Note too, that Jesus on the cross supposed himself that, when God allowed him to be killed, Jesus had been abandoned by God. Jesus thereby calling the whole contradictory paradigm into question. Himself.

Thus there are biblical contra-indications to the common, all-too-easy acceptance, of what seems to be the prevailing Theology: the quasi-Existential deification of Contradiction.

Obviously, a “justified sinner,” means something like “a good bad person.” But that is a logical self contradiction. So therefore, what is Barth’s opinion of the church and religion, therefore? In one reading, it seems to be that religion is a contradiction.

So what finally would THIS reading have Barth say? Most people refuse to embrace incoherency, inconsistency, or self-contradiction; these are obviously bad things. And, given that, many might simply have Barth finally labelling the notion of “true religion,” and the church that supports it, as … simple, obvious falsity.

THis is one reading of Barth, above: which has him labeling religion as obvious self-contradiction, and therefore, falsity.

THis is my question: 1) do you perceive that reading? And second, 2) if you see that reading, do you accept it? And finally, 3 )if you see that reading, and accept it, then… BY WHAT LOGIC would you continue to support or follow the Church, and its “religion”?

A simple love of self-contadiction?

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll look forward to tracking some of these themes as I keep plodding through Church Dogmatics. I may drop by the Barth Blog Conference website at some point and spend a bit more time looking around at what’s happening there.

Cheers,
Steve

Do you have to make all comments be moderated? I think that is a big pain for commenters. It really ruins conversation when you have to wait for your comments to be posted. The http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/ blog doesn’t have moderation and that is one reason why threads take off. When I comment at a blog where the comments are moderated, I am flooded with the following thoughts: “How long until my comment get posted? Did I write anything (like an HTML) that will cause thing to be sent into their spam folder? What do they think people are going to write that is offensive? What are they afraid of? What is the point of a blog and comments if they are moderate? Isn’t the point of a blog to launch a conversation?” Basically, it makes me frustrated and I can’t imagine any other reaction. Will any commenter think to themselves: “I’m really glad the comments are moderated on this blog before they get posted.” If you have rules about comments, like no foul language, just say that. That way as well if there are time changes between Europe and the USA, etc. or people are posting early in the morning or late at night, the conversation can continue.

I use TypePad and it catches most stuff. If something gets through and posted on my blog, I just delete it when I open up my email and see it. In other words, I clean up rather than prevent. I think this is so much better because then you can let real conversation go on through the night when you are sleeping, etc. It is so satisfying to comment and then see it immediately posted on the blog. It is frustrating to post something and then have to keep going back and checking if it indeed “got through.” The login and CAPTCHA should be enough to catch the main spam.

In Blogger, go to:
in the Dashboard . . . go to Settings . . . Comments . . .

Granted. At the same time however, to speak with forked tongues, is not a wholly admirable thing. So that I note that the Bible speaks of a time, one day, when “double”ness and “confusion” in language or “tongues” will be lifted; in favor of something far more “plain.” A day that may be quite soon, actually.

Until that day though, the problem with the double tongue, like the critical side of Barth’s doubletalk is that is is, in final balance, never noticed by most people. It is massively outweighed by his more visible, constant appearance of supporting the conventional oversimplifications of the churches. So that in net effect? Barth strengthens corruption.

Those like Barth, who speak this double language, are like grumbling but effective collaborators in a corrupt regime; in spite of veiled grumblings, the net effect is that they give the overall appearance of,and in actual practice have the effect of, in balance, really supporting corrupt institutions. A few snide comments in polysemic asides, never quite outweighs the constant public appearance of support.

In the days of the “New Atheists,” something a bit more direct is called for. If you can afford it. If you can leave family and friends, and take up the cross for Truth.

In the meantime, to be sure, a double existence has its usefulness. But it is not wholly admirable. And something a little more up front, will finally be called for.

In the present case? An “anhypostasied” Jesus seems be be, say, “what we are headed for.”