"Unique of all, I would being to say that I don't visualize we are as far in the sticks as it force diagram - and I don't visualize Benedict is as far from Barth as it force diagram. Benedict stands in a tradition fashioned by Lubac and Balthasar, who emphatically erudite much from Barth's censure of 19th Century Open Religion and his Christological interest. Surely Benedict, being them, transcends the decisive of Enlightenment rationalism. And someone named in this post (in addition to you and I) fancies himself an Augustinian of one make of innovative.
As for "Unique Stuff", it essential be noted that that journal does not gobble a exclusive post in the hunch that one possibly will switch to it - it is too eclectic for that. It brings together voices from Jewish, Catholic and Protestant traditions to discuss in such a way that no one is compelled to go on strike unhappy his own set of philosophical/theological presuppositions. I see it as living cooperative certainly insofar as it provides a place for chat among Paleo-conservatives (being me) and Neo-conservatives.
SECONDLY, to get to the substance of the emit, David, you say that you can't piazza with Benedict seeing that you start to have that "just the ghost of the Sanctified Go off (who is indissoluble from the Label) can make Explain doable." You moreover say:
"Record a Christian can know the meaning of, say, "power", as just a Christian knows the power of God revealed top figure well on the Cover up of Jesus Christ. As such this "power", power unclear from servitude and amount, renders our familiar uses of "power" to be senseless, referring to nonentity but the fraud of signifiers."
I visualize I gobble read lots Barth and postliberal stuff to understand you approximately. But wherever I get unsettled is such as you go on to say: "I look up to the Nietzschean story in scripture and tradition." You dilate upon as follows:
"In the same way as descendants scolding about my book they catch napping why I find Nietzsche "fine" or how I'm intractable to "sensation" or "outnarrate" Nietzsche. The innovative thing to say is that such as I read Nietzsche's describe of knowledge (babel) and the self (Eden) qua recovery I say, "this is true!"."
So does that mean that Nietzsche has the Spirit? How can Nietzsche gobble a true perception of the mortal achieve something if what you say is true such as you write: "Explain is butchered by sin and just Grace can stimulate it. Nietzsche cannot see the world for what it is seeing that he is not in connection with and living conformed to Christ."
My obstacle is "does Nietzsche see the mortal achieve something clearly or not?" It seems to me you are intractable to gobble your cake and eat it too. If Nietzsche can see sin clearly, but not redemption, that sounds gorgeous much being what Aquinas thought was recurrently true of pagans. The New traditon accounts for bits and pieces being this with its tinge of familiar type. The light of natural free is not callow tightness, but it isn't practicable to find our way out of the labyrinth of sin and blunder either. Salvation requires type. I can't feign what part of this Benedict would gobble a contrary with. All he wanted to do at Regensburg is to say that recognizing that this world has a affordable put up essential lead us to make out that it has a reasonable put up and this reasonable put up, to the span Christians and Muslims can piazza on it, force hold us the instigate for world friendship more readily of the prosecution of civilizations. He all right was not envisioning Muslims in receipt of saved by free.
And if Nietzsche offers us so much good fulfillment now the construction of extra sin - and I fully piazza with you that he does - hence why not challenge that the friendly of chat that Benedict XVI was envisioning in his Regensburg Lecture? I visualize you and I would both prerequisite to say to Nietzsche everything like: "Yes, that is true as far as it goes, but you know God has provided a way of escape from the oppression of true drives and if we perform at Jesus Christ - really interest on his beauty and piousness - we give find freedom and release."
THIRDLY, you write: "So Nietzsche grounds the sincerity of relativism' in our true construction and this, as an Augustinian Christian, fascinates me, why? At the same time as Augustinian Christians do too." But of course, the Sanctified Leave is an Augustinian as well and I mistrust that he would being your outline with regard to Nietzsche. I don't occupy to speak for him, but as I read him and you and visualize about these issues, I don't see any real combat. It is a tinge that he has never on paper the big book on sin that he wanted to do as his "magnum effect".
The pope emphatically is well aware that, piazza seeing that inter-faith chat on reasonable issues is doable, that does make it easy. Sin is a torture in the inter-faith chat overturn end for particular. This may be why he has sought to shade the feed in a different place from intractable to find familiar cause on theology to intractable to piazza on a basic familiar doctrine (and I mean really basic - bits and pieces being the a minute ago to life, the lineage as the natural unit of ethnicity and marriage).
FOURTHLY, such as you scolding about disorganized wishes as essential I am a minute ago stage with you and prerequisite to bung bringing eros now the words. But approximately, Benedict is way formerly of us. In "Deus Caritas", at the rear explicatory that love includes both "agape" and "eros", he unites love of God and love of national. With, quoting St. Augustine, he writes: "If you see polish, you see the Trinity." Nietzsche possibly will not see polish in the Benedictine hunch and as a result possibly will not really see the Triune God. Yet he saw some truth - truth with which we gobble to contain.
Reference: goddesses-and-gods.blogspot.com
