>>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.>>
Read Griffin's book. Then it will be no mystery. One does not need to accept
Griffin's model of God to understand that he constructs it because he sees
the traditional model as fatally flawed. The pejorative "second rate" has no
meaning in the above, of course, unless one means it to say "different than
the model I have held up to this time."
But then, all models of God are ultimately flawed and incomplete. We call
God "king," but we don't think he sits on a literal throne and rules a
literal kingdom. We call him "Father" but does he have a penis and
testicles? We call him other things -- all models. The panentheist has
created yet another model, based on Whitehead's assertion that to think of
the universe one ought not think of "particles hitting other particles" but
of "occasions of experience" which prehend previous occasions of experience,
with God being a persuasive -- but not a coercive -- force/influence in each
of these.
Burgy
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 03 2002 - 12:10:10 EDT