Ross

I'd like to add that one reason I don't contribute much to this forum, is that there is too much agreement. We're a pretty inbred crowd here. We almost have a smugness about how right we are. Much of what goes on here is pretty boring, frankly. I, for one, would like to see a really articulate conservative come on board and mix things up a bit. We need our views challenged or we won't grow.

here's an interesting summary of process theology: http://www.ctr4process.org/process/CPSGodUniverse.htm The website that this is posted on (Center for Process Studies) is worth having a look at, as is its sister site Process&Faith ( http://www.ctr4process.org/pandf// ).

I've been told that a better translation of Exodus 3:14 is: "And ELOHIYM said to Moses: 'I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE' " Hebrew: 'EHEYEH ASHER EHEYEH'. EHEYEH should be translated as 'I will be', not 'I am'. If this is true (any Hebrew scholars out there?), this clearly reflects that the ancient Hebrews conceived God as a God of becoming, not a static unchanging God.

My interests tend towards process philosoph/theology; which has a lot to say about panentheism. The following is a short section from a paper I wrote on how God acts in the world. (also, see the the book by Clayton and Peacocke) Process thought rejects concepts of a distant, unengaged God in favor of a God that is everywhere present in the universe and experiences the universe. This is through and through a panentheistic ontology (Clayton and Peacocke 2004) and gives us a first hint as to how God is able to act in the world by virtue of God's imminence in it (Peacocke 1993, 157-160). In all panentheistic ontologies, the universe is said to be contained within God. Such theologies are motivated by the desire to explain the simultaneous experience of God's imminence and transcendence. This belief is found in many of great religious traditions of the world. In Hinduism, which has been informed by millennia-old Indian philosophical thought, we find the teaching that the Self is intimately associated with the Absolute. This is expressed in the Chandogya Upanishad, the most ancient of the Upanishads, where it is proclaimed: "Tat tvam asi", That art thou (Radhakrishnan and Moore [1957] 1989, 69). These thoughts are the substance of a panentheistic concept of God in which we and all that is have our existence as a 'part' of God's being. Also, in Christianity we can see a panentheistic God. In the verse below, we find Paul quoting the philosopher-poet Epimenides and telling us of the human quest for God: "They would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For 'In him we live and move and have our being'." (Acts 17:27-28) It has been argued that panentheism is not only consistent with humanity's experience of God but is what ultimately allows for the experience of God (Borg 1997, 32-54; Peacocke 1993, 157-160) . Borg, Marcus J. 1997. The God We Never New - Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith. San Francisco: HarperSanFranscisco. Clayton, Philip, and Arthur Peacocke, eds. 2004. In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being - Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Peacocke, Arthur. 1993. Theology for a Scientific Age. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, and Charles A. Moore, eds. [1957] 1989. A Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

The Christian fundamentalist is in an interesting position. He knows that he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. Why, then, should he be tolerant? Are you tolerant of those who try to promote racial bigotry or sexism? Of course not, because you know that these ideas are wrong. So, again, why should the Christian fundamentalist tolerate other religious ideas?

What's confusing here is that there are two Gospels of Thomas. One contains sayings of Jesus, while the other is narrative and contains accounts of the Jesus' childhood. The latter is usually called "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas" and this is the to which BrotherRog was referring in his first comment. Does anyone know if scholars think the same author wrote both; or are they by different authors?