Richard wrote: "The special, instantaneous creation of the soul is
absolutely necessary, doctrinally speaking."
Hello, Richard. Glad to have you join in the debates here.
I think I would rephrase your statement (for me, at least) as "The
special, instantaneous creation of the soul is absolutely necessary,
doctrinally speaking, according to many interpretations."
With that, I would agree. But I am not at all convinced that any of our
interpretations of the mysteries of God are, in the last analysis,
correct, or even close to correct. All of our attempts to understand God
are, simply speaking, just analogies or metaphors. They are useful, but
when they prevent us from exploring other possibilities, they are
I don't recall Teilhard as being a pantheist; I admit he is hard to
understand. I find the concept of panENtheism somewhat more useful,
myself, although I'm far from calling myself one. For a very good
description of panentheism, see Marcus Borg's book, "The God We Never
Knew." Excellent reading; one does not have to agree with Borg on all
things to begin to see a "larger God" than the one of much conventional
Appreciate the comments.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 30 2002 - 12:12:22 EST