My Religion

by Leo Tolstoy, Huntington Smith (Translator)

I have not always been possessed of the religious ideas set forth in this book. For thirty-five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, a nihilist,—not a revolutionary socialist, but a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago faith came to me; I believed in the doctrine of Jesus, and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation. What I had once wished for I wished for no longer, and I began to desire what I had never desired before. What had once appeared to me right now became wrong, and the wrong of the past I beheld as right. My condition was like that of a man who goes forth upon some errand, and having traversed a portion of the road, decides that the matter is of no importance, and turns back. What was at first on his right hand is now on his left, and what was at his left hand is now on his right; instead of going away from his abode, he desires to get back to it as soon as possible. My life and my desires were completely changed; good and evil interchanged meanings. Why so? Because I understood the doctrine of Jesus in a different way from that in which I had understood it before.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Nonfiction, Russia, Classics, Spirituality, Christian

126 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1884

About the author

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reviews

[Sean Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Man has forgotten that his whole history is but an endeavor to solve the contradictions between his rational and animal nature."

Life-changing. Avoiding the supernatural and mystical elements that have plagued Christian theology since its inception, Tolstoy gives us a literal and philosophical interpretation of the Bible, mainly focusing on Jesus Christ. Existentially inclined, Tolstoy abandons all that is taught in the Church and favours an approach that can be used in one's life every day as a tool for upmost happiness and spiritual wellbeing.

"Faith comes only from a consciousness of our state. Faith is based only on the rational consciousness of what is best for us."

[Kennedy Ifeh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book by Count Leo Tolstoy is the sequel to his bestseller, ‘The Kingdom of God is within you’. Co-incidentally, I read this book at the same time that I read Dostoyevsky’s ‘Brothers Karamazov’. Tolstoy’s What I Believe, as small as it is, answers all the questions as raised by Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov; strange to say, few people have made reference to this fact.
The book is based on the integral teachings of Christ; the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy drew five commandments out of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, namely; 1. Do not be angry 2. Do not commit Adultery 3. Do not swear oath 4. Resist not evil 5. Do not partake in war. Based on these five integral aspects of Christ’s teachings, Tolstoy took a swipe at the church. His criticism against the Church is based on the fact the Christians don’t practice the true doctrine of Christ as stated in the Sermon on the Mount. For 1800 years, according to him, Christians have drawn up a distinction between their private life and social life. The church has encouraged Christians to join the army in protection of country’s sovereignty. He went on to cite provocative ways the Church has deviated from the core doctrine of Christ.
According to Tolstoy, there is so much evil in the world because mankind has turned his back from God. Mankind has embraced the doctrine of the world in pursuit of worldly happiness. The doctrine of the world brings suffering. The only means of restoring true happiness is by following after the doctrine of Christ, ‘ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’. The doctrine of Christ, in Tolstoy’s view, brings the Kingdom of God on earth.
In general, I have better understood the Bible, the new testament, according to Tolstoy; the core of Christ’s teachings. I have started reading the sequel, ‘The Kingdom of God is within You’.

[Marcus Lira · Rating 3 out of 5]

It may seem odd for an atheist to actually like this book, but here's what I believe: It offers some great insight on what it is that makes former unbelievers convert to a religion. Besides, he's more interesting than your average church-going Christian for one simple reason - he's willing to go against the church, being something of a protestant orthodox.

He makes it clear that what drew him to Christianity is not a better explanation of how the world works (so there's no clash between science and religion there), but politics, and the moral laws that serve as the groundwork to develop this political system. He devotes several pages to ideas such as "do no evil", but fails to mention anything that you'd believe is crucial to religious figures if you stick to the tomes the "New Atheists" often pen. If religion poisons everything, I'd love to hear what is so venomous about the things Tolstoy writes here. If faith should come to an end, I'd like to know what about Tolstoy's faith is so pernicious for humanity. And if God is a delusion... well, then I don't have a problem with it, as Tolstoy seemed pretty damn happy (and harmless).

I've always believed that, although it's not really my cup of tea, Christianity can be a force for good - and here's some proof it can work.

[Silvester Borsboom · Rating 5 out of 5]

In What I Believe, Tolstoy very concisely explains his view on the meaning of life that cannot be destroyed by our inevitable death. He presents his own interpretation of the Gospel, which is one of the most profound things I have ever read.

If you are looking for inspiration on how and why to live, Tolstoy's non-fictional works are better than any modern self-help book. I would recommend starting with his Confession and then moving on to this one.

[John Sheehan · Rating 5 out of 5]

My, my, my how I enjoyed literature by Leo Tolstoy that you can not but help notice each word was truly well researched, though out, and controversial from a religious perspective. Tolstoy's insights are truly mind blowing. What a masterpiece of literature that has the ability to change how you view and understand Christianity.

[Karen Chung · Rating 5 out of 5]

A different side of Tolstoy. He did deep research into the Bible and the basic tenets of Christianity to write this very thought-provoking book. He is convincing when you first read it, but the arguments tend to erode over time, especially considered in the light of Tolstoy's own life choices.

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tolstoy’s theology is unconvincing, but Christianity and humanity would be less objectionable if they were nonviolent.

[Ci · Rating 4 out of 5]

Following "A Confession", Tolstoy here laid out his careful process of finding out the truth of Jesus's teaching. Much to his surprise, these teachings were opposite to what the Church and State have been expounded. Through careful scholarship, and much rumination, Tolstoy arrived at his own doctrine of a committed non-violence pacifistic stance in his Christian faith.

Tolstoy had a lasting and deep influence on Gandhi and the eventual independence of India. One may quibble with the realistic view how a pure pacifistic view would work at nation / state level (i.e., it is a "dog-eat-dog world" still), at least one should take his deep thinking into one's personal life. A staunch view of nonviolence, brotherly love, kindness and tolerance, refraining from judging and condemning may not be easily to apply in one's life, but should be something to aspire to, and practice toward. Waiting for a world when everybody is full of "lovingkindness" before one actual practice such virtue is the imtrackable cycle of violence that homo sapiens have yet to break. One can talk about "competitiveness", "zero-sum game", "gamesmanship", "strategic positioning", yet they all have the pulsing heart of aggression and insatiable appetite. What Jesus may have really showed us is the step toward a major step in human development, a state beyond territorial and resource ambitions.

[Robert Fischer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book straight up blew my mind. It's a major reworking of the message of Christianity, and although I find it generally dismissive of a lot of scripture, the challenging re-presentation of the doctrine of Christ is certainly an interesting and insightful reading of the gospels.

[Iva · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm very glad that I got the chance to read this book, because it showed me things I didn't even know of. Some may say that this is a bunch of lies, but I don't care, when I was reading it, my heart and my mind were accepting all the words.

[Justinian the Great · Rating 1 out of 5]

Tolstoy was not very honest with this book after a second thinking about it.

[Brian Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tolstoy narrates a discussion with a Rabbi where the basic teachings of jesus sermon on the mount were found to be in the Talmud. However, the Rabbi said that the Talmud did not offer anything similar to Jesus admonition to turn the other cheak or to not resist him that is wicked.
The Rabbi asked whether Chrisitians obeyed this law – and Tolstoy admits that in his time the Hebews were subject to the opposite.
Jesus words are usually said to be mystical, or impractical ideals, especially in a society where judges and military are required masters requests if I find them hard?
Mt 7:21, 22 says that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven a person must do the will of God. Tolstoy notes even the Jews were told the same by Samuel.
But if I am a servant can I simply dismiss my of a masters rules and remain in his employ?
Jesus claim that his laws are light, not burdemsone? So why are they dismissed in social life?
Did Jesus mean them only to be applied on a personal spiritual level?
The doctrines of Jesus divinity or the ransom held as essential by the church are referenced obliquely or found in few verses. Yet Jesus moral injunctions, dismissed as impractical by socialised ‘Christian society’ , form the basis of the Gospels.
How would a a person, hearing Jesus for the first time, have understood him? A child not exposed to church dogma or Christendom’s society would take Jesus at his word.
But Tolstoy argues we have tried to reconcile two different incompatible doctrines of written law and the ‘eternal law’ of God.
Tolstoy notes the Gospel are placed in contrast to Jesus.
He discusses Mt 5:17 often quoted to say Jesus would destroy but fulfil the law and the prophets.

Argues that when Jesus says the law and the prophets he means the written law. But hje term ‘law’ I the eternal law of God, which he then sets out to show is not the same thing as the written code that regulated life and passed condemnation.

Jesus is not just standing against Jewish but also Roman justice – infact the whole retributory judicial concept.
“you heard that it was said ….. “ implies Jesus is talking a social legal position on how society should run. Retributive justice has only spread evil and Jesus, he believes, requires us to reject violence, the resistance of evil and legal retributory judgement.
To turn the other cheek, to give to those asking you, nt to judge, to go an extra mile are solutions to social ills. Therefore to be a judge or in the military is against Jesus teaching.
Conservative religionists and revolutionary athiests both argue for the right to right wrongs by violence so cannot deny the right of another, possibly enemy, side to do the same.
My favourite part of the book is Tolstoy’s discussing what the NT calls the Commandment of Christ:
Tolstoy argues that this is not the law of love, as this is found in the Torah.Rather he understands Mt 5:21-48 where Jesus contrasts the written law “you heard that it was said, but I say to you”:
1. Mt 5:21-26 not to kill, or to be angry. “The service of God is the annihilation of all enmity‘. Tolstoy argues that the translation not to be “angry without cause has allowed commentators to justify anger – all angry men think their anger is justified. E.g. The NT speaks of Paul and others as angry. This has led many to suggest you can simply make peace in your head .
Tolstoy claims ‘without cause’ is a 5th century addition. Clearly Jesus commands a person to attempt reconciliation before prayer, lest it not be accepted by God. It is wrong to justify anger by reducing him to a fool, calling him racca, ‘unworthy of being called a man’ or ‘lost’ (cp Judges 9:4) .
2. Mt 5:27-32 “Do not consider carnal beauty to lust after it. Avoid the temptation and do not use a pretext for divorce: to desire another woman lustfully is adultery in the heart. For a man to divorce his wife ‘saving for the cause of adultery’ makes her an adulterer is contrary to Jesus condemning divorce (Mt 19:4-8; Mk 10:4-12; Lk 16:18 also 1 Cor. 7:8-12). Tolstoy claims the text refers to a husbands ‘lewdness’: If a man divorces his wife because of his lewdness he makes her an adulterer …’
3. Mt 5:33-37 “Do not sweat al all” … “let your yes be yes”. Church authorities argue this refers to taking Gods name in vain, since Jesus and Paul responded to or made oaths. But Tolstoy argues this would also refer to taking an oath of allegiance, or a military oath that could require breaking Jesus position against violence.
4. Matthew 5:38-42: No vengeance, even if called ‘justice.’ Tolstoy takes it as “‘Never resist evil by violence; never return violence for violence. If anyone strikes you, bear it; if anyone takes away what is yours, let him have it; if anyone makes you labour, do so; if anyone wants to have what you consider to be your own, give it up to him.’” Tolstoy denies the argument from John Chrysostom on that this does not apply to the punishment of evil doers.
5. Matthew 5:43-48: “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you “ Desissolve enmity between nations and races. Tolstoy “formerly considered these words as explaining, amplifying, and giving more emphasis to, even exaggerating, the doctrine of non-resistance. “ However, he concludes The use of the word ‘enemy’ in the singular number ……. referred to a national enemy Cp the story of the Good Samaritan applies love of neighbour to a national enemy.
Tolstoy argues these preclude justifying war, the use of judicial process against another. He quotes Origen: ‘Thus we fight better than any for the safety of our sovereign. We do not, it is true, serve under his banners, and we should not, even were he to force us to do so.”
“the doctrine of Christ, as I now understand it, has another signification: the establishing of the kingdom of God on earth depends upon us. The fulfillment of Christ’s doctrine, as expressed in the five commandments, establishes this kingdom of God. The kingdom of God on earth is peace among all men. Peace among men is the highest earthly bliss that man can attain. It was thus that the Hebrew prophets pictured the kingdom of God to themselves. “
“The fulfillment of Christ’s commandments will make the lives of men such as each human heart seeks and longs for. All men will be brethren, each will be at peace with the other, and each will be free to enjoy all the blessings of this world during the term of life allotted to him by God.”
The question is do you take a faith position – give up all courts and miliitary and expect divine protection? Remember pacifist societies have flourished but all eventually ended eg the short lived kingdom of Buddhist Asoka, or the community of John Penn.

[Nico · Rating 3 out of 5]

"My very existence-- entangled with that of the State and the social existence organized by the State-- exacts from me an anti-Christian activity directly contrary to the commandments of Jesus ...

Labor for others, poverty, humility, the renunciation of property and personal privileges have become, in my eyes, right and important … I can no longer acquire property. I can no longer resort to force in any form for my own defense. I can no longer cooperate with any power whose object is the defense of men and their property by violence. I can no longer act in a judicial capacity or clothe myself with any authority or take part in the exercise of any jurisdiction whatever. I can no longer encourage others in the support of tribunals or in the exercise of authoritative administration ...

I can no longer recognize states or peoples. I can no longer cooperate with measures maintained by divisions between states: the collection of custom duties, taxes, the manufacture of arms and projectiles, or any act favoring armaments, military service and wars ... I have faith that if I live thus, and only thus, my life will attain its only possible meaning and be reasonable, pleasant and indestructible by death."

[Deb · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book, Leo Tolstoy shares many of his beliefs, the basis of which are the teachings of Jesus Christ, especially those teachings Jesus gave at the Sermon on the Mount. Tolstoy calls these the "doctrine of Jesus." He shows that the churches with which he was familiar did not follow the teachings or example of Jesus. In fact, most churches teach contrarily or give many exceptions to simple truths. Tolstoy says that most of what the churches teach are prescribed ways to live or dogma, not truths. He says even people who are not religious or who are from very different religions will live a happier life if they follow Jesus's simple teachings.

Tolstoy makes it clear that many aspects of the Bible are easy to misinterpret. He says translation errors have been used to defend wrong ways of believing, thinking, and living. He gives examples. He seems to not agree with many teachings of general Christianity and for good reason based on faulty interpretation. That's why modern revelation and modern prophets are so important. He makes a clear case for the importance of a restoration of Jesus Christ's true church.

Apparently, Leo Tolstoy's views against violence influenced people like Martin Luther King, Junior and Mahatma Gandhi. He spends a lot of time on the the idea of "resisting not evil." He advocates living for, loving, and serving others. Among other things, he's against fame and possessions.

He gives "Five commandments given by Jesus for your welfare: Be not angry; do not commit adultery; Take no oaths; Resist not evil; Do not make war."

His ideas of an abundant life are interesting. He shows that most people who might be considered successful aren't really living a great life. They miss out on many simple joys like spending time in nature, having the ability to work hard and thus being healthier and sleeping better, being with family, and having the freedom to make choices about how to use one's time.

"To be poor means not to live in cities, but in the country, not to be shut up in close rooms, but to labor out of doors, in the woods and fields, to have the delights of sunshine, of the open heavens, of the earth, of observing the habits of dumb animals; not to rack our brains with inventing dishes to stimulate an appetite, and not to endure the pangs of indigestion. To be poor is to be hungry three times a day, to sleep without passing hours tossing upon the pillow a victim of insomnia, to have children, and have them always with us, to do nothing that we do not wish to do (this is essential) and to have no fear for anything that may happen."

I agree with many things in this book.

I believe the Bible as far as it has been translated correctly. I'm very thankful for the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for modern revelation, for modern scripture, and for modern prophets.

Would I recommend this book? Maybe. It was hard for me to read and a little exhausting. It isn't particularly entertaining. It is educational and thought provoking. It made me feel glad for the truths I know about who I am, why I'm here, and where I'm going after this life.

[Nick Metel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is nothing but the Truth.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

a truly life changing book. I recommend everyone reading this book.

[Vik · Rating 1 out of 5]

I would not recommend this book to anyone.

[Yousef Nabil · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب - مثله مثل ملكوت الله بداخلكم - مرعب في صدقة وبداهة الطرح في الكثير من النقاط، والأكثر رعبًا هو عدم رؤية الغالبية لبداهة الأمور..
تولستوي كاتب صداق إلى درجة يصعب وصفها.

[Corey Wozniak · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of those books I can't stop thinking about, years after reading.

[Carol Apple · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I Believe is Leo Tolstoy’s follow-up to A Confession in which he describes his profound existential crisis: at age 50 and at the height of his worldly success, Tolstoy became so depressed that he wished to commit suicide. In desperation he turned to the Church of his childhood and discovered the saving power of a true belief in God. Reading A Confession led me to read his final novel Resurrection, which in which an aristocrat has a spiritual awakening of his own and discovers the far-reaching dysfunctions of the Russian justice system and the evils of bureaucracy. I had read his two great classics, War and Peace and Anna Karenina in the past, but Tolstoy’s post spiritual crisis phase produced writings much different in content, tone, and purpose. What I Believe turned my world upside down and I can’t wait to read his The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book considered so radical it was banned in Russia for many years.

Tolstoy begins What I Believe by explaining how he began to feel uncomfortable with the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was attracted to Christ’s teachings about love, forgiveness, and the brotherhood of man, but he found the Church, while never denying Christ’s doctrine of love, put a tremendously disproportionate emphasis on ritual and ceremony and gave scant attention to how Christians should behave toward other people in their daily lives. Also he was disturbed that the Church supported such things as persecution of certain populations, serfdom, capital punishment, and war. Tolstoy read the gospels over and over, with special attention to the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew 5 through 7. Then, reading through all the church’s commentaries on the gospels, he found that the church seemed to ignore or distort the clear teachings of Jesus whenever they conflicted with the established systems of civilization. It was as if the world’s system were the default, and the teachings of Jesus, who they claimed to believe is God, had to be made to fit into that mold.

By the end of the book Tolstoy comes reluctantly to the conclusion that for centuries the Church has been teaching a form of Christianity far different from what Jesus intended. Jesus was teaching the eternal law that leads to life: real life on earth and life that continues after death. He also teaches how this law, based on love, is incompatible with the world’s law, which is based on fear and competition and is really just a sophisticated version the predatory law of the beasts. Tolstoy saw that Jesus’ primary message was that to be truly human, to rise to a level higher than a talking animal, or in other words, to be born into the new life of the spirit, you must stop living according to the law of the world and embrace the law of love. This is the only way to break the cycle of violence. Sure the world will probably not like you and may even crucify you, but you will be truly alive, and actually happier, both before and after your physical death.

The part of the book I found most fascinating is Tolstoy’s interpretation of the five commandments of Christ, all of which are clearly taught in the Sermon on the Mount. For each one he explains the research he did into the original texts and how he reached each conclusion. The key commandment for Tolstoy, the one that really opened the floodgates of light, is that followers of Christ are not to return evil for evil. That’s means no violence to anyone, including enemies, and not just personal enemies, but also those populations that your government calls enemies. When he realized that Christ did not mean this statement as an unreachable ideal but a practical lifestyle, all the pieces of the puzzle began falling into place. Here are the five commandments of Christ as interpreted by Tolstoy:

1. “Be at peace with all men, and never consider your anger as just. Never look upon any man as worthless or a fool, neither call him such. Not only shall you never think yourself justified in your anger, but also you shall never consider your brother’s anger as causeless; and therefore, if there is one who is angry with you, even if it is without cause, go and be reconciled to him before praying. Endeavor to destroy all enmity between yourself and others, that their enmity may not grow and destroy you.” Matthew 5:21-26

2. “Take no pleasure in concupiscence; let each man, if he is not a eunuch, have a wife and each woman a husband; let a man have but one wife, and woman one husband, and let them never under any pretext whatever dissolve their union.” Matthew 5:32

3. “Never take an oath under any circumstances. Every oath is extorted from men for evil.” Matthew 5: 33-37

4. “Never resist evil by violence; never return violence for violence. If anyone strikes your, bear it; it anyone takes away what is yours, let him have it; if anyone makes you labor, do so; if anyone wants to have what you consider to be your own, give it up to him.” Matthew 5: 38-42

5. “Never consider men of another nation as your enemies; look upon all men as you do toward your fellow-country men; therefore you shall not kill those whom you call your enemies; love all and do good to all.” Matthew 5:43-48

Tolstoy believes that these commandments are not intended to be impossible ideals but are in fact Christ’s instructions on how his followers ought to live. If we would only try them, we’d find they actually result in a happier life. In Chapter 10 he identifies the ingredients of a truly happy life: being in touch with the natural world, family, peaceful and unrestricted fellowship with all classes of people, and surprisingly, labor: working to supply our own needs and enjoying the fruits of our labor. A life lived according to Jesus’ commandments would produce to all of these ingredients.

Jesus said “My yoke is easy and my burden is light” and “Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.” The law of love that Jesus taught, according to Tolstoy, is more in accord with our real nature than the world's law which tells us we are obligated to kill total strangers if the State tells us to take up arms and go to war. I am not so sure about it being more in accord with human nature. The law of love appeals to me but I am a peaceful person who does not find the least pleasure in killing living things. However I know plenty of people who say they sincerely enjoy killing animals, watching ultra-violent films, and even claim to relish the thought of killing certain people. And some of these people are Christians.

I understand none of us made this world and most of us feel stuck in its tangled web of systems. We are born into a world where we don’t have access to enough earth to grow our own food and are dependent from birth on government and complicated economic systems to obtain food and water. So I don’t know that God would hold us accountable for the situation we find ourselves in, and I am glad that one of the rules is that no one gets to judge anyone else. Maybe we could just not assume that the way the world is necessarily the way it has to be. Human systems are not set in stone. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to ask ourselves why we do the things we do every day: are we acting out of fear or out of love? Or have we somehow mixed the two concepts in our minds – as in I go to a job I hate because I love my children and am afraid I won’t be able to feed them. It’s more complicated than you think, Mr. Tolstoy, when you are not a world-renowned Russian nobleman. Also I am puzzled about how this doctrine of non-violence relates to crazed terrorists and keeping child predators and psychopaths off the streets. However, that said, I think Tolstoy is onto something here, namely the truth. It changed his life and it may yet change mine.

[Ali Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is all about Leo Tolstoy's personal experience and understanding of Christianity and its teachings. He interpreted the four Gospels and then retranslated them in a way he understood them. In this way, he believed that he would prevent people to not commit mistakes he did before apprehending the Gospel.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here we get the real germ of the Count's way of life- explanations. Dismissed by one of my twenties-era friends who didn't know any better than to say so as "some pacifist watching a battle someplace" (i.e; War and Peace), Tolstoy himself actually began as a military man, & received his title for his efforts on behalf of the czar. To say he was a pacifist before he actually became one is disingenuous. But anyway...
Like Leo, I believe swearing an oath on behalf of Any government is "taking the Lord's name in vain." Supporting the "right to" kill is breaking a commandment. Nobody hates war more than ex-soldiers! They slogged through the crap so that others would not need to - but o, if only they knew how far they really hadn't needed.
Now, regardless if you are "atheistic" or "anti-theistic"not, it must be admitted that the commandment Not to Kill is pretty sensible, and that most of those Commandments are actually Good to have in place for any society, whether religiously based or not.
I would have based any defense of my own draft resistance on Tolstoyan grounds.
Fortunately it never came to that, & either I was too bright, (or more likely) they were too busy with other things to catch me up; but from this little book I find a real confirmation of the ideal: not ever to be a hypocrite.

[Calvin Isch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tolstoy’s rationalist argument for the Christian doctrine. In short, Tolstoy believes that following Christ’s teaching will lead to the best possible life here on earth. The rules: turn the other cheek, love and respect everyone, avoid anger and oaths, no violence, and monogamy all the way. These are important rules to him, because they prevent enmity.

He takes some pretty strong stances—even acts of retaliation, by individuals or the state to criminals/foreign powers, is wrong. Only love can concur evil, regardless of the initial attack. He is highly critical of 19th century society, the churches (orthodox, catholic, and Protestant), and materialists, and he doesn’t endorse the afterlife. Actions are everything to Tolstoy and the right life is a hermitic one where one pursues productive work (farming).

Tolstoy goes to great lengths to re-interpret scripture to back his beliefs. While he has clear rationale for his choices, they are different and numerous enough to whisper confirmation-bias. Yet he is completely confident he has the correct reading. He was entirely wrong before and now certainly sees the truth.

A compelling, enlightening, and unique dive into Christianity from one of the greatest authors of all time—worth reading!

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Now that was one HOT TAKE by Leo!

Not sure why I've never been recommended this book or why I didn't even know it existed until it popped up as a goodreads suggestion. I thought it was an incredible take on so many different topics and levels. Even in its age it rang true and was as relevant as ever. An incredibly potent read.

[Malachi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lots to ponder and contemplate.
Chapter 10 - description of modern "progress", dissociated and disconnected from others, themselves, the natural world.
Raising their kids via others, taking jobs they don't really want to be doing.
Reads just like a commentary on today's world. It's astounding.

[Caleb Kirby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed the humble tone and style of systematic analysis. The arguments were hit or miss but undeniably authentic and interesting.

[Errol Castens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Convicting in places and unconvincing in others.

[Milan Francis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Christendom + Anarchisme = based
Afzweren van wereldlijke lust = minder based

[Fraser Kinnear · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty intersting - Tolstoy is describing his own contrarian interpretation of the New Testament, focusing on five commandments "Be not angry; Do not commit adultery; Take no oaths; Resist not evil; Do not make war."

Probably the most controversial opinion - and the one he opens with - is Tolstoy's belief that Jesus's commandment to resist not evil / turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39-) was to be followed literally, as opposed to a value one aspires to have. In fact, Tolstoy believes that this is the central point of Jesus's doctrine.

I understood now that in saying "Resist not evil," Jesus not only told us what would result from the observance of this rule, but established a new basis for society conformable to his doctrine and opposed to the social basis established by the law of Moses, by Roman law, and by the different codes in force to-day. He formulated a new law whose effect would be to deliver humanity from its self-inflicted woes. His declaration was: "You believe that your laws reform criminals; as a matter of fact, they only make more criminals. There is only one way to suppress evil, and that is to return good for evil, without respect of persons. For thousands of years you have tried the other method; now try mine, try the reverse.

How does Tolstoy address the obvious problem that such people will just be perpetually taken advantage of? With a very Buddhist answer:

The illusion is in the firm conviction that our existence can be made secure by a struggle with others. We are so accustomed to this illusory so-called security of our existence and our property, that we do not realize what we lose by striving after it. We lose everything,—we lose life itself. Our whole life is taken up with anxiety for personal security, with preparations for living, so that we really never live at all.

If we take a general survey of our lives, we shall see that all our efforts in behalf of the so-called security of existence are not made at all for the assurance of security, but simply to help us to forget that existence never has been, and never can be, secure. But it is not enough to say that we are the dupes of our own illusions, and that we forfeit the true life for an imaginary life; our efforts for security often result in the destruction of what we most wish to preserve.

and elsewhere

The doctrine of Jesus, which teaches us that we cannot possibly make life secure, but that we must be ready to die at any moment, is unquestionably preferable to the doctrine of the world, which obliges us to struggle for the security of existence. It is preferable because the impossibility of escaping death, and the impossibility of making life secure, is the same for the disciples of Jesus as it is for the disciples of the world; but, according to the doctrine of Jesus, life itself is not absorbed in the idle attempt to make existence secure. To the follower of Jesus life is free, and can be devoted to the end for which it is worthy,—its own welfare and the welfare of others.

and finally

Would there be great trials to endure? Should I die in following the doctrine of Jesus? This question did not alarm me. It might seem frightful to any one who does not realize the nothingness and absurdity of an isolated personal life, and who believes that he will never die. But I know that my life, considered in relation to my individual happiness, is, taken by itself, a stupendous farce, and that this meaningless existence will end in a stupid death. Knowing this, I have nothing to fear. I shall die as others die who do not observe the doctrine of Jesus; but my life and my death will have a meaning for myself and for others. My life and my death will have added something to the life and salvation of others, and this will be in accordance with the doctrine of Jesus.

Tolstoy expands this "resist not evil" theory into another of Jesus's lessons: to forgive all tresspasses and do not judge. Why? Because human judgment is "inevitably defective" and is eventually addressed by the eternal law (Romans 2:1-4).

I understood now that in saying "Resist not evil," Jesus not only told us what would result from the observance of this rule, but established a new basis for society conformable to his doctrine and opposed to the social basis established by the law of Moses, by Roman law, and by the different codes in force to-day. He formulated a new law whose effect would be to deliver humanity from its self-inflicted woes. His declaration was: "You believe that your laws reform criminals; as a matter of fact, they only make more criminals. There is only one way to suppress evil, and that is to return good for evil, without respect of persons. For thousands of years you have tried the other method; now try mine, try the reverse.

He has a sort of jurisprudent nihilism that feels extremely against liberalism

We have only to examine closely the complicated mechanism of our institutions that are based upon coercion to realize that coercion and violence are contrary to human nature. The judge who has condemned according to the code, is not willing to hang the criminal with his own hands; no clerk would tear a villager from his weeping family and cast him into prison; the general or the soldier, unless he be hardened by discipline and service, will not undertake to slay a hundred Turks or Germans or destroy a village, would not, if he could help it, kill a single man. Yet all these things are done, thanks to the administrative machinery which divides responsibility for misdeeds in such a way that no one feels them to be contrary to nature.

Some make the laws, others execute them; some train men by discipline to automatic obedience; and these last, in their turn, become the instruments of coercion, and slay their kind without knowing why or to what end. But let a man disentangle himself for a moment from this complicated network, and he will readily see that coercion is contrary to his nature. Let us abstain from affirming that organized violence, of which we make use to our own profit, is a divine, immutable law, and we shall see clearly which is most in harmony with human nature,—the doctrine of violence or the doctrine of Jesus.

I'm reading Nietzsche at the moment, who was a contemporary that Tolstoy railed against. In a different essay, Tolstoy writes:

The second step, degrading human thought yet further, was the acceptance of the struggle for existence as a basic law, simply because that struggle can be observed among animals and plants. According to this theory the destruction of the weakest is a law which should not be opposed. And finally, the third step was taken when the childish originality of Nietzche's half-crazed thought, presenting nothing complete or coherent, but only various drafts of immoral and completely unsubstantiated ideas, was accepted by the leading figures as the final word in philosophical science. In reply to the question: what must we do? the answer is now put straightforwardly as: live as you like, without paying attention to the lives of others.

Both N. and T. seem pretty out of bed with reality.

Some great historic context - Tolstoy wrote this book 140 years ago, and had this to say about the influence of the church:

All that lives is independent of the Church. The power of the State is based upon tradition, upon science, upon popular suffrage, upon brute force, upon everything except upon the Church. Wars, the relation of State with State, are governed by principles of nationality, of the balance of power, but not by the Church. The institutions established by the State frankly ignore the Church. The idea that the Church can, in these times, serve as a basis for justice or the conservation of property, is simply absurd. Science not only does not sustain the doctrine of the Church, but is, in its development, entirely hostile to the Church... It is little to say that human life is now entirely emancipated from the Church; it has now, with regard to the Church, only contempt when the Church does not interfere with human affairs, and hatred when the Church seeks to re-assert its ancient privileges.

[Joseph Sverker]

Incredibly interesting read. Tolstoy is, to say the least, very radical in his interpretation of the Gospels. On the other hand, he does a good job att making the teaching of Jesus practical and applied to everyday life and he makes a strong case of not letting the emphasis of Christianity be that of 'the world to come'. In fact, he even argues that there is no such world to come. Instead the 'eternal life' in the New Testament is about the continuation of humankind. This is the reason why he argues that Jesus' teaching is needed to be applied today because if it is it will ensure the survival of humankind and it will produce the best society. There are many interesting arguments, I particularly like his arguments for non-violence and he has some good comebacks fro critique. For example, that if one would not resist violence then one will be killed in a conflict situation. Tolstoy asks the very simple question, how many are not killed for 'following the laws of the world' and that of resisting violence? I think it was Walter Wink that points out that if it is seen as bravery to fight an armed attacker with guns and being killed for it (even fully accepted in many societies), then shouldn't it be even braver (and also be accepted) to 'fight' someone with non-violent methods. Tolstoy argues, in the microlevel, that a person who becomes known as being non-aggressive, helpful and loving to everyone will be less likely to be violated, he or she might even enjoy protection from other people due to sympathy.

Well worth reading and in a way it would be interesting to read this alongside some of Nietzsche's works because Tolstoy certainly writes from a position of critique against established religion, but their solution of ethics are diametrically opposed.

In most things I think Tolstoy has good points and argues well for this. I am less convinced about 'eternal life' not meaning eternal individual life though.