by Chris Alexion, Copyright July 26, 2006, all rights reserved. 296 views
"This answer [of Kierkegaard's], however, is upside-down. If there were a prior objective knowledge of God, a person could use this objective knowledge as a basis to judge that his passionate appropriation was infinite. But if there is no prior objective knowledge of God, and if therefore one is limited to the introspection of his own feelings, no qualitative difference between the two passionate acts of appropriation can be discerned. If, further, an idol is as satisfactory as God, why would not the socialism of Hegel and Marx be as acceptable as Kierkegaard and individualism? Communists are rather passionate, are they not?
"It is this inability to justify one decision in contradistinction to the opposite decision, it is the equal value of encounter with God and encounter with an idol, it is the emphasis on the How and the rejection of the What, that has in one form or another plagued the existentialist movement down to the present."
- Gordon Clark, God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics (Hobbs, NM: Trinity Foundation, 1995), pp.99-100
-----No comments yet.