[Kierkegaardian] Re: what
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mark Tindall" <mbtin@t...>
> cielo wrote:varying
> I find him very difficult to understand in some books and open to
> interpretations. His indirect communication is sometimes totallyobscure.
Mark and Cielo,
I would recommend SK's Diaries and his "Upbuilding Discourses" for
his straight opinions. Anything he wrote under a pseudonym cannot be
considered to be his own opinion. He wrote thos works in an effort
to, in effect, trick his audience into Christianity.
- --- In email@example.com, cielo <annacoelum@y...> wrote:
>existentialism. i think unconsciously he didnt know he was setting a
> also something remarkable about him..he's the forerunner of
trend already. and a lot followed. he is a theist existentialist and
his thoughts are what also gave way to the non-theistic ones... i am
so absorbed with his melancholy... man why did he really broke that
I believe he broke that engagement for two reasons. First, he
thought that scripturally speaking, celibacy was the higher state:
1 Corinthians 7
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to
stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they
should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Secondly he saw suffering as a crucial aspect of the Christian life:
Now if we are children, then we are heirsheirs of God and coheirs
with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we
may also share in his glory.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Will Brown <wilbro99@y...>"
> Hi Ron, I have found my way back and am ready to do theKierkegaardian
> again. I'll look through the last few posts and add a comment or so.Welcome back Willy!