User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 236

  1. #91
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    He didn't know for certain, else he wouldn't have been a champion of "faith". He had faith that it was the absolute truth. He didn't know it was the absolute truth. Big difference. He even butted heads with other Christians on how faith was the foundation for everything they stood for.

    I'm just simply reading. If you want to exagerrate your disagreement on how my interpretation is the "worst" of all, then feel free. If getting dramatic is your way of winning, then you already lose any credibility. I'm sure that I can provide a thousand "worse" interpretations than that. Something involving goat testicles perhaps.. that might be worse. Sky's the limit.
    Ok, fair enough. It was a bit of an exaggeration.

    But you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

    There are so many problems with your interpretation, I honestly don't know where to begin.

  2. #92
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    Ok, fair enough. It was a bit of an exaggeration.

    But you clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

    There are so many problems with your interpretation, I honestly don't know where to begin.
    Well, you should begin.

    Back to Keirkegaard.. His biblical focus is not Paul. It's Abraham. Time and again, Abraham was called the "father of faith" and became a "friend of God" because of that faith. Abraham, as the story goes, was told to sacrifice his own son. Abraham clearly showed his shock and dismay about it. It wasn't something he wanted to do. Whatever his understanding of the world, it included not killing his own son. But he prepared for it anyways.

    The thing is though, many people (consciously or unconsciously) see this act as one of obedience. They champion obedience. But Abraham was not called the "father of obedience". He went up that mountain with Isaac thinking that God would still provide a lamb for him. That's a very subtle difference. Many people in the ancient world sacrificed their children out of obedience. To Keirkegaard, what makes Abraham different is that believed for no reason or sign that he would still get his son back. This is what faith is.

  3. #93
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Pretty much. He's more like the champion of the "leap of faith". His position was that faith was inextricably tied with doubt. Anything else was just simply being credulous. That a person of true faith would first recognize that there was a cliff. Then faith willingly jumps off the cliff. Faith is not ignoring the cliff.

    The Apostle Paul in the bible, more or less, infers the same thing. 1 Corinthians indicates how he at least recognizes how his own beliefs can look, objectively speaking.

    "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Cor 1:21-24]

    He recognized the two other points of view, but didn't try to appease them or make his religion look legitimate in that light. Those who demand "signs" (i.e. evidence) and those who look for "wisdom" (a vague term, but in the context.. I would say anything that falls under a intellectually satisfying systematic explanation of the universe). He totally admits that what he preaches is foolishness. And does it anyways.
    I like this very much. It's in the nature of a koan.

  4. #94
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    Wait--you were serious about that?
    I was partially serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    I thought you were just giving him a hard time.
    I was partially giving him a hard time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    I don't see any indication that he wants to control anyone.
    Perhaps your standards for what it means to want to control someone are lower than mine.

    To say "they should all shut the hell up", to me, sounds like a desire to control somebody.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    I think he's saying that these people ought to take it upon themselves to shut up.
    Yes, I understood as much; I still found it a bit off-putting.

    Hence, the ball-busting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    Yes. And that's not faith at all. That's doubt.
    I disagree.

    It's simply the recognition of the conditions upon which faith exists.

    That doesn't mean it's not faith.

    Frankly, it's more impressive to be conscious of these conditions, and to still keep the faith, then to be unconscious of them and do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    Kierkegaard was an existentialist, not a Christian.
    I was not aware that the two are mutually exclusive.

    I suppose neither are/were all the other existentialists who have/had religious faith.

  5. #95
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Well, you should begin.

    Back to Keirkegaard.. His biblical focus is not Paul. It's Abraham. Time and again, Abraham was called the "father of faith" and became a "friend of God" because of that faith. Abraham, as the story goes, was told to sacrifice his own son. Abraham clearly showed his shock and dismay about it. It wasn't something he wanted to do. Whatever his understanding of the world, it included not killing his own son. But he prepared for it anyways.

    The thing is though, many people (consciously or unconsciously) see this act as one of obedience. They champion obedience. But Abraham was not called the "father of obedience". He went up that mountain with Isaac thinking that God would still provide a lamb for him. That's a very subtle difference. Many people in the ancient world sacrificed their children out of obedience. To Keirkegaard, what makes Abraham different is that believed for no reason or sign that he would still get his son back. This is what faith is.
    I totally agree with this. But I don't see your point.

  6. #96
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    I disagree.

    It's simply the recognition of the conditions upon which faith exists.

    That doesn't mean it's not faith.

    Frankly, it's more impressive to be highly aware and accepting of these conditions, and to still keep the faith, then to be less aware and/or unaccepting of them and do so.
    Well, then you are in agreement with Kdude and Kierkegaard.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    The two are not mutually exclusive.
    I disagree.

    According to Wikipedia:

    The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism. He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving her or his own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely, in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.
    A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called his or her "essence" instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human.
    Do I really have to point out how this contradicts a Biblical worldview?

  7. #97
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    I disagree.

    According to Wikipedia:

    Do I really have to point out how this contradicts a Biblical worldview?
    You can do as you will, but I wouldn't recommend it.

    Citing a sentence from wikipedia as the authority on all things existentialism is like asking a dog about the meaning of life.

    I've read that entry before, and, each time that I have, I have taken issue with that particular sentence.

    There are many approaches subsumed under the existentialist banner -- and many reject the label.

    The lines of thought can always be weaved more subtly; your construction will inevitably fail.

    I will note, however, that you seemed to conveniently leave out my bit about religious existentialism.

  8. #98
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    Do I really have to point out how this contradicts a Biblical worldview?
    Yeah, you do. Why should we do that for you?

    Keirkegaard was a Christian by any typical, Protestant, credal standard of the label. He believed Jesus was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc.. What more do you want from the guy? To reflect every single facet of the world contained in the Bible, as you see it? Is that what Christianity is? Since when? And why?

    And am I going to hell because I like Apple Pie then? Because unfortunately, Jesus didn't give me any rules about it. And it's not something mentioned in Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Jedediah begat Zephariah, instead of Apple Pie. And now I'm an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Amen.

    Besides, "Existentialism" wasn't even a word in Keirkegaard's vocabulary. He's certainly one of the first people to think and/or write along those lines, but the definition and label came much later, and incorporated all kinds of philosophers from different worldviews. Dostoevsky is also considered an existentialist, and he was an Orthodox Christian. And he's celebrated by millions, if not billions, of other Christians. Sartre and Nietzsche, atheists.

  9. #99
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You can do as you will, but I wouldn't recommend it.

    Citing a sentence from wikipedia as the authority on all things existentialism is like asking a dog about the meaning of life.

    I've read that entry before, and, each time that I have, I have taken issue with that particular sentence.

    I will note, however, that you seemed to conveniently leave out my bit about religious existentialism.
    It doesn't matter where I quoted it from. That, in a nutshell, is what Existentialism is.

    And what about religious existentialism?

    I don't deny that the philosophy exists. Some people claim to be religious existentialists. That's a fact.

    I'm just saying it doesn't make sense.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Yeah, you do. Why should we do that for you?

    Keirkegaard was a Christian by any typical, Protestant, credal standard of the label. He believed Jesus was the son of God, that he rose from the dead, etc.. What more do you want from the guy? To reflect every single facet of the world contained in the Bible, as you see it? Is that what Christianity is? Since when? And why?

    And am I going to hell because I like Apple Pie then? Because unfortunately, Jesus didn't give me any rules about it. And it's not something mentioned in Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. Jedediah begat Zephariah, instead of Apple Pie. And now I'm an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Amen.

    Besides, "Existentialism" wasn't even a word in Keirkegaard's vocabulary. He's certainly one of the first people to think and/or write along those lines, but the definition and label came much later, and incorporated all kinds of philosophers from different worldviews. Dostoevsky is also considered an existentialist, and he was an Orthodox Christian. And he's celebrated by millions, if not billions, of other Christians. Sartre and Nietzsche, atheists.
    That is all completely irrelevant.

Similar Threads

  1. alex jones and the case of the lizard people: the truth will be found out!
    By jcloudz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-12-2016, 11:07 AM
  2. The Truth is in Here: The Return of X-Files
    By Totenkindly in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-26-2015, 08:34 AM
  3. The Opposite of Truth
    By Salomé in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 09:14 PM
  4. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO