Author Topic: Kierkegaard  (Read 1751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Kierkegaard
« on: February 22, 2017, 10:15:16 AM »
Hi everyone. I think Kierkegaard might have been the greatest christian philosopher(along with Augustine) that I have ever encountered. What is his relation to christian orthodoxy? How would the orthodox church view his writings and view on God, does anyone know? I believe his way of talking about faith and sin in books like Fear and Trembling, The concept of Anxiety and Sickness unto Death is spot on. Has anybody read or heard about him? What are your opinions?
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,719
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2017, 10:30:40 AM »
You need to stop calling someone the greatest Christian philosopher if you haven't read all Christians' works.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2017, 10:37:14 AM »
You need to stop calling someone the greatest Christian philosopher if you haven't read all Christians' works.
I said the greatest I have encountered.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,719
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2017, 10:39:04 AM »
So he's your favorite, not the greatest.

Given your own personal anxieties, you have a lot more to encounter.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2017, 10:43:10 AM »
So he's your favorite, not the greatest.

Given your own personal anxieties, you have a lot more to encounter.
He is the greatest I have encountered. I have encountered many greats. He is the greatest in my opinion of all I have encountered. No christian philosophers, like John Chryssostom, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Saint Iranaeus have given me comfort like Kierkegaard. Isaac the Syrian seems great to me from the little I have read. But anyway, my question was about what people thought about Kierkegaard and his position in orthodoxy. Nothing wrong with that right?
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2017, 10:44:45 AM »
Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist philosopher, which is a fairly rare bird, since most of the Existentialists were and are Atheists. He was a communicant member of the State Church of Denmark, which at the time was a traditional Lutheran Church. Today, of course, it has apostatised, along with all the other liberal churches in Western Europe, possible exceptions being the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Lutheran Church of Finland.

In order to obtain my Bachelor's Degree (one of them) in Philosophy, I did have to read some of Kierkegaard's work, but that was 20 long years ago. I couldn't really be of much help to you on him at this point.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2017, 11:10:11 AM »
Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist philosopher, which is a fairly rare bird, since most of the Existentialists were and are Atheists. He was a communicant member of the State Church of Denmark, which at the time was a traditional Lutheran Church. Today, of course, it has apostatised, along with all the other liberal churches in Western Europe, possible exceptions being the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Lutheran Church of Finland.

In order to obtain my Bachelor's Degree (one of them) in Philosophy, I did have to read some of Kierkegaard's work, but that was 20 long years ago. I couldn't really be of much help to you on him at this point.
Kierkegaard seems to have believed that the Church of Denmark had already apostatized during his time. Though Kierkegaard was a complicated fellow. He for example had extremely high demands on what true faith was, and believed that he himself didn't have true faith from what I have understood. Also, he was in his late days highly critical of Martin Luther and accused him of having valued Saint Paul higher than Jesus Christ himself. Kierkegaard was controversial to say the least.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2017, 11:38:53 AM »
Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist philosopher, which is a fairly rare bird, since most of the Existentialists were and are Atheists. He was a communicant member of the State Church of Denmark, which at the time was a traditional Lutheran Church. Today, of course, it has apostatised, along with all the other liberal churches in Western Europe, possible exceptions being the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Lutheran Church of Finland.

In order to obtain my Bachelor's Degree (one of them) in Philosophy, I did have to read some of Kierkegaard's work, but that was 20 long years ago. I couldn't really be of much help to you on him at this point.

Kierkegaard, in my view, is the only existentialist philosopher. The others have too many problems that they struggle with, only Kierkegaard provides an answer to those problems.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2017, 11:44:28 AM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,994
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2017, 11:51:35 AM »
*Following*

Didn't get to read any Kierkegaard in my Intro to Philosophy course 16 years ago, so I'm hoping those who have read his work (both those who have already contributed, and those who have not) can enlighten me a bit on him.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2017, 11:55:41 AM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.
Of Course Luther valued Christ higher. Though I think what Kierkegaard meant was that the consequences of Luther's theology was that the lutheran Church of his time seemed to value Paul more than Christ. He also thought that the failure of Augustinian theology and its influence on Luther was that it didn't advocate that one schould work on one's salvation in fear and trembling
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2017, 11:58:58 AM »
*Following*

Didn't get to read any Kierkegaard in my Intro to Philosophy course 16 years ago, so I'm hoping those who have read his work (both those who have already contributed, and those who have not) can enlighten me a bit on him.
the main ideas of Kierkegaard are the subjective relationship to God, where he uses Abraham as the great example, his idea of that eternity is nothing but the present, that man shall make a leap of faith to become himself, that the basic human condition is despair and the salvific oppurtunity that comes from guilt and anxiety among other things. Kierkegaard is well worth reading.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 11:59:53 AM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2017, 12:07:00 PM »
Yes, Father George, it's not the sort of thing they would normally give you in an Intro course. In an Intro course, IF you got Existentialism at all, you would probably get Albert Camus, The Stranger. Keep in mind that, at least when I studied Philosphy and got my BA in it, there were only TWO universities in the United States wherein the Philosophy Departments were predominantly inhabited by Theists. These were the University of Notre Dame and the University of San Diego. The last is MY Alma Mater. EVERY other university in this country at the time (1992-1996) had Philosophy Departments that were predominantly Atheistic.

Interestingly enough, BOTH the above Universities had VERY conservative Philosophy Departments, and SCREAMING liberal Religion Departments. Both are, theoretically at least, Roman Catholic schools. The Religion and Philosophy Departments despise each other, as you can WELL imagine. The journalistic wars are a thing to behold, especially at Notre Dame.

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2017, 12:13:34 PM »
BEEBERT, perhaps Kierkegaard had a point, although I think that is more of a problem with Calvinism than it is with Lutheranism.

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2017, 12:19:07 PM »
BEEBERT, perhaps Kierkegaard had a point, although I think that is more of a problem with Calvinism than it is with Lutheranism.
I absolutely agree. I haven't found anything by Kierkegaard on Calvin but I have a hard time believing he was positive to him. At least calvinists seems to have a tendency to dislike Kierkegaard. The problem with calvinism is that they seem to believe they know in detail exactly how God works. I like Luther. I have a hard time liking Calvin and his -ism...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 12:22:12 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,994
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2017, 12:22:05 PM »
Yes, Father George, it's not the sort of thing they would normally give you in an Intro course. In an Intro course, IF you got Existentialism at all, you would probably get Albert Camus, The Stranger. Keep in mind that, at least when I studied Philosphy and got my BA in it, there were only TWO universities in the United States wherein the Philosophy Departments were predominantly inhabited by Theists. These were the University of Notre Dame and the University of San Diego. The last is MY Alma Mater. EVERY other university in this country at the time (1992-1996) had Philosophy Departments that were predominantly Atheistic.

Interestingly enough, BOTH the above Universities had VERY conservative Philosophy Departments, and SCREAMING liberal Religion Departments. Both are, theoretically at least, Roman Catholic schools. The Religion and Philosophy Departments despise each other, as you can WELL imagine. The journalistic wars are a thing to behold, especially at Notre Dame.

I actually find it interesting that the discussion about Kierkegaard has popped up at this time, considering the following quote made its rounds on my FB feed just a few days ago:

"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."

(I don't believe in coincidences.)
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2017, 12:24:39 PM »
Yes, Father George, it's not the sort of thing they would normally give you in an Intro course. In an Intro course, IF you got Existentialism at all, you would probably get Albert Camus, The Stranger. Keep in mind that, at least when I studied Philosphy and got my BA in it, there were only TWO universities in the United States wherein the Philosophy Departments were predominantly inhabited by Theists. These were the University of Notre Dame and the University of San Diego. The last is MY Alma Mater. EVERY other university in this country at the time (1992-1996) had Philosophy Departments that were predominantly Atheistic.

Interestingly enough, BOTH the above Universities had VERY conservative Philosophy Departments, and SCREAMING liberal Religion Departments. Both are, theoretically at least, Roman Catholic schools. The Religion and Philosophy Departments despise each other, as you can WELL imagine. The journalistic wars are a thing to behold, especially at Notre Dame.

I actually find it interesting that the discussion about Kierkegaard has popped up at this time, considering the following quote made its rounds on my FB feed just a few days ago:

"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."

(I don't believe in coincidences.)
a great quote by Kierkegaard
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2017, 12:41:55 PM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Of course, I believe Luther didn't value any of them. Basically, existentialism always leads to the same outcome, as Nietzsche feared, which is nihilism. Albert Camus knew this, that's why he invented the "absurdist hero" archetype. Yes, of course, reality is meaningless and life is meaningless, but you should put a smile on your face while realizing that. That's basically what he said. That's 'heroic' smile at the meaninglessness and pointlessness of existence. Basically, Kierkegaard is the only one who gives an answer. Now, whether that answer is sufficient is for the reader to decide.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2017, 12:46:55 PM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Of course, I believe Luther didn't value any of them. Basically, existentialism always leads to the same outcome, as Nietzsche feared, which is nihilism. Albert Camus knew this, that's why he invented the "absurdist hero" archetype. Yes, of course, reality is meaningless and life is meaningless, but you should put a smile on your face while realizing that. That's basically what he said. That's 'heroic' smile at the meaninglessness and pointlessness of existence. Basically, Kierkegaard is the only one who gives an answer. Now, whether that answer is sufficient is for the reader to decide.
what do you mean by Luther not valuing neither of them?:)

Nietzsche also criticized a great amount of historisk western christianity for being filled with nihilism and hatred (he brings up writings by Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, Calvin and Luther and actually Saint Paul himself as examples). Even though Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong I think he made some strong Points and was right in many of his criticisms against historical christendom . He did like Jesus though.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 12:51:27 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2017, 12:50:33 PM »
Yes, Father George, it's not the sort of thing they would normally give you in an Intro course. In an Intro course, IF you got Existentialism at all, you would probably get Albert Camus, The Stranger. Keep in mind that, at least when I studied Philosphy and got my BA in it, there were only TWO universities in the United States wherein the Philosophy Departments were predominantly inhabited by Theists. These were the University of Notre Dame and the University of San Diego. The last is MY Alma Mater. EVERY other university in this country at the time (1992-1996) had Philosophy Departments that were predominantly Atheistic.

Interestingly enough, BOTH the above Universities had VERY conservative Philosophy Departments, and SCREAMING liberal Religion Departments. Both are, theoretically at least, Roman Catholic schools. The Religion and Philosophy Departments despise each other, as you can WELL imagine. The journalistic wars are a thing to behold, especially at Notre Dame.

Most philosophers, scientists and historians are atheist to my recollection.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2017, 12:51:14 PM »
BEEBERT, perhaps Kierkegaard had a point, although I think that is more of a problem with Calvinism than it is with Lutheranism.
I absolutely agree. I haven't found anything by Kierkegaard on Calvin but I have a hard time believing he was positive to him. At least calvinists seems to have a tendency to dislike Kierkegaard. The problem with calvinism is that they seem to believe they know in detail exactly how God works. I like Luther. I have a hard time liking Calvin and his -ism...

I agree with this observation.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2017, 12:52:37 PM »
Yes, Father George, it's not the sort of thing they would normally give you in an Intro course. In an Intro course, IF you got Existentialism at all, you would probably get Albert Camus, The Stranger. Keep in mind that, at least when I studied Philosphy and got my BA in it, there were only TWO universities in the United States wherein the Philosophy Departments were predominantly inhabited by Theists. These were the University of Notre Dame and the University of San Diego. The last is MY Alma Mater. EVERY other university in this country at the time (1992-1996) had Philosophy Departments that were predominantly Atheistic.

Interestingly enough, BOTH the above Universities had VERY conservative Philosophy Departments, and SCREAMING liberal Religion Departments. Both are, theoretically at least, Roman Catholic schools. The Religion and Philosophy Departments despise each other, as you can WELL imagine. The journalistic wars are a thing to behold, especially at Notre Dame.

I actually find it interesting that the discussion about Kierkegaard has popped up at this time, considering the following quote made its rounds on my FB feed just a few days ago:

"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."

(I don't believe in coincidences.)

VERY interesting. And, in light of some conversations I have had lately, quite fascinating. When one wants to live a good Christian life, avoid sin, pray, go to Confession, fast, and receive the Sacrament regularly.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 12:53:20 PM by Diego »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2017, 12:58:55 PM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Of course, I believe Luther didn't value any of them. Basically, existentialism always leads to the same outcome, as Nietzsche feared, which is nihilism. Albert Camus knew this, that's why he invented the "absurdist hero" archetype. Yes, of course, reality is meaningless and life is meaningless, but you should put a smile on your face while realizing that. That's basically what he said. That's 'heroic' smile at the meaninglessness and pointlessness of existence. Basically, Kierkegaard is the only one who gives an answer. Now, whether that answer is sufficient is for the reader to decide.
what do you mean by Luther not valuing neither of them?:)

Nietzsche also criticized a great amount of historisk western christianity for being filled with nihilism and hatred (he brings up writings by Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, Calvin and Luther and actually Saint Paul himself as examples). Even though Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong I think he made some strong Points and was right in many of his criticisms against historical christendom . He did like Jesus though.

Yes indeed, I read him and I saw his criticism very blatantly. I wrote an essay critiquing Nietzschean view of Christianity and I explained why post-modern Protestantism and post-modern Roman Catholicism don't share his perceptions, and Eastern Orthodoxy never did. Although I acknowledged that the Christianity of the Middle Ages in Europe certainly did as Nietzsche claimed.

Anyway, when I made the comment about Martin Luther, I am merely saying that it's not the case that Luther cared about what they had to say when he rejected all three of their positions. None of them taught justification by faith alone. That's just one article of faith. Augustine felt it necessary to believe the Church before believing in the Gospel. Jesus judges the world based on actions, not beliefs. Matthew 25 makes this abundantly clear, yet he says as long as you believe, you'll be saved even if you commit a thousand murders, rapes etc. It's not accurate to say Martin Luther understood, even if he did care, what Paul, Augustine or Christ taught.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 01:01:01 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2017, 01:11:08 PM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Of course, I believe Luther didn't value any of them. Basically, existentialism always leads to the same outcome, as Nietzsche feared, which is nihilism. Albert Camus knew this, that's why he invented the "absurdist hero" archetype. Yes, of course, reality is meaningless and life is meaningless, but you should put a smile on your face while realizing that. That's basically what he said. That's 'heroic' smile at the meaninglessness and pointlessness of existence. Basically, Kierkegaard is the only one who gives an answer. Now, whether that answer is sufficient is for the reader to decide.
what do you mean by Luther not valuing neither of them?:)

Nietzsche also criticized a great amount of historisk western christianity for being filled with nihilism and hatred (he brings up writings by Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, Calvin and Luther and actually Saint Paul himself as examples). Even though Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong I think he made some strong Points and was right in many of his criticisms against historical christendom . He did like Jesus though.

Yes indeed, I read him and I saw his criticism very blatantly. I wrote an essay critiquing Nietzschean view of Christianity and I explained why post-modern Protestantism and post-modern Roman Catholicism don't share his perceptions, and Eastern Orthodoxy never did. Although I acknowledged that the Christianity of the Middle Ages in Europe certainly did as Nietzsche claimed.

Anyway, when I made the comment about Martin Luther, I am merely saying that it's not the case that Luther cared about what they had to say when he rejected all three of their positions. None of them taught justification by faith alone. That's just one article of faith. Augustine felt it necessary to believe the Church before believing in the Gospel. Jesus judges the world based on actions, not beliefs. Matthew 25 makes this abundantly clear, yet he says as long as you believe, you'll be saved even if you commit a thousand murders, rapes etc. It's not accurate to say Martin Luther understood, even if he did care, what Paul, Augustine or Christ taught.
I agree with Everything you just said. I even Believe that Matthew 25 (as Simone Weil Pointed out) seems to indicate that non-believers can be saved while many so called believers Will not.

Nietzsche didn't truly understand grace, that is his problem. And his idea of a morality beyond Good and evil is exactly what you get in true christianity. Nietzsche exposed rightly false christianity But didn't understand that many of his ideas were close to true christianity. In essence his fighting for freedom and his idea of a morality beyond good and evil. In Nietzsche you find a strong sense of the good but the problem of evil is still there.
I like many atheists. I even like the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens and believe that he was closer to Christ than many professing christians. Hitchens was always interested in the existential questions and he Always only criticized the false and immoral aspects of hypocritical religious People, and he did so rightly.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 01:19:19 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Online Asteriktos

  • Lame!
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 35,459
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2017, 02:38:34 PM »
Hi everyone. I think Kierkegaard might have been the greatest christian philosopher(along with Augustine) that I have ever encountered. What is his relation to christian orthodoxy? How would the orthodox church view his writings and view on God, does anyone know? I believe his way of talking about faith and sin in books like Fear and Trembling, The concept of Anxiety and Sickness unto Death is spot on. Has anybody read or heard about him? What are your opinions?

My enjoyment of him, and how much I get from him, varies wildly from document to document. Which I guess is to be expected given the range of stuff he writes on, and even POVs he writes from. I think he would have liked the Orthodox embrace of experience and faith, soft spot for apophatic language, and (comparative) lack of systemization. I think he would have disliked the administrative elements, among other things (I'd have to go back and reread him to remember what).

*Following*

Didn't get to read any Kierkegaard in my Intro to Philosophy course 16 years ago, so I'm hoping those who have read his work (both those who have already contributed, and those who have not) can enlighten me a bit on him.

From what I recall: he enjoyed dismantling the ideas of Hegel and moreso Hegel fanboys; he spoke of leaps of faith--though I don't know that he used that exact term--but basically he believed that there was a gulf between God and man that could not be gotten over by rational thinking, investigation, or church organization, and had to be traversed through simple faith; he was raised by a pretty strict (morally rigorous) father, and some of that rubbed off on him; he believed that we should follow God's revealed will regardless of our own thoughts, and so for example it would have been moral for Abraham to have gone through with the sacrifice of Isaac, and immoral for him to have refused; he believed that there could be no perfect system, no perfect philosophy that was rooted in rationalism and did away with faith and trust and mystery.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2017, 02:45:35 PM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Of course, I believe Luther didn't value any of them. Basically, existentialism always leads to the same outcome, as Nietzsche feared, which is nihilism. Albert Camus knew this, that's why he invented the "absurdist hero" archetype. Yes, of course, reality is meaningless and life is meaningless, but you should put a smile on your face while realizing that. That's basically what he said. That's 'heroic' smile at the meaninglessness and pointlessness of existence. Basically, Kierkegaard is the only one who gives an answer. Now, whether that answer is sufficient is for the reader to decide.
what do you mean by Luther not valuing neither of them?:)

Nietzsche also criticized a great amount of historisk western christianity for being filled with nihilism and hatred (he brings up writings by Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, Calvin and Luther and actually Saint Paul himself as examples). Even though Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong I think he made some strong Points and was right in many of his criticisms against historical christendom . He did like Jesus though.

Yes indeed, I read him and I saw his criticism very blatantly. I wrote an essay critiquing Nietzschean view of Christianity and I explained why post-modern Protestantism and post-modern Roman Catholicism don't share his perceptions, and Eastern Orthodoxy never did. Although I acknowledged that the Christianity of the Middle Ages in Europe certainly did as Nietzsche claimed.

Anyway, when I made the comment about Martin Luther, I am merely saying that it's not the case that Luther cared about what they had to say when he rejected all three of their positions. None of them taught justification by faith alone. That's just one article of faith. Augustine felt it necessary to believe the Church before believing in the Gospel. Jesus judges the world based on actions, not beliefs. Matthew 25 makes this abundantly clear, yet he says as long as you believe, you'll be saved even if you commit a thousand murders, rapes etc. It's not accurate to say Martin Luther understood, even if he did care, what Paul, Augustine or Christ taught.
I agree with Everything you just said. I even Believe that Matthew 25 (as Simone Weil Pointed out) seems to indicate that non-believers can be saved while many so called believers Will not.

Nietzsche didn't truly understand grace, that is his problem. And his idea of a morality beyond Good and evil is exactly what you get in true christianity. Nietzsche exposed rightly false christianity But didn't understand that many of his ideas were close to true christianity. In essence his fighting for freedom and his idea of a morality beyond good and evil. In Nietzsche you find a strong sense of the good but the problem of evil is still there.
I like many atheists. I even like the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens and believe that he was closer to Christ than many professing christians. Hitchens was always interested in the existential questions and he Always only criticized the false and immoral aspects of hypocritical religious People, and he did so rightly.

Indeed. I personally admire Hitchens, even though I disagree with his conclusions. He always called himself a Marxist, and I suspect his overconfidence in logical positivism, and his focus on politics is what led him to conclude what he did about religion.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2017, 02:57:42 PM »
You obviously have more familiarity with him than I do. And although I would NOT agree that Luther valued Paul above Christ, I do sometimes think that Luther put more emphasis on Paul than was really necessary. Luther was an Augustinian, and he took that with him. He took Augustine the Greater further than Augustine ever intended to go, IMNSHO.

XORTHODOX4CHRISTX, You have made a very important point. The other Existentialist philosophers, by rejecting God from the equation, have eliminated any possible answers to the questions they have in the first place.

Of course, I believe Luther didn't value any of them. Basically, existentialism always leads to the same outcome, as Nietzsche feared, which is nihilism. Albert Camus knew this, that's why he invented the "absurdist hero" archetype. Yes, of course, reality is meaningless and life is meaningless, but you should put a smile on your face while realizing that. That's basically what he said. That's 'heroic' smile at the meaninglessness and pointlessness of existence. Basically, Kierkegaard is the only one who gives an answer. Now, whether that answer is sufficient is for the reader to decide.
what do you mean by Luther not valuing neither of them?:)

Nietzsche also criticized a great amount of historisk western christianity for being filled with nihilism and hatred (he brings up writings by Thomas Aquinas, Tertullian, Calvin and Luther and actually Saint Paul himself as examples). Even though Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong I think he made some strong Points and was right in many of his criticisms against historical christendom . He did like Jesus though.

Yes indeed, I read him and I saw his criticism very blatantly. I wrote an essay critiquing Nietzschean view of Christianity and I explained why post-modern Protestantism and post-modern Roman Catholicism don't share his perceptions, and Eastern Orthodoxy never did. Although I acknowledged that the Christianity of the Middle Ages in Europe certainly did as Nietzsche claimed.

Anyway, when I made the comment about Martin Luther, I am merely saying that it's not the case that Luther cared about what they had to say when he rejected all three of their positions. None of them taught justification by faith alone. That's just one article of faith. Augustine felt it necessary to believe the Church before believing in the Gospel. Jesus judges the world based on actions, not beliefs. Matthew 25 makes this abundantly clear, yet he says as long as you believe, you'll be saved even if you commit a thousand murders, rapes etc. It's not accurate to say Martin Luther understood, even if he did care, what Paul, Augustine or Christ taught.
I agree with Everything you just said. I even Believe that Matthew 25 (as Simone Weil Pointed out) seems to indicate that non-believers can be saved while many so called believers Will not.

Nietzsche didn't truly understand grace, that is his problem. And his idea of a morality beyond Good and evil is exactly what you get in true christianity. Nietzsche exposed rightly false christianity But didn't understand that many of his ideas were close to true christianity. In essence his fighting for freedom and his idea of a morality beyond good and evil. In Nietzsche you find a strong sense of the good but the problem of evil is still there.
I like many atheists. I even like the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens and believe that he was closer to Christ than many professing christians. Hitchens was always interested in the existential questions and he Always only criticized the false and immoral aspects of hypocritical religious People, and he did so rightly.

Indeed. I personally admire Hitchens, even though I disagree with his conclusions. He always called himself a Marxist, and I suspect his overconfidence in logical positivism, and his focus on politics is what led him to conclude what he did about religion.
Certainly. Hitchens truly worshiped reason, and didn't believe that things beyond what you could observe had any meaning. And even though people have had mystical experiences, he completely dismissed those as illusions,  for example calling Moses a schizofrenic and Saint Paul an epeleptic. But he did say great things concerning the wicked acts that has been done in the name of religion, and I truly admire his brutal honesty and critical view of hypocrisy, which is why I say that he was somewhat close to Christ in some aspects. At least closer than many think and closer than many professing christians. It disgusts me for example when a calvinist like John Piper comments on Hitchens death is nothing but that he probably now is in torments awaiting to be cast into the lake of fire. If something, a true christian should see that Hitchens was an honest man searching the truth, even if he was on the wrong path. And who knows, maybe he found God in the end...
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 03:00:38 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2017, 04:32:15 PM »
Hi everyone. I think Kierkegaard might have been the greatest christian philosopher(along with Augustine) that I have ever encountered. What is his relation to christian orthodoxy? How would the orthodox church view his writings and view on God, does anyone know? I believe his way of talking about faith and sin in books like Fear and Trembling, The concept of Anxiety and Sickness unto Death is spot on. Has anybody read or heard about him? What are your opinions?

My enjoyment of him, and how much I get from him, varies wildly from document to document. Which I guess is to be expected given the range of stuff he writes on, and even POVs he writes from. I think he would have liked the Orthodox embrace of experience and faith, soft spot for apophatic language, and (comparative) lack of systemization. I think he would have disliked the administrative elements, among other things (I'd have to go back and reread him to remember what).

*Following*

Didn't get to read any Kierkegaard in my Intro to Philosophy course 16 years ago, so I'm hoping those who have read his work (both those who have already contributed, and those who have not) can enlighten me a bit on him.

From what I recall: he enjoyed dismantling the ideas of Hegel and moreso Hegel fanboys; he spoke of leaps of faith--though I don't know that he used that exact term--but basically he believed that there was a gulf between God and man that could not be gotten over by rational thinking, investigation, or church organization, and had to be traversed through simple faith; he was raised by a pretty strict (morally rigorous) father, and some of that rubbed off on him; he believed that we should follow God's revealed will regardless of our own thoughts, and so for example it would have been moral for Abraham to have gone through with the sacrifice of Isaac, and immoral for him to have refused; he believed that there could be no perfect system, no perfect philosophy that was rooted in rationalism and did away with faith and trust and mystery.
it is unfortunate that Kierkegaard never seemed to have written anything about orthodoxy. I wonder how much he knew about it, because I find some similarities between his thought and the orthodox way. He is more orthodox than catholic and even protestant I think.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2017, 04:18:17 AM »
Kierkegaard also believed that the absolute freedom we have when God confronts us is what causes anxiety But also the path to salvation. In other words he believed like orthodoxy that God demands our free response
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline Sophia Iliadi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2017, 06:33:01 AM »
Didn't Kierkegaard commit suicide? Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread... But this issue seems to be crucial for answering the question in the OP.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 06:33:34 AM by Sophia Iliadi »

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2017, 06:54:20 AM »
Didn't Kierkegaard commit suicide? Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread... But this issue seems to be crucial for answering the question in the OP.
No he didn't :)
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2017, 11:00:42 AM »
“The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever.” - Kierkegaard

This probably shows that Kierkegaard was not a fan of calvinism
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2017, 12:15:15 PM »
Didn't Kierkegaard commit suicide? Forgive me, I haven't read the whole thread... But this issue seems to be crucial for answering the question in the OP.

Nietzsche went mad, and Albert Camus' central philosophy was indeed focused on the topic of suicide. However, that's not Kierkegaard.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline christiane777

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 342
  • and drinketh water of the raine of heauen
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2017, 01:41:05 PM »
Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist philosopher, which is a fairly rare bird, since most of the Existentialists were and are Atheists. He was a communicant member of the State Church of Denmark, which at the time was a traditional Lutheran Church. Today, of course, it has apostatised, along with all the other liberal churches in Western Europe, possible exceptions being the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Lutheran Church of Finland.

In order to obtain my Bachelor's Degree (one of them) in Philosophy, I did have to read some of Kierkegaard's work, but that was 20 long years ago. I couldn't really be of much help to you on him at this point.
Kierkegaard seems to have believed that the Church of Denmark had already apostatized during his time. Though Kierkegaard was a complicated fellow. He for example had extremely high demands on what true faith was, and believed that he himself didn't have true faith from what I have understood. Also, he was in his late days highly critical of Martin Luther and accused him of having valued Saint Paul higher than Jesus Christ himself. Kierkegaard was controversial to say the least.

Where did Kierkegaard criticize Luther?  Do you have a cite?  I have studied him quite a bit - never heard that.

He admired Luther greatly.  I might add Luther is easier to read and will make you just as good a Christian (if not better than my much loved but very convoluted, abstract, German rationalist fighting Kierkegaard).  Kierkegaard attacked the idea that all clergy basically HAD to marry in the 19th century Denmark Lutheran Church as a 'convention'.  He thought it was bourgeois, a concession to social secular values - at one point he said he was closer to the monasticism of the Catholics (Jesuits).  He wanted individual Christians personally, completely devoted to God, not modern basically secular ones.  (sound familiar?)  Is this what you are thinking about re Luther or is it something else?  Kierkegaard did think Luther brought marriage back into the Church for the priests, correctly really - West anyway.

I would be interested though to see the attack on Luther.   :D ???
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:55:16 PM by christiane777 »
I was in the spirit on the Lords day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2017, 03:17:48 PM »
Kierkegaard was a Christian Existentialist philosopher, which is a fairly rare bird, since most of the Existentialists were and are Atheists. He was a communicant member of the State Church of Denmark, which at the time was a traditional Lutheran Church. Today, of course, it has apostatised, along with all the other liberal churches in Western Europe, possible exceptions being the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Lutheran Church of Finland.

In order to obtain my Bachelor's Degree (one of them) in Philosophy, I did have to read some of Kierkegaard's work, but that was 20 long years ago. I couldn't really be of much help to you on him at this point.
Kierkegaard seems to have believed that the Church of Denmark had already apostatized during his time. Though Kierkegaard was a complicated fellow. He for example had extremely high demands on what true faith was, and believed that he himself didn't have true faith from what I have understood. Also, he was in his late days highly critical of Martin Luther and accused him of having valued Saint Paul higher than Jesus Christ himself. Kierkegaard was controversial to say the least.

Where did Kierkegaard criticize Luther?  Do you have a cite?  I have studied him quite a bit - never heard that.

He admired Luther greatly.  I might add Luther is easier to read and will make you just as good a Christian (if not better than my much loved but very convoluted, abstract, German rationalist fighting Kierkegaard).  Kierkegaard attacked the idea that all clergy basically HAD to marry in the 19th century Denmark Lutheran Church as a 'convention'.  He thought it was bourgeois, a concession to social secular values - at one point he said he was closer to the monasticism of the Catholics (Jesuits).  He wanted individual Christians personally, completely devoted to God, not modern basically secular ones.  (sound familiar?)  Is this what you are thinking about re Luther or is it something else?  Kierkegaard did think Luther brought marriage back into the Church for the priests, correctly really - West anyway.

I would be interested though to see the attack on Luther.   :D ???
Kierkegaard became highly critical of Luther and criticized protestantism in its enirety in an extreme way. I will quote some things by Kierkegaard about Luther and protestantism:

"When one reads Luther one gets the impression rightly enough of a sure and certain
mind, of one who speaks with a decision that is 'authoritative.' And yet, it seems to me there is something disturbing about his certainty, which is in fact uncertainty. It is common knowledge that a particular state of mind often tries to conceal itself beneath its opposite. One encourages oneself with strong words, and the words become even stronger because one is hesitant. That is not deception, but a pious wish. One does not wish to express the uncertainty of fear, one does not wish or dare even to name it, and one forces out the very opposite mood in the hope that it will help. Thus Luther makes paramount use of that wish is used with such moderation in the New Testament: the sin against the Holy Ghost."

"There is a curious connection between Protestantism and the modern political point of view: it is a struggle for the same thing, the sovereignty of the people."

"As for the rest, the closer I examine Luther the more convinced do I become that he was muddle headed. It is a comfortable kind of reforming which consists in throwing away burdens and making life easier.... True reforming always means to make life more difficult, to lay on burdens; and the true reformer is therefore always put to death as though he were the enemy of mankind. Luther's 'hear me, thou Pope' ... sounds to me always disgustingly worldly. Is that the sacred earnestness of a reformer ... who knows that true reformation consists in becoming more inward? Such an expression is just like a journalist's slogan. That unholy political attitude, that desire to overthrow the pope is what is so confusing about Luther."

"Luther, your responsibility is great indeed, for the closer I look the more clearly do I see that you overthrew the pope and set the public on the throne.... You altered the New Testament concept of 'the martyr,' and taught men to win by numbers."

Kierkegaard held that Luther's bungled attempt to reform the Church inevitably led to mediocrity:
"[Luther's] later life accredited mediocrity. It should be noted that in a certain sense it takes a hero to accredit mediocrity and in Protestantism we are blessed with this beyond measure."
Elsewhere, he added:
"[Luther] really became a politician, to whom victory is more important than 'how' one is victorious."

Of Luther's marriage, Kierkegaard had this to say:
"Luther really could not have been wht we call 'in love' with Catherine von Bora. I can imagine him saying to her: 'My dear girl, the purpose of my marriage -- as I told you -- is to defy Satan, the Pope, and the whole world. This being the case, you can understand that I could just as well marry your kitchen maid."

Kierkegaard became increasingly convinced that Luther had systematically watered down Christianity:

"t can come to the point in Protestantism when worldliness is honored and venerated as godliness. And that, I maintain, cannot happen in Catholicism.... No wonder Luther very quickly got such great support. The secular mentality understood immediately the break.... [T]hey grinned in their beards ... at Luther ... that chosen instrument of God who had helped men so splendidly make a fool of God."

Again, he says:
"When Catholicism degenerates, what form of corruption will show itself? The answer is easy: mock holiness. When Protestantism degenerates, what form of corruption will show itself? The answer is not difficult: shallow worldliness. But in Protestantism this will show itself with a refinement which cannot occur in Catholicism."

"The longer I study Luther, the more clear does it become that Luther also ... confuses what it means to be the patient with what it means to be the doctor; he had the patient's passion for expressing and describing his suffering, and what he feels would be its alleviation. But he had not the doctor's breadth of view. And in order to reform Christianity the first requirement is surely to have a view of the whole of Christianity."

Remarking on the shift from the theocentric perspective of St. Paul's call to the "obedience of faith" to the anthropocentric perspective of Luther's declaration of forgiveness and grace focused upon man's salvation, Kierkegaard writes:
"Luther is the very opposite of the apostle [St. Paul]. The apostle expresses Christianity in God's interest.... Luther expresses Christianity in man's interest."

The sacrament of confession was abolished in Lutheranism, according to Kierkegaard, because it was feared:
"The congregation was afraid of going to confession; the confessional box made it all too real. The priests were afraid of hearing confession; it became much too serious a matter."

Luther's overemphasis on faith alone led him to reduce love to faith, as Kierkegaard incisively observes:
"The end of Luther's sermon on 1 Corinthians 13, where he concludes that faith is greater than love, is sophistry. Luther always wants to explain love as love of one's neighbor, as though it were not also a duty to love God.... Luther put faith in the place of love of God, and then called love, love of one's neighbor."

So there you have like 15-20 quotes where Kierkegaard rightly criticizes protestantism and Luther. :)
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 03:19:30 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Online Asteriktos

  • Lame!
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 35,459
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2017, 03:27:38 PM »
beebert, I don't know for sure if you are the original author and collater of these quotes, but if you aren't and you cut and pasted it from elsewhere (Like this blog, which appears to be the case in some instances), would you please acknowledge this in your posts in the future?

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2017, 03:37:51 PM »
beebert, I don't know for sure if you are the original author and collater of these quotes, but if you aren't and you cut and pasted it from elsewhere (Like this blog, which appears to be the case in some instances), would you please acknowledge this in your posts in the future?
Kierkegaard wrote those things. Or what do you mean? But of course I will :) Anyway, the quotes are of Kierkegaard
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 03:41:14 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Online Asteriktos

  • Lame!
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 35,459
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2017, 03:48:39 PM »
I should have given an example of what I was thinking :) Lines like this are commentary or introductory summary rather than Kierkegaard himself:

"Kierkegaard held that Luther's bungled attempt to reform the Church inevitably led to mediocrity:"

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2017, 03:57:56 PM »
I should have given an example of what I was thinking :) Lines like this are commentary or introductory summary rather than Kierkegaard himself:

"Kierkegaard held that Luther's bungled attempt to reform the Church inevitably led to mediocrity:"
Yes that is true. Sorry for not taking them away :) But the quotes from Kierkegaard are there. I hope you understood which ones they were :)
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,994
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2017, 02:38:57 PM »
I should have given an example of what I was thinking :) Lines like this are commentary or introductory summary rather than Kierkegaard himself:

"Kierkegaard held that Luther's bungled attempt to reform the Church inevitably led to mediocrity:"
Yes that is true. Sorry for not taking them away :) But the quotes from Kierkegaard are there. I hope you understood which ones they were :)

When you copy and paste material from another place on the internet, it is customary to give the source.  The exception is quoting from the Bible - in that case it is acceptable to simply give which version / translation you're quoting.

So you'd say that those are Kierkegaard quotes, but that you copied them from x blog or y website and give the link.  Otherwise you leave your fellow users with no option but to find hardcopy Kierkegaard if they want to check your sources.
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2017, 02:55:06 PM »
I should have given an example of what I was thinking :) Lines like this are commentary or introductory summary rather than Kierkegaard himself:

"Kierkegaard held that Luther's bungled attempt to reform the Church inevitably led to mediocrity:"
Yes that is true. Sorry for not taking them away :) But the quotes from Kierkegaard are there. I hope you understood which ones they were :)
When you copy and paste material from another place on the internet, it is customary to give the source.  The exception is quoting from the Bible - in that case it is acceptable to simply give which version / translation you're quoting.

So you'd say that those are Kierkegaard quotes, but that you copied them from x blog or y website and give the link.  Otherwise you leave your fellow users with no option but to find hardcopy Kierkegaard if they want to check your sources.
Sorry. Anyway, you can find those quotes at many places, they are certainly by Kierkegaard
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 02:55:39 PM by beebert »
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Dostoyevsky
« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2017, 10:53:29 PM »
Has anyone read Dostoyevsky? If so, how does he compare to Nietzsche and Kierkegaard? I seem to hear them all mentioned all together.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 699
  • Please forgive the embarrasing avatar mishap.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Atlanta
Re: Dostoyevsky
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2017, 12:00:53 AM »
Has anyone read Dostoyevsky? If so, how does he compare to Nietzsche and Kierkegaard? I seem to hear them all mentioned all together.
Don't even waste your time with Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. Dostoyevsky is a real genius.
Quote from: Nun M.
The dread Pantocrator...is also "Christouli mou", (my little Christ), who really listens when you run in to your neighborhood church on the way to work to cry and light a candle because your daughter is in trouble at school. The untouchable and all-holy Mother of God is also "Panayitsa mou", who really will take your part before the court of heaven because, just like your own mom, she’ll always stick up for her children, no matter how badly they’ve behaved.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,154
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Dostoyevsky
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2017, 12:25:45 AM »
Has anyone read Dostoyevsky? If so, how does he compare to Nietzsche and Kierkegaard? I seem to hear them all mentioned all together.
Don't even waste your time with Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. Dostoyevsky is a real genius.

lol Too late. I haven't read Dostoyevsky, I've already read the other aforementioned.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline beebert

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,560
  • Faith: Übermensch
  • Jurisdiction: Nietzsche
Re: Kierkegaard
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2017, 02:28:27 AM »
Doestoevsky is in a League of his own. Read Brothers Karamazov. It is the greatest literary work ever written. It contains Everything. Dostoevsky is one of the greatest geniuses to have ever lived.
'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil' (Exodus 23:2)