I never seen a more pathetic person

than Leo Tolstoy

>derr derr im a christian radical, im going to do beleive in a sky fairy, der der der, people actually think im a good writer der der derr

Other urls found in this thread:

faithalone.org/journal/1998i/Townsend.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

ebin

what does that mean?

It means this thread actually isn't ebin

Tolstoy really was a weird son of a bitch, but it's okay since he wrote at least two of the finest novels ever made.

>im going to do beleive in a sky fairy

what did he mean by this?

autism

wait whose autistic?

Tolstoy or OP?

Probably both.

Thank you for such an insightful argument, what a great thread you've created

>der der der
My uncle does that when he's drunk.

delete this please

no.

>I never seen a more pathetic person Anonymous 09/19/16(Mon)16:11:52 No.8524951▶ than Leo Tolstoy
What did he mean by this?

It's ok to be jealous OP. After all Tolstoy was a better political theorist, theologist, and writer than you could even imagine yourself being. Though instead of trying and failing to mock him on a Bhutanese Relief-carving board, I suggest channeling your jealousy into lodging a bullet in your brain.

...

Imagine being an actual peasant and your lord tries to LARP your miserable life in order to get hipster credit.

>shitposted the greasy user, as his yellowed, Cheetos dusted fingers reached for another sip of Mountain Dew

>derr derr
>der der der
>der der derr
I never seen a more pathetic person

Tolstoy is one of the symbols of humility in literature, but I think his views on humility isn't "humility" enough. It's been years since I've read The Kingdom of God is Within You, so let's see if I can recall it. He believed that the will of man is vanity, and the will of God should be the focus of man's life. He was against killing, because killing would mean a blind judgement, you wouldn't know if the person you kill would repent. Any form of mercantile is selfish, a christian should live without the desire of fortune.

He made good points, but he was way too strict and "preachy" in advocating his ideology. He saw christian humility as a form of politics, he demand too much from other people instead of being completely humble. That's why I think he's not a very good symbol of humility. His approach to preaching humility wasn't "natural" enough, he pushed a form of idealism instead of trusting his faith and leaving it all to God, which is a true form of humility. I prefer Dostoevsky's and Tarkovsky's more mystic approach.

He wasn't a radical Christian because he was not a Christian at all. He had his own sect and was even excommunicated by the Orthodox church. He denied the divinity of Christ which is essential to being a Christian. Unless you are one of those retards who has his own "REAL CHRISTIANITY BRAH"

I find Solženjicin's approach to Christianity the most interesting, he didn't write much about it in what I've read, but man it's moving af.

He's more a symbol of posturing. Acting fake holy was just his new pasture, before that he was bragging about how many maids he fucked and the like.

A very unpleasant man.

He beat his wife.

So all in all, extremely alpha.

>he denied the divinity of Christ
are you serious? I don't believe that.

What a sad post.

Pretty serious.
>The Holy Synod simply cited by its decision a fact that had already taken place—Count Leo Tolstoy excommunicated himself from the Church and completely broke off ties with it. This is something that he not only did not deny, but even resolutely emphasized at every convenient opportunity: “It is perfectly justifiable that I have renounced the Church that calls itself Orthodox… I renounce all the sacraments… I have truly renounced the Church, I have stopped fulfilling its rites, and I have written in my will to my close ones that they should not allow any clergymen from the Church near me when I will be dying…” These are just a few of the great writer’s numerous proclamations in this regard.

The essays on where and how he denied it can be easily found online, but I found it out from my edition of Anna Karenina (where a few other heresies are proclaimed, such as belief that the kingdom of god comes in this life if you are good).
>Tolstoy acknowledged: "From my childhood I had been taught that Jesus was God…"73 In the same book Tolstoy said: "According to the Church, [Jesus] taught that he was the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, and that he came into the world t atone by his death for Adams’ sin. Those, however, who have read the Gospels know that Jesus taught nothing of the sort…"74 Tolstoy wrote that "to consider [Christ] a God and pray to [Him], I esteem greatest blasphemy…"75 Dostoevsky realized "where Tolstoyan thought would lead—to a Christianity without Christ."
faithalone.org/journal/1998i/Townsend.html
It's some protestant shit, but they quote their sources.

huh, that's so strange to me considering I felt that Tolstoy had a marvelous understanding of the teachings of Christ and was right 99% of the time with his beef with not only the Orthodox Church but the Western Church as a whole

seems kind of autistic to deny the trinity just because Christ never spelled it out in the Gospels

Leave Levin alone.

>Dostoevsky realized "where Tolstoyan thought would lead—to a Christianity without Christ.
thats some misleading shit tho

he loved Christ, and wrote his own Gospels. he just said that what made Christ special/divine existed within all of us, we are all sons of GOD basically

if people want to call him a blasphemer fine, but he was definitely Christian, and anyone denying that is just ignorant of the variance that exists within any religion

If you deny the divinity of Christ and call everyone the son of God in the same way is definitely something which constituents him as a non Christian. Or are you going to have your own definition of Christianity?

how about you define Christianity first before declaring that someone has "their own" defn

>Christianity [note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

seems like that definitely suits Tolstoy...

>marvelous understanding of the teachings of Christ
His interpretations of scripture were amateurish and he was an idealist. He ain't got shit on Summa Theologica.

No it doesn't because the teaching of Christ is that he is the Son of God.
Or is the teachings of Christ also very selective and relative?

Tolstoy says that Christ is the son of GOD

he also says that all people are the son of GOD

what term other than Christianity would you use to describe the religion of a man based around and built around Christ's teachings? show me which of Christ's teachings Tolstoy failed to incorporate in his personal religion? and by show I mean with an actual citation to a gospel

I believe his short story the Three Hermits about the nature of formal vs. personal religion is apt here

>Tolstoy says that Christ is the son of GOD
>he also says that all people are the son of GOD
Which is contradictory to the teaching of Christ.
The Son of God means the 2nd person of the trinity or the Word that became flesh.
>what term other than Christianity would you use to describe the religion of a man based around and built around Christ's teachings?
Nicene Creed and adherence to it is the definition of Christianity which works pretty well.
How would I call Tolstoy? I don't know, a Tolstoyan? He doesn't centre his religion around the 2nd person of the Trinity, the man and God Jesus Christ.
He centres it around a very small section of the Gospels while arbitrarily denying the authenticity of everything else.
>show me which of Christ's teachings Tolstoy failed to incorporate in his personal religion?
In the part where he said that we ough to have a ceremony in memmory of him where he shared bread with his apostles. Or the part where he said that paying tax is okay and implicity that anarchism is bad. Or the part where he showed himself to Paul (unless we again decide to arbitrarily remove parts of the gospel because they don't fit). Or the part where he said he'd found a Church (and not an anarchist religion).
>And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
>While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is My body." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
>Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
>"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."
>So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
>Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
Now since he denied the sacraments (even as something only metaphorical like protties) is enough to constitute that he indeed did not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

its clear you're not familiar with Tolstoy's theology as much of what you've written scans in his theology as well as it does in any Creed approved Christianity.

>people imagine themselves to be separate beings, each with their own particular will for life but that is just a delusion. The one true life is the one that recognizes the source of life as the father's will.

also, by submitting to the Creed rather than the teachings of Christ you're basically practicing Judaism 2.0 rather than Christianity

Ah ok, Christianity is something arbitrary which was born with Tolstoy and has no real definition outside of liking a thing or two he said here or there, why didn't you just say so?

or maybe, Christianity born with JESUS CHRIST transcends the human construct that surrounds it

the very fact that you define the Nicene Creed as the true birth of Christianity...

you can disagree with Tolstoy's brand of Christianity, but to denounce it as non-Christian, because he was not a practicing member of a church or followed the Creed is ridiculously narrow minded.

Basically this.

>or maybe, Christianity born with JESUS CHRIST transcends the human construct that surrounds it
The transcendent Christianity is the church as far as I'm concerned, if it isn't, all Christianity is indeed a human construction.
>the very fact that you define the Nicene Creed as the true birth of Christianity...
True birth and true definition and meaning are very different.
>you can disagree with Tolstoy's brand of Christianity, but to denounce it as non-Christian, because he was not a practicing member of a church or followed the Creed is ridiculously narrow minded.
I denounce his Christianity because he denied all tenets of the religion known as Christianity. It's absurd to defend someone's faith as a Muslim if he denies that Mohammed was a prophet or a jew if he denies Moses.

I wish he had lived long enough to see Russia overtaken by communism.

t. Catholic

Why? John Paul for one was very interested in the fall of communism by the grace of lady of Fatima.v