dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 20:20:39 -0400 George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
> writes:
> ................................
> > > In answer to the first question, a 'proper theism' has to be
> > something
> > > beyond deism, if nothing else.
> >
> > This is hardly an adequate answer. Whatever process
> > theology may be, it
> > certainly isn't deism.
> > ...............................
> >
> Precisely my point. It is something less than deism though it allows the
> deity to tinker with the universe.
"Tinker" isn't close enough to real process theology even to be a caricature.
In process thought, unlike deism, God is involved in everything that happens in the
world. OTOH deism, unlike process thought, is able to speak about divine origination
of the world. It's clear that one can't just arrange different views on in a linear
sequence. You still haven't made any serious attempt to set out the criteria for a
"proper theism".
> > Of course I never said that you, or the theological
> > tradition, accepted Greek
> > philosophy wholesale. But the idea that pure being is superior to
> > becoming has clearly
> > had an important influence on Christian theology.
>
> This has no bearing on my thought. My approach simply asks what is
> required for a Creator. On the other hand, giving priority to becoming
> results in something like Hegelian bunk, which finds it necessary to
> eliminate logic or, more accurately, reconstruct "reason" as alogical.
Rather than respond to the anti-Hegelian bombast, let me suggest that you
set out clearly the proof that no concept of divine temporality (N.B., not just the idea
that God is limited by the world's time) can be compatible with a Christian doctrine of
creation.
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 11 2000 - 07:23:06 EDT