2. The second argument is doctrinal, it is the most extensive. The basic Christian truths are fundamentally different from all analogues of Judaism and paganism of the era in which Christianity was born. The doctrine of the Trinity differs from the pagan triads; The Incarnation of God is from the incarnations of Jupiter and Zeus. I will not dwell on this now. Although I have been explaining these differences to my seminary students for a whole year. The fishermen (the authors of the Gospels) simply stated that they saw, what they heard, what they touched. They ascertained, not invented, often not understanding what was happening. The Evangelists were not very literate. Do you remember the painting "Hunters at Rest"? Simple hard workers... And the fishermen were very much like them. And suddenly they say truths that have puzzled philosophers and thinkers of all ages. Another question: where did these truths come from? He declared openly and with stunning clarity: "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews; madness to the Greeks."

3. The third argument is spiritual and moral. We can ask the question (no matter what religion): "From a religious point of view, who will be saved?" But this is not the case in Christianity. What requirements did the thief fulfill when he was on the cross next to Christ? A scoundrel, a criminal - and the first to go to heaven. In this sense, Christianity is an anti-religious religion. Think about it, where is this from? All students are Jews brought up in the Law. Where does such a sermon come from?!

These are objective things, which are not superfluous to think about, no matter whether I believe in Christ or not. Yes, perhaps, the roots of Christianity are elsewhere, anywhere, but not on Earth.

Why Orthodoxy?

Christianity asserts that the main obstacle facing a person on the path of cognition of God, through Whom and in Whom true knowledge of oneself, another person, and the surrounding world is possible, is a certain thick (or subtle, depending on the state of the person) opinion about oneself. If you like, a false perception of one's Self, when the Self is considered as something almost self-sufficient. A false understanding of what we call human dignity. When we say "human" - great, when we say "my dignity", lies begin. We all feel good. I'm a good person. I can tell you what faults I have, but at the same time I feel and have no doubt that I am a good person. And I, a good one, do not understand the words of Macarius the Great: "Lord, cleanse me, a sinner, for I have done good before Thee (since I have done nothing good)." How can I see, understand that "I am not a very good person," that I am corrupted, that the Creator's plan for me is damaged in me?

We don't know ourselves. Orthodoxy directs our gaze to itself, to the cognition of the damage that is inherent in man as such. And only on the path of self-knowledge can I turn to Christ. Being sinners, we do not see that we are perishing. The Monk Peter of Damascus said: "The first sign of the beginning of the health of the soul begins the vision of one's sins." With the realization of the impossibility of eradicating passions by one's own efforts, of defeating illnesses, begins the path to the recognition of Christ, to faith in Him. This is where real Christianity begins.

All the attention of Orthodoxy is focused on the knowledge of the mortal disease that Christ came to heal. The next analogy: when I cut off my finger, I will not go to the surgeon, but I will anoint it with iodine. If the wound is deeper, then I will go to the nurse. When will I go to the doctor? When I have something more serious. And when the disease is already such that even doctors cannot cope, I will call the luminaries of the world to me. Pay attention: prophets, saints came to mankind... God Himself has come! This means that our illness is such that God Himself had to come to heal it.

"... And I can't see anything! - someone will say. Orthodoxy is all about seeing why Christ came. This is what distinguishes Orthodoxy: it is all about knowing oneself. For only he who has seen what his illness is, can then correctly assess the means that are necessary for healing. It is not amusement that we seek in Christianity, nor rapture, nor bliss, nor pleasure. Christianity is therapy. Christ is the greatest Physician, full of love. He cannot touch my freedom - I must turn to Him myself. My face is amazed, but I know that the sunlight will heal it. It depends on me whether to expose my nose to the sun or not. I can substitute it for a minute, but the healing will happen when I am constantly in the sun.

This is the positive thing that characterizes Orthodoxy: attention to oneself, knowledge of oneself. Asceticism is the path of self-knowledge, through which a person really turns to Christ and the path of healing begins.

What is the main feature of it? A person becomes more and more humble. One of the most important criteria for the right path is that humility does not see itself as humble. ("The sacred dual," writes John Climacus, "is love and humility; The first lifts up, and the last supports the ascended and does not allow them to fall.")

This is a distinctive feature of Orthodoxy. I would not like to speak in negative tones about other Christian confessions, but I will turn to Catholicism as an example. Beginning with St. Francis of Assisi, the compassio, or sensual empathy with Christ's Passion, has developed. The main goal of this is to achieve love through empathy. In the book of Ignatius (Ignatius of Loyola (1491 (?) -1556) - the founder of the Jesuit Order, the author of the book "Spiritual Exercises") has one main chord: "Imagine!" His wounds, blood... In this way, a person brings himself to such a psychosomatic state that wounds similar to the wounds of Christ appear on the body. This phenomenon is called stigmata ("stigma" in Greek means "brand").

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, very carefully preserves the teaching of the Ancient Church. After all, all the fathers of the united Christianity (before the division of the Churches) of the first millennium: John Climacus, Abba Dorotheus, Cassian the Roman and Benedict of Nursia categorically forbid imagination, imagination, and daydreaming during prayer. After all, true communion with God is important for a person, for which cleansing from dirt is necessary, and not psychic experiments with one's imagination.

What are dogmas for?

And are dogmas so important for distinguishing religions?! Does it really matter to me how purgatory differs from the toll-houses? Or how does the birth of the Son differ from the procession of the Spirit? What is thefilioque? (I am naming the main dogmatic differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.) These are undoubtedly important, rational things by nature. Dogmas, in general the entire church discipline, are only a certain structure, a vector that indicates the direction of man's practical, spiritual life. Only by organizing a faithful spiritual life will man become able to at least touch the Mysteries of God.