An interesting quote,for sure - what about it would you like to discuss, if I may ask?
If you love learning about world religion and looking for insight into why religion today is what it is, this is a wonderful comparative literature that is truly well researched, though out, and controversial. It was a really hard book to find, banned for many years. It is the book that inspired Gandhi to become the man that changed India. It explores the personal struggles of Tolstoi and is not his characteristic writing style. Easy to read and very understandable. It is a thought provoking and wonderful book
This book will change how you view and understand Christianity. Or, it did for me at least. But then again I was raised as a Right Winged, Home Schooled, Christian American Republican. Prepare to have much of that like completely shattered beyond hope of repair as Tolstoi analyzes the original meaning and understanding of many of Christs teachings, without the misrepresentations of the church. As a bonus: Gain valuable counter points for the so called biblical literalists you may run into from time to time.
"The inner working of my soul, which I wish to speak of here, was not the result of a methodical investigation of doctrinal theology, or of the actual texts of the gospel; it was a sudden removal of all that hid the true meaning of the Christian doctrine – a momentary flash of light, which made everything clear to me.
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.
I felt convinced that had the gospel been found half burnt or half obliterated, it would have been easier to discover its true meaning than it is now; that it has suffered from such unconscientious interpretations, which have purposely concealed or distorted its true sense.
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:
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.
Believers are not the only persons who say that the doctrine of Christ is good, but impracticable. Unbelievers, men who either do not believe, or think that they do not believe, in the dogmas of the fall and the redemption, say the same. Men of science, philosophers, and men of cultivated minds in general, who consider themselves perfectly free from superstition, likewise argue the impracticability of Christ’s doctrine. They do not believe, or at least think that they do not believe, in anything, and therefore consider themselves as having nothing to do with superstition, with the fall of man, or with redemption. I thought so too, formerly. I also thought that these learned men had other grounds for denying the practicability of the doctrine of Christ. But, on closer examination of the basis of their negation, I clearly saw that unbelievers had the same false idea, that life is not what it is, but what it seems to be; and that this idea has the same basis as the idea of believers. Men who call themselves ‘unbelievers’ do not, it is true, believe in God, in Christ, or in Adam; but they believe in the fundamental false assumption of the right of man to a life of perfect bliss, just as firmly as theologians do.
However privileged science, with her philosophy, may boast of being the judge and the guide of intellect, she is, in reality, not its guide, but its slave. The view taken of the world is always prepared for her by religion; and science only works in the path assigned her by religion. Religion reveals the meaning of life, and science applies this meaning to the various phases of life. And, therefore, if religion gives a false meaning to life, science, reared in this religious creed, will apply this false meaning to the life of man.
The teaching of the church gave, as the basis of life, the right of man to perfect bliss – bliss that is to be attained, not by the individual efforts of man, but by something beyond his own control; and this view of human life became the basis of our European science and philosophy.
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?Leo Tolstoi isn't just 'some guy', he's, well, Leo Tolstoi - a chap who really is worth hearing out fully.
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.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?
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.Science and philosophy fancy themselves the adversaries of so-called Christianity, and pride themselves upon the fact, while they, in reality, work for it. Science and philosophy address everything except the one important point: how man is to improve his condition and lead a better life. The teaching of morality, called ethics, has quite disappeared from our so-called Christian society.
Neither believers nor unbelievers ask themselves how we ought to live, and how we must use the reason that is given to us; but they ask themselves, ‘Why is our life here not such as we fancied it to be, and when will it be such as we wish it to be?’
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.
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.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.Science and philosophy fancy themselves the adversaries of so-called Christianity, and pride themselves upon the fact, while they, in reality, work for it. Science and philosophy address everything except the one important point: how man is to improve his condition and lead a better life. The teaching of morality, called ethics, has quite disappeared from our so-called Christian society.
Neither believers nor unbelievers ask themselves how we ought to live, and how we must use the reason that is given to us; but they ask themselves, ‘Why is our life here not such as we fancied it to be, and when will it be such as we wish it to be?’
Why? What makes him more worthy of listening to about religion than others, except 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.
I asked myself why I had never followed Christ’s doctrine, which leads to salvation and happiness, but had followed a contrary teaching that had brought me nothing but suffering. There could be but one answer to that question – the truth had been hidden from me.
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.
So he dismisses all those who have found "salvation and happiness" in the teachings that he deems contrary?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.I asked myself why I had never followed Christ’s doctrine, which leads to salvation and happiness, but had followed a contrary teaching that had brought me nothing but suffering. There could be but one answer to that question – the truth had been hidden from me.
No. He is saying they have been misled and that Christ's true teachings of love and non-violence have been ignored. And...So he dismisses all those who have found "salvation and happiness" in the teachings that he deems contrary?
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 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.
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.
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.
The doctrine of Christ would not be rejected either by Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or others, even if they doubted the truth of their own creed; still less can it be rejected by our Christian world, which has no other moral law.
The doctrine of Christ does not disagree with men in respect to their view of life, but, including it, gives them what is wanting in it, what is indispensable. It points out to them a path that is not a new one, but one familiar to them from their childhood.
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.