 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/8/2005 6:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | A_Theist:
Straight up, if it is the process theism David Ray Griffin espouses.
WOW! This is VERY interesting! 'Preciate the encouragement too. Back atcha. I like Griffin too. Do you have his "Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality" (SUNY Series)? It's tight, yo. I'd like to check out the book you've talked about there. The Reenchantment without Supernaturalism.
If I may ask, what lead you down this path? Was there work or thought in particular? As I remember, you once were an open theist. What lead to your rethinking God's omnipotence, unilateral activity, and stuff?
Piqued,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/8/2005 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Do you have his "Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality" (SUNY Series)? It's tight, yo.
Hey Mephi, that's the second time you've mentioned that book recently, how about saying a bit more about it somewhere, what are his theses and what's so great about them? | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/8/2005 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...A_Theist: Straight up, if it is the process theism David Ray Griffin espouses.WOW! This is VERY interesting! 'Preciate the encouragement too. Back atcha. I like Griffin too. Do you have his "Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality" (SUNY Series)? It's tight, yo. I'd like to check out the book you've talked about there. The Reenchantment without Supernaturalism. If I may ask, what lead you down this path? Was there work or thought in particular? As I remember, you once were an open theist. What lead to your rethinking God's omnipotence, unilateral activity, and stuff? Piqued,
Hey, yeah, I own that book. I thought it was interesting that you were aware of that books existence; I also was amazed when I found out you heard of Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem. I have read some of the latter and a little of the former. I do know that he uses the parapsychology defence when arguing for panexperientialism--did you hear about PPS from Unsnarling, or did you come to the books independently of each other?
And meph, man, I would really recommend you check out
(the link to Reenchantment on amazon.com), it is really good. I mean, anything he could talk about pertaining to a process philosophy of religion (process theology basically) is covered in this book. I honestly believe you would have a good time reading this and appreciate it--that is essentially how I feel about any of Griffin's books.
As to what lead me down this particular path. I guess I kind of was lead into it. I met a guy named James
online who introduced me to Griffin and I decided to check him out. Eventually I just started buying his books and realized I like his work a lot. James was also the one who told me about books like Unsnarling the World-Knot because I was into the mind-body problem at the time. I didn't realize that process theology actually had a theory on the mind-body problem and free will, so I decided to check it out.
It just seems like process had all of the things to offer that I am interested in. There was no serious deliberation because I just felt like it was the right choice and I have no regrets as of yet--probably never will.
It is really good chatting with you. If you read this, will you let me know if I can meet with you and chat when I am up there on the 20th?
Peace,
Paul
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles HartshornePost Edited (A_Theist) : 3/10/2005 11:48:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 3/9/2005 2:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey A Theist,
i have been doing alot of thinking myself about the mind-body problem. What book would I need to check out in order to get the process view?
Thanks,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/10/2005 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | lol, not sure how seriously to take that question Tom...
The mind-body problem is the problem of how to relate the mind and the body - are they the same thing? if they're different, how do they relate? etc. etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/10/2005 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | A_Theist - how about editing that post so the link doesn't stretch the page to beyond the size of my screen.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/10/2005 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | not necessarily - we don't have to posit any independence in this life, but yes we do have to eventually, but that could be because God does some kind of miracle at death or something
Paul? Mistaken? Just wait 'til Mephi finds us.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/10/2005 11:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo Mark-
If separating them at death is possible, even miraculously, then that just goes to show that mind and body are at least logically distinct entities. That they CAN be separated (if only by God) presumes their not being logically equivalent entities.
Plus, I was reading in Decartes something. Let's see. Something about his handling of the demon thought experiment. He figured that mind was primary, because he could conceive of his bodily experiences--the six senses--being totally fabricated by the demon and fed to his mind. But he could not conceive of the very "act" of thinking as being fabricated. That's not logical. Cogito ergo sum. I'm actually in the process of thinking, therefore I (my mind) exists, if even my body doesn't.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 3/10/2005 10:04:29 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/10/2005 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | maybe, I don't know - would it depend on the kind of transformation that occured at death? | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/10/2005 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...What is the Mind-Body problem? Is that the problem of having to deal with people who have bodies but don't use their minds? Or beautiful minds in ugly bodies? What's the problem? Tom
ROFLMAO 
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/10/2005 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | |
rossfadeinout said...
Hey A Theist,
i have been doing alot of thinking myself about the mind-body problem. What book would I need to check out in order to get the process view?
Thanks,
Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem, by David Ray Griffin. It is, to my knowledge, the only process response to both dualists and (atheistic) materialism. I also found some essay of his online I am going to link.
I hope this helps
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects." ~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/10/2005 7:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | A_Theist - from what I'm reading so far about Prcoess Theology I'm struggling to see how it can really be a Christian Theology, perhaps you could explain how you personally see the two things interrelating? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/10/2005 8:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: Some form of pre-existing material that had no order exists necessarily so there is no way God can unilaterally manipulate it.
Jeff: How can one know that "some form of pre-existing material" had to exist "necessarily?"
Paul: Based off of process understanding, libertarian free-will is intrinsic to any world God would bring about because it is a metaphysical necessity.
Jeff: As I understand libertarian free-will, it implies a power to originate causally. If nothing is freely originated, how is the agent actually free? And if a power can be freely initiated, isn't that a kind of "unilateral" act?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/15/2005 12:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom said: That's a problem in Process thought. And too, I go with creation ex nihilo, and that's a problem with Process.
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
Paul: From what I have been reading lately, it doesn't appear that creatio ex nihilo is even a biblical concept. In fact, maybe you should check out Jon Douglas Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil: the Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence and Gerhard May's Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of Creation out of Nothing in Early Christian Thought.
My conviction is that one cannot have an adequate theodicy if they affirm creation ex nihilo and, consequently, divine omnipotence.
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects." ~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/24/2005 1:57 AM (GMT -6) | |
|
themuzicman siad: Well, process theism isn't specifically Christian in nature
Aint nothing wrong with that. Since Process Theism is based off of the thought of an anglo-american philosopher (Alfred North Whitehead) whose career started off in mathematics, and later developed into a metaphysics which eventually led to bringing the concept of a monotheistic God into the equation, i would have to say his followers did a pretty good job of developing a christian theism founded on his process categories.
themuzicman said: and more specifically isn't scrpiturally based.
Well, some of it is. And I have to wonder, if it is to be "scripturally based" does that mean it has to assume omnipotence? Because the whole idea of omnipotence is circular in nature and process doesn't hold to omnipotence in God. Does scripturally based to you entail infallibility? Because process denies infallibility implicity in denying omnipotence. But it sure does a good job of disclosing truths of the bible through its brand of metaphysics. |
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 3/26/2005 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | marporter said: why? because What Jesus said and did demonstrated his absolute authority and absolute power over all things.
Is this absolute power unilateral? If so, could you explain to me how Jesus' so called "absolute power" appears to be contingent upon the faith of the believer to heal them? Sounds like his absolute power is absolutely relative in that it needs reciprocation to actually work--kind of the way process teaches in regards to the way God's solely persuasive, creative, power works in relation to actual being with some degree of self determinitive creativity.
I just can't agree with omnipotence as power to do anything at will when there are contrasting genuine wills that are unable to be overriden because they too possess power metaphysically. In any world God would create this has to be true. Or else one ultimately has to hold God responsible for the evils in the world--which are not consonant with God's character.
"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects." ~Charles Hartshorne | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/29/2005 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | A_Theist said...
Yes, it's unilateral - I think the passage you're referring to is an isolated example which means something a lot less than you're trying to make it say - it contrasts with so many others which assert God's unilateral authority, and examples such as Jesus' authority over demons.
Suffice it to say, you got to wonder what it is about faith from a contingent agent that prevents Jesus from preforming healing. Could we conclude that maybe Jesus just didn't want to [heal] and that he said it was because of a lack of faith for no apperant reason?
OK, well let's have a look at the passage, it's certainly worth discussing. Here is is from the NET Bible
NET Bible said...
6:1 Now Jesus left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 6:2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. And many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did he get these ideas? And what is this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these miracles that are done through his hands? 6:3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 6:4 Then Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his own house.” 6:5 He was not able to do a miracle there, except to lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6:6 And he was amazed44 because of their unbelief. Then he went around among the villages and taught.
Now firstly, this is obviously not a metaphysical statement, it's a practical one. Secondly, I'm pretty sure this is the sort of verse that skeptics would bring up, so I went and had a look on Tekton to see what JP had to say there, I quote;
JPHolding said...We've seen a lot of skeptics quote this verse lately, saying that it indicates that Jesus was a charlatan who (like our modern "faith healer" Benny) needed people to have "faith" and excused away ability to heal real diseases as a lack of faith. The word "unbelief" here is apistia, meaning a lack of pistis. In light of our better understanding of pistis, the problem is indeed not with Jesus but with the lack of loyalty and trust by those who reject Jesus. Like the ungrateful client in the client-patron relationship, the people rejected Jesus as a patron in spite of his acts of grace, thereby dishonoring him. (Note how this affects the meaning of Mark 6:4: "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."  To reject a gracious act was the height of dishonor. Jesus could not heal these people not because of a lack of power, but because of ingratitude and a rejection of his gracious patronage! A rejected patron could and would never force his gracious gifts upon a client who didn't want them!
I'm guessing that this doesn't really come down firmly on your side or mine, since you link the power and the not forcing, but maybe it helps? | | Back to Top | | |
| 50 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|