So are you suggesting that we have to forfeit claims to God's impassibility, omniscience, and omnipotence that were solely inherited from Greek Metaphysics? I know I've pressed this before, but would you not concede that the God of the Hebrew Bible is far different from the God you're proposing. I know this claim is getting quite trendy, but how would you avoid an accusation of Marcionism?

I'm not just asking this of you, but also myself. I really don't know how to engage the Hebrew Bible without either dismissing it or admitting that my conception of God does not do justice to large portions of scriptures, not just the Hebrew Bible but the New Testament as well.

In the end, I opt for liberation theology, because at least it's a) Biblical, b) politically radical (unlike, Caputo's bland liberalism re: http://tinyurl.com/ygc9qk4)

I don't really understand why process theology is even considered to be Christian theology. I don't think they could even begin justify from scripture their notion that God lacks omniscience. From what it seems to me, process theologians appropriated Whitehead's metaphysics and situated within the Christian tradition. Honestly, I feel as if they've just decided that this understanding of God is more palatable to modern man who has 'come of age'.

Are omnipotence and impassibilty (although I agree that the latter attribute of God is not supported especially from the Hebrew Bible) only rejected because they make explaining theodicy difficult? Do we simply bracket these attributes because we cannot begin to reconcile the problem of evil with attributes of God such as omnipotence?

Another question I have with postmodernism or process thought is the way the historical claims they make are structurally parallel to those of the 'radical orthodoxy' thinkers. Basically, process theology believes the entire history of western thought went off course because the concept of a static being was prioritized over an emerging becoming. Likewise, radical orthodoxy argues that since the voluntarist God of Duns Scotus, theology has gone down the wrong road ultimately leading to the split between faith and knowledge and the sacred and the secular. Finally, it's common to hear these days that Christianity betrayed itself by absorbing Greek metaphysics in the early church and the New Testament (especially the gospel of John) or perhaps Constantine is lambasted as the guy who royally screwed over the church (Hauerwas and friends).

All of these historical claims strike me as odd. What I find exceptionally interesting is how radical orthodoxy argues that all of these Jerusalem vs Athens debate are ultimately over-exaggerated, and that to preserve a distinct Christian metaphysics we must employ the ontology of Neo-Platonism. On the other hand, we have the almost exact opposite claimed being advocated by the likes of Caputo who has somewhat discreetly employed Crossan's historical Jesus, which is well-known for emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus. Read his latest review over at churchandpomo to see his critique aimed at Zizek/Milbank for completely ignoring Jesus but fetishizing Christ.

I would still argue ultimately the true betrayal of Christianity is the not the adoption of Greek philosophy, but the forsaking of apocalyptic thinking itseif. Jesus and Paul were true apocalyptic thinkers. Something we've only in the last century have truly discovered through the exceptional Biblical studies of Schweitzer. Honestly, without the Hellenization of Christianity, I imagine it would have just died out like any other marginal Jewish sect. Paul's brilliance was to universalize the claims of Christianity, which would gradually lead to metaphysical understandings as beautifully illustrated in John Chapter 1.

My one last question is do you think the Jews and Christians who are worshipping God as recorded by the Scriptures believed in a God that lacked omnipotence and omniscience? I really don't know enough about Biblical studies, but I have a hard time believing they didn't conceive of God as all-powerful. Perhaps they were wrong, but acting as if that understanding was alien to Jews and early Christians before being tainted by Greek though sounds a tad unbelievable

Thanks for the paper, it really got me thinking. I thoroughly enjoyed the synthesis of so many great thinkers: Motlmann, Kearney, Caputo, and Bonhoeffer. Sorry for the long-winded reply.

I'd agree that “I know what you feel” is often wrong and not helpful to the person. It is an “I” statement, which makes the speaker the subject of the sentence. How about “Tell me how you feel” or “What happened”?

Research is now discovering the bodies mirror neurons that actually mimic a large part of the other human's experience. We see what the other person is going through and then our neurons actually re-experience the same emotion. It's how we relate to a large extent.

I think the value of, “I know you feel” is in not trying to go too far towards false empathy. Recognizing the difference actually may draw two people together closer by opening the doors to talking more about it.