I could never see the attraction of a panetheist god myself. It has all the
disadvantages of most other second rate imitations and none of the
advantages of
the original model. Why some people insist on a second rate product is a
mystery.
Jon
Michael Roberts wrote:
> Very seriously, is there another approach which does justice to God as
> Creator? Having looked ,studied, felt and considered other positions I have
> found that creation ex nihilo as summed up in thes equestions to be the only
> reasonable alternative . All others end up with a God who is not God and a
> creator who is not creator. That is not an inherent conservatism as for half
> the last 30 years I was not in the evangelical fold!
>
> An panentheist god is no god and I can hear lots of good Sci and Religion
> types wanting to jump down my throat or at least first preen their feathers
>
> Regards
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Questioning the Big Bang
>
> > > I prefer William Temple's equations
> > >
> > > God-World= God
> > >
> > > World - God = zero
> > >
> > > In these quasi-math equations he sums up the doctirne of creation with
> > > theism and creation and no panentheism.
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Yes, these "equations" do symbolize the concept of the God-World
> > relationship consistent with creatio ex nihilo. I have no desire to draw
> you
> > away from them, but for myself I must explore other theological
> approaches.
> >
> > Howard
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 18:36:19 EDT