However, does process theology solve more issues than it creates? In order to answer this question, I will now present several outlooks on the issue from many different thinkers and , then, I will offer the argument that I find the most compelling. With this being said, relational theology is a contemporary understanding of theology that applies process thought (along with many others. For instance, relational theology requires a kind of panentheism that allows for participation in God by the creatures. By proposing an active God of this kind, a relational theologian is participating in a kind of thought that is very similar to standard process theology. This is because that panentheism requires a kind of unseen, unobserved presence of God …show more content…
In his book Most Moved Mover, Clark H. Pinnock explains his reasoning for believing in an open God. That is, Pinnock argues for the existence of a God of Christianity that does not determine the future in order to allow for the free will of creatures. Pinnock gives several arguments for the viability of his position by utilizing several sections of scripture to advocate for a more authentic understanding of the God that is revealed via the Bible. Furthermore, Pinnock argues from commonly held understandings of the Doctrine of God by claiming that the problems associated with present doctrine are best solved via the conceptual picture of a God that limits His foreknowledge. By doing this, we, therefore, solve issues related to theodicy in some way and free-will in some ways. With this being said, Pinnock’s understanding of open theism supposes a dynamic God that only comes to know that which has already happened for his creation. Therefore, this kind of theology is, at least, very similar to process theology and is most likely a kind of process theology as understood by Whitehead and …show more content…
In this book, Hick holds the position that God allows for certain kinds of suffering to allow for the possibility of overcoming for his creation.In other words, God allows for pain and suffering. Furthermore, the allowance of pain, according to Hick, allows for the process of “soul-making”. By the way of an indeterminate future and the possibility of pain, humans are left with the choice as to how much unnecessary suffering they are willing to restrict. By the way of making these allowances, however, Hick’s God seems to have limited Himself to not understanding the world in its entirety and, therefore, engaging with the world in a temporal way that is at least very conceptually similar to that of process
He argues that God compensates for the evil that people suffer in this life by giving them rewards in the afterlife. Beaty's argument is based on the idea that God is just and merciful, and that he would not allow his creatures to suffer without compensating them in some way. Beaty's argument is creative and thought-provoking. He provides a new way of thinking about the problem of evil, and he offers a possible solution that is both plausible and consistent with traditional Christian beliefs. However, Beaty's argument is also controversial.
This seemingly senseless act of sudden evil and heart striking suffering leads the author to challenge her supposedly all loving God. Annie begins a deep criticism about God and suffering as she wonders if humans are left in this world to suffer abandoned to days (Dillard 43). The author goes further in her criticism by questioning if Christ’s incarnation was powerless and if God is possibly powerless to care for us (Dillard 43). Despite this criticism of God, Dillard carries a passionate and contradictory relationship with God in faith of a higher plan and environment as she declares “a life without sacrifice is abomination” (Dillard 72). Dillard along with sacrifice; seeks to locate a seemingly lost answer to a mysterious problem to which she cannot seem to answer and/or comprehend.
Yet, this idea has been demolished, for why would God, the man who sees all, knows all, so greatly punish innocent people. Their hope is consumed by this raging beast. One sees hope as a “desire for something good in the future” (Piper). For how much more could one take. Only soon, would they be less than
In his 1940 apologetic, The Problem of Pain, Lewis reasons that suffering and pain in the Christian life has a desired effect. Affirming that God’s instrument of pain “gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment.” Of course, Lewis readily admits that his reasoning is not the work of a real theologian, but rather as “a layman and an amateur.”
In the rival conceptions of God, Lewis divides humanity into two main groups; those who believe in God or gods and those who do not. Those who believe in God, Lewis divides into two subgroups. The first, Pantheists view God as “beyond good and evil” (Lewis, 1980) as if God and the universe are one. The second, Christians view God as the absolute good Creator, separate from His creation.
And if God is God, why is He letting us suffer?” (1) The lifelong quest for answers to these questions shaped his theology
What does Your grandeur mean, Master of the Universe, in the face of all this cowardice, this decay, and this misery? Why do you go on troubling these poor people's wounded minds, their ailing bodies?” (66). This presents the thought that with the constant physical struggle and torment, he begins to question whether those things he believes in strongly are even valid things. He questions why all these people need to suffer and why God has allowed them to suffer for his cause.
Stump’s two constraints of suffering, argues Draper, could not be taken place automatically in human experience. There is a group of people who cannot be justified by the negative benefit of harm prevention since they are sufficiently far away from the process of sanctification, and from the treatment of permanent separation with God. There are also those who do not consent to suffer for the future benefit of deeper union with God . Moreover, it is quite difficult to know how God knows exactly the human reaction to situations of suffering before allowing
A “simple creature of flesh and bone”(76-77) is not seen as being capable of understanding god’s will. Unlike god a person’s views may be warped by emotion; someone may “suffer hell in [their] soul and [their] flesh.”(77) After the death of Akida Drummer the prisoners forget to pray for him as a direct result of their own suffering. Unlike a god they have been rendered unable to fulfill their promise to their friend because of their own emotional trauma. Sorrow and other emotional responses are described as a force capable of destroying one’s ability to reason. Furthermore humankind is not seen as having adequate trust in god’s will.
Vs. “Theocentric is defined as having god as the central interest and ultimate concern.” b) The tension John Paul speaks of the existence of God and the struggle both man and the church have on placing who retains the highest importance in the human world. Evolution and science can trace humankind all the way back to its existence, whereas the scriptures delivered from God are from the delivery
Throughout Harper’s book and Kheiyn’s article, I found five main points that stood out to me in relating to helping me understand why bad things happen to good people. First, God did not create pain and suffering, man has through sin and defiance. Second, although suffering is not good, God uses it to achieve good. The third point tells us that the day will come where your misery will no longer exist and God will judge evil. The fourth states that our suffering does not even compare to what God has in store for his followers.
It is a convenient and comforting respond to unfortunate and even devastating ‘fate’. The pain becomes bearable to those who suffer because it is all part of a bigger plan, it is more than ‘you’. This concept is also built upon an irrational fundamental attitude, “the surrender of self to the ordering power of society.” (54) The problem of theodicy does not end at that.
Philosophy: Schopenhauer’s Philosophy that Life is Full of Suffering Introduction Across the universe, nearly each person living on Earth will experience suffering at least at a particular moment in his or her lifetime. Suffering involves the pain people feel due to disruptions in an individual’s life, health misconduct or injury. Arthur Schopenhauer, the German Philosopher, suggested that life is packed with suffering, and this suffering is solid as a result of the individual’s will (Berger, 2004). This paper will discuss this argument and attempt to clarify why Schopenhauer perceives that life is filled with suffering and the way he considers that the suffering can be overwhelmed.
In Christian tradition, the existence of God is central to the religion and the practices and beliefs associated with it. In this tradition, God can be conceived of as an all powerful, immortal and transcendent being who governs and creates the world as it is known. During the Medieval Era Christianity dominated Europe, leading to an extensive amount of philosophical and scholarly works related to God and how to properly conceive of him. As a result, many philosophical topics and theories were brought under examination in an attempt to combine them with Christian ideologies and conceptions of God and the world. One of the many topics brought under consideration was free will.
As the Christian sees things, Plantinga claims, ours is a suffering God. The pressure to reject divine impassibility are clear: to modern sensibilities an impossible deity seems woefully out of touch with both biblical and personal experience; they value a God who suffers with us, who hears and responds to our prayers, who is active in redemptive history and attentive to our personal needs. They want God who loves us and is responsive to our free choices, who answer prayer and when they lose their way, coaxes them back to themselves.