I was thumbing through my copy of "Training in Christianity" and was wondering if anyone on this site has read any of the works of Soren Kierkegaard. He was very critical of the state of the church in his native land of Denmark, and basically equated the Christians of his time as nothing more than the scribes and Phairasees of Jesus' day.
I have shown respect to the skeptics and athiests, etc. here, so I hope to receive an equal amount of respect on this thread. I don't consider myself to be a Christian, but I do believe that Jesus Christ's teachings do provide a way to peace, friendship, and honesty among people. I, therefore, would appreciate some feedback as well as further insight.
Towards the end of the book comes a passage from the book of John: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto myself."
Well, Kierkegaard was quick to point out that Jesus was a poor and humble man--not the revered figure we adore in church. How could it be then that this lowly carpenter would ever draw anyone to him--especially in today's climate when most shun such menial men such as this? Why should we, who work hard and provide for our families, believe that this poor man is more important than us? Why should we put the needs of others ahead of ours? Why should we bless those who curse us? What on earth would draw me to this man?
My goal is neither to unite nor divide--just to get folks thinking. I hope that someone out there could help me out.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 130 reads
But it was in undergrad 8 yrs ago in a philosophy course studying Kierkegaard and Neitzsche (not necessarily in that order.) We didn't treat the material you site, it was a class on existentialism and the major thing I remember is the very personal nature in which he wrote. His philosophy was very subjective - it was focused inward. If memory serves, the lesson on Kierkegaard started with a short essay entitled, "What am I to do?" and is essentially the thoughtful comments of someone who felt that he was forced to make certain (potentially) life altering decisions but didn't have the necessary information to make a completely informed choice. Thus, there was what he described as agony - essentially the agony of decision making under such conditions and eventually his cure - - which for the one topic we discussed and compared between the two thinkers - the existence of God, was for him a subjective "leap of faith." But once he made that leap of faith, he was committed through and through.
I do not know how his subjective style of philosophy would play around here where objectivism of the Ayn Rand sort seems to predominate. I also think I read that for him, Abraham (old testament) exemplified what it meant to be a Christian - that is, unyielding faith in the goodness of God even under inexplicable circumstances (God asking him to sacrifice one of his children). I may be wrong on that - so dont quote me. For anyone not familiar, if you ever feel a little depressed, do not read his major existential works as they will not cheer you up one bit. Rather gloomy at times.
but I have read a bit of Kierkegaard and the part I remember most is his discussion of horses in a team attached to a carriage.
He claimed that the horses only have love and respect for the driver that whips them and drives them to their limit -- forcing them to outdo themselves
while the suppossedly liberal driver who has deep concern for the horses and taps them gently and never races them is regarded with scorn and derision by the horses
They want someone to drive them! He was using this as a metaphor for what he thought priests should be like.