Selected Entries from Kierkegaard’s Journals

John E Bradburn

A certain presentiment (a feeling that something will happen) seems to precede everything that is to happen; but just as it can have a deterring effect, it can also tempt a person to think that that he is, as it were, predestined, he sees himself carried onto something as though by consequences beyond his control.

Therefore one ought to be very careful with children, never believe the worst and by untimely suspicion or by a chance remark (a flame of hell which ignites the tinder which is in every soul) occasion an anxious consciousness in which innocent but fragile souls can easily be tempted to believe themselves guilty, to despair, and thereby make the first step toward the goal foreshadowed by the unsettling presentiment—a remark which gives the kingdom of evil, with its stupefying, snakelike eye, an occasion for reducing them to a kind of spiritual paralysis. Of this too it may be said: Woe unto him by whom the offense comes. 


Frequently the reading of medical case histories can produce an effect related to presentiment—yet two factors are already present here: in a way the makings of sickness are present in the fear—for it is difficult to say which produces the other—there is a certain receptivity (ready and willing to accept something such as new ideas) so strong that it is almost productive—Also the effect which executions, for example produce—The many phenomena which are evoked by the doctrine of the sin against the Holy Spirit.—All sin begins with fear (just as fear of a sickness is a disposition toward it); however, the first human beings [Adam & Eve] did not begin with it—there was no hereditary sin.


All existence makes me anxious (says Kierkegaard) from the smallest fly to the mysteries of the incarnation; the whole thing is inexplicable to me, I myself most of all; to me all existence is infected, I myself most of all. My distress is enormous, boundless; no one knows it except God in heaven, and he will not console me; no one can console me except God in heaven, and he will not take compassion on me—Young man, you who still stand at the beginning of your goal, if you have gone astray, turn back to God,  and from His upbringing you will take along with you a youthfulness strengthened for many tasks. You will never know the suffering of one who, having wasted the courage and energy of youth in insubordination against Him, must begin to retreat, weak and exhausted, through devastated countries and ravaged provinces, everywhere surrounded by the abomination of desolation, by burned out cities and the smoking ruins of frustrated hopes, by trampled prosperity and toppled success—a retreat as slow as a bad year, as long as eternity, monotonously broken by the daily repeated sigh: These days—I find no satisfaction in them.


If I had faith, I would have stayed with Regine.  Thanks to God I now see that. I have been on the point of losing my mind these days. Humanly speaking, I was fair to her, perhaps I should never have become engaged, but from that moment I treated her honestly….If I had not honoured her higher than myself as my future wife, if I had not been prouder of her honour than my own, then I would have remained silent and fulfilled her wish with mine—I would have married her—there are so many marriages which conceal little stories. That I did not want, then she would have become my concubine

(a woman who lives with a man and has a sexual relationship with him but is not married to him); I would rather have murdered her.—But if I were to explain myself, I would have to initiate her into terrible things, my relationship to my father, his melancholy, the eternal night brooding within me, my going astray, my lusts and debauchery, which, however, in the eyes of God perhaps are not so glaring; for it was, afterall, anxiety that made me go astray,  and where was I to seek a safe stronghold when I knew or suspected that the only man I had admired for his strength was tottering.


I cannot extricate (to release somebody or something with difficulty from a physical constraint or an unpleasant or complicated situation) myself from this relationship, for I cannot write about it, inasmuch as the instant I want to do that I am invaded by anxiety, an impatience which wants to act.


Deep within every human being there still lives the anxiety (nervousness or agitation, often about something that is going to happen) over the possibility of being alone in the world, forgotten by God, overlooked among the millions and millions in this enormous household The Jews of Judea and the (God overlooks no one) A person keeps this anxiety at a distance by looking at the many roundabout who are related to him as kin and friends, but the anxiety is still there, nevertheless, and he hardly dares think of how he would feel if all this were taken away.


It is appalling to think even for one single moment about the dark background of my life right from its earliest beginning. The anxiety with which my father filled my soul, his own frightful depression, a lot which I cannot even write down. I acquired an anxiety about Christianity and yet felt powerfully attracted to it. And then what I suffered later from 1 Peter 4 when he became morbidly religious.


1 Peter 4 (KJV)

01 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;


02 That He no longer should live the rest of His time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.


03 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:


04 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:


05 Who shall give account to Him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.


06 For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.


07 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.


08 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.


09 Use hospitality one to another without grudging.


10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.


11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:


13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.


14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified.


15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.


16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.


17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?


18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?


19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to Him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.




As I mentioned, it is frightful to think for a single moment of the kind of life I have led in my most hidden inwardness, literally never a word about it spoken to a single human being, of course, not even daring to write down the least thing about it—and then that I have been able to encase that life in an exterior existence of zest for life and cheerfulness….


The thought that God tests [prover], yes, tempts, a man (“lead us not into temptation”) must not horrify us. The way one looks upon it makes the crucial difference. Disbelief, melancholy, etc., immediately become anxious and afraid and really impute (to attribute a usually undesirable action or event to somebody) to God the intention of doing it in order that man shall fail. However remote it may be that the melancholy anxiety in a  man would think of having such thoughts abut God, yet in the profoundest sense (very great, strong, or intense) he really does think in this way, but without knowing it or becoming aware of it. Just like the hot headed person who is said not to know what he is doing. The believer, however, immediately interprets the matter inversely (opposite to or reversing something); he believes that God does it in order that he shall meet the test [proven]. Alas, in a certain sense this is why disbelief, melancholy, anxiety, etc., so often fail in the test, because they enervate (to weaken somebody's physical, mental, or moral vitality) themselves in advance—it is punishment for thinking ill of God; whereas faith usually conquers.

But this is a rigorous (strict, harsh, unrelenting) upbringingthis going from inborn anxiety to faith. Anxiety is the most terrible kind of spiritual trial—before the point is reached where the same man is disciplined in faith, that is, to regard everything inversely (opposite to or reversing something), to remain full of hope and confidence when something happens which previously almost made him faint and expire with anxiety, to plunge fearlessly into something against which he previously knew only one means of safety, to flee, and so on.

The person with inborn anxiety (inherited from parents or possessed from birth) can very often have even a visionary idea of God’s love. But he cannot concretize (to make something solid, real, or specific) his relationship to God. If his idea of God’s love has a deeper ground in him and he is devoutly concerned, above all else to nourish and preserve it, then in many ways and for a long, long time his life can go on in the agonizing suffering of getting no impression in concreto that God is love (for anxiety continues to be too overpowering for him and prevents him from seeing the danger, the test, the temptation etc., in the right way, that they are for him to meet}, while he still all the more firmly attaches himself to and clings to the thought Yes, but God id love just the same.    

This is a sign that he is being educated or brought up to faith, To hold fast way to the thought that God is love just the same is the abstract form of faith, faith in destructo. Then the time will come when he will succeed in concretizing (to make something solid, real, or specific) his God relationship.


The most terrible punishment for sin is the new sin. This does not mean that the hardened, confident sinner will understand it this way. But if a man shudders at the thought of his sin, if he would gladly endure anything in order to avoid falling into the old sin in the future, then the new sin is the most terrible punishment for sin.

There are collisions here (especially in the sphere of sinful thought) in which anxiety over the sin can almost call forth the sin.

When this is the case, a desperate wrong turn may be made. Vigilius Haufniensis has described it thus: Repentance loses its mind. As long as repentance keeps its head, what should stand eternally fast does stand fast—namely, that the sin must be overcome. But in his despair it may not enter the unhappy man’s head that since the new sin is in fact the most terrible punishment of sin he perhaps ought to put up with it. No doubt this is how to understand what quietism has taught, that a man might be saved and yet continue in sin. In deadly anxiety he trembles before the new sin—but since it is in fact the punishment, despair takes him prisoner, as if there were nothing to do.

Here we see the difference in the ways temptation and spiritual trial should be fought:

·       in the case of temptation the right thing may be to contend by avoiding.

·       In the case of spiritual trial one must go through it.

Temptation should be avoided; try not to see or hear what tempts you. If it is spiritual trial, go straight toward it, trusting in God and Christ.

Since in our time people have no idea at all of spiritual trial, anyone who suffers from it in our time would also be regarded as a very extraordinary sinner.


Descartes (In his essay, De passionibus) observes correctly that admiratio no opposite. Similarly, that cupiditas ought not to have its opposite in aversio but ought to have no opposite. This is important for my theory of anxiety.


Aristotle’s view that philosophy begins with wonder, and as in our day with doubt, is a positive point of departure for philosophy. Indeed, the world will no doubt learn that it does not do to begin with the negative, and the reason for success up to the present is that philosophers have never quite surrendered to the negative and thus have never earnestly done what they have said. They merely flirt with doubt. [For it is owing to their wonder that men both now and at first began to philosophize….].

[For this feeling of wonder shows that you are a philosopher, since wonder is the only beginning of philosophy] Plato.

All of us have a little psychological insight, some powers of observation, but when this science or art manifests itself in its infinitude (the infinite nature of something), when it abandons minor transactions on the street and in dwellings in order to scurry after its favourite: the person shut up within himself [the person of inclosing reserve (to surround or shut in something)—the men grow weary.


Concerning The Concept of Anxiety

A plain and simple psychological deliberation on the

Dogmatic issue of hereditary sin


S Kirkgaard


[Magister atrium] the open central courtyard of an ancient Roman house.

Draft of Epigraph


Is it not remarkable that the greatest master of irony (humour based on using words to suggest the opposite of their literal meaning) and the greatest humourist, separated by 2,000 years, may join together in doing and admiring what we should suppose everyone had done, if this fact did not testify to the contrary? Hamann says of Socrates: “He was great because he distinguished between what he understood and what he did not understand.” If only Socrates could have had an epitaph! Many an innocent person has drained the poisoned cup, many a one has sacrificed his life for the idea, but this epitaph belongs to Socrates alone: Here rests Socrates, he distinguished between what he understood and what he did not understand. Or perhaps better simply to quote Hamann’s words.


Another draft of Epigraph:

The age of distinction is long past, because the system abrogates it (end an agreement or contract formally and publicly) He who loves it must be regarded as an oddity, a lover of something that vanished long ago. This may well be, yet while my soul clings to Socrates, its first love, and rejoices in the one who understood him, Hamann; for he has said the best that has been said about Socrates, something far more remarkable and rare than he taught young people and made fun of the Sophists (ancient Greek philosopher) and drained the poison cup: Socrates was great because he distinguished (well-known and respected for an achievement, skill knowledge, or talent),between what he understood and what he did not understand.


Draft of Dedication:

To the late

Professor Poul Martin Møller


The happy lover of Greek culture, the admirer of Homer, the confidant of Socrates, the interpreter of Aristotle—Denmark’s joy in “Joy over Denmark”—the enthusiasm of my youth; the confidant of my beginnings; my lost friend, my sadly missed reader though widely travelled yet always remembered in the Danish summer.” The mighty trumpet of my awakening; the desired object of my feelings, this work is dedicated.


Deleted from final copy


Concerning my own humble person, I frankly confess—no matter how my confession is understood—that I am fully aware that as an author I am a king without a country, and have endeavoured to cut my coat from my own cloth and to be an author without any claims. If in the best sense of the word it seems too much to zealous (actively and unreservedly enthusiastic) envy that I bear a Latin name, it may serve as pleasant news that if anyone desires that I can be of service, I shall gladly assume the name Christen Madsen (he died 11 November 1855). Most of all I wish to be regarded as an ale house keeper, innkeeper, or as a plain layman who walks the floor and speculates without wishing that his speculative should be regarded as speculation. I would not for anything in the world want to be an authority, not even for the most insignificant man, because I regard being authority as the most boring of all things. But in relation to everyone else, I apply myself to be as devout in my belief in authority as the Roman was tolerant in his worship of God. When it comes to human authority, I profess to fetishism (an irrational obsession with or attachment to something) and worship anyone whomsoever with equal piety, provided it is made sufficiently clear by a proper beating of drums that he has become the authority and the imprimatur (authority to do, say, or especially print something) for the current year, whether this is decided by lottery or whether the honour is passed around, just as one of the 36 representatives takes his turn on the board of arbitration (the process of resolving disputes between people or groups by referring them to a third party, either agreed by them or provided by law, who makes a judgment)


From draft


[Thus when an author entitles the last section of the Logic (philosophy the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning) “Actuality” (something that is real, as opposed to what is expected, intended, or feared) which Hegel has done and the Hegelian school did again and again [ the advantage is gained that it seems as if through logic the highest were already reached, or, if one prefers, the lowest)….



…..Even in our little Denmark men have come to the rescue of logical movement. In his “logical system,” which, despite all movement, does not come further than to (the beginning of the doctrine of quantity) [a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct]


Logic and the Limits of Philosophy in Kant and Hegel


(1)  Introduction***** transcendental (spiritual) logic

This chapter is an analysis of the meaning of quantity in the transcendental logic of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. I begin this chapter with an analysis of Kant’s description of the specific project of transcendental logic. This analysis emphasizes the way in which Kant uses general logic as a contrast to define the transcendental logic. I turn then to analysis of the meaning of quantity within transcendental logic. I argue that since the Analytic of Concepts does not offer a full transcendental exposition of quantity as a category, but the Analytic of Principles does, and since Kant calls the Analytic of Principles a doctrine because it represents a conclusion of the Transcendental Analytic, we ought to base our interpretation of quantity in transcendental logic on the Analytic of Principles. It is the first two chapters of the Analytic of Principles that provide us with what I will call Kant’s transcendental doctrine of quantity. The sole project of this chapter is to highlight the

treatment of quantity in the Transcendental Analytic, so as to set up the comparison of transcendental logic and general logic in the next chapter.

 (2) In Kant’s words: transcendental logic This section discusses transcendental logic and its relation to general logic. We find Kant making statements in regard to this relation in the introduction to the whole of the transcendental logic, and in the introduction to the second book of the Transcendental Analytic. Because both of these introductions frame their descriptions of transcendental logic by its identity and difference with respect to formal logic, they are eminently important for my inquiry. Some of these sections were already discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, but only to work up an interpretation of the general and pure logic that Kant takes as his clue to the deduction of the categories. Now we return to them to gather what we can about the nature of transcendental logic itself.

(A)  Origin.

The first section of note comes from the introduction to the transcendental logic as a whole. Kant begins by stating that general logic is not concerned with the origin of our representations because it has abstracted from the content of cognition (the mental faculty or process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition, or perception). He claims transcendental logic does not make this abstraction, but rather takes up the possibility (something that is possible) of there being for cognition a manifold  (many and various) presented by intuition (study and gain, Bullingers knowledge, and wisdom, particularly through  the KJV Companion Bible) This is precisely what is directly presupposed (to believe that a particular thing is true before there is any proof of it) by the determinate sciences, and indirectly presupposed by logic (through the Holy Spirit).

The analysis of the origin of cognition will be a logic and not a determinate science, because it is not looking at any particular content (Except the KJV Bible). Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” It does not seek to inform us about any particular part of the objective world, but rather investigatesI the condition for the possibility of knowing as such actuality (something that is real, as opposed to what is expected, intended, or feared). It will be transcendental (independent of human experience of phenomena but within the range of knowledge) insofar as it analyses the form of the cognition of an object in general and articulates the a priori elements (relating to an argument that suggests the probable effects of a known cause, or using general principles to suggest likely effects) constitutive of this form (forming a part of something).  In Kant’s word, a transcendental logic (independent of human experience of phenomena but within the range of knowledge).,philosophical%20movement%20that%20followed%20him would therefore concern the origin of our cognitions of objects insofar as that cannot be ascribed to the objects; while general logic, on the contrary, has nothing to do with this origin of cognition, but rather considers representations, whether they are originally given a priori (relating to an argument that suggests the probable effects of a known cause, or using general principles to suggest likely effects) in ourselves or only empirically (philosophy: derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic) merely in respect of the laws according to which the understanding brings them into relation to one another when it thinks, and therefore it deals only with the form of the understanding, which can be given to the representations wherever they may have originated.


This is the first and one of the best examples of Kant’s defining the project of transcendental logic in its difference from formal logic (done in an organised and precise manner). Here general logic is not concerned with the origin of the representations in question. It concerns only the formal rules of thought’s self-agreement. Since it is only a treatment of the rules for the correct use of the understanding in general, the question of the origin of the object of cognition and of thought’s a priori contribution to this cognition (the mental faculty or process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition, or perception) is something outside of general logic’s sphere (a field of knowledge, interest, or activity).


Genesis 2:7 (KJV) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”


Continued from (Even in our little Denmark): And, despite its proud title, was not able to emancipate (free) itself from a very subordinate (secondary in importance) existence in a periodical (magazine), Professor Heiberg nevertheless succeeded in making everything move—except the system,  which comes to a halt at Logic23, although one might have believed that the system would have moved by itself through an imminent movement, and the more so because the author indicated in the “Preface” the course of development, namely, that the published essay was “the first contribution to a long cherished plan of setting forth the logical system.” This he wished to do, not merely for its own sake, but as a means by which he also “intended to pave the way for an aesthetics (outward appearance), which for some time he had wished to present.” Just an example: the professor explains to us that in order to form the transition from quality to quantity “it is not enough to define quantity as unqualified being in general; it is the annulled quality; that is to say: quantity is not the first presupposition-less being but is the being which, after the quality has been presupposed (to make something necessary if a particular thing is to be shown to be true or false). and then annulled, returns to the same indeterminateness (not known exactly, or impossible to work out).” Now this may be quite correct, but the difficulty lies in the fact that both being and quality are treated as identical. But being is no quality; logically speaking, it is rather the empty, the content-less, (amount of something in the container), whereas even according to Hegel’s definition, quantity is einfache Bestimmtheit [simple determinateness], and therefore it is not essentially being but determinateness. Thus when one proceeds from being and annuls this in order to return to it again, one will never arrive at quality, and much less a new quality. Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 

Magister Alder (in his popular lecture on Hegel’s objective logic, Copenhagen 1842) makes the movement even better. He says, “When the quality is indifferent, quantity appears as the qualifying factor.” One would be tempted to answer him with an emphasis even greater than that of the Lacedaemonians (a native or inhabitant of Lacedaemon, an area of ancient Greece comprising the city of Sparta and its surroundings) when?


Note. Should anyone want further explanation of the unwarranted (unauthorised) use of the negative in logic, I simply refer him to Adolf Trendelenburg, Die logische Frage in Hegel’s System, zwei Streitsschriften, Berlin 1843. Trendelenburg is well schooled in Greek philosophy and is unimpressed with humbug.


Sin belongs in ethics, and the mood that corresponds to its conception is ethical earnestness or, more correctly, earnestness (for it is also a confusion of language to speak of esthetical, psychological, or metaphysical earnestness). Ethics does not overcome sin metaphysically, for it knows in all earnestness that sin has endurance; it does not flee sin esthetically or mourn over it esthetically, for it abrogates (to end an agreement or contract) sin; it does not become psychologically absorbed in it, for it knows that sin is not a state. But there is also a difficulty about sin having a place in ethics.


Dogmatics does not prove hereditary sin, but explains it by presupposing it (to make something necessary if a particular thing is to be shown to be true or false). In a scientific sense one may say about sin what the Greeks—before their consciousness matured, and as far as it was possible for paganism to rise to the conception of providence said of the vortex that was the origin of all things: It is present everywhere as something no one can lay hold of. No science can deal with sin satisfactorily, yet the simplest man can grasp it. Finally, dogmatics takes hold of hereditary sin and explains it by presupposing it (to make something necessary if a particular thing is to be shown to be true or false).


From what has been said, It may seem that sin has no place in any science, since metaphysics cannot lay hold of it (the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of the nature of being and beings, existence, time and space, and causality). Psychology cannot overcome it (the scientific study of the human mind and mental states and of human and animal behaviour), ethics must ignore it (the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct). And dogmatics (explains it by means of hereditary sin), which, in turn, it must explain by presupposing it (to make something necessary if a particular thing is to be shown to be true or false). This is quite correct, but it is also correct that sin finds a place within the totality of the new science that is prefigured (to represent, often in form or likeness, a person, thing, or event that is to come) in the imminent science (about to happen, or threatening to happen) and that begins with dogmatics in the same sense that first science begins with metaphysics.

So what Søren Kierkegaard is saying here is that: philosophy (the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom) can,                                                                                                        and has the capability of, explanation. But it cannot explain the spirit nature within us all.  For that we need the Holy Bible (KJV)  the Holy Spirit, and God.


Here again we see an example of how far immanence (existing within or inherent in something) reaches, and that with exclusive validity one succeeds only in confusing everything, Satan is the father of confusion. on this point compare with Fear and Trembling (KW VI (SV III 93), where the necessity of “the leap” is emphasised numerous times with respect to the dialectical (philosophy achieved or attempted by dialectic) and to Pathos (Pay-thos: the quality in something that makes people feel pity or sadness), which is the substance of the leap.


This possibility, like every possibility, cannot have the particularity of any empirical (based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory) actuality (something that is real, as opposed to what is expected, intended, or feared). Therefore, it is important to maintain with profound (strong) psychological decisiveness: [if you know one you know all]. When the possibility of sin appears in one man, it has appeared in all, and only the arena of ideal observation is left for the deliberation of the more and the less. In life, the possibility of sin occurs no more than other possibilities. In [the] margin: and its mood should be that of contemplative, interested attention with a touch of the aesthetic and the sharp contours of observation.


If this is held fast somewhat accurately, it will become apparent that it relates to the doctrine of absolute spirit, Genesis 2:7 (KJV) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. …and when we die…Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

Which is dogmatics; whereas ethics is the doctrine of objective spirit (free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings),

Which factually (involving, containing, or based on fact) and empirically (based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory) has actuality (something that is real, as opposed to what is expected, intended, or feared) as its sphere (a field of knowledge, interest, or activity).


…..for that first sin is sinfulness, and by that sin sinfulness entered into Adam, and in the same way it enters every man. By Adam’s first sin, sinfulness entered into Adam and gave birth to actual sins in him. By the second man’s sin, sinfulness entered into the second man and gave birth to his sins.


…..for it is a contradiction to sorrow esthetically (pleasing in appearance) over sinfulness. The only one who sorrowed innocently over sinfulness was Christ, and so it might seem that He sorrowed esthetically over it. But then he also carried all the sins of the world, and therefore He sorrowed ethically (consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct) over sinfulness.


…..How many a learned theologian has not known how to explain the teachings of the Bible, the Church, the Fathers, the Symbols of the Church, as well of those of the Philosophers, on hereditary sin in his own or another man’s consciousness? Nevertheless, this is the first thing that everyman is assigned (to determine that somebody or something has a particular quality, name, use, or category) to do, and every man, if he carefully examines himself, possesses within himself a more complete expression for everything human that the summa sumarrum (summary of all knowledge on a subject). Of all the knowledge he gains in the above manner.


Even with regard to the guilt of a subsequent man, this statement seems to presume that ethics (The study of moral standards and how they affect conduct) makes an unethical about face and permits guilt to appear through a merely quantitative (relating to, concerning, or based on the amount or number of something) determination (firmness of purpose, will, or intention), or permits it to appear as a deus ex machina, although the individual was never innocent. But it would be more pretentious to apply the statement to Adam’s innocence, making it the secret agent [the enemy] paid to overthrow him.


Herein lies the great significance of Adam (Hebrew Adham)  above that of every other individual in the race, a distinction that is not qualitative (relating to or based on the quality or character of something, often as opposed to its size or quantity) but quantitative (relating to, concerning, or based on the amount or number of something) [just one], and herein lies the truth of the saying that sinfulness entered the world by Adam. The expression may seem to say too much, but just as the previous chapter reduced the meaning of the expression to the point where sin entered Adam,


1.     Tree of Knowledge” man’s ruin;


2.     “The Tree [stake}” man’s redemption;    


3.     “The Tree of Life man’s Regeneration.


Good and evil; Knowledge sense or perception, obedience proving what was good, disobedience; revealing what was evil.


Opposition to God’s Word is Satan’s sphere of activity.This is Satan’s first utterance in scripture. Eve misquotes God by omittingfreely’’ Eve adds the sentence; “neither shall ye touch it, ’and “lest ye die.’’ Is also misquoted; by not repeating the emphatic figure, and thus omitting “surely’.’

So there is an orthodoxy (the beliefs and practices of the Orthodox Church) that principally stresses that “sin entered the human raceis to be understood in the same sense assin entered Adam,

Everything becomes confused. The most comprehensive expression (covering many things or a wide area), sin entered the world, is obviously true, since it suggests that sin entered the world in the same sense it entered man. Satan the devil, the enemy, lies to face full blame for this; and it is even backed up by Scripture. Get E.W Bullinger’s The Companion Bible (KJV). Hardback, from Amazon


Without form = waste. Hebrew tohȕ vȕ bohȕ. The earth was not created by God tohȕ (Isa 45:18 (KJV) but became tohȕ (Genesis 1:2 KJV. 2 Peter 3:5—6 KJV.) “An enemy hath done this” (Matt 13:25, 28, 39 KJV. Compare

1 Cor 14:33 KJV) In like manner man became a ruin (Gen 3 KJV. Psalm 14:1—3; 51:5; 53: 1—3 KJV. Ecc 7:10 KJV. Rom 7:18 KJV).


For sin cannot qualitatively [but only quantitatively] enter lifeless or animal nature, and it is in this [quantitative] sense that sin entered the race by Adam


…..It ought, on the other hand, to begin with the Atonement and by explaining the Atonement it indirectly explains sinfulness,  (Read the passage vigorously).


Exodus 32:33-35 (KJV)

33 “And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.”

34 “Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.”

35 “And the Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.”


Exodus 32:30 (KJV) “And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.”


Romans 5:12 (KJV) “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”


In Latin the word alterare  Origin from Medieval Latin alterare from Classical Latin alter, other from Indo-European an unverified formal to become different; change; vary however is now commonly used (it is rather strange that the term alterare should be used in Latin to mean “distort So it happens at times that a person believes that he has a world view, but there is yet one particular phenomenon that is of such a nature that it baffles the understanding, and that he explains differently and attempts to ignore in order not to harbour the thought that this phenomenon might overthrow the whole view, or that his reflection does not possess enough courage and resolution to penetrate the phenomenon  with his world view.


To assume this only betrays a narrow minded cowardice, for, on the contrary, the magnitude of anxiety is a prophecy of how wonderful perfection is; and the inability to become anxious is proof that a person is either a beast or an angel, both of whom, also according to the teaching of the Scriptures, are less perfect than man,


1 Corinthians 6:3 (KJV) “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”


Hebrews 1:14 (KJV) “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”


The “more” in the sensuousness of woman is only a matter of indifference (lack of interest, care, or concern) in itself, and in relation to the idea it is an expression of perfection, because when seen ideally (if everything were perfect or as desired), it is always seen as something overcome and appropriated (suitable for the occasion or circumstances) in freedom (ability to act freely).

…..she is more sensate (perceived through any of the senses) than man; for were she more spiritual she could never have her culmination point (the highest, most important, or final point of an activity) in another. Spirit is the true independent (somebody who believes that each Christian church or congregation should be free of external ecclesiastical control). Of course every religious view, like every more profound philosophical view, sees woman, despite this difference, as essentially identical with man; but it is not foolish enough to to forget for that reason the truth of the difference, esthetically (pleasing in appearance) and ethically (consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct • While such activities are not strictly illegal, they are certainly not ethical.


In a way it has always seemed remarkable to me that the story of Eve has been completely opposed to all later analogy, for the expression “to seduce” used for her generally refers in ordinary language to the man, and the other related expressions all point to the woman as weaker (easier to infatuate, lure to bed, etc.). This, however, is easy to explain, for in Genesis it is a third power (the enemy) that seduced the woman,


Genesis 2:22—25 (KJV)

22 “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” [D.N.A.]

23 And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Genesis 3 (KJV)

01Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

02 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

03 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

04 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

05 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

06 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

07 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

08 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

09 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, “Where art thou?”

10 And he said, “I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

11 And He said, “Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”

12 And the man said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, “What is this that thou hast done?” And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me (to mislead or deceive somebody), and I did eat.”

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, “Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:”

15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed [Israel]; it shall bruise thy head [crush],  and thou shalt bruise His heel [Crucifixion].

16 Unto the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow [anxiety] and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband [only] and he shall rule over thee.”

17 And unto Adam he said, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee”, saying, ‘Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;’

18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;”

19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”


Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV) Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it[See Genesis 2:7].


20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”

21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skin(s) and clothed them.”

22 And the Lord God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

23Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”  

whereas in ordinary language the reference is always only to the relationship between man and woman and thus it must be the man who seduces the woman. Note. If anyone has any psychological interest in observations related to this, I refer him to “The Seducers Diary” in either/or. If he looks at it closely, he will see that this is something quite different from a novel, that it has completely different categories up its sleeve, and if one knows how to use it, it can serve as a preliminary study for a very serious and not merely superficial research. The Seducer’s Secret is simply that he knows that woman is anxious. Only the animal can remain naïve in the sexual relationship, man is unable to because he is spirit, and sexuality, as the extreme point of the synthesis (Result of combination), promptly rebels against spirit.

…..for a moral marriage is by no means naïve, and yet is by no means immoral. This is why I always say that it is sin which makes sensuality sinfulness.


What I shall now briefly develop I also want to present in the right mood. To offer witticisms about the sexual is a paltry art, to warn against it is not difficult, and to preach about it in the usual way is an easy task, provided the difficulty is omitted, but to speak humanly about it and say everything, and also say it morally, is very difficult. Yet it is true that as many a young person became depraved because rigourism made life melancholy and made sexuality into sinfulness, so many a young life was ruined because no mention was made of the sexual at all.  It is also true that it is ill conceived prudishness to refrain from speaking about the sexual when all the discussion about it is left to proclaimers (to announce something publicly or formally) as heterogeneous (consisting of parts or aspects that are unrelated or unlike each other) as the theatre and the pulpit, each of which is embarrassed; by what the other says. Psychology, on the other hand, need not be embarrassed; nevertheless, I obligate myself forthwith to draw up a number of sketches that will exhibit prodigious (great in amount, size, or extent) conflicts that may arise in this area. Mere knowledge of the sexual is not sin, and genuine naiveté is reserved for childhood. Therefore it is high time to close the mouth of the immorality that permits itself to speak naively about the sexual. Either one must express the immorality in sensual desire loudly and clearly, as does the seducer in Esther:


2 Timothy 3:13—16 (KJV)

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;”

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”


Or—therefore his diary has a moral value—or one must penetrate all discussion of the sexual with morality and, above all, renounce naiveté (to give up a habit, pursuit, or practice). If there were poets in our day, they would have recognised the admirable opportunities found in this field. Nothing is more base and ay the same time more certain to allure a young girl, than looking at her in a way that instils in her the certainty that she has knowledge, and thus entangles her in the anxiety that this knowledge is sin. A collision as strange as this is rarely found. What entraps her is obviously her purity, she find a place of concealment only in the person who looked at her, for her alone shares her knowledge. Her anxiety is not anxiety about sin, but anxiety about being in sin, about having already sinned. As long as the lifeless twaddle about naiveté is maintained, every innocent girl, and first of all the purest among them, will be abandoned to this art of seduction. Let our systematicians discover that such an observation is poor, since it cannot be reduced to a paragraph [in the system]—I am nevertheless convinced that whoever is interested in human beings has chosen the better part, and I am also convinced that one thing is needed above everything else, namely, to become a little more Greek in the good sense of the term, i.e. more human, and not fantastically inordinate (showing a lack of restraint or control) with systematic galimatias (confused talk; gibberish), something that no human being cares about. Psychology is what we need, and above all, thorough knowledge of human life as well as sympathy for its interests. Herein lies the task, and until this is resolved there can be no question of completing a Christian view of life. In what sense is sensuousness sinfulness? Or, more precisely, in what sense is sexuality sinfulness. If a person every Sunday hears the proclamation of a love that is in spirit and in truth and permits the erotic to vanish as a nothing, so that the marriage relation becomes so spiritual that the sexual is entirely forgotten,  then the cloister and abstinence are such truer. Even though no one pays attention to this in these days, I know nevertheless that if Socrates lived now, he would have reflected [essentially the same as p. 68:6—14]. If a person attends the theatre in the evening, with the permission of the Church, and listens to the appraisal of the erotic—what can be made of all this! A person is not to enter the cloister (the life of religious seclusion lived by a monk or nun) but is to marry. Quite correct! Nevertheless, it is rather stupid to do so if the highest expression of married love is different to the sexual relation. But this is where things stand, and I would like to know what has been provided in this respect in our age [think about it], which presumably has explained almost everything by means of the system, but has been able to explain the simplest of things, namely, that which every person is interested in, whether he has lived as a Pagan or a Christian in his marriage. Is a person to be told every Sunday in church that he is born in sinand that his mother conceived him in iniquity, and thereupon learn from the poets that their heroines had a naiveté the like of which not even Eve possessed? To my way of thinking this is nonsense, and when for a long time no alarm was raised, this must have been because our time has acquired a remarkable thoughtlessness in relation to what it means to live, and a concern for everything else, especially that which is loudly proclaimed, whereas each person should be concerned about himself and about transforming his life into a beautiful, artistically finished whole. I believed that this was the meaning of life and the meaning of the life of the single individual, with an increase of meaning in proportion to what a person could include in his life, and with a greater concreteness of this task from ages to age in the historical progression [or precession].

I believed that every science should direct itself to this task and that all idle knowledge debases a man and essentially wastes his time, although he may be more deeply debased and waste his time in a worse way. It is said that he who sleeps does not sin, but a man whose whole has been absorbed in idle knowledge has nevertheless in a profound senses slept away his life (very great, strong, or intense).

I believed that in order to grasp and to express this meaning of life it is also appropriate that the single individual who is capable of it should apply himself to studies of a of a scientific nature, but in such a way that such study would have its validation in an education whose ultimate expression is to impress the idea upon his own life. This is something that is not seen in our time. (Access to many books, the computer, internet, and the Holy Spirit who leads one into all Truth.) and all the pertinent knowledge of years of study, such as E W Bullinger Companion Bible KJV Instead, one sees too often a slovenly person who passes through life (an offensive term meaning not concerned about conventional standards of personal hygiene and tidiness), performing all the common tasks of life as if they hardly concerned him; otherwise he is easily aroused when the talk turns to some stupendous idea, like an association of human talents that is supposed to accomplish the extraordinary, as if an association of men who separately are unable to accomplish something simple would be able to accomplish something difficult, a performance similar to that of the alehouse keeper who thought he would become rich by selling his beer for a penny less than he paid for it and still make a profit on the grounds that it is the quantity that does it.


In Christianity, the religious has again suspended the erotic, but it is not as if this were done through an ascetic misunderstanding (choosing or reflecting austerity and self-denial as personal or religious discipline),as the sinful, but rather as the indifferent, because in spirit there is no difference between man and woman. Here it is not comically (funny to the extent of being absurd), especially if undifferentiated (indistinguishable), because the tendency of Christianity is the further development of spirit. and there is  therefore no time to dwell on the erotic. In paganism, however, the ultimate is not brought to completion in the deepening of the spirit, but in a positing of spirit as spirit (to put forward for consideration something such as a suggestion, assumption, or fact), while nevertheless relating itself to the erotic but regarding it as comical.