Are his books still good if you're not a Christian...

Are his books still good if you're not a Christian? I know Dostoyevsky was a Christian so I was wondering if the religious themes in his books are ultimately about showing the flaws of atheism (or if he just doesn't understand their views, etc). What do you think? Are there any atheists/non-religious people here who read Dostoyevsky?

Was an atheist in high school, agnostic for the first three years of college, and then I read The Bible, Dostoevsky, and some others, and some other stuff was going on in my life.

Now I'm a theist.

Camus wasn't a Christian, but he was heavily inspired by Dostoevsky.

I think one should be able to enjoy books that contain criticism of your worldview, otherwise you wouldn't get to read a lot at all.

there's a difference between a critic and a pernicious peddler of ideology with little other qualities

And I suppose that difference is whether or not they agree with you? assuming you're referring to Dostoyevsky, if you mean in general then I agree that the distinction exists but I don't know why you bring it up. My point is that it is impossible and to only read things that align with your worldview, and that reading the perspectives of others is a good thing.

My question is whether his book just has characters that have different world views (and Dostoevsky empathetically understands these views) or if it's book driven by ideology that doesn't really understand atheists and is basically directed at Christians to reaffirm their view. Surely you see the difference.

Ivan is one of the most realistic atheists in literature. It isn't Christian apologetics.

The book clearly shows the strongest argument for atheism, the presence of evil and the suffering of innocent people (especially children). Then he shows the solution to this, universal sin and vicarious atonement.

Dostoevsky struggled with his faith and this struggle is reflected in his books. No one, atheists or Christians (especially Catholics), escape unscathed.

Why is it that atheists can assume the absence of a creator as a first principle and not need to explain how they came to this conclusion or be ridiculed mercilessly for having done so?

I see so many threads asking for philosophy and literature recommendations where the OP makes a request with the added condition of "no God shit" and nobody challenges them. If a theist were to make such a request he'd be crucified with shitposts. What gives?

The philosophical dogma of the day is empiricism, so they believe that the only real truths are the ones you can prove with experimental observation. To them the burden of proof is to prove, with experimental observation, that God exists.
But they don't understand that there are some truths that can't be proven this way.

Most people on both sides believe what they do in blind faith and are uninterested in questioning their beliefs.

Thing is, while Dosto was Christian, he had a mental range that permitted skepticism. He did not have a simple, straightforward faith but was constantly agonizing over it. So you find atheists and agnostics in his stories, which are like little birds whispering dostos doubts in the back of his head.

However he always makes his atheist characters shitheads or insane. While his Christian characters (like sweet Alyosha Karamazov) are invariably redemptive and upstanding.

Dosto may have been Christian but he provided tremendous ammo for atheists (The Grand Inquisitor, raskolnikov's reflections, the underground man)

Hey Christfags

How can hell exist? How can there be any domain that is devoid of grace?

If you reject God's grace you can go to a place devoid of it. It's due to the free will of people (and angels). Jesus died for your sins, but he won't force his love and forgiveness on you.

how about you read it and find out you piece of shit

>He did not have a simple, straightforward faith but was constantly agonizing over it.
This is hardly characteristic of only Dostoevsky. It's very common.

Yeah, but OP didn't understand that.

Do you believe your human form will manifest in a realm of eternal physical torment or that if you fail to ascend you go back to the void? I think the void is worse, because even in Hell I can't imagine there wouldn't be even a single moment where I could observe evidence of the Lord, and then why call it Hell, and why would God send me there forever?

IIRC hell isn't Biblical Canon. Instead it was invented by the Catholics to get easy pagan converts. Don't believe in God? Have fun being tortured for eternity!

I'm not trying to stir shit but I've been thinking about something, and I'm curious what Christians would say to it (assuming you're a Christian).

Do you accept that hell is an amoral (not immoral) construct? Theoretically, if someone was a magnanimous, selfless, peaceful, loving person all their life but happened to be a Hindu, they are going to hell. And then if someone is an awful person their entire life but then repents and accepts Jesus at the end of their life, they will go to heaven. So, the basis for going to hell has nothing to do with being a good person (though I realize you could say that if you are really a Christian you won't live a life of horrible sin, etc). It is merely god punishing disbelief or ignorance of him.

If you agree with that, how can you conclude that God is not an asshole?

Again, not trying to provoke a response, I'm just wanted to hear a response to something that's been on my mind lately. Anyone else is also welcome to respond.

Revelations 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

I don't think it is in the OT, but it is in the NT

Well that settles it then. Very good.

Still not the version of Hell the Church paints.

What's different?

There is no divine light.

>But they don't understand that there are some truths that can't be proven this way

Care to give an example?

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. I don't know all the answers, I'm trying to figure it out myself.
It's nice to talk about it here though since I have no one else to talk about it with and would probably be too embarrassed if I did.

Church makes claims about Hell that can't be backed up by religious texts. From what you posted the only thing we know about "Hell" is it is a burning lake of sulphur. We also know who goes there. But they only go there during the second coming of Christ, during the end of times. We have no ideas what goes on there.

>The only real truths are the ones you can prove with experimental observation.

This statement can't be proven with experimental observation. Therefore, by its on definition it is false.

Things like God, free will, consciousness, anything metaphysical.

I'm not a Catholic so I'm not sure. What do they say about it?

That you're tortured in hell. That you're sent to Hell if you're a non-believer. That its called Hell. Religious people think Milton's Paradise Lost is Biblical Canon.

I think if I was in a burning lake forever I'd eventually find some peace or freedom from the torment in my mind, I think as the eons rolled by I'd have a moment here or there where I could observe something beautiful, perhaps something as simple as the coils of steam or the physics being expressed by the boiling blood of my fellow condemned, in which case hell isn't really that different from the life I'm living now. So, what point would God be proving by sending me there, with the soul he already knows he's given me? Why would such a place exist?

Furthermore if this place did exist it seems like it would sully the rest of creation. Isn't it better to think that an evil doer simply is no more, rather than still extant being prodded in the arse eternally?

I'm not a very Veeky Forums person I've probably made little syntax errors or whatever but this is my thinking. I am someone of genuine faith.

Does anyone else think of Ivan as redolent of Max Stirner?

>This statement can't be proven with experimental observation. Therefore, by its on definition it is false.

False

I was actually asking for any truth which has been proven by different means

It depends on you. I've seen someone call the book a "900 page version of God's not dead". If you're a huge militant atheist that doesn't like having your beliefs challenged then you will see the book as forcing its viewpoint.

The Brothers Karamazov does have a Christian slant, but I think it presents its arguments reasonably. I felt like I could see where Dostoyevsky was coming from, and some of the things expressed in the book were things that I felt I had thought of yet didn't know how to put to words. Also, the ending is something that ended up really impacting me emotionally when I read it. It was the first time I had ever shed tears reading a book.

The claim that empiricism is the greatest tool for acquiring knowledge was argued for with philosophy, not empiricism.

I've read Notes from the underground as well as Notes from the underground. I'm atheist as fuck.

The books are so much more than some christian philosophy. I think those aspects are highlighted by some christian people.

The "christian" themes can be appealing for people who have no faith. The shit about humility and forgiveness might be christian archetypes but Jesus don't have a patent on that shit.

i bet you smell like cum

You're dumb. Read my OP and my follow up comment. That's not what I was asking at all

Brothers Karamazov is over 1000 pages retard.

>Jesus died for your sins

tell that to a muslim instead of stating it on a mongolian watercolor discussion board.

i hope he'd kick you in the balls.

>I've seen someone call the book a "900 page version of God's not dead".

This was basically what I was afraid of. A story painting a straw man of atheists to be torn down to make christian viewers feel good. But it sounds like it isn't really that from the responses anyway

In my opinion, annihilationism is what is biblically supported.

Muslims believe in Jesus. Educate yourself.

Bump

This. The brothers karamasow changed my life. Greatest book ever written

What translation of 'The Idiot' should I read? I read P&V's translation of 'The Master and Margerita' and really disliked how archaic and weird every sentence sounded.

It's a shame that people get stupider as they age.

Luckily there are exceptions.

muslims believe jesus was a prophet of allah but not the son of god as christians believe and venerate him as such, but muhammad is their messiah

Hi there! You seem to have unintentionally posted an image of "Pepe the Frog," a cartoon character often used by Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other Far-Right Extremists to promote racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic hate beliefs on the Internet. This character was recently categorized by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith as a hate symbol, and your usage of such imagery qualifies the contents of your post as hate speech, which is liable to civil and criminal prosecution in many countries around the world. The moderators of this website are aware of this problem, and are actively working with us to find a solution. In the meantime, please remove your post from the forum if you can, and delete that image from your harddrive, as well as any other files containing "Pepe the Frog" or other hate symbols that might be in your possession. Please visit the Southern Poverty Law Center's website to find out more about what you can do to help combat Right Wing Extremism on the Internet. Together, we can eradicate hate! Thank you.

COME.

GET.

SOME.

>Jesus died for your sins
Where's the correlation between Jesus dying and my sins ? How is Jesus dying doing anything about my sins, because he died my sins are forgiven ? That doesn't make sense and never has

Basically the hell you're thinking of is just the hell of the Inferno, the bible doesn't really talk about it and Satan even is never mentioned in the old testament, he is the opposer of god and deceives him and his people. And since man will sin anyway according to the bible Satan really isn't doing anything truly "evil" since it's not those sins don't correspond with going to heaven or hell it's the belief in a single power that does. Hail Satan

What's your point ?

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine

t. Patti

not sinning = boring life

not recognising the lyric = cultureless 14 year old detected

This is a main part of the book. Universal sin, we are all guilty of each others sins; and vicarious atonement.

You can see evidence for this in every day life. If you were related to a hero, you feel pride for his deeds even though you didn't do them. If you are a relative of Stalin you may feel guilt for his actions even though you didn't do anything.

The question comes down to forgiveness/mercy and justice/punishment. If God forgave us without punishment it would be condoning sin. If he punished us it would condemn sin and go against the main teaching of Christianity, forgiveness. So he does both, forgiveness for us and justice through himself as Christ.

Forgiveness and repentance are two sides of the same coin, so of you repent of your sins and accept Christ as your saviour you will be forgiven as he paid for your sins with his life.

What I mean how does Jesus' death have anything to do with forgiving our sins, it makes absolutely no sense

>still finding patti smith lyrics deep

It's the way God made it

And while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. (1 Peter 2:23-24)

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:4-5)

So did the people before Jesus all go to hell considering they didn't yet have Jesus to die for their sins ?

Yes it seems that way

I'm really intrigued because deep down I would love to be able to be a theist. Would you mind sharing what changed your belief?

God spoke clearly that I needed to kill my son, then he backed out as he was about to be killed and now I'm stuck in a loony bin since apparently they see it as some form of psychosis. Damn atheists

I only read The Idiot. I can't say I enjoyed the parts about christianity, especially since they were blended with russian nationalism.

But they didn't make the book bad.

Dostoyevsky is fucking awful writer. I don't realize why you, foreign cucks, love him so much.

...

His books are about much more than religion. There are so many themes about human nature and suffering. Such beautiful books.


I read Crime and Punishment, and then I read a bit about Dostoyevsky.

And I came to the conclusion, that Crime and Punishment was a book about Dostoyevsky. Raskolnikov was him.

...

Actually his athiests are extremely respectable, majestic, likable characters with many good qualities. They also make convincing arguments. Just unhappy.

Fine as flour to be desu

Would discipline and punish

Good options: McDuff, Garnett revised by Kent, Avsey

Is Pevear and Volokhonsky the best option for the Brothers Karamazov? Is there a better translation available?

Anyone read the David Magarshack translations?

It's all right, but McDuff and Avsey are perhaps better options.

If it's 1000 pages it's a good idea to find out if it's worth my time before spending countless hours on it

Thanks! This is the answer I was looking for.

jesus dying for our sins is a metaphor for god forgiving human beings for their nature.

.t heretic

>having literally no understanding of Christianity
>reading any western literature
you're just asking to not understand anything

Yeah Dostoevsky is the shit regardless of your religious beliefs. Same goes for St. Augustine and Kierkegaard.

I respect Dostoevsky as one of the great Russian writers, but I just can't get into him. I tried Crime and Punishment and got up to the part where it was a hot evening and he was trying not to meet his landlady on the stairs, and I just couldn't do it anymore, I put the book down. Maybe I'll pick it back up one day and start from where I left off.

You quit after the first paragraph?

topkek. Yeh, if had actually finished the book, he'd know that what he just said doesn't at all narrow down where in the book he is.

It's okay. Try again if you have an interest. You're not going to like all of the great authors and that's perfectly fine.