17 – Christ Has No Doctrine

[Victor Eremita]

17 – Christ Has No Doctrine
Page 65-66 in P:SWK

In this passage, Kierkegaard discusses the difference between a true believer and one who is merely intellectually interested in Christianity. The former is in faith and the latter is objectively related to faith. The latter would study Christianity, its truths, its falsities, without being Christian. The former studies Christianity but also tries to become a Christian, and to live the Christian life.

Kierkegaard is known for his attacks on attempts to intellectualize Christianity. What is interesting about this passage is Kierkegaard’s continued insistence that Christianity is inherently offensive: “Christianity is not to be confused with objective or scientific truth.” If Christianity was perfectly rational, every rational being should be Christian. Becoming Christian relies on faith as an essential part of living, and it is not something to be studied.

In Kierkegaard’s other writings, he denounces Christian apologetics as corrupt, depraved, and a sham to humanity. This passage takes a tempered tone, in order to show the differences between the two. Knowing Christian writings without being Christian is one thing, but knowing what it is to be Christian without being one is quite another. The latter is quite impossible to Kierkegaard; for example, one can read about a dog and understand dog reactions and biology and such, but one cannot truly know what it is like to be a dog.

[urangutan]

If you have the understanding to convince somebody of the Jewish faith to partake in a Christian Baptism, then I would say, you have a knowledge set in belief.

I have been offered a dvd that is a 3 part doco, which includes something on God, 119 and Money. I haven't watched it and what I hate is that discussion on forums, to the like of this one, may have already informed me of its content. I am shutting the mind off from the topics so I might gain something from the feature.

A mistake in refferencing Christians and Christianity is knowing when the two are in no direct relation to each other. I would suppose this could apply to most religions and even some science. Truth, belief, fact, hypothesis, variation, law, etc... , there is little guarentee, that much of it is insolvent. Tomorrow we may learn that today we are wrong and yesterday remains unrepentant.