tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777715.post7525965955700454044..comments2023-08-05T10:13:38.959-04:00Comments on Impractical Theology: Truth as Subjectivity in the Theology of Kierkegaard: Part 4Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03708322695991246818noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777715.post-10211451246108439572007-11-19T18:56:00.000-05:002007-11-19T18:56:00.000-05:00Well written Adam. It is especially nice to see s...Well written Adam. It is especially nice to see someone consider Kierkegaard within context for a change!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777715.post-64358081283126628962007-11-06T14:31:00.000-05:002007-11-06T14:31:00.000-05:00Michael,Thanks for reading and for your comments. ...Michael,<BR/>Thanks for reading and for your comments. I think that Kierkegaard has to be read in context, and particularly against the backdrop of Hegel and Kant. In K's view, they had reduced God to a system. In many ways, most of his work can be read as a critique of this. I do not believe that he would say that there is nothing rational about following Christ. He would (and does), however assert that reason won't get you there. Logic doesn't get the job done. It is his contention (and on this point I agree with him) that to have faith is to commit oneself in spite of one's doubt. Faith/Belief assumes doubt. If there were no doubt, it would simply be knowledge. Further, Kierkegard emphatically states that even if one could arrive objectively at a "correct" knowledge of Christ, such knowledge is useless if Christ is not subjectively engaged.<BR/><BR/>My point is that if faith/Christianity is merely an objective, rational decision based on our ability to put the facts together (if, indeed we're smart enough to do so), then if at any point we have doubts or if at any point we can't reason it out or complete the equation, then the entire thing makes no sense whatsoever. Additionally, I've never seen where the ability to solve an equation really engendered much passion in anyone. Subjective commitment to something, however...well, that's a different story.<BR/><BR/>I should note, that I am not in agreement with Kierkegaard on everything. I do find him to be quite interesting, and possibly useful in a time when much of our religion/theology has gotten confused with modernity.<BR/>AEAdamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03708322695991246818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777715.post-81409808588639174772007-11-06T14:14:00.000-05:002007-11-06T14:14:00.000-05:00I'm having a little bit of trouble following your ...I'm having a little bit of trouble following your argumentation. You state, "So, for Kierkegaard, faith consists of a decision…a choice to radically commit oneself to Christianity." As you unpack - Kierkegaard does not acknowledge the ontological existence of Christianity outside of the epistemic subjectivities of individual believers. Therefore, I have trouble accepting your statement that, "This trust is no mere mental assent. It is the commitment of one’s life and resources to something that makes no sense when viewed objectively." <BR/><BR/>My trouble with your line of reasoning is that I believe you are equating "Christianity" with "Christ." While there is paradox involved, I do not think K is asserting that Christians are doing something wildly illogical by putting their trust in Christ.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09533788430013005180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6777715.post-59875742809129049512007-11-03T00:34:00.000-04:002007-11-03T00:34:00.000-04:00so i'm looking through your 'new posts on blogs i ...so i'm looking through your 'new posts on blogs i read' and i start reading something that looks oddly familiar. i wonder why.. haha.Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17715503535536418544noreply@blogger.com