ex-xian

It kind of sounds like your appealing to the via negativa method of predication of God and also to relativism. Is that right?

Thomas Ash

Well, process theology is so different from traditional Christian theology, I'm not sure we'd be talking about the same type of 'God.' So when you try to answer a question about what God's nature would be like, as we're doing now, you'd get a completely different answer with process theology, as it has a very different type of God - for a start, one which isn't really omnipotent and is limited by the universe. So I don't know that people who hold to process theology can call themselves Christians, or even classical theists. That said, process theology does have a few good ideas up it's sleeve, and if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to believe in some sort of God I might look into it. It seems to answer the question about creativity we're consider well - it's an inevitable result of God's nature to actualize a world in which humans can be redeemed and come to him.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Ash ]</p>

Thomas Ash

You believe God exists most of the time, but not on holidays, when he takes his days off? (OK, stupid joke I know.)
I'm curious: when you say you're a 'Christian seeker', does that mean you accept from the start the basic tennets of Xian dogma, like Christ's divinity, the only path to salvation being through faith in Christ, an immanent God involved with the world, and the trinity? Or are you a 'seeker' more generally, and your seeking has thus far been leading you to something like Christianity?

ex-xian

Well, kind of...God is understood dipolarlly. Process theology rejects the traditional opposition between being and becoming, one and many, eternal and temporal, etc. God and the universe are both, and are one (although God is more primary being that the universe--kind of like, God is the ocean and all that's in it, and the universe is the stuff that's actually in the ocean. God is the everything, and then some). Contradictory characteristics are attributed to God via God's poles. So it's not exactly correct (or incorrect) to state that God is limited and non-omnipotent.

uh....Yes!

Seriously though, like most of us in the Bible belt, I grew up in a Christian environment. My father was a minister who had a voracious appetite for buying books. Unfortunately his appetites didn't include actually reading those books; mine did. Reading the various theological books that he bought taught the reason was really a good thing so I started to think for myself.

I realize that classical theism is so wrought with error as to be an unviable alternative. Being a fan of Whitehead and Russell, I looked into panentheism and really like what I found.

I call myself a Christian seeker because there are many things in Christianity that I find satisfying. I'm trying to get a copy of the above mentioned Boyd's "Trinity and Process" but it's expense and college responsibilties have prevented me....I feel that I've begun to ramble.

Anyway, does that answer your question?

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: xianseeker ]</p>

Demosthenes

Well for a perfect being to be perfect, people have to agree on what makes the beings perfect, in other words, what is perfection. The definition of perfection would then have to be something that everybody on the planet agree on and also the definition will have to hold throughout the entire past and the future. Otherwise then the perfection won't be perfect and the perfect beings cannpt be perfect if we can't agree on what makes them perfect.

For perfection to be objective, we have to make it an absolute term, however we can't do that. What we consider to be perfect isn't going to be perfect for somebody else on earth and vice versa. That's why when people start throwing around loaded words like perfection and perfect beings in a discussion, I start to tune out those people.

ex-xian

No, I don't think this follows at all. It's possible that one group has the correct definition of perfection and everyone else is in error. Of course, it's also possible that no one has a correct definition of perfection, but that doesn't mean that perfection doesn't exist.
I usually tune out post-modernistic, relativistic people myself.

Demosthenes

Of course it's entirely possible that a group has the correct definition of perfection and yes, perhaps nobody on earth has the correct definition of perfection, so then why should we believe any of those people about perfect beings?

Given what we know of the universe, the whole concept of perfect being seems extremely unlikely. I'm curious, how would those perfect beings be of any relevance to us?

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Demosthenes ]</p>

Kenny

Hello Thomas Ash,

I thought I would answer this post because a position of mine was referred to within it.

Actually, within orthodox Christianity, the statement that God’s decision to create the world is “a necessary part of his nature” would be looked on with some suspicion because it is fundamental to orthodox Christian doctrine that God freely chose to create the world. The creation of the world is understood to be a volitional act on God’s part as opposed to something which God is essentially such as, say, God’s being Triune.

Well, not quite. This is my position with respect to the problem of evil. I believe that the reason evil exists in this world is because the presence of evil allows for certain moral positives (such as justice, forgiveness, mercy, the ultimate triumph of the good, etc.) which could not have been manifested otherwise so that, on the whole, in the long run, a world in which evil occurs winds up being morally superior to one in which evil is absent.

With respect to the motive for creation itself, however, I’m not sure that the phrase “It is better for God to create than not to create” is even meaningful. That is, I’m not sure any legitimate moral comparison can be drawn between these two states of affairs because it seems to involve the comparison of a state of existence to a state of non-existence.

So, what motive did God have to create? The most plausible Biblically consistent answer, to me, is that God did so as an act of self-giving love. The OP seems to presuppose that the only motivations for action stem from some sort of self-impoverishment and therefore from self centered need. But love is not that way. Love is, by its very nature, extravagant. Love reaches out beyond itself and draws others into it. Love gives, not to fulfill some personal need, but because it is the nature of love to give. I give things to my wife, for example, simply because I love her, not because I expect or need anything from her in return. Likewise, I believe that God, Who is love, Who exists as a Triune being in eternal inter-personal relationships where perfect love is always expressed, created the world as an expression of overflowing, extravagant love.

As I already pointed out, my opinion in this matter pertained to the problem of evil as it pertains to the world of human experience. In other words, I was only speaking of God’s plan in-so-far as it pertains to human beings. This is not to say, however, that human beings necessarily stand in the center of God’s all encompassing plan for creation or that they are even a very large part of it.

Because an “end state of redemption” requires that redemption precede it; otherwise, it’s just a shame.

Well, as Princess Lea (SP?) of Star Wars once said, “It’s not over yet.” In light of your “human centric” objection above, I would say it’s a bit pre-mature to evaluate the effectiveness of God’s plan without having seen it all played out.

Well, you’re just flat out wrong about that one

God Bless,
Kenny

phaedrus

I am just suggesting that you try to answer those questions and that should make things more clearer to you

Thomas Ash

I think this does make God not omnipotent, at least as the term is classically understood. Omnipotence means that God has at least the potential to actualize any (logically coherent?) state of affairs in the universe, whereas in process theology he's somewhat bound by what happens in the universe. As far as I understand, process theologians acknowledge this and use it in their theodicy - God can't avoid the evil in the universe. However this isn't really a theodicy as it doesn't defend the classical omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God.
You did answer my question - thanks. I was just curious how rational 'seeking' could lead anyone to Christianity (though obviously you won't share this perspective - don't take it as an insult. )