Burn,
IT was clear Narkissos, (although you quote Barth you do not demosntrate your point however) I merely pointed to your outline of the "orthodox" position. I am not exactly using Romans 1:20 as an anti-anything diatribe, but HS is using it to prove (or abuse) a point so I am using it in that context. Romans 1 is neither contextually nor theologically suitable for anti-theist or anti-Christian diatribe either.
Good grief man! Have you still not seen that both Narkissos and myself, though approaching this issue from different paths are bent upon trying to get both yourself and Deputy to see the very same point. The problem is that neither of you seem to be able to see either point.
You remind me of a scene from the Truffaut movie, 'Jour De Fete', in which the main character is beleaguered by a fly whilst riding his postal workers bicycle. He then spends three minutes waving his arms and legs around like a windmill hoping that somehow he will hit the target. Unfortunately the postman is a bit of an idiot, though we will not carry the cameo quite that far. ;)
Either Romans 1:20 is correct in suggesting that enough of Gods PERSON can be recognized from 'creation' to provide a basis for condemning to an adverse judgement those who cannot see that PERSON, or that the scripture is badly flawed in principle. What I have been evidencing is that what we see in nature is survival of the fittest by ANY means available. If by acknowledging this fact we see the PERSON of God as deceitful, violent and amoral, then it follows that either God is so expressed, or that Paul had no ethical or indeed theological basis upon which to suggest that it is an issue of judgement.
The only 'inescusable' thing I see here is Paul's logic.
HS
