Kierkegaard

[Gilbert Switzer]

I'm really into this dude.

Could he be called a Christain Mystic?

Is this post in the wrong forum?

Rock out guys.

-Gil

 

[Serapha]

Hi there!




If you are looking for a discusion on theological philosophy, then this is the wrong forum.


Kierkegaard is a modern theology writer.


~serapha~

 

[Gilbert Switzer]

K.

CYA there, cat.

 

[Gilbert Switzer]

I can't really chat in there.

I haven't accepted the Pope yet

 

[awen]

I think you'll find that he's referring to Soren Kierkegaard, who died nearly 150 years ago now.

Kirkegaard can be considered preudo-Christian philosophy.

As far as Scripture is concerned, his thoughts on subjective truth in particular are of concern, as they tend to annul any attempt to claim that Christianity is truth (after all, does it matter if Christianity is absolute truth? Not to Kirkegaard, as long as you believe strongly enough in whatever you DO hold to).

He also has been referred to as "the father of existentialism" - if you've read some Kirkegaard I'm sure you'll understand why by now - Heidegger and Camus were both very familiar with his writings, and Heidegger in particular drew from him extensively.

 

[Gilbert Switzer]

As far as Scripture is concerned, his thoughts on subjective truth in particular are of concern, as they tend to annul any attempt to claim that Christianity is truth (after all, does it matter if Christianity is absolute truth? Not to Kirkegaard, as long as you believe strongly enough in whatever you DO hold to).

Okay, I must say that this is very apealing to me. I may find it hard not to let Christ into my heart but all of these rules just don't work for me. A man who is doing a Ph.D in Theology, a very passionate Christain and a wonderful poet told me that Christ came to destroy death, not to create all these endless rules. I believe in responsibility but I find that all of these rules are just a barrier to people who feel Christ in their heart but they are told by everyone else "no, what you feel is wrong... there are rules and they haven't changed for 2000 years... nothing changes."

Okay, I'm sorry if my rant was inapropriate. I want to say that there is a lot of precious beauty in Christianity and I would not be here if I felt otherwise. I'm just not exactly sure the categorical and objective approach to morality and ritual will ever work for me.

 

[awen]

Perhaps not ENTIRELY appropriate, but interesting nonetheless!

Your friend is right, in a sense. Christ didn't come to build upon the law, but to fulfil it. All of the requirements of the law are met in Christ, because man could never and would never meet those requirements himself.

I do believe that God's Word is absolute truth, however.

Ultimately, I believe that God made only one provision for the salvation of man, and that provison was Christ. To say that "whatever you believe is fine, as long as you believe it strongly enough" is to suggest that there is no absolute truth, that belief has some merit in and of itself.

As an example, I might put my faith in a chair. In fact, I'm doing that right now, as I'm sitting on one. However, if my faith is misplaced, and the chair breaks, then either I have to admit that the chair didn't work and wasn't able to support my weight, or I have to head off to Jenny Craig.

It's the same with Christianity. It's not enough just to believe in something; you have to believe in something that can hold your weight. Question is, when the time comes, what can we put our faith in that will hold? Religions come and go, they rise and fall, strengthen and fail. The reason for this is that religion is man's attempt at reaching out to God, and, ultimately, any attempt man makes to restore that connection will fail (because of our own fallen, sinful state). The only act in which I can put any faith is God's choice to reach out to man through Christ Jesus - because I know that God never fails.

Let me use another example.
Genesis tells the story of a man named Noah who built a huge ark - an ark big enough to carry two of all the land-dwelling animals on the earth. Now, God did this to provide for Noah a way to escape a world-wide flood. Noah could have said "actually, God, I'll be fine. I'll take my chances with the rain", or "I'd rather stick with my yacht.", but he didn't. He accepted the way that God provided through the rain, rather than follow his own way.

It's the same with Christ. God has provided only one way to avoid the punishment for sin, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. This isn't a matter of objective or subjective truth, of what we believe, or of which religion we think it's right. It's the simple fact that God has made only one provision for man - and that is Jesus Christ. Whether or not I choose to believe that He is the only way is irrelevant. Only Christ matters.

 

[emmzee]

The Most Important Command
When the Pharisees heard how he had bested the Sadducees, they gathered their forces for an assault. One of their religion scholars spoke for them, posing a question they hoped would show him up: "Teacher, which command in God's Law is the most important?"
Jesus said, ""Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.' This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: "Love others as well as you love yourself.' These two commands are pegs; everything in God's Law and the Prophets hangs from them."

One thing that Jesus didn't come to do is burden people with a bunch of new rules. Jesus spent a LOT of time speaking against the Pharisees, who were the most legalistic religious people of that time period. How ironic that some Christians sometimes get so hung up on being legalistic!

Real truth about how we should behave does exist, and in many instances Jesus and his followers clarified these truths in the Bible. The above two commands are the most important because all of the other 'rules' flow out of these ... more formal and specific rules are also provided for those that need a bit more help in the morality department, but are largely unnecessary if someone consistently follows the "most important command" above. If God really does exist, it makes sense to trust how we should live our lives to Him, and not rely entirely on ourselves.

 

[Rafael]

I still have my Kierkegaard studies around here somewhere. They certainly don't detract from scripture.
Interesting, the New Covenant God made with His people was that the law would be written on their hearts, and instead of following rules from the outside, they would follow then after the love placed in them which would not break any of the laws of love. Nevertheless, it is a battle between the flesh and the spirit - good and evil - a struggle.

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[BWV 1080]

I think you'll find that he's referring to Soren Kierkegaard, who died nearly 150 years ago now.

Kirkegaard can be considered preudo-Christian philosophy.

I think you are mistaken there. Kierkegaard was thoroughly orthodox, the article below explains better than I can:

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/003638.html

Saint Kierkegaard

Posted by Stephen Carson at February 19, 2004 03:13 PM
In connection with Gordon Marino's interesting mention of Kierkegaard in his article on ethics featured on LRC today, I just wanted to make some comments on Kierkegaard who, I believe, has an unfair reputation among many of my Christian and libertarian friends. Due to the 20th century existentialist movement, certainly influenced by him, he is vaguely associated with the atheism, nihilism and leftism of many modern existentialists.

But to dismiss Kierkegaard due to Sartre or Camus would be a great mistake.

First of all, it must be understood that Kierkegaard was a thoroughly orthodox Christian (or as orthodox as you think a Danish Lutheran could be), who above all desired that his readers attain salvation and closeness with the Lord. I have often used his marvelous Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses as meditation material, (each rather accessible though dense discourse is a meditation on a single verse of scripture that will make you feel that you've never really seen what the scriptures were saying before).

Another theme of Kierkegaard's is freedom. An excellent guide to Kierkegaard on this subject is the conservative Catholic Greg Beabout of SLU, (a friend of mine), whose brief (192 pages) account in Freedom and Its Misuses: Kierkegaard on Anxiety and Despair is remarkable for its clarity and extremely satisfying for libertarians.

Kierkegaard was also rather astute in regards to politics. He thought the relationship of the Danish Lutheran church to the Danish state was very damaging to the church... That there were certainly people who pretended to be Christians in their pursuit of political power, thus muddying the waters for everyone.

For a short but powerful taste of Kierkegaard read his anti-Hegel meditation on the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, Fear and Tembling.

How is it that the 20th century secular existentialists were influenced by such a man? To sum it up perhaps too briefly, he challenged his readers who had rejected God to stop being hypocrites and stop only going halfway... Rejecting God but trying to hold on to the things that flow from God, like meaning and morality. He said that if there was no God then life was absurd and meaningless and one ought to just face it. Sartre and Camus took him up on this challenge.

 

[CSMR]

As far as Scripture is concerned, his thoughts on subjective truth in particular are of concern, as they tend to annul any attempt to claim that Christianity is truth (after all, does it matter if Christianity is absolute truth? Not to Kirkegaard, as long as you believe strongly enough in whatever you DO hold to).

I think that this is accurate. This is a paraphrase of his definition of truth?
"An objective uncertainty, held fast through appropriation with the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth there is for an existing person" (CUP, tr. Hong & Hong).
Now you imagine the possibility that someone takes any objective uncertainty, such that that quantum mechanincs is true, and believes it very strongly, and then he has the truth according to Kierkegaard.
The problem with this is that:
-The definition is used more as a statement about the nature of truth in existing people than a complete definition. Kierkegaard's opposing position of speculative thought is "objectivity is truth" - but that position does not hold that any objective thought is true, only that truth has the nature of objectivity. Similarly with Kierkegaard's position - I do not think that it holds that anything subjective is true, only that truth for us has the nature of subjectivity.
-His analysis of "existing person" contains the concepts of sin and separation from the absolute, and the idea of the absolute relating to the existing person in a paradox (Christ who was God and man) already contains elements of Christianity.

Christianity is not absolute truth. Absolute truth is known by God. Christianity is relative truth in that it defines the relation between man and God (and even then only for some men - not all have the relationship to God of justification in Christ).

 

[CSMR]

I'm really into this dude.
Could he be called a Christain Mystic?

Good for you. I would not say he is a mystic at all; rather the opposite, an anti-mystic. Mysticism has a view of man with a basic inner connection to the truth - I think - whereas Kierkegaard denies it and asserts the separation between existing people and absolute truth. Sin creates the situation in which direct knowledge of the truth is not possible.