Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: new to S. K. group too

Expand Messages
  • Teresa Riley
    HI Mark - Thanks for your kind welcome. I hesitate to contribute because I don t have the time to do so extremely well. It s been almost 2 years since I ve
    Message 1 of 131 , Apr 8, 2009
      HI Mark -

      Thanks for your kind welcome. I hesitate to contribute because I don't have the time to do so extremely well. It's been almost 2 years since I've read K in a scholarly setting. I still do some hunting and pecking, but I can't really tell you "absolutely" what K believes or says without spending a considerable amount of time refreshing my memory.

      That said, I like your intellectual integrity enough to share what I can upfront. So for what it's worth ~

      I agree with Jim R that K regards the creeds (and the sacraments), but if I remember correctly, the whole point of subjectivity is to force us to see that everything is about relationship. We relate to the subject - Christ. That's how we can make the "leap" of faith... we don't do it blindly - we do it  trusting in WHO we are leaping toward. Which, at the end of the day, is not much of a leap! (Have you read Fear and Trembling? its a good one :) )

      Anyway, I don't think K would say true christianity is equal to any set of beliefs and/or creeds and or sacraments. He would say it's about Christ - and about me in front of Christ as an individual. And we don't set aside intellect to be in relationship with our creator. Rather, we love him with all our mind by wrestling through the tough questions with him. He gave us our intellect and he wants us to use it.


      On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Mark Woodworth <ms.woody956@...> wrote:

         First of all let me say that in my view you absolutely do belong .
          Yes, I have read both WOL and PUHITWOT.
           What about the sacraments, how do they fit?
           At times I have thought it a simple matter of opting out of the conflict between "intellectual integrity" and the will to believe, just as a consciencious objector might opt out of military service or ,at least, combat. But I can't say in truth that it's not my fight, at least not yet.

      From: Teresa Riley <whatsoeverislovely@...>
      To: kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 10:33:47 AM
      Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardians] Re: new to S. K. group too


      I'm also just sticking my nose in here where it doesnt' belong. Feel free to ignore my comments
      or take them as rhetorical, ok?

      Have you ever tried resisting the creeds while opening yourself up to the Christ Himself?
      I better be clearer - I'm not speaking of the Christ of Christianity that K warred against, but Christ
      the God-man whom he loved.
      I don't think Kierkegaard would have told you you can find Light or Hope in the creeds.
      Probably quite the opposite. I think he would tell you that Hope is found in Christ alone. Christ is Hope
      and Love itself. If you look for it elsewhere, it doesn't surprise me if you end up in inevitable darkness and
      in a hopeless spell. Have you read WOL or Purity of Heart?

      Kierkegaard just seems to be so explicit in this belief and in his passion for Christ and against christiandom
      that I am always interested why it's not more of a topic on this and other K sites.


      On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Mark Woodworth <ms.woody956@ yahoo.com> wrote:

            Let me be perfectly honest, I mean as honest as I dare to be. I am trying to extricate myself from the consciousness of which I wrote before, which is not so easy a thing to do when it is to a great extent the content of my own consciousness. That is, I am attempting to think, although I am not at all sure I am equipped for the task; I am, after all, a middle aged man (not a Ms but ms. i.e. initials minus the . , an embarrassing omission, self emasculation, but what's done is done) who spent what would have been his college years embarking upon a blue collar career (now more than 30 years long) and reading stuff like Nietzsche and S.K. during time off, when not too drunk or stoned to. I'm trying to pierce that lackluster outer shell to get to the heart of things. This to me is a responsibility  -  not to throw in the towel and die with out answers to questions one did not dare ask because to think  was seen as pretentious by other more educated people, and as a waste of time by peers. For me to think, to write, is to rebel simultaneously against, at least, 2 fronts neither of which I am quite at home in.
            Yes, I can change what I think but I encounter inner resistance to religious creeds which would seem to have to ignore other legitimate strains of thought in order to take root. I do not feel so much constrained by ideology but by a kind of  agitated "enlightenment" within an encroaching, inevitable darkness. Is this some kind of spell? If that's what it is then there is hope..

      From: jimstuart46 <jjimstuart@gmail. com>
      To: kierkegaardians@ yahoogroups. com
      Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2009 5:41:52 AM
      Subject: [Kierkegaardians] Re: new to S. K. group too

      Ms Woody,

      Another thought occurred on re-reading your post: Your last sentence seems to imply that you think that perhaps we have no choice but to view the world from the ideological consciousness of our times. We must, of necessity think in the concepts our cultural environment passes to us.

      Kierkegaard, I think, would say that we have the freedom to choose how to think and what to believe. Whether K is right about this is another matter.

      Do you feel contrained in the way you think by the dominant Western ideology which contains strong scientistic and corporate-consumer- capitalist elements?

      Jim S

      > --- In kierkegaardians@ yahoogroups. com, "ms.woody956" <ms.woody956@ > wrote:
      > >
      > > >It would seem to me that there is strain of thought afoot, which may or may not take on an ideological hue, or stench, but it is not really a strain of thought so much as a contingent the of collective consciousness that is informed by science even at the he level of the masses. In it's ideological form it is hostile to Christianity, but in its non-ideological form it is as ignorant of what Christianity is as it is of the science by which it is informed. Like Christianity it does not know; it believes,and its "truth" is "science." Were it an actual thinking consciousness, and not just the lackluster outer shell of scientific thought, it would be post-modernism. But this is just my take on it, my opinion. I have no authority to back it up, in fact, this is the vary air I breath,the milieu I reside in, and try, at least, to think in.

      Eph. 3:14-21

      Eph. 3:14-21

    • James Rovira
      Don -- I ll visit the group page and try to hunt down previous responses that I thought addressed your concerns. I receive/respond to this list via email
      Message 131 of 131 , May 7 4:19 PM
        Don -- I'll visit the group page and try to hunt down previous
        responses that I thought addressed your concerns. I receive/respond
        to this list via email rather than the group page, so it's unnatural
        for me to include references to post numbers.

        Jim R
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.