Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I still love Kierkegaard

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#71

Post by quantumofmalice »

mmyyyy wrote: post #70
quantumofmalice wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a Christian and was describing the sacrifice of Christ on The Cross in terms of the earlier conception of child sacrifice, tying in Girard's insights. I very much admire Orthodoxy. I haven't read any formal orthodox theology, but Dostoevsky is perhaps my favorite author. I wish you well with your studies and I hope some day to perhaps read your work.

ah I lost the context of the thread... I edited my comment and "moved" it to where it makes more sense (it's a reply to someone who replied to your original comment) sorry to have sounded rude -- this whole thing is just incredibly frustrating for me.

No problem, I understand.

Best of luck with your studies.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#72

Post by mmyyyy »

quantumofmalice wrote: post #71
mmyyyy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah I lost the context of the thread... I edited my comment and "moved" it to where it makes more sense (it's a reply to someone who replied to your original comment) sorry to have sounded rude -- this whole thing is just incredibly frustrating for me.

No problem, I understand. Best of luck with your studies.

Thank you! All the best!

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#73

Post by T_D_K »

coldtea wrote: post #18
jmcqk6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences…

That's not "more complex". That's the high school kind of "religion is absurd" reaction, and is a naive literal reading that even the people of the bible era were above. The key is that there are no "rules that he himself also put in place" etc. (as he doesn't exist and even if he did it wouldn't matter). The rules were formed by people (obviously) and codify societal practices and philosophies towards morality and r…

>But this wasn't the case in later Rome and Europe, not even in the Inquisition era

I'm skeptical that throughout the history of Christianity, everyone took the "parable" interpretation of the bible (rather than taking most or all of it seriously). Are you claiming that the... inquisitors (?) weren't killing based on a literal lack of belief in god, but rather were killing because people weren't morally up to snuff? I'd love to be educated here, theology and the history thereof are well out of my wheel house.

Personally, it seems reasonable that "Jesus" was a Joseph Smith type of con man who managed to spin yarns and somehow create a following.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#74

Post by anonred »

mmyyyy wrote: post #69
jmcqk6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences…

As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual hon…

Having read a small amount of theology[1], I speculate that the broad and sometimes conflicting Christian perspectives throughout history make it difficult for the layperson to really grasp "true" Christianity (if there is such a thing.) Even going from say, St. Augustine to Kierkegaard, there's noticeable shifts in thought. I think the burden of proof squarely lies in advocates of Christianity, not the other way around.

[1] It's also been many years since I last touched the subject.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#75

Post by Ascetik »

mmyyyy wrote: post #69
jmcqk6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences…

As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual hon…

Traditional Catholic here, former seminarian in a traditional seminary.

>How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position?

Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about.

If they want to know what Christianity truly teaches have them read St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Augustine, The Council of Nicaea, The Council of Jerusalem, The Council of Trent, Cornelius a Lapide commentary, Haydock Commentary, the Catena Aurea, the Latin and Greek fathers.

It is amazing how incredibly prideful and intellectually dishonest people are. If they took even 20-30 hrs of historical and theological study of what the Church always believed before the Protestant revolt, they would quickly realize that they know next to nothing about Christianity or History in general.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#76

Post by quantumofmalice »

glibgil wrote: post #53
jmcqk6 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>God sacrificing his own Son, which is also Him, in place of all sacrifices. The twist is more complex than that. God is sacrificing his own son, which is also him, to himself, in order to satisfy rules that he himself also put in place so that he doesn't have to send people he created and loves infinitely to be tortured forever in a place he created because they broke rules they couldn't understand with consequences…

A better twist would be if god ate his kids

This is the basis of perhaps one of the most disturbing paintings of Goya, Saturn Devouring His Son:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Fr...

It is also worth recalling that many Christians, myself included, believe that in the Eucharist we are devouring The Son.

It is a strange world we live in.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#77

Post by mmyyyy »

T_D_K wrote: post #73
coldtea wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not "more complex". That's the high school kind of "religion is absurd" reaction, and is a naive literal reading that even the people of the bible era were above. The key is that there are no "rules that he himself also put in place" etc. (as he doesn't exist and even if he did it wouldn't matter). The rules were formed by people (obviously) and codify societal practices and philosophies towards morality and r…

>But this wasn't the case in later Rome and Europe, not even in the Inquisition era I'm skeptical that throughout the history of Christianity, everyone took the "parable" interpretation of the bible (rather than taking most or all of it seriously). Are you claiming that the... inquisitors (?) weren't killing based on a literal lack of belief in god, but rather were killing because people weren't morally up to snuff?…

There is no such thing as "the parable interpretation" of the bible and "the literal interpretation" of the bible.

Here is a passage from a truly fascinating Christian author from the 2nd century. He starts by saying "we shall be told that these are fictions, no better than fables, like the rest of the strange stories about Jesus." (funny how arguments against Christianity haven't changed for 2000 years)

Origen's reply is this:

Our answer is that to reconstruct almost any historical scene, even if true, so as to give a vivid impression of what actually occurred, is exceedingly difficult, and sometimes impossible. Suppose some one to assert that there never was a Trojan war, mainly on the ground that the impossible story of a certain Achilles being the son of a sea goddess Thetis and a man Peleus is mixed up with it; or that Sarpedon was the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus sons of Ares; or that Aeneas was Aphrodite's son: how could we dispose of such an objection? Should we not be very hard pressed to explain the strange blending of a fiction with the universal |74 belief that there was war between Greeks and Trojans at Troy? Or let us suppose some one to doubt the story of Oedipus and Jocaste, and of their sons Eteocles and Polynices, because that a sort of half-woman, the Sphinx, is mixed up with the story; how should we clear up the difficulty? Well, the prudent reader of the narratives, who wishes to guard against deception, will use his own judgment as to what he will allow to be historical, and what he will regard as figurative; he will try to discover what the writers meant by inventing such stories; and to some things he will refuse his assent on the ground that they were recorded to gratify certain persons. And this we have premised, having in view the history of Jesus as a whole contained in the Gospels; for we do not invite intelligent readers to a bare unreasoning faith, but we wish to show that future readers will have to exercise prudence, and make careful inquiry, and, so to speak, penetrate the very heart of the writers, if the exact purport of every passage is to be discovered. -- Philokalia of Origen CHAP. XV. 15

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#78

Post by jabretti »

paulpauper wrote: post #62
interfixus wrote: post #13

Kierkegaard annoys the crap out out of me, as almost all philosophers do. But I will say this for the guy: He had humour. A weird, understated, tangled one, but he had it. Mind you, it is so tied up with his native language and culture, it ought not travel well. And judging by whatever translations I have seen, it hasn't. His worldwide fame is still a mystery to me. And by the way, correct pronunciation is something…

why would a philosopher be annoying. confusing, certainly, but annoying?

Is it really right to call him a philosopher? I would more fairly consider him a "writer", in the vein of (though nothing like) a GK Chesterton -- capable of opining on philosophical topics but with none of the rigour or fairness expected of an actual philosopher.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#79

Post by cerealbad »

There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

given memories, things, and time.

Re: I still love Kierkegaard

#80

Post by anonred »

Ascetik wrote: post #75
mmyyyy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone in the tech field and an Orthodox Christian doing a masters in theology, I find it incredibly frustrating that there is absolute sheer ignorance about Christian theology. Literally ALL basic tenets of Christianity are misunderstood and distorted. And while I acknowledge that part of the problem is the ignorance of some Christian leaders and ministers, it's definitely not the whole problem. Intellectual hon…

Traditional Catholic here, former seminarian in a traditional seminary. >How can someone reject Christianity when they haven't done the due diligence of looking at __primary sources__ for the Christian position? Intellectual laziness. They just repeat what they see on reddit or sound-bytes they've heard from others who have no idea what they're talking about. If they want to know what Christianity truly teaches have…

> Intellectual laziness.

It's more of a coping mechanism, is it not? I've read roughly half of the things you've listed, but definitely don't remember most of the nuances.

By default, people don't know (or care) about philosophy, and religion is a type of philosophy. It's a bit like bashing people for not taking the time to read Kant.

Post reply on HN