"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> >From: george murphy <email@example.com>
> > The basic problem here is not the eternity of the world but the statement
> > that God-and-World is the "Ultimate" reality. I think, e.g., of Tillich's
> > statements that God "is the name for that which concerns man
> > "[W]hatever concerns a man ultimately becomes god for him, and
> > man can be concerned ultimately only about that which is god for him."
> > Theology I, 211.) If the world posseses ultimacy in something like this
> > sense along
> > with God then I think there is indeed a First Commandment problem. But
> > perhaps you meant something less strong than "Ultimate" here.
> Yes, I have no objection to using some other word to avoid violating the
> first commandment. However, in panentheism the problem goes away since the
> World is within God, and always has been. To distinguish between God (which
> includes the world) and God-and-a-World then looks like a distinction
> without a difference. In any case, the World cannot be ultimate apart from
The fact that two things are always related doesn't mean that
can be made between them. Given a source of light, I am always
accompanied by my
shadow & my shadow is not present without me, but we're not the same thing.
But whether or not there is a difference is a question that
has to be faced
most critically when one asks not merely philosophical questions about the
relationship between God and the world but rather "What do you put
your trust in?"
or "What do you worship?" Lex orando lex credendi. If indeed there is no
distinction that makes a difference at this level then it seems to me that the
fundamental problem with the First Commandment remains. The prophets
had a lot to
say about nature worship & Paul sees the fundamental sin as the fact
"worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom.1:25).
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 11:10:21 EDT