urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19

Iorwerth Thomas · 13 Dec 2004, 10:17 · from 2004-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: iorweththomas at hotmail.com (Iorwerth Thomas)
Date: Mon Dec 13 10:17:26 2004
Subject: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19
In-Reply-To: <01a101c4e137$d5fe24f0$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <BAY102-F173FE3F05549941F5C4AA8B9AB0 at phx.gbl>

I think I owe Blattid an apology - I should have tracked back and checked 
who made the remark I was responding to in the first place... My bad.  Sorry 
for any upset caused.

Moving on...  When I first read the BotNS, I was rather struck by the 
similarity between the Pancreator/Increate duality and the 
'dipolar-opposite' theories of the nature of God in process theology.

A quick explanation:  in process thought, God is thought of as having an 
eternal, metaphysically necessary and transcendant component to his nature, 
and a temporal, contingent, changing and immanent component (exact 
implementations vary with the process thinker: Chales Harsthorne has a 
different interpretation from his mentor, A N Whitehead, with most who are 
interested in the area following Harsthorne).

A better explanation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

The similarity is rather superficial (I don't know if Wolfe has heard of 
Whitehead et. al., and I doubt he'd approve of some of their more heterodox 
beliefs, eg. the rejection of traditional formulations of omnipotence in 
favour of divine persuasion) but I wonder if he may be drinking from similar 
metaphysical wells...  Or maybe it has more to do with the incorporation of 
Hindu categories of thought into the future theology of Urth.

Any thoughts?  (I'm probably talking utter drivel.)

Iorwerth

>From: "James Wynn" <thewynns at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>,The Urth Mailing List 
><urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
>To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net>
>Subject: Re: (urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 4, Issue 19
>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:18:59 -0500
>
> >If I gave the impression that I had no respect for Protestant intellect,
> >or that I don't think any Protestants have struggled to make their faith
> >work in the light of modern scientific data, please accept my apology.
> >I certainly intended no such thing.
> >--Dan'l
>
>I don't think you did that, Blattid, nor did I get the idea it was really
>you Iorwerth was responding to.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net