Kierkegaard and Luther Were Wrong!

As you say, this point is routinely dismissed and rationalized by the institutional church. And I think Kierkegaard was on track in highlighting it.

There is some justification for taking Jesus' words with a grain of salt. There is some indication, for example, that Jesus was dependent on the generosity of local people that supported his ministry (loaves and fishes stories notwithstanding). Also, it is debatable whether he was truly recommending the ultimate level of self-divestment to all of his contemporaries. And then, we also have to consider whether some of the urgency of the theme was not related to a prevailing apocalyptic atmosphere.

All in all, though, I think it is impossible to "believe in Jesus" or "follow Jesus" without agreeing with the premise, "the material world ain't where it's at."

Yep. So you wanna make a thread titled, Kierkegaard was Right! or at the very least, Kierkegaard wasn't Wrong!

Oh yeah, there's that Christianity as a scholarly excerise attitude. What ever happened to Christianity as a life to be led attitude?

How about, "Kierkegaard wasn't wrong on the point I had assumed he was wrong about, but I still think Luther was wrong"?

Careful, now, I gave you several specific points that you are leaving unaddressed.

My friend kennethamy, who hangs out with me over in the epistemology area sent this observation: "Kierkegaard argued that Christian belief was beyond reason, and that, for example, reason conflicted with virgin birth, or the incarnation, and a host of other doctrines.* The entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. Luther said, quoting the Bible said that if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, by which he said was meant that if reason conflicts with faith, reason should be discarded as an instrument of the Devil."

*Kierkegaard, as you know, was the one who recommended the "leap of faith."

My reply was: "Well, Kierkegaard and Luther were wrong on that point, and they helped keep the damage cycle going. And it is not accurate to say that the entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. There is a very prominent liberal element within Christianity that focuses on the central message of Christ, rather than church dogma or tradition or prominent figures in church history."

I think this little piece of dialog belongs over here. I contend that the faith that Jesus was recommending to his people was not blind faith nor unreasoning faith, but a faith in the truth of his message, which, upon close examination, is quite worthy of trust and confidence. And if we strip away the church dogma and look at the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, we will not find any evidence to support the idea that Biblical faith is naive faith, but rather a faith that says, in effect, "Well, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. I think the guy was telling the truth."

I'd be interested in rational discourse on this topic.

It doesn't really matter whether I address them or not. Maybe Jesus was acting this way because of the local people's generosity, maybe not. The answer that really matters is whether or not you say "Yes, I will live a Christian life, I will follow Jesus".

There are Protestant sects that do not hold this view, but that it is faith, not reason that is the path to belief in God is the main thread of Protestanism.

I didn't say that only the purist of the pure are really Christians. Kierkegaard is not making a positive assertion by saying these people here are really Christians, he is making a negative assertion by saying these people here are not following Jesus.
So, if you will follow Jesus, that's great, that's one necessary step in the right direction! If you say no, then you cannot be following Jesus. (Like the scientific method, if observations contradict hypothesis, then it's false; but if no observations contradict, doesn't mean it's true)

(Also, I'm not too clear what you mean by this argument is begging the question? Are you saying that what Christianity is is what Jesus says it is?)

One could take a selection of the statements that have been attributed to Jesus, and say, "This is the essence of Christianity." It sounds like you are saying that Kierkegaard's selection was the part that emphasizes Jesus' statement that one should give up all personal possessions. From that perspective, one might argue that anyone who has not done so cannot claim to be a follower of Jesus.
My argument was that this theme must be taken with a grain of salt, and was not clearly intended by Jesus to be a universal prescription. Am I, by taking this direction, making my Christianity an intellectual excercise, rather than truly following Jesus? That is what I understand to be the point under debate.

Well, I was using Mark 10 as an example. Kierkegaard means that every assertion that Jesus made regarding what it means to follow him is necessary towards becoming a Christian, but it is not sufficient...

The most important question, the only question that really matters, at the end of this debate is "Will you give away all your worldly possessions?" Yes? Excellent! Let's move on... what does it mean when Jesus says love thy neighbour... what does it mean when Jesus says move a mountain?... etc.

Okay, so you are not denying the possibility that Kierkegaard took some things as prescriptive, when a careful interpretation would indicate that they weren't intended as such. For example, when we take any one of the sayings, we have to examine the context and apply an interpretation. Otherwise, I will have to carry a sword around if I want to be a Christian, because he told his disciples to have a sword or two on hand. Similarly, Jesus told someone to give away all his personal possessions. The question is whether he meant that as a prescription to all his followers.
This is not making Christianity an intellectual excercise so much as steering away from undue literalism, naive interpretations, and fundamentalism.

On the other hand, perhaps you are simply saying (I hope not) that Kierkegaard was not concerned with the interpretation of the sayings of Jesus, but that he only thought it was essential for a follower to somehow adopt each and every one of them? A relativistic approach? You see it your way, I see it mine? It doesn't matter so long as we each do something with it?

If God's Word is merely a doctrine, then it is no mirror. An objective
doctrine cannot be called a mirror. It is just as impossible
to look at yourself in a doctrine as to look at yourself in a
wall. And if you want to relate intellectually to God's Word,
there can be no question of looking at yourself in the mirror. It
takes a personality, an I, to look at oneself in a mirror. While
reading God's Word you must incessantly say to yourself: It is I
to whom it is speaking; it is I about whom it is speaking.

What must you do to look honestly in the mirror of the Word?
The first requirement is that you must not look at the mirror
but look in the mirror and see yourself. God's Word is indeed
the mirror. But oh how enormously complicated we make it.
How much belongs to God's Word? Which books are authentic?
Are they really written by the apostles, and are the apostles really
trustworthy? As for ways of reading, there are thirty thousand
different ways. And then there is this crowd or rush of scholars
and opinions, and learned opinions and unlearned opinions
about how the particular passage is to be understood. Is it not
true that all this seems to be rather complicated? God's Word is
the mirror - in reading it or hearing it, I am supposed to see
myself in the mirror - but look, this business of the mirror is so
confusing that I very likely never come to see myself.

My friend kennethamy, who hangs out with me over in the epistemology area sent this observation: "Kierkegaard argued that Christian belief was beyond reason, and that, for example, reason conflicted with virgin birth, or the incarnation, and a host of other doctrines.* The entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. Luther said, quoting the Bible said that if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, by which he said was meant that if reason conflicts with faith, reason should be discarded as an instrument of the Devil."

*Kierkegaard, as you know, was the one who recommended the "leap of faith."

My reply was: "Well, Kierkegaard and Luther were wrong on that point, and they helped keep the damage cycle going. And it is not accurate to say that the entire Protestant tradition holds this kind of view. There is a very prominent liberal element within Christianity that focuses on the central message of Christ, rather than church dogma or tradition or prominent figures in church history."

I think this little piece of dialog belongs over here. I contend that the faith that Jesus was recommending to his people was not blind faith nor unreasoning faith, but a faith in the truth of his message, which, upon close examination, is quite worthy of trust and confidence. And if we strip away the church dogma and look at the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, we will not find any evidence to support the idea that Biblical faith is naive faith, but rather a faith that says, in effect, "Well, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. I think the guy was telling the truth."

I'd be interested in rational discourse on this topic.