Comments on: The Death of the Death of God OR “Gott ist tot” ist tot http://theimageoffish.com/2010/07/22/the-death-of-the-death-of-god-or-gott-ist-tot-ist-tot/ we swim in interpretation Sat, 31 Dec 2011 21:32:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jesse Turri http://theimageoffish.com/2010/07/22/the-death-of-the-death-of-god-or-gott-ist-tot-ist-tot/comment-page-1/#comment-227 Jesse Turri Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:56:45 +0000 http://theimageoffish.com/?p=232#comment-227 "We are called not to abandon attempts to name our experience, but to acknowledge that our attempts will be provisional and contextual, not eternal and utterly accurate." Thanks for writing Callid. “We are called not to abandon attempts to name our experience, but to acknowledge that our attempts will be provisional and contextual, not eternal and utterly accurate.”

Thanks for writing Callid.

]]> By: Jeremy http://theimageoffish.com/2010/07/22/the-death-of-the-death-of-god-or-gott-ist-tot-ist-tot/comment-page-1/#comment-220 Jeremy Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:21:01 +0000 http://theimageoffish.com/?p=232#comment-220 So, I'm just trying to get some clarification. When you say we're living after the death of God or we live in a time that has experienced the death of the death of God what exactly died? It seems like you and Blake following Caputo are simply talking about the death of the God of onto-theology. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's important to point that death of God theology was not simply a Christian movement. There were also Jewish theologians trying to do theology after Auschwtiz. With that in mind, the death of God was not simply a linguistic or epistemological issue but also an issue of theodicy. The linguistic reading of the death of God was championed by thinkers such as Mark C Taylor, Raschke, and Winquist who believed that God's being is dissolved into language. But, theologians responding to shoah were thinking more about ontological issues and theodicy. They realized that we are going to have to radically rethink how to do theology. Here Altizer is helpful following Blake when he realizes that the cross is ultimately the self-annihilation of God which is simultaneously the death of God and Satan. At the cross we encounter a coincidence of opposites where this wholly other oppressive God becomes identical with Satan and both are negated in the death of the Son. This allows Altizer to declare that Satan is Lord of the shoah. I think we have to recognize that the death of God theology arose out of a specific sense of nihilism pervading the Western world and a realization that if there was a future for theology it had to be redone radically. I'd strongly recommend William Hamilton's book the New Essence of Christianity which combines insights from the later Bonhoeffer, Nietzsche, Tillich, and Camus. Perhaps, I think it's too simple to say that the death of God was simply a recognition that we no longer had the adequate tools to name God, but we also need to understand that everything is up in the air after his death. An insight I think Nietzsche understood all too well. Clayton Crockett completed his book Interstices of the Sublime with this insightful quote: “God is dead, even if belief in God is back, which means that everything is questionable. Radical theology is free to ask questions, unanchored by grounding in a substantial God. Even substance is not substantial. Questions swirl, spiral, and intertwine. Sublimation means making meaning. The sublime both gives meaning to language and resists meaning. The sublime is the source of sublimation. Dark forces are at work. Illumination is partial, at best” (187). So, I'm just trying to get some clarification. When you say we're living after the death of God or we live in a time that has experienced the death of the death of God what exactly died? It seems like you and Blake following Caputo are simply talking about the death of the God of onto-theology. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's important to point that death of God theology was not simply a Christian movement. There were also Jewish theologians trying to do theology after Auschwtiz. With that in mind, the death of God was not simply a linguistic or epistemological issue but also an issue of theodicy. The linguistic reading of the death of God was championed by thinkers such as Mark C Taylor, Raschke, and Winquist who believed that God's being is dissolved into language. But, theologians responding to shoah were thinking more about ontological issues and theodicy. They realized that we are going to have to radically rethink how to do theology. Here Altizer is helpful following Blake when he realizes that the cross is ultimately the self-annihilation of God which is simultaneously the death of God and Satan. At the cross we encounter a coincidence of opposites where this wholly other oppressive God becomes identical with Satan and both are negated in the death of the Son. This allows Altizer to declare that Satan is Lord of the shoah.
I think we have to recognize that the death of God theology arose out of a specific sense of nihilism pervading the Western world and a realization that if there was a future for theology it had to be redone radically. I'd strongly recommend William Hamilton's book the New Essence of Christianity which combines insights from the later Bonhoeffer, Nietzsche, Tillich, and Camus. Perhaps, I think it's too simple to say that the death of God was simply a recognition that we no longer had the adequate tools to name God, but we also need to understand that everything is up in the air after his death. An insight I think Nietzsche understood all too well.
Clayton Crockett completed his book Interstices of the Sublime with this insightful quote:
“God is dead, even if belief in God is back, which means that everything is questionable. Radical theology is free to ask questions, unanchored by grounding in a substantial God. Even substance is not substantial. Questions swirl, spiral, and intertwine. Sublimation means making meaning. The sublime both gives meaning to language and resists meaning. The sublime is the source of sublimation. Dark forces are at work. Illumination is partial, at best” (187).

]]> By: Blake Huggins http://theimageoffish.com/2010/07/22/the-death-of-the-death-of-god-or-gott-ist-tot-ist-tot/comment-page-1/#comment-219 Blake Huggins Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:06:21 +0000 http://theimageoffish.com/?p=232#comment-219 Well said.  It is helpful for me to think about this in terms of Ricoeur's first and second naivete (or even a hermeneutics of suspicion and retrieval).  I think Caputo and Vattimo are on to something with their title "After the Death of God."  I take it to be a necessary passage theology must go through in our time but I want to see it through to the other side.  That's also what I understand Kearney to be doing with his idea of anatheism.  That is, what happens when we experience the death of the death of God?  And what new channels of theological discourse does that open up?  For me, that's when it gets exciting. Well said.  It is helpful for me to think about this in terms of Ricoeur's first and second naivete (or even a hermeneutics of suspicion and retrieval).  I think Caputo and Vattimo are on to something with their title "After the Death of God."  I take it to be a necessary passage theology must go through in our time but I want to see it through to the other side.  That's also what I understand Kearney to be doing with his idea of anatheism.  That is, what happens when we experience the death of the death of God?  And what new channels of theological discourse does that open up?  For me, that's when it gets exciting.

]]>