Re: Questioning the Big Bang

From: JW Burgeson (
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 12:03:43 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: 2900 BC vs. 2350 BC"

    >>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.


    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 03 2002 - 12:10:10 EDT