What I Believe - Leo Tolstoi

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Arne Saknussemm, Aug 25, 2014.

  1. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    I invite the members to listen to an enlightened view of what The Gospels are truly concerned with. As far as I can tell this work is not available in English on the Internet for free. And it is easier to follow in audio form. Another quote because I feel these quotes express the topic better than I can:
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  8. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Is a feeling of subjective certainty sufficient for determining whether the content of a purported revelatory experience is truth or delusion?

    Certainly one reply might be that the question doesn't even arise for those who experience the requisite certainty. That's probably true.

    The problem that the rest of us face is that it seems to be equally true both for saints and psychotics.
     
  10. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Well, there's more to it than that. Tolstoi says he had a momentary flash of light, but in fact most of the book is his methodical investigation of the actual texts of the gospel. He is not lying. At some point in his six years (or life time) of puzzling over the true meaning of Christ's words he did have a sudden revelation (or two). Leo Tolstoi isn't just 'some guy', he's, well, Leo Tolstoi - a chap who really is worth hearing out fully. I am still in the middle of listening to the Librivox version of hs book. What's more, I find myself referring to the written text and listening to whole chapters again. I suggest you do likewise. I am not saying that you have, but I hope no one will make the mistake of trying to dismiss What I Believe with a single, sarcastic post. He's a great man, Leo Tolstoi is. A compassionate man as well as a literary genius who in this work sincerely tries to work out what Christ really said and what He meant.

    Added later: Here's a taste of what Tolstoi has to say. (Chapter Six)
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
  11. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,323
    Doesn't seem that overwhelmingly novel to me. But then I'd probably feel the same way about Edison's sound-reproducing device if not considering it in the context of its era. A percentage should have grown-up in or have been exposed to a variety of aftereffects over a century later. Not just the influences of this work as a candidate, but all the others with claim to liberating Christian thought from some of its past straightjackets.

    Tolstoy... The text that gave me the key to the truth was the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, ‘You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, do not resist evil…’ The simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon me; I accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose before me in all its solemn importance. I had often read the passage, but these words had never until now arrested my attention: ‘I say to you, do not resist evil.’ Chapter One

    - - - - - - -

    It was only when I understood Christ’s doctrine that I saw that what such men call ‘faith’ is not faith. It is only the false faith that the apostle James opposes in his epistle. The Church did not accept that epistle for a long time; and when it was accepted it underwent several changes. Some words were removed, and others transposed or incorrectly translated. I here give the accepted translation, only correcting what is inexact, according to Tischendorf’s text.

    James 2:14-26: ‘What does it profit, my brethren, if a man supposes that he has faith, and does not have works? Faith cannot save him. If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them those things that they need; what good is that? Even so faith, if it does not have works, is dead, being alone. Yes, a man may say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God; you do well. The devils also believe, and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? See how faith worked with his deeds, and by his deeds his faith was made perfect? … You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. … For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.’

    The apostle says that the only proof of faith is in the works that proceed from it; and that faith from which no works proceed is but a word, with which we can neither feed any, nor justify ourselves and be saved. And therefore the faith that is not accompanied by works is not faith. It is only a wish to believe; it is only a mistaken assertion that I believe when I do not really believe.
    [...]
    The doctrine of Christ is the doctrine of truth, and, therefore, faith in Christ is not a trust in anything that refers to Jesus, but a knowledge of the truth. It is impossible to persuade or bribe a man to fulfill it. He who understands the doctrine of Christ will have faith in Him, because His doctrine is truth. He who knows the truth cannot refuse to believe in it. Therefore, if a man feels himself to be sinking, he cannot refuse to take hold of the rope of salvation, and the question, ‘What shall we do to believe?’ is one that shows a total misunderstanding of Christ’s doctrine. Chapter Nine

    - - - - - - - -

    It does not matter if a man is a follower of Christ or a follower of the world; he is never entirely independent of others. Others have taken care of him, fed him, and still take care of him. But, according to the teaching of the world, man forces others to continue feeding him and his family by threats and violence. According to Christ’s doctrine, man is taken care of, brought up and fed by others; and he does not force others to continue feeding him, but tries to serve others in his turn, to do as much good as possible to all his fellow-creatures. Which life is then a truer, more rational, and happier one? Is it a life in accordance with the teaching of the world, or in accordance with Christ’s doctrine? Chapter Ten

    - - - - - - - -

    I believe in the doctrine of Christ, and the articles of my belief are as follows.

    I believe that true happiness will only be possible when all men begin to follow Christ’s doctrine.

    I believe that the fulfillment of this doctrine is easy, possible, and conducive to happiness.

    I believe that, even if it is left unfulfilled by all around me, if I have to stand alone among men, I cannot do otherwise than to follow it in order to save my own life from inevitable destruction.

    I believe that, while I followed the teaching of the world, my life was a life of suffering, and that it is only by living according to the doctrine of Christ that I can attain the happiness that the Father of life destined me to enjoy in this world. Chapter Twelve
     
  12. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    It's not a question of being novel, C C. As for after effects, the life and deeds of J.C. Himself did not produce the sought for after-effects, if what Tolstoi says about Him is true. So what chance Mr. Thomas Alva or Count Lev Nikolayevich? As I read I find What I Believe to be strangely Lennonesque (n.b. not Leninesque) So... hope someday you will join us, if you haven't already.

    Moving right along, last night, early this morning I came across this bit in the seventh chapter. It's an interesting take on atheism, and the scientific view, don't you think?

     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Why? What makes him more worthy of listening to about religion than others, excpet than perhaps due to his ability to articulate better than most?
    But what makes his thoughts of any more or less worth than anyone else's?

    Other than clinging to the shirtsleeves of his literary authority, is there any point to this thread, or is it just a case of: "Ooh, a famous literary figure is devoutly Christian, and wrote a bit about it!"

    But then history is literally littered with literary figures giving their views on things, just be careful you don't mistake someone's authority in one area as an authority in another.

    And for each pro-position there will be an anti-position:
    "This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for." - Douglas Adams
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Not really - it seems flawed (through a priori assumption): "...that religion reveals the meaning of life." - Certainly those who adhere to religion may think that it reveals the meaning of life... but there is no way they can justify their position to someone who does not believe. Furthermore, science applies no meaning, nor recognises any meaning. So his conclusion seems flawed.

    Plus he seems to think that unbelievers "believe in the fundamental false assumption of the right of man to a life of perfect bliss". Not a belief I have, nor one I would think many atheists have, but it is nice of him to try to conclude we are as flawed as believers in this regard.

    So "interesting"? Not particularly as it seems flawed.
     
  15. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    How about this, then? (Also from Chapter Seven)
    Note that Tolstoi says 'so-called Christianity'. it is important to understand his personal and nearly unique views of the Christian faith. Tolstoi claims in other sections among other 'unorthodox' views that Christ never preached general resurrection, an afterlife, or that 'your enemy' refers to other nations, never individuals. What I Believe truly is worthwhile reading.
     
  16. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,323
    That's what one of the blurb-like quotes was trumpeting about, though; as if the reader will never have encountered similar interpretations before: "This book will change how you view and understand Christianity...."

    Not behavior and consequence -wise according to some ideal standard of evaluation, but again in the hermeneutical vein of supposed "alt" scriptural meanings influencing a population's perceptions. The blurb-ist was more on target with: "Or, it did for me at least." Yes, there is some "old school" that survives aplenty to this day, but the "thought-age" of rival camps is certainly not still unknown or really that startling to many others (especially those who grew up exposed to the numerous and varied mutations of the protestant and non-denominational world).
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Again I would say that his view is based on a flawed perception that "science and philosophy fancy themselves the adversaries of so-called Christianity". They just do what they do, and if Christianity, or religion in general, bumps against it then they will be at loggerheads, but likewise they could also run in parallel, and in many places science certainly can not go (not that that makes religion, and Christianity specifically) correct.
    So certainly in some aspects science and religion may be at loggerheads but he is rather generalising, even when he says that noone ("neither believers nor unbelievers") asks themselves "how we ought to live".
    Not only is this a generalisation but it rather implies that religion is the only possible provider of ethics and morality - which would be an a priori assumption and not one I agree with.

    I don't doubt he had his own particular flavour of Christianity (which I think tended rather toward the pacifistic teachings?) but it is more his views of the rest of society, and his generalisations thereof that I find tend to detract from any otherwise interesting aspects in what he has to say on the matter.
     
  18. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    I'll admit to admiring Tolstoi for his literary talent and ability to articulate better than most, but what makes him worth listening to is that he did his homework and researched key terms - their original Greek or Hebrew meanings. I don't believe I am mistaking his authority in one are for another because morality and right living were always Tolstoi's concerns. War and Peace was about the tragedy, futility and ridiculousness of war (and some stuff about peace

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) . I remember him going on about Napoleon's so-called 'military genius'. He opined that what we call military genius is no more than ordering supplies and attacking and guessing where best to attack or defend - an intelligent school boy could do it! (he says quite rightly that we should laugh at the term) Hence he objected to such creatures as Napoleon being thought of as admirable. As an American, a dweller within and forced contributor to the military-industrial complex, I hear very little of such talk and find it refreshing. It is reassuring to hear a man reaffirm that of course it is wrong to fight and murder enemy soldiers and any government or church that tells you different is not worthy of respect. Writers, poets and other artists understand society and morality better than anyone one else - that's their job. Consider Carl Sandburg, who expressed a similar view when he said,'What if they had a war, and nobody came?'

    Also I thought SciForum members who object strongly to organized religions might find intelligent arguments reading Tolstoi. Rather than reprinting dumb cartoons and singling out goofballs extremists with silly opinions and then behaving just like them, they could learn what the teachings of Christ were really about and, why then, there's be general edification all around. They might see that much of what they object to in so-called Christianity is not Christianity at all.

    Stuff like this:
    Come on now. Doesn't that make you at all curious? Here's a man who truly understands how language works, and he says The Church has essentially rewritten everything The Gospels say to suit its own purposes. Surely, that worth a look, if only to show believers that they are being misled.
     
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,603
    I certainly don't think what some obscure writings by a Russian novelist speculate on as "True Christianity" has much relevance to the Christianity we actually see in the world. Everything sounds good on paper. It's the putting into practice of the principles of the New Testament, and it's 2000 years of schismatic bickering and fighting over interpretations, dogmas, rituals, and doctrines, that really should be looked at. IOW, how does believing your belief in Christ to be the only way to salvation for mankind, work out in real life? What effects does this exclusivity and monomania have on your personality and your social life? What complications does it add to the goal of adapting as smoothly as possible to the world we are born into? In terms of practical use, I see little in the gospel of value beyond its role as good fictional literature, perhaps to be read as a youth and then put aside along with other classics.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    So he dismisses all those who have found "salvation and happiness" in the teachings that he deems contrary?
    Basically he's confirming in this quote that what works for one might not work for another... but it does nothing to ascertain the truth of anything, other than what works for him.
    It also seems that having found a solution that works for him, he seeks to rationalise why it should be accepted as truth and why everything else is therefore wrong.

    And surely if it works for him, how could it not be the truth and only truth.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    He seems to claim that there is a solitary truth, without exploring or explaining why this should be so in such matters, in a manner that is not merely another a priori assumption.
    I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, but I don't agree with some of this premises and generalisations, and thus his conclusions are of little interest.
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I haven't read the whole thing, but he seems like a "Jesus on the Mount" guy, do good things, turn the other cheek, be selfless and generous to people, etc.. Don't be too concerned about the details that the church emphasizes, because that stuff is beside the point. He's a liberal Christian. I guess that's OK, but he's still an enabler of Christianity as a whole, which isn't generally quite as subtle. I'm glad he found his salvation. It seems he's like Thomas Jefferson who sought to separate the good parts from the bad or irrelevant.
     
  22. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    No. He is saying they have been misled and that Christ's true teachings of love and non-violence have been ignored. And...
    You see, he'd feel the same whether anyone else agrees with him or not. Naturally, I'm sure he would hope that many agree with him.

    I'm afraid you're doing the generalizing now. You need to know more about and understand his views. Some of it is quite fresh. He speaks of the five commandments as opposed to the 613 Laws of Moses. (His 'Five Commandments' is an original view of some familiar admonishments) As to 'why it should be accepted as the truth', well, he believes that Christ was who he claimed to be. You may disagree, but that's another topic entirely. The topic here is to showcase a not very well known work of Leo Tolstoi ( a novelist and noted as a moral thinker and social reformer). I do so because I think his thoughts are as pertinent as ever, and that is unfortunate that his work is not better known, let alone followed. Of course, you may disagree, but it's my thread and that's what it is about.

    More to the point in response to your above remark:
    Sure, this is just Tolstoi's opinion, but he's the one up at bat here. Since he can't contribute to our Religion Sub-Forum, I thought I'd help him out, and possibly contribute some fresh views to the forum. Thanks for reading.
     
  23. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Well said, Spider. You're getting it. However it's not so much that what the Church (in his case, The Eastern Orthodox) said being beside the point, Tolstoi claims that they sometimes contravene the original completely, as in the case where The Church (on behalf of the Czar) makes foreign enemies an exception to the 'thou shalt not kill' and 'love your enemies' laws. Tolstoi thinks Christ really meant what he said about never resisting evil. As for the relevant and irrelevant he says that The Church is all wrong about their interpretation of Christ's "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it" line.
     

Share This Page