/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>844989

He has a reputation, as a crank.

My one question with his quotes here is this; the witness of scripture is for governmental power. St Paul says this in Romans 13. So Tolstoy falls into the camp of those poor miserable souls who "are Christian, but…" In other words they are not Christian.

If you know John Bunyan's "A Pilgrim's Progress" you can easily see that Tolstoy is being a "Mr. Hold-The-World." Everybody knows the old adage, that every nation gets the government it deserves. It is unrealistic and prideful to think that things will be much better if we throw off the shackles of government.

Tolstoy for all his hatred of the moderns, is part of the modern disease. The modern disease is that we have no patience, because we have no faith, or at least we have very little faith. Few are really convinced that there is a heaven, so we must have it all now. If Tolstoy really believed in God, Tolstoy would have accepted Romans 13, and said that if God declared Romans 13, then who is Tolstoy to contradict God?

Really, any time someone says "I am a Christian, but" or they contradict scripture on the basis of their own morality and refuse to recant, they aren't worth listening to. And it doesn't take any great spiritual mastery to avoid listening to them, it is all too natural to ignore someone else's opinion. Also nowhere in the gospel are we admonished to listen to our neighbour.

>>844989

He offered a third way that probably would have helped Russia survive and thwart the Revolution. The Czars' days were numbered, but he offered a peaceful path that could have kept their society mostly intact, and also brought justice to serfs. If it had picked up, the Bolsheviks wouldn't have had many places to grow. Most of the problems they targetted wouldn't have existed if there had been a stronger Tolstoyan movement.

The best comparison I can make is John Wesley in England. His works among the working classes kind of snuffed out any need for a revolution like what happened in France. Revolutionaries couldn't capitalize on working class grievances when there was already a church movement from Wesley addressing those things.

>>844998

Romans 13 doesn't give unlimited power to the government.

>Romans 13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/08/chuck-baldwin/the-myth-of-romans-13/

>So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)

Scripture confirms that the "kindoms" of the earth are controlled by satan, the enemy of God.

>Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

>1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

I've read a bit from him and about him. What I've found most interesting is his account about the differences about rural and urban poverty.

According to him, rural poverty is usually about land distribution. If the poor were given land and well treated, they would work and be glad.

The urban poor see charity as a fool's money, to be spent frivolously as it was not earned by their own sweat. I believe they are alike usurers and landlords spiritually speaking.

I particularly believe he was not a Christian, even if his politics took the symbology of Christianity. Regarding his politics, all I have to say is that his servants would mock him behind his back for wearing their working clothes as a costume. I believe the folk feel closer to the rulers when they act and present themselves as rulers, rather than one of the people. It is a psychological mistake to believe the folk wish to see one of them as a ruler, they want to see a ruler rule.

>>845003

You're right, Romans 13 does not give unlimited power to government, but making war whenever necessary by whatever means necessary is definitely within the remit of the power of government. My source for that assertion is the Book of Joshua. See also 1 Kings 20, from verse 35.

The only thing I agree with Tolstoy on, except without irony, is that it is perfectly Christian to enact all the cruelties of war, with no other motive than love of our neighbour. We may decry war, but sometimes war is unavoidable.

>>845003

>Lewrockwell.com

>The daily news and opinion site LewRockwell.com was founded in 1999 by anarcho-capitalists Lew Rockwell [send him mail] and Burt Blumert to help carry on the anti-war, anti-state, pro-market work of Murray N. Rothbard.

And Chuck Baldwin's(who has pretty much dropped the pretext of his articles being about Christianity instead of hardcore Tea Party propaganda) analysis is retarded.

It starts with Jus Primae Noctis, which is a myth made by French Revolution Republicans, and pretty much concludes with "idk obey them as long as you feel they are convenient".

>>845026

Wikipedia early life section with jewish upbringing beats not an argument, though.

>>845027

No, it doesn't, but there's nothing of concern in the history of Lew Rockwell or lewrockwell

>>845033

>Blumert

>Rothbard

>Mises

It's like my local lawyer association over here. They also have a Shabbo's Goy as a frontman.

>>845026

>>845033

>He thinks my problem is that some guy is jewish;

No, im dismissing your article because its poorly made as a scriptural analysis, the author has a history of his speeches being mostly Tea Party rhetoric, and your site's stated purpose is being a propaganda outlet for the most autistically anti-gov economic school in history, the austrian one, so of course people that think the state is evil incarnate are somehow gonna turn Romans 13 into an anti-gubment thing.

Its like basing your analysis of the Bible being true and uncorrupted on muslim apologetics.

>>845045

That is also not an argument

>>845046

The article?

Yeah, its just a propaganda piece

>>845049

Why so bitter?

>>845050

not an argument

>>845056

I'm not making an argument, I'm wondering why someone would enter in a discussion only to tell everyone that he dismisses an argument because of the political background of the author, especially considering the tea partiers are the good guys from a Christian perspective

>>845000

Anyone interested in this angle? I even got trips and you all still ignored me.

Seriously though, he might be a kook, but he was the best chance Russia had to avoid catastrophe. I probably would say this about most "third ways". Civilizations have a tendency to reject them however and then get swallowed up in extremism later. The USA is undergoing that right now.

>>845058

I'm interested in your angle but I don't know enough about the topic

>>845019

Where in the book of Joshua does it say the government can make war whenever it wants? Also 1 Kings 20 verse 35 seems irrelevant. Could you be more specific?

>>845068

There's nothing in the book of Joshua making such an outrageous approval of any given war. There's nothing to learn from the Conquest of the Israelites for most people. 99.999999% of people are not like Moses or Joshua. They don't know God. Nor does God speak to them. They did not receive the Torah on Sinai. They do not fight giants and cultures engaged in child sacrifice. Last but not least, most people do not have an army like the faithful Israelites who followed all of God's laws, like in Joshua's time. Perhaps if people met these requirements, they might get away with applying more of it to themselves. But this isn't likely. What's more likely is that your armies are the very kind of degenerates that Joshua and Israel themselves would have happily put to the sword.

>>845073

On a sidenote, the only equivalent "modern" example to this was 500 years ago: Joan of Arc. So not very modern at all. Maybe then I could say, "Hey, maybe this person possibly had a divine mandate." And her army weren't an embarrassment either. They were so devoted to her that they dare not engage in the usual bad behavior of soldiers. She forced them all to attend church, go to confession, forbid any cursing, no pillaging or harm done to innocents, and certainly no days off whoring around like sailors, etc.. She persuaded them that they were winning because the English weren't following God's laws, as she urged them to.

So yeah, maybe that's the one example. I can't stand the bulk of kings and politicians who see themselves in the biblical examples and try to bolster their image through this. While inwardly, they do not follow God, nor do their soldiers. And especially America, where every other soldier is a faggot or every other leader is a pedophile.

>>845085

> and the parts against resistance and rebellion is from those who are guilty of the

Guilty of the law.

>>844998

>If Tolstoy really believed in God, Tolstoy would have accepted Romans 13, and said that if God declared Romans 13, then who is Tolstoy to contradict God?

Where is the contradiction? You can lawfully speak against the government without conflicting with Romans 13. Even the quote about the governments of the world being unapprovingly ordained by God has truth to it since the kingdoms of the world are run by Satan.

Some Russian-language sources say that Leo Tolstoy adopted monotheism through Islam