/lit/ - Literature

>>12072460
kierkegaard is good when he criticize why everyone have no "real" faith. but when he talk about the faith in itself he is like everyone else, his writing of faith without criticizing anybody are just a random ramble of a christian pastor in christian days and places. pretty average and plain and even mediocre.
what OP say is completely right. the faith he talk about can be applied to whatever you want to believe, his criticizing of why what you believe is ultimate shit, that is good, in that he is pretty good, that is his thing, his real thing. but his links between faith and christianity are weak and random. he was born where he was born and he believe in that shitty religion and thats it.

he lack the profundity when he most need it. he sees himself like an ultimate an desperate attempt to make christianity great again. he is a liar. he had a rigid and stupid mind when it comes about why you have to have faith in christ in particular and not in whatever personal (and crazy) notion of god.