He looks just like a tax collector.

Wait so you’re argument is “faith means a hell of a lot to me” so you must be a ‘knight of faith’? Isn’t the concept of a knight of faith, like inherently bashing that line of thinking? I thought the term referred to someone so selfless and divested of an ego that they literally only had room for god. Like your entire comment/thought is a pat on the back- isn’t tht like the opposite of someone divested of ego? If the emphasis is “i am this thing, because I believe this concept” haven’t you already completely given yourself over to ego and the “self”?

Don’t think so much , just do what you want to, by taking risk.

@@seano6859 right, like if one says he's enlighten, then he's not enlighten

​@@seano6859 Dont read too much KZfaq comments, its always clueless people that seek to comfort themselves

Does the Knight of Faith remain open to the possibility that anything is possible? And in so receiving, he begets the impossible.

Fear and Trembling kicked my ass. GREAT READ. Head splitting, however. I'm very very limited in how much I can fit in the brain.

@@yakamen I'll fit you into a brain. Think it can't? Well, think abrain. Then get out! Buy a one way thoughtet and travel on a free faith train (not a brain!) 👍

And I posit that in an increasingly secular world, empty of ethicity and responsibility to others, we find ourselves mired in growing despair and apathy. A world in which the majority feigns ignorance of the root of the despair in order to justify selfishness.

De knight of faith is a dancer with high elevation.

Me too

Me too

Gait.

Abraham was not required to sacrifice Isaac indeed, and Kierkegaard even imagines various scenarios in which he doesn't (such as one where at the last moment he decides to sacrifice himself instead). However, Kierkegaard's thesis in fear and trembling is exactly the kind of faith that made Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac, so if Abraham hadn't sacrificed Isaac, Kierkegaard just wouldn't have written the book.

@@pepijnstreng4643 I was expecting ridicule, not actual logic. I'm both impressed and relieved. One thing I do have to say is Isaac was never actually sacrificed. He came close though.

Mastema the fallen angel tried to trick Abraham into sacrificing Issac (see the passage regarding Abraham chasing away the unclean birds from the carcass, this is what remains of the originally story). God intervened to provide the ram in the thicket, He did not set the attempted human sacrifice in motion. The “it’s a foreshadowing of God’s sacrifice of Christ later on” is incorrect. The Jewish God doesn’t want human sacrifice. The Christian God doesn’t want human sacrifice. Please see The Book of Jubilees for more information. God bless.

@@jameswilson9349 Oh, then I guess Moses deliberately lied then, and Jehovah had such a lie included in his Word? "Now after this the true God put Abraham to the test..." (Genesis 22: 1) It was no demon, as this uninspired piece of apocrypha says, and there were no birds involved in this account at all. That was in an event that took place *long* before Isaac was even *conceived* . You can't even get your own story straight! You don't even know anything about the Bible in general with this lunacy of saying there was a Hebrew god AND a Christian god. They worshipped the same god! That right there discredits anything you have to say, on top of the fact that you're trying to use apocrypha as your source material. If a demon had wanted to get Abraham to sacrifice his son, it would have been to sever the line leading up to Jesus, who did sacrifice his life by the way, and Jehovah would have never allowed that demon to even *speak* such a thing to Abraham. If he was following the voice of some demon, then it would have never been counted to Abraham as an act of faith. "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac-the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son-" (Hebrews 11: 17) Again, Abraham was being tested, *by Jehovah no less* . Besides all of that, what was Abraham told after the angel stopped him? "And Jehovah’s angel called to Abraham a second time from the heavens, 16 saying: “‘By myself I swear,’ declares Jehovah, ‘that because you have done this and you have not withheld your son, your only one, 17 I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the grains of sand on the seashore, and your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. 18 And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’” (Genesis 22: 15-18) That "offspring", by the way, was Christ himself. This only reinforces the fact that it was no demon that told Abraham to sacrifice his son. In fact, the marginal reference for this "offspring" in verse 17 points directly to Daniel 2: 44 where it says "“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever," That is how the enthroned Jesus will fulfill prophecy and "take possession of the gate of his enemies." Yes, Abraham's metaphorical sacrifice of Isaac indeed foreshadowed Jehovah sacrificing his own son, as a ransom to cancel out the sin of Adam and provide human kind with an opportunity for eternal life later on...as was the original plan before Adam and Eve decided to follow Satan as their ruler. After all it is written: "And God loved the world so much that he sent his only begotten son..." (John 3: 16) Why? "...to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10: 45) Jehovah sent his son to be sacrificed, which is exactly what all the animal sacrifices were taking the place of. "For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we may render sacred service to the living God?" (Hebrews 9: 13,14) Jeus was sent "in order to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people," as said in Hebrews 2: 17. You are wrong. Your misguided ignorance amuses me greatly. That is all I have to say to you. (edited formatting)

@@angelus_solus Can you explain me what was the necessity exactly of the God of Abraham to test his loyalty ? And is this the kind of faith he demands of his followers ?

Sending that message does not require murder. Any faith founded by murder is a lie and more grounded in the work of a devil than any idea of a God. Just look at all the Abrahamic religions kill counts, it's the same as their "heathen" counterparts in terms of violence and evil.

Amen.

It's gore

gård

Isn't it obvious?

We need the universal, and you need to turn caps off

The knight of sheesh

I believe he refers to the chivalry, "the medieval knight with its religious, moral and social code". He specifies in the chapter that it is not exclusive to man, there are female knights (knightess), but historically it has been man that was concerned with knighthood. He uses it metaphorically not as a fighter in the common sense, but perhaps as wrestling with God, with the spiritual, with the inner realm.

@@AG10381 Maybe it is some leap of faith in shiny armor...

Knights leave home to go on quests or adventures. They don't have the duties yet of a king.

19:30 Holy Qur'an قَالَ إِنِّى عَبْدُ ٱللَّهِ ءَاتَىٰنِىَ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَجَعَلَنِى نَبِيًّۭا ٣٠ [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allāh. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.

To call Christ a prophet ONLY is to ignore that He said that He was God incarnate. No other prophet did this, so either He was correct, or he was a heretic. His rising from the grave proves that He was correct. @@ouch000u

(Also, Issac would have been an adult)@@ouch000u

I think Kierkegaard (or Johannes) would heavily disagree. I mean, the whole point of the book is to see that faith is not a beginning but an end. It is a critique of Hegel's System and Absolute Mind, which was the norm back then, that faith is just part of the system and needs to be overcome, Kierkegaard says that you can't go further than Faith. Starting as a knight of faith is impossible without resignation. Abraham starts just as any religious person. He asks God for a son and his wish is granted. God later tests him and tells him to sacrifice his son. He accepts and becomes a knight of infinite resignation (first movement). As he's about to sacrifice Isaac, God points him to a ram - here is where the movement of faith is made, here is where he becomes a knight of faith. The movement of faith is the byproduct of him obeying God to the end, which is why he's known as the father of faith. He becomes a knight of faith only then. Unlike the knight of infinite resignation, he receives everything he lost back in full.

@@raskolnikovman936 All correct but for that Isaac was gifted to him in he and his wife's old age. It was a miracle in itself when Abe was already long into Faith. He was not resigned about the sacrifice. His belief was in fulfilling the absurd.

@@yakamen Well I see your point. But from my reading at least, Kierkegaard believes faith requires infinite resignation beforehand. Part of his extreme views on the spheres of existence, it's an either/or: ethical marriage or religious belief in God. Kierkegaard later held different views on faith. While he sacrificed his relation with Regina Olsen (which he later regretted), he did it to pursue his career of writing and becoming an author, in order to ultimately lead people into the religious sphere of existence with all of his pseudonyms. The goal, I think, is that he found meaning in life through God and wanted other individuals to do the same. I guess he could be a knight of infinite resignation (giving up Regine) rather than a knight of faith. He wasn't a particularly happy fellow and remained in great suffering until his death.

@@raskolnikovman936 No, you're absolutely right. He was VERY pro-faith. Something to consider is his pen-name in F&T Johannes de Silentio. I learned in one of my classes that this harkened to the old apologist days when the author wrote one thing with irony to indicate hidden meaning. He was in fact playing with the Logos/Ethos/Pathos of the classic form, i.e. "listen to me" vs "don't listen to me" poking at the Absurdity of faith. He isn't saying Faith is Absurd. He believes QUITE the opposite -- he thinks it's crucial. He's saying the capacity to be faithful to God is itself Absurd. Like, if you aren't willing to gamble in a Leap of Faith, you're gambling with whether Hell is real, anyway, like Pascal's wager. So he's poking at the Logos of the Knight of Resignation to outline the Ethos and Pathos of the Knight of Faith. He's saying the Knight of Faith is ABSURD -- but he is correct in being so, due to the nature of the Leap of Faith. It's been 10 years since I've read Fear & Trembling. I do believe - keyword BELIEVE - that he never meant for Abraham to have been resigned at *any point. This would have been counter to his thesis. He's setting up antithesis to knock down when he's pointing at any knight of resignation: it takes Intellect to be reserved. Like, PROBABLY God has a plan so I might as well kill Isaac, and see what he means. Vs. God is just, I know nothing, but I shall obey. HOW ABSURD! I love this book. It kicked my ass reading it. Anyway, I'm some random asshole on the internet. The hell do I know? I'm probably wrong. Don't trust me!!

@@yakamen Abraham was resigned about the sacrifice (the first movement, becoming a knight of infinite resignation) but then he went further by making the second movement where he believed by virtue of the absurd that he would receive Isaac back: "Abraham makes two movements. He makes the infinite movement of resignation and gives up Isaac, which no one can understand because it is a private venture; but next, at every moment, he makes the movement of faith. This is his consolation. In other words, he is saying: But it [the sacrifice] will not happen, or if it does, the Lord will give me a new Isaac, that is, by virtue of the absurd" (FT 115, Hong translation).

Did you not listen to the video? When you approach it from the ethical of course it seems horrible but then you read it from the religious perspective and the knight of faith appears

It seems that way because you lack understanding of the whole picture. You can't look at it merely as a series of recorded events, like one would listen to the news. Isaac was likely not a young child at this point but a young man. He carried the wood for his father who was too old to do so himself. Isaac was not tricked or overpowered by Abraham but was willing to be the sacrifice and carry out God's Will with his Father. The event was sorrowful for both of them but they had faith in God and hope for deliverance. This also mirrors the form of Christs sacrifice later, with Christ not only willingly carrying out the Father's Will, but with sorrow and hope. To bring the connection even further home: both Christ and Isaac carried their own sacrificial wood up the mountain. Where Isaac was spared from death by the ram however, Christ is both Son and Lamb.

The point of Kierkegaard's book was him trying to wrap his head around how Abraham could've done what he did by proper reason, in human terms. Your criticism is purely ethical, which is why you would view the story as such. Yet somebody from a religious viewpoint would say, "He did what he did because God told him to, and it was credited to him as righteousness" The development of faith in God's commands rather than doing what everyone else is doing ethically, becomes the right thing to. Faith in God is defined subjectively and expressed outwardly by the love one has for God and what He commands.