Christian pacifism/non-violence -- have you read this book?

[mastromatteom1]

Has anyone read the book The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy? I think every Christian ought to read it, and I'm not even finished with it yet!

It's amazing how Christians can totally ignore some of Christ's most important messages, but I would like to recommend this book to as many people as possible in hopes that it will open their eyes... Despite what modern Americans seem to think, Christianity was never supposed to be about using the government to put sinners in jail. Tolstoy really knew what he was talking about; this is the best book on Christianity I've ever read.

 

[hithesh]

Has anyone read the book The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy? I think every Christian ought to read it, and I'm not even finished with it yet!

It's amazing how Christians can totally ignore some of Christ's most important messages, but I would like to recommend this book to as many people as possible in hopes that it will open their eyes... Despite what modern Americans seem to think, Christianity was never supposed to be about using the government to put sinners in jail. Tolstoy really knew what he was talking about; this is the best book on Christianity I've ever read.

This book changed my life. I doubted the existence of God, till I came across this book.
Every christians should read it, but very few will, and even fewer will get it.

What's amazing about this book, that christians and unbelievers at the time,
thought Tolstoy's concepts were foolish, and unlivable.

It took a little old man in India (Gandhi), to prove to the world,
that Tolstoy knew what he was talking about. And it took Martin Luther King,
to show us the kingdom of god is possible, in our country as well.

 

[mastromatteom1]

Yeah I first heard about the book by reading about Gandhi. More people in my generation need to take an interest in history, or else these things might be forgotten. I doubt very many Americans my age know about Gandhi, so how long will it take before they forget Dr. King?

 

[intricatic]

In order to understand Tolstoy, one first has to read Nietzsche in order to contrast the two perspectives. They're both exactly the same, despite their diametric opposition. The best way to progress from there is to take the things in both writers that are actually good - that is, which are not reliant entirely on the mystical element of thought they both present - and read a lot of the more unmystic authors who present a systematic perspective on human life and the biblical application of ethics.

To be sure, pasifism has lots of merit, but not in an ideological sort of way. Pasifism isn't always the best solution. If you take it to be a universal, then you also take for a universal that ignoring murder, rape, and other human evils is also a universal good. The rejection of political power is a wonderful thing - a non-violent revolution in hopes of an overthrow of human political power is not.

 

[mastromatteom1]

I also find a lot of principles from Ayn Rand that go along with these messages, although she and Nietzche both rejected Christianity.

 

[intricatic]

I also find a lot of principles from Ayn Rand that go along with these messages, although she and Nietzche both rejected Christianity.

They were all based on mysticism in one way or another - finding meaning through meaningless action, in these cases. I've always found it ironic that Tolstoy drew a lot of his ideas from the Quakers.

 

[rocklife]

I haven't read the book. I've seen a story by Tolstoy, and for some reason it didn't sit right with me, I had to throw away that story, don't remember why

it seems Tolstoy was converted later in life, maybe there is a difference in his writings, pre-conversion, post-conversion?

thanks for sharing, I'll look into it

 

[mastromatteom1]

Yes, Tolstoy didn't convert until after he finished his novels, as I understand it, and so his later work is much different than the works for which he is mainly remembered. I've never read War and Peace or Anna Karenina and don't particularly care to, although I recently watched and very much enjoyed the movie War and Peace (the version with Audrey Hepburn).

I've been interested in the Quakers for the past year, but I've never attended any of their meetings. The declaration by William Lloyd Garrison that Tolstoy references at the beginning of Kingdom is one of my favorite parts of the book--I'm going to have to print it out and share it with people.

I find when studying American history that a lot of the founding fathers weren't that great, and I think it's a misconception to think of them as Christians, but Garrison seems to have been a true hero of early America. Many of them were Deists influenced by the European Enlightenment--they believed in a "Grand Architect" of the universe, but God without Jesus is not Christianity--the reason it's so important to recognize the divinity of Jesus is precisely because Jesus was so adamant about peace and love and soforth. If you take Him out of the equation, it's possible to believe in a God that encourages people to kill or enslave or otherwise persecute others (as many monotheists seem to believe, which is causing a major problem in the world).

 

[intricatic]

You can find it Here.

I thought Garrison's piece in this was too ideological - it seems to supersede what Christians are called to be in regard to the governments of the world.

 

[rocklife]

Yes, Tolstoy didn't convert until after he finished his novels, as I understand it, and so his later work is much different than the works for which he is mainly remembered. I've never read War and Peace or Anna Karenina and don't particularly care to, although I recently watched and very much enjoyed the movie War and Peace (the version with Audrey Hepburn).

I've been interested in the Quakers for the past year, but I've never attended any of their meetings. The declaration by William Lloyd Garrison that Tolstoy references at the beginning of Kingdom is one of my favorite parts of the book--I'm going to have to print it out and share it with people.

I find when studying American history that a lot of the founding fathers weren't that great, and I think it's a misconception to think of them as Christians, but Garrison seems to have been a true hero of early America. Many of them were Deists influenced by the European Enlightenment--they believed in a "Grand Architect" of the universe, but God without Jesus is not Christianity--the reason it's so important to recognize the divinity of Jesus is precisely because Jesus was so adamant about peace and love and soforth. If you take Him out of the equation, it's possible to believe in a God that encourages people to kill or enslave or otherwise persecute others (as many monotheists seem to believe, which is causing a major problem in the world).

yeah, one thing I've seen some political leaders point out in the "news" media, is the founding leaders based this United States on Christian principles, not necessarily on Christ, and we can really see that when you look at them and their personal philosophies (deist, etc). The living Christ is more than just principles.

thanks for sharing

 

[hithesh]

They were all based on mysticism in one way or another - finding meaning through meaningless action, in these cases. I've always found it ironic that Tolstoy drew a lot of his ideas from the Quakers.

I'm curious as to why you think, it's ironic he drew a "lot" of his ideas from Quakers? And can you define what "meaningless" action" is ?

 

[Ave Maria]

I have never read the book but I do consider myself to be some sort of a pacifist. I don't believe in violence. When it comes to war, I do believe in the Just War Doctrine which you can read about here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

As a side note, I do not believe that the Iraq war fits the requirements of the just war doctrine and therefore I am opposed to the Iraq war.

 

[intricatic]

I'm curious as to why you think, it's ironic he drew a "lot" of his ideas from Quakers? And can you define what "meaningless" action" is ?

It's ironic because most of Quaker ideology is not ideological. At the time this book was written, it was a necessity to take a public stand because of the active mandates regarding civil service. The Quakers just wanted to live in peace with a non-involvement relation to government. Taken in an ideological way, this can be misinterpreted to mean something far more than it actually does, and it is easily made to supersede the intent of the message itself.

"Meaningless action" is moral heroism. That is to imply action without meaning, doing something because it makes you feel good, but not for any cause or power above the individual. It's identical to Ayn Rand's concept of heroism - that an individual's personal happiness is the most important thing, and that happiness comes from a state of heroism (overcoming great obstacles to meet personal goals). The problem being that heroism is most romantically associated with warfare, and can be extrapolated from war just as much as from pacifism. I think that was the intellectual honesty of a majority of the historical existential movements.

The kingdoms of Experience
In the precious wind they rot
While paupers change possessions
Each one wishing for what the other has got
And the princess and the prince
Discuss what's real and what is not
It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden

 

[hithesh]

"Meaningless action" is moral heroism. That is to imply action without meaning, doing something because it makes you feel good.

Tolstoy concepts had nothing to do with doing something because it "feels" good. Tolstoy said it is the will of God, he believed everything should be sacrificed for god. Such as resist not evil, even though we may we feel shouldn't in a particular incident, he said we should because god has a will for it, even if it seems beyond our understanding and "feelings". Tolstoy believed in doing the will of god, not the will of himself, or the will of man. Tolstoy wasn't an existentialist, he did not find meaning from life, but by following the will of the divine outside of our existence. If we were to say that following the will of God, means following the will of nothingness than you have a point, since this will cannot be easily understood by man.

Secondly, earlier you mentioned that Tolstoy's philosophy, and Nietzche were similiar, but this is really far from the truth. Nietztche would have despised Tolstoy's philosophy, for adhering to meekness, and love of all. For tolstoy god was not dead, he was certain he existed.


And in the words of Tolstoy himself:
"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."

 

[intricatic]

Tolstoy concepts had nothing to do with doing something because it "feels" good. Tolstoy said it is the will of God, he believed everything should be sacrificed for god. Such as resist not evil, even though we may we feel shouldn't in a particular incident, he said we should because god has a will for it, even if it seems beyond our understanding and "feelings". Tolstoy believed in doing the will of god, not the will of himself, or the will of man. Tolstoy wasn't an existentialist, he did not find meaning from life, but by following the will of the divine outside of our existence. If we were to say that following the will of God, means following the will of nothingness than you have a point, since this will cannot be easily understood by man.

Secondly, earlier you mentioned that Tolstoy's philosophy, and Nietzche were similiar, but this is really far from the truth. Nietztche would have despised Tolstoy's philosophy, for adhering to meekness, and love of all. For tolstoy god was not dead, he was certain he existed.


And in the words of Tolstoy himself:
"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."

He was very much an existentialist. He and Nietzsche held the exact same duality, overall, in the mystic portion of their faith and reason. The difference was that of proportion - Nietzsche rejected all logical evidences as being supurfluous to faith, absolutely. Nietzsche was a proponent of a heroic position of transcendental meaning in a mystical void of nothingness - which can be seen as a purely mystical philosophy, while Tolstoy grew up in rationalism and eventually rejected it for a position embracing the pure irrationality of life itself in contrast to his rational position in almost every literate expression - this, I'd imagine, is the contributing factor to his purely mystical view of God. So his rationalism became his mysticism upon conversion to Christianity, which puts him not only in opposition to Nietzsche's open expression of mysticism in his philosophy, but also absolutely uniform with it at the same time.

 

[hithesh]

He was very much an existentialist. He and Nietzsche held the exact same duality, overall, in the mystic portion of their faith and reason. The difference was that of proportion - Nietzsche rejected all logical evidences as being supurfluous to faith, absolutely. Nietzsche was a proponent of a heroic position of transcendental meaning in a mystical void of nothingness - which can be seen as a purely mystical philosophy, while Tolstoy grew up in rationalism and eventually rejected it for a position embracing the pure irrationality of life itself in contrast to his rational position in almost every literate expression - this, I'd imagine, is the contributing factor to his purely mystical view of God. So his rationalism became his mysticism upon conversion to Christianity, which puts him not only in opposition to Nietzsche's open expression of mysticism in his philosophy, but also absolutely uniform with it at the same time.

I'm confused about how you're using the term "mystical" in refrence to Tolstoy's faith. Are you saying an individuals who follows the sermon of the mount, in it's literal form, is following a "mystical view of god"? If this is so, did Christ also follow a "mystival view of god", since he turned the other cheek, left family, and all for god, lived with no money, resisted not evil, etc..?

 

[intricatic]

I'm confused about how you're using the term "mystical" in refrence to Tolstoy's faith. Are you saying an individuals who follows the sermon of the mount, in it's literal form, is following a "mystical view of god"? If this is so, did Christ also follow a "mystival view of god", since he turned the other cheek, left family, and all for god, lived with no money, resisted not evil, etc..?

No, I'm saying that dividing the scriptures into portions the way that Tolstoy did produced in him a mystical view of God's divinity, in the exact same form that Nietzsche came to in his philosophy; they were diametrically opposed, but they both came to the same point in perspective. This has nothing to do with accepting the Sermon on the Mount as a literal form of scripture, or accepting the implications of it.

 

[hithesh]

No, I'm saying that dividing the scriptures into portions the way that Tolstoy did produced in him a mystical view of God's divinity, in the exact same form that Nietzsche came to in his philosophy; they were diametrically opposed, but they both came to the same point in perspective. This has nothing to do with accepting the Sermon on the Mount as a literal form of scripture, or accepting the implications of it.

Uhm, I'm not sure if you've ever read Tolstoy's "The Gospel in Brief", he doesn't divide the scripture into portions. He rearranges the gospels, ordering passages by themes. As you've mentioned some time ago, certain parts in chapter are not related to other parts, what he does is arrange the parts so that all is related. None of his concepts can be argued within the gospels, regardless if you reorder it or not, he just reorders it, so that the themes in the gospels are noticed more.

Any individuals who accepts the sermon on the mount as a literal form of scripture, believes in Tolstoy's interpretation of the gospels. There is nothing about Tolstoy's philosophy, that is outside of the gospels.

They came to the same point in perspective??? Thats like saying Gandhi and Hitler came to the same perspective. Nietzche despised everything Tolstoy valued (asceticism, meekness, love of enemies, love of god etc). Do you have a particular writing of Tolstoy's your using to make this assumption?

I'm not too familiar with all of Nietzche's ideas, but I am with Tolstoy's. But I'm curios did Nietzche believe in certain portions of the gospels? I though he lauded all portions of it?

 

[intricatic]

Uhm, I'm not sure if you've ever read Tolstoy's "The Gospel in Brief", he doesn't divide the scripture into portions. He rearranges the gospels, ordering passages by themes. As you've mentioned some time ago, certain parts in chapter are not related to other parts, what he does is arrange the parts so that all is related. None of his concepts can be argued within the gospels, regardless if you reorder it or not, he just reorders it, so that the themes in the gospels are noticed more.

Any individuals who accepts the sermon on the mount as a literal form of scripture, believes in Tolstoy's interpretation of the gospels. There is nothing about Tolstoy's philosophy, that is outside of the gospels.

They came to the same point in perspective??? Thats like saying Gandhi and Hitler came to the same perspective. Nietzche despised everything Tolstoy valued (asceticism, meekness, love of enemies, love of god etc). Do you have a particular writing of Tolstoy's your using to make this assumption?

I'm not too familiar with all of Nietzche's ideas, but I am with Tolstoy's. But I'm curios did Nietzche believe in certain portions of the gospels? I though he lauded all portions of it?

I think we're having a misunderstanding here. I'm saying that at the very base, all existential philosophy / theology / world views / etc... have in common a single unifying bind. That is the isolated condition of mankind, and the distant, impersonal condition of divinity. Would you say that Tolstoy completely focused on the moral teachings in the Bible, in rejection of the supernatural elements or the implications that the supernatural elements would have on the interpretation and understanding of what the moral elements meant? Obviously, the supernatural elements have no implication on how the moral elements are taken, but their meaning is what's being put under the spotlight here. As I've said before, Tolstoy was an amazing author and I have nothing but respect for the guy, but he missed this aspect by a wide margin because of the underlining irrationality that Tolstoy presupposed in his Bible reading. This is what placed him under such a mystical perspective, and what bound him to all existential / skeptical philosophy. If you start with the impersonal and irrational, one's conclusions can't consistently be personal and rational.

When it comes to Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, the reason they follow the exact same example is that they did the exact same thing with their philosophies. They were inconsistent with their perspective of reality, and they left the inconsistency in a mystical haze. There is no reason for it, but in some examples, it's because of a presuppositon of the irrationality of life. Why people would want to cling to such an idea is beyond me.

 

[Joykins]

I haven't read this but I have read a few of Tolstoy's novels and I thought they portrayed a Christian sort of sensibility--or a sensibility that was susceptible to Christianity, at least: Susan's Howatch's novel immediately before her conversion had the same sort of feel.

I love the novels and will have to read this book.