(~simul iustus & peccator~) (lovelies) wrote,
(~simul iustus & peccator~)
lovelies

The good thing about Kierkegaard is that he's not Hegel, I think to myself as I'm trying to gather up the will to dive into his disjointed philosophy. It's been years since last I read him, and even though I enjoyed his writing as prose, I disliked him as a thinker. A Christian thinker. It was five years ago that I read Enten-eller. We have hardly crossed paths since.

The text that I was supposed to be reading today was a self-confessed atheist's view of him as a philosopher.

And I discover that I find him much more fascinating as a Theologian.

Not only that, but it became distressingly obvious that for many years now I have actually held his person as the Ideal Christian, against which I've unbeknownst measured all and every believer I've come across.

Not in deed, but in thought. The logic of faith.

It is very strange how seamlessly I agree with his theology, how I find myself respecting even his conclusion, even though my own road has been its exact opposite. The continued choosing of it, as it were, even though the aspect of choice came to me late.

I wasn't consciously aware that I'd been carrying him around in my head all this time. All the way from the times of the kicking-and-spitting hatred toward religion that characterized my youth. That is a figure of speech, by the by.

He is the model and epitome of a believer that I could honestly respect, and not just regard with cordial condescension.

The realization has left me feeling somewhat odd.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments