Talk:Process theology

message: There is STILL no definition of what Process theology is in the leed (the first sentence). You need to write this so the person wanting information can find it immediately. Of course process theology is a theology. Using the word in the supposed definition does not give the definition. If anybody actually knows what process theology is, please put that simple definition in the first sentence leed here. Thank you! 97.123.132.203 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Perhaps at some point someone knowledgeable regarding the subject of process theology could provide a section with prominent criticisms of the position;  it is a critical omission in the current article. Ialdabaoth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panserbjorn (talk • contribs) 00:30, December 30, 2005  (UTC)
Well,one criticism is that by positing a God who is not omnipotent nor all-knowing of the future, many people may have a hard time considering such a God as "God." Some people need God to be able to violate the laws of physics and to be able to "reach in" and intervene to save us in all circumstances - even if nuclear missiles are launched and on their way, etc.  User: BrotherRog, May 27, 2009
:BrotherRog, go get a secondary source for that, an academic speaking like you just said! We can speculate in disadvantages here as much as we will, but not add it to the article unless we have secondary sources. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical analysis needed

message: *My question is: how does this current of philosophy deal with theological fatalism (the article is to be found on wiki), that is God (being omniscient: past-present-future) predicts our future deeds (sins to be exact), yet creates us. Now, does process theology claim that God is not fully omniscient (limited to present time) or that there is not such thing as God's punishment (eternal suffering for deeds God made us do by initiating the act of creation with already predicted results) and the universe is made to help God experience Himself through spiritual evolution (of His creation in which He indwells) as He is unable to actually comprehend His greatness (like if there was no evil we could not know what good is) - a panentheistic conception with a dose of Buddhism (which in my oppinion does not "actively" exclude God from it's teachings, simply doesn't mention Him or replaces "God" with "Karmic Law").
*Also how am I meant to understand this particular paragraph: "Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. These events have both a physical and mental aspect."?
MaybeNextTime —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.27.35.208 (talk • contribs) 06:26, June 26, 2006  (UTC)
Process theology rejects the possibility of cyclical time (as in Einstein's theory of relativity). There is not a future because everything is in the process of becoming. In other words, Process God-models assert that God is within time and bound by causality. Since it is the nature of the universe to be in flux, there is nothing which is static, not even God. To be static would be to become cosmically dead. To exist is to change and have no certainty as to the future. Process' God-model reflects this and Process theology encourages letting go, since there is nothing one can cling to in a world of change. That is why it is said that material substances do not endure through time, but are instead dependent on what came before and its modifications of what came before and what came before that, and so on.
I think this might also address the question of theological fatalism. Life is in change and we can push it towards greater fulfillment, or it can descend into entropy. God's influence is not coercive (according to Cobb and Griffin's book). God is behind the human impulse to create and grow but does so in subtle ways. As I think you can see from this brief sketch, predestination is not possible. God does remain omniscient, however, in that God is aware of all that is. 
As to God's power, God does have power over all things. It would not make much sense, however, for a creation with no independent initiative and that has been de facto vetoed by God's predetermined vision of reality. God's intervention in creation is therefore supportive of our individual choices, since one cannot love something and not allow a measure of free choice. Otherwise, whatever free will we have is meaningless and we become the battered wife who insists: "But he really does love me." Yes, he may, but it is a twisted love which is destructive to the seeking of our own wholeness.
Hope this was helpful.  MerricMaker 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Determinism and reality

message: Examining history I saw the following:
* Mr self-elected street preacher 216.120.170.5 added a long harangue on why he dislikes Process theology here, using NIV as the source for his statements (violating WP:PRIMARY),
* Mr 173.76.89.23 (whom I wish to thank very much for doing The Only Right Thing) blanked the edits of 216.120.170.5.
Let me just say that Wikipedia is not a scribble board for the self-elected preacher whether expert or not, all changes requires secondary supporting sources per WP:CITE, and a street-preacher sermon that concocts arguments pro or con a certain topic is undue synthesis WP:SYNTH unless the entire discourse is citeable by an independent reliable secondary source. Once again: thank you 173.76.89.23! I urge all others to do the same thing. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Overstroke "whether expert or not". Street-preachers begone! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Another street preachers sermon!

message: This sentence needs to be recast: "Process theology is an internally diverse field and while there are general directions that they all take, there are many ongoing debates such as on the nature of God, the relationship of God and the world, immortality, and interreligious dialogue." Directspirit (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Needed:

message: I have deleted the three words "and affected by" because they were misemphatic.
According to Whitehead, God is both temporal and eternal. He is the only actual entity which is also eternal. Actual entities other than God are temporal but not eternal. Whitehead uses the words 'occasion of experience' to refer to the actual entities other than God. The words "and affected by", unaccompanied by a complementary phrase such as 'effective in', give emphasis to God's being affected by other actual entities more than they emphasize his effects on other actual entities. This is an unbalanced emphasis and therefore inappropriate for the context.
The words that I have left are sufficient and adequate for the meaning in context, the God is fully involved in temporal processes. They do not make explicit that an actual entity is both effective and affected, but if it were desired to emphasize that, it would be better to exercise both words than only one of them. That is to say, one might have said 'God is effective in and affected by temporal processes', but apparently this was not the present lead's intention. The present lead seems to want to use the more neutral phrase 'fully involved in'.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "affect and be affected by."  "Affect" because "effective in" is awkward and unclear. Joseph Petek (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and affected by" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Process theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707012807/http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/Hartshorne/Viney/12.html to http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/Hartshorne/Viney/12.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902163214/http://processandfaith.org/writings/article/process-theology to http://processandfaith.org/writings/article/process-theology
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified