Thread 24705116

>writes some of the most amazing Literature of all time
>goes crazy, completely disowns his work, and does irreparable damage to Christianity with his new pseudo-secularized heresy

what the hell was his problem?

>>24705116 (OP)
His problem was surrounding Christianity being FUBAR

You think it is heresy to preach nonviolence? Tolstoy gave us the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He is a big deal here in Alabama. I admire his work as a Muslim. Do you know Shaykh Amado Bamba?

Another historical champion of nonviolence. A Muslim. Led nonviolent Jihad and established agricultural communities. Am also a student of the Islamic mystical tradition. It is my spiritual refuge.

>>24705125

You don't prove the value and worth of Islam to America with violence.

Take a look at Indonesia. Most populous Muslim country in the whole world.

How did they receice Islam? Peaceful missionaries and trade.

Islamic mysticism played a key role in this and it has lasted.

Developing a personal relationship with God appeals to people.

>>24705125
Why is this website so obsessed with violence?
This isn't directed at you anon but I everything is violence this and violence that with anons.

>>24705129

>How did they receive Islam? Peaceful missionaries and trade.

Do you know what destroys my countrymen here in America?

The bottle, the pills, the dope, the smack, the junk. For starters.

Usury, pornography, poverty, isolation. All manner of spiritual ills.

What do you want me to do? Launch artillery rockets? To explode?

99% of this nation has not even read the Koran. America needs healing.

Islam heals, purifies, and unites. It is the medicine that this country truly needs.

These destroyers, these zionists, they are powerless against a spiritual campaign.

Of virtue and kindness, of good deeds and earnest preaching, the highest Jihad.

Even my brothers in Gaza and Iraq actively advise against violence.

Including the Sayyid. They are counting on me and my word.

Not to build a weapon, to build a Masjid.

>>24705142

Because this website is full of actual military propagandists.

>>24705125
tolstoy didnt just preach nonviolence, he preached suicide and proliferation of evil

"Justice without mercy is cruelty; mercy without justice is dissolution" - Aquinas

>>24705116 (OP)
>what the hell was his problem?
being russian

>>24705125
the problem is he misinterprets/misrepresents bible passages to push ideas that are not actually in the text

not to mention the fact that at the same time, he stopped believing in the divinity of Christ all together while still pretending to be an authority on his teachings

he would do things like take the verse like

>Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”…


then completely ignores the "If it is possible on your part" part and says "this means you cant defend yourself of your loved ones at a all and must lie down while evil people rape your daughter because meeting force with force would be returning evil with evil!!!!"

sometimes its no longer "possible on our part" to maintain peace.

"Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4

what Tolstoy preaches is to dispense no justice, maintain no ones rights, rescue no one, and deliver no one from the hanf of the wicked. and he does it through a combination of extreme literalist misinterpretations and taking lines out of their context

in fact he literally re wrote the gospels with the explicit intention of cutting away all of the important context.

>>24705172
and dont even get me started on his misinterpretations of the sermon on the mount

firstly I think you need the full section:

You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.[e] 39 But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well. 40 When they wish to haul you to court and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. 41 When they force you to go one mile, go with them two. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you.

this is pretty clearly all being said in the specific context of "eye for an eye" tit-for tat ego driven reaction
The historical context for these verses makes them more understandable.

First, eye for eye and tooth for tooth is as it seems: take from them exactly the same as they took from you, no more, no less. This discourages the original action and also discourages retaliatory violence.

Then the bar is raised. If someone slapped you on the right cheek, they would have used their left hand, the "unclean" hand. Turning the other cheek essentially quietly forces the person to either 1) slap you with their right hand, therefore marking you as an equal to them, 2) backhand you with their left hand, which would put shame on the slapper, or 3) end the altercation. You are performing nonviolence in a way that lets the speaker and everyone watching know the speaker is misusing power.

If someone took you to court for your shirt, that would mean you had nothing left to sue for except the clothes on your back. You are destitute. Giving them your coat as well as your shirt means you walk home half-nude. People would notice, thereby shaming the person greedy enough to take such a destitute person to court for pennies. You are using malicious compliance to shame the greedy and cruel.

Romans had the "right" to forge Jewish people to carry their soldier gear for one mile, and one mile only. If they forced you to carry their things for a mile, you could just. Keep walking. Keep on going with them. You now have the power, you have their stuff, they will have to ask for it back and wait for you to grant their request. You're technically being "helpful" and giving the soldier the power, but in reality you're shaming their use of power, making them walk further than they meant to, and they might think twice before making someone carry their stuff again.

None of these are about meek nonviolence. They are about pointed nonviolent social critique, they're about shaming those abusing power or money where everyone can see, and they're about making the people performing that abuse feel bad for what they did or at least think about not continuing to do it.

>>24705172
> "this means you cant defend yourself of your loved ones at a all and must lie down while evil people rape your daughter because meeting force with force would be returning evil with evil!!!!"
>sometimes its no longer "possible on our part" to maintain peace.
I love that part of the gospel where it was no longer possible for the apostles to prevent violence in one way or another so Jesus told them to take swords and murder the roman soldiers and stab the members of Synedrion to death instead of literally lying down while evil people tormented, humiliated and literally crucified their beloved Lord and Savior.

>>24705188
Jesus:
>"The world is fleeting, while your souls and my Father's kingdom are eternal, so damn not your soul with sin in this fleeting life for it's fleeting meanings. So do no evil onto each other, love each other, even those who harm and persecute you - rather, pity and pray for those who harm and persecute you, because while you suffer some fleeting earthly pain and loss, they disfigure their souls forever unless they find remorse for their actions and repent"

Anon:
>1000 millions words about how Jeses akshually used subtle idioms with deeply hidden meaning that ultimately meant the opposite of what he said plainly

i am sorry that Christianity is not based and violent enough for you.

>>24705116 (OP)
There is no way he did irreparable damage to Christianity, moron
>what the hell was his problem?
He fucked like crazy when he was young and could never forgive himself for it. He was among those geniuses who hated themselves, hence the gross nature of his eroticism. Probably didn't help that Slavic women are whores

>>24705143
Why do you renounce your prophet who struck at the neck of disbelievers?

>>24705214
Yea, sorry but you are just straight up wrong

>instead of literally lying down while evil people tormented, humiliated and literally crucified their beloved Lord and Savior.

Except he did that explitely because he had accepted his destiny in the garden the night prior, because his sacrifice had a higher purpose. are you seriously trying to convince me that you sincerely believe that christ allowing himself to be crucified for our sins means you should also similarly hand you family over to a random crazy person on a silver platter to be raped and murdered for no reason?

That is beyond insanity with no basis whatsoever

>so damn not your soul with sin
Defending your family from a violent attacker Is not a sin
>So do no evil onto each other,
Defending your family from an attacker is not doing anyone evil
>love each other, even those who harm and persecute you - rather, pity and pray for those who harm and persecute you,
This is not mutually exclusive with defending your family. Loving someone and praying for them does not mean you have to let them do whatever they want whenever they want for any reason. This is about hatred and pride. You do not have to hate someone in order to stop them from committing an evil act by force. Your response must be done with a clear head with judgement not clouded by hate or pride or other sinful impulses. It must be tempered with mercy and grace.
>deeply hidden
You mean Clear as day to his audience whose cultural customs and social realities he was adressing
>ultimately meant the opposite of what he said plainly
This does not apply to literally anything I have said.
>i am sorry that Christianity is not based and violent enough for you.

I'm sorry you are objectively wrong and have completely misinterpreted christs teaching in such a way that empowers evil and does real physical and spiritual harm.

>>24705214
Kek

>>24705116 (OP)
>does irreparable damage to Christianity
How? There are no Tolstoyans today, even during his time most people didn’t care for his brand of Christian anarchism, it just wasn’t every influential beyond disciples like Gandhi who weren’t even Christian

>>24705214
>while your souls and my Father's kingdom are eternal, so damn not your soul

Why would defending.your child damn your soul? Also wouldn't letting you son get raped be a really bad idea given that trauma has serious psychological effects that can drive people to sin and thus do harm to their immortal soul?

Wouldn't the moral thing to do be to prevent that from happening, especially since you would not have to son to do it?

The immoral thing would be to take revenge. That is a completely different type of violence, not even In the same ball park as actually preventing an evil act from being carried out

>>24705214
And tell me, what did Paul mean by "? Hmm? Why did he establish this specific boundary?

Why did he say "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, be at peace with everyone" and not just "be at peace with everyone no matter what?

What happens when peace is not possible, and does not depend on you? What happens when you have exhausted literally all options avaliable you?

Do you think maybe Paul said "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you" because he is trying to say you should exhaust all options and do everything you can to escalate a situation before you use force as an absolute last resort to deescalate a situation?? Because I cant think of any other possible reason he would say that.

>>24705265
>Except he did that explitely because he had accepted his destiny in the garden the night prior, because his sacrifice had a higher purpose. are you seriously trying to convince me that you sincerely believe that christ allowing himself to be crucified for our sins means you should also similarly hand you family over to a random crazy person on a silver platter to be raped and murdered for no reason?
Matthew 16:24
>Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. "
I dunno, maybe the cultural customs and social realities of the time meant that the actual meaning was
>"If anyone would come after me, he must never strive to imitate my sacrifice which is not in any way made as an example for men to follow for the salvation of their souls, and instead let him take up a sword and do death onto those he judges as sinful and undeserving of life"


>Defending your family from a violent attacker Is not a sin
Genesis 9:6
>Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
Violence is a sin, period. If your close ones are harmed by evil people then you and them should welcome martyrdom as Apostles and Jesus himself literally did and told their followers to do. If they are innocent and suffer at the hands of sinners, then you are to be reunited in God's Kingdom through His grace. If one aims to protect them, he must raise them guiding their immortal souls to Jesus and pray for their salvation, not take up a sword and allow sin into his soul. It is understandable if one is too tied to the worldly passions and affairs to deny himself and so participates in violence, for whatever worldly reasons there are, as no one is without a sin, but then it must be followed by remorse and confession, as is any other sinful behavior.


This is not some Tolstovian heresy either, currently there are literally no historical denominations of Christianity out there which approve of violence and warfare, however strong the justification may be. At best it's a regrettable affair coming out of sinful nature of men and their kingdoms. At worst it's completely unacceptable.

LMFAO what are them boots my nigga

>>24705489
I wonder if atheists, when providing their absurd exegeses of Scriptures, know how ridiculous they are- but bet on the ignorance of Christians who would not be able to contradict them. Clearly some types of violence are condoned in The Bible. God empowers Jews to kill Amalek. If you take on the Protestant, quasi-secular notion that violence is only permitted in some situations in the Old Testament, I encourage you to reread Revelations.

>>24705506
>I encourage you to reread Revelations.
mf I encourage you do go to church and ask your priest
>"Excuse me Father when if it good and righteous to murder a fool?"

>>24705516
I await for you to re-write that babble for I haven't understood a word. In the meantime, let me correct another of your puerile assertions
>>24705214
>I love that part of the gospel where it was no longer possible for the apostles to prevent violence in one way or another so Jesus told them to take swords and murder the roman soldiers and stab the members of Synedrion to death instead of literally lying down while evil people tormented, humiliated and literally crucified their beloved Lord and Savior.
Within the passage, you have laid directly in front of you, from Matthew 26:
> Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?
From Mark 14:
> Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled

Almost as if the point of the passage is to show the fulfillment of Prophecy, and not whatever secularist babble you try to impose onto us.

>>24705116 (OP)
>what the hell was his problem?
>writes some of the most amazing Literature of all time
Mission accomplished.
Now you can go crazy, become a prophet, seek God, create a doctrine, run away from home

well, I don't see the problem

>>24705489
Tolstoy's reading of Christianity is more accurate than all the interpretations that actually existed. Christianity is indeed pacifist, anti-establishment, anti-government, anarchist etc if you're strictly looking at the Jesus of the Gospels. People just seethed at Tolstoy for telling them the truth (the truth Nietzsche also told us but that he criticized whereas Tolstoy embraced it)

>>24705489
>>Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

by what logic are you interpreting "take up the cross" as "you must give your family to rrandom apists and murderers"?

>instead let him take up a sword and do death onto those he judges as sinful and undeserving of life

what the hell are you talking about? we arent talking about "killing someone because they are sinful" as some kind of judgemental punishment, we are talking about physically stopping someone from hurting other people

>Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,

anon this is literally establishing the death penalty as punishment for murder. other humans are the ones carying out the killing in this context. this line is proof that just violence violence exist, as is the rest of the old testament as god regularly commands violence

this also reionforced by mosaic law

>If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed

you can absolutey 100% commit an act of violence and not be guilty of bloodshed

God also literally teaches us to Defend those who cant defend themselves and strive for justice.

"Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

>welcome martyrdom

martyrdom is christianity is defined as being killed for one's witness to faith in Jesus Christ. this is not at all what we are talking about here. we are talking about people who are attacked for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or being the object of someones sinful desires. that is not martyrdom.