Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher

[Judy Taylor]

 

Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? 

Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about,  JT.

 

OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you.  I don't care what he

was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense)

 

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:28:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 

 "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it [theology]  as a science, namely,

the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly

disowned as theology"     (Dogmatics,  1.1,  The word of God,  pp. 9,10).

 

So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is a science?  There is no way I can answer that question without you misunderstanding.   Sorry.   besides, the point of the above had nothing to do with "science."  

 

Is this what he said all that to say?  This is not written in English. 

 

 

When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments,   they cannot possibly understand what Barth is

all about.   He is as "conservative" as one gets  -  if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. 

 

Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD?  Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about,  JT.

 

 

Ppl can be conservative and well meaning

and still be dead wrong.   Thank you for your testimony on that. 

 

Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider

theology as a "science" 

 

How is it possible for theology to be a science when observation is the key to science?

So how does one observe God?   Who said the rules of natural science  are the rules of thgology?  Not me.   Not Barth.  Just you.   You are just arguing with yourself on this one, Judy. 

 

1.  freedom from contradiction

 

The Bible is already free from contradiction with or without Barth

Not the way you interpret it !!!!   

 

2.  Unity in the sphere of its object.   [read: subject matter].

 

That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth would have been unified with himself.]

Huh?   All I know is that you do not agree with any other person on TT  --  none of do.

 

3.  The willingness to accept request for verification.

 

Who would he verify with?  Anyone who has an ear for understanding. 

 

4.  Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible.

 

What is impossible with God?  You miss the point.    If you do not have have respect for what is naturally impossible,  you will never recognize a miracle when it happens. 

 

5.  Freedom from all prejudgments. 

 

6.  The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions].

 

Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic.  

[] are my additions. 

 

jd

 

 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)

 

                                         judyt                                       
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
                              is a liar (1 John 2:4)