I have followed the recent discussions about Kierkegaard's
Christianity and about his purported mysogyny with much interest.
I regret that I have not had time to do my homework
in the sense of reading or rereading the relevant passages
in Kierkegaard's writings.

I share Therese Foote's and Kevin Solway's admiration
for Meister Eckehard. The inwardness of spiritual
life as propounded by Eckehard (and other mystics) seems
to me inseparable from Kierkegaard's redefinition of
subjectivity as truth. The interpretation of deity as
being subjective rather than objective experience, as
being cognate with consciousness of self, the transport
of deity from his celestial palace into the heart of man,
as the poets of the baroque phrased it,  seems to me to
provide the only consistently rational explanation of
what I believe to be universal religious experience.

At this juncture, however, my interpretation diverges.
The discovery of deity within him does not make man
great, does not make him a genius; it makes him humble
and meek, knowing with Kierkegaard, that before God,
man is always in the wrong. (cf Either Or, Part II)
It is this awareness of the absolute necessity of being
in the wrong which paralyses man's judgment. "Judge not
that ye be not judged." (Matt 7:1) "And he said unto him,
why callest thou me good? there is none good but one,
that is, God." (Matt 19:17) If one defines goodness as the
characteristic of true Christians, then, it seems to me,
there can be no true Christians; and none of us can claim
to be a true Christian; the closest one can come to being a
true Christian is to derive edification from the fact
that one cannot be a true Christian, because before God 
one is always in the wrong.

It seems obvious that when we read, whether it be the Bible
or Kierkegaard, we project onto the text our own experiences,
and find in it reflections - through a glass, darkly, -
of our own personalities. Our lives are replete with
incongruities and contradictions, and so are the books
that we read. We find there what we are able to
understand, an image of our own mind. It is, I believe,
a mistake to read Kierkegaard, or any other serious author,
as if he were an oracle, and each of his statements should
be unconditionally valid. Indeed we should have learned
from Kierkegaard long ago that to some conflicts no resolution
is possible, and then the only truthful conclusion is a
dialectical one.  It is well understood both by psychologists
and by poets that love and hate are closely linked.
Perhaps Kierkegaard's apparent mysogyny is an expression
of his great love and longing for Regine Olsen.
Nietzsche wrote somewhere (probably in Zarathustra)
that the repulsion of the iron from the magnet resulted
from the magnet's imperfect attraction of the iron.
"Also sprach das Eisen zum Magneten: Ich hasse dich,
weil du mich anziehst, aber nicht stark genug bist,
mich an dich zu ziehen." (I quote from memory, please
correct me) Nietzsche's was poor physics, but good psychoogy.

Ernst Meyer