The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
Miscellaneous - Archives
>
"Purity of Heart Is To Will One Thing" by Søren Kierkegaard
Bless you for enrolling in something like that. Come to think of it, it sort of makes me wonder whether there's anything comparable in my city. Was the whole purpose of the class to read this one book, or was there generally a literary focus? Or can we even talk about this here? I wouldn't want to upset any discussion police.
Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "Well we have to go back to Dostoevsky for a moment, before yielding the floor to Kierkegaard. I was hoping you'd read TBK, Nemo, because D..."
Is it not enough that you tortured ..."
That would require me to delve a lot further into Dostoevsky than I really want to!! Let me reread some of Kierkegaard and then I will at least have a current, albeit superficial, understanding of both men. :)
Is it not enough that you tortured ..."
That would require me to delve a lot further into Dostoevsky than I really want to!! Let me reread some of Kierkegaard and then I will at least have a current, albeit superficial, understanding of both men. :)
Kate Mc. wrote: "I was hoping you'd read TBK, Nemo, because Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard seem to me to have had very similar views of faith and its necessity to mankind. Nemo wrote: "Let's keep the focus on Kierkegaard here..." I have tried to persuade Nemo to look at TBK through Kierkegaardian eyes too Kate but unfortunately, I seem to have put him off reading TBK in favour of NFU!:(:(
Here is a pertinent essay about Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard, particularly their views on Original Sin and the Fall of Man. 'Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were both born in the first quarter of the nineteenth century (however, Kierkegaard, who died at forty-four and was ten years older than Dostoevsky, had already concluded his literary career when Dostoevsky was just beginning to write) and they both lived during the period when Hegel dominated European thought...both Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard (the first without realizing it, the second fully aware of it) saw their life work as a struggle with, and victory over, that system of ideas embodied in Hegelian philosophy, the culmination of the development of European thought...It is amazing to see how much Dostoevsky's thoughts about "stone walls" and "twice two is four" resemble what Kierkegaard has [just] told us....Not without reason did Kierkegaard say: "to believe in spite of reason is martyrdom." Not without reason are the works of Dostoevsky so full of a superhuman intensity. This is why not enough attention is paid to Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard, why so few hear what they have to say. Their voices have been and continue to be voices crying in the wilderness'.
http://shestov.by.ru/sk/sk_01.html
Patrice wrote: "My prof keeps saying that this form of Christianity is not orthodox. The influence is from Isaac the Syrian, a 6th cent. monk. Isaac the Syrian is an Eastern Orthodox Church saint and is very relevant to Dostoevsky's form of Christianity - he studied his works and his characters refer to them in several of his books, including Fyodor in TBK.
MadgeUK wrote: "Here is a pertinent essay about Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard, particularly their views on Original Sin and the Fall of Man..."Thanks for the link to the article by Lev Shestov. Very interesting read. He seemed to think that necessity is evil, and according to him, Dostoevsky believed the same.
Kierkegaard wrote in The Sickness Unto Death that self is a synthesis of infinitude and finitude, possibility and necessity, and despair is an imbalance between infinitude and finitude. Necessity is not evil, but the imbalance between possibility and necessity is.
If Dostoevsky (through the underground man) banged his head against the stone walls because he could not accept necessity, then he was indeed in despair.
Faith does not bang its head against stone walls, it walks through them. IOW, faith does not reject reason, but transcends it.
Nemo wrote:He seemed to think that necessity is evil, and according to him, Dostoevsky believed the same. ..."Thanks Nemo, very interesting but a bit beyond my philosophical capabilities:(. I was also responding to John's post about D & K having opposing p.o.v.
Patrice wrote: If you want universal agreement on any moral concept, a belief in God helps......I deeply, sincerely, want every orderly, nurse, and doctor to believe in God and that life is sacred and precious. Without that, oh how easy it is to turn your back on life! ..."Patrice, you do not seem to realise how deeply offensive such sentiments are to atheists, just as Dostoevsky's sentiments about all atheists being mad were:(:(. Atheists have as much morality as other people and atheist doctors and nurses have as much regard for the sanctity of life as the religious, and they also believe that life is precious.
Without that, oh how easy it is to turn your back on life!
There are many believers who have turned their backs on life, especially when they despair in their God. Such despair is common to many people but it isn't just faith which overcomes it. My suicidal despair was overcome by my love for my children, not a love of God, for instance.
It isn't you who sees Dostoevsky all over the place, it is because his themes about religion and politics are all over the place:D.
I find both Tolstoy and Kierkegaard make well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments in their religious writings. Don't know if I can say the same about Dostoevsky.Come to think of it, in the Epilogue to War and Peace, Tolstoy also wrote about the balance between freedom and necessity, very similar to Kierkegaard's views but from a different angle.
MadgeUK wrote: "My suicidal despair was overcome by my love for my children, not a love of God, for instance. ..."What caused your despair?
(I'm picking up bits and pieces of your memoir here and there, but it would be nice to have it in one thread. Besides, a thread is much easier to edit and reorganize than a notebook, and saves paper too. :) )
I find both Tolstoy and Kierkegaard make well-reasoned and thoughtful arguments in their religious writings. Don't know if I can say the same about Dostoevsky.I have posted elsewhere that I much prefer Tolstoy's religion and politics to Dostoevsky's, if only because he is less didactic and more life-affirming.
What caused your despair? I'm picking up bits and pieces of your memoir here and there...
LOL. Too many things to go into here Nemo. Being deserted by a husband, leaving me with 4 children under the age of 7 didn't help!
MadgeUK wrote: "Too many things to go into here Nemo. Being deserted by a husband, leaving me with 4 children under the age of 7 didn't help! ..."Life is hard enough for a single mother with one child, not to mention 4. I can't imagine what you went through and how you manged. You are a strong woman.
Many people would be encouraged by your life story, I think. If you don't start a memoir thread soon, I'll do it for you. :)
:( Enough here Nemo - I will be getting chastised again. Others have had far more difficult and probably more interesting lives.
MadgeUK wrote: ":( Enough here Nemo - I will be getting chastised again. Others have had far more difficult and probably more interesting lives."OK, I respect your decision, though disagree with your reasoning. Others may have more difficult and interesting lives, it doesn't mean your own is not worth writing and reading about. The same applies to our personal opinions. If I have learned anything from Kierkegaard, it is that each and every individual counts equally. :)
I've never been very impressed by that argument. I didn't think Hitler counted for much! :). Americans are big on individuality. I prefer a communal approach and think that family and other cooperative units are as important, as long as they are not too large and impersonal, which is one of the mistakes that the Soviets made. There is something to be said for subsuming individual personality for the good of the whole. I believe there is a mathematical formula which expresses it, likening it to the strength of a circle. It has always puzzled me that to win a war we can all put our backs to the same wheel, work together, achieve common ends (and all the other cliches) but as soon as the war is over we go back to more selfish, individual ways and thereby lose the peace.
MadgeUK wrote: "I've never been very impressed by that argument. I didn't think Hitler counted for much! :). Americans are big on individuality. I prefer a communal approach and think that family and other coope..."What's the difference between subsuming and submission?
subsume = to incorporate, to include
submission = to yield, to surrender
The differences can be taken as far as you like. The actor in the first swallows other entities and makes them a part of itself, the actor in the second yields to another power, but (arguably) retains his individuality.
submission = to yield, to surrender
The differences can be taken as far as you like. The actor in the first swallows other entities and makes them a part of itself, the actor in the second yields to another power, but (arguably) retains his individuality.
Kate Mc. wrote: "subsume = to incorporate, to include submission = to yield, to surrender
The differences can be taken as far as you like. The actor in the first swallows other entities and makes them a part o..."
Am I right in assuming that you would prefer submission to being subsumed?
Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "subsume = to incorporate, to include
submission = to yield, to surrender
The differences can be taken as far as you like. The actor in the first swallows other entities and ma..."
One doesn't necessarily forestall or prevent the other. In what context?
submission = to yield, to surrender
The differences can be taken as far as you like. The actor in the first swallows other entities and ma..."
One doesn't necessarily forestall or prevent the other. In what context?
You used the word "swallow" to describe the first term. I assume nobody likes to be swallowed. :)
Nemo wrote: "You used the word "swallow" to describe the first term. I assume nobody likes to be swallowed. :)"
Well, you could submit to a grizzly bear and still be swallowed! :)
Subsume tends to imply that individual character is lost. A sort of Borg-like process. Submission can get you to the same endpoint, though. That's why the "arguably" caveat above. You can submit to the point where self is lost. At that point, is there a difference between the two other than submission is consensual and being subsumed might not be?
Well, you could submit to a grizzly bear and still be swallowed! :)
Subsume tends to imply that individual character is lost. A sort of Borg-like process. Submission can get you to the same endpoint, though. That's why the "arguably" caveat above. You can submit to the point where self is lost. At that point, is there a difference between the two other than submission is consensual and being subsumed might not be?
MadgeUK wrote: "I've never been very impressed by that argument. I didn't think Hitler counted for much! :). Americans are big on individuality. I prefer a communal approach and think that family and other coope..."Kierkegaard's focus is on individual freedom, value and responsibility. Take the case of Nuremberg trial, many Nazi criminals argued that they were not guilty because they were either following orders or suppressing individual conscience for the good of the whole race/country. Kierkegaard would have ripped their excuses to pieces.
I personally love to be swallowed. But I'm guessing that probably belongs in another thread.
Dostoevsky twists that idea a bit in TBK. One of the (many) themes in the book is that we are all individually responsible for everybody else. For instance if you gave someone the idea to commit a murder or failed to act to prevent a murder, then you are guilty of the murder as well as the actual perpetrator.
Kate Mc. wrote: "You can submit to the point where self is lost. ..."Submission is an active act of the will, which is a main part of self, as long as the will is active, the self is not lost. So I don't think that you can submit to the point where self is lost.
John wrote: "I personally love to be swallowed. But I'm guessing that probably belongs in another thread."
*laughs* I think I shall pretend to be shocked. :P
*laughs* I think I shall pretend to be shocked. :P
Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "You can submit to the point where self is lost. ..."
Submission is an active act of the will, which is a main part of self, as long as the will is active, the self is not lost. So..."
Are we speaking theoretically or psychologically? A person can (often does) choose to submit to a captor, i.e. kidnapper, rapist, etc. in order to please them and mitigate the danger that they are in. This in time morphs into a need to submit and ceases to become an act of will (Stockholm Syndrome). Where consent disappears in that process is an interesting question.
Submission is an active act of the will, which is a main part of self, as long as the will is active, the self is not lost. So..."
Are we speaking theoretically or psychologically? A person can (often does) choose to submit to a captor, i.e. kidnapper, rapist, etc. in order to please them and mitigate the danger that they are in. This in time morphs into a need to submit and ceases to become an act of will (Stockholm Syndrome). Where consent disappears in that process is an interesting question.
Nemo wrote: "Am I right in assuming that you would prefer submission to being subsumed? Definitely not. Being, for instance, willingly subsumed in a collective group is quite different to submitting to it. Generally the sort of groups I am thinking (and know) of, communes etc., act democratically so agree to being subsumed for the good of the whole group. To me submission, yielding, surrendering, goes much further and implies a more dictatorial approach.
Let's take an example of this book club: We choose the next book to read by asking individuals to nominate a book of their choice. These individual choices are put to a poll and whichever book 'wins' we read. The individual has then subsumed his/her will for the good of the group, he/she has not submitted to it. If, however, the leader of the group were to decide that one of the nominated books was the 'best' choice and said we were to read that one, we are being asked to submit to his will. As it is supposed that a god always makes the 'best' choices we are always asked to submit to its will, never asked what our own choice is. Therefore in this club we are not asked to make an act of submission but in a religious 'club' we are.
Kate Mc. wrote: "Are we speaking theoretically or psychologically? A person can (often does) choose to submit to a captor, i.e. kidnapper, rapist, etc. in order to please them and mitigate the danger that they are in. This in time morphs into a need to submit and ceases to become an act of will (Stockholm Syndrome). Where consent disappears in that process is an interesting question. ..."
You pose an interesting question here Kate. Since many aspects of religion include fearing a god, going to hell etc. could it be said that believers in submission to the will of a god also 'morph' and so could suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome?
Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc. wrote: "You can submit to the point where self is lost. ..."Submission is an active act of the will, which is a main part of self, as long as the will is active, the self is not lost. So..."
I think many people do this though. I would say that a jihadist or cultist who sacrifice themselves as part of submitting to the will of a god have lost self and then lose life.
Those who pray or flog themselves into ectasy as an act of submission also appear to lose self.
Kate Mc. wrote: "Dostoevsky twists that idea a bit in TBK. One of the (many) themes in the book is that we are all individually responsible for everybody else. For instance if you gave someone the idea to commit ..."Yes, this is more to my way of thinking. 'No man is an island....'.
Kate Mc. wrote: "Are we speaking theoretically or psychologically? A person can (often does) choose to submit to a captor, i.e. kidnapper, rapist, etc. in order to please them and mitigate the danger that they are in. This in time morphs into a need to submit and ceases to become an act of will (Stockholm Syndrome)...."I'm no expert in psychology, but I suppose Stockholm Syndrome is no different from any other abusive relationships in which the abusers gain control over the victims' will by mental, physical and emotional assaults against their will. It's like besieging a castle to capture the king. Once the king (the will) is subdued, the self (the castle) is lost, but not before.
Nemo wrote: ...no different from any other abusive relationships in which the abusers gain control over the victims' will by mental, physical and emotional assaults against their will.This is, of course, how I see the process of becoming religious, particularly when applied to children. I know a girl at the present time who is being forced by her mother to submit to learning the Creed as part of her catholic religious education. She is so unhappy about it all that she has even thought of running away:(. I fear for her and often think of James Joyce's miserable experiences with the catholic church. Young Muslim jihadists are also emotionally 'assaulted' by their fundamentalist Imams. In UK prisons they are trying Cognitive Behaviour Therapy to try to de-program them.
MadgeUK wrote: "Being, for instance, willingly subsumed in a collective group is quite different to submitting to it. ..."I'm reminded of a quote by Bernard Shaw. I wish I could trace the origin, but just to paraphrase, "Democracy replaces dictatorship by substituting the stupidity of many for the stupidity of one". :)
I see your position, because I used to hold it myself and still do in some cases. The only way I can contribute to the discussion is to try to explain the Christian position as I understand it. Hope the following helps.
God is different from a dictator or abuser in many fundamental aspects, besides His omnipotence and omniscience.
First and foremost, God is Love. The loving relationship between God and man is the exact opposite of the emotionally abusive. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us."
Secondly, God gives Wisdom to him who believes. "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him." This is the opposite of a dictator who tries to control his subjects by limiting their access to knowledge.
Thirdly, God sets one Free. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Which dictator or abuser does that?
In summary, the three aspects of self (emotion, mind and will) of a believer is not weakened or lost, but quite the contrary, in the words of Kierkegaard, "The self in being itself and in wanting to be itself is transparently grounded in God".
The only way I can contribute to the discussion is to try to explain the Christian position as I understand it. Hope the following helps.Thanks Nemo. I understand your position but, of course, it all depends on the faith I do not have. Apart from the fact that there is an awful lot about a very unloving God in the Bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cru...
I was reading the other day that some philosophers of the time said that the church should have ditched the Old Testament when they brought in the New and that would have got rid of quite a few objections to Christianity based on God's cruelty.
God is not the church (or a religion) and vice versa, a point that many including Dostoevsky (and perhaps Kierkegaard?) have made. Blaming the first for the abuses of the second doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, I think we delude ourselves about the extent of free will. We can say that we choose to believe in God or not believe in God, but in reality most of that choice is made for us by biological predisposition, upbringing, the circumstances and events of our lives, the manipulation of our desires by messaging, our psychological profile, etc. Free will exists at the margin, but it can't oppose underlying predisposition or you end up with a person in conflict with himself.
Submission to God is a joy for some people. It brings them into alignment with themselves. For others it is an inconceivable struggle that would tear them apart if they attempted it. So why should they?
My two cents.
On the other hand, I think we delude ourselves about the extent of free will. We can say that we choose to believe in God or not believe in God, but in reality most of that choice is made for us by biological predisposition, upbringing, the circumstances and events of our lives, the manipulation of our desires by messaging, our psychological profile, etc. Free will exists at the margin, but it can't oppose underlying predisposition or you end up with a person in conflict with himself.
Submission to God is a joy for some people. It brings them into alignment with themselves. For others it is an inconceivable struggle that would tear them apart if they attempted it. So why should they?
My two cents.
MadgeUK wrote: "Of course, it all depends on the faith I do not have."You do have faith. :) The reason you reject an unloving God is because you believe God, if He exists, must be loving. Kierkegaard wrote in Purity of Heart, he who loves others demonstrates more faith in God than he who does not love, because God is Love.
I was reading the other day that some philosophers of the time said that the church should have ditched the Old Testament when they brought in the New and that would have got rid of quite a few objections to Christianity based on God's cruelty.
St. Augustine firmly believed in the harmony between the OT and the NT. Without the OT, the record of God's working throughout the history of Jewish people would be lost, and Christianity would have no historical and theological foundation.
As for the events in OT that you think suggest cruelty of God, we could consider them in context and discuss them one by one if you like. Generally speaking, I think it has much to do with perspective. To use a popular analogy: If you see someone cut off another's leg, you might say it is cruelty, but in fact it can be love, if a surgeon performs a surgery to save someone's life.
Kate Mc.,Could you give some specific examples of people, for whom it would be "an inconceivable struggle" to believe in God?
Nemo wrote: "Kate Mc.,
Could you give some specific examples of people, for whom it would be "an inconceivable struggle" to believe in God?"
I believe I said submission to God would be an inconceivable struggle. So by conflating "submission" and "belief" I am guessing that you are narrowing your question to belief in an Abrahamic god, vs. a more nebulous deism?
I don't want to get mired in a discussion of religion, but I am willing to take people's stated beliefs in God as their truth. So for example:
1)People like Madge, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Hawking, et al trying to believe in God would be false to their concept of truth and thus damaging to the self.
2) Those who don't recognize God as a higher authority can't submit.
3) Agnostics who neither believe nor disbelieve in a god, and don't care whether one exists because it has no bearing on their own lives. I'm talking people who've consciously arrived at "I don't know" as their answer to God, not those who are there accidentally. These people are outside theistic belief.
Could you give some specific examples of people, for whom it would be "an inconceivable struggle" to believe in God?"
I believe I said submission to God would be an inconceivable struggle. So by conflating "submission" and "belief" I am guessing that you are narrowing your question to belief in an Abrahamic god, vs. a more nebulous deism?
I don't want to get mired in a discussion of religion, but I am willing to take people's stated beliefs in God as their truth. So for example:
1)People like Madge, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Steven Hawking, et al trying to believe in God would be false to their concept of truth and thus damaging to the self.
2) Those who don't recognize God as a higher authority can't submit.
3) Agnostics who neither believe nor disbelieve in a god, and don't care whether one exists because it has no bearing on their own lives. I'm talking people who've consciously arrived at "I don't know" as their answer to God, not those who are there accidentally. These people are outside theistic belief.
I was narrowing in on "inconceivable struggle". Because you suggested that some people could be predisposed against belief in God, which would cause conflict with themselves. I was asking what type of predispositions would cause such struggles.When I was an atheist, I never struggled against belief in God, because I simply dismissed it as superstition. I suppose many atheists feel the same way; It's logical and natural for those who don't recognize God as a higher authority not to submit to Him. No struggles involved.
Nemo, this seems to be diverging a long ways from discussion of Kierkegaard, unless you are leading somewhere? If not and you want to continue the discussion feel free to PM me.
You guys should try discussing Kierkegaard's ideas of religion instead of sharing personal opinions. That might keep things more on topic. Let's start with: the teleological suspension of the ethical. Thoughts anyone?
John wrote: "You guys should try discussing Kierkegaard's ideas of religion instead of sharing personal opinions. That might keep things more on topic.
Let's start with: the teleological suspension of the e..."
Yes, certainly. I've always thought it was a fine piece of complete religious absurdity. But it is a nice example of With god, all things are permitted.
Let's start with: the teleological suspension of the e..."
Yes, certainly. I've always thought it was a fine piece of complete religious absurdity. But it is a nice example of With god, all things are permitted.
On the other hand, I think we delude ourselves about the extent of free will. We can say that we choose to believe in God or not believe in God, but in reality most of that choice is made for us by biological predisposition, upbringing, the circumstances and events of our lives, the manipulation of our desires by messaging, our psychological profile, etc.Very true Kate, which is one of the reasons I do not see much point in discussing it. Either you believe in it or you don't.
I resent the assertion made by Nemo (sorry Nemo!) that I 'believe in God' which is one I have come across before from believers. It is patronising in the extreme to tell me what I do and do not believe in. This is philosophical claptrap, like trying to prove how many angels dance on a pinhead and I utterly reject it! Sorry if this seems harsh but that sort of remark to a full blooded atheist is like a red rag to a bull!
Because I TRY to discuss God and religion does not mean that I am for one moment accepting any of the ideas surrounding what I see as the mythology of it all. For me it is just like analysing Grimm's Fairy Tales - I 'suspend my disbelief' for the purpose of the discussion, I do not surrender my entire life's rational thinking. Nor do I want to, nor have I ever wanted to and I am perfectly happy with that - as Kate says, anything else would be damaging to my concept of self. In essence I acknowledge no sort of higher authority except earthly ones and those only temporarily and for certain reasons, like obeying the laws of my government. For me the very essence of freedom and equality are tied up with not having any higher authority to order my life.
However, as I haven't the faintest idea what the 'teleological suspension of the ethical' means, or about much philosophy in general I will hang my head in shame and totter off elsewhere:).
MadgeUK wrote: "On the other hand, I think we delude ourselves about the extent of free will. We can say that we choose to believe in God or not believe in God, but in reality most of that choice is made for us by..."
It's in Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", Madge, where he addresses God's demand of Abraham that he kill his son, Isaac, as a test of faith. It's an apparent paradox that God as the source of ethics requires that Abraham commit a supremely unethical act in order to prove his faith. Kierkegaard concludes that god temporarily suspended the human understanding of ethics, which He may do since God’s distinction between good and evil outranks any human society’s definition. It's a rather schizophrenic argument to me.
It's in Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling", Madge, where he addresses God's demand of Abraham that he kill his son, Isaac, as a test of faith. It's an apparent paradox that God as the source of ethics requires that Abraham commit a supremely unethical act in order to prove his faith. Kierkegaard concludes that god temporarily suspended the human understanding of ethics, which He may do since God’s distinction between good and evil outranks any human society’s definition. It's a rather schizophrenic argument to me.
MadgeUK wrote: "I resent the assertion made by Nemo (sorry Nemo!) that I 'believe in God' which is one I have come across before from believers. ..."You lost me there, MadgeUK. When did I assert that you believe in God?
You posted:-MadgeUK wrote: "Of course, it all depends on the faith I do not have."
'You do have faith. :) The reason you reject an unloving God is because you believe God, if He exists, must be loving...'
Kate Mc. wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "On the other hand, I think we delude ourselves about the extent of free will. We can say that we choose to believe in God or not believe in God, but in reality most of that choice i..."The many philosophical arguments concocted about the God-Abraham-Isaac affair so as to absolve God always disgust me.
To call Kierkegaard's teleological suspension of the ethical "absurd" and "schizophrenic" is to miss the irony of the point that he's trying to make. He's asking, rhetorically, is there anything else we should have in mind as the ultimate good other than the human good? You do understand that he's not actually making a case for murder, right? Also, in making the point, he's implicitly arguing against the Hegelian syncretism out of which ideas like "the collective human good is that toward which all ethical actions should strive toward bettering." The point should be seen as a small piece of his overall attack on Hegel.
He's asking, rhetorically, is there anything else we should have in mind as the ultimate good other than the human good?And what is his conclusion? What about the good of the animal world and the planet, which concerns quite a lot of post-Kierkegaardians?
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing: Spiritual Preparation for the Office of Confession (other topics)Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing: Spiritual Preparation for the Office of Confession (other topics)
Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing: Spiritual Preparation for the Office of Confession (other topics)
War and Peace (other topics)
The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening (other topics)
More...
Some of the most caring people I know are secular atheists. Somewhat ironically, I find the people that are eager to show their Christianity on their sleeve don't particularly go out of their way to be Christ-like.
Patrice, you keep referring to your class, your professor, et cetera. I haven't been keeping up with all your posts. Are you reading "Brothers" for a class? Or are you a college student who's reading it for pleasure?