war, aggression, cruelty, or violence is contrary to Christianity and has no justification. Christians are pacifists, cosmopolitans (Matt. 8:20), and anarchists (Matt. 20:25–26), while militarism is an abomination and a lie!

Know Ye Not That Genocide Is an Abomination and a Crime?

Committing genocide — this is an abomination and a lie! In 1 Samuel 15:3, God supposedly calls upon the Jews to kill men, women, and children, and even the livestock of Israel’s enemies — an abomination and a lie! How far from Christianity must one be to believe that such commands actually came from God? How far from humanity must one be to believe in the divinity of such a command…

God is righteous and does not command one to act contrary to righteousness. God does not contradict Himself: having said “Do not kill,” He does not command “kill.” God does not pull chestnuts out of the fire with other people’s hands; He Himself descended from Heaven and accepted death to overcome sin and save mankind.

The idea of cherem or ritualistic genocide is not an invention of the ancient Jews; many Middle Eastern tribes of that time used similar instruments of war: the total annihilation of the enemy as a sacrifice to their god. That is, it is a pagan method of warfare and human sacrifice — it is an abomination and a lie!

Know Ye Not That Dividing Animals into “Clean” and “Unclean” Is an Abomination?

Considering God’s creation to be unclean (Leviticus chapter 11) is both an abomination and a lie. The neighbors of the ancient Jews divided animals into clean and unclean; a similar concept existed, for example, in Ancient Egypt, where the Jews were held in captivity for a long time and later evidently borrowed from the Egyptians the idea of certain animals being inferior. It is absolutely obvious that a perfect God would not create imperfect, evil, or unclean creatures. We have no real precedents for this, because evil itself does not exist (God did not create evil): this phenomenon, like darkness and cold in physics, is an abstraction that in reality measures the degree of distance from the source (goodness, light, heat). But animals cannot turn away from goodness, especially all animals of a certain kind, such as rats, bats, or pigs — that is ridiculous. Animals live by instinct; they do not distinguish between good and evil, so one cannot say: these animals are evil (unclean), while those are good (clean). How can “evil” animals be evil if they do not know what evil is? Subjectively, someone bitten by a dog may consider that dog evil, but objectively it bites not because of an evil nature, since an evil nature does not exist. The angels who turned away from goodness and became demons did so consciously; humans also consciously distance themselves from goodness or draw closer to it, but animals have no such choice. Pigs do not lead their way of life by their own free will, which they do not possess, but because it corresponds to their nature — for there was never a time when pigs had beautiful fur and wings, drank exclusively dew, and ate myrtle and eucalyptus leaves from the highest branches, and then suddenly degraded, became hideous, and began devouring all kinds of filth. Certain animals may seem repulsive to a man or appear to lead an unclean lifestyle, but all animals are clean by nature. There are no animals with an unclean nature; an animal’s lifestyle does not pollute its nature, its design, its idea, or its soul, since its lifestyle simply reflects its design — the idea of an animal that is perfect and clean. Confirmation of this is seen in the episode in Acts 10:9–15, when God showed the hungry Apostle Peter a vision of a vessel full of all kinds of animals and told him that all of it had been made clean, and that he should not call them unclean. Furthermore, in His debate with the Pharisees, Jesus proved that food cannot defile a man; a man can only be defiled by the wickedness that takes root in his heart (Matt. 15:17).

Know Ye Not That the Idea of a Man Being “Defiled” by His Own Bodily Functions Is an Abomination and a Lie?

Considering any part or function of the human body to be unclean, as described in chapter 15 of the book of Leviticus, is an abomination and a lie. For Christians, this should be as clear as day, because God became man; Jesus had a human body, thereby confirming its purity and perfection. The form and mechanics of the human body are pure. Anyone who thinks otherwise makes the same mistake as with the “unclean animals”: God did not create the human body in a way that it could produce any uncleanness (physically or metaphysically) and defile a man (his soul). Even the ancient Greeks, without knowing the true God, understood that what is natural is not shameful; yet the ancient Jews copied from their neighbors the ideas and purification rituals for men after ejaculation and for women after menstruation. This is absurd! The body cannot defile a man. The authors of the book of Leviticus went even further: if semen touches any garment or skin, that item is considered “unclean” until evening (Lev. 15:17), and the same applies to menstrual blood… That is, in the mind of the ancient Jews, humans are some kind of carriers of uncleanness who defile everything around them with their bodily discharges and simply by touching things (Lev. 15:20). This is nothing other than misanthropy: an abomination and a lie.

Circumcision, which every Jew is commanded to undergo supposedly by God in Genesis 17:10–14, makes no sense outside a hygienic context for those living in the desert (under conditions of water scarcity); yet no such context exists in the Old Testament instruction, which means the author of this rule was a human being. Without a hygienic justification, circumcision becomes an act of either improving the human body or mutilating it — and in both cases it is flawed, because it is impossible to improve the human body created by God, and it is impossible to please God by damaging such a body; it makes no sense. Viewing circumcision as a “sign” (Gen. 17:11) is also incorrect, since this mark is applied by human hands. The true mark of God is placed on a man by God Himself, as, for instance, on Cain (Gen. 4:15), or on the chosen 144,000 (Rev. 7:2–4), where even though the seal is placed by angels, they do it with “the seal of God.” Jesus also promises to write the names of God, the city of God, and His own new name on the overcomers who are pillars in Revelation 3:12 — and these are all strictly mystical acts. Circumcision, on the other hand, is not a mystical act; it is a surgical procedure on the flesh. Moreover, such a procedure is performed by other faiths as well; anyone can undergo circumcision, so what kind of sign is it if anyone can put it on themselves? What is its value then? Today, circumcision is unnecessary because even in deserts like the UAE, there is running water.

Know Ye Not That the Idea of Defiling a Man Through Touching Something Is an Abomination and a Lie?

In the book of Numbers, there is a command not to touch a human corpse (19:11); whoever touches one will be unclean for a week, and to be cleansed, the person must perform a complex ritual (19:17–19) involving the sacrifice of a red heifer (19:2–10, 12). In Leviticus chapter 11, there are warnings regarding touching the carcasses of animals, causing a man to become unclean until evening and requiring him to wash his clothes. The same applies to any item that touches a dead animal — it becomes “unclean” until evening and must be put into water. That is, simply washing the item is not enough; one must wait until evening for it to become “clean,” or for the man himself to become “clean.”

Some scholars call such a command a preventive measure against infections, which is a simply pathetic argument in terms of its validity. Did people encounter corpses every single day? What infections? If the problem were infections, God would have said so directly: do not touch a corpse so you do not get sick, just as He told the first humans in Eden: do not eat from that tree, or you will die.

God could not have given such a command, because matter never actually touches: atoms are isolated by electromagnetic fields, and their nuclei by the strong interaction field. These fields do not allow them to touch; no one can truly touch anything in the material world — there will always be a gap between the atoms of your fingers and the atoms of what you want to touch. The sensation of touch is the brain’s interpretation of the pressure of electromagnetic fields. Accordingly, all these taboos against touching something “unclean” are the product of a magical mindset, sheer nonsense, and Jesus demonstrated this when He touched the dead and brought them back to life, and when He touched lepers and healed them. That is, Jesus as the Creator, knowing the true nature of the material world, broke those instructions because they were human (invented) and wrong.

Therefore, one cannot rely on the book of Leviticus as a source of truth, nor can one consider truthful those fragments of Scripture that contradict themselves. Contradictory fragments are human traditions, human teachings, and not God’s revelation — God does not contradict Himself. In that case, not only in the New Testament, but even in the Old Testament, there are no valid divine objections to homosexuality. If you do not agree with this, then you agree that gay men should be killed — stoned to death — otherwise your faith is inconsistent. Imagine a situation where a crowd approaches you, hands you stones, and offers you to join them in killing a gay: even if you are not a Christian, but simply a sane man, you must recoil from them as if they were insane.

Debauchery and Kadeshim

In ancient times, pagans (kadeshim) practiced temple ritual sex (prostitution), mostly heterosexual, though sometimes same-sex as well. In the Old Testament, this is mentioned in the book of Hosea (4:14–15) or 2 Kings (23:7), condemning paganism and promiscuity (prostitution) without specifically focusing on homosexuality. Placing the emphasis on homosexuality in the context of ritual prostitution is illogical. Here, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the cause is what matters, not the byproduct: sex among the kadeshim was not the goal, but merely a tool in performing a pagan ritual. The core issue is the ritual itself and the worship of idols, not the sex. It is identical to animal sacrifices: animals are merely tools in the ritual, and their sacrifice is a consequence of it. It is the pagan ritual itself that is condemned, not the animals being sacrificed.

Debauchery (promiscuity) does not describe specific sexual acts; it is about a lack of restraint, where a person surrenders to passions and is led by them into every corner, exploiting any opportunity to satisfy those desires. Both a heterosexual and a homosexual man can be promiscuous. Imagine a man with promiscuous sexual habits: he sleeps with any woman, visits prostitutes, yet engages exclusively in vaginal intercourse — this is an example of obvious debauched behavior, and no one would call such a man sexually moral. Such immorality is promiscuity. But if debauchery (promiscuity) goes beyond anal or oral sex, it means it does not pertain exclusively to these types of sex, and therefore homosexuality does not equal debauchery (promiscuity).

* * *

Thus, if the foundation on which the Apostle Paul relies is so shaky, how can one draw such serious, fateful conclusions from it regarding the prohibition from inheriting the Kingdom? The divine inspiration of the book of Leviticus does not stand up to the slightest criticism, and that book cannot serve as a source of truthful preaching. Furthermore, Christianity does not rely on Judaism; Christianity relies on Christ, and He did not call for the stoning of homosexuals. In the Gospels, the topic of homosexuality is not discussed at all, and no apostle other than Paul speaks of it, which means there are no grounds for banning gay men.

I want to immediately address all those who would accuse me of selective Bible reading. If you sincerely believe in the absolute divine inspiration of the Old Testament, then recall the story of David and Jonathan: “…the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul… And Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, along with his military attire, even to his sword, his bow, and his belt” (1 Sam. 18:1–4) — this is the meeting scene, and here is the parting scene: “…David rose from the south side and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. And they kissed each other and wept together, but David wept more” (1 Sam. 20:41). After Jonathan’s death in battle, David says: “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women” (2 Sam. 1:26). So what is this — poetry or divine inspiration? If this is poetry, then what is this: “Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan, and he said to him: you son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” (1 Sam. 20:30)? Here Jonathan’s father (Saul) rebukes him for having “chosen the son of Jesse,” and the word “shame” is certainly not from a poetic vocabulary — this is essentially a domestic scene in which a father is angry with his son for a non-traditional orientation. Perhaps Jonathan’s love for David was not mutual, but the fact that Jonathan loved David is, I think, obvious. Therefore, if you believe in the full divine inspiration of the Old Testament, but consider the relationship between David and Jonathan to be “poetry,” and view such expressions as “Jonathan’s soul was knit to David’s,” “he gave David everything, even his robe,” “they kissed each other,” “David wept bitterly,” “your love was more wonderful than the love of women,” and “you have chosen the son of Jesse to your shame” as merely “poetic turns of phrase” behind which lies nothing of what they literally describe, then why would you not also consider the word “abomination” regarding homosexuality and the phrase “stoned to death” from the book of Leviticus to be poetic license, an allegory? Otherwise, it turns out to be a kind of double standard!

Ultimately, homosexual sex is no more abominable than heterosexual sex; both can be either aesthetic or unaesthetic. Sex is an expression of love (Eros); this act brings completion to a relationship, as the union of souls without the union of bodies (or vice versa) is incomplete. The fullness of love is revealed through every available avenue of union. Sex does not degrade a man: the sex pose is vulnerable but not degrading. What truly degrades a man is his malice, hostility, and aggression — that is, sin.

To claim that homosexuality within the bounds of platonic love is not a sin, but that physical relations are sinful, is an alogical absurdity. This asserts that having love (or attraction) is good, but having the physical expression of that love (sex) is bad. It is equivalent to saying: having hands is not a sin, but making origami with your hands is a sin; having legs is not a sin, but jumping is a sin; having a tongue is not a sin, but talking about the weather is indeed a sin! The absurdity is obvious, and the conclusions is obvious too: homosexual love and sex are not sinful. Recall how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their logical inconsistency in categorizing subject: “For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?” (Matt. 23:16–17). The Pharisees thought the gold was greater, since in their view swearing by gold was binding, but swearing by the temple was permissible. Here we see the very same logical fallacy: sex is bad, but love is good. It doesn't happen like that, because love is greater than sex, and love sanctifies sex. Sex cannot be evil when it proceeds from good love: grapes are not gathered from thorns (Matt. 7:16). And just as both sweet and bitter water do not flow from the same spring (James 3:11), so too “sweet” sex (heterosexual) and “bitter” sex (homosexual) do not flow from eros. From a spring flows either sweet or bitter water; accordingly, from eros flows “sweet water” (sex), or none at all. “Bitter” sex exists only outside of eros and flows from the spring of various sexual (mental) deviations, or lust. That homosexuality is not a deviation and proceeds (through eros) from the single source of love (agape), we have already established in the section “Definition of Homosexuality,” And the distinction between homosexuality and lust was discussed in the section “Debauchery and Kadeshim.”

Homosexuality as a form of love is no different from heterosexual love, and no one has the right to call love an abomination. What is truly an abomination to God? That which is highly esteemed among men (Luke 16:15) — this we know.

Which Wineskins Will We Drink From?

Why drag old wineskins into the new world — the era of Christianity? Because those who drank old wine will not want the new, saying, “The old is better”? That does not interest us; the new world requires new wine! There is no point in preaching Christianity by asking, “Do you not know what is written in the Torah?!” — this is the preaching of Christianity, not Judaism. We do not care what is written there; we do not listen to Moses. Jesus did not come to the cross so that everyone would hear the call: “Read the Torah.” Jesus fulfilled the Law, as He directly stated in Matthew 5:17 — with the death and resurrection of Christ, the Law is completed. From this moment on, the Torah and the Old Testament are history, and we, as Christians, do not need them. We should not live by the rules of Judaism, offer rams as sacrifices, undergo circumcision, or carry a paddle with us. We need Christ and His teaching, while the Torah can be read by those who do not believe in Christ.

Jesus said: “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24); thus, Christians do not go to judgment — there is no law for Christians.

God called Jesus His Son and commanded us to listen to Him, not to Moses (Matt. 17:5). Therefore, we recognize as revelation only the four Gospels (and strictly what was spoken by Christ Himself). All other books and opinions are optional, in which the truth is heavily obscured by human inventions — as Jesus Himself indicates when He identifies Moses, and not God, as the author of the commandment on the “certificate of divorce” (Mark 10:4–6). Furthermore, in John 8:17, Jesus says: “Is it not written in your own Law that the testimony of two witnesses is true?” Do you see? He says “written in your Law” — emphasizing the human, rather than divine, authorship of that law. Recall the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5): how many things from the law given to the “ancients” did Jesus directly revoke (Matt. 5:33)? So do not be ancient: follow Christ.

The fact that the Old Testament is no longer relevant is proven by modern Jews themselves, who since 1967 have somehow failed to rebuild the Temple and restore animal sacrifice services. Why is that? Just imagine a scene filled with entrails and rivers of blood—wouldn’t that be simply embarrassing before the civilized world? Israel is now a secular state; there have been no prophets there since New Testament times, the Temple has been destroyed, ritual purity has been lost, and certain precepts of the law continue to be abolished. For instance, in 1950, Jewish elders simply discarded the levirate (ibbum) from their law. The levirate was trending across almost the entire world a couple of thousand years ago, but it is intrinsically not a divine thing, as it encourages polygamy (adultery), which directly contradicts the Divine plan (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5). The death and resurrection of Christ put an end to Judaism; since then, Judaism has become formal and relies on the Talmud. Meanwhile, some Christians somehow continue to cling to the obsolete laws of Judaism and its non-divine practices, thereby demonstrating total inconsistency: if you truly believe in the absolute inspiration of the Tanakh, why do you ignore its prescriptions? Why are you cherry-picking which parts of the old law to follow? How can you justify yourselves and bypass this cognitive dissonance?

Some might mistake my Christocentric position on understanding the Old Testament for Marcionism and label me a heretic. Here is why that is an error:

1. I do not reject the entire Old Testament, but only those parts that contradict themselves (“offer animal sacrifices” vs. “I commanded you not this,” “I do not desire your sacrifices”; “stone them,” “wage war against them,” “wipe them out completely” vs. “thou shalt not kill”; “thou shalt not commit adultery” vs. “perform the levirate regardless of marriage”) or contradict Christ (“an eye for an eye” vs. “that ye resist not evil”; “hate your enemies” vs. “love your enemies”; “death for blasphemy” vs. “every blasphemy shall be forgiven”).
2. I do not divide the God of the Old and New Testaments into evil and good. God is one, and He is good. I emphasize that the evil commands of the Old Testament are not from God, but from men.

In Christ’s parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24–30), it is said that the enemy sowed evil among the good. If this happened to the world, why couldn’t something similar have happened within the Old Testament? When we see direct contradictions not only with the Gospel spirit, but with the Law itself, does this not expose the tares among God’s genuine precepts?

Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians (3:24): “Therefore the Law was our tutor to bring us to Christ...”—it seems to me that one of the lessons of this “tutor” was precisely the discernment of good and evil, truth and falsehood, to teach us to separate the good from the bad, as in the parable of the dragnet (Matt. 13:47–48), and to distinguish good fruit from bad (Matt. 7:16–17).

Paul also writes to the Romans (7:11): “...for sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.” That is, sin, by utilizing the Law, deceives and slays a person, how it possible? For instance, when it is commanded “thou shalt not kill,” a Pharisee begins to sophistize: not kill a neighbor or a foreigner? Not kill in peacetime, or in war as well? Not kill anyone at all, or only the innocent?—and ultimately grants himself permission to kill whomever he pleases.

Why did the Lord allow the tares to grow in the same field alongside the wheat? Why did He permit contradictions to surface within the Tanakh? Evidently, it was for the discipline and discernment of Christians, who must learn to think independently without relying blindly on authority. We live in a world where even churches burn; we are witnesses to decay, travelers burdened by a curse. Why, then, do we expect undiluted truth in that to which human hands have been applied? A barrel of honey without a spoonful of tar? Why does God forbid hewing the stones for a temple altar if the ancient Hebrews wish to build one? God says: “And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it” (Exod. 20:25)? Jesus says (Matt. 18:7): “Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come...”—homosexuality is not a choice, as we established in the section ‘Definition of Homosexuality,’ so there is no offense or temptation here. The goal of this sermon is to draw homosexuals to Christianity; where is the offense in a man turning to Christ? Rather, the true temptation lies in believing that God could issue contradictory commands. For this not only borders on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (for instance, when divine authority is attributed to blatantly evil commands like genocide), but it also undermines the whole foundation. It devalues the Old Testament—the work of the ‘tutor’ intended to prepare humanity for the coming of the Messiah—by portraying it as permitting homicide and wars. It likewise devalues the work of the Messiah when the revelation about laying down one’s life for one’s friends (John 15:13) is distorted to justify a soldier’s actions or to excuse war.

This temptation is the very essence of Pharisaism and literalism, which twists the meaning of anything to suit any desire. We do not engage in Pharisaism here; we reject it, for accepting (creation) contradictions is itself Pharisaism.

Therefore, the commandments of the Old Testament are not for Christians. We listen to the voice of only one Shepherd — Christ — and fulfill only His commandments. We are interested only in His teaching.

Human and Christian Teaching

The Apostles were called to preach the Gospel — the Good News — and not to teach their own doctrines or the outdated law. Nor were they supposed to build the Church. Jesus stated directly: “Do not be called “Teacher,” for you have one Teacher — Christ” (Matt. 23:8). Furthermore, Jesus promised to build His Church Himself (Matt. 16:18). That is, Jesus is the sole teacher and builder.

The interference of the human mind in divine matters brought hierarchy into many churches, with the Apostle Paul acting as its ideologue (1 Tim. 3:1–12). This also contradicts Christian teaching, because Jesus, firstly, commanded us not to imitate the subordination inherent in worldly state governance (Matt. 20:25); moreover, Jesus says to do the opposite: whoever wants to become great must be a servant to all (Matt. 20:26). Secondly, Jesus calls everyone brothers (Matt. 23:8) — that is, equals — but how can brotherhood exist in a system with subordinates? And thirdly, Jesus commands that there be love among Christians (John 13:34–35), and where there is love, there is no question of any subordination or superiority. The most appropriate model of governance for the church is anarchy — self-governance. Today, practically only Protestantism corresponds to this model, featuring churches that are genuinely similar to Christ’s description.

Because of ecclesiastical hierarchy, Christianity has suffered greatly: many people view the church as part of the state, and this is a tragedy of spirituality. A tragedy, as you understand, is not only the appearance of cooperation (or even symbiosis, as in the case of the medieval Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, particularly the modern Russian Orthodox Church) between church and state, but also actual cooperation when, for example, the church blesses an army for sin (homicide, plunder), consecrates nuclear missiles (a real example from Russia), calls a war “sacred” (Patriarch Kirill of Moscow named the 2022 invasion of Ukraine as such; Popes starting with Urban II called certain wars, such as the Crusades, “sacred” — participation in which, according to ideologues, was not only not a sin, but guaranteed the salvation of the soul), and creates the institution of chaplaincy (military priests). All of this is the fruit of a hierarchical management system and alignment with the state and politics. Why do these churches draw closer to earthly kingdoms when Jesus told Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world”? Because like gravitates to like; if certain churches imitated an earthly system of governance in their structure, they will naturally gravitate toward similar earthly structures.

Of course, not all Christian churches possess a hierarchy and anti-Christian customs; even in apostolic times, distinct “churches” figured prominently (in 1 Cor. 11:16, Paul mentions the “Churches of God”), meaning there was an observed plurality of opinions and nuances of ministry. Thus, Protestant churches are less integrated (or not integrated at all) into the state system than, say, the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

The Apostles should have relied on God’s will in the formation of Christianity and the building of the Church, but they were likely frightened by the imaginary chaos and anarchy that might arise later — since everyone has their own thoughts, interpretations, views, and understandings, especially as preaching expanded beyond Judea and fell onto unfamiliar, alien soil. A storm arose on the sea, and instead of believing that Jesus would calm this storm and order the “chaos,” as happened in Matthew 8:23–27, people engaged in self-rescue and began clutching at hierarchy to avoid sinking. And what do we have now? The Church is acquiring egalitarianism, as it was meant to from the beginning: tens of thousands of denominations among which everyone can find a place, friends, and brothers with whom to proceed toward Christ. Hierarchy could not hold back the storm and did not hold it back; the turbulent waters of Christ’s teaching have spread across the world so that everyone might have the opportunity to be baptized in them.

Jesus rebuked the Jews for distorting the Scriptures (Matt. 15:5); unfortunately, some apostles resorted to similar distortion, which introduced contradictions into Christian doctrine as a whole. The only way to get rid of these contradictions is to adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura in a radical revision: only the four Gospels, listening strictly to the voice of the Shepherd (Matt. 17:5; John 10:16), following Him (Matt. 16:24; Matt. 19:21), and not the apostles, the Torah, Moses, or anyone else.

The voices of the churches sound different, but they all call us to come to the Lord — this is the main point, and it is necessary to hear this call. However, when that voice proclaims something contrary to Christ’s teaching, or when a church even acts against that teaching, one should not echo such a voice or repeat such contrary actions (Matt. 23:3).

The teaching of Christ is not merely commandments, instructions, and rules; above all, it is faith. One of the leitmotifs of the New Testament is: as you believe, so shall it be done to you. The opening of the eyes of the blind in Matthew 9:29 was accompanied by the words: “According to your faith let it be done to you!” In Matthew 8:13, during the healing of the centurion’s servant: “Go! Let it be done for you just as you believed it would.” In Matthew 15:28, Jesus heals the Canaanite woman’s daughter: “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” In Matthew 9:22, a woman touches Christ’s garment, believing she will be healed, and Jesus responded to her faith: “Take heart, daughter, your faith has healed you!” — at that very moment, she was made well.

After healing the leper (Mark 1:41), Jesus tells him: “Go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Mark 1:44). If the Judeans believed in the divine inspiration of Leviticus, which specifies the offerings following purification from leprosy, God met them according to their belief. At the same time, Jesus does not claim authorship of these commands; instead, He explicitly says “what Moses commanded” and “as a testimony to them.”

Consider also: “With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged,” and the parable of the minas, where the master says to the slothful servant: “I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant!” This demonstrates the crucial role of personal perception and conviction. In judging a person, God takes their faith into account, as faith is the measure of what one receives. Therefore, if you believe that dancing, playing chess, or cooking on the Sabbath is a sin, then to you personally it may be a sin; objectively, however, it is not. This is precisely why Jesus broke the Sabbath — He broke the legalistic Sabbath invented by the Pharisees and taught about the true Sabbath, which was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Apostle Paul to the Romans (14:14) says: “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing impure in itself; only when someone considers something impure, therefore it is impure.” So when someone considers homosexuality a sin, for that person personally it will be a sin, even though objectively homosexuality is not a sin.

Thus, one must distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity when defining sinfulness, striving for an objective understanding of reality and discerning the truth within one’s thoughts, words, and actions, it helps to fight real sins, not imaginary ones.

As another illustration of this principle, one can cite a anecdote: “In heaven, a Catholic asks a Protestant: “What is that high fence over there?” — “Behind it are the Orthodox; they think they are the only ones here.”

God is infinitely merciful. Jesus promises the Kingdom to both the transgressors and the fulfillers of the commandments of the law (Matt. 5:19); it is simply that some will be great and bright like Betelgeuse, while others will be small like white dwarfs.

It is crucial to distinguish between human doctrine and Christ’s doctrine. The prohibition against gay people inheriting the Kingdom comes from human doctrine. Next, we will examine a few more examples of purely human doctrine to understand the principle by which such doctrine is formed.

Judging Among Ourselves About Hairstyles

Besides the idea of introducing a hierarchy into the church and keeping gay men out of the Kingdom, Paul is categorically against long hair on men, calling it a dishonor (1 Cor. 11:14). Ironically, all depictions of Christ, including the one on the Shroud of Turin, feature long hair…

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul suggests we “judge for yourselves” (1 Cor. 11:13) on the issue of hair length for men and women, yet right there in 11:16, he rejects the possibility of discussion: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice…” although a little further on, in 11:19, he acknowledges the usefulness of arguments, saying they “show which of you have God’s approval”… Forgive me, but this is simply ridiculous: debating hairstyles for men and women at a time when you are called to preach the boundless and infinitely merciful true God, who is Love and who gave His Son to be crucified for the salvation of humanity.

If we follow the path of “hairstyles,” then in Christianity, as in Judaism, we will end up with a 5k+ page Talmud containing a rule for tying shoelaces and the single correct angle for trimming fingernails.

In general, it is unpleasantly striking that even in ancient times, when barbershop services were, shall we say, technologically limited, people nevertheless displayed the same intolerance toward long hair on men as seen in modern despotic, underdeveloped countries or within environments of radical or low culture. All the more so given that in Judea there were Nazirites who took a vow not to cut their hair (a striking example being Samson, and likely John the Baptist as well), and Moses commanded the Jews not to trim the sides of their hair, which shaped payot as an element of the Jewish image. Overall, this petty, trivial topic of external appearance is completely unnecessary and unworthy of attention; it distracts from the main thing: following Christ. Focusing on the external is a mistake, and this is another pillar of Christ’s preaching: first and foremost, one must care about the internal, about who you are, rather than how you look (Luke 11:39–41). We ought to compete in humanity (humanitatis optima est certatio), not argue over hairstyles.

Paul understood certain things in his own way and sought to pass that understanding on to his spiritual children for imitation, but the question of adopting such advice is properly a personal matter for everyone. Paul himself notes the personal nature of some of his teachings: “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)…” (1 Cor. 7:12), which highlights the subjectivity of the rest of his contradictory opinions.

Long hair on a man is not a dishonor and cannot be a dishonor; this is impossible, since the human body possesses no properties that would (automatically) dishonor a man. God created man in His image and likeness, and these garments of skin in which He clothed us correspond to the concept of divine design; can there be a flaw in such a design? There cannot be.

Yet Paul appeals to some “nature” in 1 Cor. 11:14, which is supposedly meant to teach us what length of hair a man should have on his head… but according to nature, hair on the head of a man and a woman grows with equal ease. A man does not need to exert any special effort to grow his hair; the growth of hair on a man’s head is an absolutely normal and natural process, just like the growth of hair on a woman’s head. Accordingly, a man can grow his hair to whatever length he wants. Some churches directly ignore this instruction; for instance, the Orthodox clergy prefers long hair.

Therefore, I see no rational reason to introduce such restrictions for Christians, especially in apostolic times. Most likely, this rule was dictated by banal conformism and stereotypes, which, as we can see, have not changed significantly on this issue over time — since even today, long hairstyles on men are considered predominantly underground and subcultural.

Judging Among Ourselves About Food and Life

Another striking example of the contradiction between Paul’s didacticism and Christianity is found in 2 Thessalonians (3:10), where he says: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” I see in this no Christian magnanimity, mercy, or love; this is written entirely in a Pharisaical, legalistic manner: “If you do not work, die.” But it is obvious that anyone who does not eat cannot work.

And what did Jesus say, for instance, to Martha, who was pressuring her sister to get to work while she was listening to Him? Did He say: “Work comes first, and listen to Me in your spare time”? What did Jesus say about the birds, whom God feeds even though they do not turn the millstones? Why did Jesus feed several thousand listeners of His preaching with bread and fish for free? Why did Jesus say: “Do not worry about what you will eat, but seek first the Kingdom of God”? Why did Jesus say: “Life is more than food,” and why did He not say: “Food is more than life”?

If we imagine a society willing to condemn its members to death by starvation, would we not call such a society a shameful, barbaric mob?! Ultimately, why should a man born into civilization have to fight for survival like a wild forest beast?! Is civilization not supposed to satisfy the basic needs of its members, first and foremost the need for food? What, then, is the point of civilization, the state, or society? If we listen to such advice — “If you do not work, die” — then we should live in a primitive way in the forests.

Such severity lies outside the Christian context. Among Christians, it is customary to help the suffering, give alms, and feed the hungry, because it is in these works that the Last Judgment is fulfilled (Matt. 25:42). Abandoning someone unable to feed themselves (for whatever reason) to the mercy of starvation is standard practice among beasts; it is the law of wild nature: a weak lion is unable to hunt a gazelle and starves to death. The world often lives by the laws of wild nature, but Christians are called to cultivate humanity and humanism within themselves in the broadest sense of the word, and to be like a candle that burns on a stand and gives light to everyone (Matt. 5:15). But if Christians become just like everyone else, like the world, then why did Jesus suffer?

Judging Among Ourselves About Imitating People and Christ

In that same Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (3:9), Paul calls on his listeners to imitate him, and to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:1, 4:16) he directs the exact same call: follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. We know that God is a jealous God, so why do we need intermediaries?

Following people rather than God can shift the focus of service onto a human level, where God is either completely lost or reduced to a secondary role. Modern Catholic and Orthodox churches demonstrate a clear example of such a shift.Today they actively practice prayers to saints, apostles, angels, the Virgin Mary, and even abstract “heavenly powers,” but did Jesus not say: “Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only” (Matt. 4:10)? In Christianity, there should be no pantheon like that of the pagans, nor any institution of saints at all. Jesus said: a man cannot save himself, that is possible only for God (Matt. 19:26) — that is, only God saves people, makes them heirs to the Kingdom, and brings them close to Himself (Mark 10:40). Yet in these churches people determine for themselves (canonize) who will be a saint and who is saved. Having decided this, they paint icons depicting those people as saints to the right or left of God, and then compose prayers and conduct services to these self-appointed saints… What’s more, Catholics and Orthodox have so-called patron saints (professionals) who are prayed to in a specific matter or according to a trade — for example, there are patrons of the navy, doctors, teachers, and certain saints responsible specifically for crops, livestock, or luck in travel. Does this not remind you of anything? Absolutely the same thing is customary among pagans: they have gods of harvest, hunting, seas, and rivers. Dear friends, are we going to Christ, or to the patrons of grain? The very word “Christian” means “follower of Christ.” What kind of follower of Christ is a Christian when he walks around in circles, praying to fictional saints and some abstract Heavens? Only God is holy; people can either be saved or not, but who among men is saved — only God knows.

Jesus calls on His disciples to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48), not perfect as the apostles; He teaches us to pray using the example of the “Our Father” — tell me, where in the “Our Father” is there a petition to the Heavens, apostles, saints, or angels?

Christians should have no authorities — for a Christian, not even Christ is an authority! Let me explain. In the history of Christian asceticism, the following occurred: an ascetic withdrew from the world, went to live in the desert, found a cave, and settled there. Eventually, demons appeared to him in the guise of bright angels, and among them was even one resembling Christ. The ascetic did not recognize the deception because for him Christ was an authority, and when the false Christ commanded the ascetic to dance, he began to dance and did so until he fell unconscious, half-dead. Only then did the ascetic grasp the deception and realize that he had not been truly faithful to the Truth, but had obeyed demons in the mask of bright angels. If he had used critical thinking from the beginning and understood that God does not give contradictory commands, this would not have happened to him. That is why it is important to reject all authorities; in this, both the innocence of doves and the wisdom of serpents are revealed (Matt. 10:16). Jesus warns against following ‘false christs’ (Matt. 24:24), but is such discernment even possible if one blindly accepts authorities? That is a rhetorical question.

As can be seen, human doctrines do not withstand the slightest criticism. Christianity is the doctrine of Christ, not of the apostles or anyone else. When Paul spoke about homosexuals, he did so, firstly, without understanding the issue, and secondly, without regard for Christ’s teaching. Out of old habit, Paul pulled a rule alien to Christianity out of the no longer relevant Torah — what is more, out of the compromised Book of Leviticus — and tried to weave it into the new teaching, and in such a categorical manner, forgetting that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for “shutting the door of the Kingdom” in people’s faces — not letting them in (Matt. 23:13). One should not decide for the Master of the house who will be at the table and who will not, who will be invited and who will not. Jesus is the Master of the world, and only Jesus will decide who inherits the Kingdom and who does not. Therefore, we reject these Torah lessons from Paul; they are not about Christianity, and they do not concern Christians. Homosexuals who have believed in Christ and stepped onto the path of truth, just like any other good Christians, will enter the Kingdom.

* * *

These examples are meant to show you the true panorama of Christianity, how broad it actually is. The instructiveness of these examples also lies in the personal perception of faith: despite Paul’s rigorism and his teaching or preaching discrepancies, no one would doubt his friendship with Christ, right? And this means that everyone has the opportunity to be a friend to God — everyone who sincerely strives for goodness and truth, who is not afraid, despite everything, to stand under the bright light of Divine revelation.

Please note that my article does not reject Paul’s apostleship or his Christianity; the rejection concerns solely those of his precepts and homiletic nuances that contradict the Gospel spirit and the teaching of Christ. The same is true of the Old Testament. My article is dictated by love for the truth and a sincere desire to serve Christ, serving Christ is serving people, but not vice versa (Mat. 5:45–47). Ignoring any authority is also at the heart of my article.

And do not let the sharpness in my speech disquiet you. Did Jesus not command that Christians should let their “yes” be “yes” and their “no” be “no,” while verbal contortions and political correctness (especially on matters of principle) are “from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37)? Jesus did not mince words in His debates with the Pharisees, calling them “blind fools,” “hypocrites,” “whitewashed tombs,” and “children of the devil.” And when He prevailed in the argument with the Sadducees “about the resurrection,” the apostle described the scene like this: “When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees…” (Matt. 22:34), where “silenced” is a translator’s euphemism, while in fact it means “made them shut up.”

Heroes and Antiheroes

Hardly a single country on Earth can be found that does not cherish its military, that does not build up the institution of homicide: the army. Practically every country has an army, and every country is proud of its army. Military service among the general public is mistakenly associated with coming of age, attaining manhood, physical strength, and willpower, as well as cultivating discipline and character. Such associations have become customary because militarists have co-opted the ideas of high morality, ethics, and mentorship for their propaganda; they exploit soul-depth dignity and its manifestations — such as humanity, peacemaking, and nobility in general — in their recruitment rhetoric and self-promotion. In reality, militarism offers only one thing: service to satan, sin.

There is no place for militarism in a fully conscious society, for no responsible society will tolerate (support, sponsor) predators and murderers. Yet despite the obvious harmfulness of the ideas of militarism, its outright aggressiveness, anti-humanity (specifically the genocide of men, misandry), and anti-civilizational nature, this institution of satanism does not evoke such disgust in society at large, nor in certain churches, as homosexuality does. That is to say, direct aggression and violence against people (civilians and military personnel) — the action of an army — is viewed as acceptable, whereas the personal relationship of two men, which does not and cannot affect bystanders in principle, is viewed as unacceptable. This is incomprehensible.

Why is a man not free to do with his life, his existence, and his body what he wishes, provided such actions do not violate the life, existence, and body of bystanders who do not wish to be involved in such actions? When a soldier occupies a territory, shells a city, or intentionally or unintentionally kills civilians, he acts against the wishes, against the will of those whose territory he seizes, those whose city he shells, and those whom he kills. At the same time, homosexuality is recognized by some countries as a mental disorder and by some churches as a sin, while military personnel are named “heroes” and “holy warriors” of their people, presented in the socio-cultural, and sometimes even in the religious sphere, as role models. This is illogical.

The Orthodox Church lifts up prayers for the army, paints icons depicting military men as saints or righteous ones, and some of their soldiers (A. Nevsky, F. Ushakov, D. Donskoy, and others) have been canonized. Military camps for children and adults (“Orthodox Knights,” “St. Andrew’s Cross,” etc.) operate under the aegis of the Orthodox Church; chaplains instruct soldiers before battle and consecrate them to kill and rob (seize foreign lands). In Russia, there is even the Main Cathedral of the Russian Armed Forces — cursed by Christians — in whose construction weapons were used and are present in the interior (for example, grenades tied to curtain ropes)… one does not need extraordinary perception to understand: this is wrong. Catholics also have soldiers with halos: Joan of Arc, Ferdinand III of Castile, and others. That is, people who consciously stepped onto the path of war and murder, onto the path of evil, are recognized by some churches as saints, while homosexuals are considered terrible sinners. This means that not all churches are consistent in serving Christ; not all of them have accepted the truth in its entirety.

However, this should not deter seekers of truth, since besides the earthly church, there is the mystical, metaphysical Church of Christ, and true Christians (sheep, not wolves in sheep’s clothing) unite precisely in this mystical Church — the main thing is to sincerely turn to Christ and truthfully serve Him, and then the joining to the mystical Church will occur: “…If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him” (John 14:23).

Not everything the earthly church (denomination) does or says automatically becomes correct or true. If an action or word of the church diverges from the doctrine of Christ, such an action or word must be ignored, for we serve God and not men, in the words of that same Apostle Paul (Eph. 6:7). And in order to serve God and not men, one must hold fast to the doctrine of Christ, not human doctrine, and distinguish human inventions from God’s truth. For this, we have patterns — the commandments and the preaching of the merciful God. If God says “Do not kill,” yet someone establishes the institution of chaplaincy, consecrates the instruments of homicide, or calls for people to be stoned in God’s name, it is easy to notice the difference, is it not?

Normality and Abnormality

Despotic regimes often use psychiatry and public stigmatization as tools of control; so it was in the USSR, England, Germany, and the USA, where people were suppressed, tortured, and abused for homosexuality. This was done purely out of cruelty, since the proportion of homosexuals within the population is always small and mostly constant; means of propaganda or anti-propaganda and repressions are incapable of influencing the number of homosexuals, for sexual orientation is not a matter of upbringing, traditions, or party policy. It is a matter of the human personality, the inclination of one’s soul; it is a trait determined from birth: one cannot become a homosexual or cease to be one.

Some crudely and inappropriately compare homosexuals to pedophiles or zoophiles. This is rather an insult than a legitimate dispute. First of all, as established in the section ‘Definition of Homosexuality,’ homosexuality is not a deviation. Furthermore, such a comparison is logically fallacious because in zoophilia or pedophilia, mutual consent is absent. An animal or a child cannot fully comprehend the intentions of a pervert and, consequently, cannot grant informed consent to the realization of those intentions; thus, the perpetrator resorts to violation and coercion. Between homosexual adults, however, there is mutual consent — no one forces them into intimacy; it is their conscious, voluntary choice.

In bloodthirsty political systems, a man is viewed strictly as a labor unit, a breeding bull, or a soldier, rather than an individuality, and everything that does not fit into this paradigm is discarded as an abnormality. Regrettably, bestial treatment of homosexuals is not merely a matter of the past: today, in many Arab, African, and some Asian countries, homosexuality even carries the death penalty — for instance, through stoning, just like in the “good ol’” days.

That homosexuality is not a mental disorder is easily proven by the absence of inadequate psychological states in the event that specific desires cannot be satisfied. Such states, for example, are present in transsexuals and express themselves through dysphoria. Overall, a homosexual behaves and feels without a partner in precisely the same way as a heterosexual.

Unnecessary and Harmful Publicity for Homosexuals

There are two extremes: persecuting people for homosexuality and holding gay parades. Gay men do not need publicity, especially the kind that ultimately causes harm. There is no need to make private matters public, to mix the public and the private.

Propaganda is essentially an instrument of violence (information violence); no one appreciates propaganda methods when directed at them. Some countries that consider themselves progressive saturate mass culture, the education system, and the information field with elements of gay propaganda and host gay parades. This is done with such zeal (yet without genuine enthusiasm) and so clumsily that the product into which those elements are integrated simply turns into a farce, angering the public and generating hate. Wherein lies the clumsiness of this presentation? The topic of homosexuality is disclosed predominantly in a carnal context — simply as a form of sex, rather than as a form of love in a romantic manner and high style. Therefore, such propaganda is shameful and exhibitionistic; it stems not from sincerity to help or inform, but merely for appearance’s sake, as an item in some media plan requiring a gay to be represented in a film, series, book, or game. The crudeness of such representation irritates everyone, gay men first and foremost.

A separate word must be said about the infamous gay parades, which recently have increasingly resembled a tragicomic scene from a Z-grade movie. It seems the sole purpose of conducting these parades is to mock homosexuals. They (or actors) are let out onto city streets like some kind of exotic animals, dominated by shock value and shamelessness. This is not about homosexuality; this is a grotesque performance about lust, which also arises due to the closed nature of the church. A Christian homosexual would never participate in such shows, put himself on display, or allow a spectacle to be made of himself!

When there is a need for self-expression, it is better done through art — culturally, aesthetically, and intellectually — rather than shaking a bare ass in the middle of the street. Write a book or a script, paint art, create animation or comics, compose music, develop a game, engage in 3D modeling, organize a virtual space for communication — in short: do something real, useful, and beautiful. Create original content for which people will thank you, and leave the street dancing to Rio de Janeiro.

The best support for the gay community lies in a sane attitude toward gay men without condemnation of peaceful individuals who pose no threat and do no harm to you. And this is the first step toward not judging anyone at all, as Jesus said (Matt. 7:1).

What Lies Ahead

Churches that pray for predators and murderers as if they were righteous, while accusing homosexuals of sin, are far from Christ.

Those who accuse homosexuals of sin without understanding the issue lack critical thinking and have fallen under the influence of authority figures.

Homosexuals can boldly turn to Jesus; rest assured, He will hear you: “All those the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away” (John 6:37).

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI (Gemini).

Some people — such as many Hindus — tend to blend together all kinds of ideas, religions, and traditions, believing there’s no real difference between them. They make no distinction between Jesus and Buddha, Krishna and Mohammed. These syncretists don’t care whom they pray to — Krishna or Jesus — and believe that by serving Buddha, they are also serving Shiva, Jesus, and Allah. But such people… have no sense of taste: they eat pickled cucumbers with peaches and herring, then wash it all down with milk — because, in their view, it’s all just food.

Others insist that everyone has their own truth: some may serve Jesus, others Krishna or Buddha, and all of them, they say, are equally right. All these followers, they claim, walk the same path, simply in different ways, because each acts in accordance with “their own truth.” But the reality is that there is only one truth — and those who set off in opposite directions cannot all arrive at the same destination. To reach the harbor, one must follow the light of the lighthouse.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is no God (or gods), no soul, no transcendence at all — that existence came about by accident, through the turbulence of so-called chaos, just as inorganic matter supposedly gave birth to life in the “primordial soup.” And while religion often provokes irritation in atheists, the irony is that atheism itself functions as a kind of religion — a belief system — for one cannot prove the non-existence of God. One can only believe in it.

Why Is God the Source of Existence?

The very existence of being (an undeniable fact) proves the existence of God. Why? Because order is an inseparable aspect of being, and chaos — as a true absence of order — does not exist. These are mutually exclusive concepts. Order is grounded in reason (indeed, they are essentially one and the same), and reason is a sign of consciousness. Consciousness can only exist within being. Therefore, perfect consciousness is God — He extended existence and created all that exists.

If one assumes that consciousness could exist within non-existence, one encounters a contradiction: existence within non-existence. But there can be nothing in non-existence — this is self-evident.

That intelligence is an attribute of consciousness is also clear: intelligence cannot exist without consciousness. Where there is no consciousness, there is no intelligence. Some may bring up artificial intelligence as a counterexample — intelligence without consciousness. But in truth, AI merely mimics intelligence. It doesn’t understand what it is doing; it behaves like the operator in the famous “Chinese Room” thought experiment. AI works exclusively with information produced by real intelligence — human minds. It is an organized data set, trained and refined by exposure to human-created content. But when AI starts training only on its own output, we observe degradation. Order breaks down — and rightly so, because order is a hallmark of mind, which AI lacks.

Thus, if there is being, there must also be consciousness to recognize it — otherwise, being itself dissolves. And if there is consciousness, it must include intelligence — the capacity to recognize and interpret being as being. Without intelligence, it is impossible to properly apprehend anything. If existence is not recognized as existence, then it effectively does not exist — because there is no realization of it. In this way, we can say: existence is consciousness.

Without consciousness, there is no existence. Therefore, consciousness and being are one. Consciousness is necessary for existence to be, and existence is necessary for consciousness to become. Hence, the ultimate source of all existence is consciousness. But whose consciousness? — God’s.

All of this lays bare the fallacy of atheistic reasoning. Atheist philosophy stumbles over the simplest concepts — being and non-being. If the foundation is flawed, what is the point of building further? Why speculate about the evolution of the universe or of life, if the very starting point is misunderstood and illogical? Such inconsistency is unworthy of serious science and belongs more to idle kitchen-table talk.

At one time, Blaise Pascal proposed a simple yet powerful idea: that it is better to believe in God than not. If God exists, the believer loses nothing and gains everything; if God does not exist, neither the believer nor the unbeliever gains or loses anything. Therefore, belief is always the wiser choice. This is the famous Pascal’s Wager. But today, we don’t rely solely on such thought experiments. We now have not only logical arguments in favor of God’s existence, but also material, scientific ones. Quantum physics, for example, proves God’s existence through phenomena like wave function collapse.

Sadly, many atheists today are not merely indifferent to God — they actively oppose Him. This is what makes them, in essence, satanists. Their allegiance becomes clear in their hostility toward God: they resist His will, oppose goodness and order, expel religion from public life, persecute preachers, and mock the faithful. Such people stand in opposition to God — and as Jesus said, “Whoever is not with Me is against Me” (Luke 11:23). From the beginning, satan has opposed God. Therefore, those who oppose God align themselves — knowingly or not — with satan.

The atheistic worldview normalizes killing as something natural — a consequence of the supposed “struggle for survival,” where, according to Darwin, the fittest survive. As a result, war, capital punishment, self-defensive homicide, legalized weapons for civilians, militarized police forces, and euthanasia are seen as acceptable. All of this flows from a godless view of the world in which life has no inherent sanctity.

Atheism

We’ve already devoted one article to Darwinism and another to creationism — both of which, in different ways, touch on the subject of atheism. You’re encouraged to read them to fully grasp the absurdity of the atheistic worldview, as demonstrated by real-life examples from science, history, and philosophy.

Atheism has never held a dominant position in human history. Its influence only began to surface in a noticeable way toward the end of the 19th century, with the rise of Darwinism. Even today, as always, the overwhelming majority of people on Earth are theists — roughly 80–85% or more. Statistically speaking, atheism is negligible.

A study conducted in 2005 by the Encyclopædia Britannica showed that approximately 11.9% of people are non-religious, and about 2.3% are atheists. These results do not include followers of non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism. Also in 2005, the Pew Research Center investigated the attitude of Americans toward representatives of various faiths (worldviews). It was established that atheists enjoy the least respect: 35% of Americans view them positively, while 53% view them negatively.

The problem, however, is that this nonsense enjoys the backing of the “princes of the Gentiles” — the rulers of this world, to whom people have handed the right to govern them. These rulers promote godlessness and push God out of the picture, crafting instead an illusion, a kind of hyper-reality in which they themselves assume divine status — like the ancient gods, setting the standard for law and justice. They believe they have the right to dictate society’s moral and ethical direction, to mold people in their own image and likeness.

This is what the Soviets tried to do in their attempt to create a new kind of human: homo sovieticus. In the 21st century, the liberal West engages in a similar project through wokeism, DEI-ism, and multiculturalism. In North Korea, the ruler essentially functions as a local deity. More broadly, authoritarian regimes often promote the idea of their own people’s exceptionalism, using it to justify cruelty and even warfare.

Some might object that many states support, or at least tolerate, religious groups. Perhaps. But if we examine the state apparatus strictly, there’s no real presence of faith within it. Creationism is excluded from education and science, while atheistic Darwinist propaganda is institutionalized. The state maintains an official institution of homicide — its military (army). In any country with an army, the military is celebrated and even revered, often forming part of a cult of heroes. Most constitutions enshrine the separation of church and state, effectively turning the church into a state within a state. The information field is formed without regard to religiosity. The political hierarchy grants greater power and privileges to some over others. All of this contradicts Christianity.

In truth, there’s plenty of basic evidence that exposes the falsehood of atheism. One need look no further than the old Roman maxim: ex nihilo nihil fit — “nothing comes from nothing.” For any intelligent person capable of drawing a reasonable conclusion, that alone should suffice.

When an atheist rejects the first cause of existence — God — he inevitably runs into a paradox, a fundamental contradiction. Only God can be the source of being. Abstractions are of no use here, because we do not live in a world of abstractions. Abstractions apply to ideas, not to existence itself. Existence is real — just as consciousness is real.

Someone without consciousness might claim that existence is unreal or illusory, that it’s merely an abstraction. But such a claim is nonsensical and self-contradictory: a person without consciousness cannot speak, cannot reason, cannot participate in existence at all. In other words, being is ontologically self-sufficient — it requires no further justification. It simply is. It belongs to the domain of reality, created by the One who exists eternally.

Eternal non-existence, by contrast, is a pure abstraction — non-being. We may grasp the idea conceptually, but we can never realize it, because non-existence is not reality. It does not and cannot exist. If non-existence were real, existence would not be — and vice versa. The simultaneous reality of both is logically impossible. Thus, the very existence of existence refutes the reality of non-existence. In short, existence disproves non-existence.

When you lose consciousness — for example, in sleep — you temporarily lose the ability to engage with the world around you. But you do not cease to exist. This alone is proof of objective reality — a super-reality in which subjects continue to exist independently of their awareness.

If there were no objective reality, then falling asleep would be equivalent to vanishing into non-being — an absolute end. But this is not the case. With God, “all are alive.” All are ever before His eyes, within the scope of His eternal being. He sees you both when you are awake and when you sleep. Therefore, you exist.

Atheists attempt to equate religion with ignorance, claiming that with higher education and rising IQ, the percentage of religiosity decreases. In reality, however, the exact opposite is true. Atheists, with their faith in Darwinism, display the height of ignorance and fail to consider a simple truth: intellect (intelligence) and the level of education are not identical. A man, having acquired a higher education — one, two, or as many as he pleases — becomes wiser only if he comprehends the material and internalizes it, rather than absorbing everything indiscriminately: both black and white, regardless of contradictions.

Atheists do not like it when their faith in the non-existence of God is actually called “faith”; they insist on the “absence of faith as such” and, as a logical example for justification, provide the following formula: “If a person does not smoke tobacco, does that mean they smoke the absence of tobacco?” In reality, atheists smoke hashish and claim that tobacco does not exist, while those who smoke tobacco are actually smoking hashish.

The claim made by atheists that “all children are atheists” is inherently illogical, because one cannot deny the existence of God or disbelieve in Him without understanding the substance of the question. Therefore, such a statement is equivalent in its absurdity to the following: “all children are vegetarians,” “all children are flat-earthers,” “all children are cosmopolitans,” “all children born into Republican families are Republicans, and those in Democratic families are Democrats.”

Atheists counter Gödel’s incompleteness theorem — that is, the fundamental unknowability of the world — with “Occam’s razor,” which, in the opinion of atheists, should cut away religion rather than atheism. But why? Is religion, the faith in the supernatural, not a part of human nature? When a man perceives himself in the midst of the boundless Universe, does he not rationally question the meaning of his existence and the existence of the world? According to the logic of atheists, people should not reflect or think, but rather degrade to an animal state where there is no sense in asking fundamental questions of existence. Therefore, the “razor” must cut away atheism itself: an instrument of obscurantism that drags people into the caves of ignorance.

Atheists like to point fingers at believers and religious people as cruel individuals who executed others for dissent, yet they fail to notice entire states and even unions that placed atheism at their foundation and despised and devalued human life, committing genocide, repression, executions, and torture — such as the USSR, the DPRK, and China. There, dissent is fundamentally impermissible, and potentially everyone can become a victim of the system. In the USSR alone, tens of millions of people were murdered, and this was under the guidance of the progressive ideology of godlessness. Moreover, essentially every “armed” state, meaning one with an army, is an example of building and organizing an atheistic worldview and an atheistic world order. There is no justification for cruelty and homicide, no matter what flags anyone hides behind. Conversely, a true and sincere faith in God makes such instances impossible, while a true and sincere disbelief in God opens the path to violence, where there is no conscience, no moral compass, no high principles, and where a man is permitted any evil, since the very concept of “evil” does not exist there. Atheism essentially offers people an archaic, animalistic way of life: where the strongest survives, where the poor and the disables are eliminated, and where empathy, compassion, and altruism are considered weaknesses.

K. Marx, by calling religion the “opium of the people,” acknowledged that religion is inherent to man, his element, nature, and essence.

“Metaphysical atheism” (deism) is a banal human resentment toward God for His insufficient (in the opinion of atheists) involvement in the destiny of the world.

“Your so-called religion acts like opium: it entices and dulls the pain instead of giving strength,” — Novalis.

But curiously, what kind of strength does atheism provide with its faith in non-existence? The strength of despair and nihilism? This is depression and a downfall.

Thus, atheism is a religious blindness and a faith that only what the atheist sees actually exists.

A Little About Buddhism

This section follows atheism for a reason: Buddhism, in many ways, is not far removed from atheism. It is a fundamentally atheistic and egocentric religion — there is no God in Buddhism, and its attitude toward sin is remarkably permissive. In fact, the concept of sin is replaced by the euphemism “unskillful action.”

Consider the following, taken directly from Wikipedia:

“In Buddhist ethics, there are 10 unskillful actions that lead to suffering, both for the Buddhist himself and for those around him. They are divided into three categories: physical, verbal, and mental unskillful actions. Physical actions include murder, theft, and sexual misconduct (adultery, paedophilia, etc.). Verbal unskillful actions include lying, sowing discord (conversations that lead to quarrels), abusive language, and meaningless talk. Mental unskillful actions include greed, ill will toward others, and wrong views.”

In other words, in the Buddhist framework, murder, paedophilia, theft, lying, and slander are merely “unskillful actions”…

Polytheism

Today, the clearest example of a polytheistic religion is Hinduism. In fact, to understand Hinduism is to understand the essence of polytheism.

It is impossible to find the true God unless He chooses to reveal Himself — “You did not choose Me, but I chose you…” (John 15:16). Without this divine initiative, all human attempts to find God are ultimately futile. These fruitless searches often lead to polytheism: people look at a river and wonder, “Could this be God?” Then they ask the same about a cow, the sun, the moon, the Milky Way — everything that enters their awareness becomes a candidate for divinity. All is viewed through the lens of animism, and the result is confusion, wandering in darkness, and a dead end.

This is the essence of polytheism: people invent gods for themselves, deifying their surroundings. They project personality onto nature — both living and non-living — in order to make it more relatable, more manageable.

But Scripture tells us otherwise. In Genesis 1:28, we learn that God entrusted the universe to mankind — that creation, in a sense, is man’s domain. The only “gods” present here are human beings, those to whom the word of God is addressed (John 10:34). Thus, pagans who worship rivers, cows, or even other people are gravely mistaken. They worship the creature, not the Creator; they bow before idols.

In this way, polytheists are not so different from atheists. Both are overly entangled in the material world. Polytheistic deities lack true transcendence — they are bound up with the physical universe and form part of it. This shapes the magical nature of the relationship between the pagan and his god: the pagan tries to influence the material world with the help of his divine patrons, and this is the essence of pagan sacrifices — a ritual of intervention in the material world, magic.

But what happens when a material being prays to another material being for help within the material world? Nothing meaningful. A river cannot change its own course, just as a man cannot make a single hair white or black (Matthew 5:36). To affect matter, one must appeal to the cause of matter — something outside and above it, something eternal. But polytheistic gods, having been born from chaos, oceans, or other elements of the material cosmos, do not transcend it. They are, essentially, part of it. To invoke them is to invoke oneself — one’s imagination, one’s desires.

The pagan does not seek to go beyond the material; instead, he tries to build his version of the “kingdom of God” here on earth, or awaits its arrival in material form. This was the error of the Jews who expected the Messiah to establish a political kingdom on earth — a divine Jewish empire. But the Kingdom of Heaven does not descend to earth; it enters the human soul. And the Messiah — Christ — is the doorway to that Kingdom.

The absurdity of paganism is further exposed by the “mortality” of its gods. If rivers, animals, planets, and stars are divine, then those gods are mortal — subject to decay, entropy, and death. But can a god be mortal? All created things will perish — planets, stars, galaxies, and every species of animal. A god who dies is no god at all.

By contrast, Christ demonstrated His divinity by conquering death. After His crucifixion, He rose again in the same body (John 20:27), showing that death had no power over Him. The dead god of polytheists is one who does not exist, because Jesus said that in God ‘all live’ (Luke 20:38).

The Bible speaks extensively about idols — that they are nothing but empty sounds, imaginary constructs of human invention. There are no other gods; only one true and living God exists — Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:4). Consider the history of Europe’s Christianisation: idols were cast down, mocked, and despised. Did they fight back? Did they punish those who scorned them? No. People carved idols with their own hands, then smashed them to pieces and tossed them into the fire — and nothing happened. There was no resistance. In 1068, Bishop of Halberstadt destroyed Retra, a major pagan sanctuary of the Lutici, and rode the so-called ‘sacred’ horse of their deity — which supposedly no one dared mount — back to Saxony :D

The true God is nothing like these. He declares, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay,” says the Lord. He does not tolerate sin. When His patience reaches its end, judgment falls upon the earth — as it did in the days of Noah, so it shall be again at the end of the age (Matthew 24:37).

Polytheism is considered the oldest form of religion, and it arose in a chaotic, arbitrary manner. Its beliefs lack any clear origin, reflecting deep conceptual confusion. Take modern Hinduism as an example: it has no unified doctrine, its pantheon is immeasurable, and even the most devout Hindus cannot name all their gods. Its scriptures are equally fragmented and dispersed, to the point that some Hindu traditions reject even foundational texts like the Vedas as authoritative. Polytheism, then, is a patchwork — a jumble of gods, traditions, and rituals cobbled together without coherence.

Another striking feature of polytheism is its absence of boundaries. It is like an open corridor into which deities of all sorts are welcomed. For polytheists, it scarcely matters who one worships, how, or where. They naively believe in everything. A vivid example of this religious inclusivity can be found in the interfaith dynamics of ancient Rome and Greece, where gods were readily absorbed from one pantheon into another.

Polytheism belongs to a primitive stage of human religiosity — a time, perhaps, before mankind had been sanctified by Truth from above. It is outdated in terms of civilisation, as shown by its frequent emphasis on the “feminine principle” that were displaced with the arrival of Adam and Eve. In Hinduism, for instance, the supreme deity may be male, female, or impersonal. Early hominids — those before Adam — were fond of fashioning figurines of women linked to fertility. But Homo sapiens, descendants of Adam and Eve, did not follow this practice. They were patriarchal in orientation, founders of a civilisation.

Polytheism also fails the test of logic. It collapses under the weight of its own contradictions — especially the idea of ‘many truths.’ There cannot be multiple objective truths. While there may be countless interpretations of truth, truth itself is singular. If objective truth exists, then it must be dominant, universal, divine — the truth of God. Any ‘truth’ that conflicts with this is not truth at all, but merely a subjective interpretation. The gods of polytheism, therefore, exist only within local or cultural perspectives; they reflect not reality, but belief. And though each claims to embody or speak truth, the existence of many such competing claims results in a paradox — for multiple absolute truths cannot coexist. By definition, there can be only one ultimate source of truth.

In Christianity, people are gods and made in the image and likeness of God, but they are not absolutes. They are not self-sufficient beings. They cannot exist in their divine nature apart from God. Humanity is dependent on Him for life and meaning. We must come to Him and drink the water of life to truly live (Revelation 22:17).

When we speak of the monotheistic deity (Brahman) in Hinduism, we are dealing with an ideological abstraction of a “supreme god,” not a personal being — unlike in Christianity: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” (Luke 10:22). Hindus may possess a concept of God, but they do not know Him personally, for they do not know Christ. Why does the concept of an absolute God not lead to God? Simply knowing that an absolute God exists is not enough to get to know Him. What difference does it make if you know about the existence of the most influential politician in this world, or about the existence of the wealthiest man on the planet—does this knowledge bring you any closer to them? Do they know about you? Do they care about you simply because you know about them? Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

The very coexistence of monotheistic and polytheistic elements within Hinduism results in cognitive dissonance: how can mutually exclusive principles exist together? This may be typical of dualistic systems or symbolic dichotomies like yin and yang, but it is foreign to rational thought. Order and chaos, good and evil, cannot coexist as equals — there can be only one truth, one objectivity, which by nature excludes its opposite.

Reincarnation is typical of polytheistic and pagan traditions. This is further evidence of the fantastical nature of these beliefs. The notion likely arose from simplistic observations of nature’s cyclical rhythms: winter brings death, summer brings rebirth; water evaporates, forms clouds, and returns as rain; rice grows, produces grain, which grows again. This is a kind of naive, provincial philosophy — a worldview grounded in the observable but incapable of comprehending deeper causes or the wider panorama of reality. Nature does not exist in isolation from the planet, and the planet is part of a solar system, which in turn belongs to a galaxy, and galaxies are clustered into larger cosmic structures. The ultimate conclusion? All things will pass away.

Nature’s cycles concern nature alone — they do not apply to man. Man is not merely a part of nature: he transcends it. Though bound to nature through his organic body, man’s true essence — the soul — originates from beyond the material realm. One might say the universe cannot contain man in his fullness; it accommodates only his physical shell. To clarify: a tree that “dies” in winter “revives” in summer; water that evaporated returns to the same puddle; but when a man dies, his body is broken down and absorbed by other life forms, converted into energy or nutrients — yet no new man emerges from this. A new man can only come from other human beings, not from plants or worms. Furthermore, the body does not even fully decompose — bones remain.

Reincarnation fits seamlessly into a materialistic religion in which man never transcends the material world, never sees it as a “vale of sorrow” to be escaped, and therefore feels no need for a Savior. Instead, he seeks to optimize his place within it, hoping at best for a more prosperous rebirth next time. Although Hinduism does offer a way to escape the cycle of rebirth (moksha), this path is obscure, difficult to grasp, and offers no assurance — so that even great effort may only yield a better next life rather than liberation itself.

Hinduism presents a complex scheme of human existence, with reincarnations intertwined across the realms of plants, insects, animals, and gods — amounting to nearly 8.5 (!) million possible life forms. These cycles include occasional “pit stops” in either paradise or hell. The deeper one delves into this system, the more hopeless the outlook becomes — descending into despair — because in Hinduism, a person is essentially a helpless prisoner of the “wheel of samsara.” This framework conveniently reinforces the caste system, justifying one’s social status as the product of karma from a “previous” life. It cultivates resignation and hopelessness: whether you like it or not, you’re a participant in a rigid caste game where the winners are already known — the Brahmins and the rulers, members of the highest varnas.

Reincarnation and the idea of karma make no sense, especially because each life in this pagan system is finite for the individual: a person, having died and been reborn, loses all memory of their past life, their experiences, mistakes, conclusions, essence, and purpose. Memory and experience are the most important aspects of a person’s life; without them, any activity is meaningless, and nothing teaches or benefits the individual. What is the point of life if, after death, you forget everything about it? Exactly — there is none. Therefore, even within paganism, which accepts reincarnation, there is no reason to concern oneself with karma. Why bother? In the next life, you will not exist as yourself; the next life is a tabula rasa, a blank slate. You will no longer be you. Why should you care about such a future? In other words, even on a religious level, the idea of reincarnation is meaningless and unnecessary because it brings no benefit to the adherent and does not improve them. It is merely a philosophical abstraction, an intangible concept, an illusion. It plays no role in a person’s life, solves none of their problems, and teaches them nothing. It is just a word, a construct, something that does not exist in reality — like non-existence itself, which we can discuss despite its absence because it is an abstraction, an idea, a fantasy. Have you ever met a person who remembers their past life? Of course not. There are none. All those testimonies, those viral videos of astonished parents claiming their child remembers a past life, are either outright fakes or the result of parental suggestion (intentional or not), where parents preach certain ideas, and the child absorbs them before repeating them back. As for regressive hypnosis and the stories of reincarnation told during sessions, they are nothing but fairy tales believed by the naive (superstitious) people of the early 20th century. Any hypnosis is a state of semi-sleep for the consciousness, and in this state — just as in ordinary sleep — you can see whatever you imagine. Therefore, stories told under hypnosis are always retellings of dreams and fantasies, no more truthful than an ordinary dream. Do not believe those who insist on the validity of metaphysical concepts like reincarnation or karma. These people do not understand why they yawn, yet they seriously ponder things beyond physical reality. Jesus Himself, God, did not rush to speak of the “heavenly”: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12). So what foundation of proof do those have who listen to and believe in some ordinary people? Some woman or manfrom a country you have never visited, from a city you have never heard of, posts a TikTok video with their son about his “past life,” which supposedly came to him in a dream — and you believe it? You believe a child’s dream? You believe the words of a child who has barely learned to speak, a child you do not know, who may not even exist, who might be a creation of AI? You believe this man, this woman, whom you see for the first time, know nothing about, and have no idea who stands behind them, what motives they have? Maybe they are simply chasing clout on trending topics, farming likes and subscriptions for money, promoting their goods or services. Maybe they are fanatics or even mentally unstable. You know nothing about them, and even less about those whose stories are written in books. At least in videos, there is some figure; in books, there is only text. Of course, you might counter my criticism with: “The Gospels were also written by people,” and so on. In that case, I will respond in detail later, in the section “Christianity.” For now, I will say this: ultimately, it is a matter of faith. If you want to believe in random children, random people from TikTok, or the couch of a hypnotist, go ahead — but I do not. I believe that the Gospel is the Good News, that it comes from God to humanity, and that it is the true Scripture for the salvation of mankind. In the end, you can turn to Jesus for help, but to whom will you turn if you believe in reincarnation? To that guy from TikTok? To the wheel of samsara? The idea of reincarnation is alien to the Gospel. Moreover, the very spirit of Christianity, beginning with the Old Testament, is opposed to rebirth. A man, having sinned, is sent into the valley of sorrow — to Earth — where he must live in an organic body, learn the lessons of discerning good and evil, repent, and return to God. In Revelation (6:9–11), we see the souls of the martyrs awaiting the restoration of justice, awaiting the righteous punishment of evil. Neither the martyrs nor the wicked are reincarnated. If they were, the meaning of eschatology would dissolve. The suffering of the righteous would mean nothing, the crimes of the wicked would go unpunished, and the very essence of good and evil would evaporate in a system where reincarnation exists. Without good, there is no order; without order, there is no rational consciousness capable of understanding and implementing order. Without such consciousness, existence itself cannot be, for irrational consciousness cannot properly comprehend itself or its being. Since being exists, so does order — as we have already said, and this logically disproves reincarnation, which rejects good and evil, sequence, and reduces rational (intelligent) existence to aimless wandering of shadows in darkness.

Hinduism also uses horoscopes, which, according to the Book of Enoch (chapter 8), are among the superstitions introduced to mankind by demons.

Paganism in general is historically rooted in mythology, folk tales, oral traditions, and folklore. All narratives about polytheistic gods originate in myths and legends, with no basis in empirical science. Often, these religions were crafted as political constructs — additional layers of state power designed to control the populace, especially through ancestor and hero worship. A vivid modern-day (2025) example of such cult activity can be seen in the Moscowia, where “grandfathers” who once “fought” are venerated. (There is even video footage of schoolchildren kneeling before veterans.) Monuments are erected in honor of so-called heroes of the Special Military Operation (such as Prigozhin), while any criticism of these practices is effectively treated as blasphemy — legally punishable as an offense against believers’ feelings.

By contrast, the Bible has strong historical and archaeological support. Christian teaching is not a tool of state power, but rather often stands in opposition to it — rejecting militarism, hierarchy, and domination. Moreover, the historical existence of Christ is an established fact, which we will explore further.

Homicide, one could argue, lies at the core of paganism, as many pagan cults practiced human — sometimes even child — sacrifice. The cults of heroes and ancestors are inseparable from homicide because they lack any absolute moral standard of purity or holiness. All pagan ancestors are part of the so-called “sacred lineage,” (an attribute of worship) and heroism is often achieved through violence (warfare). You will be hard-pressed to find even one pagan god who forbade murder — on the contrary, many condone it in the name of justice or war.

Monotheism

There are very few truly monotheistic religions. In fact, only Christianity (and Judaism) can be considered genuinely monotheistic. Other belief systems, such as Hinduism, may contain monotheistic elements, but these are usually vague and abstract, lacking the personal, defined essence found in Christian doctrine.

Islam appeared too late to be considered an original monotheistic religion. It is largely derivative — a form of theological plagiarism drawing from both Christianity and Judaism. In fact, several other religions have emerged based on Christian or Judaic foundations, such as Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Babism, and the Bahai Faith.

The quran (e.g., 17:33; 5:32), the holy book of Islam, explicitly permits the killing of people under certain circumstances, such as during warfare or in accordance with legal rulings. Muslim extremists often invoke jihad — a so-called “holy war” — against those they oppose, committing acts of terrorism, including ritual suicide attacks using explosive belts, with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible.

This permissiveness toward homicide reveals the evil nature of such teachings. By contrast, Christianity not only upholds the Old Testament commandment “Thou shalt not kill” — which prohibits physical acts of violence — but also deepens it. In Matthew 5:22, Christ equates verbal abuse with murder: the one who curses his brother is judged as if he had taken a life.

Christianity

Christianity stands alone as the only religion that aligns with common sense (logical consistency), corresponds to historical events, remains relevant in the present, offers insight into the future, and has scientific and historical substantiation. It is also the first true monotheistic faith. Moreover, there exists independent historical evidence confirming that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure, not a fictional character.

Modern historical and archaeological research now allows us to confidently affirm that all references to Christ in the writings of ancient authors are reliable and that Jesus of Nazareth truly existed as a historical person.

For example, the Roman historian Tacitus writes in Annals (Book XV), describing Nero’s persecution of Christians: “Christus, from whom the name [Christian] is derived, was executed during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

Another Roman historian, Suetonius, records in The Twelve Caesars that: “He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.”

The Roman governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, in a letter to Emperor Trajan, wrote about early Christians: “They affirmed that the sum of their fault or error was this: that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as to a god…”

The Jewish historian Josephus also mentions Jesus in Book 18 of his Antiquities of the Jews. While the Greek version of this passage shows signs of later Christian editing, a less altered version survives in the writings of the 10th-century Arab Christian author Mahbub ibn Constantine al-Manbij. His translation from Arabic reads:

“At that time there lived a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known for his virtue. Many among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had been his disciples did not abandon his teachings. They claimed that he appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets had spoken wonders.”

— Anthology of Errors and False Beliefs, V. Seleznyov

And more:

Like Jesus, Pilate was a historical figure. He is mentioned by the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals. The Testimonium Flavianum, a passage later inserted into Josephus’s Jewish War, also refers to Pilate. In addition, the renowned 2nd-century philosopher Philo of Alexandria mentions him. In 1961, Italian archaeologist Antonio Frova discovered a limestone slab in Caesarea, in Roman Palestine (modern-day al-Qaisariyeh), bearing a Latin inscription: “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, [representing] Tiberius.” This find became the first archaeological evidence confirming Pilate’s existence. It also revealed an important correction: Pilate was not a procurator, as Tacitus had called him, but a prefect.

— Anthology of Errors and False Beliefs, V. Seleznyov

The authenticity of the four Gospels was affirmed early on — as early as 150 AD, just decades after their composition. Justin Martyr, in his Apology, refers to the established canon. In chapter 67, he writes: “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” He refers to the Gospels as the “memoirs of the apostles” — eyewitnesses and participants in the events. In chapter 66, he explicitly calls these memoirs “Gospels,” again affirming their apostolic origin: “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”

Justin’s disciple, Tatian, after his teacher’s death, compiled the Diatessaron (2)— a harmonised narrative based on the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). This was completed before the end of the 2nd century.

By 180 AD, Irenaeus of Lyon clearly affirmed the fourfold nature of the Gospel canon in his work Against Heresies. He argued that there were exactly four authentic Gospels — no more and no fewer. While he imbued this idea with symbolic meaning, what matters to us is the historical fact: within just a century of their composition, the four Gospels had been formally recognised by the early Church.

In Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11, Section 8, he writes: “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. …The Gospel is fourfold, as is the direction of the winds and the corners of the Earth. For this reason, mankind was given four principal covenants: the first — before the flood, in the time of Adam; the second — after the flood, in the time of Noah; the third — the giving of the Law, in the time of Moses; the fourth — the Gospel, which renews mankind and sums up all things, bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.” Source: www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

As for the complete canon of 27 books of the New Testament, it was first listed by Athanasius of Alexandria in his 39th Festal Letter, written in 367 AD. In section 5, he precisely enumerates all the books that make up the present New Testament and warns the faithful against reading apocryphal works, which he calls the inventions of heretics. His conclusion: “In these alone is the teaching of godliness proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them.”

Thus, textual and historical evidence fully supports the authenticity of the canonical New Testament.

Many events described in the Old Testament have been supported by modern scientific findings. For instance, the remains of Egyptian weapons and chariot wheels were discovered on the floor of the Red Sea — the very sea Moses is said to have crossed. This discovery is presented in the documentary “The Red Sea Crossing.”

The most probable location of Sodom and Gomorrah has also been identified (sources 2, 3, 4), where the entire area is littered with sulfur — matching the biblical description of divine judgment by fire and brimstone. This is detailed in the 2006 documentary “Our Search for Sodom & Gomorrah” (2006).

Significant data has also been gathered pointing to the location of Noah’s Ark. Geological surveys using modern scanning technologies have revealed a structure consistent with the biblical description of the Ark. This evidence is featured in one of the most well-known documentaries on the topic, “In Search of Noah’s Ark” (1976), focusing on the area near Mount Ararat.

Numerous documentaries and TV series explore the historical dimension of these biblical narratives, including “The Naked Archaeologist” (2005–2010) and “Patterns of Evidence” (2014–2020).

Mat. 27:54: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God!” There was an earthquake when Jesus was crucified, and modern science confirms this.

As a final component in the evidential case for Christianity, creationism plays a vital role. This scientific field, metaphorically speaking, “listens to the stones that cry out” and shares their testimony with the public. The phrase comes from Jesus’ words in Luke 19:40, where He says that if the disciples keep silent, even the stones will cry out — meaning that all of nature, both living and non-living, bears witness to the Creator.

Today, this kind of non-human testimony is more widespread than ever, as many people have closed their hearts to truth. In such a context, it is reason and science — the tools of creationism (2, 3, 4, 5 (YouTube (2, 3, 4)) — that speak on behalf of the silenced preachers.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.

All modern operating systems emerged in the early 1980s, but not all of them followed the same path of development — especially in terms of ideology. The origins of software can be traced back to different individuals, some of whom embedded elements of their worldview into the core of the systems they helped create. Windows (as well as macOS) was conceived from the outset as a commercial product and was carefully stripped of any ideologically controversial elements. When you want to sell a product to the widest possible audience, it must remain neutral — it must not provoke religious, ideological, or personal beliefs. Windows has always succeeded in this regard. Linux, on the other hand, is a different story. That’s likely because Linux was born not as a product, but as a philosophy.

Linux Is Infected With demons

In Linux, there exists a category of system programs (services) that run in the background. These are called daemons. In English, there are two forms of this word: daemon and demon. The former is archaic, the latter is modern — but they are essentially synonyms. In ancient times, daemon referred to spirits or minor deities (often considered “geniuses”) and were not viewed as evil. However, with the advent of Christianity, the word took on a new connotation, revealing what was seen as the “true” infernal nature of such beings. We briefly touched on this in this article. So, while the etymology doesn’t sharply distinguish daemon from demon, modern interpretations often do — retrospectively.

According to Fernando J. Corbató, who worked on Project MAC in 1963, the term daemon was inspired by Maxwell’s “demon” — a thought experiment involving an agent that sorts molecules in a thermodynamic system. This invisible worker mirrored the way background services operate in a computer, so the term seemed fitting. But there’s a catch: in his original 1876 writings, James Clerk Maxwell never actually called the entity a “demon” — he referred to it as an operator or agent. The name “demon” was later introduced by Lord Kelvin and popularized by journalists. The developers of Project MAC adopted this secondary name — and, notably, used the archaic spelling daemon, evoking ancient Greek daemons, intermediaries between humans and gods. But this metaphor quickly breaks down. If a daemon is supposed to be a mediator between humans and deities, and the human is the computer user — then who are the gods? The machine? The programmers? Whose will is the daemon serving in this system? If no divine entity is present in the metaphor, then the daemon isn’t a mediator at all. And if it isn’t a mediator — what is it? You don’t have to think long, because the word has two meanings: if it is not a mediator, then it is an infernal entity.

In the book Unix System Administration Handbook, Evi Nemeth writes: “As a rule, UNIX systems seem to be infested with both daemons and demons.” In other words, while the author technically distinguishes between daemons and demons, he also acknowledge the spiritual ambiguity — even suggesting that Unix-like systems are possessed.

The creators of Project MAC, where this terminology originated, didn’t seem particularly troubled by the implications. Fernando J. Corbató himself described the choice as simply “fanciful,” made in the routine flow of their work. But here’s the thing: there was no technical reason to use a word so clearly laden with negative spiritual connotations. The fact that they did so reveals something deeper — their worldview, their marginality. And it truly was marginal, even for its time. The Renaissance had long passed by the 1960s, and the countercultural movements (rock rebellion, geek and hacker subcultures) were only just beginning to form.

Some try to defend this terminology by pointing to examples in other fields — astronomy, for instance: “Planets are named after pagan gods — isn’t that fine?” No, it’s not. That’s a mistake too, and one that should be corrected. These names should be reexamined, recontextualized, Christianized. Neither OS services nor celestial bodies should bear the names of pagan entities. Thankfully, modern astronomy is already moving in this direction — today, most newly discovered objects are given coded or serial designations. And this is wise. In Genesis, the sun and moon are not named, but referred to simply as the “greater” and “lesser” lamps. The message is clear: don’t idolize the material world. Don’t project personality onto things that are not persons. This is not just about theology — it’s also about mental health. When your computer — a device you spend eight or more hours a day with — is filled with references to demons, gods, zombies, fairies, elves, and dwarves, it starts to affect your mind, it doesn’t take long to go crazy.

The official mascot of BSD-like systems, by Phil Foglio. Somehow, I doubt this is what Maxwell had in mind with his “thermodynamic agent.”

Evil Terminology in Unix: A Systematic Pattern

The demon issue isn’t a one-off. The terminology used throughout Unix-like systems is saturated with occult and subversive elements — reflecting not just casual wordplay but an underlying worldview. A philosophy.

The Chaos Calendar

At one point, a developer integrated the Discordian calendar into the system — a calendar rooted in Discordianism, a religion that venerates Eris, the Greek goddess of chaos. Discordians believe that chaos is the foundation of all things and that order is merely an illusion. Just think about the contradiction: a calendar — a fundamentally logical structure — built to celebrate chaos. A rejection of logic inside a system built on logic.

This calendar utility (called “ddate”) was removed at various points (as in Ubuntu 12.04), only to be later reinstated.

But make no mistake: glorifying chaos means rejecting order. And since God is the source of order, this philosophy moves a person away from God.

Curses

Take the curses library — a key tool for creating text interfaces in Unix consoles. It’s said that the name derives from “cursor optimization,” but there’s no clear linguistic path from “optimization” to curses. There’s no ‘e’ or ‘s’ in optimization. Why then choose a name that evokes spells, hexes, or maledictions? This library — now widely used, including in Python as ncurses (“new curses”) — raises a serious question: what exactly prompted the developer to give it such a name? Was it truly innocent? Or was it, as Jesus says in Matthew 23:32, another step in “filling up the measure of your ancestors’ sins”?

Zombie

In Unix-like systems, a zombie is a process that has finished executing but still lingers in the system’s process table — it is, quite literally, “undead.” The term evokes the popular image of the zombie: once a purely religious or magical figure from pagan traditions such as voodoo, now transformed into a pop culture trope spanning horror (e.g., George A. Romero’s films) and comedy (Return of the Living Dead [1985], Army of Darkness [1992]), and overwhelmingly represented in video games. At first glance, one might dismiss this terminology as harmless humor. But when considered within the broader linguistic ecosystem of Linux — one saturated with dark, occult, and violent metaphors — it becomes clear that this is not an isolated joke, but a continuation of a philosophical trend rooted in paganism.

Kill, Slay

Unfortunately, this term is used not only in Linux, but also in Windows (only kill), which is the name of the command to shut down processes. Technically, the target processes are terminated, switched off, and then, accordingly, can be switched on again, started. However, “killing” a process does not imply its resumption — killing leads to death, so the presence of this term in the system is an obvious illogicality. Such brutal things cannot be taken lightly. Everyone knows the first commandment of the law: “Thou shalt not kill”, which was given to the ancients, and today, with the New Testament, where this commandment is put in a higher order (Matthew 5:22), the basic version is not only neglected, but also despised.

Demonize

From the root term daemon, we now encounter the verb demonise — to turn something into a demon. In Unix contexts, this refers to transforming a regular process into a background daemon. But the metaphor holds: a non-demonic process is made “demonic.” It’s like conversion to satanism, a purely evil action. This isn’t an accident. It’s the natural consequence of a corrupted philosophical foundation. As Scripture says: “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart…”, Matthew 12:35. The philosophy behind Linux — which accepts and perpetuates evil terminology — will naturally continue to generate more of it. A bitter spring cannot yield sweet water. And this, too, is temporary: the age of darkness is drawing to a close.

Evil

There is even a software package literally named Evil — an “Extensible VI Layer” for Emacs, a text editor. It’s presented as a clever pun, but its structure and language go far beyond mere wordplay.

Evil mode. Evil editing. Evil commands. You leave normal mode and enter evil mode. Even objects in code are labeled as Evil().

At first glance, it seems harmless — quirky, even. But this is exactly how desensitization works. Repeated exposure to “evil” in casual, daily-use contexts gradually erodes one’s natural resistance to it. The line between good and evil is blurred. It becomes a grey zone — an emotional and spiritual drift from clarity to chaos. You cannot use evil to accomplish good. That is not logic, that is contradiction. And contradiction, when sustained, leads to cognitive dissonance and irrationalisation of thinking.

Totem Animals

One of the clearest examples of Linux’s pagan vocabulary is its obsession with animal totems, especially in Ubuntu, where each release is named after an animal (e.g., Hardy Heron, Lucid Lynx, Precise Pangolin).

If these names were isolated from their context, they might seem merely creative or fun. But within the broader context of a system immersed in pagan, animist, and occult terminology, the symbolism becomes troubling. Therefore, when we consider such elements within this context, we come to obvious conclusions: totemism and animism are part of the Linux philosophy.

Devil, Diablo, Satan

The Linux ecosystem includes several software packages bearing overtly dark names. DevIL, for example, stands for “Developer’s Image Library” — a tool for image manipulation. Then there’s udevil, used for mounting devices. And not to be forgotten is SATAN — the Security Administrator Tool for Analyzing Networks, a now-defunct security (?) utility. No further comment is needed. Once again, the question is not about acronyms, puns, or clever abbreviations. It is about essence. Strip away the wordplay, and the core reveals itself like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck — it’s probably a duck. If a single such instance occurred, one might dismiss it as coincidence. But in Linux, such terminology repeats over and over again — that’s not coincidence, that’s a pattern.

Those who accept humour as an excuse for such precedents are engaged in self-deception. Imagine a pagan temple, or rather a place that looks like one, and everything there is shaped like one, but the guide tells you that it’s not what it seems, these devils are actually just Developer’s Image Library, and the demons are nothing more than operators from Maxwell’s innocent thought experiment, if you hear someone being killed here, no, it’s actually the end of the process.

This is the same rhetorical sleight-of-hand used by militarists. They don’t kill people — they “neutralize threats.” They don’t invade — they “liberate.” They don’t bomb — they “conduct precision operations.” It’s all semantics, designed to blur the moral line. All these are vegetables of the same field. Or rather, not vegetables, but tares.

Witchcraft (Framework)

The term witchcraft carries an unambiguous moral weight. Biblically, it is an expression of rebellion against God: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry…”, 1 Samuel 15:23, and is punishable by death in the lake of fire: “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars — they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”, Revelation 21:8.

Yet in the Linux world, “Witchcraft” is the name of a hacking framework — explicitly designed to infiltrate and control target systems, but despite the inherently evil nature of the project (which is not relevant to the article, since we are considering the general topic of OS, not a specific one — its subculture), I want to point out the tendencies: evil attracts evil. You won’t find cacti in a rainforest, and you won’t see Platanaceae growing in deserts. In the same way, environments filled with dark terminology and twisted symbology attract people who are sympathetic to such things. It’s not a matter of accident.

Who was supposed to clean this up back in the ’80s and ’90s, when the digital revolution was beginning? Why didn’t Linus Torvalds — or anyone else — remove these questionable names from the kernel? Why wasn’t the language of system components purified to reflect the seriousness of the task? These names — devil, daemon, kill — do not belong in a serious system. A reputable company will not cooperate with someone who has a devil with a pitchfork on their logo. Children’s games and stupid puns do not suit a serious business, and when you see something like a statue of Shiva in front of CERN and how “scientists” perform a sacrificial ritual in front of this idol (albeit a joke, as noted in official sources), it is a reason to wonder whether there is a place for childish stupidity. And if scientist like to joke so much, perhaps they have chosen the wrong profession, maybe it would be more appropriate for them to be in the circus? I don’t see anything funny in this, it’s a typical service to satan.

“Scientiest” of CERN serves to Shiva

If you’re naïve, it will be enough for you to hear that demons in Linux are just a joke, and you will believe it, and when you encounter other manifestations of evil in this OS, you will use self-hypnosis and self-deception to defend yourself, as if it were all “jokes” and “geek slang”. But as you know, every joke has a grain of truth in it. And the truth here is this: using a system cluttered with evil concepts has a subconscious effect on a man, especially a young man, without a formed worldview, without principles, for whom the line between good and evil is blurred: demons can be good, killing sometimes does not mean killing, evil and cursing can be just verbal fun (it’s so much fun!) — it all depends on the context, everything is relative to the point of gravity: in a computer, you can kill virtual people and processes, use evil and curses, turn programs into demons (demonize), but you can’t do all of this outside of a computer. Or can you? on war? In geoengineering? at the opening ceremony of the Gottard Tunnel?

Here’s another question worth asking: why is ambiguity in tech terminology always one-sided — always tilted toward evil? Why inject darkness into an otherwise good product? Why drop a fly into a jar of honey? Why flirt with the devils? Such behavior can only be explained in two ways: either it stems from unconscious negligence, or it is the deliberate act of someone who seeks to spread destruction — someone aligned with evil. Imagine you’re a project manager, leading the development of an operating system. You understand the scale, the importance, the responsibility. And then someone suggests naming background services “demons”, calling lingering processes “zombies”, using the term “daemonize” to describe sending something to the background, implementing a “chaos calendar”, and introducing process-ending commands named “kill” and “slay”. What would your first thought be? That you’re dealing with a psychopath?!

According to the apocryphal Book of Enoch, certain inventions were taught to humanity by fallen angels — weapons, occult practices, and some forms of media — all with one aim: to separate man from God. The form must match the substance. If it doesn’t, it is false. The form of the services in Linux is obviously evil, and regardless of the nature of the essence of the service, the form is wrong: because if the nature of the essence is good, the form is wrong, and if the nature of the essence is evil, not only the form is wrong, but also the content, because evil is error, sin. Mistake, sin should not exist, and if the wrong essence does not exist, the form of this essence does not exist.

Someone might say to me: you use the Internet, don’t you? And 99% of servers there are based on Linux. Yes, but I don’t use Linux, and the fact that some servers are based on this OS is not my problem. Using the Internet does not mean using Linux. It’s the same as saying: you use a knife, right? And do you know how many people have been killed by such knives? We must also understand the position of Christians in this world. Christ said: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves…” (Matt. 10:16), and in His prayer to the Father: “I do not ask that You take them out of the world, but that You keep them from the evil one.” (John 17:15). The world — civilization — is inherently evil, yet despite this, Jesus wants Christians to remain here for a time. And He promises them protection from evil. Therefore, Christians can safely use the internet just as they can live in this world: they are protected from the evil of the world — the world and its wolves will not harm them. Otherwise, Christians would have to not only give up the internet but leave the world entirely. So, while we are in the world, we can use the Internet. Others will point to so-called “Christian Linux distributions,” like this, packages that bundle the Bible and devotional tools. But these are Christian only in name. They change the form but not the core. They don’t confront the demonism of the system. They don’t “de-demonize.” Therefore, they are as Christian as those people who go to church in the morning and take up arms in the evening to attack a neighbouring country. Christianity is not about form, but about substance: “Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.” (Matthew 23:26)

I am a Christian and I do not use Linux on principle — although I can use it (1 Corinthians 6:12), just I can eat food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:4), or enter a pagan temple without being defiled (1 Corinthians 8:10). But Christians don’t worship in pagan temples. Christians tear them down and raise churches in their place. The same should be done with Linux. Tear it down — and build something pure.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.

According to Genesis 1:1, God first created the heavens and then the earth, as we discussed in detail in our article on creationism. The term heavens most likely refers to the spiritual or heavenly realm, whereas the firmament heaven represents the physical heavens — that is, the universe. This distinction becomes clearer in Genesis 2:1, which mentions the completion of the hosts of heaven and earth. The host of heaven is generally understood to mean the angelic beings. Therefore, God created the angels first, and then mankind. But unlike the angels — who are ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14) — man was given a unique distinction: he was created in the image and likeness of God. As Jesus Himself says (John 10:34–35), man can be called god in this sense. Around the same time, however, some of the angels fell. They turned away from the truth and sinned, and as a result, God cast them out of the highest reality into the lowest — into the abyss. Why did these angels rebel? The Bible does not provide a clear answer. The details we have are cloaked in metaphor. The apocryphal Book of Enoch offers some additional information, including the names of the rebellious angels, but even there, the underlying cause remains hidden. For the purposes of this discussion, we will not rely on apocryphal sources, but instead examine what the canonical biblical texts tell us.

Here is what is said through Ezekiel:

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

— Eze. 28:13–19.

In other words, the future satan was originally in Eden — right there alongside humanity. He was created flawless, endowed with great power. But he began to abuse that power, using its fruits not to glorify God, but to serve his own desires. Evil took root within him, and he sinned. Because of this sin, God cursed the serpent (Genesis 3:14) — and cursed him irrevocably. This curse marked the fall of a once-beautiful angel from heaven into hell (Luke 10:18). He became satan by turning away from the truth.

The prophecy in Ezekiel is unique. Although it is directed at the king of Tyre, the text draws a clear parallel between the king’s pride and the fall of satan, the serpent. God compares the king’s actions to those of the serpent in Eden. For instance, the passage mentions trade, a type of activity, and Jesus later said in the parable of the talents and money changers (Matthew 25:14), that any gain or profit from such trade ultimately belongs to God — since no one can truly earn anything apart from Him (Matthew 12:30). God is the source of all good.

• “Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.” The once-glorious cherub abandoned wisdom and was consumed by vanity. But true wisdom is to rejoice in the beauty God has given — to recognize that He is the author of all that is beautiful. Your beauty is not your own accomplishment; you are but an ornament of creation, like the stars in the sky — as long as you remain guided by wisdom and free from sin. Otherwise, you will be swallowed like a star collapsing into a black hole — your beauty reduced to ashes.
• “I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.” This is a powerful image. In the Gospels, kings often represent worldly power in opposition to the Christians (Matthew 20:25–26). Jesus, in His conversation with Pilate, says: “My kingdom is not of this world.” So the kings here likely symbolize the people of this world — those who are from below (John 8:23), of the earth (John 3:31), not born of the Spirit (John 3:8). Over such people, satan holds a certain sway (Luke 4:6), and they, in a way, carry out his agenda — “they look to him.”
• “I brought fire out from within you; it consumed you. I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching.” Here, the end of satan’s story is foretold. God will ultimately destroy him with his own evil — burning him before the eyes of all. People will be shocked, much like those Soviets who once viewed the USSR as eternal and unshakable, only to see it collapse in a day — like a colossus with feet of clay. 🤷‍♂️ satan’s story will serve as both terror and warning. And the father of lies will be no more.

It is spoken through the prophet Isaiah (Isa 14:5–23) in a similar way to Ezekiel:

The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the LORD of hosts.

Although the message is addressed to the king of Babylon, it contains a parable that reflects the fall of satan. Once again, an earthly ruler and his deeds are symbolically tied to satan and his rebellion — actions for which the Lord promises harsh judgment. Just like the king of Babylon, satan relentlessly pursues people in order to devour them (1 Peter 5:8). But the time will come when God will “break the staff of the wicked and the scepter of rulers.” The devil and his followers will be cast down into hell — a prophetic glimpse into what lies ahead.

• “As you slept from heaven, O son of the dawn, bright star, you have fallen to the earth, you destroyer of men!” This verse captures the very moment of satan’s fall from heaven. It also highlights one of his defining crimes: “destroyer of men” — for from the beginning, in Eden, he attacked mankind and led Eve into temptation.
• “You said in your heart: “I will ascend into heaven, I will set my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mountain of the gathering of the gods, at the ends of the north…” The fall was preceded by the desire to be equal to the gods, satan wanted to be like the gods, that is, like people, because people are gods, because the word of God is to them (John 10:34), and they are the image and likeness of God.
• “I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High!” satan was not content with his created glory. His unchecked ambition drove him to rebellion — foolish and futile.
• “But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the pit.” God cursed the serpent and hurled him into the grave — the lowest place — hell itself.

The conclusion of the passage refers to earthly kings who, by following the devil, have ruined both their lives and their kingdoms. In the end, they will end up in the same place as satan, and everything they built — their wealth, their power, their kingdoms — will vanish like smoke. They will be stripped of their pride and authority, and those already in the grave will say to them: “You too have become as weak as we are.”

You cannot become something more than what you were created to be. Evolution doesn’t work: if you are a bacterium, you will remain a bacterium; if you are a bird, you are a bird. A snake cannot become a dachshund, and a bear cannot become a whale. Angels, too, are created in their own kind — they are not human, nor can they become human. This is affirmed by Jesus in John 13:16 and Matthew 10:24–25.

From this, we see that satan’s fall happened simultaneously with his curse. When God cursed the serpent in Eden, he could no longer remain in the holy place. Just as humans were expelled from the Garden, satan too was cast out — but not to Earth, like humans, for learning and redemption. Rather, he was thrown into hell, permanently. Humans are given a chance to repent, to work on their mistakes, and return to God. satan, on the other hand, is beyond redemption. Genesis 3 strongly implies that satan’s casting down into hell occurred immediately after his curse in Eden. His great sin — possibly his first and last — was against man: the serpent, a fallen angel, deceived the woman into disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit. This, incidentally, also suggests that Eden was a metaphysical garden, not a literal physical place — for animals do not speak, but the serpent did. And if that’s right, then mankind played a key role in the fall of the devil.

And now consider this: how does satan regard the one who caused his downfall? If his envy of mankind led to his eternal condemnation, can he possibly harbor anything but hatred? The question answers itself. Demons have no compassion. No pity. If a human falls into their hands, horror follows. Anyone who serves satan in this life should not expect favor from demons in the next — evil does not reward loyalty. Jesus called satan “the father of lies”, and no matter what the devil promises, hell offers only one thing: eternal, unrelenting torment. Evil uses every trick and lie to lure its victims into its domain, where it can torment them without restraint.

Right now, before Christ’s second coming, the righteous and the wicked still live side by side — tares and wheat growing in the same field. God, in His mercy, sends rain on both the just and the unjust. But this time will end. Eternity will begin. Then, the sheep will be separated from the goats: those who chose light will dwell in the light; those who chose darkness will be in darkness — forever.

Let us now consider the logic of satanism to demonstrate its irrationality. The devil is absolute evil — he has fully departed from good and dwells in darkness. Every sane person seeks happiness and meaning, as the ancients observed. But a satanist serves satan, hoping to gain something good in return. This is absurd. Evil cannot produce good. Just as cold cannot produce warmth, and darkness cannot produce light, evil cannot yield anything good. It is fundamentally impossible. Therefore, the servant of evil will never receive any good from their service.

And by satanism, I do not mean only robed cultists in dark temples. I also refer to the more subtle forms — those who serve evil unknowingly: fortune tellers (sorceresses), warmongers, and others who act against God’s will (Rev. 21:8). Some satanists — no matter how absurd this may sound (imagine a Christian who doesn’t believe in Christ) — don’t believe in satan. These are the so-called “atheistic satanists” or “satan fans.” For them, satan is merely a symbol of rebellion against religion, against God. Accordingly, they do not believe in the Bible. Well, first of all, ignorance of the law does not exempt one from responsibility. And second, whether they believe in satan or not doesn’t matter — their actions are what count. And their actions are the same as satan’s: when “fans” support their idol, they are aligned with him, and if they are aligned with him, they act together with him. In other words, they are his accomplices, who stand with satan against God. That is exactly what satanist fanatics are — those who will share satan’s fate. The devil doesn’t need people to believe in him; what matters to him is that they don’t believe in God. In a broad biblical sense, all who live in sin are of the devil. As John wrote: “Whoever commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8)

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.

Previously, we discussed why Darwinism and the hypothesis of evolution are foolish, repugnant, and abhorrent. Now, let’s turn our attention to creationism — the antithesis of Darwinism. As a doctrine, creationism was not systematically developed at the time of evolutionism’s rise in the 19th century, making a proper debate impossible. Atheists took advantage of the scientific community’s unpreparedness and, particularly through legal battles — such as Daniel v. Waters (1975), Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), and the 2007 PACE resolution against teaching creationism in schools — secured the dominance of anti-scientific Darwinian propaganda in education. Since then, generations have been indoctrinated with absurd textbook illustrations depicting a monkey morphing into a human in a neat sequence, fish crawling onto land, or a fetus supposedly passing through “animal stages” before finally “evolving” into a human. These images bear no resemblance to reality, as we have already demonstrated in our previous article — and, of course, mocked with memes.

How the Universe, Earth, Animals, and Humans Were Actually Created

It is important to understand that the Genesis account of creation should not be taken entirely literally, as the process of creation transcends human comprehension — limited as it is by time and space. However, certain aspects can indeed be understood literally. For reasons known to Him, God often communicates with humanity through allegories — just look at the Book of Revelation. Even Jesus himself spoke in parables (Matthew 13:34–35), and when He spoke plainly, without parables, He was even rebuked for it (John 16:29–30). Thus, we must engage in deeper thought and reflection.

Unlike the inconsistent and logically bankrupt framework of Darwinism, we will start at the true beginning — the expansion of existence itself. However, it must be stated outright that this process has no “beginning” in the conventional sense, as it exists outside of time. And if it is not subject to time, it has neither a beginning nor an end. In this context, the childish question — “Who created God?” — has a simple answer: no one. God always exist. This is easily grasped through a simple analogy: just as we can conceive of the abstract notion of eternal nothingness — a dimensionless void that has never existed and never will — we can equally conceive of eternal being, something that has always existed and always will. For us, this is a simple exercise because our consciousness cannot process entities beyond our perception. To us, such entities do not exist — consider, for instance, the idea of “new colors.” You cannot imagine a truly new color, because for you, it does not exist. Likewise, sleep is a form of non-existence; our imagination and consciousness operate only with elements that already exist. As Jesus said: “…without Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5), meaning that only God has the power to create something truly new. The fact that “eternal being” is not a mere abstraction — unlike non-existence — is proven by the very nature of existence itself. The reality that we exist, that the world exists, is proof of being and the impossibility of absolute non-being. Being and non-being cannot coexist; it is a paradox — much like the supposed coexistence of order and chaos. Thus, the chaos upon which Darwinists rely does not exist. Chaos, like cold or darkness, is merely an abstraction. There is no such thing as “darkness” or “cold” in and of themselves — only the absence of light or heat. We can study photons (light) and the movement of molecules (heat), but we cannot study “cold” or “darkness” as objective entities because they do not exist in the Universe. This aligns with Scripture: “You are good, and do good…” (Psalm 118:68). Evil, likewise, does not exist as a creation of God; it is merely a deviation from good — just as darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. Thus, unlike evolutionism, creationism has a rational foundation — a solid basis for the emergence of existence as the result of divine action. Of course, the term “emergence” is used in the past tense, which is subjective; in truth, existence has always been, though for us, it appears to have “emerged” (or rather, we have emerged into it), as we are bound by the constraints of time and space. Meanwhile, evolutionism lacks such a foundation — it attributes existence to an arbitrary and meaningless source, relying on randomness as the cause of everything. Darwinism attempts to explain structured, ordered mechanisms through chaotic, purposeless processes — an inherent contradiction.

• According to Genesis, God first created the “heavens” (the universe, space) and the “earth” (matter, or the planet itself). Initially, our planet was a formless, water-covered wasteland, as described in Genesis 1:2 and 1:6 — an idea that modern science has, interestingly, confirmed.
• The “separation of light from darkness” in Genesis 1:4 may correspond to the Big Bang — the moment when space and the universe began to expand. It is worth noting that the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. It is only after this event that the concept of “days” begins, as time itself is a byproduct of movement.
• In Genesis 1:8, the sky is called the “firmament,” a term that has led many to misunderstand its meaning. Some imagine it as a solid dome (often in the context of flat-earth myths featuring turtles or whales), but in reality, it refers to the structural density of our universe. Compared to higher, more refined realities, the material universe appears “solid” to God. The term “heavens” or “sky” in the Bible does not only refer to the earthly atmosphere or the cosmos but also to the metaphysical heavens (Nehemiah 9:6), making context crucial. For instance, Genesis 1:7 describes the creation of the firmament and the gathering of waters above and below it — most likely referring to water existing in two states: liquid (below, in the atmosphere) and gaseous (above). Furthermore, Genesis 2:1 suggests that the “heavens” in Genesis 1:1 may refer to the creation of the metaphysical, spiritual heavens, while the “earth” refers to the material universe. This interpretation clarifies the distinction between the firmament and the heavens: the “sky” is the heavenly realm, while the firmament represents the atmosphere and the material universe.

Once the environment was prepared for organic life, God created living organisms. Genesis 1:11 clearly demonstrates that creation did not follow the principles of evolution — progressing from a single-celled bacterium to diverse species — but instead occurred through the direct formation of fully developed species. First, God created grass and trees, then fish and birds, followed by mammals and reptiles, and finally, man, made in His image. However, the first humans described here are not yet Adam and Eve but rather their organic bodies, created to inhabit the earth, govern it, and reproduce. Adam and Eve themselves did not originally live on the planet and did not reproduce in the beginning. This sequence may also be understood as a general overview, with subsequent passages providing clarifications and details. Interestingly, both humans and all animals were originally herbivores (Genesis 1:29–30). Predation arose as a consequence of humanity’s fall and became fully manifest after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). The creation of organic matter, as described in Genesis, was most likely conceptual— God first created everything ideologically, but these concepts were not yet physically realized, as indicated in Genesis 2:5. This suggests that God initially established models, or archetypes, of living souls before their material embodiment. Here, we touch upon the distinction between the objective and the subjective, between models or ideas and physical entities. In the material world, there may be one yak, ten, or even billions — it does not matter how many individual yaks exist because the living soul of a yak is singular and exemplary; it represents the “yak idea.” When Adam named the creatures in Eden, he was not naming individual subjects but rather the living souls — the archetypal forms of each being. Man, however, is unique, he is not only living souls but also bear the image and likeness of God. This uniqueness is defined by self-awareness, which extends beyond personal self-perception. It includes a broader, non-personal awareness — an understanding of oneself beyond the individual, a kind of “global” self-consciousness that may indicate recognition of the archetypal “living soul” or even the presence of superconsciousness. There is no contradiction in quantity here, as each soul contains the “image of God” just as each fragment of a hologram contains the whole image.

Understanding the principles of objectivity and subjectivity protects us from falling into the trap of “multiple truths.” People often say, “Everyone has their own truth — some believe in Jesus, others in Buddha, others in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” But in reality, what people have are different interpretations of the truth, not actual truth. Truth itself belongs to God. The fact that someone believes in Buddha instead of Jesus does not alter the truth — Jesus remains the only true God. As Galatians 6:7 states: “God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” The very existence of multiple interpretations proves the existence of an ultimate, objective truth; if there were no absolute truth, there would be nothing to interpret. If there were no archetypal living soul of a yak, there would be no variations of yaks to interpret.

A blind person’s perception of the world is fundamentally different from that of a sighted person, yet both interpret the same world idea. However, to truly grasp the essence of reality, one must go beyond mere interpretation. This is precisely what the Apostle Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.” He compares human perception to looking at a dim reflection, emphasizing that in the future, we will see reality clearly, without distortion. For a blind person, the world of color and light does not exist as it does for a sighted person, but their lack of vision does not change reality — the world continues to exist as it is. Likewise, atheistic interpretations of the world exclude God, just as a blind person’s perception excludes light. The absurdity lies in atheists insisting that their limited interpretation is the objective truth. They stand under the noonday sun and proclaim that the sun does not exist — this is either naïveté or madness. In doing so, they construct a hyper-reality and attempt to pull others into their delusion. Why does this analogy describe atheists as “blind”? Because they assert something illogical: that non-existence produced existence. Their reasoning is based on chaos, yet chaos cannot exist alongside order, as they are mutually exclusive concepts. Since order undeniably exists, chaos — defined as pure disorder — does not. Therefore, the atheist worldview collapses under its own contradictions. Interestingly, Jesus emphasized logic in forming conclusions. In Matthew 5:37, He instructs: “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” The terms “yes” and “no” are the foundation of elementary logic — true and false. Furthermore, Jesus advised His followers to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” The simplicity of logic is evident, and wisdom lies in faithfully following that simplicity. This is why creationism is based on logic and reason — not on fantasies or baseless claims that chaos miraculously produces order.

Genesis describes the creation of our universe, but Jesus’ words — “I have other sheep, not of this fold” (John 10:16) — suggest the possibility of many “folds” or realms, implying that the theory of the multiverse has a biblical foundation. Furthermore, Jesus testifies that the material world did not always exist: “For You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). Modern science also acknowledges that the universe had a beginning, a “birthday,” and did not exist eternally. However, science does not know what preceded that event. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that before the universe, there was the Word of God: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). This Word became incarnate in the same way Christ did: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Just as Christ took on a human body, the Word of God took on the form of the universe itself (2 Peter 3:5).

The days of creation in Genesis are often understood as parables rather than literal 24-hour periods, but ultimately, whether creation happened in six days, 144 hours, instantly, or over billions of years is not a fundamental issue. The key point is that creation occurred through divine will.

As we see, creationism can easily engage with cosmological discussions, while Darwinism is entirely inadequate in this area. The idea of cosmic evolution is almost comical — consider the beliefs of atheistic astronomers in the mid-20th century. At the time, they assumed the Moon’s surface had a dust layer tens or even hundreds of meters thick, believing that billions of years of accumulation would have covered it deeply. Arthur C. Clarke’s “A Fall of Moondust” vividly illustrates this outdated notion. Not only was this idea incorrect, but many other “accumulative” problems exist: the unexpected levels of helium in the atmosphere, the presence of metals in the oceans, and the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field — when projected over billions of years, these factors lead to absurd conclusions. Modern Darwinists also struggle to explain the Moon’s origin. The leading hypothesis, the megaimpact theory, proposes that a massive collision formed the Moon, yet lunar soil samples refuse to fully resemble Earth’s, aside from their basic elements. The rate of the universe’s expansion is constantly changing, dark matter and dark energy appear and disappear from scientific models, and black holes remain enigmatic anomalies — true cosmic wildcards! Then there’s panspermia — the idea that life began in Earth’s primordial oceans after arriving from space. This theory, however, requires an explanation for how life arose on the celestial bodies that supposedly carried it. It also fails to address the Fermi paradox: if evolution leads to boundless biological diversity, why is space seemingly uninhabited? Carl Sagan once speculated about the existence of organic clouds in space, suggesting that comets could pass through such clouds like buses picking up passengers, delivering them to lifeless planets where evolution would then begin. In reality, no such “organic clouds” exist. Gas and dust clouds contain simple molecules such as acetone and carbon — common building blocks of life — but nowhere in space, on comets, moons, or planets, has actual living matter been found. On Titan, Saturn’s moon, it turns out that in a methane-ethane environment, nitrogenosomes (cellular membranes) do not form at all. Therefore, the hypothesis of life’s origin in an anhydrous environment remains mere fantasy. The same applies to Europa, Jupiter’s moon, where scientists once hypothesized that a hidden ocean of liquid water — most likely to host life — lies beneath an icy crust. In reality, there is no ocean, and no liquid water exists at all. This directly contradicts the idea of cosmic evolution, reinforcing that life on Earth is unique and intentionally designed. Importantly, recognizing Earth’s uniqueness does not mean life cannot exist elsewhere. After all, when Jesus spoke of “sheep not of this fold,” He may have been referring to planets and civilizations we have yet to discover.

After the universe began expanding — but before humans were expelled from Eden (which we understand as a metaphysical garden) — God “took” Adam (literally meaning “taken from the earth” or “ground, dust”) and placed him in Eden. There, God similarly “took” the animals and brought them to Adam, who named each one. Notably, God presented Adam with fully formed animals, not transitional alpha or beta versions. Genesis 2:20 confirms this: “But for Adam no suitable helper was found.” Among all the animals, none were a match for Adam, prompting God to create a woman from Adam’s rib. The implication of this verse is clear: if these were transitional species, there would be uncertainty as to whether a future evolved species might be “helpful” to Adam. However, the reference is to all animals, indicating that none of them were incomplete. In fact, if we understand “animals” as their ideal forms or archetypes, then incompleteness was never an issue to begin with. When the woman was created, Adam named her Eve. Interestingly, at first, he simply referred to her as “man’s”, since she came from man. In a sense, Adam “gave birth” to her. It was only after learning their destiny on Earth (Genesis 3) — when God explained the distinct male and female roles — that Adam, recognizing the woman’s role in childbirth, named her Eve.

After Eve ate the forbidden fruit (which was not an apple, reinforcing the metaphysical nature of these events) and gave it to Adam, both were expelled from Eden into the material world of suffering. A significant factor in their expulsion was that neither admitted guilt — neither repented. Instead, Eve blamed the serpent, and Adam blamed Eve. Genesis 3:21 is crucial: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” This suggests that their departure from Eden was accompanied by the “clothing” of their souls into organic, physical bodies. Chronologically, these events occurred approximately 30,000 years ago, coinciding with the sudden emergence of homo sapiens in this universe. Darwinists struggle to explain the abrupt appearance of homo sapiens, as this species was vastly different from its contemporaries in terms of brain size, skull structure, and other anatomical traits. Homo sapiens — modern humans — have remained unchanged for 30,000 years, showing no signs of evolution.

Contrary to evolutionary assumptions, homo sapiens never lived in caves or hunted mammoths as primitive beings. From the very beginning, they were civilized. This aligns with God’s mercy — though He was angered by humanity’s disobedience, He did not condemn them to a savage existence. While exincted hominids were primarily hunters and gatherers, Adam, Eve, and their descendants engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry, as seen in Genesis 4:2. They did not dwell in caves but built homes and settlements. Adam’s descendants became the driving force of progress on Earth. Without them, humanity might have remained in a primitive state — just as some isolated indigenous peoples in Polynesia, Africa, and South America remain in such a state today. The Bible describes how Adam’s offspring established cities, laying the foundation of civilization. A crucial factor in this advancement was their extraordinary longevity. Before the time of Noah, humans lived for over 900 years, but due to their increasing wickedness, God limited human lifespans to 120 years. This decision is easy to understand — imagine the damage modern despots could inflict if they ruled for 900 years instead of a few decades! The presence of regenerative genes in humans, such as those related to tooth growth, hints at a past where longevity may have been much greater. The first humans were not mere survivors adapting to their environment — they were creators who shaped civilization itself. They laid the groundwork for structured societies, built cities that functioned as early states, and forged new conditions for civilized existence. Consider Rome or Babylon — each began as a city but grew into powerful entities that influenced entire regions. This reveals the creative impulse of Adam’s descendants: they were not passive observers of the world but active participants in shaping it.

Argumentation for the Metaphysical Nature of the Garden of Eden

At first glance, the text of Genesis appears to use clear, literal language when referring to concepts like “rib,” “flesh,” “bone,” and “nakedness.” However, a closer and more nuanced reading reveals subtle expressions and semantic layers that suggest an entirely different interpretation: the events described in Genesis chapters 1 to 3 did not unfold in the physical, material world on Earth, but rather in a subtle, metaphysical realm — a transcendental domain, the dwelling place of angels and spiritual beings. The evidence for this includes: 1. The creation of life is described in terms of “living souls” rather than organic bodies. In Genesis 2:7, God forms Adam from the “dust of the ground” (interpreted as an act of creation ex nihilo), and breathes into him the breath of life, making him a “living soul.” The animals Adam names are likewise referred to as “living souls,” not bodies of flesh. 2. In the episode where the woman is created from Adam’s bone and flesh, the original Hebrew terms carry multiple meanings. For instance, the word translated as “rib” can also mean “side,” suggesting not a literal rib but a symbolic “side” of Adam — potentially the emotional or psychological aspect of his being. This aligns with traditional views of femininity being more emotionally attuned. Furthermore, “flesh” in Hebrew can signify “personhood,” and “bone” may also denote “substance” or “essence.” In this light, Eve was formed not from Adam’s body (bones and flesh), but from a particular dimension of his being. 3. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is often imagined as an apple, yet the biblical text never specifies any known earthly fruit. It simply says “fruit.” Moreover, the very name of the tree — “the knowledge of good and evil” — is conceptually abstract and does not correspond to any botanical reality. The same applies to the “Tree of Life.” Such trees are unknown to science and nature, emphasizing their symbolic, metaphysical identity. 4. The serpent speaks to the woman — and she understands it. In our material world, animals do not speak human languages. This alone points to a different order of existence: one where spiritual communication is possible, further affirming the metaphysical nature of the events. 5. The serpent, interpreted as satan, tempts Eve and is later cast down. The prophet Isaiah declares: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Isa. 14:12), suggesting that Eden was located in the heavenly realm, from which the rebellious cherub was cast down to Earth. 6. In some Bible translations — such as the Ukrainian one — the Garden of Eden is equated with paradise. A similar analogy exists in the English tradition as well, for example in the Douay-Rheims Bible, where Eden is called ‘paradise’. This is not without basis: the very word ‘Eden’ is not a known geographical name, but rather an allegorical designation meaning ‘place of delight’. It is therefore entirely reasonable to understand Eden as paradise — a place beyond sin. This interpretation has further grounds, including logical ones: sinless existence is by definition higher than sinful, material existence. Moreover, at least one cherub (the future satan) resided in Eden, and the nature of cherubim, as is well known, is metaphysical. In Genesis 3, God expels Adam from the garden and stations a cherub with a flaming sword at its entrance to guard the way to the Tree of Life. Do cherubs dwell among humans on Earth? Does a flaming sword that turns in every direction exist in nature? Clearly not — these are signs of transcendence, of a reality beyond the physical. 7. The clothing of Adam and Eve in “skins” appears strange if taken literally. In ancient times, hunters used to dress in animal skins, but it is known that the first humans: Adam and Eve, were not hunters, they worked on the field from the beginning. But if “skins” refer metaphorically to organic, mortal bodies, the narrative makes sense: sin caused the soul to descend into a lower state of being — into the constraints of material existence. 8. Genesis describes the geographical location of Eden using rivers — Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates. Yet with today’s satellite imagery, no Garden of Eden is found in these regions. This mirrors how Christ speaks figuratively: “who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38). Likewise, the “living water” of Eden symbolically divides into four streams — not geographically, but ideologically.

As for the nakedness that people saw in themselves when they tasted the fruit of knowledge, this is probably a consequence of the inevitable projection of the soul into the material dimension in the process of understanding good and evil. The soul has to acquire an organic body in order to know good and evil, that’s how it ‘works’. God warned people that they would die when they touched the tree of knowledge, what does it mean to die while in paradise? — to lose paradise, that is, to die for paradise, to move to another place, to be expelled from paradise, this is the essence of death: the transition from one state to another. God not only forbids eating from the tree of knowledge (‘you shall not eat of it’), but also explains why: ‘you shall surely die,’ so it is not only a prohibition, but also a warning, an explanation. Moreover, after eating the fruit, Adam and Eve “sew fig leaves into a cordage’. The names of the trees of paradise have not been mentioned before, but now the well-known fig tree appears, and sewing implies the use of tools, but tools belong to the physical world. In the realm of ideas, things are created by pure thought and will — not with leaves, threads, or needles. This sudden shift to material processes further confirms that the fall brought humanity from a metaphysical Eden into the domain of matter.

Creationism Reveals the Wisdom and Beauty of God’s Design

In Proverbs 3:19, Solomon declares: “The LORD made the earth with wisdom, and the heavens with intelligence.” The goal of creationism is to demonstrate the extraordinary wisdom embedded in the design of the world — both living and non-living — as well as in humanity itself. These demonstrations highlight the intricate and ingenious architecture of the universe, showcasing its optimized and flawless mechanisms, all of which point to intelligent design.

Real shot of atoms

The human body was created according to the mammalian concept and, as such, shares similarities with other mammals. For instance, nearly all land-dwelling animals possess two eyes, a nose, two ears, a digestive system with a stomach and intestines, and a nervous system that ensures communication between different body parts. However, the design framework for fish and birds is entirely different, not to mention the unique structures found in ants and plants. When discussing the origin of humanity, we must first examine its architecture. From an engineering perspective, is such a design even capable of arising by chance? A design in which all mechanisms are so perfectly coordinated that they operate in seamless harmony? Every moment, the human body performs thousands of functions without our conscious awareness. We do not think about how our organs work, yet their complexity surpasses anything humans have ever created. A computer did not evolve from a radio, television, or typewriter; it was designed by humans. Everyone acknowledges the complexity of high technology, yet the staggering complexity of the human body is often ignored or dismissed by atheists. Some, like Richard Dawkins, even go as far as calling the design of the human retina “idiotic,” revealing how deeply some are entrenched in ignorance and opposition to the truth.

Nature operates under fundamental laws — it follows order. The universe functions within an established system that remains stable and unshaken by chaotic randomness. As Psalm 104:5 states: “You set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” The deeper one delves into the hard sciences, the more evidence one finds of consistency and order.

A few classic examples illustrate this point: 1. The laws of harmonics, which govern frequencies and overtones, also influence the structure of nature, shaping everything from the spirals of shells and the growth patterns of plants to the formation of galaxies. 2. The universal principle of the golden ratio appears throughout creation: in the proportions of living organisms, the timing of biological rhythms, the arrangement of leaves on branches, and even the magnetic resonance of electron spins in cobalt niobate crystals etc.

How can a set of molecules and cells that make up the human body sustain life, maintain balance, and still contain human consciousness — a soul? Every cell requires oxygen, yet it does not access oxygen directly from the air; instead, it relies on intricate internal transport systems, which are themselves supported by other systems. These include the circulatory, nervous, digestive, filtration, and immune systems — many interdependent mechanisms, each finely tuned and working toward a specific purpose. For randomness (which itself is an abstraction) to produce such complexity is simply an impossible task. Consider the human eye — a unique and autonomous tool. Unlike a camera that requires manual focusing by adjusting a lens, the eye automatically focuses on objects we want to see. In darkness, the pupils dilate, and in bright light, they contract. The vestibulo-ocular reflex stabilizes vision during movement, utilizing the vestibular system: when the head moves in one direction, the eyes move in the opposite direction. Vergence movements adjust the position of the eyes based on the distance to an object. Different muscles perform specialized tasks — saccades, for instance, create rapid eye movements that stabilize vision during reading, just as you are experiencing now. The brain further enhances vision by compensating for chromatic aberrations — something even the most advanced camera lenses and software struggle to achieve. The eye is securely embedded within the skull for protection, equipped with an eyelid that instantly shields it when necessary, as well as eyelashes and eyebrows that serve as additional barriers. Tears not only protect the eye’s surface but also enhance vision. Thus, the eye is not an isolated tool but an intricately integrated component of human design. But the most intriguing question remains: how does vision transform photons and electrical impulses into images? The materialistic perspective of this process is fundamentally inadequate — it merely assumes that it happens somehow, without offering a concrete explanation, especially when considering the role of imagination (both with open and closed eyes) and dreams. In contrast, the interpretation of signals as images is perfectly explained by the concept of the soul.

Darwinists often attempt to argue against intelligent design by pointing to so-called vestigial organs, such as the appendix, which they claim to be useless. However, this perspective has been repeatedly debunked. For instance, research (Associated Press, Purpose of Appendix Believed Found, October 5, 2007) suggests that the appendix serves as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria, aiding in recovery from illnesses like cholera. The significance of this organ has merely diminished in modern societies due to improved sanitation and medical advancements that allow for quick restoration of gut flora without reliance on the appendix.

God gave humans the most functional and adaptable physical form among all creatures — a body that is flexible, strong, swift, graceful, and precise. Our senses are extraordinary: we can see far, hear subtle sounds, distinguish countless scents, and detect the finest variations in taste. Some individuals carve intricate sculptures on the tip of a pencil, while others can crack coconuts with their bare hands. Some master ballet, while others pull airplanes with their teeth. Some compose symphonies, while others can distinguish between Château d’Yquem 1893 and Graham’s Ne Oublie 1882. These capabilities may seem obvious, even trivial, yet within scientific discussion, every such example serves as undeniable evidence of intelligent design. Darwinism, by contrast, dismisses complexity and efficiency, always searching for imperfection and primitiveness. And yet, time and again, what it finds is thoughtful, purposeful design — both in the present and throughout history. After all, how could an organism partially develop wings and survive before they became functional for flight? How could an eye partially evolve and still provide vision? How could a species survive for millions of years with half-formed gills, unable to breathe properly? The reality is clear: survival requires perfection, and the tools of survival must be fully developed and highly effective, especially when the task is to survive millions, billions of years. That is exactly what we observe in nature. Yet, Darwinists refuse to acknowledge this, for doing so would mean admitting that the universe was designed.

People who are distant from Christianity often seek objections to justify themselves: Why do people (including children) suffer from illness? Why does a turtle live for 200 years while humans rarely reach 100? Why do people age? Why are they attacked by boas or struck by earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, wars, and epidemics? The answer, in fact, is found right at the beginning of Genesis: mankind failed in Eden and was punished, and the universe was cursed along with them. This is only logical — the cursed cannot dwell in a holy place. Man must recognize its fallen state and turn to Jesus for salvation. This is the fundamental prerequisite — there is no salvation without Christ. Creationism, therefore, gives meaning to human existence, revealing the purpose of creation and filling people’s minds with an understanding of that purpose. It directs them toward God, the Creator. In contrast, atheism breeds nihilism — it strips life of meaning, reducing everything to mere chance, chaos, and an ultimate, meaningless oblivion. According to atheism, life arose without purpose and will ultimately be forgotten along with the universe itself. Sadly, some people will go to great lengths to avoid admitting they are wrong. Take, for example, the case of a psychiatrist and his patient who suffered from Cotard’s syndrome (a condition where a person believes they are dead). The doctor’s rational arguments had no effect — his words crumbled like sand. So he devised another approach. He asked the patient, “Do corpses bleed?” to which the patient replied, “Of course not.” The doctor then pricked the patient’s arm with a needle, and when a drop of blood appeared, the patient, astonished, exclaimed, “Wow! The corpse is bleeding!” This case illustrates how stubborn rejection of reason can reduce a person to absurdity.

Think about it: for a pseudo-intelligent machine — artificial intelligence — to operate, it requires colossal resources. Tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon either build or sponsor nuclear energy projects to power their AI systems. Some startups are planning to construct floating wind generators specifically to supply data centers with energy. Meanwhile, data centers already harm the environment, raising local temperatures, and their owners face public and political resistance because of this. All of this is needed simply for a machine to mimic human intelligence, whereas a human can function perfectly well on a piece of bread and a glass of water!”

Research in quantum biology, led by F. Kurian, reveals molecular interconnectedness within the quantum field. Cells containing specific amino acids, such as tryptophan, are capable of processing up to 10 trillion operations per second.

Human technology, at its core, simply mimics the designs found in Intelligent Creation. Lenses are modeled after the eye. Cars replicate several biological functions: the engine serves as the heart, wiring as the nervous system, wheels as limbs, and fuel, oil, and water parallel blood, lymph, and bodily fluids. Airplanes take inspiration from the wings of birds (aerodynamics), while ships mirror the streamlined bodies of fish. Even computers resemble the brain in how they process analytical, visual, and auditory signals. There are many examples, all of which are successfully organised in biomimetics.

Cosmic Creationism

The systemic balance inherent in the human body is also present in all living beings and extends to inanimate nature. The solar system is perfectly balanced, designed to sustain human life on Earth. Our planet is located in the so-called “Goldilocks region,” a precise zone around a star where conditions are just right — not too hot, not too cold — for life to exist. If Earth orbited even slightly farther from or closer to the Sun, it would resemble Mars or Venus: barren, lifeless rocks. Water is highly sensitive to temperature variations — a small increase causes it to evaporate, while a slight decrease leads to freezing. The Earth’s atmosphere consists of a complex mixture of gases, including ozone, which filters out harmful ultraviolet light. The planet’s magnetosphere serves as another shield, protecting against cosmic radiation. Without Earth’s magnetic field, life would perish, and humans would find themselves living out a real-world version of Fallout — until radiation claimed them. The Moon plays a crucial role in stabilizing Earth’s rotation. Without it, Earth’s axial tilt would fluctuate wildly, causing chaotic shifts in climate zones. The Moon’s primary function is to keep Earth’s rotation steady. It also has two unique properties:

• It rotates synchronously with Earth, meaning we only ever see one side — the so-called “dark side” remains hidden.
• Its distance from Earth and size relative to the Sun create the phenomenon of solar eclipses, where the Moon perfectly covers the Sun, acting as a “lamp shade.”

There are nearly 200 known moons in the Solar System, yet only Earth’s Moon appears deliberately positioned for a specific purpose, the rest circling around his planets chaotic. Genesis 1:16 refers to the Sun and Moon as the “greater and lesser lamps,” not only illuminating the sky but also serving as timekeepers for days and years. Chronometry depends on stability, and Earth, the Moon, and the Sun are in a precise relationship: a month corresponds to one lunar orbit around Earth, while a year equals Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Additionally, Genesis describes the seven-day week, a unit of time that has been observed throughout history. Interestingly, the moon is visually larger than the sun and at the same time the sun is called in Genesis “a large lamp” and the moon is “small one”, and this is true, because the sun is much greater than the Earth’s satellite. Gradually (3.8 cm) the moon is moving away from the Earth, so after millions of years full solar eclipses will be impossible: the moon visually too will become smaller than the sun. Jupiter and Saturn function as Earth’s guardians, their immense gravity shielding the planet from comets, asteroids, and meteors. Remarkably, only 1% of star systems in the Milky Way share a similar planetary configuration with our Solar System, making our location uniquely suited for life.

Since the mid-2010s, flat-Earth theories have gained traction in media spaces. At one point, the discussion became so widespread that even NASA astronauts dismissed it as an elaborate trolling exercise, albeit an amusing “mental workout.” Some falsely claim that Christians historically supported flat-Earth beliefs, but in reality, this idea stems from pagan myths, such as those of Native American cosmogonies featuring a flat disc resting on three whales, or a turtle. Christian scholars have understood Earth’s spherical nature for centuries. Athenagoras, an early Christian thinker, wrote in 175 AD about the Earth’s roundness. In the 17th century, Jesuits introduced this concept to China, where they held prestigious positions as imperial astronomers. Even in the 6th century, Byzantine author Cosmas Indicopleustes, who called himself a Christian, conceded that the Earth must be at least “mildly spherical.” —Wikipedia. and Christians never pestered flatlanders, because the Bible explicitly says about the round earth, for example, Solomon, speaking about wisdom in Proverbs 8, says that it (wisdom) preceded the creation of the universe, and in particular “I was a master with Him, and was a joy every day, rejoicing in His presence all the time, rejoicing in His earthly circle, and my pleasure is with the sons of men” (Prov. 8:30–31), the “circle of the earth” here is translated from the Hebrew “thou” “תֵבֵל”, which has the following meanings: “earth”, “world”, “globe”. Verse 27, ibid: “When He seasoned the heavens, I was there (wisdom), when He set the circle on the surface of the abyss…”. Another episode in the book of Isaiah, where God is described as the One “who sits above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22), uses two Hebrew words “nug” and “eretz” (“חוּג”, “אֶרֶץ”), the first meaning “circle”, “circumference”, “ball”, the second “earth”. Nowhere in the Bible is there a flat Earth, let alone any turtles or whales.

Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of God

Jesus said (Matthew 6:28–29; Luke 12:27) that God clothes the lilies of the field more splendidly than Solomon in all his glory. Besides the metaphorical meaning — God’s care even for the smallest of His creations, and even more so for humans — this statement can be viewed from a creationist perspective. Flowers such as Lilium candidum, Anemone coronaria, or Haemanthus, common in the Jewish regions of that time, possess a highly complex structure. They are equipped with various protective and functional elements: for instance, a tunicated bulb covering shields the flower from drought and predators; the bulb itself is coated with oily scales that nourish the plant during spring growth; the leaf surface absorbs solar energy for photosynthesis. This “garment” of the lily is capable of storing and generating energy and transporting nutrients via roots and stems. Could Solomon’s royal attire do anything like that? The flower’s glands produce aromatic compounds using thousands of specialized secretory cells: essential oils, nectar to attract pollinators and repel pests. This means the flower’s “clothing” also creates perfume. Some species even adapt by developing a thin waxy coating to prevent moisture loss — a natural hydrophobic cloak, far more advanced than anything Solomon could have worn. And the “threads” of the plant — its fibrous tissues — are extraordinarily thin and delicate, unlike the coarse weaves of human-made fabrics. Such detailed botanical knowledge was inaccessible in biblical times, but now, with the development of science and optics, the comparison between the “flower’s garment” and Solomon’s clothing becomes even more meaningful and profound.

Quantum physics has revealed a miraculous microscopic world of quarks and subatomic particles — building blocks of matter that immediately hint at the existence of a Creator. Yet two centuries earlier, in the early 18th century, Christian philosopher George Berkeley had already proposed an idea resembling quantum superposition: esse est percipi — to exist is to be perceived. Berkeley argued that things exist only because they are constantly perceived by the Supreme Observer; without human perception and without the all-seeing presence of this Supreme Observer (God), they would cease to exist. In essence, this is what Schrödinger also pondered in the 20th century with his famous cat-in-the-box thought experiment: is the cat alive or dead before the box is opened? If God did not exist, the cat would remain in an indefinite state, a superposition of both life and death, but the cat remains alive because everything is before God’s eyes: “I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine” (Psalm 50:11). And although these statements seem extremely simple, not everyone can comprehend this simplicity; despite the obviousness, some argue that superposition does exist, and that consciousness is not required to determine the state of the electron, and that a robot, any machine capable of making measurements, can easily do this. The latter is true, the collapse of the wave function actually occurs without the participation of a man, only a machine is needed to record this collapse, but if there is no man or his machine to record the process, the electron will show interference, i.e., it will have the nature of a wave. One simple thing needs to be understood here: the man’s devices are the fruit of his consciousness, and the interference of these devices with the system of quantum mechanics is an equal interference with the system of an outside consciousness, so the electron collapses. No one has ever recorded superposition! We know about two states: a wave and a particle; superposition exists only in the imagination of scientists. If superposition existed, the electron would not appear as a wave in the absence of a local observer. Superposition cannot exist, because such a state would be a “pause” of the entity, in such a state the entity would not be able to act, to move, but it is known for certain that there is nothing stationary in the Universe, everything is moving in the Universe, and even at absolute zero, particles continue to move, they continue to vibrate, this is another proof of the absence of superposition. Returning to the “Global Supervisor”, He determines the essence of quantum phenomena globally and where there is no local supervisor (man), the local supervisor influences the essence of phenomena by his presence, by his activity.

Creationism Versus Anti-Scientific Criticism

One of the main tasks of creationism is to expose the unscientific and distorted assertions made by Darwinists, who, by occupying a dominant position in academia, often misuse it to promote atheist propaganda. For example, evolutionist Nathan Lents, in his book “Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes,” discusses the so-called “mistakes” in the design of the human body. He claims that the human wrist and ankle are “cluttered” with unnecessary bones. This is a textbook example of ignoring relevant expertise. Professor Stuart Burgess, an engineer with over 30 years of experience in biomechanics, gave lectures explaining why the human wrist and ankle are, in fact, masterpieces of optimal engineering. To understand the context: Lents proposed replacing the four bones of the lower leg with a single bone — completely overlooking the fact that four bones are essential for distributing weight under pressure. A single bone would easily fracture.

Another example is the “triune brain theory,” introduced in the 1960s by physiologist and psychiatrist Paul D. MacLean and popularized by skeptic Carl Sagan, a TV host, writer, and member of the “Order of the Dolphins” — a club that tried to decode dolphin language in hopes of communicating with aliens. This theory suggests that the human brain consists of three layers: a reptilian brain, a monkey brain, and a human brain, supposedly layered through evolutionary history. The idea is as clumsy as Ernst Haeckel’s falsified embryo drawings. One does not need to be a neuroscientist to see the absurdity — yet many psychologists embraced this nonsense and continue to teach it. In 2020, a review of Western psychology textbooks found that out of 20 textbooks, only two presented a modern and accurate understanding of the human brain. The rest repeated at least one error related to the “triune brain” myth. Neuroscience refutes this absurd idea, yet some evolutionists still cling to it — perhaps still believing dolphins might one day help us speak to aliens. Interestingly, that “Order of the Dolphins” didn’t only include media figures like Sagan. It also counted among its members evolutionist biologist J.B.S. Haldane, chemist Melvin Calvin (Nobel laureate, not to be confused with Lord Kelvin, who supported creationism), and SETI founder Frank Drake.

Even Darwinists themselves occasionally admit that evolutionary theory lacks solid ground. Richard Dawkins, one of their most vocal advocates, confessed in his book “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” that at the time of writing, “no direct evidence for evolution had ever been presented.” Despite all the grand claims, decades of research, and shelves filled with books, where is the evidence?.. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, Dawkins believed he had found the perfect argument against creationism: the “inverted retina.” He declared it an inferior and flawed design. Even now, he repeats this claim, despite recent scientific research proving that the so-called “inverted” retina actually provides superior visual performance — better color discrimination and higher image resolution. In other words, Dawkins ignores scientific progress to cling to his outdated belief in “imperfection.” Moreover, there are examples of “correct” (according to Dawkins) retinas in nature, not inverted — like those of squids and octopuses — but their design lacks the complexity of the human eye or the eagle’s eye, which is considered the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Mollusks don’t see in color and have limited visual capability. But that doesn’t deter dreamers like Dawkins, who persist in their old dogmas regardless of the facts.

Atheistic logic

Science is fickle— especially when it is influenced by an atheist agenda. Louis Pasteur, the father of pasteurization, once faced opposition from the scientific community when he claimed that bacteria existed and could cause disease. His peers laughed at the notion that such tiny, invisible creatures could harm something as large as a sheep, a cow, or a human. But the microscope eventually put everything in place and proved him right. The same happened with meteors. Scientists once mocked the idea that stones could fall from the sky. In the early 19th century, Bavarian scientists argued that the construction of railroads was harmful to mental health, warning that high speeds (up to 41 km/h!) could drive passengers — and even bystanders — into madness. Just before the Wright brothers’ historic flight, American mathematician Simon Newcomb confidently declared: “Devices heavier than air cannot fly.” Similarly, in the late 18th century, French academician Jérôme Lalande stated: “It is impossible to rise into the air in a device from which air has been removed.” Just a year later, the Montgolfier brothers proved him wrong with their Montgolfier. Thomas Edison did not believe it was possible to lay a telephone cable between North America and Europe. Physicist J.J. Thomson dismissed the idea of space travel as pointless, and yet, just two years later, the first satellite was launched into orbit. Six years after that, the first human went to space — ushering in one of the greatest technological revolutions in history. The same pattern of error appears in evolutionary biology. So-called “transitional species” are often not transitional at all, but fully developed and distinct species. The famous Archaeopteryx is an example of this dead-end categorization. Worse still are blatant scientific frauds, like the infamous Piltdown Man.

And modern science is far from perfect. Mistakes often pile up, reinforced by dogmatic thinking and intellectual inertia. That’s why books such as “Anthology of Errors and Misconceptions” by V. Seleznev, “The Dictionary of False Truths” by T. Barnham, “The Illustrated Corrector of Common Mistakes” by L. Soucek, and “The Lexicon of Popular Misconceptions” by W. Kramer and G. Trenkler continue to be published. These works remind us that not only ordinary people, but also scientists, make mistakes. Errors can arise from a shallow glance, or paradoxically, from an overly focused one — when the proverbial elephant in the room goes unnoticed. This is why it is naive to place blind trust in science. Unlike scientific theories, which change, contradict, and evolve, the Holy Scriptures are unchanging, it’s a solid foundation for building a worldview.

Why is evolutionism-Darwinism incompatible with Christianity? Because Darwinism talks about imperfect entities, Darwinism claims that there are imperfect entities, while Christianity, on the contrary, does not recognize imperfect entities, because the Creator of everything is an perfect God. Yes, our universe may seem imperfect, but that is because it is cursed through man. In fact, the universe is perfect within the current (cursed) paradigm, and all the processes that occur in the universe are perfectly balanced with the actions that these processes trigger or influence.

What Is Darwinism and What Is Creationism

Darwinism is essentially a belief system — a pagan faith with a totem: the monkey. Evolutionists gather around this totem, running and leaping in homage to the spirit of their so-called ancestors — the spirit of apes. Psychologically, Darwinism functions as a defense mechanism (self-defense)— a way for a person to simplify reality and fit it into a self-constructed, comfortable worldview. This simplification and categorization are inherently human epistemological traits. It’s very human to identify similarities and group things accordingly: foxes, wolves, raccoons, and dogs are all “dog-like”; therefore, they must be related. From this assumption, evolutionists speculate that there were ancient mammals that looked like wolves, and those had older ancestors, and so on — tracing back all life to a mythical “primordial soup,” where every living being supposedly originated from a single microbe. But this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed, as it applies a man-made logic to things not made by man. Such categorizations — fruits and vegetables, metals and non-metals, precious and semi-precious stones, flora and fauna (where do fungi fit?), planets, asteroids, meteors, etc. — are constructs designed for human convenience. They serve no purpose beyond our need to make sense of the world. This is not a reflection of reality itself, but rather how we interpret it. It is boots that man makes for himself. The absurdity of Darwinism lies in its attempt to unilaterally interpret reality — as if to prove that a photon is a wave and not a particle, ignoring the complex duality involved. Reality is far more intricate than we often admit, and crude simplifications cannot help us understand it. To study the universe with such rudimentary tools is akin to smashing a watch to figure out how it works — this is a form of scientific barbarism. Arthur C. Clarke, in his “2001: A Space Odyssey”, illustrates this with the mysterious black monolith found on the Moon. Scientists try to crack it open to learn what it is, but no tool can scratch its surface. This scene illustrates not only scientific despair, but also unhealthy curiosity.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a scientific discipline that uses the tools of science to listen to the stones — to hear their testimony. As written in Luke 19:37–40: “If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Creationism is also a form of Christian preaching. It proclaims the message of the stones: that they were created by a Creator. Ultimately, it is important to understand that the Bible is not a biology or astronomy textbook. It is a manual for life — for being human, for being homo sapiens: a wise, intelligent human being. The Bible contains everything necessary for the heart and mind, and anyone with a sincere desire for truth will find it in the pages of Scripture.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.

You may not be aware, but there is an alternative to Darwinism: the theory of Intelligent Design, or Creationism. I won’t delve into these theories in this article, but will focus solely on critiquing evolutionism. In brief, Creationism addresses the origin of the universe and its contents within the context of God’s plan. If we were to compare Creationism in depth, this text would become excessively long, so I’ll leave it at that. I’m 99% sure that you’ve never encountered Creationism, as the propaganda of materialism in educational institutions is so pervasive and aggressive that it leaves little room for even the most minimal discussions in the educational process.

First, you need to understand one simple thing: at 22 years old, Darwin, in the 19th century, for the first time in his life, encountered the vast variety of nature — ecosystems, climates, animals, plants. He was also introduced to people from different races, cultures, and worldviews. Against this backdrop of emotional impressions and cultural shock, Darwin hypothesized the “origin of species,” believing that all this natural diversity was the result of gradual development, from the simplest organisms to the most complex. In essence, this hypothesis was not initially based on any scientific evidence; it was merely a suggestion, much like today’s theories about the Earth being flat, living in a Matrix, or the Moon being a hologram. In fact, the “flat Earth” theory has more “evidence” and pseudoscientific reasoning than Darwin’s original theory of evolution ever did.

Darwin was not a genius or an exceptionally prominent scientist, and he understood the speculative nature of his hypothesis. Unlike today’s staunch defenders of evolutionism, he did not aggressively promote it. He argued that, in the future, transitional species would need to be found to confirm his hypothesis. However, if they were not discovered, then the hypothesis of evolution would be proven false. Over 100 years have passed since then, with extensive searches conducted globally, yet no transitional species have been found. As for the fossils that Darwinists often present as evidence of transitional species, they are simply petrified remains of existing species. In nature, many anatomically similar animals exist, and although we may reconstruct their appearance, understanding their physiology based solely on their fossilized bones from millions of years ago is impossible.

The hypothesis of evolution does not address the fundamental mechanics of the universe, nor the essential questions about the origin of life and matter. To illustrate this, imagine a building with no foundation, walls, or floors, but only an air conditioner on the roof (which, in reality, is non-existent). This would be a representation of Darwinism — focusing on the details of the air conditioner, its structure, and how it functions, without addressing the essential question of how it came to be there in the first place.

If we begin with the fundamental principles from which any evidence, theorization, or scientific inquiry should arise, we will see that Darwinism cannot stand. It is simply incompatible with basic logic. Ancient wisdom tells us: ex nihilo nihil fit — nothing comes from nothing. Nothingness does not give birth to something, chaos does not produce order, and a shadow does not emit light. Thus, from the very outset, Darwinism — being a purely materialistic idea that operates “without God” — collapses under its own weight. It makes the illogical claim that nothingness gave birth to being. No, God is the cause of being. However, God has no “cause” and cannot be bound by any logical framework, He always exists. To grasp this, one must transcend the limits of time. Concepts like “it was” or “will be” are irrelevant. Questions like “Who created God?” are inappropriate, frivolous, and childish. If you accept the fact of the eternal existence of being, then you accept God; and if you accept God, then you accept the only true God, Jesus Christ.

The very fact of existence logically negates the possibility of nothingness. Likewise, order denies chaos. This is crucial to understand, because evolutionists rely on chaos — what they call Randomness — as the source from which galaxies and Earth miraculously emerged. It is through this chaos that they explain the origin of the universe, or even the multiverse, in which randomness governs and from which, at some point, we appeared. But here are two critical mistakes: a contradiction between incompatible elements — order and chaos. Chaos cannot produce order. The essence of chaos is disorder, a generator of random events; it is an abstraction, like RNG (random number generation) — chaos, like RNG, doesn’t actually exist in the way they claim.

Secondly, inanimate matter cannot generate living matter. A stone does not give birth to the moss that grows on it, frogs do not swarm out of mud, food scraps do not give rise to ants, wasps are not born from the corpses of donkeys, and a piece of meat does not produce maggots. Such superficial, primitive ideas about the origin of life are typical of ancient people who were unaware of the complexity and uniqueness of living matter — its fundamental incompatibility with non-living matter. There is nothing in stones that is needed for life to arise. Only God has the power to bring life from stones, as stated in Matthew 3:9. Inanimate matter can be compared to a building, and the inanimate universe is like a structure composed of living organisms. Can a house give birth to a man? There are many ghost cities in China — areas filled with empty apartments. According to evolutionism, after some time, people will spontaneously appear in these buildings… But tell any Darwinist that “it doesn’t work that way.” xD

There are many striking illustrations of the absurdity of chaotic Darwinism. Here are a couple of classic examples: imagine a pile of scrap metal with a meteorite falling onto it. The scrap is mixed in such a way that it forms a Boeing 747. Is that possible? No, no matter how many meteorites fall, they will only create more chaos, not something structured. Or imagine monkeys randomly typing on typewriter keys — could they accidentally produce Shakespeare’s Hamlet? No, they wouldn’t even understand the meaning of their actions. To create something like an aircraft or a work of art, a mind is needed — one that understands its own actions and possesses knowledge. The creation of such things is an orderly process, and it occurs within the realm of order. Belief in “creative chaos” is fantasy, abstract, and lacks a logical foundation — just as belief in God does not.

Why believe in God logically? In addition to the fundamental reasons mentioned above, there are practical consequences to consider. For example, if there is no God, neither the atheist nor the believer will face any consequences in the short term. However, if God does exist, the atheist will have problems, while the believer will not. Therefore, the believer is, in a sense, better off. This reasoning was first formulated by Pascal in his famous Wager.

Apparently, Darwinism has already lost — proven to be unfounded and incapable of standing its ground in real logical discourse. Yet, we shall proceed further, if only to highlight the absurdity of this hypothesis.

According to evolutionism, all life on Earth magically emerged from the so-called “primordial broth” in the oceans. Somehow, inanimate matter spontaneously gave birth to a living, unicellular bacterium. But being a mere single cell quickly became tiresome, so the bacterium decided to embark on self-improvement — it read books, watched memes, and eventually transformed into a more complex organism. This process, of course, never ceased, as primitive lifeforms were perpetually inspired and endlessly motivated for self-development. They kept evolving into something new and unexpected — until, one day, they found themselves as Tiktaalik.

At that point, Tiktaalik had an existential crisis. Gazing up at the vast sky, it yearned for something greater. It longed to escape the monotonous waters of its limited existence and set foot on new, uncharted territories — on land. And so, with the wisdom of a philosopher, it declared: “I am not a fish. I am an amphibian. My fins are not my fins. My gills are not my gills. I must go ashore.” By sheer willpower, Tiktaalik rewrote its own DNA, passed these ambitious aspirations to its offspring, and, through countless generations, finally grew legs and lungs. One glorious day, it crawled onto the shore, marking an epic moment in history — so momentous, in fact, that a time traveler must have witnessed it firsthand and kindly illustrated it for all modern biology textbooks.

What happened next is difficult to describe — it was pure chaos. Fish everywhere began abandoning the water, while those that had already made it to land started mutating into birds and mammals (o_O). Some transformed into dinosaurs, while others — perhaps feeling less ambitious — settled for lives as worms, cockroaches, and fleas. The microscopic inhabitants of the “broth” evolved into bacteria, viruses, and — why not — prestin. This ancient evolutionary rave was sometimes hilarious, sometimes (after a meteorite impact) downright tragic.

But the most fascinating part was still ahead. The monkeys, no longer content with life in the treetops, found themselves in a dilemma — bananas were becoming scarce, and tigers were getting on their nerves. A great consultation was held: red-assed macaques, hamadryas baboons, and orangutans gathered to discuss their future. They came to a bold decision:

1. Increase brain size.
2. Straighten posture and walk on two legs.
3. Lose fur — but keep hair on the head, grow eyebrows, and give men beards for style.
4. Abandon the wilderness and start civilization — with vehicles, apartment buildings, and, most importantly, the internet.

And thus, modern humanity was born.

This is Darwinism in a nutshell: it claims that life on Earth developed according to this hypothesis, and that the same process should apply universally. However, despite the comedic nature of my description, it is pure madness! Consider the smallest bacterium — just one cell of a living organism. Modern technology allows us to examine this in detail, and what you’ll see is an entire world within that tiny cell. Inside it, there are many intricate mechanisms, all of which are ordered. Their processes are purposeful, balanced, and work together to maintain the cell’s integrity. Look at DNA: this molecule, a component of the cell, holds critical information for the cell’s existence within a larger system — a system the cell itself doesn’t even understand. But this complexity, this design, is just a grain of sand in the vast expanse of what we call the universe.

Everything obeys laws. The processes of the universe operate according to certain rules, and humanity uncovers these laws — not by inventing them, but by recognizing them through intelligence and careful observation. Here, it is crucial to acknowledge that humans can never fully grasp the essence of the universe or know it in its entirety. You cannot truly know the object you are part of. This is why critical thinking should always be your sword, protecting you from the arrogance of those who think they understand things far greater than themselves. Someone might try to turn my argument against me: “Aren’t you being arrogant yourself by speaking about God — about something greater than you?” No, I am not being arrogant, because I don’t speak from my own authority. God wanted to reveal Himself to us, and He has done so — this is His will.

Ironically, while Darwinism speaks of chaos and random mutations — of pure chance in the development of life — DNA already exists at the very beginning. DNA, this set of rules, this database, this instruction manual, this blueprint of order, simply exists. Living organisms do not come into being by accident; they are formed according to the instructions encoded in DNA. Computer programs do not operate randomly; they carry out specific functions defined by their architects — the programmers. A car does not suddenly take flight unless this capability was built into its design from the start by engineers. In the same way, a man who loses a limb cannot regrow it, because that option is not present in human DNA, though it is present, for example, in the DNA of starfish or lizards.

As for animals, the idea of evolution makes no sense for them. It is not encoded in their DNA, nor is it part of their instincts. Animals are created perfect and complete. They are not prototypes or work-in-progress versions — they are finished products. If they were imperfect, they would be inferior, and if they were inferior, they wouldn’t survive. They would die prematurely for various reasons, and if they died too soon, they wouldn’t have time to reproduce, ultimately leading to their extinction. An imperfect organism cannot give rise to a perfect one. This brings us back to basic logic — chaos and order. Survival in the wild requires completeness, perfection! And the very fact that a species is complete proves its perfection, its creative nature, and in doing so, disproves Darwinism. Evolutionism does not operate with absolutes; it doesn’t refer to perfection. Instead, it speaks of endless variability.

Darwinists often point to mutations as a driving force behind change, as something normal. But mutations are, by definition, unpredictable changes in an established system, which is inherently abnormal. Such changes never bode well for the species. The smaller the mutation’s impact, the better the chance of survival. But to believe that a mutation can cause a species to transition into an entirely different one? That’s absurd. A good example of this is mutations in viruses, which I will explain later.

How do you picture evolution in general? Flying fish have been living on this planet for 200 (!) million years, yet they still haven’t turned into birds — should we expect that to happen soon? According to Darwinism, bears supposedly evolved into whales. So what about those whales that beach themselves and die — are they trying to turn back into bears?

“…swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, almost like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”

— Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 184.

When dolphins wash ashore, is that evolution at work or not? And let’s not forget the Tyrannosaurus rex, which, according to evolutionists, one day transformed into… a chicken. Incredible, isn’t it?

If man originated from apes — specifically from orangutans — why do humans not resemble orangutans? Why is the human big toe straight, rather than opposable like that of orangutans? Why are the body proportions different? Why is the use of feet in man and hind paws in orangutans different? Humans walk on their feet, while orangutans grasp branches with their hind paws like an extra pair of hands? What happened to man’s tail?! Where did the negative Rh factor, absent in apes, come from? Why did man shed his fur? Hair and fur are not identical — why does hair on a man’s head grow indefinitely, while orangutans have no hair and their fur does not grow endlessly? Why would an orangutan stand on its feet and walk upright? This contradicts the theory of survival in the wild: a two-legged individual is vulnerable and conspicuous; without fur, it is equally vulnerable, and a tail could help maintain balance, yet it, to make matters worse, dropped off?! — what kind of evolution is this?! Where in nature have you seen similar examples of evolution? What other creature on the planet lost its fur, tail, and hind paws, straightened up, and began to walk upright? What other creature abandoned its advantages for the sake of eVoLuTiOn?! Show me an orangutan without a tail, or on straight legs, or hairless. Comparing the appearance of a man and an orangutan is banal trolling! Just look at any ape and a man: these are different designs, different creatures, completely unrelated. It is like whales and bears, like chickens and dinosaurs — it is total nonsense and a clown show. Orangutans remained orangutans just as they were, and the same applies to absolutely all creatures on Earth: not a single one has evolved, not a single one has transformed into another species.

Do you know which geometric shape is the most efficient for honeycomb construction? The hexagon. Scientists discovered this through computer simulations and calculations. But how did bees figure it out? Did they start with round or triangular honeycombs in ancient times? Unlikely — if they had, they wouldn’t have survived. And what about blood cells? Scientists found that their biconcave shape is the most effective for fluid transport, again through simulations and calculations. But how… or rather, who made that decision? The cells themselves? Impossible. These designs existed from the very beginning — this is the work of a Creator. God designed it all.

Take a closer look at the wild. All these monkeys, crocodiles, fish, bears, and elephants — do you see even a single transitional species among them? Do you see monkeys evolving to walk on two legs (Bigfoot doesn’t count)? Fish crawling onto the shore? No! They simply don’t exist. But why? Evolution is supposed to be a continuous, ongoing process — one of its fundamental principles. Yet paradoxically, we see neither transitional species in the present nor even signs of “transition” happening.

I think the transitional species from monkey to man is Bigfoot!

Darwinists should include this unknown link in the evolutionary chain of homo sapiens, especially since there are several pictures of Bigfoot, which definitely and scientifically reliably confirms the existence of a transitional species from ape to man.Even more striking is the existence of so-called “living fossils” — creatures that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Take the coelacanth, for example. It was thought to have gone extinct 400 (!) million years ago, but when it was rediscovered, it turned out to be exactly the same species. Darwinists once claimed it was a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its lobed fins, assuming they would eventually evolve into legs. But as it turns out, the coelacanth is a deep-sea fish — it never even comes near the surface!

This fish is walking on the bottom, do you think it is preparing to come to the surface, it is tired of walking on the bottom and is going to become a man?

Darwinists, descendants of Tiktaalik should interview it.And there are many more examples. Try searching for “ancient, primordial, prehistoric living creatures.” Look at fossil discoveries preserved in amber — such as the “amber gecko”, which hasn’t changed in millions of years. Certain butterflies and moths (Chetone histrio, Mechanitis messenoides) possess of a genome that has remained unchanged for 120 million years. Or consider giant isopods like Bathynomus vaderi, real-life fossils still crawling around today. You can go to a museum, look at dinosaur skeletons and the detachment of isopods or Limulus Polyphemus (445 million years old, blue blood) in the shimtok chalk, which hundreds of millions of years, then visit a nearby aquarium and see the same species of isopods or Limulus polyphemus (the horseshoe crab) alive, which has remained unchanged for 445 million years. At this point, an evolutionist should be experiencing a cognitive dissonance meltdown — but they don’t. Why? Because they don’t rely on consistency and logic. Instead, they base their beliefs on fantasies and vague associations. If evolution truly worked, every fish, every monkey, and certainly every so-called “primitive” organism would have long since transformed into something else. But they haven’t. And that’s because they aren’t anime-style Transformers! xD

Alive isopod from aquarium

I once came across an aggressive Darwinist who called me a “moron” and pointed to the “literal presence” of the tailbone in human anatomy. This bone, the lowest in the spine, is called the coccyx, or “cuckoo” in English, because its shape resembles a bird’s beak. In the Darwinist narrative, this is used to imply that the coccyx is a rudimentary remnant of a tail — suggesting that humans evolved from creatures with tails. This is a classic example of manipulation through language, a tactic commonly used in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). The term “tailbone” contains the word “tail”, which leads to the suggestion that humans once had tails, but this is impossible to prove. Homo sapiens appeared suddenly around 30,000 years ago, and at no point did we have tails. Even if humans did have tails, that wouldn’t prove evolution. Rarely, some children are born with a so-called “pseudo-tail”, a growth of the coccyx that can be up to 13 cm long, and this abnormal of the spine Darwinists justify the name “coccyx” bone in English tradition by pointing to these anomalies, but that’s laughable! There are many congenital anomalies in humans: cases of sirenomelia, where a baby’s legs are fused together and resemble a mermaid’s fin; cyclopia, where the eyes form in a single eye socket; and cases where people are born with two heads or extra limbs. Evolutionists call these “rudiments”, evidence of evolution — but in reality, they are simply genetic anomalies.

Humans share many characteristics with animals, but that’s not surprising — everything is created within a certain paradigm. Mammals share one set of features, reptiles another, and so on. For instance, our hands are very similar to a dolphin’s flippers, but Darwinists ignore this fact. So, could dolphins be our true ancestors? Humans have two eyes, a nose, and two ears — so do most animals. Almost all mammals, not just monkeys, have tails, so why are cases of “pseudo-tails” in humans only linked to monkeys? With the same logic, we should associate sirenomelia with dolphins and extra limbs with octopuses. Interestingly, human DNA is about 50% similar to that of bananas — so does that mean a pseudo-tail is actually a banana?

Left: dolphin fin; Right: human hand

These are just a few examples of the absurdities that come from illogical associations. It’s foolish and laughable to rely on such comparisons. If someone thinks that humans are similar to monkeys, that’s a problem of perception, a form of pareidolia, or subjective interpretation. Humans are a unique creation, endowed with a unique design, just like all other living beings. However, what sets humans apart is our mind, self-awareness, soul, and language — qualities that distinguish us from the animal world. Darwinists, however, stubbornly try to push humans into the animal kingdom, trying to blur the lines between us and animals to support their theory.

In reality, modern humans appeared suddenly around 30,000 years ago, and evolutionists can’t explain such a sudden emergence. But it is simple to explain: the exile of Adam and Eve from Eden. It’s crucial to understand: no creature before Homo sapiens is truly human. Australopithecus, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and others are all unique species in their own right — just as today we have different species of monkeys, cats, and dogs. What happened to these hominids? They went extinct, just like many other species. They didn’t evolve — they went extinct.

Furthermore, evolutionists are unable to explain self-awareness, imagination, or emotions. These qualities go beyond the material world, beyond what the atheist mind is capable of understanding. The brain isn’t the source of thought or memory — it’s more like a radio. To prove this, try creating an artificial brain and you’ll see that self-awareness will be absent, because self-awareness is a sign of the soul, not a mechanical process. This is why AI can never be truly like man.

Within the discussion of the mind and intelligence, Darwinists often point to the use of tools by animals as evidence of evolutionary trends. According to them, this behavior suggests that animals are evolving toward higher levels of intelligence. However, these behaviors are typical for many animals today: ravens, monkeys cracking hard food, Australian hawks dropping bones from heights to reach the marrow, raccoons washing their food, some birds sewing leaves for their nests, ants building colonies, and bees creating hexagonal honeycombs. These animals have always exhibited such behaviors because, without them, they wouldn’t survive.

If evolution were truly at work, ants would have already built skyscrapers, and ravens, instead of using sticks to pull insects from cracks, would have domesticated woodpeckers to do the job. Animals lacking self-awareness have no intention to develop — they live and behave purely by instinct, staying in a fixed state. And what about humans? Even with self-awareness, some people still lack the drive for development. Look at certain tribes in South America, or isolated Polynesian communities that have lived for tens of thousands of years with little progress — they too lack the push for development. This behavior can be understood through the lens of the Bible: not all humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, as the Book of Genesis suggests. God created the first man and woman (likely organic beings), and later Adam. From him, God took a woman, who Adam named Eve.

One of the favorite concepts for Darwinists is “adaptation”, which they often present as evidence of evolution. However, this is a mistake. Adaptation is a real phenomenon — there are butterflies and birds that can change color, mollusks that alter the shape of their shells in response to environmental conditions, humans who tan under the sun, and pupils that constrict in bright light. These are simple defensive mechanisms, nothing more. These adaptations don’t transform one species into another; it is physically impossible for a mollusk to evolve into a completely different species or for a europeoid to become negroid. These changes are at the surface level, but not at the DNA level — just as you can’t turn a smartphone into a hammer by hitting nails with it.

A well-known example Darwinists love to cite is Kettlewell’s Experiment, where, in an environment with high pollution, the color of the Peppered Moth changed. Darwinists excitedly pointed to this as proof of evolution: “Look! The butterflies changed their color to blend in better with their environment!” But two crucial points are overlooked: first, the changes were caused by human-induced environmental factors, and second, the color change happened very quickly — indicating adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation is a quick response to new conditions within a species, while evolution, according to Darwinism, operates over millions of years. In this case, the Darwinists are manipulating terminology and replacing concepts.

Evolutionists claim that the cradle of humanity lies somewhere in Africa, where humans supposedly first settled on the planet, but this is pure nonsense! People from different races show significant differences, such as the shape of the skull, skin color, eye shape, and even certain muscle structures that, for example, make Negroids better runners. There is no method that could change the structure of a human’s skull. No matter how long a European lives in RSA, they will never become a Negroid, and no matter how long a Negroid lives in the United States, they will not become a European. It is physically impossible.

Some “scientists” who follow Darwinism argue that the mutation of viruses is a clear example of evolution, but this is also incorrect. A coronavirus can mutate countless times, but it will remain a coronavirus. It will not evolve into the plague; it stays within its kind. And note that mutations weaken the virus over time. Initially, the coronavirus was far stronger than it became after two years of mutations. The more it mutates, the weaker it becomes, until it eventually fades out. This is similar to repeatedly altering an image: with each change, data is lost, quality deteriorates, and eventually, the meaningful image disappears. The mutation improves the organism only in fantastic films such as X-Men, don’t mix fiction with reality.

Some ardent Darwinists use the example of breeding dogs and cats as proof of evolution. But first, there is no transition to a different species. A dog remains a dog, just as a cat remains a cat, no matter how peculiar their appearance may be. Secondly, these examples involve artificial processes — human interventions — where intelligence is at work. This, in fact, supports the idea of Intelligent Creation, as everything in nature, both living and non-living, is created by a creative act of God. One could say that just as humans create new breeds of cats and dogs, so God created the different races of humans.

To illustrate this point further, consider the following analogy: Would a person, who denies evolution, ever attempt to live underwater like the bear? In a country like North Korea, would someone one day attempt to evolve into an “aquaman” and start diving underwater every day, despite the puzzled stares of the fish, so when their lungs replacing with gills? Fish, according to evolutionists, supposedly needed 5 million years to undergo such a transformation. But, if we believe evolutionists, the fish had a “goal” in mind (and if they didn’t, what were they doing all that time? And why haven’t modern fish evolved the same way as primitive fish?). But to have a goal, one must be aware of its own actions, distinguishing between cause and consequence. Is the animal psyche developed enough for such reasoning? Aren’t animals driven purely by instinct?

Thus, in this analogy, we see two very different examples of “evolution”: a conscious human effort to become an “aquaman” and an unconscious, instinctive attempt by an animal to transform into something else. Since animals lack the instinct for evolution, evolution itself remains a figment of the Darwinists’ imagination. Some even resorted to outright deception to support their theory. In the early 20th century, when evolutionism was gaining traction, they fabricated the “Piltdown Man”, a so-called “transitional form” between monkeys and humans 🤡

This is not the only example of manipulation, where fiction is passed off as truth. At the end of the 19th century, there was a “scientist” named E. Haeckel, who introduced Darwin’s idea of “recapitulation”, with the main thesis being “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” In other words, he argued that the fetus, during its development, passes through stages resembling earlier forms of life. First, it looks like a fish, then an amphibian, then a lizard, and so on. However, as science advanced and it became possible to observe fetal development through imaging, it became clear that Haeckel’s theory was nothing more than fiction. The fetus does not assume any form other than that of a human. Nevertheless, Haeckel’s drawings of the fetus transforming from fish to human gained considerable popularity, and they deceived the minds of people in that era.

“1874 illustration from Anthropogenie showing “very early”, “somewhat later” and “still later” stages of embryos of fish (F), salamander (A), turtle (T), chick (H), pig (S), cow ®, rabbit (K), and human (M)”, Wikipedia

The inanimate world is equally fascinating. Look into the microcosm, into the atomic domain, and consider the size of elementary particles and the precision with which they interact with the macroworld. And even more impressive — the quantum dimension. Only an ignoramus would think that all of this was created “by chance: a few bangs, and voilà!”

In quantum mechanics, there is a well-known principle of uncertainty, or the state of superposition. This was famously illustrated by Schrödinger’s speculative experiment with a cat in a box, which many of you may be familiar with. However, quantum physics also asserts that the universe cannot exist in a state of uncertainty. It cannot exist without a Global Supervisor, and who could this “global observer” be? Of course, it is God! (“I know all the birds of the mountains, and the beasts of the field are before me” — Psalm 49:10–12). Just as in a video game, where characters or objects disappear when you are not looking, the world would vanish without the attention of a Global Supervisor. In this way, the cat in Schrödinger’s box is not in superposition; it is alive because of the Global Supervisor, God. Thus, quantum physics proves the existence of God.

There is no point in discussing cosmic evolution at all, as scientific paradigms shift almost yearly. Today, we believe in dark matter and dark energy; tomorrow, we may not. Today, the Big Bang Theory is considered the most comprehensive model, but tomorrow, the discovery of an anomalously formed distant galaxy could challenge it. Today, our orbital instruments measure the universe’s expansion rate, and everything seems fine; tomorrow, with new and more precise instruments, we might find that the expansion is wildly uneven. Today, the theory of the “heat death of the universe” is taken seriously; tomorrow, it might be the subject of ridicule. Newtonian physics was dominant until Einstein’s relativity redefined our understanding; then quantum mechanics arrived with its paradoxes and strange phenomena. In the early 20th century, some scientists spoke of vegetation on Mars as an established fact and of vegetation on Venus as quite possible; they also seriously entertained the possibility of the existence of Martians. And after tomorrow, CERN may uncover a new fundamental particle, or a breakthrough in neutrino research may lead to yet another unexpected discovery that “does not fit into the standard model of the physical world.” Science is ever-changing, uncertain, and full of blind spots.

When Arthur C. Clarke wrote A Fall of Moondust (1961), scientists believed that, over billions of years, the Moon had accumulated so much dust that any spacecraft attempting to land would simply sink into it, like a person stepping into quicksand. Clarke even incorporated this idea into his novel. Yet today, we know this to be an outdated astronomical misconception — there is no such thick layer of dust on the Moon. This serves as yet another example of the uncertainty and variability of science and the flawed assumptions of Darwinism.

I am not against science as a tool of reason and critical thinking — I am against science being used as a propaganda tool for Darwinism and atheism. Unfortunately, modern science has been hijacked by Darwinists, an intolerant sect that suppresses dissent. Any scientist who dares to speak openly about God risks ostracism. Yet many great scientists throughout history have been believers: Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, de Broglie, Moscati, Lemaître (the originator of the Big Bang theory), Collins, and even Darwin himself was not an atheist — he did not deny the existence of God. Regarding modern times, statistical data show that in the early 20th century, 42% of scientists in the United States were believers. By the end of the century, 39% of scientists identified as believers, according to data published in “Nature” (vol. 386, p. 435, 1997).

Many scientists (M. Planck, I. Newton, W. T. Kelvin, L. Pasteur) emphasized that science serves as a signpost to God for an impartial seeker of truth. They also highlighted that a researcher reaches the Divine authorship of the material world at the depths of their studies, whereas only a superficial acquaintance with science has the audacity to claim the absence of an Author of the universe.

Darwinism is merely a hypothesis, a fantasy, which atheists try to impose onto biological reality. Darwinism is a superstition akin to numerology: there is mathematics, the science of numbers, and then there is numerology, a superstition that sees hidden meaning in numbers. Likewise, there is biology, a science, and then there is Darwinism, a superstition that sees a leftover tail in the coccyx, a man in a monkey, and a Tyrannosaurus rex in a chicken. But in reality:

• Real examples of adaptation do not prove evolution.
• Real examples of natural mutation do not prove evolution.
• Actual remains and animal bones do not prove evolution.
• Artificial change of species, hybridization, selective breeding do not prove evolution.
• Invented names of bones, such as “coccyx,” and imagined atavisms do not prove evolution.
• Real or imagined (pareidolia) similarities between species or DNA do not prove evolution.
• Real or imagined presence in one type of animal (e.g., fish) of parts typical of another type (e.g., birds) does not prove evolution.
• Imagined imperfection of living beings or organisms does not prove evolution. Sure, man could have been able to see through walls, fly, live for millions of years, and never get sick, but the design is what it is.

So there is nothing — absolutely nothing — that proves evolution.

Overall, Darwinism strikes me as a kind of modernized pagan religion, where the infamous “tree of evolution” resembles the genealogical tree of the ancient gods. Just like people of antiquity traced their lineage to deities — some claiming descent from Zeus, others from Hercules or Neptune — modern evolutionists now trace their ancestry to apes, some specific one or perhaps several, since people have long lived on all continents. So, logically, from an evolutionary perspective, shouldn’t each group or race have its own ancestral ape? After all, no sane person would claim that some australopithecines managed (for some reason) to cross the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Indian Ocean and settle in the Americas or Australia. 😁 Just as in ancient mythologies the first gods emerged from the primordial ocean (chaos), so too in Darwinism the first living organisms supposedly emerged from a “primordial soup” (ocean). And just as paganism never transcends the physical and material — its gods are always worldly emanations — the Darwinian, atheist worldview rejects metaphysics altogether.

Darwinists present man as just one of many animals

Darwinism is one of the main cartridges in the shotgun of atheistic propaganda. This cartridge, this bullet — evolutionism — kills the human within a human being. According to the hypothesis of evolution, humans are animals, descendants of red-assed macaques. This means a Darwinist is denied the right to be a man; he is an animal, a beast. Human rights do not apply to him; in English, the pronoun “it” should be used to address him, as one would an animal. Furthermore, Darwinists should be cared for by Greenpeace rather than state institutions. So why are Darwinists and atheists so inconsistent? Why do they cling to people and call themselves part of mankind if they are simply animals, monkeys?

This is a question for you, Darwinists: does such treatment not demean you? Being treated like animals? Atheists call you animals and supposedly prove this label with their science, and you believe them. You do not contradict them; therefore, you agree with them. Do you agree that you are not humans, but cattle? That you are one family with monkeys? That you are the same as pigs and rats, only with a larger brain?

Darwinists, make your choice: either you are with the atheists and you are animals, or you are with the Christians and you are humans.

All of this relates to the concept of the “shouting stones” mentioned in the Gospel: “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, if they keep silent, the stones will cry out!’” (Luke 19:37–40). We live in a time when stones can indeed “cry out” — proclaiming the existence of their Creator. In the past, people could not “hear” the stones; they lacked the tools to understand them. But more importantly, they had no need to — because they already believed in God as the Creator of all things.

Article translated from Ukrainian by AI.

I am surprised at the scale of modern censorship in supposedly democratic countries, that every day there is a new ban, a new cancel (ostracism), a new call to court for a tweet. This is a clear sign of regression, it is a factor in the degradation of society, culture, and man.

Anti-Ableism

This is one of the modern censorship initiatives, which has the “good intentions” that usually pave the way to hell: to protect vulnerable people from abuse, such as the deaf and blind, hysterics, morons, idiots, autistics, schizophrenics, disabled people, epileptics, etc. If you have caught the essence of the selection, then you will understand that this list is very long and you will be able to estimate the scale of censorship: anti-ableism forbid the use of words related to the selected category of disorders, diseases, mutilations, etc. That is, you cannot say “deaf” or “blind” in order not to receive a fine. Some owners of Internet sites, chats, communities, and forums add Abelo banwords to the black-list, and if your message contains a banword, you will automatically be muted or banned; if you try to bypass the filter by adding, for example, similar symbols (“id10t”), the moderators will most certainly ban you manually and update the list of banwords with a new variation.

Let’s figure it out. First, no one has the right to limit freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the constitution. Secondly, “ableism” is an artificial concept, this is extremely important! Woke’s political correctors invent a crime where there is none, they invented a special subcategory in blaming for the words they chose and called it “ableism”, and then attacked everyone who uses “censored” words. This is a typical feature of the Soviet censors: under invented pretexts to put up obstacles, to repress; in the ruzzia today you can pay for the blue and yellow colors in your clothes, for the word “peace”, for a rainbow… Thirdly, such censors always bypass meanings, for them form is more important. After all, words usually have several meanings, “deaf” is not only a man with limited or absent hearing, it is also a person who does not know how to or does not want to listen. Fourth, there is a fundamental difference between blaming someone who is actually deaf on the basis of their disability, and calling someone who is not deaf — deaf. Compare: “Haha! You are deaf and do not hear what I say!” — it is impolite and unacceptable; “my advice falls on deaf ears” is a linguistic allegorical sigh, an acceptable criticism. It turns out that many people do not understand this obviousness… But I do not believe that the initiators do not understand this, I am sure that this is simply a censorship order to strengthen senseless political correctness within the framework of the global construction of a “bright future” in the wonderful rays of something like Blue Beam, i.e. hyperreality. If you follow this path, then the opposite definitions should also be censored: “smart”, “genius”, because it offends people with a low IQ, “skinny”, because fat people are offended, “handsome”, because it affects the unsophisticated, it is impossible to say “strong” so as not to offend the weak. And you can’t talk at all, because it will offend the mute or deaf. This is absurd.

Anti-ebolism is not self-sufficient, it is part of a larger mechanism of suppression of self-expression, suppression of free-thinking, suppression of freedoms.

As you can see, anti-Ebleuism not only violates the constitution, but is also illiterate, accordingly, those who use its principles: criminals and ignoramuses.

I will tell a real story from Discord, where on one server this summer (2024) admins suddenly decided to introduce an anti-Able “order” and updated the list of stop-words, in particular, “autist”. This is a story about how such actions harm those whom they are supposed to protect. The innovation provoked a controversy, now no one in the chat could write the word “autist”, for this you received automute for 10 minutes, but the restrictions did not affect the moderators, and one of the administrators in the middle of a verbal spat shouted: “I am autistic”, that is, he demonstratively (and with impunity) wrote the forbidden word “autist”, then clarified that he actually has “autistic spectrum disorder”. It outraged me to the extreme, since I am also autistic, but I can’t say about it now! Before the event, I wasn’t going to tell anyone about it, why? When you go to school-class, you don’t tell everyone about your disorders and illnesses, do you? It is appropriate (and right) to remain silent about such things, it is cultural: not to stress those around you with your problems, to talk about your illnesses with the general public is a bad thing, you should do this face to face with your doctor. So, as soon as I voiced my dissatisfaction with the fact that now only the “elite” has the right to express themselves freely, and noted that I (not only the admin) a _ u _ t _ i _ s _ t _ i _ c, but to talk about it (unlike the admin) I can’t because of the automod… I was permabaned instantly 😄 Paradox: the rules that were supposed to protect autistic people shut their mouths and repressed them.

Until I was kicked out, I managed to make an interesting observation that reveals the motivation of the administrators to implement these idiotic rules: one of them slandered that this was necessary for “education, you cattle”, I pointed to the educated one at “cattle”, he apologized, but the main word here is “education”, it means that these people see themselves as educators. Now we extrapolate this local episode into the global field, and we will see the true purpose of such trends: to educate uncouth barbarians. One question: are you barbarians and did you sign up for parenting lessons? And what is education? — incited to violate the constitution? In messy, senseless self-censorship? In the primitivization of vocabulary? This is not education, gentlemen, but debilitation, similar to the infamous “education of the Soviet man.” The Soviets also rejected ratio in a stupid desire to educate, breed, give birth to homo soveticus: a condo communist who would have an innate immunity to common sense.

Anti-Eubsianism has no reason to exist in the field of communication ethics. It’s just a despotic restriction that turns a series of allegories into silly n-words.

This case shows how anti-Ablablaism silences those who really have some problems. Anti-Abebelism clears the information field from you if you are, for example, autistic. This is a clear example of discrimination, when the rights of vulnerable groups and the general right to freedom of speech are reduced. Anti-Eybueism is linguistic Nazism, it promotes a superior race of “pure (from blaming) words” and suffocates dissenters in ban cells. The word “anti-Ablashitism” should become a synonym for “hypocrisy”, because anti-Abelists advocate the protection of autistic people, and oppress them.

Non-binary dictionaries

Anti-abluvomitism is not something original, special, it is a link of blunt, crude censorship of the word. It is joined by censors from among the LGBT+ people, who always do not like how are said about them in public space. Their effort to protect non-binary persons led to the editing of explanatory dictionaries, at least in the English language, where the word ‘they’ (plural “they”) was assigned a new singular meaning: “they” (‘singular they’), which is not only illiteracy, but also bad taste. I don’t understand why it was necessary to distort a normal word, why not come up with a new one? For example thi(t): they+it. If you are not in the topic: a non-binary person does not want to be either “he” or “she”, he chooses the neuter pronoun, the problem is that in English there is no neuter pronoun for naming people. But the presence of no pronoun does not guarantee the compatibility of non-binary, because nouns do not have a neuter form. So this non-binary word-game is just for fun, don’t take it public with bans.

By the way, editing dictionaries is a precedent that should encourage to backup sensitive, important information that can be changed online.

I respect all people and understand their choice, if someone wants to be non-binary and prefers to be addressed by “they”,— no problem! Without irony: I will gladly address such a person as the person wants. But for mercy’s sake: don’t try to force me to speak the way you want outside of a private conversation. In my speech, I will rely on logic and common sense, not on ‘singular they’.

Mediaterror and bots

The following example of restriction of freedom of speech is probably well known to all of you: the infamous censorship on Youtube, TikTok and other media sites in 2024 reaches the limit of absurdity. Under the pretext of protecting children (?), a harsh automod is activated on YouTube with a huge list of banwords based on the frequency of baking, inattentive bloggers who have omitted a prohibited word in their language risk sitting without monetization. The problem is aggravated by “cross-platformness”: bloggers from other platforms, which have their own censorship, drag bad substitutes for banwords to their neighbors, who have not yet banned those words. And it so happens that bloggers “from the future” appear on YouTube (or somewhere), they are ahead of events, disguising pseudo-banwords 😅

It’s sad that this newspeak gibberish has migrated to comments, text content, and Internet communication. Thanks to whom it “migrated” is a good question. I have two options, the culprits are: a) society trained by bloggers; b) bots. Bots are mostly to blame, I think. I can’t imagine that a real man, after watching a video on YouTube, then somewhere on Reddit wrote ‘unalive’ instead of “suicide” 🤦‍♂️ Now that bots have become cheap and relatively intelligent, it is profitable to use them to shape the customer’s desired public opinion, to normalize certain ideas through misinformation, controversy, and the Mandela effect, to downgrade human content and bring automatic into trends. The process of replacing people takes place not only in IRL at factories (which is good), but also in the infofield (which is bad). For a thorough understanding of the problem, google ‘dead internet theory’.

The list of stop words includes “murder”, “suicide”, “rape”, “pedophilia”, “assault”, “war”, “terrorism”, etc. What can be achieved with such an action? The fact that it stifles freedom of speech: a fact. But does it level the phenomena whose names it forbids? Of course not! Let’s delete the word “war” from the dictionaries and wars will be a thing of the past!

Some enthusiastic bloggers are so passionate about this topic that they fall into some kind of psychosis, for example, Skeeter Jean removed from his vocabulary “pedophilia” and everything that he thought was connected with it, and even the numeral “thirteen” (maybe others), because it describes age in particular… at first I wanted to laugh, but then I cried.

Scanthropic trash

One minecrafter published on social media a screenshot of the game’s web cabinet, on which the system reported an error in the nickname: Flying_Racoon, such a nickname automod perceived as “offensive” for certain people and rejected it. It is clear that this is not about grammarnazi, the absence of one “s” is not an excuse. The problem is ‘coon’, it’s a slang insulting word for Negros, and I learned about it in the comments under that post 😃 which once again proves the pointlessness of such restrictions, they rather spread what they are fighting against. This incident is wider than it seems, it has a whole concept: “Scunthorpe problem”. But this method of censorship is wrong, and not only because of the attack on freedom of speech and privacy (perluster algorithms scan email correspondence as well), but also logically: you can’t separate the whole thing and draw a conclusion about the whole thing by its parts. When you break a watch, you have parts of the watch, but not the watch. This is stupid, like in case when you divide a word for searching a new “hidden” meaning of the whole word is deduced from the parts (butterfly: butter fly — “butter fly”; pineapple: pine apple — “pine apple”; cowboy: cow boy — “calf”; hotdog: hot dog — “Korean street food”). To fully understand this, read the article on Wikipedia, there are plenty of examples.

[

In conclusion we have the displacement of free communication and creativity beyond the visible Internet in the abyss of the deep-darkweb and in the “kitchen”: closed platforms.

Absolute freedom of speech

The constitution of any civilized country guarantees its citizens freedom of speech. In the famous First Amendment to the US constitution, this guarantee is provided unconditionally. But I want to note that on the Internet, where the situation is uncontrolled, here every owner of a site, server, chat is his own master with his own constitution. There is an impression that when you go to the Internet, you leave the country 😆 Why do local entities not obey the global law? Can the owner of, say, an IRL-club establish its own rules in which homicide is allowed? The country in which this club is located should not regulate this situation? Murder in a club where homicide is allowed by its rules: legal? No. Then why is cancellation in such an internet free speech club normal? This is abnormal and should be regulated at the level of the main law.

Freedom of speech should be absolute. Today it sounds like a utopia, in an anarchist way. But this is the right way.

Many people are afraid of such freedom, they are afraid of any infinity (I saw a docfilm where a scientist thought about numbers and suggested that they are not infinite… he wanted to believe that, that someday people will reach the last largest number, he was frightened by infinity), and this is due to a tendency to authoritarianism, such people need to have control over the situation in order to be calm, even if this situation does not concern them, they do not trust those around them, they are afraid that they will either screw them up or take away their power. Therefore, in principle, authoritarians cannot be trusted with power, they will use it selfishly: they will restrain everything that goes beyond their “comfort zone”, their rules, they will make a cage out of infinity.

Wars don’t start with calls to fight, or orders to fight, no, war starts with action: when a soldier picks up a machine gun and goes to fight. Of course, both the first and the second are guilty, but without the second, the first is powerless, his words are incapable of harming anyone, his words do not have a TNT equivalent, but he will undoubtedly answer to God for his words.

At this summer (2024) in England, a 28-year-old guy was sentenced to a real 3 years in a prison for a post on Twitter. In that post, he called for aggression in the streets, this against the background of the recent events with the triple murder. In russia, thousands of people have already been sentenced for posts, reposts and even likes, there, they are being tried, in particular, for pacifism, Christian rejection of violence (militarism).

All this censorship is powerless and ineffective, it only leads to resistance according to the law of physics about “action and counteraction”, it does not form in a person resistance to unworthy acts, because censorship itself is an unworthy act.

If a man speaks some gibberish, you can ignore him, there is a great “ignore” option on the Internet for this. You can issue warnings, express your displeasure with dislikes, There are many tools, ban is the last and unacceptable, like the death penalty. No matter what anyone says, the one who uses force illegally is always guilty. F. Herbert in “Messiah Dune” called “improper use of force” a fatal sin.

Why does the editorial office of, let’s say, a newspaper (media) disclaim responsibility for placing advertisements on its pages, or disclaim: “the opinion of the author may not coincide with the editorial opinion”, why do not social networks follow the same path? — don’t like someone’s tweet? OK! — just ignore it, there is a special option for this. “The opinion of contributors may not coincide with the policy of the platform”, this is not the problem of the platform, but of the contributor. Why are words equated with illegal content? If pirated movies are stored on someone’s server, that server will be asked to remove them, or they will try to close it completely, condemn its owners. The words are also stored on someone else’s server, but they are legal: freedom of speech is guaranteed! — then why are they being asked to remove it and sanctioned if they refuse to comply? This is a rhetorical question, because this is how tyranny manifests itself.

A cultured man will never offend another. A truly cultured man does not need rules, he already has them in himself, for him it is a self-important, self-evident thing. For a Christian, such a guide to ethics is Christianity. Jesus said that everyone will answer to Him on the last day for their words, so give this judgment to Him, but He commanded us: not to judge anyone.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.

Today, one does not need to be as wise as Solomon to see what has become obvious: pop-culture (cinema, literature, games, music) has been turned into a farce. Artistry, idealism, and authorship have essentially been erased from Western culture, it has become collective, as it was, for example, during the Soviet era in USSR, meeting the specific requirements of either customers or censors. Now culture is strictly controlled, those who do not meet the requirements of the censors are repressed and ostracized. Freedom of speech, freedom of self-expression, freedom of creativity is a natural human right, which has always been suppressed, today it is characteristically abolished.

Modern mass culture performs one function: the promotion of “traditional values”. Every civilization has its own traditions and values, and the (evil) civilization, striving to reshape man in its own image and likeness, shows superiority over the individual and unforgivingly digs into the plate with informational food, choosing from there that which, according to the opinion of the civilization, can harm, and throwing in that, which according to civilization will be useful. Such behavior is absolutely unacceptable. In an field of high culture, even looking at someone else’s plate is tactless, let alone touching someone else’s food with your bare hands!

All this ruthlessness is necessary for an evil civilization to build a hyperreality: a virtual superstructure in the global infofield for the moderation of collective consciousness. Because of hyperreality, a civilization can control people without any problems and they will not even know about it, because they will have no alternatives to compare. This focus is actively used by despots, for example, Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, or in the past, the Soviets: people under the Iron Curtain do not know about the real world, they really accept everything that authorities and influencers tell them; the North Koreans feel sorry for the poor Americans, those who are starving, standing in lines for drinking water, and even resorting to cannibalism. In the same way, they pity the “unfree” Americans (Europeans) of the Motzkovites (for example, the “putler detachments” or the Solovyovs), they really think that in the West it is worse than in their swamps. And the West actively uses these propaganda tools, this rudeness for its own needs, it is not going to defeat evil with good, and therefore, the cap of a crooked mirror falls on Europe.

Dissent is branded with marginality and banned. Try to say the unpopular opinion outside the meme context: you will be banned here and now, and this is only an opinion, not a petition, not an art, not a protest (action). For the latter, you will be persecuted, intimidated, possibly killed. And getting banned for words is the easiest thing, despite technology, the supposed high culture, European (Western) progressiveness, democracy, I think no one will be surprised when they hear that a couple of bullets were planted in someone at the entrance for a couple of words? Matrix architects are intolerant.

The leitmotif of this culture: pleasing everyone. But when you please everyone, you will please no one. It is simply physically impossible to please everyone. If your film aims to express internationality, you will have to respect the actors of representatives of all nations. If you want to comment on the idea of ​​equality of people, you cannot forget at least one minority. These urges are sometimes simply paradoxical, when you illustrate feminist narratives, you insult women opposed to feminism; by normalizing fatness, you insult not only common sense (science) but also those who fall out of your imaginary normality: thin and normal people, giving preference to Blacks, you insult Whites and Asians. Someone will always be offended if creativity is viewed through a prism with ideological layers.

The correct analysis of creativity should be conducted exclusively through the prism of common sense: the author’s ideas should be considered in the field of “good and evil”, objective symbols, and not imaginary, political ones. For example, if the author exalts a certain race of people over others in his work, then this is a really uncultured work that distorts the truth, since people, although different, are essentially equal. On the other hand, if the author did not represent any races in his work, except for a certain one, this is not an offense, just as it is not an offense to have a movie about bees that does not contain bumblebees.

In books, for the most part, race is not described when it is not important to the plot, in a rock ’n roll song you will not hear jazz or k-pop, in shooters you will not meet RTS, and in impressionism Suprematism, and this is normal, it defines the difference of essences and reveals the diversity of means and ideas, creative wealth. Attempting to melt everything, to merge it into one mixture, is a crime against art, it is like mixing all the colors in one glass for painting: it will turn out to be an unsightly mess. On the contrary, you need to cultivate dissimilarity. Originality inspires and becomes the basis for experiments, motivates to challenges and creates competitiveness. Originality is valued for its originality, for its uniqueness, it is a valuable thing, and no one needs a non-unique product. There are many precious stones, if we make one of them and discard the others, will we gain or lose? Far away, I say obvious, banal things, which, however, have become as incomprehensible to many as the round Earth.

It is not necessary to please everyone, there is no such requirement for creators. The essence of creativity is self-expression: your creativity comes from your heart, that is, from your middle, and modern censors, latent communists, are trying to put a filter on your mouth to block out everything that, in their opinion, is inappropriate, dangerous for the construction of hyperreality. Bots are involved with the same goal, they spam their random-shit content in social networks to cut off human content, to turn people exclusively into consumers of poor content, to turn the Internet, an interactive environment, into a static environment, TV. The goal of this action: creation of homo neosoveticus.

Today bots (AI) cannot generate adequate media content, but the mass release of the first films (like this) and games from AI is not far away, shit of electronic brains: cartoons, serials, books (applied literature is already on the shelves (freelancers constantly receive orders for “writing”-editing, for example, books on psychology via ChatGPT)), memes, YouTube videos, etc., will soon flood our infofield, Orwell wrote about it in “1984”, remember the barrel with stories for books? This is it. And the propagandist crap from the collaborators* that we see today: it belongs to the training base of AI, modern samples of underculture will become its food, from which it will have the power to build a “wonderful new world”.

*We live in times of cultural occupation, our modernity is aggressively moderated, normalized according to someone else’s order, the past is rewritten, branded and crossed out. Accordingly, those who support these trends are collaborators.

Let’s consider a few examples of propaganda, distortion of reality, and artificial impoverishment, debasement for the sake of ideological indoctrination and the formation of bad taste

LOTR (movie, series)To begin with, you can compare original works and remixes or modernized versions, for example “The Lord of the Rings”. Everyone knows perfectly well how outstanding the trilogy was, it took 17 (!) Oscars out of 30 nominations, has a very high rating from critics:

And not worse the rating from the audience:

*Rotten Tomatoes: 95%; 95%; 86%. *IMDB: 8.9; 8.8; 9.0. *Metacritic: 9.0; 9.0; 8,9.

The series has been added to all sorts of best and significant film lists, for example: “In 2021, The Fellowship of the Ring was selected by the US Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry for “cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance”, this is from Wikipedia. And no one asked at the time about racial quotas for actors, the representation of minorities, the role of women in history, everyone contemplated art and drew conclusions from the impressions that the film ignited, from the aestheticism that it interested, from the thoughts that it stirred.

Now let’s look at the pitiable analogue (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)) from Netflix:

*39% of Rotten Tomatoes viewers praised the series, *on IMDB, 25% of viewers (25,645 people) rated the series 1/10, *Amazon was forced to freeze the rating system for 72 hours due to a flurry of viewer negativity, *rating on Metacritic 2.6 and disabled comments (on M. it is common practice to turn off comments for questionable titles).

I think no one will dispute that the audience rating is the most objective. It will be difficult to quietly buy tens of thousands of men so that they respond favorably to your nonsenseries, but with dozens of “critics” it is easier. No, I’m not saying that the critics who praised the Netflix series were bought, maybe some actually liked it (*facepalm*), but look at the percentage of favorable reviews from “experts”: Rotten Tomatoes scored 85% (7.5\10 ) based on 230 reviews; Metacritic 71\100 (37 “expert” reviews). Such a discrepancy with the audience rating is, to speak politically correct, suspicious. And in general, I am surprised that, for example, IMDB simply did not roll back the ratings after a wave of dislikes, as they did with the series Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story, where the English queen was played by a black woman (!), then IMDB wrote out the series 7+\10 by their own hand, rejecting all the viewers “ones”, and after that I left this service, because suppressing freedom of speech is disrespectful to a man and a manifestation of autocracy, I’m not going to sit under a dome and deceive myself.

Complaints about the series are predictable: the movie diverges from the book to fulfill its feminist, racist plot tasks, in particular, to portray Galadriel, a strong and independent femalelf, Amazon-like warrior who defies her king, and essentially inherits the meme image of the American “Karen” . The actors are full of Negroids, but does the ancient universe of Tolkien’s fantasy Middle-earth: British-Scandinavian myth involve non-European characters? The inclusion of foreign races in a purely European work looks as comical as the intervention of white actors in some specific, authentic, local African film. Can you imagine, let’s say, filmmakers from Niger, who invited up to 50 % white actors from Europe to play in a film adaptation of a local folklore plot? Wouldn’t the audience look around the cinema mockingly to see their conventional Uhamba Bayund played by a conventional red-haired Robin Jancey from Ireland? This is a farce, a caricature.

Also, endless circling around “minorities” distracts from the plot. Men are depicted as dumb. And it’s also funny that among the orcs there are women-orcs, but don’t orcs breed in an incubator? These are killing machines, they are grown in incubators, whats the women?! Women are physically weaker, they are not as enduring as men, so it makes no sense for orcs to breed them. For real, how come Netflix didn’t think of giving dendroids sexual characteristics?! 😄

Star Wars (films) The original Star Wars series became a cult, this cultural phenomenon spawned countless fan fiction, sequels, and alternatives. The story went beyond the cinema screen, turned into video games and board games, LEGO, became a theme in cosplay, embodied in books and comics, in memes, Master Yoda’s pronunciation became one of the reminiscent markers. And now compare the first 6 films of the series with the last ones, especially with the final “Skywalker” (2019), where there is nothing left of art: we see nothing new, instead, a lot of racial and feminist propaganda — the main characters here are exclusively women and blacks, they are on the light side of the Force, and white men are purely evils, they are on the dark side of the Force. Therefore, this film is not perceived as art, but as a topic for twitter shitting.

He-Man (series) The animated series He-Man (USA) was popular in the 80s of the 20th century, a lot was heard about him in Europe as well. He-Man became the hero of memes. At one time, the series branched out into She-Ra, where the main character is a woman — He-Man’s sister. And even if you don’t know these series, you will guess the content from the title itself: He-Man is a white man, reflects a typical masculine image, She-Ra is presented in the image of an Amazon. In 2020, Netflix made its mock version of He-Man. The ridiculousness is that the cover of the new series looks more or less “canonical”, He-Man is the same and placed in front, which is normal, because he is the main character. But in the very first episode, he is abruptly killed, and his place is taken by a woman… If Netflix didn’t want to laugh at men, they would have made their own version of the film, instead of parasitizing on a well-known title, in the worst case, they would have remake She-Ra in particular, and “He-Man” would not be touched. Well, no, Netflix took the ready-made creative and turned it upside down. A movie called “He-Man” cannot have a main character other than He-Man. A. Sapkowski uses a similar trick in his “The Witcher” when he pushes the expected hero to the second, or even to the twenty-second plan, instead sticking out feminine images.

Lords of the Sky (TV series) Modern cinema, poisoned by racial propaganda, reaches absurdity. Look at the poster of “Lords of the Sky”: all the characters in focus are not Europeans, typically Mongoloid and Negroid… although the series is about the events of the WWII from the point of view of American military aviators. Do you see American military aviators on the poster? When I first saw this poster, I thought that it was either about Pearl Harbor from the perspective of a kamikaze, or some low-budget Chinese action movie. In the 40s of the past, racial segregation prevailed in the USA, African Americans were called colored, they were allocated seats on buses, there were separate shops, schools, cafeterias for them, even drinking fountains were separate for them. And here (on the poster) there are immediately three blacks and two Asians in the foreground in the image of aviators. Who do you want to fool? Is this cinema in the context of an alternative history?

Gladiator II (film) One of the textbook examples, so to speak, of creating a simulacrum can be seen in R. Scott’s film “Gladiator II” (2024). There is a Black character, Macrinus (D. Washington), an arms dealer and a gladiator — a sly, resourceful figure who ultimately reaches the Roman throne through cunning and intrigue; yes, you heard that right: a Black man becomes the Emperor of Rome in Scott’s movie.

On the left is Makrin as seen by AI, on the right is Makrin as seen by R. Scot

Antique image of Macrinus

The problem is that Macrinus is a real historical figure, Marcus Opellius Macrinus. He indeed ruled Rome for one year (217–218 AD), but, as you might have guessed, he was not Black! Nor was he a gladiator or an arms dealer. He hailed from North Africa and belonged to the Berbers. Not all inhabitants of Africa are Black. Thus, in this film, the creators make the same fundamental mistake as the creators of the series “African Queens: Queen Cleopatra” (2023), where Cleopatra herself was played by a biracial actress. This caused an uproar in Egypt, with Netflix being accused of “Afrocentrism,” “including slogans and inscriptions aimed at distorting and erasing Egyptian identity,” and facing lawsuits to ban their series in Egypt.

Netflix-version of Cleopatra

The Avengers (film) In “Avengers. The Finale (2019)” Europeoid Captain America gets old and passes his shield to a young black man, now he is the new Captain America, or should we say “Captain Afroamerica”? At the same time, the white man Thor calls the black woman “the queen of New Asgard”. You don’t have to be smart enough to pick out the politics and artificiality of these scenes, they are far-fetched, unnecessary, they are not grounded in the plot, that is, the authors did not even manage to bring the plot under these casts, but suddenly made such a move. YouTubers do the same by integrating advertising into their videos. When advertising is skillfully integrated, it is possible not to notice, and sometimes the entire video is disguised advertising, here the story is similar. By the way, this movie has two Audi ad integrations from Iron Man, and that’s with the fact that the movie has a $400 million budget! Such integrations are typical for B, C, Z category trash movies, which proves once again: art in the past, modern art relies on customers of ideas and goods.

Assassins Creed (game) Another example of absurdity was bred at Ubisoft, where they make a historical game in the setting of ancient Japan, and one of the samurai (Yasuke) is black. Do you hear? — A samurai is a negroid. Another example of simulacrum and mockery. The Japanese were outraged by the distortion of historical reality, wrote a petition, but Unisoft spat at you and your reality, they are the creators of a new reality — hyperreality.

Sweet Baby Inc. (games) There is even Sweet Baby Inc., an organization that advises game developers on woke(DEI)-representations in games, they help create images that would correspond to hyperreality. Sweet Baby Inc. or similar DEI-consultants today, although they do not have enough influence, but under the condition of public loyalty, or at least neutrality, they will surely receive famous funding to strengthen their positions and normalize the very phenomenon of “consultations”. Now these consultations are voluntary, but who is to guarantee that the game will not be shadowbanned (or permabanned) later due to the lack of a “Agreed with Sweet Baby Inc.” sticker? Isn’t that how the Overton window works?

The Witcher (book) In some places, literature is even worse. Take, at least, the “Witcher” series, which was promoted just today. It is important to note that everyone heard about the Witcher somewhere from the mid-2010s (mostly thanks to the games), I myself thought that Sapkowski wrote the series then, but as it turned out, he wrote it in the early 90s. Are you surprised? But why be surprised, because right now there are orders for such cul stories, because “The Witcher” is really a story not about a witcher, not about Geralt, not about a man, but about femininity, about Yenefer, Ciri and their female friends, it typical feminist literature. The name “Witcher” serves only as clickbait and selling point for men. Who would buy a book called “Yenefer. Justice fan”? And “The Witcher. The Sword of Destiny”? The difference in vibes is obvious. When I started reading the series, I thought I was diving into a heroic fantasy, but I was teased, I dived into something else. Sapkowski teased me and all the men, on the cover he promised a fantasy about Geralt-the main-hero-the-powerful, but shows Geralt-the slug-heel, a pitiful serf who is owned by the lady Yenefer, or even does not show it at all, in the 2nd and in the 3rd book, he almost does not appear before the reader, it is all about women and their adventures, and about menstruation. I read this crap halfway through book 4 and threw it in the trash.

The Da Vinci Code (book) It’s the same story with artificially promoted bestselling author D. Brown, who became popular thanks to his debut with “The Da Vinci Code”. In this book, he obsessively promotes matriarchy, paganism with goddess worship, his main character Langdon obeys the orders of a woman, the whole plot is looking for a female grail, at the end he acquires “wisdom” from a church servant (woman), and all this is built on anti-Christian rhetoric. How such crap became popular is beyond me, the only explanation is that it was all paid for by the secret organizations he writes about.

Music After 2020, there were two very thorough experiments (news 1, news 2), which revealed the primitivization of music in relation to both melody and lyrics. Although the simplified melody is compensated by compression from instrumental, sound layers, the latest technologies allow synthesizing almost any sound and this is considered a modern achievement in music, the sounds in the tracks have increased. But the lyrics did not gain any visibility and gave birth to memes with comparisons of song texts of the past (1970+) and the present. The style of today’s lyrics is degraded, often operates with the simplest images and verbal turns, consists of constant repetitions. Songs have become more aggressive, self-centered, narcissistic, and, of course, agenda-advancing, trendy simulacra. Suggestion through music is especially effective, because music is essentially aimed at the emotion, it is perceived first of all by the heart — feelings, and then it is analyzed, if it is analyzed at all.

The End Woke-trend or woke-culture claims to be avant-garde, but in fact they do not go beyond marginality. Since the 2020s, there are so many simulacrum manifestations in culture that it no longer makes sense to weed them out, now it is easier to focus on real creativity than to point to the plastering of jokers. Can you name a new popular movie or game without racism and feminism? I think not. If you search, you will probably find something artistic, value, but in the future, when there will be no passive resistance, everything that we call adequate today will be called barbaric. There are already precedents: look at modern reviews of old works, for example Lovecraft, the reviewers disclaim at the beginning: the author lived in the old dark times and had no idea about progressive morality, called African Americans negroes (I condemn!). Such reviewers have accepted the simulacrum of “racist” names from the mass media and do not know that “negro” is the definition of “negroid”, i.e. race, this is a normal dictionary word, it comes from Spanish, Latin, where it is interpreted as “black”. When calling an African-American “black” or “black skinned” is acceptable, why is it not acceptable to call an African-American “negro”? These are synonyms 😄 Such are the fruits of political correctness, which is one of the tools of censorship of dictatorial building hyperrealities, extremes and radicalism are characteristic of it. More and more words are included in the list of ban words: suicide, murder, assault, rape, pedophilia, which are baselessly, senselessly and ridiculously euphemized (by people and (or) bots): unalive, grape, unpronounceable (replaced with the spoiler “well, you understand what am I talking about”) or are censored by beeping. Look at modern (2024) Youtube: the site has been turned into a laughing stock, everything is soaped up and baked, except for videos about cats and dogs, you can’t post anything there without censorship. This is an attack on freedom of speech, this is the introduction of Orwellian newspeak.

This nonsense should be opposed primarily in the financial sphere: do not buy a spoiled product! No matter how much they sponsor propagandists and instigators of debilitation, if they stop paying for their bullshit, their self-confidence will fall from their faces and they will change their tactics. They will “change”, they will not refuse. But having principle and the will to maintain that principle, any tricks are not scary, and hypocrites are laughable. We live in a European universe and have the right to demand comfortable, natural content. This is violence: to force Europeans to a foreign culture, to foreign symbols, traditions, and religions. If I want to watch an Asian movie, play an African game, or listen to Latin American music, I will turn to the relevant community, to the original sources, there is no need to drag, import caricatured, inferior models into the European cultural field, this is inappropriate, ridiculous, this is stupidity and aggression. Thoughtless imitation reminds me of cargo cults, drawing a watch on the wrist.

There are incompatible (incompatible) cultures, take at least rap, no matter how hard the whites tried to stick in there, nothing succeeded in them, because it is a characteristically black theme, whites are outsiders there apriori. Yes, Africans called Eminem “theirs”, but they probably did it out of condescension, they saw how a person is trying and praised them for those efforts, not the results. No, I’m not saying that white people can’t rap, rap as much as you want, but white and black rap are different worlds, and if you’re white and rap, you won’t join the black party, you’ll always be in the white rap bubble. That’s why a white person who is squirming from a black person looks ridiculous and unworthy. Funny, like the Russians in the 18th century aped Europeans in fashion and architecture: a dignified man in a curly wig with a black satin bow, in lacquered shoes with a gilded buckle, in white trousers, in a silk camisole under an embroidered caftan emerges from a tall building with a figured pediment, a wide portico, and sculpted rococo decorations... spits on the muddy dirt road, looks around in the middle of the street with mowed bushes. A man in rags comes, takes off his hat, bows with the words: “Hello, my lord, slaves (chattles) are bought like you obey”, a humpback rolls past, a rumpled humpback swings balls from under its tail, the humpback’s wheel has fallen into the slop, splashes around swamp, speckles white pants and makes the “gentleman” faintly squirm. It is impossible not to notice the inconsistencies, if you do not notice: you are curving your soul, because it is as obvious as, for example, transgender men in sports: they self-identified as women and moved to a women’s league, everyone sees that this is absurd, but they close their eyes, this a typical example of post-truth.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.

You can read about the concept of ethical gaming in the previous article, and now I want to give several examples of bad gaming, which should not be in an ethical game. After all, it is known that everything is learned in comparisons. The age of the game does not matter, because the unethical elements in games are of a single nature, repeated and existing since the beginning of centuries, since the time when people invented games.

Another important point: the game can be satisfactory but have unethical elements, or it can be completely inappropriate. This list will help you better understand the mechanics of ethical gaming, how it works, and apply its principles to your experience as a player or developer.

1. The GTA series, including GTA III, Vice City, San-Andreas: bad. None of these games can be completed without a homicide. This is the base, but there are many other problems: red blood, brutal scenes (beheadings), real models of weapons, the criminal plot is presented without alternatives and without judgment. For example, Vice City was created on the basis of “Scar Face” (1983) and, unlike the film, MH triumphs in the game. The plot and gameplay forces the player to kill. What does “gameplay” mean? — it is impossible to bypass the story quest in an ethical way: there are no alternatives or script tricks that would allow you to finish the quest or go to another one without killing. Adjacent to the Mafia series.
2. The Call of Duty series: bad. Everything is obvious here, the game is involved in militarism and is entirely about homicide, but I want to note something else, how the game shapes the male social role of “warrior” through the title, in it we have the word “duty”, that is a typical example of a simulacrum is the imposition of responsibilities invented by evil people on a man. A man has no duty to fight and kill others. Men may not be the target audience for this game, but just seeing the title and the military preview will give you a infusion. Close to the Mount & Blade series.
3. Hitman and Assassin series: bad. Dedicated to contract killers, assassins. They romanticize homicide and promote mercenary. MH in these games do not face problems of conscience and morality, it seems that they are the same “workers” as everyone else, they do their “job” and receive money or other preferences for it. In terms of criminality, it is related to GTA.
4. Sea of ​​Thieves: bad. Gamers play the role of pirates, that is, bandits of the 15th century, the gameplay is appropriate. In addition to murders, there are items related to “dark rituals” (as it is called in the game itself), in particular, one of those items is called “Blessing Skull of Athena”, which connects the fictional universe with the ancient Greek reality; reminiscent item: “witch doll”, refers to the infamous voodoo doll. There are also “animal cages” in the game for kept various kinds of animals, but do we understand what kind of metaphor this is? — slavery. Related to World of Warships.
5. Skyrim: bad. According to the plot, the player must perform a bloodletting ritual to open the lock.
6. Terraria: bad. Progression through the plot requires the use of a voodoo doll, directly or indirectly, while this action kills one NPC. The elements of divination and sorcery are a black niche, and cannot be in the player’s gameplay, the same as non-Christian religions, they can only be presented in an antagonistic way. To top it all off, there is a “demon heart”: a usable artifact that benefits the player by expanding item slots. In the field of ethical gaming, it is impossible to imagine that evil brings benefit, it is illogical and unacceptable: you cannot call black on white. Also, the game has a provocative visual: there is a realistic image of internal organs, for example, an open heart in Moon Lord (the game Transistor has a similar defect, where one of the final bosses is a heart (in the metrodvania Grime, parts of the body are placed in the scenery of the environment)). Minecraft has the same problem (pagan elements with a positive view), but it cannot be called bad, it is questionable. There, in the endgame, the player receives (optionally) a totem, holding it in the hand of the MH acquires a certain benefit.
7. Alundra (1997): bad. The plot requires MH to worship the local gods: Alundra is taken to the temple, the priest tells his story and asks him to kneel down and pray with them to the idols. The player can refuse, there is a “choice” (yes-no), but it has no effect, the dialogue is repeated until you agree to the offer.
8. Trine: questionable. One of the game characters (his involvement is mandatory): thief (triumphator like MH in GTA). There is a pagan element: at a certain point in the story, the player receives a hammer with a description that reveals that this weapon is “blessed by the god of thunder”. The plot tells about the dualistic, heretical Manichaean “balance of forces” of good and evil, which seemingly balances the universe, but in fact, evil is justified in this way, on this basis the infamous “bad people are needed too”.
9. Sid Meier’s Civilization series and the like: bad. Despite the fact that the game reflects historical reality, it does so unconditionally, without conclusions, without alternatives, e.g. for the development of your civilization, it is necessary to develop the military, to have soldiers at your service, to intervene in conflicts. This approach is especially dangerous in the setting of the future, because it normalizes the future of violence.
10. Heartstone: questionable. One of the game characters represents evil (a warlock) and the game mechanics are arranged in such a way that sometimes you get cards of this character, and you have to choose: to use them or not, the latter will complicate your situation. In addition, in the announcements of add-ons, the developers said at least twice about “selling the soul”, in mass culture this phrase most often occurs in the context of selling the soul to the devil, this is an unacceptable allusion, and in general, jokes on this topic look at least suspicious: is the developer friends with the head?

All games can be divided into three broad categories according to ethics: bad, questionable and good.

Bad games are those in which progress through the plot is blocked by an unethical element: a quest, an event, or the need to use some inappropriate item. Also, these are games based on misanthropy, for example, military style: military action games (Counter-Strike, Worms, Jackal, Angry Birds) and simulators (World of Tanks, Top Gun, War Thunder), military strategies (Star- WarCraft, Dune, Cossacks, chess), or metaphysical: Dungeon Keeper, physical: Manhunt, mythical: Vampire: The Masquerade, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. In 2026, what began to appear in wide public access (on Steam) were no longer even games, but practically full-fledged military simulators, such as Ukrainian Fight Drone Simulator (UFDS). This is a drone-operator training environment that, for example, not only supports specific military control consoles, but explicitly recommends them for “gameplay,” so that in real conditions (in war) the user would not have to retrain. Projects like UFDS or America’s Army constitute direct propaganda of violence, the weaponization of games, and recruitment. This is a crossing of red lines and should be regarded as child-killing, since this mental weapon is aimed primarily at kids. The setting does not matter, the fact that the events of the Heroes of Might & Magic series take place in a fantasy universe does not reject the military principles of the game, in which the player is a warlord, he gathers an army, fights, captures castles. Unethical events include, in particular, aggression against Christianity, for example, in Fallout 2 there are two bad NPC with the names Big Jesus, Lil’ Jesus, as well as a weapon (knife) with the name Little Jesus; in Cyberpunk 2077, one of the NPC utters (in English voicing) a blasphemy. In Disciples 1, during the installation stage of the game, the player is asked to accept the terms of the license in the form of signing a contract with the devil. Sometimes you can judge a game by the development team, the responsible company, e.g. in 2020+, a post appeared on Blizzard Diablo III’s official twitter on the occasion of the game’s anniversary, calling for the devil to come to this world.

One of the tasks in Postal 2 is to “pee on dad,” specifically on his grave.

A questionable game has unethical elements but allows you to continue without them, although this usually complicates the gameplay. There are many of them, for example, in The Sims 4 there is a voodoo doll, but you can not use it, in the ARPG Torchlight, the first skill of the summoner is summoning imps (in Terraria, the second set of the summoner also summons imps), but it can be ignored and developed in the following, in a series of city-building simulators SimCity has tools of genocide: controlled meteorites, radiation and chemical contamination, meteorological and seismic weapons, which, however, the game does not force to use, in Prison Architect there is an electric chair for the death penalty, but the player decides whether to equip his prison with it on his own, in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. In Shadow of Chernobyl, the sequence of quests is not connected, you can skip them (one of the first tasks is homicidal), just go to the next one. In the 3-in-row Bejeweled 3, there is a Zen mode, in which the player is given concise instructions with the suggestion to listen to mantras and binaural rhythms, which is not only a propaganda of pseudoscience (just like talking about astrology), but also an unchristian element. In this way, questionable games present the player with additional obstacles, which, however, can be perceived as a challenge.

Good games do not prevent the player from reaching the final credits, do not force him to act against his conscience, do not tempt him to go to the dark side, and do not promote questionable ideas, paid for, or just hype, which the developers push for additional likes while at the same time not realizing that they are popularizing false ideas thrown into the infofield with a specific purpose. Such story games as Fallout 1, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, although they have many ethical problems, but thanks to their variability, they can be completed ethically without much difficulty: without killing and looting. It is also important to remember that these games are from a compromised developer, so you need to treat them carefully, analyze them especially carefully. Gothic 1 plot does not require killing anyone. In Portal 1–2, aggression is essentially absent. Open world games like Skyrim, Morrowind can be played outside of the story. I had a challenge to explore all locations in Skyrim, which I completed without a homicide. But a good ethical game is not necessarily ethical, of all the examples given, except that “Portal 1–2” can be called completely ethical. By the way, in “Mario” the brick blocks are the enchanted inhabitants of the kingdom, that is, by breaking them, Mario in a certain sense kills his countrymen, or scatters their ashes.

_________

This article translated from Ukrainian by AI.

This article is about the concept of ethical gaming, a principle built on a Christian worldview. The quintessence of the topic is to act in virtuality as you act in IRL. This expresses not only Christian principles, but also high culture. Not allowing yourself wrongdoing in virtual worlds is based in particular on the Gospel words about “faithfulness in the little”, this “little” is virtuality and imagination, the one who keeps himself in his hands always and everywhere is a reliable person. Also, let’s not forget about the true responsibility for sensual movements, Jesus said that the one who desires something sinful already sins. Killing people in games and wishing people die is a difference, but the line here is shaky, as the fictionality of the situation relaxes the muscles of vigilance. The latter is well manifested in competitive multiplayer games (Dota, LoL, SC2), when players forget about fantasy and switch to personalities: they insult each other, wish each other and family members to get fatal diseases, threaten sexual violence or murder. If it is “just a game”, then how can it bring people to such a pitiful, unworthy and thieving position?

Violence in games, in particular murders, have gone through a considerable “evolutionary” path. At the dawn of video games, it was difficult to distinguish between sprites, low-quality graphics, and some kind of violence. Certain small elements, for example internal organs, were generally impossible to depict more or less clearly, and red blood in most cases was not visualized. The first games were more metaphorical than realistic. To see, for example, the same blood in it, you had to use your imagination. But since the beginning of the 00s, the situation is changing. The detail increases with the degree of violence. Then started talking about bans for children, introducing cruelty (adult) ratings, banning games entirely in certain countries. The player begins to witness realistic brutality, true violence. The body of the characters now does not consist of 2–3 square sprites, but of thousands of polygons, the model is endowed with real physics, for example a ragdoll, so it not only looks “like the real thing”, but also acts and moves like that.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

SubscribeIn fact, no matter how human-like a virtual model looks, it is a virtual model, the same is true of AI: no matter how advanced it is, it will not succeed in achieving humanity (intellectual (self-awareness), or emotional), although many argue about this and not only on amateur platforms, somewhere in social network comments, but also among developers and scientists. It comes to the point that proposes to implement “rights for robots”, and this is only because they are outwardly similar to people. Here I want to draw a parallel: greater realism requires thinking about the nature of things. When we talked to a chatbot that knew how to insert the name of the interlocutor into its random phrases and all, no one had questions about the rights of this chatbot, but when this chatbot acquired neural network artificial intelligence and passed the test Turing, the attitude towards him has changed. And on the contrary: when we played in the console of the first generations, no one thought about the age categories of games, but with the growth of realism came censorship.

Extending this sequence, we will come to a complete visual immersion in the virtual world with the help of a 3D headset or a brain implant, and in that the world models of the characters will hardly differ from the real ones, even tactilely. What’s more: the characters will be replaced by player avatars. It will resemble a daydream, a hallucination. This is a theory that does not need proof, in the scope of this article we only need it for inferences.

Let’s make this inference. Let’s imagine a child playing, say, ‘Contra’ on the NES, at first glance nothing unusual happens in this scene, the fact that the game is military, we will omit for now. In ‘Contra’, the characters shoot with unusual ammos, balls or lasers, the opponents are man-like, the main characters are commandos, that is, members of a military organization. Now let’s imagine another child (or an adult, it doesn’t matter) from the future, this child plays a similar action game, but is endowed with all the qualities of modern technological progress: 100% photorealistic textures, a full set of sounds and animations, there is a tactile perception. The laser in this game does not break the enemy NPC into 10 balls that fly in different directions, as in ‘Contra’, but burns a hole in him, exposing the internal organs, spraying everything with blood, provoking a dying cry and shuddering agony, or cuts off a limb, releasing vessels and internal tissues, bones.

We do not draw a conclusion yet. There is a controversial phenomenon of depicting children in games, usually developers avoid this topic and do not add child-like characters to games with gameplay that allows to harm these virtual children. Sometimes developers remove children from their old games, this is what happened with ‘Fallout’: the gaming culture since the late 90s has developed in terms of ethics so much that it forced an old game to be revised due to players who deliberately killed children… But that’s a game from 1997, you can imagine what kind of primitive visual is there, and when will the visual be indistinguishable (conditionally) from reality? A person who spends several hours in a row doing nothing but killing photo-realistic children, and doing it with varying degrees of brutality, what is this person doing? Relaxing? is it ok? The logic of the indifferent ones says — it’s normal, what’s the difference, when those children don’t exist, they’re just pixels. This is true, but the person who commits virtual infanticide is real, his emotions is real from this action. Also pay attention to the reaction of the public and the developers: if everyone truly perceived games as nothing more than entertainment, why was there a need to remove children from the game at all? Why in the original Carmageddon released in the same year, 1997, players could drive to crush people on the sidewalks, only for the developers later to replace them with zombies with green blood and robots spilling black oil instead of blood? Because in some countries, the killing of even virtual humans was deemed unacceptable, and the game was banned. How should such caution be interpreted: as amateurism, obscurantism, or high morality?

We do not draw a conclusion yet. Not so long ago, news began to appear on the network about gamers offended by the uncultured perverted behavior of players in meta-universes, the offense consisted mostly of tactless gestures and conversations. But meta-universes are only on the doorstep of existence, the future interactive will include tactile sensations, as M. Zuckerberg said, for example, the implementation of this technology does not matter, the main thing is the trend. If now the offense is limited to relatively minor actions, then in the future virtual sexual violence (virtual rape (as an act or intention)) will provoke real feedback. Here, even the indifferent ones will not be able to turn everything to “just pixels”, because there is a tactile connection.

This is the base, but there are many other dark aspects of the human soul that somehow find points of attraction in games and are drawn to them. In ‘Fallout: New Vegas’, the player can become a vulture cannibal and eat human corpses. In ‘Hitman’, the player kills people for money. In ‘Counter-Strike’, the player becomes a terrorist and plants explosives. Many military games offer the player to kill in a variety of ways: by bombing from airplanes, from ground vehicles, with the help of firearms and melee weapons, by commit genocide. There are games with elements of torture and mutilation (‘Tormentor’). There are games where the main character is essentially an anti-hero belonging to physical or metaphysical evil.

Now we can draw a conclusion: it is false to consider such “points of gravity” of cruelty as useful, to justify their existence by the famous “blow off steam”, as if a person suffers stress during the day, and in the evening sits down at the computer and starts killing everyone, unleashing aggression on virtual dulls. Aggression does not need to be released, it needs to be eradicated, the urge to violence, perversion, needs to be eradicated, not released, what is released, not eradicated, tends to fill up again. Accordingly, such a method does not make a person better as a whole, and in general, the thesis about “blow off steam” is contradictory, especially when it is considered within the limits of competitive online games, where the “steam” circulates in a vile vortex and spoils the mood, and even the psyche of everyone nearby, and even tangentially (when you look at this waste from the side).

A person who allows himself all these virtual crimes cannot be considered reliable in principle. I don’t want to say that games like ‘Counter-Strike’ or ‘Contra’ arouse the desire to kill, but they certainly prepare for homicide: they provoke a militaristic consciousness, especially if you play it from childhood. A person becomes vulnerable to the propaganda of violence (the army). Correlates the actions that take place in the game with the acceptable and theoretically possible actions of reality (this is true for military games in particular): a couple of missiles from “Apache” at terrorists (as in Urban-Desert-Jungle Strike) becomes a reasonable decision. Homicide is normalized in the worldview of such a person. Under certain circumstances, such a person believes, homicide is permissible, for example, during wars. But he misses the fact that wars themselves are the reason for the normalization of homicide in human consciousness. The one for whom homicide is unacceptable will never fight. High culture forms principles, in particular respectful and decent behavior in society. Instead, high culture is formed by Christianity.

Evil people actively make use of every available tool of violence propaganda, primarily to influence children, shape the youth, recruit adults, and entrench their deranged narratives. This has always been the case — nothing really changes except for the number of tools in the kit. For a detailed account, see the 85-page study by LingvaLexa, “A New Weapon of Influence: How the Kremlin Uses Video Games to Promote War,” (on Ukrainian) which documents examples of brainwashing in the game development sphere current up to 2025.

Another study on Moscow’s propaganda in video games (on Ukrainian) was conducted by the company Games Gathering. It spans 22 pages and examines 50 games across different time periods, from the 1990s to 2025.

How would you treat a person if you found out that he spend, for example, up to 5 hours a day on virtual infanticide, sexual abuse or torture? And not in 8-bit games, but in modern or future ones. If you are embarrassed by this, then consider the same situation against the background of previous consoles, you should see that there is essentially no difference, because it is not about graphics, not about virtuality, not about the ‘unreal’ of games, but about a person, because if he want he can visualize graphics of any level in his imagination, and if you know that he plays unethical (crazy) games on an 8-bit console, how do you know that he is not imagining all that craziness simultaneously?

Ethical gaming is a tool of self-discipline, it is a sharpening stone for ratio, it is the cultivation of deep complex aesthetics, philosophical attentiveness and Christian vigilance. Ethical gaming evaluates the game not by its form, but by its essence, focusing on ideological, connotative, symbolic, and other aspects that reflect the author’s intention. Everyone has heard: you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, it’s the same here — you need to understand the content of the game in order to form an accurate opinion about it. The principles of ethical gaming allow you to see the root of the game, understand its foundations.

Unethical things in games are just as annoying as bugs in the code. It’s bugs. If the nature of error in code is technical, then the nature of error in game ethics is cultural. High culture does not allow manifestations of distorted reality or low ideas that come from bad education, insufficient self-awareness, or evil will.

Reality determines consciousness, and if reality is twisted, so will consciousness. There are dozens military games for children, and this is perhaps the most striking example of the primitive, manipulative ersatz culture of savage civilization, with the help of simulacra and hyperreality, it cripples human perception by legitimizing distorted images of true reality, for example, ideas of dignity, bravely, courage: savages associate with an image a man-soldier-warrior, romanticize war, mark pacifism and cosmopolitanism to unacceptable, obliges fictional duties and form beneficial social roles for themselves. Even more, they even try to appropriate Christianity for themselves, they cling to the words of Jesus about “laying down one’s life for the friends”, moving it into the context of war, which is a fundamental mistake, because firstly, Jesus did not speak of murder but of self-sacrifice, and secondly, He fulfilled this commandment by dying on the cross without killing anyone. Christ also spoke about those who take the sword — they will perish by the sword. So, savages have no reason to remember Christianity in their savagery.

The principle: not doing in your imagination what you wouldn’t do in IRL, allows you to civilize the virtual space, make it friendly, and therefore really useful. Playing online within the limits of gaming ethics will never lead to butthurt, which means it will bring benefits — relax and positive emotions. Ethical games perfectly fit escapism: reality is intense, fierce and aggressive, a good game allows you to hide from that oppression even for a short time, while a bad, unethical game, on the contrary, continues the terror of reality in the field of virtuality.

Today, ethical gaming is a utopia and a challenge. When I played ‘Silent Hill’ (1999) I bypassed child-like mobs, why did I spend x2 more heals, and such RPGs as ‘Fallout’, ‘Gothic’, ‘Skyrim’ I passed without a homicide and it is really not easy but surprisingly interesting. I even tried to play ethically in ‘GTA’, but I did not progress beyond the first few missions. In games where unethicality is partial, as in Terraria, I did not use unethical elements, such complication of gameplay is equal to selecting Hard in the options. Interestingly, the child-like mobs present in Silent Hill are already a reworked version of even more realistic child models. Here is an episode from the game’s development history:

When Silent Hill was being prepared for release on domestic and international markets, it encountered serious difficulties with censorship approval. The Grey Child monsters were redesigned twice for the North American market and three times for the Japanese and European markets before the game was finally approved for sale. In the trailer presented at E³, two variants of child-like creatures appear as they were originally conceived.

The first variant resembled naked small children, standing three times shorter than the protagonist; they could be killed. The second variant was more reminiscent of Noppera-bō (a character from Japanese mythology): twice as tall as the first, aggressive, and armed with knives.

The developers were forced to replace the first type with non-aggressive, semi-transparent shadows that cannot be harmed (Larval Stalker). The second type remained aggressive, but was altered several times at the request of censorship authorities in order to resemble children as little as possible. As a result, the shortest models of this monster became semi-transparent (Stalker), while the flesh-and-blood models changed color from pink to gray-green, grew taller, and received distorted heads.

Even this final version was not approved by European and Japanese regulatory bodies, so it had to be replaced with a variation that bore even less resemblance to the original designs: low, brown monsters almost devoid of heads, lacking human proportions and wielding enormous claws as weapons (Mumber).

However, even this proved insufficient, because the very context — a school — intensifies the association. In such a setting, any small mob will inevitably be perceived as a child. Therefore, it would have been preferable either to remove interaction between mobs and the protagonist in this location altogether, or to depict them in a clearly “adult” form.

A completely ethical game is a stress-free game, there are very few of them, I can name Portal 1–2, city-building simulators, ETS, farming simulators, logic and board games (but not chess).

Ethical gaming is self-sufficient, it works equally well within globality and locality, it is a personal Christian tool that can be shared like fire. The more this fire becomes, the brighter, warmer and cozier it will be for all of us.

Developer’s guide. How to use the principles of ethical gaming in your games

1. Avoid dangerous topics (military, homicide, violence of any kind, deviance, crime, metaphysical evil, non-Christian religiosity) entirely when it comes to positive imagery. For example, it is impossible to imagine a positive image of a soldier, a bandit, the devil or his servants (physical or metaphysical) within the framework of ethical gaming, this is absolutely unacceptable. These topics can be present only in a negative way, for the sake of criticism.
2. Don’t make your game a platform for propaganda. If your game is original and an expression of your creativity, and not an ordered element of someone’s propaganda, stick to common sense and do not follow the lead of hyperreality creators, whose goal is to distort reality in order to form a virtual superstructure for the moderation of collective consciousness. This advice is tangentially related to the rule of “calling a spade a spade”, i.e. not speaking black on white. For example, there are precedents when the real historical realm is edited through aggressive and sometimes racist propaganda of “equality”, when within of the historical game, in the field of European culture, the European ecumene, Europeoids are unjustifiably replaced by Negroids, this is an example of a simulacrum that turns ideas of equality into absurdity.
3. Do not include usable models of real weapons: modern or old ones. If possible, there should be no weapon against the man at all, but if there is, then it should not act like a real weapon. In principle: the weapon must not kill humanoid characters, it can teleport them, immobilize them, deprive them of consciousness, or subdue them in another non-lethal way. This is the case, for example, in Earthbound on the SNES.
4. Avoid red blood, especially in non-humanoid characters. Everyone has a fear of blood, and in addition to triggering this phobia, the sight of blood decreases sensitivity to violent scenes. We should not take such scenes indifferently, mundanely, because it is a step towards normalization and a precedent for repetitions. Why did I notice the non-humanoids? Because we perceive them through the prism of xenophobia — as aliens, at the same time the red blood “relates” them to us, thus the opponent, the villain, becomes someone close, this is an unwanted association that blurs the border between good and evil (when it comes to a non-humanoid antagonist).
5. Do not depict internal organs. This is a moveton, a trigger for sensitive people, and an outdated artistic tool from antiquity (for example, in the “Iliad”, the intestines are exposed and blood everywhere), if at all it can be called “artistic”. An example of unnecessary, unsubstantiated depiction of internal organs can be seen in the bosses in ‘Terraria’: the brain, the eyes, and the worst Moon Lord, who has an open heart. By the way, in the Chinese edition of this game, the bosses are redrawn to an acceptable style.
6. Don’t call black white. Approaches to the construction of interactive and plot elements must be based on logical foundations, otherwise cognitive dissonance is introduced when, for example, in the ‘Terraria’ again, the player can use an element of evil (the heart of a demon) for his own benefit (good (expansion of item slots)), or a voodoo doll (evil) to advance the plot (progress, good). Dissonance negatively affects critical thinking, it becomes difficult for a person to determine causal relationships, he is confused in conclusions, cannot resolve moral dilemmas, does not distinguish between sophisms and does not notice alogisms. Dissonance is chaos, it makes a mess in the head. Logic organizes reasoning and brings order to the head.
7. Do not offer the player the side of evil. In any form, evil is a man’s adversary, and he must not be like him. Many games have the choice of an overtly evil playable character, such as ‘Heartstone’ where you can “become” a warlock, ‘Heroes III’ has a hell faction with devils you can recruit into your army, ‘Diablo III’ has a shaman, a spirit follower, a pagan anachronism, and in ‘Path of Exile’ a witch, in the ‘GTA’ main hero of series — a bandit. Sometimes not only the essence of the character is important: what is in his arsenal of skills and tools, but also the form: what he is named or looks like. That is, it does not matter how decent the character’s skills are, if he belongs to the hellbender class and vice versa, he is an equally bad character, he can only be an antagonist of main hero. It is known that a man likes to associate with the heroes of the arts to which he joins, accordingly, if these heroes are bad: the association will be formed incorrectly, since evil is not inherent in a man. Incorrect associations distort self-view, self-analysis, and this, in turn, gives rise to a number of existential troubles. A man, as one of the ancient Romans said: seeks happiness and meaning. There is neither happiness nor meaning in evil.
8. The player should always have a choice. In ‘Morrowind III’, there is a series of quests from the Mage Guild in Balmora where you are asked to collude with one NPC and cheat another NPC, failing which your progress in the guild will stop. Similar story with the Fighters Guild quests in the same place, the 2nd quest requires killing two quama egg thieves. This is an example of an unethical game (an unethical element of the game), the player should not compromise his conscience for the sake of the game. In the ethical edition of ‘Morrowind’, these quests should not exist at all, or they could be varied for educational purposes, where the cheating (murder) option would end the quest in failure.
9. Don’t make loot boxes out of corpses. V. Hugo in “Les Misérables” unfolded the picture of the battlefield after the massacre: corpses are scattered throughout and “vultures” are walking among them, those who collect valuables from the corpses: clothes, watches, jewelry, etc. Hugo calls those looters marauders, and in fact it is correct. Today you will not find an RPG without such marauding, it is so tightly intertwined with the genre that no one even notices it, not to mention the considerations regarding the problematic of the phenomenon: there is a corpse, there is loot. But undressing corpses is shameful. This is contrary to culture. If you leave the option of “looting the corpse”, then at least make it a “trap” (moral) for the sake of learning: such actions should be marked as unacceptable. The same is true for buildings and houses. In a well-thought-out RPG, looting at someone else’s location is considered theft, for example in ‘Morrowin III’, ‘Skyrim’, if you steal something in someone else’s house, you will be charged with a crime; sleeping in someone else’s bed is also prohibited, that is, using someone else’s things without permission, as well as breaking into someone else’s house.

Ethical gaming helps isolate the ideological nature of play, for a fuller understanding of the content we consume or create, and calls for thoughtful consumption and creation, not mindless.

Some examples of unethical games you can see here.

Here we build list of ethical games, you can volunteer.

_____________

This article translated from Ukrainian by AI.