Post your favorite philosopher and critisize him briefly.
>often tries to legitmize his own way of life
>thought the Binding of Isaac was about Abraham's faith, when it was about Isaac's
>too hard on Latin Christians
Also was kind of a degenerate before he went to prison (extra marital affairs, compulsive gambler), but that doesn't really count as a criticism since he turned his life around when he got out.
>so bad at teaching Goethe asked him to improve his rhetorics when in Weimar
should have read more greeks
I dunno, I can't think of any flaws
I mean, from a Christian perspective, it is Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed for God, which paralels God's willingness to be sacrified for the desedents of Isaac (also of Abraham). Certainly, Abraham's faith plays a role here too (since God the Father is sacrificing his Son), but the *trial* of faith here is paralleled in the NT, and Christ experiences a trial of faith as well (Gethsemane making it clear Christ does not wish to die, but does so only because of faith).
Abraham's faith is echoed in John 3:16, but Isaac's love is emphasized in John 15:12-13.
To be completely accurate, they are both being tested, but abstracting Abraham's test from Isaac's is a common error which distorts the point of it all. The Binding of Isaac was something they were both involved in--BUT Abraham's faith is that God will "provide a lamb", that is he will cancel at the last minute (not only does he say this, but Abraham would surely argue with God if he didn't think that, knowing Abraham), whereas Isaac's faith is actual sacrifice. Abraham is calling God's bluff, so to speak, whereas Isaac has no such understanding. Paul mentions Abraham being tested without Isaac in Hebrews, but in Galatians he affirms that Isaac is a metaphor for freedom (represented by being born of a free woman) as contrasted with Ishmael, being a metaphor for bondage. So Isaac clearly wasn't bound against his will, but accepted his fate on faith. Kierkegaard's long exposition was concerned about the suspension of the ethical (which is important), but you can't stress that too much as a focus because that was peripheral.
Well, once you understood his weird way of thinking you saw that he was a brillant philosopher who was able to solve many problems philosophy faced at that time.
Did you never tried to read some of his work? I'll guarentee you it will be frustrating at first.
Yes, but if you put Abraham at the center of your interpretation, it makes a lot more sense in regards to human sacrifice. Sacrificing your first-born son was common practice in many older, heretical religions. God stays Abraham's hand and thereby communicates to him that he does not demand such a sacrifice.
I agree though that the Binding of Isaac is about the faith of both Isaac and Abraham and the parallel that you drew to Christ makes sense I guess
>Kierkegaard's long exposition was concerned about the suspension of the ethical (which is important), but you can't stress that too much as a focus because that was peripheral.
While Isaac certainly has to demonstrate his willingness to be sacrificed, Kierkegaard specifically talks about God and the suspension of the ethical because he was primarily interested in how this story could make sense to him personally as an individual.
Since I'm not religious at all, I can't seem to shake the feeling that there's nothing particularly noteworthy about the Binding of Isaac at all, since faithful self-sacrifice is literally a trope in all major religions, and even pre-monotheisms like the Inca and Aztec.
So, what makes the Christian version so impressive, other than you believing it is true?
But Isaac's choice is important in that he is a icon of freedom itself, which is pretty crucial in Christianity, especially if you're coming from an existentialist perspective. It's also very important because the expectation of Isaac is to die, whereas the expectation of Abraham is that he won't die. If Abraham thought for an instant that he would, Abraham would start to haggle with God. So Abraham suspends the ethical? Yes, sort of, but Isaac's leap of faith involves what Christ calls the highest love, which Christ uses to illustrate how we are to love one another, we are to be willing to die for each other. This is a love expressed toward God that goes beyond anything previous in Genesis.
People aren't 100% shit 100% of the time.
Also the church can be democratized just like any other institution, so it's a mistake to look for it for the source of infallible authority.
There is no reason Christians have to believe it is literal. There's no reason why they can't either, of course.
As for its significance, I've already expressed that, but of course it loses quite a bit outside the context of Christianity.
>but of course it loses quite a bit outside the context of Christianity.
Indeed. I don't even understand how anyone could think Abraham's or Isaac's behavior isn't absurd and delusional.
>In the context of having clear proof that God exists and talks to you?
How would I know that the entity that talks to me is God, and not my mentally ill mind hallucinating?
I mean seriously tripfaggot, we have had this discussion before me and you, and I hope then that it penetrated your thick skull, but apparently it didn't.
How does this position make you any different from the atheist in hell? If Abraham were hallucinating that hard and he accepted it, then there would be zero reason for him to even think his son were real.
>If Abraham were hallucinating that hard and he accepted it, then there would be zero reason for him to even think his son were real.
Crazy people don't need to be wholly crazy. Abraham was a fanatical believer. He could've been hallucinating that God spoke to him whilst simultaneously be able to herd sheep without a problem.
The mind actually can function like that if you didn't know.
This absolute madman is certainly up there:
>dishes it but can't take it
>should've given more directly to the poor
>misread as a fideist, but to be fair he was dealing with people who were literally Russell-tier