Everything,and all of our experiences are a modification of Consciousness. Consciousness is our only experience.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/consciousness-experience

There is no separate self:
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
The presumed separate self is a dark golem, and everything that is says and does is an extension of its golem-like characteristics, and reinforces its dark golem-like characteristics (despite or contrary to its best lets-pretend intentions)
http://www.dabase.org/hardware.htm

How does one therefore transcend ones dark golem-like characteristics.
These two references describe the necessary process:
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-3.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-4-4.htm

Hi Peter

Thanks for this, I think you have nailed the most common types of bad preaching well. I have also been fortunate enough to hear some truly excellent preachers, whose words I still remember well.

I don’t share your fondness for the more complex theological works of Karl Barth, but he was an exceptional preacher. Preparing some notes for holy week I came across this sermon he preached at Basle prison.

http://postbarthian.com/2015/04/29/criminals-karl-barth-sermon-basel-prisoners/

that would get his listeners’ attention

The only fact established by the author is that some people, in the 21st century, still believe in a Bronze Age Semitic sky god, who appears to be a total bastard

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv

Ah the insoluble problem of theodicy.

Rhine,
That is a remarkable sermon! Barth only preached in the prison at Basel while he was there. He was, par excellence, the theologian of the Word of God. It intrigues me that you are not interested in his theology.
Pete

Well done, Peter! Now all you have to do is explain how something that doesn't exist can speak, and you've nailed it.

Your articles have been getting more rational over time. This one seems like a retreat to obscurantism and zealotry. Have you been reprimanded by your superiors? Or should we be concerned about the balance of your mind?

Hi Peter

I am interested in Barth’s theology, but I struggle with it, both for its complexity and its uncompromising hostility to many other important stands of theology, including natural theology. But that same unflinching willingness to follow his own theological reasoning to its conclusion, however unexpected, is what makes his sermons so arresting.

He was undoubtedly a giant of 20th century theology, though, and on balance I think a positive influence, in particular for dissecting liberal theology (especially its tendency to align with dominant political ideologies), and for his work opposing the German Church and Nazism.

He’s a bit like Kant in philosophy – impossible to ignore, and hugely influential, but hard to love.