Tom wrote: "If we are talking about the Christian deity, then it's
because such a proposal wreaks havoc with the traditional doctrine of
God. That doctrine posits certain attributes of God -- omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence, et al -- as being essential expressions of
God's being. You cannot "limit" any of those attributes without
abandoning the traditional portrayal of the Christian God."
That is a correct statement, of course. The question unposed by it is, of
course, is this: "Is the "traditional doctrine of God" a correct one?"
The proponents of both process theology and open theism freely admit that
those concepts (metaphors?) of God do not square with tradition, and, of
course, argue that tradition has performed the fallacy of misplaced
concreteness (a phrase attributed to Alfred North Whitehead) by mistaking
images (metaphors) of God for reality.
My own position is one of a traditional view. But in studying these other
options, I have to admit their arguments are very persuasive. And
interesting. Whitehead is not easy reading, however.
Tom continued: "A Christian God whose omnipotence can be curtailed may
turn out to be a God who cannot perform the miracle of redeeming and
reconciling his fallen creation. A Christian God whose omniscience can
be tampered with may not in fact know the needs and sufferings of his own
flock (Matthew 6:32). "
The operative word here is "may." One needs to read carefully how people
handle these matters.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 22:14:29 EDT