Great Dane

by Kim on November 15, 2007

I’ve been dipping into some Kierkegaard lately. Here are ten short excerpts from the writings of the great Dane to get the blood moving on a chilly autumn morning - and to get on your nerves through the rest of the day.

“It is easier to become a Christian if one is not a Christian than to become a Christian if one is already supposed to be one.”

“In following Christ, there is no chattering about what happens afterward.”

“Christianity has been abolished somewhat as follows: life is made easier.”

“Although we dance before him and clap our hands and blow the horn and with tears in our eyes exclaim, ‘God is love!’ we go our merry way doing whatever it is we want.”

“It is simply comical to think that one can ‘introduce’ Christianity into this or that situation, just as one introduces improved sheep breeding. Christianity is precisely the one thing that cannot be introduced.”

“Christ certainly died for all people, and also for me; but that ‘for me’ must be understood in the sense for ‘all people’.”

“If others are going to hell, then I am going along with them. But I do not believe that; on the contrary, I believe that all will be saved, I too, and this awakens my deepest wonder.”

“We humans believe that numbers mean something. For God, it is precisely numbers that mean nothing, nothing at all.”

“You will get a deep insight into the state of Christianity in each age by seeing how it treats Judas.”

“Woe, woe to the church if it triumphs in this world, for then it is the world which will have triumphed, not the church.”

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }


dh 11.15.07 at 4:10 pm

Well do we truly know if this guy is a Christian? He seems to totally go against what Scripture says. He seems to pcik and choose Scripture to come to these conclusions.


Steve 11.15.07 at 7:46 pm

I am having to muster all the strength in my body to not make a snarky comment in response to you, DH.


Richard 11.15.07 at 8:56 pm

Your restraint is admirable, Steve!


dh 11.15.07 at 9:23 pm

Okay, my first question was way over the top. Can I please take that question back? However, the rest of my statements seem to be correct. I just don’t buy that all will be saved when Jesus says “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” (doesn’t the conclusion of this “Dane” seem to be a pick and choose of Scripture with regard to this particular passage?) To me the deepest wonder is that we even have the ability to obtain eternal life in the first place and that we even can receive the free gift made available to all in the first place.

With regard to Judas, the fact remains is that Scripture says “Satan entered Judas”. So to me there really is only one conclusion is that he rejected Christ and is thus “condemned already” like Jesus says to those who face the judgement. Jesus says (paraphrase) I don’t condemned but those who are condemned are condemned already.

Can’t the church through Christ as the main focus be triumphed in the world? If Jesus is the main focus and the world happens to triumph the church for God’s Glory what is so wrong with that?

It is said here “there is no chattering afterwards about wehat happens afterward once a Christian.” What about in the Epistles where it says “We anxiously await the second coming of Christ.” Isn’t that something that is “afterwards” for those who are Christian? Doesn’t the Christ in the Gospels and in the Epistles and even the 1st centruy church confirm this “longing” to be with Christ, to be Sanctified by doing the works of Christ, etc.?

It is said “Christ cannot be introduced”. What is the “Great Commision” all about? Isn’t it about SHARING the Gospel which is really an INTRODUCTION? What is comical about that?

It is said here “Christ died for all people”. I agree He died for all people to have the ability to accept or reject Him.

It is said here “numbers mean nothing”. What does the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation or the 12 disciples to the point where they casted lots to replace the 12th disciple, etc. It seems to me God ordained numbers not that they mean anything but he did place importance on the numbers or He wouldn’t have mentioned the specific numbers in the first place.

It is said here “Although we dance before him and clap our hands and blow the horn and with tears in our eyes exclaim, ‘God is love!’ we go our merry way doing whatever it is we want.” I agree with him it is a problem in the church and even the world today. That is what Sanctification, being obedient to God, being accountable to Christ and His Word is all about. I totally agree with this statement. However it appears the conclusions of the praxis from the problem is an overgeneralization and concerns me due to going against Scripture.

I know I started the conflict with the first question. Will you guys forgive me for that? I apologize for not promoting a sense of dialogue on this particular thread. Please forgive me. I still believe that these issues are important and proper dialogue is important. We all “fall” but that is no excuse for that question I first mentioned.


Wood 11.16.07 at 9:04 am

Kierkegaard looks pretty scriptural to me. Of course, everyone picks and chooses.

I really, really like the last one.

By the way, Kim, I have finally got round to putting together my magazine. Your articles are certasinly in there. Which meas you get your own copy. Of course, now there’s no one about to hide the chaplaincy copy…


Wood 11.16.07 at 9:07 am

Oh, and by the way, dh, you are entirely missing the point of what he’s saying. You’re reading something entirely separate from the guy’s meaning, which is far more in line with conservative thinking than you seem to want to believe.

Why am I even bothering to type this?


dh 11.16.07 at 3:33 pm

Well Wood, I’m taking the words he is saying directly with what it says. Did you read my line by line “concerns’ about the “Dane”? You can see how he isn’t Scriptural in light of the Scriptures I mentioned that directly contradict his conclusions. I also am not picking and choosing because one must look at Scripture in light of Scripture.

Maybe Wood you can give me the Danes meaning because these statements and phrases don’t seem to jive with a thinking that is Scriptural.
Let me know where I’m misunderstanding him. I’m open for clarification. I just took the statements referenced for directly what they say. If there is a context within surrounding statements of his then I’m all for you pointing those out. However, the quotes by the Dane alone seem to be outside of Scripture. My line by line post points out specifically those “concerns”.


Steve 11.19.07 at 11:00 pm

Okay, it’s just too much to resist!

Wood, you should already know this by now, but everyone picks and chooses from the scriptures…. except DH.


dh 11.20.07 at 12:52 am

Steve, where in Scripture is the Dane supported in Scripture and is it consistent with all of Scripture? If you could see where I’m pciking and hoosing as oppsoed to looking at all of Scripture I will be glad for you to clarify.


Rick O'Donnell 11.20.07 at 2:01 am

I had (nearly) put Kierkegaard from my mind—it’s been some years since Mr. Sauer’s phenomenology class—but I’m certain to peruse his works again soon.
I particularly liked the quote about our retrospective (mis)judgement of Judas.


dh 11.20.07 at 3:06 pm

Well Rick how is it that it is a “mis” judgement of Judas when Scripture says specifically that “satan entered him”? Satan can’t enter a Believer


Steve 11.20.07 at 11:05 pm


You remind me of a drunk ready to fight the instant he perceives someone slighting him. Why does every thread have to turn into a bar-room brawl? Can’t you just let people express their opinions in peace without throwing punches?


dh 11.21.07 at 3:11 pm

Steve, wow. I wasn’t trying to give that impression. In fact starting the latest reply with “well” and as a question should remove any indication of a “bar-room brawl” or “throwing punches”. I’m still trying to find how my reply could give that impression. I truly wasn’t being harsh in my conmments here. It seems I can’t even ask a question? It also seems I can’t ask for substantiation. People do this with me all of the time on this site and I welcome it. I didn’t see any difference with regard to my replies here. My recent questions are very legitimate. I would be interested in anyones answer to them and if it consistent with Scripture I’m open to change. That goes for any position I have. To me that doesn’t even remotely come close to a “bar-room brawl” or “throwing punches”.

I apologize if you thought I was hostile, fighting, etc. that was honestly not what I had as my attitude. If you reread it they were questions and a call for substantiation that is way short of a barv room brawl. Oh well, Steve, may you, Rick and all who read this have a wonderful Thanksgiving and may God truly bless you this Holiday. :)

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>