From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> One thing significantly missing from this list is anything about _God's_
> freedom. & one consequence of that is that the use of the term kenotic is
> inappropriate. In its proper usage that stems from Phil.2:7 it means that
> God voluntarily limits divine action. That is something quite different
> from the idea that God simply can't do some thing. Kenosis has become a
> popular term & it's understandable that process theologians would want to
> use it but in doing so they change the meaning of it.
Interesting point. I'll keep my eyes open to relevant comments on it.
> Another point: In earlier writings you've spoken of creation as
> being "gifted by God from the outset with all of the form-producing
> capacities necessary ..." (S & CB 8, 1996) & similar things. You're going
> to have a problem saying anything like this in a process context. The
> difficulty is not just that there's no process "outset" but that the world
> & its capacities cannot be seen as the work of God alone. Thus God cannot
> have "gifted" creation with "all" of its form-producing capacities.
Not necessarily a problem. _This_ particular universe -- this particular
manifestation of a World -- remains, I believe, open to my description
(perhaps slightly modified by the absence of any need to root it in creatio
ex nihilo). _This_ universe still has an "outset" and particular features
chosen by God.
Howard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 09:27:18 EST