God as "wholly other"?

[dms1972]

I thought i'd post in this forum. I don't really identify as a christian anymore, and while a good few years ago if I had been asked if I was a Christian I would have said yes, I am really not sure now if I ever was. Back then I felt like i was and prayed.

As it is I still read christian books at times. But I felt years ago that there was nothing drawing me anymore.

I've been thinking about whether I really had faith, or just ideas about God that I'd picked up in my reading. One thing I read very early in life which was unusual perhaps was some of Karl Barth's church dogmatics. I was really despairing and i clung to some of his thoughts on the doctrine of reconciliation.

Its fairly well known (At least among theologians) that Barth emphasised the transcendence of God in his theology. God is "wholly other". One writer described Barth's idea of God as like tangent touching a circle (the world) at only one point.

Earlier today I read this from John Feinberg : "the more a theology stresses differences between God and man (emphasizing God as a transcendent "wholly other"), the more that theology tends toward a view that such a God is dead"

I found this interesting, because back in my teens when I still attended Sunday school, while I was on the way I recall the thought used to arise in my mind "God is dead". I'd try and ignore it, but I knew I was struggling with believing. I don't know if that was connected with my absorbing some of Barth's theology or not?

Just wondering what folks think about Feinberg's comment?

 

[NBB]

Hi, the enemy of our soul, is working actively to distance us from God, telling subtle lies mostly, sometimes something worse,
All arguments about God being bad, and against the gospel are all lies, and God can be close to us in a wonderful way, with His spirit.
God is not dead, the Holy spirit that worked with the disciples etc, is still doing the same things today with us.

 

[Clare73]

I thought i'd post in this forum. I don't really identify as a christian anymore, and while a good few years ago if I had been asked if I was a Christian I would have said yes, I am really not sure now if I ever was. Back then I felt like i was and prayed.
As it is I still read christian books at times. But I felt years ago that there was nothing drawing me anymore.
I've been thinking about whether I really had faith, or just ideas about God that I'd picked up in my reading. One thing I read very early in life which was unusual perhaps was some of Karl Barth's church dogmatics. I was really despairing and i clung to some of his thoughts on the doctrine of reconciliation.
Its fairly well known (At least among theologians) that Barth emphasised the transcendence of God in his theology. God is "wholly other". One writer described Barth's idea of God as like tangent touching a circle (the world) at only one point.

Earlier today I read this from John Feinberg : "the more a theology stresses differences between God and man (emphasizing God as a transcendent "wholly other"), the more that theology tends toward a view that such a God is dead"

I found this interesting, because back in my teens when I still attended Sunday school, while I was on the way I recall the thought used to arise in my mind "God is dead". I'd try and ignore it, but I knew I was struggling with believing. I don't know if that was connected with my absorbing some of Barth's theology or not?

Just wondering what folks think about Feinberg's comment?

I think it may be time to stop overthinking this.

Just put it on the shelf, don't deny it, but forget about it and get on with life.

In time (could be 15 years or more), it will be resolved.

 

[linux.poet]

"God is dead" reminds me of "God is dead and we have killed him" from Nietzche. Perhaps it was your brain's way of telling you that you were holding onto the concept of Christianity as a useful thing to believe, rather than as something you actually believed?

In any event, the more you distance God from yourself, the more He becomes an idea, and not a Person to which you relate. You bear God's image and are meant to be his representative. People idolize ideas all the time these days, to their detriment.

 

[timf]

Just wondering what folks think about Feinberg's comment?

It sounds sort of dumb. The take away is that the greater you think your God is, the less likely he is to survive. People can make all sorts of assertions but the useful ones are true.. You might consider this short video to be useful;

http://christianpioneer.com/videos/understandingchristianity/xtian01.mp4

additionally a text overview of Christianity might be helpful as well

Christian Pioneer - Christianity 101

Christian Pioneer - Answers to questions about Christianity

christianpioneer.com

 

[dms1972]

I think there is something in what Feinberg says. I've seen a similiar critique in other books, for instance The Unreal God of Modern Theology which is about Barth and Bultmann.

 

[dms1972]

"God is dead" reminds me of "God is dead and we have killed him" from Nietzche. Perhaps it was your brain's way of telling you that you were holding onto the concept of Christianity as a useful thing to believe, rather than as something you actually believed?

In any event, the more you distance God from yourself, the more He becomes an idea, and not a Person to which you relate. You bear God's image and are meant to be his representative. People idolize ideas all the time these days, to their detriment.

I did read some of Nietzche in the past not actually knowing much about his writings. I read his book The Antichrist, which isn't a theological / end times book, like someone like Tim Lahaye might write. I didn't read a lot of it, but it did have a bit of an effect on me that I wrestled with, and years later I had my own "God is dead" experience.

I think Nietzsche said somewhere that in his aphorism "God is dead" he meant by "God" the ideal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought i'd post in this forum. I don't really identify as a christian anymore, and while a good few years ago if I had been asked if I was a Christian I would have said yes, I am really not sure now if I ever was. Back then I felt like i was and prayed.

As it is I still read christian books at times. But I felt years ago that there was nothing drawing me anymore.

I've been thinking about whether I really had faith, or just ideas about God that I'd picked up in my reading. One thing I read very early in life which was unusual perhaps was some of Karl Barth's church dogmatics. I was really despairing and i clung to some of his thoughts on the doctrine of reconciliation.

Its fairly well known (At least among theologians) that Barth emphasised the transcendence of God in his theology. God is "wholly other". One writer described Barth's idea of God as like tangent touching a circle (the world) at only one point.

Earlier today I read this from John Feinberg : "the more a theology stresses differences between God and man (emphasizing God as a transcendent "wholly other"), the more that theology tends toward a view that such a God is dead"

I found this interesting, because back in my teens when I still attended Sunday school, while I was on the way I recall the thought used to arise in my mind "God is dead". I'd try and ignore it, but I knew I was struggling with believing. I don't know if that was connected with my absorbing some of Barth's theology or not?

Just wondering what folks think about Feinberg's comment?

The whole "God is dead" trope is typically a symptom of personal existential angst and I don't think it's really a result of entertaining theological tenuity about differences that could be cited between God and man.

When life is a continuous struggle, as it is for many single people who have various problems to deal with, it's no wonder that many of them don't perceive or seem to feel God's presence in their lives. I don't think most people end up feeling that God is dead because they read a philosophy book with some accentuation on certain theological points no one can verify. There's usually more everyday, common reasons people lose faith, and in sympathy with the situations people find themselves in, I tend not to think that it's simply because God appears as "other."

 

[linux.poet]

I think Nietzsche said somewhere that in his aphorism "God is dead" he meant by "God" the ideal.

Yes, that is what he was referring to, and as far as I know he considered that ideal to be useful.

There's usually more everyday, common reasons people lose faith, and in sympathy with the situations people find themselves in, I tend not to think that it's simply because God appears as "other."

It’s best not to assume how any particular human mind got to its conclusion. I would think such common reasons for losing faith would evaporate at the foot of the cross, because Christ clearly understands suffering and having to do things He did not wish to do. He begged the Father to not have to go to the cross at Gethsemene, and many Christians who “lose faith” do so for much more minor inconveniences than horrendous flogging and death by asphyxiation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It’s best not to assume how any particular human mind got to its conclusion. I would think such common reasons for losing faith would evaporate at the foot of the cross, because Christ clearly understands suffering and having to do things He did not wish to do. He begged the Father to not have to go to the cross at Gethsemene, and many Christians who “lose faith” do so for much more minor inconveniences than horrendous flogging and death by asphyxiation.

True, it's best not to assume, but I'm just relating what I've either been told by, or have heard from, dozens upon dozens of ex-Christians.

Often, what plays in the minds of people who fall away from faith is the notion that God has failed to deliver what they were told He has promised.

 

[dms1972]

Thanks for the replies.

Is it odd for someone at a young age (perhaps 6 or 7) to be obsessed with theology and particularly the decrees of God?

 

[RileyG]

I think it may be time to stop overthinking this.

Just put it on the shelf, don't deny it, but forget about it and get on with life.

In time (could be 15 years or more), it will be resolved.

Amen, sister.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think Barth wanted to emphasize the transcendence of God to an extreme degree. He was reacting to Nazism, though. When Nazis talked about God, they meant an immanent force present in racial "blood and soil", not in any traditional Christian notion.

"The Beyond in the midst of life" is one way I've heard as a better description of the relationship between God's transcendence and God's immanence.