I know Kierkegaard admired Socrates and tried to imitate him. So? He also had some reflections regarding his possible defects from a Christian perspective. He seems almost sinless for example. Which from a Christian perspective would be impossible

Gravity and Grace is wonderful, even though Perhaps Waiting on God proves her great moral sense even more. Because Gravity and Grace is basically her written down notes of her thoughts. Regarding Kierkegaard again; he for example suggests in Sickness Unto Death that Socrates despaired over his sin. And despair according to many Christians is a very bad thing right?

But surely they knew more about Socrates than I do. — Beebert

Really? We have the same texts. I've read quite a few of Plato's dialogues. Socrates is portrayed as a perfect man, IMHO. I don't particularly like his portrayal of the perfect society as described in The Republic, but there is always the question... Are we seeing the "real" Socrates, or just a character that Plato is using to promote his (Plato's) own views?

Well, Kierkegaard had studied a LOT of Socrates at university and he was quite familiar with greek language and so on. Nietzsche even more; he was a very gifted philologist and was proficient in the greek language and it wouldnt surprise if he had read all of Plato 's dialogue.
I agree about Socrates seeming perfect; but I recommend once again (despite possible criticism from Agustino) to look up Kierkegaard's view on some possible "defects" or "weakness" that Socrates had if one observes him in the text. A weakness that Socrates quite probably was aware of; that he was sinfull like all of us and couldnt reach the complete truth without divine help etc. Kierkegaard suggests that this is one of the reasons for Socrates irony; perhaps, even probably, he was despairing according to Kierkegaard

The famous Aristophanes is another briliant man who was famous for also being critical towards Socrates

"I'm not sure about that, why do you say so?"
But you havent read her. But the reason is that I simply can't come up with one. She was brilliantly honest and true to her philosophy etc. More than any other philosopher I know of. She lived what she wrote.

I also want to mention another thing though, which IMO is to the advantage of the upanishads over the bible (the wisdom of India over judaism and christianity): The real difference is in the way that Judaism and Christianity approach religion as contrasted to the religion of the upanishads is found in my edition I have of the upanisjads. It says in the foreword that "The value of the Upanishads, however, does not rest upon their antiquity, but upon the vital message they contain for all times and all peoples. There is nothing peculiarly racial or local in them." The wisdom of the Upanishads is grounded in the Universal in a way the Bible and its religions have often failed to be. For example, even if Christ is proclaimed as the universal Truth, christians have more often than not completely FAILED to see that the same Truth is in many ways expressed in writings like the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita. Even to the point of completely blaspheming their own God by calling these scriptures demonic. And that is another reason why I find it hard to convert to christianity. That it often wants to kill curiosity in the positive sense of the word etc.

Sickness Unto Death that Socrates despaired over his sin. And despair according to many Christians is a very bad thing right? — Beebert

It's true that it's been quite a long time since I last read Sickness unto Death, but I certainly don't remember the claim that Socrates despaired over sin. I remember he discusses the Greek view that sin is ignorance, and contrasts it with the Christian one in the second part of the book, which I've actually found really really interesting. And I remember that he somehow reconciles the two by the end?

For example, even if Christ is proclaimed as the universal Truth, christians have more often than not completely FAILED to see that the same Truth is in many ways expressed in writings like the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita. — Beebert

That's false, this Christian right here is of the belief that God has revealed Himself through the other religions as well, however, only Christianity achieves the highest Truth, because only Christianity has Jesus Christ. So the other religions aren't "false" they just don't have the fullness of the Truth.

"The value of the Upanishads, however, does not rest upon their antiquity, but upon the vital message they contain for all times and all peoples. There is nothing peculiarly racial or local in them." The wisdom of the Upanishads is grounded in the Universal in a way the Bible and its religions have often failed to be. For example, even if Christ is proclaimed as the universal Truth, christians have more often than not completely FAILED to see that the same Truth is in many ways expressed in writings like the Upanishads and Baghavad Gita. Even to the point of completely blaspheming their own God by calling these scriptures demonic. — Beebert

The quote and your commentary don't quite match. The former is talking about universalism in the sense that the truths the Upanishads attempts to covey are available to all people to discover, regardless of national origin. Ironically, though, the religion which these texts form the basis of, Hinduism, has remained largely the ethnic and tribal religion of the sub-continental Indians, paying virtually no attention to proselytization, whereas Christianity has embraced innumerable different peoples and cultures across the globe. Moreover, the Upanishads was a production of the Brahmanical caste and largely read and interpreted by that same caste down to the current day. The authors of the New Testament, while literate and fairly well read, were not in anything near the same status as the Brahmins or, in their context, Greek philosophers, and their audience was explicitly for all people, not just the intelligentsia.

It is wrong of you to call it false. Wrong and ignorant. I never said there werent Christians who thought like you apparently think. I know the Catholic Church holds your view. But it didnt until the 1960s. So your view is historically held by a minority. I know more about this than you think. I also know more about your Church than you think, for example that baptism literally washes away sins. So, what is the regard here to Faith?

Regarding Kierkegaard; Socrates wasn't sinless, do we agree? And, Kierkegaard makes the conclusion that Socrates was probably despairing.

are you a Christian?

And, Kierkegaard makes the conclusion that Socrates was probably despairing. — Beebert

I don't remember that, but it may be possible...

I also know more about your Church than you think, for example that baptism literally washes away sins. So, what is the regard here to Faith? — Beebert

??

I was using Augustino's examples as a counter argument there.

"paying virtually no attention to proselytization, whereas Christianity has embraced innumerable different peoples and cultures across the globe."

Paying no attention to proselytization is often a good thing. We know what many of those who have tried to proselytize have often done. Christianity embracing People from different Cultures hasn't only been about love and openess but about power, just as Russia probably would like to be the whole world.

"??"

?

Yes, imperfection isn't a problem, but there's a difference between imperfection and dishonest thinking or otherwise just being a bad person. I'm not saying Aquinas, Kierkegaard and Socrates were perfect for that matter, I'm just saying that they were righteous and good people. I can't say the same about Bertrand Russell or Nietzsche for that matter. — Agustino

More legalism; you've missed my point about imperfection.

"The authors of the New Testament, while literate and fairly well read, were not in anything near the same status as the Brahmins or, in their context, Greek philosophers, and their audience was explicitly for all people, not just the intelligentsia."

Yes I know. And it shows.

Paying no attention to proselytization is often a good thing. We know what many of those who have tried to proselytize have often done. Christianity embracing People from different Cultures hasn't only been about love and openess but about power, just as Russia probably would like to be the whole world. — Beebert

>:O But of course, but it's a pragmatic issue. If you don't have power as a religion, you will be extinguished from the world. So religious leaders always struggle to balance the spiritual with the material.

It doesnt matter. We talk about different things and you are always biased. Here is simply what I mean, to quote CS Lewis:

“Even more disturbing as you [Dom] say, is the ghastly record of Christian persecution. It had begun in Our Lordʼs time - ‘Ye know not what spirit ye are of’ (John of all people!) I think we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse…Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil.”

are you a Christian? — Beebert

No.

Christianity embracing People from different Cultures hasn't only been about love and openess but about power, just as Russia probably would like to be the whole world. — Beebert

It hasn't "only," yes. I wouldn't claim that Christian evangelization has had a spotless record. But it has achieved something that Hinduism has failed to achieve and is apparently more attractive to human beings generally, and not just Indians.

Yes I know. And it shows. — Beebert

A cleverly ambiguous reply!

"I wouldn't claim that Christian evangelization has had a spotless record. But it has achieved something that Hinduism has failed to achieve and is apparently more attractive to human beings generally, and not just Indians."

If you ask Nietzsche, or Perhaps even Schopenhauer, the reason why christianity "is apparently more attractive to human beings generally" is because people are apparently more unintelligent than intelligent generally. That many believe in and appreciate/prefer christianity would not speak to its advantage if you ask them, or probably even if you ask Plato.

"A cleverly ambiguous reply!"
I know. That was my intention ;)

If you ask Nietzsche, or Perhaps even Schopenhauer, the reason why christianity "is apparently more attractive to human beings generally" is because people are apparently more unintelligent than intelligent generally. That many believe in and appreciate/prefer christianity would not speak to its advantage if you ask them, or probably even if you ask Plato. — Beebert

But if we really want to go down this road, then it's clearly the case that there have been just as many, if not more, and possibly more profound, Christian thinkers than Hindu thinkers. So, Christianity has produced, at minimum, the same number of geniuses as Hinduism, while also attracting more of the masses.

There's also the point that the true religion would have to appeal to both intellectuals and the common man. The common man shouldn't find it impossible to enter just because he's not smart enough.

Yes I agree. Or at least more geniuses known. But I can't find much in the Christian tradition that reaches the level of the upanishads in profoundity and depth. Some come close though.

But I can't find much in the Christian tradition that reaches the level of the upanishads in profoundity and depth — Beebert

>:)

Also true, which is then probably why God had to be incarnate. But so much of the stupidity done in the name of christianity(even though this may not be a valid excuse) has repelled many more "intelligent" People too. You may not agree, but I am certain that Nietzsche wanted to know the living God; he wanted to know Truth. But when he observed the religion that made the greatest and most extraordinary claim for Truth, he found stupidity and falseness everywhere. That might also be used as an argument against Nietzsche and his "Pride", but I dont think it is that easy to be sensitive in the way he was, and at the same time of such a great intellect.

But so much of the stupidity done in the name of christianity(even though this may not be a valid excuse) has repelled many more "intelligent" People too. — Beebert

I don't think it's a question so much of intelligence. It's more of a question of temperament. Perhaps Christianity has repelled some of the most sensitive people because of the reasons you outline.

I would love it if you could give me some tips on Works by Christians that reaches the level of the upanishads according to you.

I must also say that I agree with both you and Thorongil that hinduism as a religion isnt more attractive than christianity. I am mainly talking about its spiritual texts : Baghavad Gita and The Upanishads.

One must also take into consideration, that if the religious texts of India (now I mean Baghavad Gita and The Upanishads) are possibly more stimulating and suiting for the "intelligent", then why have Christianity often in history (and today also many protestants, catholics and orthodox) preached eternal damnation for all those who follow another religion than theirs instead of accepting them? This shows that those "less intelligent" that christianity suits for have proclaimed something they dont know which potentially causes lots of harm.

I would love it if you could give me some tips on Works by Christians that reaches the level of the upanishads according to you. — Beebert

Hmmm - the mystical writings is what I would recommend. Like these:

Cloud of Unknowing - By Unknown
Mystical Theology - Dionysus
Theologia Germanica - By Unknown