Re: [asa] Re: Endgame

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sat Jan 31 2009 - 07:43:12 EST

Here I go again, George. And there you continue with your usual, un-updated message. Glad to know that we are still persons of our generation and not just robots.
It is not surprising to me in the least that you didn't directly answer *any* of my three questions in the previous message. You danced, and I dance, and that's fine too!
In your opinion, George, is your view of process theology 'evolving'? Or is it settled? Pierre Teilhard de Chardin obviously deserves a paper or thread from you as for your Lutheran-Catholic views of evolution, science and faith. I'm absolutely certain that you'll cite a previous paper you've written on this topic if it is available.
Otherwise, the 'endgame' we can say is already really 'ended.' E.g. there'll not be another superbowl xlii. There are many who mix up history with 'evolution,' as Popper warned. Surely you'll acknowledge this, though it is neither a natural scientific (physics) nor theological recognition.

I agree with your view, George: "the 'endgame' isn't simply humanity but humanity indwelt by God."

And so welcome to social-humanitarian thought! We've been thinking about this for ages!
Gregory (from Russia en route to India)
--- On Sat, 1/31/09, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: [asa] Re: Endgame
Received: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 5:46 AM

To quote Reagan, "There you go again." My "position toward
process theology" is that I have fundamental problems with it but don't reject everything that
process theologians say. Anything more "toward process theology" in
what I say is due to a lack of discernment in my readers.

& I agree that there's plenty wrong with Teilhard's theology. For
starters, he's certainly not a theologian of the cross. But not everything
he said was wrong, &
I think his understanding of the future of evolution in terms of the Pauline
idea of the Body of Christ is pretty much on target. If you want to criticize
that you should do it on its own ground & not haul in claims about his
crypto-Buddhism &c.
In particular, consider whether you're taking Paul's imagery in I
Cor.12 & Rom.12 as well as Col.1:15-20 seriously.


---- Gregory Arago <> wrote:
> Hi George,
> It happens that I'm one who thinks David O.'s concern is
legitimate. Do you deny that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin sometimes sounds
'just like Buddhism'? You say in one sentence that he
'distinguishes' himself but you don't say how or when or where.
I've been reading Teilhard himself recently. And of course you know the
warning about Teilhard's teachings from Rome and his 'exile'.
> Yes, I know that what you say is part and parcel of your position toward
'process theology' and the role that Teilhard de Chardin plays in
process theology. I just don't get the impression that your view is settled
on this yet. Is yours a settled view, George, or a view in process (of
formation)? Is your view 'evolving'?
> You seem to defend Teilhard's provocative paleoanthropology, his
process ideas, his excessive evolutionism (though I might be mis-speaking here),
his 'threat to the human identity' which was identified by the Vatican,
and you seem to be marrying this with your particularly Lutheran theology.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you haven't found a balance yet in
this endeavour it would not be surprising - it is an extremely difficult
task! Especially so if one is not a biologist or a sociologist...
> En route to something more mysterious than rational,
> Gregory 
> --- On Sat, 1/31/09, <>
> From: <>
> Subject: Re: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)
> To: "David Opderbeck" <>
> Cc: ""
> Received: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 2:03 AM
> Read what Teilhard actually says about it. He makes the point that the
type of
> union Paul speaks of in I Cor.12 doesn't wipe out individuality but
> intensifies it. He says that union "differentiates,"
"personalizes," and "creates." (Sorry I don't have the
> refs here.) Have you ever had the experience of knowing someone who
seemed to
> be just a boring nonentity until you had a chance to observe him/her with
> or friends and see the person really come alive?
> & Teilhard distinguishes in several essays between his view of the
> future & the type of picture one has in Buddhism.
> & when all is said and done, what are we to do with the Pauline
picture of
> the Body of Christ? Maybe we should take it seriously. It is not just an
> abstract idea of unification but a picture of a corporate entity of which
> is the head - i.e., the source of life.
> ---- David Opderbeck <> wrote:
> George -- not sure where you're going with the "corporate
entity" idea.
> While there's a corporateness to our eschatological future, it seems
> hard, and dangerous, to suggest that there isn't also an ongoing
> preservation of individual identity. To me, this is where the "omega
> starts to sound just like Buddhism.
> >
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now at

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jan 31 07:43:57 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2009 - 07:43:57 EST