Process Theology of the Cross (Jesus Christ, Earth, salvation, tradition)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

This is a discussion forum isn't it?

Indeed it is. I was just trying to guage where you stood on the issue as knowing that would make the discussion rather easier.

James

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Indeed it is. I was just trying to guage where you stood on the issue as knowing that would make the discussion rather easier.

James

I simply want to investigate a theology of the cross from a unique point of view.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I simply want to investigate a theology of the cross from a unique point of view.

Fair enough. The whole area seems markedly western in outlook to me, though, so I'm not sure I'll have much to contribute. Any 'theology of the cross' would strike me as partial at best. The whole Incarnation is what's important, a view which seems to be all but absent in most western theologies.

James

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The whole Incarnation is what's important, a view which seems to be all but absent in most western theologies.

That's primarily what interests me here.... the process theology of the cross relies absolutely on the Incarnation, and can be continued in the Eucharist. If Christ were not completely God, then his death could not atone for divine mistakes - being fully human, God suffered all of the pains and temptations that exist in an evil world that he is ultimately responsible for.

In the Eucharist, we eat God's living body, partaking in the sacrifice and receiving his healing grace and power. Being the broken body of God, the Eucharist can be an object of wrath as well...

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

That's primarily what interests me here.... the process theology of the cross relies absolutely on the Incarnation, and can be continued in the Eucharist. If Christ were not completely God, then his death could not atone for divine mistakes - being fully human, God suffered all of the pains and temptations that exist in an evil world that he is ultimately responsible for.

In the Eucharist, we eat God's living body, partaking in the sacrifice and receiving his healing grace and power. Being the broken body of God, the Eucharist can be an object of wrath as well...

The two majot differences here are that we don't believe in Divine mistakes and that we don't believe that the crucifixion was an atonement either, but rather that the Incarnation restored the relationship between God and man that was lost in the fall. The Eucharist, of course, continues this.

James

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The two majot differences here are that we don't believe in Divine mistakes and that we don't believe that the crucifixion was an atonement either, but rather that the Incarnation restored the relationship between God and man that was lost in the fall. The Eucharist, of course, continues this.

James

That's what I'm getting at, but that it is powerful enough to go both ways.

[sojourner]

Your premise assumes that God makes mistakes and that God is responsible for creating evil. I'm not sure I can buy into either of those ideas.