[bayareapsycho]

> Seeing it as a book about psychology that revolves around theological themes, when it is a book about theology that revolves around psychological themes.

I don't think Dostoevsky's Christianity is genuine. It feels about as genuine as Hegel's Christianity. To both of them it's just a convenient prop where their actual ideas take center stage

Every nihilist main character that he writes follows this pattern where they do something really bad, then destroy themselves as some kind of act of penance. This is the only way that conversion happens in his books. But in this case, it's obviously just a way of processing guilt (and reenacting the author's trauma from near execution most likely)

Maybe I'm psychologizing religion too much, but I don't think religious belief is genuine if it's rooted in some kind of (obvious) psychological trauma

The one thing that stands out in Dostoevsky is the psychological depth of the characters, especially in Demons

[CjHuber]

That is very interesting to read as I view him as very genuinely Christian. I would not agree with your description of the nihlist characters. I see it that mostly the (self)destructive acts are earlier nihilist actions and only then after facing and having accepted the consequences, the repentance emerges like in Crime and Punishment. The ones that stay nihilistic and don’t repent at all still face destruction.

[alexey-salmin]

I tend to agree with bayareapsycho that Dostoyevsky doesn't feel genuinely christian. In his books God is derived out of ultimate necessity, it's the only sane way to survive. If you follow that line of thought you can come to a conclusion that if God didn't exist people would have to invent him. And if that's the case then maybe they DID invent him after all. It's just that it doesn't matter.

Dostoyevsky himself never goes that far in his books but I feel that the direction is set pretty clearly. It could be that I'm reading my thoughts into his works though.