/lit/ - Literature

>>12072460
Because he sees Christianity as the truth. Are you stupid?

>>12072482
sure, that's his faith. so am I supposed to have faith in his faith? are you listening to yourself?

>>12072460
it would probably work better in a Muʿtazila or Ashari context desu

>>12072485
Christianity is the truth.
I don't know how to explain it to you, It's Faith beyond Faith.

Kierkgaard bases his entire philosophy off the virtues that Christianity Pre-Sets, no other "religion" (Falsities) uses Christianities ideals. Ideals are Locked into the Theological standings that the Faith is tied to.

>>12072499
ok then, what kind of Christianity.

>>12072503
There is only One Kind of Christianity. Faith into The Son, as the Lord of Man and the redeemer of their Sin.

>>12072517
so I just study the bible by myself and never join a church

>>12072460
>why Christianity of all the theistic religions
In Kierkegaard's own opinion (which is shared by many), because of the Bible's accuracy in describing the human condition and Christ's unique roll in saving individuals from their own self-inflicted damnation.

>>12072523
The Church is not necessary to the salvation of anyone. While the Church can and should perform a positive function for believers and non believers alike, if none of your local Churches achieve this, then yes, you should not attend Church.
Faith is necessary, tradition is optional.

>>12072524
can you expound on that. what is it about Christianity that makes it accurate in describing the human condition compared to other religions

>>12072523
You're going to have to join a Church, it's the only place you'll find like minded individuals that'll encourage you on your goals, and help you through your spiritual life. It's actually commanded for Christians to go to Church in the Bible.

>>12072539
Church Is necessary, but yes it's not needed for Salvation.

>>12072552
Because it's about the Truth of Man's sinfulness, we are born with it, and we constantly commit it.

A core concept in Kierkegaard's philosophy is what he calls the eternal, and another is the human person/subject and its relation to the eternal. Christianity intensifies the meaning and potential of the individual human person more than any other religion or philosophy, because it puts them in a direct and personal relationship with the eternal God Himself. Because of the Incarnation (God becoming man in Christ), man is able to enter a filial relationship with God. God treats every soul (at least every baptised soul) as His own son or daughter. This means that every particular soul has something like an infinite worth. A lot of religions or philosophies allow you to dissolve your personality (e.g. in a pantheistic "All", or in a Nirvana-like vacuum, or just in the case of materialism just dust), but in Christianity you are left with having a soul that must choose between good and evil, between obeying or disobeying God, loving or hating Him - and your decision will have an eternal consequence; and it's not just important for you, but the eternal God Himself (from all eternity) has taken a personal interest in your own soul and its eternal destiny, so it's not just a matter of saving or losing your soul, but of pleasing or displeasing the God who has looked on you as a Father before the world even began. In this context "faith" has a very special significance.

>>12072562
which church then. which denomination

>>12072552
I implore you to do your own research and go well-beyond just looking into Christianity because it was recommended here. https://www.comparativereligion.com/man.html Is a decent resource that I referred to years ago. See for yourself which religion offers the most coherent explanation of the human condition.
But it's not just this niche accuracy that matters, it's how the religion fulfills the described condition and gives purpose to man. In this way the death of Christ is truly something unique.

Do some digging.

>>12072573
In Judaism and Islam there is this category of faith as well, because both treat God as a divine Person who takes an interest in each human soul He has created. However, they don't take it to the same degree or intensity as does Christianity, precisely because in Christianity the Incarnation, the Person of Christ, puts man in a much more intimate relationship with God where the stakes are higher. It's one thing to "meet your Maker", and another to be reconciled with your Father. Also to disappoint or disobey one or the other. Christians have a greater motive for faith in God because they believe that He loves each one with a paternal love, whereas if this idea even exists in Judaism or Islam it is certainly more obscure and less central. The key part is the crucifixion of Christ and His feeling abandoned by God the Father on the cross, and its relation to every human person who has suffered and felt a similar abandonment, and how this relates to faith in (to use language similar to the gospel's) the midst of the darkness of this world (where God's presence is obscured by sin and the fallen/corrupted nature of things).

>>12072576
I'm Presbyterian, and conservative.
But honestly look for a Reformed Church, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran.
Just make sure it's Conservative.

The individual beliefs of the practitioners will very wildy.

I also support The Eastern Church faith, but I cannot recommend the Catholic way. There are a few reasons for this, but mostly it's the level that veneration of the saints takes, and the supreme authority of the papacy.


Also, be wary of Mormon and Jehovah witness cults, and other weird sects.

>>12072601
It definitely exists in Judaism because that idea comes from Judiasm.
Islam, less so but he is still seen as a Father figure.

>His feeling abandoned by God the Father on the cross
I would not say it is a key point, but Yes it is very important that you understand this correctly.

What denomination are you, and who teaches this doctrine? I am mostly unfamiliar with it.

>>12072597
Ok, I'll definitely read that link that you posted. And I ask this not to be dismissive, I'm just really wondering about Kierkegaard's conception of faith.

If I'm reading about different religions, how is that any different than me perusing the grocery aisle for which type of tomato sauce is favorable. Meaning, at what point does faith set in, in this process? Cause from what I understand, Kierkegaard is suggesting going beyond intellectual reason and into faith. And what reading about different religions seems like is using my intellectual reason to find faith, which seems like exactly what Kierkegaard was suggesting against. If I'm to understand him correctly, which I might not have.

>>12072576
Whatever church is based on the teachings of Christ. There are few things more pitiable than those who argue the irrelevant, unimportant details of Christian theology until their death.
See the Nicene Creed. You should be wary of newer denominations (established in the past 300 years). Mormons and LDS aren't Christian by definition. It's extremely easy to identify the cults.

>>12072620
Because Truth only has one answer, so the system (theology) has only one Objective phenomena.
Faith sets in once you look to God for answers in your life. Once you rest on his assurance to hold you up through life.

Look into God as a soveriegn being, and find the love he has gaven you. Find the reasons to love God.

Religion and Faith is just as objective and metaphysical as math. The concepts are only solved through time.

>>12072620
What must be identified here is that Kierkegaard did not choose Christianity merely because his parents were Christian or the prevailing culture around him was Christian (Kierkegaard is one of the only Christian Existentialists of his time), but because he genuinely wrestled with subjects such as faith and came to the conclusion that faith was indeed worth holding. Even with his new understanding of Christianity acquired later in life, however, Kierkegaard admitted that faith is inherently absurd (and implicit in this is his admitting that he cannot be 100% certain of Christianity, even if he found it to be the "most" coherent with reality). So, even when you've arrived at the furthest point that man's pure reason (see Kant) can take you, one still needs a leap of faith to live with the convictions he as arrived at.

>>12072704
to add to this, you can know what is true and still choose to live adverse to the truth. Many do. I'd say this is where faith comes in

>>12072732
What do you mean by this

>>12072742
I think he meant averse*. As in, "I concede that x is probably true, but choose to live as if it isn't."

>>12072618
I'm Catholic. Not sure what point you're referring to. You mean Christ feeling abandoned by the Father while on the cross? That's there in the gospel text itself. Christ's divine nature is still perfectly united to the Father's divine nature, but His human nature while on the cross is left feeling totally dry and abandoned. By allowing Himself to suffer like this, Christ, and therefore God, unites Himself to every human being who has ever suffered and felt abandoned or rejected. Because we know that even Christ has felt this way, we have a greater reason to cling to hope and avoid despair.

>>12072460
It's because faith isn't target-less. The hebrew word for faith in the Bible could be translated to trust, and Kierkegaard uses in this sense. But it'd be a dumb thing to say that 'I trust', without declaring what do you trust in. It'd as absurd as leaning against void space.

Kierkegaard's writings of faith implies a faith in his own heart's content and whisper that the good will win after all (for that is the essence of the christian faith)

>>12072786
>By allowing Himself to suffer like this, Christ
Yes, that part is a relationship we will never feel to God, that was his unique experience with God.

It is not the main point of Christianity, tho important.

>>12072460
Because Kierkegaard is interested in becoming a true self. The faith must be in the eternal; if it is in the finite, such as secular ideologies, then it leads to despair. The key ingredient in this faith, this relation between the finite and the infinite, is the absolute submission of the self to the infinite. This is the core of Christianity, submitting to God through the death of the self (Luke 9:23-24). Now, eastern religions put a lot of emphasis on self death as well, but there is an important distintion. In eastern religions, self death means the dissolution of the self. It is about realizing that there is no such thing as self, the self is an illusion. For Kierkegaard, this is not faith but resignation. He defines faith as believing that that which we give up will be restored to us. In Christianity, there is self death by submitting to the infinite, yet by that very same act the self is restored back to us. So for Kierkegaard, there can be no faith in the eastern religions, only resignation, while there is faith according to his definition in Christianity

>>12072576
The one that Jesus himself left and is the biggest one until this very day.

>>12073981
>Catholicism
Gonna be a yikes from me dawg

"Whoever extols him as a God of love, does not think highly enough of love itself. Did not that God want also to be judge? But the loving one loves irrespective of reward and requital."

/lit/ btfo
/thread

>>12074036
>irrelevant TSZ shit, highlighting Nietzsche's babby's first attempt at philosophy
>using /thread
>Fannyposting
cute...

>>12074016
You don't have a clue what your talking about.

>>12072460
What exactly does he mean by the absurd?

>>12074056
>babby's first attempt at philosophy
>over 100 years later
>the whordes of Christian /pol/fags still have no response

>>12072460
Could this idea of faith be applied to the other Abrahamic religions, or is it uniquely Christian? I'm really trying to understand Kierkegaard

>>12074149
It's Christian

>>12074036
God loves those who love him, he doesn't have to love everyone irrespective of their actions

>>12074101
I'd say the same about you. Why should I be a part of a church that requires me to dogmatically believe that Mary was assumed into heaven, an account which isn't found in any text until several hundred years after the actual events?

Who the hell reads Kierkegaard LMAO? He doesn't make much sense, he's more of a psychologist than an actual philosopher lol

>>12074149
>>12074158
For Kierkegaard it is. You on the other hand, are free to believe what you want to if it makes you feel the same. Following step by step the teachings of a philosopher is a sign of a brainlet.

>>12072485
If you would actually read him, you would realize that the third realm (the divine) requires a loving and omnipotent God to help you cross the chasm of nihilism. Any Marxist is operating in the realm of the ethical.

>>12072576
I'm non-denominational, a hyperprotestant if you really pressed. By asking this question you have failed to learn the lesson of Kierkegaard. How you nurture and develop your faith is individual. We can't give you your answers. You lack the temperament for this project, just give up.

anons a person in a hinduism server said that he found the idea of the "will" very similar to the idea of the "brahman" . i found that interesting too

>>12074653
so I'm asking you for direction & your answer is literally kys. cool faith in your beliefs bro

>>12072460
Can we talk about this pedonegro's love-tiff wit Hans Christian Andersen instead?

>>12072603
>>12074653
PCA is good, CRC, etc, something Calvinist
If you really want intense services, find a protestant reformed or Netherlands reformed. Just make sure you wear a black suit and a hat if you're a grill, which you aren't

>>12072503
There is only one kind of Christianity, denominations are just schools of thought that try their best to capture the truth of Christianity, and none of them are perfect. But the kind that subscribe to the five solae, namely most Protestant and Baptist denominations, are better than Cathocuck and Orthodox.

>>12072552
Read the book of Ecclesiastes. Just the first chapter alone will explain it.

>>12072499
>Kierkgaard bases his entire philosophy off the virtues that Christianity Pre-Sets, no other "religion" (Falsities) uses Christianities ideals
Like what?

>>12072460
Try reading the Postscript. There he splits up the religious sphere into to parts. The lower part allows for non-Christians (he uses Socrates as an example) the higher part requires the individual's telos to be the Christian Paradox (The god become man).

Also read Philosophical Fragments. That might help you understand just how important the uniqueness of Christianity is for him

OP, OP, OP...

Kierkegaard’s Christianity is not the Christianity you know. Fuck denominations, for that sake. What matters is faith in the one true God, and our saviour. It is faith, not adherence to a strict, organized church’s interpretation of biblical text, that is important. You must renounce this life of material experience, put your faith totally in the transcendent holiness that is God, and only then can this life be truly bearable, and the next one even better.

>>12072460
You asked a loaded question, but I'll address the specific example you provided with Marxism. Kierkegaard does not advocate faith in false idols, but in God. Now I think you can justifiably apply Kierkegaard's philosophy to other religions (in particular Buddhism).

The Knight of faith has simultaneously abandoned himself to his faith in God, but affirms himself through God. That is how we get to the paradox of Abraham, who out of confidence in his faith, priorities his individual relationship with God above conventional morality. I would argue that Buddhist enlightenment is very similar. A simultaneous abandonment of the self (abandonment of attachment), while also affirming the self.

The atheistic religion that is Marxism strives for no higher spiritual understanding. It is collectivist. It is not about salvation of the individual, but about achieving a twisted understanding of material salvation through collectivization. Although some Marxists have a fanatical faith in the ideology, it is nothing but a false idol. It is contingent entirely on humanity itself, and requires "salvation" in a group, not via the individual and his relation to a higher being/understanding.

(Now watch my effort post get completely ignored)

>>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.

>>12075546
His conception of faith can't apply to Marxism, for precisely the reason I gave in the post above yours. I do agree that it can be applied to other religions of the spirit.

>>12075478
You guilted me to respond, I hope you are happy now.

>>12075478
It seems you never spoke to anyone who lived through USSR if you spew bullshit like that

>>12072460
Kierkegaard is a dead end.

>>12075563
not for you, but for a twisted mind who think the higher notion of the spirit is in the material and we should help one to another like some kind of higher commandment. or even something more simple like the OP said... somebody who really think the classless society is the heaven on earth and the end of all suffering. i dont know. your argument is a good argument, of course.
maybe you are right in the personal notion of faith, but what i want to say is that with an strictly personal notion of faith you dont have christianity in first place. you dont have religions and precepts and im not sure kierkegaard really want this. he is pretty rigid when it comes to christianity like the salvation, the real salvation.

>>12075478
>>12075616

To clarify, The Better Tomorrow/The Bright Future (tranlastions vary) a.k.a the main idea that permeates every single element of life in USSR, especially it's late stages is shockingly similar to teachings of Jesus (Kingdom of God) - minus, of course, the God himself. Every single person was involved individually. It was a religion no different than Christianity with Lenin as a prophet.

>>12075626
>a twisted mind who think the higher notion of the spirit is in the material and we should help one to another like some kind of higher commandment
That would be not a Marxist in the strict sense but some sort of spiritual Hegelian, and Kierkegaard has quite a lot to say about Hegel and his philosophy. Going to the original question, Kierkegaard's philosophy and faith can probably be adapted to many teachings but it absolutely requires the approach to be individualistic and not collectivistic. Anything that spells the value of a collective higher than that of a single man is a mere Universal and not a God, and a person yielding to it is a mere Ethic, not a Believer.

>>12075634
>It was a religion no different than Christianity with Lenin as a prophet.
Sure, if you take a particular branch of Christianity, but of that Christianity Kierkegaard was the harshest critic.

>>12075636
i suppose you are right. strictly speaking. but the term individualistic, stricly speagin, cant be applied to any religion either. why kierkegaard promote christianism then?, in your own words. he blend the christianity like something collective and individualistic at the same time like a marxist would do.

>>12075616
>>12075634
Funny you bring that up, as my Mother was raised and lived in Soviet Ukraine until its collapse (and then she moved to the US). Most average Soviet citizens did not care at all for Communist ideology and only conformed to the extent they had to. My gandmother and many of my extended relatives who lived there hid their practice to Orthodox Christianity. Especially among the rural villages, Christianity was the primary religion, its just that its worship had to be hidden.

My mom described having "politics" classes at school. These classes were mostly just propaganda, but according to her, most people slept or day dreamed. Personally she liked hiding works of Russian literature under her desk and reading. As they say, you can take a horse to a river, but you can't force him to drink. Soviet Propaganda in the last couple of decades in particular (60s, 70s, 80s) were just like that.

I must admit though, that my understanding is mostly anecdotal accounts from my mother and relatives. However, the claim was that I never spoke to people who grew up in the USSR, and that is plain false.

>>12074729
You want direction? Read less think more. Everything you have asked can be answered by reading Kierkegaard and the Bible.

>>12075478
Just because effort posts don't get replies doesn't mean that they don't get appreciated. Stop attention whoring you little shit.