nevynosynij

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.