From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 10:27:19 EDT
George wrote:
> But traditional theologies have their own problems. I find it strange &
> somewhat disheartening that on this list people think that they can
discuss "God" &
> "creation" in some detail without ever referring to the one who by & for
whom, according
> to the NT (Jn.1:3, I Cor.8:6, Col.1:16-17, Heb.1:2), all things have been
created. To
> put it bluntly, most of the discussions of creation here - from the
standpoints of both
> process thought & more traditional theism - are of very little value
because of this
> defect.
I actually think that its is in the very incarnation schemes that things
like process theology can be salvaged. In all incarnation schemes(Jesus,
Krishna, Dionysius) there is an element of kenosis(self emptying) of God to
be present in this reality. To me this is how talk of a limited God should
be couched. For me the most meaning metaphor that expresses this is the
idea of a Living God or a divine life. In the divine life the limitations
of space-time are accepted while at the same time there is an eternal
connection/interaction with the transcendent aspect of God. I believe that
process theology is trying to solve the "problem of evil" by limiting God
but that only makes God a cowering wimp. That doesn't solve the problem.
The solution is to accept that life itself entails the potential for evil.
No potential for evil, no life. That puts the responsibility of evil on God
but rationalizes it by God's participation in life and that life itself
entails that potential.
Regards,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
Cc: <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:04 AM
Subject: lame creation concepts
> Steve Petermann wrote:
> >
> > Ted,
> >
> > > Or something like that. His picture of the Demiurgos is, IMO, a
precursor
> > > of the modern process God, who can't exert absolute power of nature
> > > either--that is, IMO the process God can't determine the nature of
nature.
> > > Rather the nature of nature is a given, the God must simply do his
best
> > with
> > > what he's got. This is why I think of process theology as
Platonistic,
> > > though one can also see it as deeply Aristotelian also (an eternal
> > universe
> > > eternally in the process of becoming).
> >
> > I think you're exactly right on the parallels. What has always bothered
me
> > about process theology is its use of the term "God". Unlike Plato,
process
> > thought doesn't seem to understand that the term "God" springs from the
> > notion of ultimacy. Plato certainly recognized it by having God be
> > transcendent even if his idea of perfection might cause problems. When
> > process theology leaves out a transcendent ultimate it, in effect, makes
> > their god a Demiurgos. Since in their view God is constrained by
something,
> > then logically whatever constrains God is really
God...........................
>
> This is a good point. Process theologians often say that one has to speak
of
> God and the world together (as in Cobb's _God and the World_). In an
important sense it
> is the God + World combination that corresponds to "God" in traditional
theologies.
>
> But traditional theologies have their own problems. I find it strange &
> somewhat disheartening that on this list people think that they can
discuss "God" &
> "creation" in some detail without ever referring to the one who by & for
whom, according
> to the NT (Jn.1:3, I Cor.8:6, Col.1:16-17, Heb.1:2), all things have been
created. To
> put it bluntly, most of the discussions of creation here - from the
standpoints of both
> process thought & more traditional theism - are of very little value
because of this
> defect.
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 10:31:12 EDT