[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
Created:Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1362
Total number of notes:61362

13.0. "Process theology" by CSC32::M_VALENZA (Postmodern noter.) Wed Sep 19 1990 19:14

    Process theology is a a theological movement derived from the
    philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.  The
    leading contemporary proponents of process theology are John Cobb, Jr.,
    and David Ray Griffin.  Griffin has been involved with recent efforts
    at developing a "constructive" postmodern theology that is largely
    derived from process theology.

    Process theology distinguishes itself from classical theism in its
    images of God, but its underlying philosophical system is derived from
    the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.  This philosophy, as
    the name implies, focuses on the events, or processes, that constitute
    reality.  Whitehead refers to these events as "occasions of
    experience." Events know about, or "prehend" the universe, including
    the past--but are not necessarily determined by them.  Processes can
    thus undergo a "creative transformation" as the occasion of experience
    completes.  The implication is that process philosophy considers
    creativity to be the ultimate reality of the universe.

    If creativity is the ultimate reality, though, process theology
    considers God to be the ultimate actuality.  Classical theism, such as
    that expressed by Anselm and Thomas, derived much of its conception of
    God from classical Greek thought.  This theology typically expressed the
    view that a perfect God is necessarily impassive and unchanging. 
    Process theology disputes this claim, arguing that while God is
    unsurpassable by others, that does not imply that God is unsurpassable
    by self.  In fact, process theology argues that the conception of
    perfect God necessarily requires a changing as well as an unchanging
    aspect.  

    Process theology focuses on God as having a dual nature:  a creative
    self, and a responsive self.  God is therefore defined as
    creative-responsive love.  The responsive self is the changing aspect of
    God, the divine feeling and compassion that responds to the universe. 
    The creative side acts by persuasion rather than force, as a "divine
    lure" for the other creative elements that constitute the universe. 
    Thus process theology rejects the notion of divine omnipotence.  Process
    theology argues that God seeks to maximize the enjoyment of all
    creatures in the universe, but through persuasion rather than as an
    omnipotent being.

    In responding to the universe, God also acts as the repository of
    "objective immortality"; in other words, all that we do affects God
    permanently and irrevocably, and thus our lives are given a sort of
    immortality through God.  Process theologians therefore need not believe
    in a personal afterlife; although Griffin and Cobb do believe in life
    after death, Hartshorne does not.  But in either case, the everlasting
    influence of objective immortality through God, which Hartshorne argues
    is the only permanent and immortal reality, means that our loving
    actions leave an indelible and positive imprint on the divine life.  In
    that sense, then, Hartshorne argues, we do achieve a kind of
    "immortality".  The value of the love we express is therefore not just
    in the temporal joy we give to other creatures, but also in the
    permanent enhancement we provide to the divine life.

    Griffin argues that constructive postmodern theology, based on process
    philosophy, represents an alternative to both liberal and conservative
    theology.  On the one hand, conservative theology, with its adherence
    to scriptural literalism and its hostility to modernism and science, is
    simply not an intellectually viable option.  On the other hand, he
    argues that liberal theology (as embodied by Tillich) embraces the
    secular and modernist view to such an extent that its theological
    concepts become vacuous.  Griffin believes in a personal God, and
    therefore disagrees with Tillich's contention that God is "being
    itself" instead of *a* being.  The term "postmodern" thus comes from
    that fact that the theology rejects both the pre-modern world view of
    conservative theology and the modern world view of secularism.

    Griffin and Cobb define five doctrines of classical theology that
    process theology categorically rejects:

    1) God as Cosmic Moralist.
    2) God as the Unchanging and Passionless Absolute
    3) God as Controlling Power
    4) God as Sanctioner of the Status Quo
    5) God as Male.

    Note that in certain ways process theology does resemble some of the
    ideas of feminist theology.  Process theology differs from feminist
    theology in that it is based on its own specific philosophical system,
    but many of its conclusions are similar to those of Christian and
    Jewish feminist thought.  Process theology is a product of Western
    philosophy, and has historically been a Christian movement; Cobb and
    Griffin, for example, are Christian theologians, and Griffin has
    pointed out that both Whitehead and Hartshorne were the sons of
    Anglican priests.  Nevertheless, the tenets of process thought need not
    belong inherently to the Christian faith, and there have been, for
    example, some efforts to connect it with Buddhism.  It is therefore
    certainly possible to refer to a process (or constructive postmodern)
    theologian of another faith, although historically most process
    theologians come from the Christian tradition. 

    This is only the briefest of introductions to process theology.  For
    those who are interested in finding out more, I recommend the following
    books:

        "Process Theology:  an Introductory Exposition", by John B. Cobb,
        Jr., and David Ray Griffin.  This excellent book introduces the
        ideas of Whitehead, and to a lesser extend Hartshorne, and
        discusses the tenets of process theology in general as well as some
        of the authors' own ideas.

        "God & Religion in the Postmodern World", by David Ray Griffin.  An
        excellent discussion of process thought as the basis of a
        postmodern theology.

        "Omnipotence & Other Theological Mistakes", by Charles Hartshorne. 
        This book summarizes Hartshorne's process theology.

        "A Natural Theology for our Time", by Charles Hartshorne.  An
        earlier work of Hartshorne's, also summarizes his process theology,
        as well as his views on the a priori and a posteriori arguments
        concerning the existence and nature of God.

        "Adventures of Ideas", by Alfred North Whitehead.  This is a work
        of philosophy rather than theology, but it does provide an overview
        of the philosophical foundations of process thought, although it can
        be difficult reading at times.
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
13.1POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienThu Jul 21 1994 15:065
    Omnipotence and Other theological Mistakes by Charles Hartshorne.
    
    I love the title of that book.
    
                                    Patricia
13.2POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amThu Jan 05 1995 11:2535
    I am currently under the influence of a branch of THeology/Philosophy
    called Process Theology   and Process Thought.
    
    Mike Valenza introduced me to this a while ago.  He has a great summary
    of process theology in an early note.  I am doing a directed study next
    semester with my New Testament instructor who is a scholar in that
    field.
    
    Process Thought says nothing that is real is static.  Everything
    concrete is in process.  It rejects the Greek concept of Deity that
    says God is static and unchanging and unaffected by the world.  My
    instructor calls himself a CHristian.  He is a Methodist Minister to be
    sure.
    
    Christianity is in process.  It is constantly changing as it is
    affected by the world around it. This is the only way it could be
    relevent to modern humanity.  Christianity needs to continue to evolve
    until it too reaches a higher perfection.  Every book in the New
    Testament shows us a slice of Christianity at a particular time and
    place.  THat is why every book shows us a "different"  Christianity.
    
    Some would like to image that CHristianity is a fixed thing that was
    revealed once for all time at time 0.
    
    God's revelation is constant and continuous.  Every theologian, every
    philosopher, every poet, and every scientist has attested to this
    continuous revelation.
    
    Christian Perspectives is a wonderful name for this conference.  Every
    single Christian has a different perspective on what Christianity
    means.  That is because "Christianity" only has meaning as mediated by
    persons called Christian.  The community itself is part of the
    definition.
    
    Patricia
13.3AIMHI::JMARTINI lied; I hate the fat dinosaurThu Jan 05 1995 13:264
    This would goes against the notion that God is the same yesterday,
    today, and forever!
    
    -Jack
13.4CSC32::J_CHRISTIEUnquenchable fireThu Jan 05 1995 13:335
    Like a photograph, never changing (except maybe fading)?  Preposterous.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
13.5God doesLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO3-3/L16)Thu Jan 05 1995 13:4318
re Note 9.1768 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     This would goes against the notion that God is the same yesterday,
>     today, and forever!
  
        This notion *clearly* cannot mean that God cannot do things
        (one day creating, another day resting) or "say" things
        (prophecy, inspiration, etc.).  It clearly cannot mean that
        God is the same yesterday, today, and forever in the same way
        we might describe a block of stone or a mountain (neglecting
        geologic time frames).

        God "does".

        Bob

        P.S. How did the "Processing" topic turn into a discussion of
        process theology?
13.6POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amThu Jan 05 1995 14:076
    If God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, God in no way can
    be impacted by anything humanity does.  Humanity then has not worth, no
    meaning.  There can be no free will.  Humanity is reduced to mechanical
    balls rolling about through life to their predefined futures.
    
                                     Patricia
13.7AIMHI::JMARTINI lied; I hate the fat dinosaurThu Jan 05 1995 14:2721
    Now we enter into the realm of issues like free will, predestination,
    etc.  I don't believe we're robots, I do believe we have free will.  
    Just as Moses kept God from blotting out the Israelites, just as
    healing can come through prayer, our faith can have a direct effect on
    the outcome.
    
    I do believe however that God's promises are true.  I believe strongly
    in the fact that reconciliation had to be made between God and mankind.
    Moreover, it HAD to be on God's terms, not ours.  I don't accept the 
    idea that we evolve into Nirvana or into more perfect beings.  My 
    faith is based on the idea that sin was inherited through Adam and that
    since we descend from Adam, death has passed to all of us.  If we are
    in existence 10,000 years from now, the reconciliation MUST be made
    just as strongly as it is today...as it was 2000 years ago.
    
    In short, I believe the prophecies of the old and new testament are
    written in stone, never to be changed.  Our progression in knowledge
    does change but our standing with God only changes when we accept Jesus
    as Lord and savior!!
    
    -Jack
13.8POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amThu Jan 05 1995 16:0354
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >Now we enter into the realm of issues like free will, predestination,
    >etc.  I don't believe we're robots, I do believe we have free will.  
    
    So Do I
    
    
    >Just as Moses kept God from blotting out the Israelites, just as
    >healing can come through prayer, our faith can have a direct effect on
    >the outcome.
    
    Good process theology.  God was affected by Moses action.  God was
    changed by Moses' action.  God did not know beforehand how he would
    treat the Israelites.
    
    >I do believe however that God's promises are true.  I believe strongly
    >in the fact that reconciliation had to be made between God and mankind.
    >Moreover, it HAD to be on God's terms, not ours. 
    
    OK, no issue here
    
    >I don't accept the idea that we evolve into Nirvana or into more perfect
    >beings.  My faith is based on the idea that sin was inherited through Adam
    >and that since we descend from Adam, death has passed to all of us.  If we are
    >in existence 10,000 years from now, the reconciliation MUST be made
    >just as strongly as it is today...as it was 2000 years ago.
    
    So if we accept Jesus, are we New Creation?  Are we changes?   are we
    more righteous?  Do we do bad things less?  Is there any tangible
    impact?
    
    >In short, I believe the prophecies of the old and new testament are
    >written in stone, never to be changed.  Our progression in knowledge
    >does change but our standing with God only changes when we accept Jesus
    >as Lord and savior!!
   
    So when we go out and convert the whole world and everyone accepts
    Jesus, then to we achieve "Heaven on Earth"  "Thy will be done, on
    earth as it is in heaven" What does that mean? 
    
    Process thought address those issue that you have stated.
    
    1.  Humanity has free will
    2.  God is good.
    3.  God is impacted by the Free actions of Humans.
    4.  If Human actions are truly free, God could not know what those
    actions would be ahead of time.
    5.  God is active in History
    6.  If God is good, and God is active in history, then we will have a
    progression to a more perfect world.
    
    Patricia
    
    Patricia
13.9AIMHI::JMARTINI lied; I hate the fat dinosaurThu Jan 05 1995 16:4818
    Actually Patricia, that is not the case...not that I am belittling your
    opinion...I see how you would come to that conclusion, except...
    
    1. The whole world will not accept Christ.
    
    2. The prophecies of the Bible state that the church will become 
       lukewarm and apostate.
    
    This would be a negative progression.  I originally thought you were
    referring to the progression of humankind in general.  thousands of
    years of history has proven that there is no metamorphisis toward
    betterment...that we all still deal with our sin nature.  As quoted
    here, millions have died even in the name of God.
    
    Even amongst the church, it does change, but not always for the
    better!!!
    
    -Jack
13.10POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amThu Jan 05 1995 17:1510
    So Jack, 
    
    If that is what you believe,
    
    What is your explanation regarding why a more perfect world is not
    evolving.
    
    Is the powers of darkness more powerful than the powers of light?
    
    Patricia
13.11AIMHI::JMARTINI lied; I hate the fat dinosaurFri Jan 06 1995 12:1611
    Not at all.  Nothing happens without God allowing it to happen.  It all
    ties in with free volition.  The condition of mankind is inherent in
    all individuals.  It is our free will that can make the world a better
    place.  
    
    My point is affirmed by Jesus words that wide is the gate to
    destruction and many are those that enter through it.  In short, we are
    predispositioned to rebellion against God.  History has proven this and
    unfortunately, the trend will most likely continue.
    
    -Jack
13.12POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amFri Jan 06 1995 16:083
    Jack,
    
    Such a condemnation on the Creation of God's own hands!
13.13CSC32::J_OPPELTWhatever happened to ADDATA?Fri Jan 06 1995 16:2532
.2>    Process Thought says nothing that is real is static.  Everything
>    concrete is in process.  It rejects the Greek concept of Deity that
>    says God is static and unchanging and unaffected by the world. 
    
    	God *IS* unaffected by the world.  That comes from being God!
    	The world, however is not unaffected by God.
    
    	It is rather haughty to assume that because we as humans change
    	(or our society changes) that God must change with us.  Our
    	lifetimes, our society's "lifetime", even the period of time in 
    	which man has existed (and will exist) is but a blink of an eye 
    	in time to God's eternal existence.
    
    	Why should God change in that blink-of-an-eye because his creation
    	did?
    
.6>    If God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, God in no way can
>    be impacted by anything humanity does.  
    
    	Correct.  God is not impacted by anything humanity does.  Now,
    	maybe the "god" that humanity concocts will have to change...
    
>    Humanity then has not worth, no
>    meaning.  
    
    	I do not see the connection.  All I see is a human pride that
    	thinks that God must react to man.
    
>    There can be no free will.  Humanity is reduced to mechanical
>    balls rolling about through life to their predefined futures.
    
    	I don't see how an unchanging God results in this.
13.14leads to some far-out conclusionsLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO3-3/L16)Fri Jan 06 1995 16:3618
re Note 13.13 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

> .6>    If God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, God in no way can
> >    be impacted by anything humanity does.  
>     
>     	Correct.  God is not impacted by anything humanity does.  Now,
>     	maybe the "god" that humanity concocts will have to change...
  
        Of course, if this is true, then the whole "fall of man
        followed by God sending the son to die for our redemption"
        was a charade, planned *from the very start*, even before the
        "fall".  Again, if this were true, Adam *couldn't* have
        succeeded.

        If God were like that, I would curse God.  But I love God too
        much to believe that this is true.

        Bob
13.15AIMHI::JMARTINI lied; I hate the fat dinosaurFri Jan 06 1995 16:426
    Patricia:
    
    No condemnation from me...I'm just parroting what has been affirmed by
    Moses and the prophets!
13.16POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amFri Jan 06 1995 17:0913
    Jack,
    
    And I too am responding particularly about your quote about Moses
    changing God's mind.  
    
    Moses was affected and changed by Moses.  I believe that Bible also
    shows God affected by Abraham.  "Ask and you shall receive" indicates
    that God is affected by our prayers.
    
    Where did this silly and heretical notion that God is unaffected by
    humankind ever come from anyway?
    
                                     Patricia
13.17MKOTS3::JMARTINI lied; I hate the fat dinosaurMon Jan 09 1995 09:2122
    >>    Where did this silly and heretical notion that God is unaffected by
    >>    humankind ever come from anyway?
    
    Ohh, did I say that?  I'm really asking because I didn't mean to convey
    that.  
    
    I believe God has a perfect will and yet at the same time he has a
    permissive will.  I believe God allows things to take place and yet I
    also believe as James writes that the effectual fervent prayer of a
    righteous man availeth much.  I don't know where the teaching above
    came from but I do believe that..
    
    1. God has architected a perfect plan for the duration of mankind on
       the earth.
      
    2. God considers the prayers of all of us.
    
    Yet, I do struggle with the concept of free will and predestination.  I
    believe this is a topic that somewhat acts as a paradox with what we
    are discussing!
    
    -Jack
13.18CSC32::J_OPPELTWhatever happened to ADDATA?Mon Jan 09 1995 11:5410
    	I've had the weekend to think about what Bob posted in .14.
    
    	I came to the realization that I was somewhat loose in my use
    	of words.
    
    	I still believe that God is unchanging.
    
    	What .14 helped me realize is that God can react to what man
    	does.  I still don't believe that it is man who makes God 
    	react though.  God decides that, not man.
13.19POWDML::FLANAGANI feel therefore I amMon Jan 09 1995 12:126
    The question is
    
    Is Christianity a relational religion?  And is the relationality fully
    two way?  Does God relate to Humankind?  Does Humankind relate to God?
    
                       Patricia
13.20TRLIAN::POLANDMon Jan 09 1995 12:3336
    	
    	Within the seed there is it inherent characteristics.  It will
    become what it is designed to be after its own kind.  If it is a corn
    seed it will beome corn.  How good a corn may depend upon its
    enviroment and the circumstances that it must endure.  Thus in a sense
    it functions within the confines of a plan.  The plan of its design. 
    It however also grows and changes and is subject to outside influence 
    that delegate to what degree its quality is manifest.
    
    	Within the universe principles and mechanics are designed into its
    structure that result in recognizable and calculable phenomena.  This
    is inherent in its design and yet innumerable scenarios consistently
    occur which bring change and growth. In one way it remains the same and
    in another it changes.
    
    	Mankind also has a design.  They brings forth those of their own
    kind with the design in place.  The plan unfolds and eventually
    completes for it is within the design.  To its ultimate outcome there
    may be many varied affects upon it and growth and change will occur but
    it is inherent within the design therefore it will eventually reach the
    completion of the plan.
    
    	One may see this from a cosmic perspective or a microscopic
    perspective, from viewing the whole to viewing the individual.  Its
    inherent characteristics will culminate in the completion of it design. 
    The quality of what it may become in the process is where the variations 
    of change are prevalent.
    
    >I still believe that God is unchanging. 
    
    	Love is constant and will never change.  He cannot change for that
    is the quality and characteristic of Love, it cannot change.
13.21COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Jan 09 1995 16:247
>    Is Christianity a relational religion?  And is the relationality fully
>    two way?  Does God relate to Humankind?  Does Humankind relate to God?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are revealed religions in which God himself
has reached out, shown himself, and established a relationship with man.

/john
13.22God is not 'in process', though man is.CSC32::J_OPPELTWhatever happened to ADDATA?Mon Jan 09 1995 16:537
.19>    Is Christianity a relational religion?  And is the relationality fully
>    two way?  Does God relate to Humankind?  Does Humankind relate to God?
    
    	There is a differebce between "relate to" and "change".  It was
    	a distinction I was failing to make until I read .14.
    
    	That God relates to man does not mean that He changes.
13.23Yahweh, the Becoming OneCSC32::J_CHRISTIEUnquenchable fireFri Jan 13 1995 20:028
YHWH, traditionally translated "I AM," can be accurately translated
"The Becoming One."

Check the footnotes in your Bible.

Shalom,
Richard
13.24COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertSat Jan 14 1995 00:078
>YHWH, traditionally translated "I AM," can be accurately translated
>"The Becoming One."

Sez you.

Other's say that it means "He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists."

/john
13.25CSC32::J_CHRISTIEUnquenchable fireSat Jan 14 1995 12:5814
>Sez you.

Yep, sez me.  But I didn't simply make it up, in case you thought I did.

>Other's say that it means "He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists."

The TEV I have on hand says: "I am who I am...I AM; or I will be who I
will be...I WILL BE," indicating a dynamic, rather than static nature.
Moreover, YHWH is genderless, and therefore skewed by the use of a
gender-specific pronoun.

Shalom,
Richard
13.26CSC32::J_OPPELTWhatever happened to ADDATA?Mon Jan 16 1995 13:275
>Moreover, YHWH is genderless, and therefore skewed by the use of a
>gender-specific pronoun.

	So I guess that referring to God in female terms is equally
    	skewed, huh?
13.27CSC32::J_CHRISTIEUnquenchable fireMon Jan 16 1995 14:4211
Note 13.26

>	So I guess that referring to God in female terms is equally
>    	skewed, huh?

Perhaps.  But I wasn't speaking about God in general terms.  I was
speaking about the translation of a specific ancient Hebrew reference.

Shalom,
Richard
13.28CSC32::J_OPPELTWhatever happened to ADDATA?Mon Jan 16 1995 18:194
    	Understood.  I was just exercising my God- and Constitution-
    	given right to rathole.
    
    	:^)
13.29DECALP::GUTZWILLERhappiness- U want what U haveTue Jan 17 1995 03:413
are you now using the lords name in vain? 

>;-)
13.33Process Thoughtwitnes.mso.dec.com::FLANAGANlet your light shineMon Jul 31 1995 09:2144
    
>    Did you know, Patricia, that Whitehead, while arguing for the existence
>    of God, is not a theist but a panentheist?
 
    Yes.  I also am a panentheist.  By Panehtheism Process Theologians
    believe that God has two aspects.  A transcendent aspect with is wholy
    other than temporal creation and an immanent aspect which is fully
    embodied in the world.  
    
    Trinitarian Christianity believes the same things.  God is both fully
    separate from the world and fully incarnate in the world.
    
    >panentheism believes that God is not
    >infinite in nature and power but finite or limited.
    
    Process Theologians believe that God is limited in power because God
    has truly given freedom of choice to humanity.  Humans have real power
    to make decisions for themselves and therefore impact the shape of the
    worlds.  Process Theologians believe that God is Omnipotent in God's
    divine nature.  No matter what  choices Humans make, God can and does 
    harmonize all choices made in the world, and present possibilities to 
    humans that are redemptive.
    
    
    >panentheism dipolar or bipolar theism since, in contrast to traditional
    >monopolar theism, it holds that there are two poles to God, an actual
    >temporal and a potential eternal pole.
    THe poles are an actual, physical, pole and an eternal, mental pole.
    
    This is not different than saying God is fully human and fully divine.
    Orthordox trinitarian Christianity is di polar in the very same way.
    
    >In our day panentheism is represented in process theology, which holds
    >that the finite, bipolar God is in a continual process of change.
    The primordal nature of God is the eternal unchanging nature of God.
    The consequent, temporal nature is impacted by everything humanity
    does.  Since it is impacted by humanity it changes.  The consequent
    nature of God, feels every feeling just as each human feels it and
    takes those feelings into the nature of God.  The primordal eternal
    nature then brings all those events in the primordal harmony and
    presents back to humanity real achievable possibilities that lead to 
    righteousness.
    
                                   Patricia
13.30definitionPOWDML::FLANAGANlet your light shineMon Aug 14 1995 15:399
    "Process theology is a contemporary expression of Christian faith.  The 
    content of that faith is still formed through personal and historical 
    interpretation of God's work.  One's personal experience, seen, and 
    evaluated in light of biblical texts and a particular current within
    the great river of the long Christian history, form the core of that 
    faith."
    
    Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, in God, Christ, and Church: A Practical Guide
    to Process Theology(New York, Crossroads, 1982)  p. 5.
13.31MKOTS3::JMARTINI press on toward the goalMon Aug 14 1995 16:0723
Z    One's personal experience, seen, and 
Z    evaluated in light of biblical texts and a particular current
Z    within the great river of the long Christian history, form the core of
Z    that faith."
    
    Ther is a caveat to this way of thinking.  Consider these two
    hypotheticals.
    
    Job: "Since I lost my family, my posessions, and my health, I must
    conclude from my personal experience that God is a mean spirited deity
    who doesn't really care about us individually but uses us as a test to
    see how faithful we are."
    
    Job: "Since I lost my family, my posessions, and my health, I must
    conclude that my God is sovereign, is in control of all things, and
    uses trials as a reminder that God is a great, mighty and awesome God
    who laid the foundations of the earth."
    
    Our personal experiences are based on our perceptions.  Therefore, our
    perceptions as seen in light of biblical texts could not adequately
    form the core of a true faith.
    
    -Jack
13.32LGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)Tue Aug 15 1995 07:5817
re Note 13.31 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Our personal experiences are based on our perceptions.  Therefore, our
>     perceptions as seen in light of biblical texts could not adequately
>     form the core of a true faith.
  
        Of course, Jack, you are right.

        Where you are wrong, Jack, is to assume that reading of
        texts, choice of teachers, and choice of what philosophies
        seem right have nothing to do with personal perceptions.

        Nothing could be farther from the truth, and if you believe
        that perception has nothing to do with your own faith, then
        you could be very easily misled.

        Bob
13.33two aspects rather than three!POWDML::FLANAGANlet your light shineWed Aug 16 1995 08:3247
13.34POWDML::FLANAGANlet your light shineTue Sep 05 1995 09:5212
    I was proud to get my theology paper back and learn that I got an "A".
    
    The paper was titled "Is Process Theology relevant for Feminist
    Thought?   It was a long paper and represented my focused study of
    process theology from Jan-August.  It was the written assignment from
    my Directed Study.
    
    I tend to get a lot of A-'s and B+'s, so I feel really good about the A
    especially since I put a whole lot of effort into the Directed Study.
    
    
                                Patricia
13.35DECALP::GUTZWILLERhappiness- U want what U haveTue Sep 05 1995 11:5211
re .34


congratulations, patricia!

is your paper too long to be entered in this conference? i am sure
it would make some interesting reading. i am certainly interested.



andreas.
13.36POWDML::FLANAGANlet your light shineTue Sep 05 1995 12:0514
    Andreas,
    
    The paper is too long to enter here.  I could send it to you or others 
    who are interested.  It may take a couple of days since I am in the
    middle of unpacking from my move to Groton, Ma.  The easiest way would
    be to send it as a Postscript file (or a Doc file for those who have
    MS Word.  I could convert it to a text file as well and send the text
    file but special characters and formatting will be ignored.
    
    As many of my minister friends often say.  "The best compliment offered
    is usually to ask for a copy of the Sermon".
    
                                      Patricia
                                        Patricia
13.37CSC32::J_CHRISTIEPs. 85.10Tue Sep 05 1995 17:344
    .34  Congratulations, Patricia.
    
    Richard
13.38I'd love to read your paper.CASDOC::CHARPENTIERWed Sep 06 1995 10:387
    Patricia,
    
    I would love a copy of your paper.
    PostScript output is fine.  Or,
    interoffice mail, if you prefer.
    
    Dolores
13.39ditto!TNPUBS::PAINTERPlanet CrayonWed Sep 06 1995 12:034
    
    Me too, Patricia!!!!!
    
    Cindy
13.40BIGQ::SILVADiabloWed Sep 06 1995 13:463

	Patricia, I would like one too!
13.41ideaCASDOC::CHARPENTIERWed Sep 06 1995 13:545
    Patricia, perhaps you could send us a filespec
    for copying?  PostScript sent via mail tends to
    get corrupted.
    
    Dolores