index, —

Alexandr Golenkov's site
Alternative Theology, Philosophy, Russian Orthodox Christianity, new world outlook systems…

This is the last of my English writings; please come to English Index to see some other of them.
Where this page namely is in it's topical thread:
INOE.DA.RU (Index.html) >> DC (Dogmatic Conscience) >> Fiery  …


The Fiery
(Dogmatic Conscience)

Most shortly about «The Fiery»:
«The Fiery» («Ognennoe») is how I call my … theologic discovery, concept, realization, contemplation, all-in-all world outlook system … (I can't find any single one word to name it; some people take it for a "new religion"; though "religion" by it is a very contradictory word…) which is a result of my way to Christ, believing in Christ, discovering Christ as King of Life and trying to live Christian life in present-day world.
      «The Fiery» may also be viewed for theologic expression of my philosophical systems: «Philosophy of Form» and «Philosophy of Feeling»; «Sense of Russian History»; or, truer to say, they are – philosophic expression of this, which in their regard is "much more primary", for contains, so to say, their "initialmost sparkles" (another reason for it to be called as «The Fiery»):
Why is it «The Fiery» (Where from such name?):
Its very name (i.e. «The Fiery») comes from its imagery very much saturated with image of "fire":Its other name is «Dogmatic(al) Conscience» which is acting against «single-directional rhetoric magical medium» (which, in particular, insinuatingly whispered to Jews: «Crucify!»; insinuates very similar things also in our times, also to many Christians…).
Aim of «The Fiery»:
Not to be possessed by such medium – is the aim put by «The Fiery» before any Christian (also thinking by that quite a lot about anti-Christ and destinies of the world…); this requires the realization of VERY BASICS, in Whom and in What is the Christian faith, and how did it come.

Discoveries of «The Fiery»:
By this «The Fiery» finds:
  • [1.] The Historical Mechanism of accepting God the Creator in Christ (namely – through Old and New Testament as "two tables of history", or, by «The Fiery», – those same "two semi-shells of creation burnt off by fire"…);
  • [2.] Accepting of Christ through such mechanism was only possible by simultaneously overcoming the PRIDE — as, on the contrary, mechanism by which everything in godless world "fences off" (as it says) against everything else; the Old Testament no exception (for even the notion of God-The-Creator in it was FENCED-OFF against the creation as OBJECT OF PRIDE…);
  • [3.] Referring by Christ Jesus as "God" in regard of Oneself was the only reason of His crucifixion (and, as I will say further on, the PRICE OF DOGMATICAL CONSCIENCE);
  • [4.] /Though allegations of Christ about His being God look as direct contradiction to the Old Testament strictest monotheism…,/ Believing in Christ on any other grounds than the Old Testament (for example, by pagans or in PRESENT-DAYS CHRISTIANITY which has almost lost any memory about that grounds…) has all chances to be as in a pagan "god", not God the Creator!
  • [5.] SUCH KIND of accepting Creator in Christ (how it was in Him, as we see, historically organized) – means in direct sense CREATivity, implying TRANSFIGURATION OF WORLD (for, overcoming of contradiction between Christ and the Old Testament is the basis for overcoming it LITERALLY IN EVERYTHING);
(…But then it finds:)
  • [6.] «Single-Directional Rhetoric Magic Medium» fenced-off in creation against all the rest of creation and the state of being possessed by such medium — which, in particular, whispers «Crucify!» in regard of anything what "does not fit" into it (and how can really "fit" when it is single-directionally fenced-off?!) — the most vivid example of which was the Old Testament; and into which, by the power of natural elements, also turns in the world Christianity (though it is – death for it!);
  • [7.] «Dogmatic Conscience» as what opposes to such medium, that is the Conscience flowing out from such believing (in Christ as God on the Old, and then – New Testament basis), for what is known as Christian Dogmatics – is mainly the formulating of how God and Human (Creator and the creation) relate in Christ, as well as Christ as the 2-nd Face of God as Divine Trinity and the Faces of Trinity;
  • [8.] In this «The Fiery»… as I say, authobiographic and Christographic, for … follows fate of Christ in this world saying things not acceptable from the point of view of the «single-directional rhetoric magic medium» (see. p.6), even one of contemporary Christianity (Orthodox and "sectarian" both), though right in this way – namely carrying the Dogmatic Conscience…

Discoveries of «The Fiery» (continued):
Among its other discoveries (I make notice in such parenthesis that this is yet a SIMPLE ENUMERATION of its discoveries, ideas and images, so far not properly "drawn out", "explained and proved", though now it is going to be little more in detail):
— The Image of Beast and image of coming of Christ…
  • [10.] Christ as the King of Life joins both Identity (Sameness) and Difference as the two components of which anything living consists (for example, any living being born in the world is at same time SAME, LIKE, ALIKE to one's parent, and DIFFERS from that: Namely what lets to be one ONE-SELF…) (the same is in Christ: «…You have heard that the ancients were told … But I say to you»: is this not what I say about the Sameness and Difference?!..), and is SOURCE of the Sameness and Difference, for namely THIS IS life; further I call it "Formula of Life". And … as the Evangelical Wise Men from the East came to Christ being led by some known to them only token.., so do I discover, in this sense, my LIKENESS (some trait of SAMENESS) to those Wise Men, for also by a token known from the creation do recognize Christ as Creator (of the entire creation), – with, of course, also that difference that … … …
— 1-st mentioning about the Sameness and Difference (the components of the being which are to be also basic "constructing elements" of «The Fiery»…)
Though, about this Difference (from this Formula of Life) has to be most specially said and even asked by a question put at the head of the questions list of «The Fiery»:

Questions list of
«The Fiery»:

Questions of
«The Fiery» (continued):
  • Is Christian meant to reflect image of Jesus Christ as the King of Life: only in sense of such "Likeness" ("Sameness", "Identity"), or in sense of such Difference too?

      But the stumbling block for them was His moment of also difference (in regard of anything what they "used to" or "knew"). And … if the Christian too is like this, is this:
  • Following Christ (with maybe following … driving out of the Medium, eliminating from it through all means, maybe even crucifixion…), or …
  • Going away from Christ? (for … "to act against the Medium" you may also out of your own pride and "no faith at all".., for really: "to differ from Christ" you may … simply not believing in Him, even being NOT CHRISTi-an, i.e., NOT IDENTIFYING oneself with Christ at all!).
In this case we run into danger of not being able to identify him with any medium whatsoever, including the Christian (or named as the "Christian"), for the only identification for him in this case – not (any) "medium" anymore but (already) PERSON, the Person of Christ Himself, for it is very like to what was with Him, as the people could hardly identify Him with anything what they "used to" and knew; and although some traits of the coming Messiah were foretold in the prophecies.., there were ALSO DIFFERENCES in Christ to anything known or foretold.., and namely this was what gave them no peace, and even … no place: «…You seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you»; tormented them with great torture; and … how could it really be if it were "simply foretold", and if Christ "simply" corresponded to anything (fore-)told or written of Him?!..
— Some fears
in case of positive answer to this question…
To escape any suspicion in this, the Medium (Christian or named as "Christian") requires ONLY Identicity, and nothing except it alone; it then requires to "copy" itself, "imitate"; by the way: «Imitation of Jesus Christ» is second after the Bible book in Catholicism (Russian Orthodox saint Ignatiy Bryanchaninov criticized it a lot at his time, warning against "imitating" of anything from this book…); maybe it's not best translation in English (and maybe it's better to call it "Stepping after Jesus Christ", etc…) but in Latin or French it sounds indeed terrifying: «l'Imitation de Jesus Christ»; let me ask to that score:
      Is imitation (OF LIFE!) – "less terrifying and dangerous" (than those mythical "fears" which in this way you try to escape)?! Is antichrist not "imitation" of Christ, and is LIFE not "danger" in its very principle?! (Yes, "to live" is but dangerous: you may die!); then:
      Is it not simply … "more difficult" to … "imitate life" than to … SIMPLY LIVE (?), is imitation of life – more, let me say, "durable" or "viable" or … "tenacious of life" (let me say!), and then … are you not tired of this endless pharisaicalness namely as – IMITATION of anything sacred and holy and life by the holiness, is it not "dangerous" by itself?!
— Fears, from the other hand, also before "stepping after" Jesus Christ "imitating" and "copying"…
      Imitation is namely attempt to achieve some "Identity with no Difference", or, in other word, CLONE (…according to some of opinions, antichrist will be namely cloned from congealed blood of Jesus Christ…); though, it's only ATTEMPT, for you can't eliminate all the Difference fully; it remains, though no longer regarded for something SUBSTANTIAL (as, for example, in Orthodox Christian view where it forms PERSONALITY); instead of that, all the differences are regarded for "deviations" from certain "Ideal", and so – have to be "done away with" (though it turns out "not an easy task" to do away with all the differences…). This is why an attempt of such "Imitation" kills any expression of life! It is NOT from the King of Life; though, I ask: is it not from the king of death?!— Is "Clone of Christ" not anti-
      And then …
  • How was it possible to believe in Christ otherwise as in King of Life, i.e., not only IDENTIFYING with what was already known, but also seeing difference; being able this difference to accept?
Here we should indicate to the wide-spread superstition in the medium of the present-day Christianity that Messiah in Jesus could be recognized "very simply", even "mechanically", if simply to follow "letter of prophesies" which for some reason seem "very great" in their number, "very clear", etc… (So that only "pharisees in their evil spirit" could them "not to notice" or "not to follow"…). By the way …
      Even if to search the prophecies of such kind as "specks of gold" in a "peck" of all other prophecies…, [even physically, taken as a book, the Old Testament is 10 times thicker than one of the New…] in no one of them it is said evidentially clear (not "metaphorically" or "allegorically", not in a form of a "thoughtful hint", "wistful twist", "eloquent bend" or "poetical sinuosity"…) that Messiah is God; while NAMELY THIS was in Him that MAIN DIFFERENCE (at the background of WHAT WAS KNOWN of the Messiah from those same prophecies), the acceptance of which at the same time could be ACCEPTANCE OF THE CREATOR (as it DIRECTLY concerned the Creator!); – namely WHY is in Christ POSSIBLE to accept the Creator, and, in particular, WHY the Historical Mechanism about which we are talking LEADS to it and LETS it.
     …And even if, under condition of certain "strained meaning", to take some places of prophecies for "indicating to Christ as to God" (at least, this is how interpret them now Christians) – they are simply drowned in ENDLESS admonishments and exhortations that God is one («…there'll be no other gods before you except Me alone»), and that no one of men, no person at all can be compared with God («…son of man who is moth…»; «…do not put you trust in princes, SON OF MAN, in whom THERE IS NO SALVATION»!), with special warning not to search in creation any "likenesses" to the Creator; any one doing this could even be brought to death; this, properly, brings us to the following question:
— A superstition of present-day Christianity unveiling … at least little piece of that "abyss of Difference" at background of which came Jesus Christ…
  • What for was Jesus Christ crucified?
From where is another question:
  • How NOT TO crucify? Or (the same question put little differently): Who is Christian? Crucifier? And … if "Yes", than WHAT KIND OF (crucifier): confessing this (thinking and teaching "YOU MUST" crucify), or "by ignorance" («Forgive them, o Father, for they don't know what they are doing»); but … in this case, SHOULD ONE OR SHOULD NOT know it? (a question); SHOULD ONE OR SHOULD NOT replace such Ignorance by Knowledge? (a question).
This sticks directly to what I call as Dogmatic Conscience, that is a conscious realization of those BASICS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH which Christians often don't know when follow it semi-consciously or sub-consciously, even "instinctively" (while «Sleeping of mind borns out monsters»: those same crucifiers, for instance, "not knowing what they are doing"…). This puts directly the following question:
  • May or may not faith today be NOT SUCH as ITS OWN first act of believing? Is it possible for it not to identify with it at all? Is it, then, SAME faith, or … ANY DIFFERENT?
Those previous questions were mainly about the Difference, while this one – about Identity (Sameness); though from what we have said about the Difference it must now be clear that it, of course, may, and even maybe must somehow – also differ; but the question now is whether it may not to identify with it at all; is it, then, SAME faith?! (Faith in Christ, and, for example, not in antichrist?..) Then the question is such:
  • WITH WHAT to identify it (HOW to identify it at all)?
This is very important question (for … really we have to know HOW TO IDENTIFY faith in Christ and REGARDING WHAT ELSE always it to commensurate and compare…); while at all such "identifier" can be:
      Either something SUBSTANTIAL or NON-SUBSTANTIAL ("superficial", "casual", accidental…); for instance, Protestantism is known as outright discontent with forms of historical Christianity (which, as it thinks, "has lost The Way") with an attempt to "Restore how it was at the time of Apostles". Though …
      What is the "source of knowledge" of that (HOW REALLY it "was")? — The Protestants will surely say that such Source is the Bible. They will even say that "there is nothing but Bible" for such a role – what is stated in their dogmat about "The Scripture alone", "Solely Scripture", or "Sola Scriptura".
      Though … in Scripture itself it is far not indicated about its such role, and about the possibility to "use it to restore Christianity" (many centuries after, when what officially called "Christianity" would become paganism…). Though … BY IMPORTANCE, it's something like "coming of Prophet" or "Christ", so it HAS TO BE INDICATED (and said: «…There'll be Book, it will replace you all prophets and even Christ Himself…, anything except this Book will be from the devil…», number of pages and chapters of this Book enumerated, for NAMELY SO was in the Old Testament books regarding all things which seemed to those people IMPORTANT, even if it was number of cattle and slaves…).
      — So, it is clearly NOT OF THE SCRIPTURE; the most important dogmat of the Protestantism – of Scripture itself – is not from the Scripture! But it's what's in general called as "non-written tradition" (and sometimes is added: "of men"), even MYTH (though in Scripture itself there is differentiation between such myths and traditions "of men" and those of the Apostles and even of Christ, for example: «…hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you», 1Cor.11).
      What do we really (except those myths) find in the Scripture are:
  • only fragmentary pieces of information about life of communes of first Christians;
  • sayings like «all the Scripture is God-inspired and profitable…» (though later is added, WHAT FOR is it profitable: «…for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…»; and, if we think, it's NO SCRIPTURE already but … SOMETHING NON-WRITTEN: very close to what it is known as Apostolic non-written Tradition, or PARE-DOSIS in Greek, "passing-over", passing-over of Jesus Christ: the tra-DITIOn of Christ (passing-over…). "The Scripture is useful for the Tradition": such is the simplest sense of these words…) (if to put it in Protestant terms, Scripture "LETS USE" itself for the Tradition, SERVES the Tradition, Tradition is GREATER…);
  • etc… (More in detail I do this analysis of how the Scripture is used for or against the Holy Tradition of the One-Only Holy Apostolic Orthodox Christian Church in my other writings); while:
Here, to draw the line under all what was said, the Bible has clear traits of what known as God's Providence (for an Orthodox Christian, NOT WITHOUT God's Providence certain pieces of it were first written, and later – compiled…) but not of what known as "Authorship"; I can't say, for example, this Book "was written by God", as, say, book "War and Peace" is written by Leo Tolstoi, etc… Moreover:
      The Bible is far not ("written" as) a … "program", "genetic code" by which fragmental elements you may … clone (!) Christianity; but instead of that it is witnessed in Bible itself: «…even the world itself would not contain the books if they were to be written», and of IMPOSSIBILITY IN ITS VERY PRINCIPLE to pass over the essence of Christianity through "stylus and ink" (3Jn.1:13) because «Letter kills while Spirit gives life», etc…
      So: these are only "some", quite outer and quite fragmentary pieces of information about Christianity which can be rightly accepted and understood only in ALL-IN-ALL CONTEXT of it (as is stated, for instance, in titles of the Apostolic Epistles: "an Epistle to…"; for if even to take such Epistles in whole, they are addressed to namely those whom the Apostle – or a very close personal disciple of the Apostle – had visited PERSONALLY passing them over the Holy pare~DOSis (tra~DITIOn) of Jesus Christ; whom he knew in person).
      Nevertheless, endless are the attempts of the Protestantism to "clone Christianity" (isn't it a … forerunner of antichrist?!), even despite its breaking up in this into … THOUSANDS of sects contradicting one to another and even sometimes at war… (for one and the same thing by VERY OUTER view may look very differently); but this doesn't convince it in anything…
— Protestantism as example of non-
substantial Identity…
      — Of course, we can't use such approach, but going out from what we have said about the Sameness and Difference and the Clone…, here is what now should be said:
  • a.) Contemporary Christianity even should not at all make any attempts to be a "clone" of that ancient one, be it called even as "Apostolic"! Lots of things could have changed: not for the reason of some "deviations from the initial Ideal of Christianity" (as Protestantism should believe), but for the reason of passing though living developments (about which now we talk), even called in the Scripture as … FRUITS! Should really SEED stay for ever "the same" as it was at the moment of sowing?; should, then, the sprout of it — or SHOULD NOT? — to change and to grow, from little grass to huge tree, while as the time comes the tree – bring its fruit?… Isn't it what is said in the Scripture?! While you … have prepared ruthlessly to uproot everything what doesn't remind you by outer appearance that "little grass" the picture of which you had seen in a Book and now do try to "restore" (although the Book "does not authorize" you to do so, and even gives in that sense "no instructions" at all…).
  • b.) This in any case is NON-SUBSTANTIAL Sameness (or Identity), for SUBSTANTIALLY, the Seed and the Sprout and the Tree (and the Fruit of the Tree) are THE SAME, though by outer appearance are passing dramatic changes (called in Greek "meta-MORPHosis", or trans-FIGURation) for all to see…
What, then, should we take for such SUBSTANTIAL Identity?

and macro-
biblical approach:
«The Fiery» here proposes to use not "micro-biblical" approach (as in Protestantism) but macro-biblical, i.e., not mincing the Bible to multitude of very tiny quotations to "shuffle" them later as "cards" achieving thus any constructions you need (though, as they say, "based on the Word of God") (just showing another "trump-card").., but namely … understanding as ONE SINGLE WORD, IMAGE, IDEA: about what THE ENTIRE Old Testament? [For … as «The Fiery» says, Christ is One Word opposing multitude, plenty of words of different types of "rhetorics" which, although cry awfully lot, can't reach for One Single Word, for those "crier" are demons, and so – traducers and slanderers and when they lack truth, replace it by lie (although in paganism they are called as "gods"…); so, what now I say is even a confrontation between mono- and poly-theism (and a-theism too…)]
      — Hardly it can be a mistake to say that in the New Testament such word is LIFE («…I am resurrection and life»; «…for the life came, and we saw, and bear witness and proclaim you this Eternal Life…»); while in regard of Old Testament such word is undoubtedly Monotheism.

Testamental Monotheism
about the Old Testament:
Should it be said another more time about the strictest Old Testament monotheism, and really … whom it should be said? – I think, only those who haven't experienced it (but know it "by book"), i.e., literally – not the Old Testament Hebrews or (at least) present-day Muslims, or, at the very least, who have never had any argument with such. I had, by the way, and can say that they are ready to go "till the bitter end" in defense of their strictest monotheism and would stop before nothing, even ready to kill you by stones if you at least make any hint to the Christian teaching about Three Faces of Trinity and Christ Jesus as God…; are there any grounds to think that in the proper time of Jesus Christ it was not so? Maybe this … somewhat unveils the Reality about which it is said in the Scripture? (as writes the Apostle: «veil is taken away when the Scripture is read» (2Cor.3:15); though in somewhat different light:
      When did the Jews «Take up stones to stone Him»? – Wasn't it ONLY as Christ dared to mention about His being God?! (or, at least, any hinting to that…). While in everything else (and even … when common sense allowed to them at least some ambiguity to "soften confusion"…) – they literally deified Him, adored (i.e., took Him for God: here is what kind of "god" did they need, far not Who came to them in Christ!), and even once «were intending to come and make Him a King» (Jn.6:15)…; for it wasn't a problem for them to accept Him as pagan "god" (see p.4), but it was in their minds COMPLETELY RULED OUT for God-the-Creator Himself to take human flesh and appearance of human being…, even in His Son.
      «Allah doesn't give birth and is not born, doesn't take children either» is said in the Muslim Quran; it obviously contradicts the Christian teaching and Gospel – as namely Good News about SUCH POSSIBILITY: to be born of God!; though, in principle, the whole Old Testament is of this, even as endless WAR between faith in One God (strictest monotheism) and … what is called in Quran as attempt «to ascribe companions to Allah», disguised idolaters, always very ingenious in their attempts to replace the Creator by something created and works of their hands (or their minds)…
      From here are the STRICTEST MEASURES regarding and guarding Monotheism, with severest punishment for any deviation from it, so that … any "likeness to God" must ruthlessly be destroyed; while any person who would at least utter a word in that sense – for example, HAVING CREATED something (thus having expressed at least ANY LIKENESS to the Creator) (without mentioning, of course, any one who would explicitly say: "I am God"), – at this very moment punished with death. [By the way, it's the reason why the Old Testament civilization hadn't left behind of oneself any "artifacts" or EXAMPLES OF CREATIVITY, in proper sense of the word…]
— The only reason in Christ which caused the Jews to take stones…
      — Maybe it lets to certain extent understand WHY did the Jews «take stones to kill Him» as only He gave them … at least certain hint at His being God; WHAT FOR He was eventually crucified (in the eyes of those people, of course, not in any "high sense" of later Christian theology…; for before coming to "high sense" we have to be able to look at all things by the eyes of those crucifiers, NOT TO BE CRUCIFIERS ourselves!!!).

Paramount question
of «The Fiery»:
Thus «The Fiery» "sets out" in answering its questions (in particular, «WHAT FOR was Christ crucified?»); though we shouldn't forget the main question of it: WHAT IS TO TAKE AS IDENTIFIER OF SAMENESS of present-day faith in Christ to its own moment of initial believing (at Jesus Christ's time)? [A sort of "Equality sign" between that and that…] «The Fiery» – namely takes all this DIFFICULTY TO RECOGNIZE CHRIST, on the Old Testament basis, to accept Him AS GOD (exactly as identified He Oneself), where from later it draws out Dogmatic(al) Conscience. Without this Difficulty, there could be no such Conscience at all [ «The Fiery» even … compares this with cannon's barrel: the thinner and longer it is, the more resistance will bullet or shell have to transcend to, as a result, fly at greater distance… (Which is in our case The Eternity!)]; but so far we are talking about this Difficulty; while all of these notes are simply to indicate how this is IMPORTANT, even of PRIMARY and PARAMOUNT importance, so that even in one of the earlier versions of «The Fiery» it was called as its "Primary initialmost sparkle" (properly … "firing away" «The Fiery»); here is how that version begun:

About the
Starting Initialmost Sparkle of
«The Fiery»
(properly …
to "fire it away"…)

— as very large quotation
from its previous version:
«The Fiery» sets out by … firing question: «How was it possible to believe in Jesus Christ?»
but not nowadays (in properly Christian time) when the faith in God and Human in Him is established and formulated dogmatically; but when it yet had to be established as Christ came to the medium of Old Testament people imbued with completely another dogmatical basics; 
and answers: only – literally having been burnt between the two fires burning from both sides:
      1.) From one side, as we see, the Old Testament instills understanding of God Who is in all completely not like human being, and by all possible means contraposes Human and God;
— when the idea of such a Contraposition is even engraved and enrooted into very name of the God-chosen people: "Isra~El" is translated as "Fighting with God" (Gen.32:28)…
— by this … so to say, "moving asunder" the Heaven and Earth
— very much "flattened" ("squeezed") in understanding of pagans; where the Heaven and Earth are "so close" that man very simply "grows up outgrowing Heaven" (with his head above it…); while "gods" time to time "descend down to Earth" and act in the midst of men…
— with the purpose of which man is being "abased" through all possible means — even below the "dust of the earth" — only to "heighten" God (at least in understanding and notions of such man…).
      2.) While from the other side …
Though, this other side was only just named.
      And so …
      From one side, this explains very simply all the indignation and wrath of the Jews provoked by these daring words of Jesus Christ («…took stones to kill Him by stones»: Jn.10:33; – WHAT FOR in the final end He was crucified: Mt.26:66); while from the other side …
      — This sets out grounds for such understanding of Christianity where all is based – namely on JOINING OF BOTH SIDES, just like in Christ Himself they are joined: starting indeed with the joining of God and Man (Creator and creation) stretching out from here to literally everything in the world, for without Christ (or PRIOR to Christ) in this world these are sides of pride: between WHAT and WHAT proud man fences out [and … what really else remains for a man in self-enclosed godless world fenced-off from God?!…]; – namely why Christ can't be accepted without BREAKING and CROSSING these lines of pride: without the Cross!; and as far as accepting of Him is, first of all, as we see, the rejecting of pride (as the image of this world), it is namely – accepting of God the Creator in Him, for in any other case it would be same elements of creation (not the Creator!) fenced-off in it; while in such accepting of Christ they should burn away; and if it is REALLY accepting in Him of Creator, this really inspires for CREATivity to carry such image of joining such sides throughout creation all over the world (separated by contradictions, for, without knowing the Good News of Christ, these are in it WARRING sides):
The Fiery
— about the Fiery Burning
Dialectically-Dogmatical Synthesis
of Contradictions in Christ

otherwise burning the world:
For between like that principles – known as "world contradictions", "extremes", "dialectical halves" … – is going on in the world what is usually called as its "fight"; but what should better be known as PROUD FENCING-OFF [in Russian word "Pride" comes from root meaning "fence"; so I say: "fencing-off"], by Christian understanding the greatest sin.
      And so … as far as Christianity by no means can be "based on its greatest sin"…, it is really based on far not what is usually thought:
It is no secret that it is usually regarded for one of such "sides" in this world – fenced-off among others – and so called: be it as "religion", be it as "one of the teachings", and even sometimes "ideology" or something else (in right sense of the word "devil knows what"…).
But Christianity is "not this" and "not that"; not at all "ANYTHING" in this world, for is GREATER than the world (moreover – absolutely not any "reason" or "pretext" in it to "fence-off" by something against something else…); while if it really is greater than the whole world, there comes a question: How did it come ("entered") to the world?..
      — Well, namely the way of coming into this world of what is GREATER THAN THE WORLD – is in all senses didactive to those who think it (and TAKE it) for "something" in this world [an "object of pride"], for at least this alone had to burn off all proud structures of it:

About the importance of
Old Testament monotheism
for New Testament
Dogmatical Conscience:
Or here is how it was said in later version of «The Fiery» (out of which this later came):
Two Christi-

of (properly)
anti-Christ depending on how we answer to what we've called before as «Initialmost Sparkle of The Fiery»

(also as large quotation from an earlier version)
 … … … «Allah doesn't give birth and is not born, doesn't take children either» is said in the Muslim Quran; it obviously contradicts the Christian teaching and Gospel – as namely Good News of properly SUCH POSSIBILITY: to be born of God!; though, in principle, the whole of Old Testament is of this, as its main "leading motive" is to demonstrate by power of verbal conviction or directly by physical power to godless man always prone to making of idols that the Creator is not "something in the creation", and that is – ABSOLUTELY, IN ALL:
      Has neither image nor shape, "not like anything", moreover – "not like human being"; contraposition between man and God I even compare to … "crosses holding asunder the Heaven and Earth", for in understanding of pagans these two were very "close", even "flattened" and "squeezed" in their minds [in Russian – literally, "PLUSsed"; "plus sign" (+) is a sort of "pagan crosslet"…]; while their "gods" very simply take image of man who, in his turn, very often becomes sort of "hero" to enter "assembly of gods" (at least, in pagan myths; while for paganism life and myth – almost one thing…). And so, to escape this, the Old Testament humbles man through all possible means abasing him even below the ground, with the only aim to exalt (heighten) God (even above any visible heaven): «…Man who is worm and son of man who is moth…» (Job.25:5); there are even such places about "son of man":
  • «…Do not put your trust in princes, in SON OF MAN, in whom THERE IS NO SALVATION» (Ps.145:3),
and then: «…blessed is the one whom the helper is God of Jacob, whose trust is in God his Lord…», i.e., above typical for the Old Testament contraposition of man and God, the outright denial that the Salvation is possible through "son of man"; by the way, namely the "Son of Man" is most usual name which Christ attached to Himself, by this saying directly the opposite thing: that He is namely The Savior, and … not even some "king" either "prince" but Himself the Almighty! (!!!)
      — What is this: a "provocation", "temptation"?!?!?! How it had to be treated by a person brought up in the Old Testament medium: not only following it in "general spirit" (what often called as "Tradition"), but also in the Holy Scripture of it clearly reading that "in the son of man there can be no salvation" (salvation is OF GOD Who "not like man"…)?!
      This question is to contemporary Christians who namely – either follow "general spirit of the Tradition" (what is mainly proper to historical Christianity: Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism), or on the contrary – seeing how this "common" and "general" spirit leads very often into "semi-Christian thicket" (if only not outright occultism)…, out of PROTEST engendered by that (correspondingly, PROTESTANTISM) they say that "only Scripture" can save, and even proclaim as dogmatical statement the idea of "Sola Scriptura", that is "Solely Scripture", "The Scripture alone".
      Listen: if "Scripture alone", here is Scripture alone: "in son of man THERE IS NO salvation"; reject Jesus Christ! Though, most likely, you have already done that by this (having replaced Christ by the Bible). Then they would say (trying to "justify"): «That is "son of man", not Son of Man». Listen: if you say "The Scripture alone", I don't know anything except Scripture alone; while in Scripture it's written: "son of man"; the only right thing in this case is to look its Original (not to be satisfied with translation); while in original Hebrew at all there is no distinction of capitalized letters (you can't write "Son of Man" capitalizing initials!); this is already what later was done by Christian interpreters and translators; but for some of them even this "not enough"; I was literally shocked when in one of the Protestant versions instead of "ben adam" [Hebrew for "son of man"] found "mortal man"; although "ben adam" in Hebrew is so much unambiguous that "can't be more"… Not "very far" from that also Bible in Church-Slavonic (official language of Russian Orthodox Church) where "ben adam" is replaced by the plural: "sons of men"…
      — Thus by all possible ways, by "all truths and untruths", Christians (or who call themselves "Christians") are trying to "soften" the contradiction out of which Christianity … properly BORN and CAME OUT: the fiery coming together of contradicting extremes; and if to compare these two Christianities ("contradictory" and "non-contradictory"; born OUT OF Contradiction and NOT out of it), we are getting two right opposing things (so much even as God and devil, Christ and anti-Christ):
  • One of them is based on accepting Creator in Christ while another is based on creation, and even if says something about "accepting of Christ", it does not differ Him from pagan "god", no matter how it calls it "officially", for «you will know them by their fruits»:
  • The 1-st intrinsically tries to see in all Christ, and to serve Christ wherever it's possible, trying to see Him in every neighbor and every phenomenon of the world (as said in the Holy Scripture: «…as far as you've done it to one of these little ones, you've done it to Me»); while the 2-nd inevitably will try to see in all anti-Christ, and the whole world for it is no more than the medium out of which antichrist is due to come; from where is total suspiciousness, "witch-hunt", tortures, prisons and concentration camps…
  • For the 1-st the world is – potentially holiness as a medium of future TRANSFIGURATION till God will become «all in all», and the whole of creation (in Christ) will accept God; while for the 2-nd the world is by origin MEDIUM OF DAMNATION, for, besides being a "realm of king of this world" (i.e., devil), is in principle the medium out of which is due to come antichrist, out of where – you may shatter and break anything, stab and "prick" without any pity: who knows, maybe one of those "pricks" will hit directly in antichrist's heart?… And even if it will hit someone else's heart, "never mind": for sure this heart won't be "Christ's" (you can't "stab Christ" in this way!), for He already came once and is NO MORE in this world till 2-nd Coming; — which is due to be the same way "free from any contradiction" as the 1-st, and the faithful will have no difficulty in recognizing this 2-nd, "as was with that 1-st"…
  • Then, as far as antichrist himself is concerned, for this 2-nd type of Christianity he will be in all "exactly like Christ", so that to distinguish them one from another is out of human abilities; if only … by some chance you ALREADY follow Christ like "a dog behind its Master"; "all other masters" may also be "very worthy and dignified people" (saying "right words", etc…); but the Chance namely is that THIS ONE HAPPENED TO BE THE FIRST (on your way); and so – serving one's Master, dog barks at everyone else simply because "they aren't the First", and even will bite to death if it's possible (for indeed, it's where the turn comes to "pierce and prick" everything hoping to hit antichrist!…) (being sure that "Christ will not suffer having already once suffered"!). There is no other way to "cling to Christ" (or "someone regarded for Christ") in this case. Above such a "canine psychology", Salvation is a "game of chance", in this case, although "backed up" by a verse from the Bible: «Not you have chosen Me but I have chosen you». The Master has chosen you – you have to follow your Master; though following anti-Master may also think that they "follow Master"; it's OUT OF HUMAN POWER to distinguish the One from the other and saves only "Chance", by a will of some chance, their "guess work" turned out as "successful", they made "lucky hit": maybe even having chosen Christ (or maybe "hitting directly in antichrist's heart", as I said…).
          Diametrically opposite is this telling of Christ against antichrist, as well as the attitude to Salvation, for Christianity of that 1-st (previous) type, for it came out itself from the FIRE OF CONTRADICTION, and so Christ – is the Only One Who remained (did not burn)! Everything what was fenced-off in creation has burnt away, and only He, as Creator, remained! This Onlyness and Uniqueness of Christ is so much obvious here that NOTHING IS EQUAL to Him (and to it), for everything else is consumed by this fire! Also caught with hellish fire directly at our eyes is the antichrist, for such is completely fenced-off in creation: even what is engraved in his name: "anti-Christ" meaning that ALSO CHRIST he regards no more than for "someone fenced-off in creation"; – by this slandering the Creator as if He is too such a "fenced-out creature", and there is NOTHING ELSE AT ALL except this inner-creational intestine fencing-off: "there is no God"! [I hope, every Christian will agree, this maxim reveals the greatest yearning of devil!] This is why for a Christian believing according the 1-st mentioned type, the antichrist is — purely spiritually — suffocating with stench of hell! Antichrist is disgusting in any respect and all through, as selfly-fenced-off godless creature who doesn't know at all anything except its own godlessness; though seducing and tempting by this whole world! Spiritually, he is unbearable!
          Though … the real horror is that for Christianity (or "what called as" Christianity) of that 2-nd type … ALSO CHRIST looks like that! This is why it has no hope, before antichrist, to "keep clinging to Christ" except by the means of that same "dog's behaviour", though … NAMELY BY THIS, from the point of view of that 1-st Christianity, properly it … ENGENDERS antiChrist, or at least GIVES HIM PLACE: if "Christ" (or what you call as "Christ") is "one certain side" in this world, WHERE IS the other; WHAT IS the other: is it not "anti-"(Christ)?!.. This is namely why the Christianity of this (1-st) type — giving at all NO PLACE to anti-Christ — does not exclude possibility to ESCAPE HIM AT ALL, together with all those evil and terrible things relating to him known as "apocalyptic"… The idea of "doomsday", "The end of the world" is not very close to it, as it feels itself capable (for … having accepted Creator, what is impossible in Creator?!) to lead world to Salvation by the way of step-to-step transformations (and not through entire and total destruction), as even is mentioned by the Apostle about this "alternative" possibility: «Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep (die), but we shall all be changed (transformed)…». It DOESN'T believe in death; it believes in LIFE! (For having accepted indeed King of it…)
I hope, this large quotation (from previous «Fiery») already lets quite sensibly to understand and to feel how much is important all what we are talking about, and even directly concerns FATES OF THE WORLD: where everything, as we see, rests on Historical Mechanism engraved (if these matters to see "macro-biblically":) on Old and New Testament as "two tablets of history":


written on the very body of history
(with which tablets of Moses can be hardly compared…)

This chapter is many times larger than the previous one and is not yet fully translated from Russian (though it isn't translation in full sense of the word); you may just compare:; here are some extracts from it which already are ready:
Note: Due to this reason, not all hyperlinks throughout them would lead you to proper place…

…In «Philosophy of Form» and, together with it, in «The Fiery» I call it as «Single-directional Rhetoric Magic Medium»:

Now the question is … how far such a medium can be "Christian"? Very terrible question! If it were asked … how far it can be anti-Christian – it would be easy to answer; but how far can it be Christian when … it rejects Christ in its very principle:


written on the very body of history
(with which tablets of Moses can be hardly compared…)

As far as this chapter much more than the previous delves into concrete images ("Cross", "Sacrifice", "Holy Communion"…), here is its "logical skeleton", not to get lost, so to say, in the "flesh" of its imagery, letting always to have in mind what and what for we are talking about:

Such is, in short, the structure of the following chapter given as its "skeleton" which is below to be seen as … "supplied with the flesh" of its concrete ideas and images):


written on the very body of history
(with which tablets of Moses can be hardly compared…)

How works
of Accepting
in Christ

in a sense of co-
relation of relative
and the absolute:
1. The necessity of such mechanism in creation (for accepting Creator)

If the Creator is really "nothing", from the point of view of the godless creation (when even very often you can hear in it: "There is no God"…), it is extraordinarily difficult in it to explain, "why" and "what for" to accept Him; and even if the Creator has really embodied in Christ…, what in this case such godless creation is capable to accept, would be again some sort of creation and not the Creator!; as is said in the Scripture: «Do not throw holiness to the dogs», for even if to throw them greatest of holiness, they would be able in it to see and accept "CREATED PART" only (and not the one of Creator), and by swallowing it would immeasurably strengthen themselves in their PRIDE (— as far as this "created" part in the holiness taken as such is being strengthened by the part of Creator, even if dogs can't see the Creator; this leads to the general question of UNWORTHY COMMUNION (1Cor.11:27), in which case it acts "as if magically" for the one who takes it, though for God and according to Scripture – as judgement —), only to «turn back and tear you into pieces».
      According to Scripture, these "dogs" are the pagans (Mt.15:24). Could really pagans "accept Christ by faith"? – Of course, they could (for this is also what we find in the Scripture); but … IS THAT in Him the Creator Whom they would accept in this case?! Would not they accept Him as just pagan "god", even if … we find in the Scripture example when they wanted to take for such "gods" the Apostles (Acts.14:11)?! So:
      To avert this, and not to allow such greatest holiness as the one of Christ to be accepted and treated "paganwise" or as "by dogs", namely WAS ORGANIZED (for the God-chosen people) this Mechanism of Accepting in Christ the Creator; which, as we see:

— See it continued at




— Try all, replacing "&" by @, it's defence against spam
I answer ALWAYS;
in case you don't receive answer, try another address

Make your letter easy to tell by its title from spam!
Address for physical mail:
Alexander Golenkov, Russia, 156023, Kostroma, Titova 9-57
last update: after 22 mart 2007