Peter,

>>when evidence for the existence of God is found apart from God revealing Himself to humanity then the living God that Christians worship is lost. <<

This sounds like “when evidence for the existence of Peter is found apart from Peter revealing himself (e.g. in this article) to us then the living Peter is lost”, but what does it mean?

I think you do not have to be a Barthian to “refuse evidence from nature as a support for the existence of God”, only have a clarity about what “evidence from nature” (if by that you mean evidence acceptable within natural science) can and cannot do. Or did you mean to say that a Christian should not look for inspiration for his/her faith from God’s creation as studied by natural science?

Again, what a pity that in your defence of Barth you did not quote him explicitly to support your exposition of his views.

>> The above consists of a brief sketch of what theology will look like in the age that comes after the modern.<<

This assumes that Christian “theology after the modern” will be built on Karl Barth rather than other theologian who interprets/interpreted differently both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. Can you be sure about this?

ITS LIKE WATCHING A TRAin wreck
alex certainly nails it..this ring was foRGED FOR EVIL
[16 minute/mark]
http://rss.infowars.com/20140409_Wed_Alex.mp3

anyhow..more onselling/quote..<<.<<..There is something in Jesus that is overwhelmingly appealing that..>>..[thats just the name dropING AFFECT..].WE AevereytRE ALL GUILTY..

<<>.once one has encountered...Him..then everything changes,>>
but sadly..people cant meet..him..if they got the wrong idea..of what he is

hing/changes?..then<<..it is the end of a world.?>>
did you hear alex..at 19/minute mark?

<<..There are no foundations here,>>

of course not..end of the world/means we are all mostly dead
how is described well in todays show/the ideal for them..is set us up to die..off the street/so make us feel tired/we die in our bed
this end time ccc rap is jusrt words so you think?
its over peter..read thyne own words


<<..There are no foundations here,>>*<<.only an overwhelming beauty.>>

please reread/thyne own original texts

<<..It was this beauty..that was the death knoll..of the ancient gods..many fold living creations/we are talking of mass deaths..of whole nations.

<<..It goes without saying..that doing theology anew.demands that we turn our back on...the isolated and distanced god..>>

you couldnt face
who you ignored..who you say dont exist

isolated..by whom?
distranced by who?..<<of the first cause..that has a plan for the universe.>>

WHEN OUR SUN[GOD]..ONLY AFFECTS ONE MERE SOLAR SYSTEM
THE UNIVERSE=THE WHOLLY spirit

<<.. This speculative deity,..that only exists because we need an explanation/as to why there is anything at all,..is displaced by Christ...who becomes the origin..lol..of all..'things'>>

is a huge massive alienating lie
but not one thats worth us all lining up..to die

the suns...of the holy spirit...that fell from heaven
with a huge big bang..its is the suns..that becomes the origin..of all things..[after half their number fell from heaven.]..its wasted on you peter..what ya selling..to who?

George,
Perhaps the boot should be on the other foot. What evidence from nature would you propose can be used for the existence of God? It seems to me from a long study of the history of natural theology around Newton and his friend Samuel Clarke that any god so proved is of the Monarchical monotheistic identity that does not approximate the Triune identity. Any reliance on evidence in nature is vulnerable to the next set of experiments that proves that the evidence can easily be proved to be the result of pure mechanics. Of course this falls apart for quantum mechanics. So should we evoke god at the quantum level?. Of what importance would this god be to us death bound creatures who are confronted by what Yannarus describes at the ontological problem?
Best wishes
Peter

Thank you Peter for this excellent, clear and superb exposition!

The final step beyond modernism, thus beyond objectivism, I believe, will be to drop the last relic of dependence on the material, that is of the essential-necessity for Jesus the man of Nazareth.

While we believe that the historical Jesus showed us the Way, we should cherish (as did Jesus himself) the Way rather than Jesus the man. If we were then to find, as suggested by Ponder, that Jesus never existed, it could never shake our faith!

Yuyutsu,
I agree but with reservations. Jesus often pointed away from himself, and that saves us from Jesuolotry but it is important that the Word did become flesh, and dwelt among us etc. The council of Chalcedon emphasised the two natures of Christ and to emphasise the fleshly nature would be to sever the connection of the Word to the world. This would result in a spiritualised religion that was not strongly political as Christianity plainly is.

Peter,

Thank you for the thoughtful article.

Your comments of course address the issue of epistemology, and concern the question as to the nature of truth and how it is we come about the acquisition knowledge.

Christian epistemology seems to me to foreground the relational aspect of knowledge. Meaning is realized only from within the context of the life of the Christian community. Classical Christianity continues to maintain that truth is 'traditioned' from one generation to the next, which would seem to go counter, or at least condition, the claim that the "way sets us free." Does it denote further fragmentation? Do the "many paths" preclude a unity of faith?

How post post-modern are we really?