recently i've been wondering - if the creative forces of the universe are so great and all, why is there so much suffering? by a series of steps, i came across the following abstract, although so far i have not spent the thirty dollars that could get me a copy of the paper itself:
A Neo-ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil
Jim Hanson Theology Today January 2012 vol. 68 no. 4 478-489
Abstract
The problem of evil, or the question of how evil can exist with a God that is benevolent and omnipotent, has challenged theologians and moralists through the ages. Many have attributed evil to the gods; most theistic theologians have attributed it to humankind; a better, ontological solution is to attribute it to being. Three ontological solutions are reviewed, the traditional arguments, the modernist of Heidegger/Tillich, and postmodernist of Derrida. Building upon the thought of Heidegger, Tillich, and Derrida, a neo-ontological solution is proposed, which locates evil and suffering within a complex structure of being that is analyzed from the standpoints of experience and practice. God may be beyond being, but being best qualifies the benevolence and omnipotence of God.
Jim Hanson. Such a great creative talent, being the creator of the Muppets and all. However, he also believed in Thinkology or some such and now is no longer. That's the same guy, right?
Before Nine borrows freely from the panoply of images and writing that appear on the Intertubes. As a Dog, I can't really afford usage fees for some of this material -- however, I believe it's not only fair but important to be recognized for your work.
As a result, with images, Before Nine will provide attributions for the photographer and or news agencies who distributed them, where possible (However, at times even the most diligent search of Blogtopia does not yield this information). The same for excerpts of written material, where the names of authors will be listed, and links provided.
If you feel that there has somehow been unfair use of your photograph(s) or writing; or, if you're just thin-skinned and have hurt Fee-Fees that an awful anonymous Blogger (and masquerading as a Dog!) has been mean to you, we'll be happy to consider your Request / Veiled Sociopathic Threat to remove them, and not use additional material of yours in future.
If I'm not happy about it, I'll bite you and pee on your leg.
WHAT'S IN HERE
Ingredients: ALL NATURAL. Make absolutely certain your sense of humor is fully engaged prior to using Before Nine. I am not responsible for your level of consciousness or documented ability to subjectively perceive stuff. Got that? Swell. Comfy now? Want a treat? A Juice Box? A cigarette? Well okay then.
recently i've been wondering - if the creative forces of the universe are so great and all, why is there so much suffering? by a series of steps, i came across the following abstract, although so far i have not spent the thirty dollars that could get me a copy of the paper itself:
ReplyDeleteA Neo-ontological Solution to the Problem of Evil
Jim Hanson
Theology Today January 2012 vol. 68 no. 4 478-489
Abstract
The problem of evil, or the question of how evil can exist with a God that is benevolent and omnipotent, has challenged theologians and moralists through the ages. Many have attributed evil to the gods; most theistic theologians have attributed it to humankind; a better, ontological solution is to attribute it to being. Three ontological solutions are reviewed, the traditional arguments, the modernist of Heidegger/Tillich, and postmodernist of Derrida. Building upon the thought of Heidegger, Tillich, and Derrida, a neo-ontological solution is proposed, which locates evil and suffering within a complex structure of being that is analyzed from the standpoints of experience and practice. God may be beyond being, but being best qualifies the benevolence and omnipotence of God.
Jim Hanson. Such a great creative talent, being the creator of the Muppets and all. However, he also believed in Thinkology or some such and now is no longer. That's the same guy, right?
ReplyDeletehe now is no longer - to our limited perception
ReplyDeleteor as some might say, now he knows what we do not