Talk:Christian existentialism

Missing meaning?

Can someone give a rational explanation (or a paradoxical one, so long as it is semantically sensible) of what the following quote from the article means, or a direct reference to a quote of Kierkegaard's, or remove it?

To be in the faith sphere, Kierkegaard says, one must give the entirety of oneself to God.

- iliacus

I'd advise you to look at this. Basically, Kierkegaard felt there were three spheres or levels of existence, from lower to higher: aesthetic, ethical, and religious. So, in order to fully develop to the third sphere (the one in which faith would be involved) you had to fully submit yourself to God. Hope I helped. HMman (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

Comment on the current article- flamming.apple@gmail.com

Kierkegaards writting is essentially divided into several pieces. The left hand (concealed) which he puplished through psydonyms, and alter-egos to ensure that no one would know the real authour, and the right hand, which was sermons puplished in his own name. What is worth noticing is that he in these sermons discussed the themes of the book. Together with this, he also made extensive journals, in which he explains his ideas even further. His idea with identifying the life spheres of human existence OUTSIDE CHRIST (meaning, this does not cover all people, only people who are not christians) comes from his main thought that people must be met where they are. In order to meet people where they are, first you must find out where they are, after which he came up with the spheres of human existance outside of christ. The religious sphere does not include the christian, as Kierkegaard clearly state that this sphere must be brought to the choice (the moment) in which the person can either choose to focus on the religious, or to embrace God, and develope a personal relationsship with him, thus solving the crisis of this sphere. Therefore the current wikipedia article is actually incorrect saying that only Abraham and the virgin mary can ever come to this sphere, as this sphere according to Kierkegaard is not the optimal sphere. THe optimal according to Kierkegaard is to have a personal relationsship with God.

It is true that the spheres are placed in the order mentioned, but only because it is the maturing process most people goes through. According to Kierkegaard it is even possible to skip stages, depending on how you deal with the crisis which is (impossible to avoid).

Sincerely

Tillich Reference

Should Tillich really be referred to as an American theologian? While he became famous for his writings at Union Theological, Tillich was German and didn't move to the States until he was in his 40s. The Dark 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible as an Existential Writing

To those not immediately familiar with Christianity or Existentialism it might seem a little strange to have an article combining the two. (Why not Basketball existentialism or Christian Donut-baking, etc). I trust the passages I've summarized will help the reader get a sense of how both Kierkegaard and the Bible use irony to get the attention of the reader. More similarities could probably be made other than the indirect communication aspect. For example, both Kierkegaard and the Bible demand seriousness. (In fact, SK says in the Sickness Unto Death, "Christianity is seriousness"). But I think this is suffecient for now to make the point. --The burning bush 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I'm not sure about the basis for the "Original Research" warning that got added. I added four references, so hopefully no one will think I am just pulling this out of thin air. Could I persuade the concerned wikipedian to address their reservations specifically? I could be persuaded to see how the examples I provided are arbitrary (I could have picked others), but the points I made are well-documented and NPOV (which is of great importance to wikipedia, but of little importance to God who is totally POV in all His views). Please feel free to express your concerns here. I promise I won't bite anyone's head off! --The burning bush 00:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Revert removing association between existentialism and the Bible

Someone deleted several sections here without discussing it. I am inclined to believe it is someone fairly unaquainted with Christianity and existentialism because they removed the See Also to Religious Love but left the See Also to Christian Anarchism. What does existentialism or Christianity have to do with anarchism? Also, there were some great references concerning SK that got removed below. I maintained this person's decision to keep the blogs references out, because it's probably not wikipolicy. I do not think an association of the Bible texts and existentialism is outside the scope of this article. If you disagree with me on this, please address it here in the talk section.--The burning bush 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Original Research

I am not certain, but I suspect the original research warning was added by a Wikipedia administrator rather than a user. One reason Wikipedia is not generally considered a legitimate source for scholarly research is that virtually anyone can claim to be an authority on any topic simply by writing an article. More rigorous sources of information are vetted by groups of persons who have spent many years researching ideas and who have had the results of their research reviewed by similarly qualified peers. The warning suggests to me that those who administer Wikipedia hope that contributors will voluntarily adhere to high standards as close as possible to those accepted by more rigorous sources so that the quality and reliability of the information on Wikipedia will tend to increase over time. The warning cites some of the standards recommended by Wikipedia. In particular, you can find the following comment on the Wikipedia reference page entitled "Wikipedia:No original research." "The original motivation for the 'No original research' policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas. Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." I gather this means that the administrators would like for you not only to cite the sources for your own ideas but also to cite other well-accepted sources which confirm your interpretation of the topic. Otherwise the article looks like the personal interpretation of a single autodidact. It's not clear why those unfamiliar with the topic should accept your interpretation without some evidence that it is not merely the unfounded opinion of a single person. On a different note, Christian existentialism is surely much broader than the ideas of Kierkegaard. Though he may qualify as its "father," others have made significant contributions that do more than rehash S.K.'s thoughts. You mention a few names at the end, but if this article is really about Christian existentialism you should discuss what these others have to say. Otherwise the article should be titled something like "The Christian Existentialism of Kierkegaard." The Second Guy 04:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Progeny"

Removed the "progeny" section because it does not contribute to defining Christian existentialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.151.231 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism in Judaism

I deleted Martin Buber as a notable thinker, as he certainly was not a Christian. A separate article on Jewish existentialists could cover Buber and Lev Shestov.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

3 decades after the resurrection?

The article states that the early form of Christianity in question would be about 3 decades after the resurrection in 33 AD. The person using this date appears to have confused Anno Domini for after death because three decades after the resurrection would (By wikipedias chronology for the life of Jesus) be around Anno Domini 60. I don't know enough about Christian Existentialism to know whether or not the intention was 3 decades after the resurrection or 3 decades after the birth of Christ, but the article as it currently stands is wrong either way. --CptBuck (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Major assumptions

Shouldn't these be termed "presuppositions"? The expression "major assumptions" has a negative connotation. Cout255 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas' "existentialism"

The current last section of the article Thought of Thomas Aquinas links to this article, with:

God is simple, there is no composition in God. In this regard, Aquinas relied on Boethius who in turn followed the path of Platonism, something Aquinas usually avoided. The conclusion was that the meaning of "I Am Who Am" is not an enigma to be answered, but the statement of the essence of God. This is the discovery of Aquinas: the essence of God is not described by negative analogy, but the "essence of God is to exist". This is the basis of "existential theology" and leads to what Gilson calls the first and only existential philosophy. In Latin, this is called "Haec Sublimis Veritas" , "the sublime truth". The revealed essence of God is to exist, or in the words of Aquinas, I am the pure Act of Being. This has been described as the key to understanding Thomism. Thomism has been described (in terms of a philosophic movement), as either the emptiest, or the fullest of philosophies. (For a full discussion, see Gilson, pp. 84–95)

Yet there is no discussion of such "theological existentialism" here concerning Thomas Aquinas. 74.209.54.156 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is still no discussion, but now there is at least a sentence (plus citation) on the matter. 46.11.46.199 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Radical Existential Christianity section seems less than objective

Someone that isn't part of a cult please rewrite or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorfey (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)