- Critique of Pure Reason, because it is a challenge to read and requires concentration and study to get to grips with, as well as being one of the most important philosophical work ever produced. — I like sushi

I've got a handle on what Kant's Critique is all about, but here one must allow Kant the courtesy of explaining himself. I suggest reading the challenge that Kant presents to his reviewer, found in the Appendix to his "Prolegomena ...". The challenge is open to all thinkers, philosophical or otherwise. To come to grips with the Critique one has to take to account the problems of metaphysics, mentioned in the intro to the Critique, as being God, Freedom, and Immortality. If these problems are not kept in mind throughout one's reading of the Critique, one will get lost in the forest of Kant's rhetoric, and so many of his readers do indeed get lost, having lost sight of these problems The Critique of Pure Reason is so called because it is a critical examination of how far pure reason can go toward resolving these probllems. The challenge found in the Appendix is a challenge that has not been met by any of Kant's followers, or detractors, or any neutral agent. I've given it a shot however, here's a link to my answer to Kant (but this is only if you want to understand Kant more fully--there is an Appendix included that quotes Kant and David Hume). Hegel is also mentioned in the body of the work, and the work can be considered in the Kantian sense, a science of metaphysics):

https://philarchive.org/archive/LIIRTP

the transgression lies with the condition, and are not "ours" because we were merely thrown into a world into which this occurs. I think this is important to understand, because Christianity seems fixated on the individual's accountability in the usual sense of being accountable,

True that Christian religions, of whatever stripe (I belong to none of them), but I claim to be a Christian; focus on our accountability--it's ubiquitious. My understanding of transgression is simply a violation of the 10 directives (commandments, is an inferior or less accurate interpretation of the Hebrew text); as state in the New Testament there's the line: "not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law will be justified." However, I agree, how could I not, that we were thrown into this world. None of us signed a contract offering us life, we were not informed, not given a choice, so what responsibility should we bare for a life that we did not ask for. And, if such a contract had been presented, if I could foresee all that life had to offer, I would have vehemently rejected it, especiallly given that death ensues, and so proves the contract fraudulent, and worthless. There is a out here however. Christ paid the penalty of death demanded from a failure to perfectly adhere to every single aspect of those 10 directives; and it is God's grace, not anything I do of my own will, that spares me from condemnation. This is the essence of what it means to be a Christian and it's explained repeatedly by Paul in his letters. I myself will always measure up as coming up short where accountability is concerned because of my condition. There's more to all this however.

I think Tom Storm's simple response "No" is all that is needed here. Why blind oneself to the obvious?

Must also add my voice to "must reads". It smacks of totalitarianism, no? Maybe that's too harsh. Similar to must watch this movie, or this youtube channel, or this top 10 best songs of all time; etc. But admittedly, I've read a few of the books suggested, and do not take exception to "The Gulag Archipelago" being a must read for high school students. When I went to school, way back, I appreciated all the books that were required reading in English class; and always remember fondly "The Mayor of Casterbridge" by Thomas Hardy (a great writer). Made an impression. So did Shakespeare's "MacBeth". Maybe better not "must" anything ... better ... suggest.

Favourite line of Kierkegaard, "If you label me, you negate me."

A favorite pastime especially today in politics (witness the backbitting back and forth between Democrats and Repulbicans) is this infantile labelling of the opponent. We never learn, seems to be an inherent thing in the human mind.

"Why have you forsaken me?" He became sin for us. Our transgressions, all of them, died with him on the cross; God the Father, turns His face away from evil (sin).

e often seek by nature a very strong position, like demanding (as so popular in the arena of politics) as d — Ray Liikanen

Yes I'm serious about this. Souds illogical, unless you read the entire reply, that asks for clarification of the term 'religion' or 'religious'. Using the term is easy. Defining it is an altogether different matter, and not easily accomplished.

As you bring up the very term: Religion. I automatically assume my default position, and ask: What, exactly. do you mean by religion? Unless 'religion' is very precisely defined, then we're talking in circles and over each other, thinking we're saying something that means something, when we're really talking and sahying nothing because we have failed to define exactly what we're talking about.

I'm a Christian. Am I therefore religious? The very question is meaningless. Why? Because 'religious' has not been defined in a concrete, understandable, verifiable manner. It's just a convenient word. A label that seems to suggest something, but it doesn't really say anything at all. Thus, much of what's put forth as answers concerning 'religion' partake of a similar ambiguity, an exercise in futile rhetoric simply for the sake of rhetoric. What's problematic here is that language is highly abstract; a construct of human intelligence that began with pictorial representations with particular meanings, but as this abstract form of representing reality grew ever more refined, ever more able to describe our world of experience, it became equally infused with all the potential to enter into endless conflicts and misunderstandings. That's why I assume my default position. I demand clarity whenever anyone dares mention the word religion. If clarity is not given, then confusion is the ruling Monarch of the day, and I find myself walking through the dark halls of that Monarch where i always find just what I expect. Confusion and meaninglessness and not only confusion and meaninglessness but the championing of confusion and meaninglessness.

Much of what goes by the name religion, for instance, in Christian circles, I find deplorable. Yet, here we see religion if so defined, yet I shy away from being associated in any way with so much of what passes as religion. I would rather be an atheist than a theist of the kind who preaches eternal damnation for finite beings who were never asked if they wished to be born. This Catholic dogma, popularized in so many offshoots of that supposed religion, I find truly demonic. Biut I'm caught in we might say, a duplcity. Am I guilty of advocating such a demonic dogma simply by reason of association? No. I believe I can very adequately justify myself as far as 'my religion' is concerned, empirically, and rationally and morally. But to whom should I ever care to justify myself? I haven't yet been brought before the thrown of the anti-christ to bare my sole and pledge my allegiance. When I do, it will be to Christ, and no other. Is that what it means to be relligious? Perhaps. But human reason and justification are issues for philosophical debate as much as anything else and people often seek by nature a very strong position, like demanding (as so popular in the arena of politics) a definite Yes or No answer. Are you religious? Yes or no, pick one or the other. So, yes. But I might add: and so are you, for I'm not the only one who can be imputed with what can be called a system of belief. I'm not the only one to whom guilt must be assigned. If you think otherwise I will defend myself by stating that you are religious also, for whatever it is you believe, that can be taken as your god. For this reason it's written in scripture that you shall have no other gods before Me.

If one contends that they are not religious, I object and claim that you are denying the state of your own reality; for were you not religious then you would be as a virgin, unstained by any association with another, that you have withstood rape and have not come to any conclusions of any kind--that you not only have no false gods before you but you reject also the one true God; and remain as an innocent babe--someone deserving of no condemnation for there is nothing in you deserving of judgment. This is why I assume my default position: what exactly do you mean by religion? Define it, or remain silent, else you enter a world of perhaps potentially meaningful dialogue, but much more likely, only meaninglessness masquerading as wisdom.

Another way to put it, 'existence' is an abstract not a concrete word as for instance a green apple. We have the idea of the apple, but we have no similar idea where abstract words are concerned. What needs to be defined therefore is what precisely do we mean by existence? Does it mean something that has consciousness? Then we enter further ambiguity. What does it mean to be conscious and what is consciousness? And what is morality? Here there's another abstract word with the invitation to an abyss of further abstract ambiguity. Intuition at least comes to the rescue. We all know that it is morally wrong to murder another human being in order to steal his wallet. This is a veriafiable objective truth. If denied, then you may as well say that I have the right to murder you to profit from what I find in your wallet. I might go further and even state it is a moral obligation on my part to benefit myself from murdering you so I can profit from what's in our wallet.

The very few refers to those who accept/believe that Christ paid the penalty for our transgressions on the cross. We cannot attain to the perfection demanded by God except within Christ. Our transgressions as the book of Isaiah states will be washed clean and made white as wool, for they were nailed to the cross. Jesus became sin for us. This is the narrow, succinct definition of what it means to be a Christian. The gate is narrow that leads to eternal life. Why?
Because Christi alone, and no other, is the narrow gate. But the gate is wide that leads to destruction (death). Why? Because not everyone, which means the vast majority of humanity, will never accept Christ--they will not find or choose Christ's way even if it becomes known to them or if it is shown to them; rather, they will choose to walk through the gate that is wide and supposedly, more easy and open.

This thought experiment is highly unsophisticated and further, irrational. Suppose somehow? The somehow, or the 'in some way' would have to be explicitly stated and put forth, otherwise it's an exercise in futility. We don't live in a world of hypotheticals, except in works of fiction where we are free from the constraints of reality--or the world of our concrete experience. There are no answers that I could choose from for they are completely arbitrary choices that do not reflect in any real sense, the complexities of our world. My answer would simply be, Jesus was both a physical man and God manifested in human form so He could relate to finite, mortal men and women, and so make God known and someone with whom we can relate. Christianity to me is clearly definable but I won't engage in definig it here; but will say that it offers a complete worldview that makes perfect rational sense; and I cannot exchange that worldview for a worldview that leaves one with only a great abyss of meaninglessness.