On 4/17/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:16:11 +0000, Maru Dubshinki wrote > > > That is sarcasm, correct? Because seriously proposing that the > > universe has no independent existence from a supreme deity is a > > stance I believe is called pan-theism, and I gather from other > > things you have written that your 'faith' is not a pantheistic sect. > > It was not sarcasm and it is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that all > things *are* God, the worship of everything, not that God is omni-present and > constantly involved, yet separate. > > A lot of people believe that creation, in the Bible, was a six-day event. But > most forms of Christianity actually teach that creation is ongoing, that God > is > always present and involved, even though our awareness of God's presence comes > and goes. > > The rather dismal view that God set the universe in motion and then stepped > back to watch what would happen, intervening occasionally to reward the good > and punish the bad, got a lot of support from science during the the > Enlightenment, as people began to see that self-regulating mechanical systems > were possible. The "clockworks" view of God was quite disturbing to many > theologians, as was evolution similarly; on the surface, it seemed to > eliminate the need for God's presence. > > Nick
On the surface? It certainly seems to bolster the deist's arguments, and is a coherent, acceptable theodicy. And it is an attractive accomodation betwixt secular society, science, and religion. ~Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
