John W Burgeson wrote:
> George wrote, in part: "But there is a considerable amount of naivete &
> carelessness."
>
> We can agree on that, of course. I am 1/2 way through the Corey book --
> what a disappointment. It fits the above, I'm
>
> George also comments: " To the general theodicy question I would
> just comment that:
> a) process theology is too easy a solution, and
> b) (as I have said before) any theodicy in which the cross is not
> central isn't ultimately worth much."
>
> Considering the degree of difficulty I've had in just BEGINNING to
> understand process theology, I'd certainly not call it "easy." But it is
> also not very satisfying. Of course I've been 40+ years a fairly
> "conventional" Christian, and so new stuff is sometimes hard to
> assimilate.
Process theology in itself certainly isn't "easy" in that sense:
Reading Whitehead will quickly convince anyone of that! What I meant is that
it solves the theodicy problem by taking an easy way out. In response to the
classic conundrum, "If God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there evil in
the world?" the process theologian can reply that God _isn't_ all-powerful.
This is helpful in calling our attention to the need to define God's power
more carefully than has sometimes been done in traditional theology, but it
isn't the whole story.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 13:11:57 EST