Re: Coercion

From: Howard J. Van Till <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri Apr 09 2004 - 09:05:27 EDT

On 4/8/04 9:25 PM, "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> wrote:

............

> My hyperbole causing problems...
> Process theology suggests that God tries to do things, but He doesn't seem to
> achieve much, IMO. This depends somewhat on what the boundary is between
> persuasion and coercion, though it still seems to make Him rather ineffectual
> and irrelevant.

I think the line should be drawn in such a way as to enable a person to
marvel at God's active, non-coercive, intimate, fruitful and life-enriching
presence in every moment of life. I also suggest that to experience the
effectiveness and relevance of God's active presence we must
learn to see in such a way that no one could say of us, "eyes they have, but
they see not."

> I agree with Howard that form-imposing divine action within the process of
> creation seems both theologically and scientifically unnecessary. This is
> compatible with, but does not imply, the view that no such action occurs in
> history.

Agreed. That's why I say that a meta-scientific principle like the RFEP can
be welcomed by both traditional theism and naturalistic theism (as in
process theology).

Howard Van Till
Received on Fri Apr 9 09:05:46 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 09 2004 - 09:05:46 EDT