All philosophies can be boiled down to a few lines if need be and could then be seen as too simple to be an actual philosophy. There's much more to existentialism than what can be covered in 5 pages of a message board. Concepts as anxiety/despair, fear of freedom, absurdity, the Other and the Look, just to name a few that play a major role in distinguishing existentialism - and these are concepts that people are confronted with in their real lives, not just abstract theories. I'd be so bold as to say existentialism is one of the "natural" philosophies, in the sense that people can live lives where they experience all facets of it without being aware of academic existentialism, and could well be seen as a core aspect of the human condition. The philosophy just isn't as appetizing as so many others because it confronts us with our greatest fears, and I think that's the main reason why some people feel an urge to reject it as being legitimate.
I could argue the point that most philosophies, such as stoicism, do boil down to something that makes sense and is not ambiguous in regard to other philosophies, but I think we’re somewhere near to being on the same page. There is definitely a struggle in the world between the universe with meaning vs. the universe with only the meaning we give it. You remind me of my last philosophy professor. He was only interested in the art of living one’s life. To me, whether I was an atheist or now that I believe in a creator, I’ve only been interested in the large questions, and have given little thought to the symbolic meaning of my own life, which doesn’t interest me. Which view is more important is a matter left to theistic nihilists. That’s probably why I’m into high fantasy novels.
My personal take... In my past I sought higher meanings everywhere I went, based on a need for discovering the greater truths that could put the world into simple, logical order and provide me with an absolute identity I could attach myself to. I attached labels to myself, called myself this and that, supported various political ideologies and turned hobbies into religions, in an attempt to define myself once and for all. But sooner or later it all came crashing down, resulting in great frustration. The identities that were supposed to define me became limitations. I recognised the core problem that once you put on a labelled hat, you cease to be an individual and rather become a stereotype, in the way you feel that others perceive you (whether that is their genuine perception of you or not), as well as putting all responsibility for your identity and fate into the hands of someone or something else. In the end it makes you powerless and non-human, like the soldier who simply obey orders. Through media and study of history I learned that the world isn't black and white, as I used to believe. My ideas of absolute truth were exposed as hypocrisy and illusions. There's no such thing as "the good war", for example. I saw the war-hero as the greatest absurdity among the things I had previously held in high regard, and I think it was around this point that my love for black/white fantasy waned. Now it exemplifies a childish illusion of meanings and ideals that aren't there. Yeah, I'm desillusioned and in some people's eyes I might even be a pessimist, but in reality I feel free and consider those who live by high ideals to be kidding and limiting themselves, with a potential for becoming downright dangerous to themselves and their surroundings. It's just the first step in the direction of extremism. I'm somewhere in the middle of everything, and yet nowhere. I exist as an ever changing organism in an ever changing world and if I were to cling onto something fanatically, I'd be wrestling with the cosmos. Whether there exists an absolute truth behind all things is a possibility, but I firmly believe it to be impossible for human beings to detect this with our senses, and so any ideology that professes to know it would be a fraud, and time spend looking for it is time wasted. Knowing that the only worldly truths are the ones I create myself, I am aware of their subjectivity and can change them once they become limitations to myself and my fellow humans. Within my own personal universe, I am omnipotent but also fully responsible. I'm not an existentialist. By defining myself as one, I'd only limit myself and that goes against everything existentialism stands for.
Okay, here’s my takaway from what I’ve read here. Feel free to point out where I've lost it. Existentialism is only a way of thinking about the world—a way of understanding and giving meaning to life, a way of organizing perceptions by giving meaning to what we experience. Its premise is that “truth” requires existence, and that existence itself is meaningless if not filtered through human thought. Or, flip side: anything that might exist beyond human thought cannot be meaningfully organized. Therefore, without human thought, there is no “truth” (i.e., “truth” is a human construct). In a sense, yes, this is a matter of boiling off anything that’s extraneous to human thought for the purpose of organizing experience into a meaningful pattern. Some, I think, see this as merely a matter of semantics, using the word “merely” to suggest that semantics is somehow unimportant. I think understanding (anything) requires a clear semantic structure in order to learn something from the experience of sharing a thought, an idea, or (not incidentally) a story. And, more importantly, to grow from that experience. My understanding of existentialism is that it has nothing to do with a prescription to believe in something or not to. Nor does it deny anyone the obvious capacity to believe in something or choose not to. It simply is a means of defining the world by growing that understanding out of our own capacity to think. And acknowledging that the capacity to think is really the most we’re capable of (some existentialists would probably say “that’s all there is.”). Is that a waste of time? I don’t think so, but maybe some do. When I studied philosophy, I was very relieved to discover that there had been many, highly respected, intelligent folks (philosophers) over time who had spent a good deal of energy seriously considering ways to give language to things I struggled to understand—things like what it means to actually "be." And what it might mean to "not be." The theories that most interested me were premised in a view that existence can only be defined through a prism of experience. Most probably human experience (since we're the ones giving language to it), although the possibility of understanding life through the experience of one’s dog is entirely plausible, too (at least in the fictional sense, if not scientifically evident). Existentialism has a broad range of consequences in terms of determining the outcome of that kind of thinking. I think those consequences arise from the fact that the human capacity to think includes, in addition to common rationality, the capacity for both faith and imagination (not to mention delusion and other aberrations). Really, my early concern mostly surrounded the issue of “faith”—what it was and what would happen to me if I didn’t “have it.” The truth is (from, I think, an existentialist view) is that everyone (whose brain doesn’t limit them) has the capacity for imagination and hope, which I think is where faith arises, although what they place that faith in may vary. I also was concerned about being alone in the universe—the logical outcome of understanding everything through my own intellectual prism (or should I say “prison”? Good grief!). It seems to me that both faith and imagination play a critical role in providing reassurance that not only am I not alone, I can actually rely upon many who know far more than I do (including a god, I have wondered sometimes) from whom I can actually learn stuff. So, in a way, it seems to me that the existentialist design allows for all kinds of theories and life views, and maybe NaCl and OJ (I think it was OJ) got it right when they bantered that all existentialism is fiction and all fiction is existentialist. I’d probably qualify that by adding some adjectives to describe such fiction as arising from imagination, both on the part of the author and in the reader’s experience of it. Dull, badly written fiction probably wouldn’t qualify on the existentialist scale as anything more than a wasteful expenditure of energy). In any case, I think existentialism is not to be counted upon to deliver the “right” way of behaving or thinking, but only to say that thinking is where a meaningful life view arises (and maybe there’s a hint that we have a fair shot at using that capacity well).
No, being a christian is essentially believing that Christ represented divinity in human form. It does not require faith in the bible. Perhaps. I don’t know. Isn't it time for the question of what a Christian is to be thrash out once and for all!? My thought is our knowledge of Mr Christ comes from the gospels. So if you don’t believe what the gospels have to say about the chap, as a contemporary Christian, you don’t have much left to go on. Other than personal faith. But if you permit personal faith to transcend the teachings and holy words of a religion, I would think that religion is in grave danger of fragmenting into as many ideologies as there are believers. If you don’t need faith in the holy book to be a Christian – as you have told me- what is the role of the Gospels? Are they merely a rough guide to Christianly? That’s hilarious! If you’re just going to believe random bits of the gospels, at your persona discretion, as opposed to the entire rag, how could your ever be sure you were believing in the correct bits? Wouldn’t there always be a nagging doubt? Many Christians say in order to be a Christian you have to believe in the Guidebook. Others say, no, you only need to believe in Mr. Christ. ( inspite of the premise that he lived, preached and died as Jew, and had no intention of founding a new religion – as far as I understand). So what is a true Christian? It's a cute debate! Christans are always accusing other Christians of not being true Christans. As far as I am concerned, if you call yourself a Christian, that is exactly what you are. Your moral conduct is irrelevant. Rape, murder pillage. It doesn’t matter. If you claim to be Christian, who am I to refute your adopted identity? You can be Shamanistic Christian, a Taoist Christian, an Nazi Christian or an Existentialist Christian if you prefer. Whatever greases your knob… If other christens place you outside the scope of what they believe to be a Christian, too bad. Maybe you’ll get to debate theology with them in Hell? Maybe Nietzsche was right when he said the last Christian died on the cross? All I can conclude about Christianity is that they must have a hell of a lot of camels passing through eyes of needles somewhere! There should be a book called ‘Christianity for Dummies’. ‘Faith for Dummies’ would be handy too. I’d read that. Whether there exists an absolute truth behind all things is a possibility, but I firmly believe it to be impossible for human beings to detect this with our senses, and so any ideology that professes to know it would be a fraud, I agree. This is why I have a problem with Kierkegaard. If he adopted Christianity as an absolute truth, I think he was being fraudulent, from an existentialists perspective. On the other hand, if didn’t consider Christianity to be an absolute truth, then why did he take it up? What would be the point of believing in a religion if you didn’t consider it a bastion of ultimate truth? Heak! You may as well prey to Paris Hilton. To me it seems Kierkegaard wants his cake keep his cake and eat it too. But probably I am wrong. I don’t know much about him. What I can say is Kierkegaard was born into a Christian society. If not, in all likelihood he would not have been a Christian. He would have placed his faith elsewhere my early concern mostly surrounded the issue of “faith”—what it was and what would happen to me if I didn’t “have it.” The truth is (from, I think, an existentialist view) is that everyone (whose brain doesn’t limit them) has the capacity for imagination and hope, which I think is where faith arises, although what they place that faith in may vary. I am just making this up on the spot, so I’ll probably argue against myself tomorrow, but maybe there are two kind of Faith - the first being based on knowledge and experience, and the second being based on desire and imagination. Faith one I shall call Rational Faith: I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. I can’t be sure of it, but all prior experience and knowledge tells me that it will happen. Faith two I shall call Abstract: I would like to live in heaven forever. That desire is transformed by my imagination into the belief that I will live forever in heaven! Rational faith I need in order to go about the daily life -- If I didn’t have faith my salary will be paid, I wouldn’t go to work. Abstract Faith I have a problem with. I think it’s dishonest. I think an existentialists would endeavour to see through the irrationality of this facet of faith. Again, this is why I have a problem with Kierkegaard. Perhaps religious peoples would likely argue that their religious faith is rational as opposed to abstract, but I think they’re kidding themselves. My final word on faith is to point out that the idea of faith begin wholly personal and internal is a myth. It’s also a social. What one places their faith into is heavily influenced by the culture that surrounds them. Having Faith in one religion over another is often a matter of geography – yet I think most Christians would be reluctant to say, “if I was born in Tibet, I doubt I would be a Christian. I think I’d be a Buddhist. So thank goodness I wasn’t born Tibet! There my soul would not have been saved!” People like to imajine that their religous faith refects eternal truths more than geography and culture. Still I find the concept of an Existential Christianity abusud and hilarious! But if there’s even been an Existentialist Christian novel written, then my vote would go to ‘The Last Temptation Of Christ,’ by Nikos Kazantzakis: Jesus said, “Surely it was God, God…or was it the devil? Who can tell them apart? They exchange faces; God sometimes becomes all darkness, the devil all light, and the mind of man is left in a muddle.”
You'd have to have two christians agree on the subject first, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that book. In christain existentialism they're often referring to the parables in Christ's teachings -- saying that the gospels return the questions to the reader rather than give absolute answers -- and so the answers to the teachings must be found within the readers themselves. In that way the truths are subjective. But... I'm not gonna go any further in defending Kierkegaard or christian existentialism. I certainly have no motives for doing so as I'm not religious. All I was saying is that his faith-based existentialism has been taken very seriously by other theologians, and founded (yet another) sub-category under christianity. If it was easily dismissed as pure hypocrisy, then I doubt it would have gone that far. Sartre's existentialism differs quite a bit, being based in atheism, and perhaps not really compatible with faith.
I can understand two kinds of faith, but I think I would describe them a little differently. I'd probably agree that what you describe as "rational faith" is based in previous experience, while your "abstract faith," I would say, is equally "rational," but arises out of expectation for future rather than past experience. It's an extention of experience, in a sense--but not necessarily irrational. I think it's similar to the (small) leap of "faith" to believe that your paycheck will be paid (I know plenty of folks for whom this leap is much greater), although something like that (or the sun coming up every morning) is more likely to become part of your past experience more quickly than what you're describing as "abstract." So, I don't find faith to be dishonest at all. I find it to be another way we humans have of giving meaning to our own existence. I think of Kafka's THE CASTLE as an illustration of giving meaning to one's life by trying to integrate some future goal we simply believe in (sometimes at great evidence to the contrary). Whether that something is "God" or "a" god is a personal choice that extends from our other experience. I think that's an existentialist POV (just a way of organizing experience, really), though I wouldn't bet my "existence" on it.
Existential Soccer How to play: a) There's no need for a ball. That would be to ascribe objective value to something and force the players to accept that value. Players can bring one or more balls if they wish to, however. b) There's 22 teams with one player on each team. c) The referee's judgement must only be followed if the player agrees to it. d) There's no goals on the field. Each team (i.e. player) defines his own method of scoring points. It may be something as simple as passing between two tufts of grass, if the player's ambitions are low. e) Once a player feels that he has achieved enough points to win, he wins. This is regardless of whether other players have declared themselves winners first. f) The audience can freely swap allegiance, or just cheer for themselves.
LOL! So, we're all winners (or losers, if one is so inclined)--maybe both at once would be worth the experience--though none of that really matters anyway, right?
In christain existentialism they're often referring to the parables in Christ's teachings -- saying that the gospels return the questions to the reader rather than give absolute answers I think there is a hell of a difference between taking religious stories as parables to guide you in life and considering yourself a devote of a particular religion. I can relate to bible stories as parables. Does that make me a Christian? I can find advice in the Koran. Does make me a Muslim? I can extract meaning from the lord of the rings. Does that make me a Ringist? I think Kierkegaard and other existential Christians must have found something a little more solid in Christianity that merely dinky parables. If not, why call yourself a Christian? Why limit yourself to Christian stories? Why not refer to other religions, and extract personal meaning from them all? In order to be a Christian I would suggest Kierkegaard must have thought Christian stories held more truth in them and were superior to the stories of other religions. If not, like I keep saying, why sign up to the ideology? I don't find faith to be dishonest at all I think it is, if it not subject to doubt. Religion is a matter of faith. Faith is a belief not based on proven fact. If you could prove the existence of God, requiring faith to believe in God would be a unnecessary. But as it is, there is no proof of god, or religious ‘truths’ for that matter. There is no proof that these aren't just things people have simply made up. Religion depends of faith - on the believes perception that something is true inspire of it being unproven. And I think an honest existentialist would admit that something that's unproven may not be true. He would admit that his beliefs are subject to human fallibility. And if he was a Christian, he would have to admit the possibility of having misplaced his faith into one of the numerous religious that man has invented. I think that would make it difficult, and if he was honest, perhaps impossible for him to remain a Christan. In that way the truths are subjective. I am not totally clear what you mean by that… .Subject truth doesn’t sound like truth at all to me, but rather, the imaginings of truth. You might belief you’re the savior of humanity. 'That’s true for me' you I may say. However I would argue that the thing that is true is the fact that you believe it, and not the belief itself. Of course some things can be true for you and not for others. I think blue is better than green. That’s true for me. But such a personal preference is not based on faith. A faith biased subjective truth doesn’t sound like a very credible ‘truth’ to me. If it was easily dismissed as pure hypocrisy, then I doubt it would have gone that far. I wouldn’t be so sure. Humans have a tendency to believe what they want to believe. People thought the earth was flat for a very long time…in spite of evidence. I'm not gonna go any further in defending Kierkegaard or christian existentialism. Well, it was fun while it lasted! How to play Existential Christianity: a) There's no ‘meaning to life’ dictated by God. That would be to ascribe objective value to something and force believers to accept that value. Players can ascribe their there own meaning to life, if they wish to. b) There may be as many denominations as there are people. But they have only the one God between them. They may all believe opposite things about God, and about Christianity, and God shall nod in agreement to everything. Truth shall be subjective. Infact, everything will be true. Merely beleiving something will be the ultimate test of truth. c) Gods judgment must only be followed if the faithful agrees to it. They may ascribe any value they like to the Bible, or disregard it entirely. d) Each person defines his own method of worship. It may be something as simple as jerking off before a crucifix, if the devotees faith is low. e) Once a believer believes he has achieved Gods approval, he may claim a place in heaven. This is regardless of whatever God actually thinks about the chap. f) The believer can freely swap allegiance, dabble in Satanism, or just not believe in anything at all. He may deny absolutes and continue to believe in God. He may even become and atheist and continue to call himself a Christian. However, he’ll have no way on knowing if anything he believes makes one iota of difference to God!
I don't find faith to be dishonest at all I think it is, if it not subject to doubt. I'm not sure I understand the relationship you're describing between [dis]honesty and faith. Are you saying that the existentialist (in particular) cannot be sincere about what he believes in? Or, maybe you're suggesting that because existentialism is a way of addressinig the world through what's relevant to one's own existence, there is an absolutivity to it--or a "certainty" about whatever those beliefs are. I don't think an existentialist view dictates what kind of description would apply to an individual's experience. Rather, it seems to me simply a way of organizing the meaning of life by filtering whatever that experience is through one's own thinking, rather than simply accepting some outside authority as absolute--like Jesus, for example, or a preacher or teacher, or even a book (like the Bible). Religion is a matter of faith. Faith is a belief not based on proven fact. If you could prove the existence of God, requiring faith to believe in God would be a unnecessary. But as it is, there is no proof of god, or religious ‘truths’ for that matter. There is no proof that these aren't just things people have simply made up. Maybe I'm having trouble thinking of any of that as being "dishonest" simply because of an existentialist viewpoint. Certainly, there is dishonesty in the design of or dogma behind some "faiths" or "religions" (or "cults")--some ulterior motive like control of society or personal gain. But I don't think that has anything to do with existentialist thinking. Religion depends of faith - on the believes perception that something is true inspire of it being unproven. And I think an honest existentialist would admit that something that's unproven may not be true. I think an (honest) existentialist might acknowledge that his own truth might not be yours and vice versa. And an (honest) existentialist might make a case for religious beliefs that he himself (honestly) felt were intact and useful to humanity. An (honest) existentialist could also be mistaken or have a theory with flaws in the logic. Maybe an (honest) existentialist would consider the definition of "to prove" to be somewhat different than yours. He would admit that his beliefs are subject to human fallibility. And if he was a Christian, he would have to admit the possibility of having misplaced his faith into one of the numerous religious that man has invented. I think that would make it difficult, and if he was honest, perhaps impossible for him to remain a Christan. I think that's true for many people of faith, whether they think "existentially" or otherwise.
Haha, nicely transferred. Makes me wonder if the original rules of soccer and the original rules of Christianity are as comparable.
Haha, nicely transferred. Makes me wonder if the original rules of soccer and the original rules of Christianity are as comparable. Well, there original rules you posted sounded fun! Now I’ve got this damn image in my head of the Romans kicking about a soccer ball before the Christ on the cross. Oh dear… I'm not sure I understand the relationship you're describing between [dis]honesty and faith. I’m not sure I understand it! huh! I am thinking in terms of what claims of ‘truth’ are being made in the name of faith. Faith is an unproven belief. Something that is unproven cannot be taken as unequivocally true, without fraud, hypocrisy, or dishonesty. That’s my basic premise. Therefore, expanding the premise, the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus cannot be stated as fact. Simply because these are things that are held in faith. If these things could be proved, faith would no longer be required to believe them.. So long as someone recognizes that anything they hold in faith may not be true, I would say they are being honest. I think most religious people are unwilling to do that - probably most atheists are likewise reluctant to admit the possibility of god. I think the best we can do is to say 'i believe so and so, on such and such grounds, but given my limited human perspective, I recognize the possibility that I am wrong.' The Pope would not say that. He would not wish to even admit the possibility of Gods non-existence. To me that is a dishonest representation of the nature of religious faith. Conversely, I have heard the Dali lama admit the possibility of his religions falsehood. I would say that is an honest approach to the nature of faith. I guess I’m just trying to get my head around Kierkegaard more than anything! And to trying to phantom some integrity (honesty of faith) within Christian Existentialism. As I understand it, Existentialism suggests there are no ultimate, eternal truths, and everyone has the possibility of seeking their own personal meaning. Christianity suggests that there is one omnipresent all powerful God. I fail to see how the two perspectives are compatible. Sure, you can whittle away at the powers of God and the authority of the bible until you have reduced them sufficiently to mesh with the existential perspective, but then I would think you are no longer following the tenants of Christianity. You are instead inventing your own religion based on Christian doctrine. If the existentialist position is to find his own meaning and morality without the necessity of bowing before external authorities, then what is the roll of a god within existentialism? What happens to the Ten Commandments? If it was Gods intention to leave them open to an individuals personal interpretation, and to be filtered through personal meaning and experience, God should have sent Moses down the mount with Ten Vague Suggestions. Most religions, and certainly Christianity, require the follower to think that God knows best. Gods authority supersedes that of the devotee. I don't see how that can be integrated into a existentialist perspective. I can probably come at the notion of an existentialist believing in god, but ascribing to the doctrine and authority of a specific religion I am not so sure about - especially the religion of Christianity, with its god being particularly authoritarian, as depicted in the bible and gospels. I just fail to see how Christianity and existentialism are compatible. But I fear unless someone comes up with a new angle on it, I’m just going in circles with it! Buddhism I can envisage as compatible with existentialism - though at its core some would say Buddhism’s isn't actually a religion at all, but a philosophy. At least I've met a monk who claimed that. I don't think an existentialist view dictates what kind of description would apply to an individual's experience. Rather, it seems to me simply a way of organizing the meaning of life by filtering whatever that experience is through one's own thinking, rather than simply accepting some outside authority as absolute--like Jesus, for example, or a preacher or teacher, or even a book (like the Bible). By filtering your experience through your own thinking, rather than accepting an outside authority, you are steering ( dictateing sounds too strong a word here!) the kinds of descriptions that would apply to experience.... The existential Christian must decide hand over authority to God, and say God knows best, and cease to be an existentialist - or he may or imagine his authority is equal to or greater than that of God, and thereby reduced god to a cartoon, and cease to be a Christian/devotee. Quite possibly I am wrong, depending on what you consider to be Christian and existential thinking – or maybe there is another alternative I don’t get - but that's my bent on it anyhow. I think the kind of description an existentialist may derive from experience, would be influenced by their existential vantage point. After all, filtering experience reduces the variety of descriptions that one can derive…but maybe I am taking your statement the wrong I think an (honest) existentialist might acknowledge that his own truth might not be yours and vice versa.way… Boy it’s hard not to be at crossed wires when using the words faith, truth, god! How do you capture the essence of concepts without edge with the snippets of words? Anyhow… Just making this up on the spot again, so this might be a lot of rot, but I think one probably needs to distinguish between personal truths that are a statement on the internal world and of the individual, and personal truths that are a statement on the external world. Of course the two things cross over, so its difficult discuss, but I’ll have a go, at the risk of sounding foolish! I prefer green to blue. I'd call that an internal personal truth. It requires no test of the outside world to be true. The test of it’s truth is internal. You may think blue is superior to green – that’s true for you – and I cant challenge the validity of that belief. However, I think when it comes to a so called personal truth that is a statement on the external world, I can challenge – and even say the belief is untrue. You might think the word is flat. The belief may be true to you, in the sense that it is true that you believe it . But I wouldn’t call it a ‘truth’ so much as a perception. A perception may or may not accurately reflect the outside world – but its validity can be tested, or at least challenged, by a closer examination of the external world. So where does that leave the likes of God? It would be wary of treating God as internal personal truth. Wary of saying, “I believe in God. God is true to me!” I would suggest God should be treated as an external entity – subject to testing and challenging. The reason being, if God is purely internal to the believer, then God dies with the believer. I think Christians, and most believers in God, regardless of denomination and church, would be aghast to think that God is devoid of reality outside of the believers perception. To claim Gods existence itself is merely subject to a test of internal belief, I would question. Maybe not the best example, or well expressed. I’d have to think about it some more. But in order to think about what it means to have differing personal truths, I’d have to think first more about the concepts of personal perception and internal and external realities. That I haven’t done. Just fun to ramble, even if everything I have to say is nonsence!
Bah, my browser crashed on posting, so this is my second typing and I'm just gonna rush it...sorry if it's a poor read...but you requested a way to make sense of religious existentialism and I'll try and offer a take on it. Your own statement - isn't this religous existentialism at its core? So the existential christian that says the bible and clergy do not represent an absolute and universal truth about god is more honest. The christian who claims that the existence of God and Christ are absolute facts would renounce his faith in the same stroke. and the pope is an essentialist, the opposite of an existentialist. He's a hypocrite according to you - are both sides hypocrites now? and Buddhism has often been referred to as existential. Dalai Lama is a more honest religious person in your mind. I believe his core motivation for his writings was to criticize the christian institution for making absolute interpretations of the gospels and declare those interpretations absolute and universal truths that you must follow or burn in hell. As far as I know, Jesus never spoke of sending people to hell. His teachings make up a small part of what is today commonly known as christianity. The rest is made up by his followers. Why would one have to accept those later additions as universal fact in order to be christian? Isn't that the hypocrisy you lashed out at? Lack of eternal truth and presence of an all powerful god are not mutually exclusive, are they? Who knows what God's true motives are if they've never met him? He didn't write the bible. Some clergy dudes in a desert did. The closest one that relies on faith (as absence of fact) could come to God would be to listen to his own conscience and strive towards goodness - while what defines goodness must always be considered subjective, because what is good for one human being may not be for another. From this comes an inevitable need for mutual respect, acceptance and humility. It begins to sound a bit christian to me. There are hundreds of faiths under the banner of Christ. Which one follows the tenets and marks all the other as false religions? And wouldn't declaring one branch of christianity true and the rest false be essentialism and at the same time a renouncement of faith? The bible is really quite a foggy read, you know. But who tells you what it is that God want you to do? Claiming, as a clergy, that your interpretation of God's will, as you define it from the absolute truths of the bible, would be like saying that God exist for a fact, which would be to denounce one's faith. So the christian who stands himself on a hill and says he knows the intentions of God as universal facts is actually faithless, while the one who relies on his own feeling of a presence of God, despite lack of evidence, and chooses to follow these guiding emotions, is faithful. Even if you did accept the bible as a guide, it says somewhere that man has free will so that he must himself choose to follow God. Its shaky ground here - at the core you really got nothing but your own freely made decision to have faith in God - which sounds pretty close to existentialism. Again, the teachings of Christ are perhaps the foggiest part of it all, so why could one not believe that he existed and that he left it to the individual to search for meaning and value in his parables, and yet deny those "saints" who prefessed to have learned universal, factual truths from God himself? Being christian really only requires belief in Jesus Christ and an acceptance of his teachings. There were christians before there was a bible, and before there was a pope who pointed his finger at people in judgement. The problem with christianity is that it very early on was turned into a submission tool for politicians, and thusly corrupted, and that was Kierkegaard's main concern. In the end I'll just point out that I'm not a religious person. I haven't read the bible in full or made any real effort to get into the depths of it. My arguments are based on common knowledge of Christianity as one would have from being born and raised in a western country. But still, I don't think christian existentialism is any less hypocritical than say, fundamental protestantism or catholicism. Perhaps I might even have liked the idea of being religious more, if the predominant take on christianity in the west had been existential. It just seems more...sympathetic. Especially since there's nothing that makes my piss boil more than fanatics who claim to know truth and who puts ideals above other people. Wasn't the core idea that Christ was a nice dude? That we should forgive and forget and all that hippie stuff? It doesn't really look all that apparent when you look at the bloody, fanatical, powerhungry and narrowminded history of the christian church.
Your own statement - isn't this religous existentialism at its core? I don’t know…If so, if religious existentialism admits the existence of God can’t be proved, why take the position of believing in God? Why place the fallibility of human faith above all other modes of analysis and examination? I'm going in circles here... The christian who claims that the existence of God and Christ are absolute facts would renounce his faith in the same stroke. Sure…but he would be fooling himself in calming the existence of god and the divinity of Christ are absolute facts. and the pope is an essentialist, the opposite of an existentialist. He's a hypocrite according to you - are both sides hypocrites now? Quite possibly. You’d have to be a bit more specific in the question for me to answer. Sure I think in matters of theology, popes have been hypocritical - the inquisition comes to mind, and Pope Pius during World War two. And sure, I think various existentialists could be considered hypocrites. Just like everyone else – including me at times. Dalai Lama is a more honest religious person in your mind. Yes. that is what I wrote. I believe his core motivation for his writings was to criticize the christian institution for making absolute interpretations of the gospels and declare those interpretations absolute and universal truths that you must follow or burn in hell. I would think so. Only many rules laid out in the gosples (including threats of hell) dont leave a great deal of room for interpretation, and the rule of God is made rather clear “there is no authority except that which God has established.” Romans 13. As far as I know, Jesus never spoke of sending people to hell. I think he spoke a lot about it…Matthew 5.22 would be a start…anyhow, I’m not sure what that matters in the context of this discussion? His teachings make up a small part of what is today commonly known as christianity. The rest is made up by his followers. Agreed. And but for what is written in the Gospels ( and you could argue Essene texts ect) we don’t know what his teaching were. And we don’t even know if what is in the Gospels is exactly what he taught! Why would one have to accept those later additions as universal fact in order to be christian? Isn't that the hypocrisy you lashed out at? Are you here referring to the Bible as a ‘later addition’, or to the theology and customs of various churches? I guess at some point, a Christian has to decide what he is referencing for his knowledge of Christ. Where is he getting his information about Christ from, If not from the Bible? Is he just going to make it up for himself? I would suggest a Christian needs to reference the gospels for his information about Christs teachings. I would not call that action hypocrisy so long as he recognized the gospels were written a generation after Christs death and may harbour some inaccuracy’s concerning what Jesus actually said. Lack of eternal truth and presence of an all powerful god are not mutually exclusive, are they? I would argue an all Powerful god would be ‘him’self an eternal truth. Though the concepts of ‘all powerful’ and ‘eternal’ are of course behond what a human mind can envisage. Who knows what God's true motives are if they've never met him? He didn't write the bible. Some clergy dudes in a desert did. The closest one that relies on faith (as absence of fact) could come to God would be to listen to his own conscience and strive towards goodness – How do you know God wants goodness? Maybe he prefers wickedness? Maybe he wants everyon to go to hell. It might annoy him when they graduate to heaven. More mouths too feed! You don’t know what his motives are, you’ve never met him…maybe he doesn’t want anyone to have faith in him. Maybe he doesn’t even want people to believe in him! Who knows his true desires and motives? Around we go! There are hundreds of faiths under the banner of Christ. Sure, and these faiths must all have a commonality, otherwise they would be under separate banners rather than the singular ‘banner of Christ.’ I would say what Christians have in common is that they believe Christ was the divine son of God. He came to earth and died for the sins of mankind. I think a Christian believes in both God, and the Divinity of Christ. Which one follows the tenets and marks all the other as false religions? Like I said in an earlier post, Christians love to say other Christens aren’t true Christians. Its entertaining! And wouldn't declaring one branch of christianity true and the rest false be essentialism and at the same time a renouncement of faith? Yes. The bible is really quite a foggy read, you know. I would say some parts are exeddingly foggy, while some parts are clear cut. But of course you could argue that ‘one plus one equal two’ is a foggy statement too, if so inclined! But who tells you what it is that God want you to do? If not the Bible, and not the Clergy, then yourself. You simply make up for yourself whatever interpretation of God and his message is that you feel it to be. It becomes a wholly internal interpretation. If you believe Gods task for you is to rape and murder, off you go and rape and murder, with Gods blessing. You become the voice of God – in effect. You assign yourself the role of God! So the christian who stands himself on a hill and says he knows the intentions of God as universal facts is actually faithless, while the one who relies on his own feeling of a presence of God, despite lack of evidence, and chooses to follow these guiding emotions, is faithful. Yes… Its shaky ground here - at the core you really got nothing but your own freely made decision to have faith in God - which sounds pretty close to existentialism.-good point, I’ll have to think on that one some more when I’m more awake later. the teachings of Christ are perhaps the foggiest part of it all, so why could one not believe that he existed and that he left it to the individual to search for meaning and value in his parables, One could belive that if they wish. Everyone is free to belive anyting. Peraonlly I don’t doubt that Mr.Christ existed. But if Christianity is based on the teaching of Christ, and they are foggy, Christians really don’t have much to go by! There must be a bit more to Christianity than that? Otherwise anyone can make up anything they like about the religon... in which case, I propose Christians all swap to Smithism. It’s very similar, only it sounds funnier! George Smith existed. His teachings were foggy. He left if for the individual to search for meaning. Only difference is, Smithy gave Crucifictiona a miss. Wise fellow! Being christian really only requires belief in Jesus Christ and an acceptance of his teachings. So what were Christs teachings? They are foggy, you have told me, and the bible is not the be all and end all of it. So how do contemporary Christians accept Christs teachings if they are foggy? May as well swap to Smithism! In the end I'll just point out that I'm not a religious person. Yeah, and considering that you’ve done / doing a brilliant job of taking the ‘side’ of a religious existentialist. But still, I don't think christian existentialism is any less hypocritical than say, fundamental protestantism or catholicism. I would say far less. Althought that's no excuse! Perhaps I might even have liked the idea of being religious more, if the predominant take on christianity in the west had been existential. Why is the predominate take important? Haven’t you just been telling that religion for the existentialist is an individual affair? Who care's what anyone else's experienc of religons is? Only your personal take on it matters, right? Wasn't the core idea that Christ was a nice dude? George Smith was very nice too. Maybe even nicer! Belive me! That we should forgive and forget and all that hippie stuff? You’re just pissed because they shut down Christiania!
Enough high-minded philosophical penis-comparing, thank you. I basically want to put my ideas down for other people to read in an accessible way. I've read Camus' L'Etranger, and Sartre's La Nausee, now I'm after putting my two cents in. What form could the fiction take in exploring existential themes?
