1. ..but. I think there are two routes to meaning. That there is no argumentative bridge that can span the gap tp reconcile the two routes. It is not one is right and the other wrong. Only two routes.

    1. Maybe the short version is that Gods creation is not God, so evidence thru Hs creation only indicates a facimile and again not God. So any ‘images’ of God need be destroyed.

      1. So, God doesn’t need to be destroyed. God’s purpose is not to be destroyed.

        But evidence, facsimiles, images do need to be destroyed.

        Why do evidences, facsimiles, and images of God need to be destroyed?

      2. Did you by chance read the link about Barth’s comment on Pauls Epistle to the Romans, that was in my post a couple back?

      3. I guess you must have. Cuz you commented. My question, which perhaps you have an idea on, is do terms have an essential relation with their object? Are terms capable of identifying absokutely true things?

      4. I’m more interested in the story you suggested; a story of intention, bringing about, and becoming. You said that God’s purpose is to bring about God’s own destruction so that the world might become the second thought. And you said that there is an imperative regarding “images” of God: They need to be destroyed.

        This sounds like an outline for a story that I would like to hear.

      5. The irony: that Gods intension should have meaning that defies our idea of what intension is. That my belief in God is ‘filled with images’ that are not God, but my faith is (Barth) ‘vacant’, and occurs by the grace of God which is entirky beyond my undetstanding or ability to concieve. It occurs removed from the possibility of any idea i have of it. As the author says, i can inly believe that i believe, but this is not faith.

        In order for God as God to be effective, without human doubt, God itself — the entire possibility of my knowledge of God as some Thing — must be destroyed. The doubt has to come to fruition. All else is graven images: idols.

      6. 😝. I should be done with my book somewhat soon. It is interpersed with theory. But the maon part is more like a story. 🖖🏽kinda

      7. But why?

        I think Jesus’ death is a uniquely important big story event. I don’t think it is uniquely important in a thematic way; representative of God-image destruction

      8. Why is love? Why would God make a creation and instill it with an ability to defy God? Who knows? To me. It sounds like God is neurotic. Lol.

      9. You started this thread with the statement, “Irony is that God’s purpose is to bring about Its own destruction, evidently, obviously and finally. So that the world becomes the second thought.”

        Can you not take a shot at telling the story that this suggests?

        1. God with purpose (one that “defies our idea of what intention is”)
        2. God who is bringing about God’s own destruction
        3. The world becoming the second thought

        Is there no chronology to this? Are there no events that reveal God’s purpose (#1) or mark the occurrences of #2 and #3?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s