Thank you for your comment.
It is not at all a stupid question. I meant both.
Kierkegaard, who presented himself as a Christian (Protestant) was criticized by Church members and accused of not being Christian. The concepts he uses have Christian names, but under a certain angle was not, and was instead deeply rooted in European philosophy (please note that Kiekegaard mentor was… Socrates …) .
This question is very complicated because Christianity itself can be seen as a profoundly European religion, or as a religion that is very foreign to European philosophy. It is a mixture of both, or a failed attempt to replace the European philosophy and religion. Kierkegaard in his concepts, returns to a European religion. A clear example is the following : for Kierkegaard an individ must « go and get » the salvation himself, so to speak. As if the individ must become divine by himself, and is not “saved.” He claims that the « original sin » in the Bible is the classic European philosophical « despair » or « vertigo », but also explains how important it is to fall into despair to get true faith. Which means being « enlightened » in the Allegory of the Cave by Socrates/Plato. The use of these terms is Kierkegaard is repulsive for some who see him then as a religious philosopher.
Kierkegaard, in my opinion and as I have already said, is actually the best and deepest philosopher of modern times, and the religious terms are not a problem at all.
You wrote “it is very easy to read this as a non-Christian, Kierkegaard was not a classical religious”. Did you mean that you are a non-Christian or that Kierkegaard was not a Christian?
Please excuse the stupid question, my understanding of English is not so good…