Leo Tolstoy: Christianity is a very crude Jewish sect

Leo Tolstoy: Christianity is a very crude Jewish sect

Leo Tolstoy: Christianity is a Jewish sect. People live peacefully among themselves and act in harmony only when they are united by the same worldview: they equally understand the goal and purpose of their activities.

The Christian religion, clothed in solemn forms, for a long time met the moral and mental requirements of European peoples. But it was a very unreasonable and internally contradictory combination of the most basic and eternal truths about human life.

The further life progressed, the more people became enlightened, the more and more obvious became the internal contradiction contained in this religion, its groundlessness, inconsistency and uselessness. This went on for centuries, and in our time it has reached the point that the Christian religion is maintained only by inertia, is no longer recognized by anyone and does not fulfill the main external influence on the people inherent in religion: the unification of people in one worldview, one common understanding of the purpose and purpose of life.

I know that what I have to say now is precisely that the church faith, which for centuries has been and is now being professed by millions of people under the name of Christianity, is nothing more than a very crude Jewish sect, which has nothing in common with true Christianity, - will seem to people who verbally profess the teachings of this sect not only incredible, but the height of the most terrible blasphemy.

But I can't help but say this. I cannot help but say, because in order for people to be able to take advantage of the great benefit that the true Christian teaching gives us, we need, first of all, to free ourselves from that incoherent, false and, most importantly, deeply immoral teaching that hid the true Christian teaching.

The teaching that hid the teaching of Christ from us is the teaching of Paul [Paulianism], set forth in his epistles and which became the basis of church teaching. This teaching is not only not the teaching of Christ, but is a teaching directly opposite to it.

One has only to read the gospels carefully, not paying special attention to everything that bears the stamp of superstitious insertions made by the compilers, such as the miracle of Cana of Galilee, resurrections, healings, exorcism of demons and the resurrection of Christ himself, but focusing on what is simple, clear, understandable and is internally connected by one and the same thought - and then read at least the epistles of Paul that are recognized as the best, so that it becomes clear that complete disagreement that cannot but exist between the universal, eternal teaching of the simple, holy man Jesus with the practical temporary, local, unclear , confusing, pompous and counterfeiting the existing evil teaching of the Pharisee Paul.

Christianity and Paulianism

The essence of the teaching

– The essence of Christ’s teaching is simple, clear, accessible to everyone and can be expressed in one word: man is the son of God.

– The essence of Paul’s teaching is artificial, dark and completely incomprehensible to any person free from hypnosis [a person is a slave to his masters].

Basis of teaching

– The basis of Christ’s teaching is that the main and only duty of man is to fulfill the will of God, that is, love for people.

– The basis of Paul’s teaching is that man’s only duty is to believe that Christ, by his death, atoned and is atoning for the sins of people.

Reward

– According to the teachings of Christ, the reward for transferring one’s life into the spiritual essence of each person is the joyful freedom of this consciousness of union with God.

– According to Paul’s teaching, the reward of a good life is not here, but in the future, posthumous state. According to Paul’s teaching, one must live a good life, most importantly, in order to receive a reward for it “there.”

The basis of Christ’s teaching is truth, the meaning is the purpose of life.

The basis of Paul's teaching is calculation and fantasy.

From these different foundations even more different conclusions follow.

Motivation

– Christ says that people should not expect rewards and punishments in the future and should, as workers for the owner, understand their purpose and fulfill it.

– Paul’s teaching is based on the fear of punishment and on promises of rewards, ascension to heaven, or on the most immoral position that if you believe, you will be freed from sins, you are sinless [fear of punishment and the position that the one who believes is sinless].

Where the gospel recognizes the equality of all people and says that what is great before men is an abomination before God. Paul teaches obedience to authorities, recognizing them from God, so that whoever resists authority resists God's institution.

The Gospel says that people are all equal. Paul knows the slaves and commands them to obey their masters.

Christ says: “Do not swear at all and give to Caesar only what is Caesar’s, and do not give what is God’s - your soul - to anyone.”

Paul says: “Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities: for there is no authority except from God; the existing authorities have been established by God” (Rom. XIII, 1, 2).

Christ says: “Those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Paul says: “A ruler is God’s servant, for your good. If you do evil, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, he is God’s servant... an avenger to punish those who do evil” (Rom. XIII, 4).

But it is not only these opposing teachings of Christ and Paul that show the incompatibility of the great, universal teaching with the petty, sectarian, random, provocative preaching of the unenlightened, self-confident and petty-vain, boastful and cunning Jew.

This incompatibility cannot be obvious to every person who has accepted the essence of the great Christian teaching. Meanwhile, a number of random reasons ensured that this insignificant and false teaching took the place of the great eternal and true teaching of Christ and even hid it from the consciousness of most people for many centuries.

True, at all times among Christian peoples there were people who understood Christian teaching in its true meaning, but these were only exceptions. The majority of so-called Christians, especially after the authorities of the church recognized the writings of Paul as the indisputable work of the holy spirit, believed that precisely this immoral and confused teaching, which, as a result, lends itself to the most arbitrary interpretations, is the real teaching of God himself. Christ.

* From an article by L.N. Tolstoy “Why Christian peoples in general and especially the Russian people are now in distress,” 1907.

Source

“Not that, not that!”

This uncompromising hostility of Lev Nikolaevich in his attitude towards the Church was disputed and condemned not only by church leaders, but also by his fellow writers. Here are the memories of Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) about a conversation with the great Russian philosopher V.S. Solovyov.

“To my question, how long had it been since he had seen Count Tolstoy, the late Christian philosopher answered me: “Ever since I saw that the count had personal hatred for the Lord Jesus Christ, I broke everything off with him and no longer have anything to do with him.” relations." “But you can only harbor personal hatred towards someone with whom you have a personal relationship,” I said, “and the count...” “You are too naive,” said Vladimir Sergeevich, “can this proud man forgive some “Carpenter of Nazareth” for Before him, Tolstoy, he gave the world such a teaching that transformed the world, and he, Tolstoy, with all his efforts managed to convert several dozen stupid people to his sect and knows well that his sect will crumble after his death and the teaching will be archived how absurd..."

Unclaimed opportunity

Tolstoy died without restoring his communion with the Church. However, among the church authors there were people who wrote kind and heartfelt words addressed to him after Tolstoy’s death. This is, first of all, Evgeniy Nikolaevich Poselyanin, a famous spiritual writer, author of many books on church topics. In a polemic with Archbishop Nikon of Vologda (which was published by the Kolokol magazine), Poselyanin wrote:

“Let us believe that between the soul of the old man, showered with such great mercies of God, and his God in the last hours of his dying life, unknown to anyone, a great mystery took place, that God, guarding the soul of man and fighting for its salvation until the last moment, called for this sorrowful, restless soul to herself, that she joyfully clung to the feet of Christ and in that she found peace and salvation..."

Very little time will pass, and Lenin’s comrades, in order to excommunicate Lev Nikolaevich from the Church, will flood the country with the blood of those whom their leader called “officials in robes.” E.N. Poselyanin shared the fate of tens of thousands of clergy and simply believing church people. He was shot in 1931 on false charges.

Interceding for Tolstoy, the villager wrote that God's mercy always goes ahead of His justice. This is true. But when a person does not consciously accept mercy, even the Lord cannot force this mercy on him. Paradoxical as it may seem, the “Definition of the Holy Synod” was for Lev Nikolayevich an excellent reason to finally make peace with the Church. After the announcement of the Definition, Tolstoy did not do this. We don’t know what thoughts Lev Nikolaevich left this life with. Everything happened behind closed doors. Only two people had access to Lev Nikolaevich - his daughter Alexandra Lvovna and his personal secretary Vladimir Chertkov - both zealous Tolstoyans. It is known that the Optina elder Barsanuphius came to the dying man. However, he was not allowed to see Tolstoy. We do not know why Lev Nikolaevich did not accept him. Was it the will of Tolstoy himself or the decision of Chertkov and Alexandra Lvovna? We only know that Tolstoy’s reunification with the Church, unfortunately, did not happen...

About religion

It would be interesting to have a book that would collect all the evidence[2] of the existence of a living, free God that has been made since the existence of the human race. This would be the most godless book. The variety of methods of thought for proving[3] the existence of God is enormous. One of the last methods of proof seems to me the most powerful, because, “they say” [4] it takes human nature as its main basis; but where his strength lies, so does his weakness.

They say: in all centuries and everywhere, humanity has been presented with the questions: What am I? Why am I living? What happens after death? Did I independently appear and live, or who made me and controls me? [5] Does chance govern events, or is there a higher thought and power in them, and is there a connection between me and this higher power and can I ask for it? pray? There are also similar questions, and they call all these questions natural problems. Humanity has always and everywhere tried to resolve these issues. – Therefore, the existence and attempts to resolve these issues are the eternal properties of human nature. —

Science and faith can only provide answers. But science is powerless, faith - religion alone answers them. - The reasoning is certain. But what should a person do who asks himself questions: why am I living, is there a God, etc., and cannot be satisfied with the answer that there is a living God, and that he lives for a future life? He is not satisfied with these answers not out of stubbornness, but for thousands of reasons, arguments that, despite all his passionate desire to receive an answer, do not allow him to accept answers about religion, do not allow him, perhaps, due to a false structure, as they say. his mind.

But why is there
no one
to pray to, that there is nothing there. And there are a lot of such people, and these people are exactly the same people as those who rest in the faith of the future life and in prayer. The reasoning given above will not convince them. On the contrary, realizing that they are people, and that the property of human nature found in them did not lead them to religion, whereas it should have done so, they will doubt the reasoning itself. Not only will they doubt it, they will directly recognize it as unfair, despite its logic. How [6] a sick person recognizes as unfair the reasoning that forces him to eat when he does not want to and cannot take food.

The error of reasoning is as follows: - all of humanity always asks itself natural problems and tries to answer them. This is unfair, just as everything that is said about all of humanity in space and time is always unfair. Humanity and its life through the centuries is not a concept, but a word that aims to hint at the immense cohesion of events and thoughts and is completely incomprehensible. (As a result of this, all the conclusions of historians who speak about the course of humanity are words and a vague mental game that has no meaning; but more on that later.) Humanity is one of those concepts that we can only imagine, but which we cannot master. ; humanity is nothing, and therefore, as quickly as we introduce the concept of humanity into our mental formulas, we, just like in mathematics, introducing the infinitely small or great, obtain arbitrary and false conclusions. —

gave himself tasks and tried to answer them. This is what should have been said instead of “humanity,” and this is the reason why reasoning has come to a hopeless situation for the unbelievers. Having said that people known to me and I myself at certain moments of life had and have a tendency to set natural problems for ourselves and look for answers to them, having said this, I will only conclude that this tendency is characteristic of people, that many live satisfied answers from religion; many are content with only questions without answers.[7] Not content with the answers of religion, they remain unanswered, which does not constitute a misfortune for them, since these questions are presented to them not constantly, but temporarily, and since these questions are calmed by passion, enthusiasm, labor and the habit of removing them. There are many people who die without thinking about them. In addition, from observation I will draw the observation that the fate of both is equal. For people who believe in faith itself there is a secret [8] feeling of doubt; for non-believers, instead of reassuring answers, there is a proud consciousness that a person is not deceiving himself.

[9] I will also conclude that religion in itself is not the truth, since there are many religions, there have been and will be, but there is only a product of the human mind, responding to a certain inclination, “like fortune telling, [10] songs, etc. .p.>. They tell us: religion explained everything; Having once admitted the existence of God, you know everything: how did the world begin? man? Why are there different languages, why is there a rainbow? what will happen beyond the grave? etc. This is true. Everything is clear, except for religion itself, which is darker the clearer everything else is. There are many religions, and they all ask for faith and condescension to an unreasonable basis, everything else is presented as clear. “I know a crazy priest who says that he is God Deir, that his mother Gargara divided the world into two hemispheres, above which he is above one, Kartograi is above the other, etc. He has a complex, intricate mythology that explains the beginnings of all things, and he gets angry when you question him about the beginning, but in simple questions of life he shows you with a smile how all the phenomena of life confirm his beginnings and how clear they are.> - For people who are dissatisfied with religious answers, all the phenomena of life are equally unclear, but for that there is no more ambiguity in one than in the other. Why does the plant grow? what force holds the atoms together? It is also unclear what will happen beyond the grave and how the first man appeared. —

- this is our knowledge, which we are happy to look at and which we go through with pride - the black thread is the chaos of thought - the unknown, which is terrible for us. Religion with a primitive technique will shake the necklace and all the beads together; only she has at hand in one place a large portion of black thread, which we should not look at, but between the shifted beads there is beauty, symmetry, and there is no gap for doubt. The unbelievers more or less skillfully move the beads apart at equal intervals to cover the thread, but it is visible between every two beads. Let us close the gap in front of our eyes, the larger it is on the other side of the circle.[11]

A comment

The manuscript, Tolstoy's autograph, occupies a full sheet of writing paper, in folio, without a factory mark or watermark; Three pages are covered with writing, the last page is blank. The handwriting is quite large and clear. There are blots, corrections and additions written between the lines and on the side in the small margins left. The original title: “Is it possible to prove religion” was crossed out by the author and replaced by a new one. At the end of the text there is another title: “On the liberalism of the century and the constitution,” which obviously refers to another article conceived by Tolstoy, but not written by him.

The time of writing the manuscript is precisely determined by the diary entry dated October 16, 1865: “I read Guizot-Vite’s proof of religion and wrote the first article on the thought given to me by Montaigne.” Obviously Tolstoy is referring to one of the religious works of Henrietta Witt, born. Guizot, daughter of the historian and politician François Guizot. By the time the entry was made in Tolstoy’s diary, Witt’s books had been published: “Petites méditations chrétiennes à l’usage du culte domestique” (1862) (“Some Christian reflections on domestic worship”), “Nouvelles petites méditations chrétiennes” (1864) ("Some More Christian Reflections") and "Histoire sainte racontée aux enfants" (1865) ("The Sacred Story Told to Children"). Tolstoy himself names as his inspiration the famous French thinker of the 16th century Montaigne, in whose “Essays” there are, indeed, repeated reflections on religion, especially in his “Apology for Raymond Sebond” (“Essais”, livre II, ch. XII: “Apologie de Raimond Sebond"). It is interesting to note that Tolstoy's first attempt to formulate his views on religion is associated with the name of the skeptic Montaigne.

The manuscript is kept in the Tolstoy archive in the All-Union Library. V. I. Lenin. 6 .)

This excerpt is being published for the first time.

1. The original title was: Is it possible to prove religion.

2. Crossed out: justice of religion

3. Crossed out: would expose the weakness of what is being proven

5. Crossed out: Can I ask for what I want?

6. Crossed out: well-fed

7. From the words: many before: answers. crossed out and restored again.

10. In the original: years

11. At the end of the text it is written in the form of the title of the proposed article and underlined: On the liberality of the century and the constitution. —