FROM THE CURRENT ISSUE
- Written by Theodore Shimmyo Theodore Shimmyo
Journal of Unification Studies Vol. 17, 2016 - Pages 33-70
We experience evil in the world, whether it is “natural” or “moral” evil.  We also experience suffering, which is to undergo physical or mental pain caused by evil. If, however, there is an omnipotent and perfectly good God, as theism believes, then why is it that evil, and suffering as well, exists in the world? Wouldn’t such a God have the power and character to prevent it? This is the problem of evil, which raises a serious challenge to theism.
- Written by David Burton David Burton
Journal of Unification Studies Vol. 17, 2016 - Pages 143-158
Just over one hundred years ago Teilhard de Chardin proposed a radical revision of how we view God’s existence. Traditional Christian ontology of God was one of substance and attribute, derived from the form and matter ontology of Plato and Aristotle and inherited over hundreds of years. However de Chardin derived his ontology from a combination of his faith and science at a time when science was rapidly developing and systematically overturning traditional perspectives of matter and the universe. Since then science has continued to expand our understanding of the universe, and today we know we live in a universe that is much bigger and far more complicated than that dreamed of by Plato more than two thousand years ago or even by Christian theologians hundreds of years ago. Consequently the traditional Western ontological categories, pretty much fixed after Aquinas, are no longer sufficient to describe the universe as we know it now. They are, therefore, also no longer sufficient upon which to base our explanation of God.
- Written by David Eaton David Eaton
Journal of Unification Studies Vol. 17, 2016 - Pages 159-176
According to both the ancients and their Christian followers, the order of the creation was love, bound together in a unity both mathematical and musical. Indeed, love, divine order, music and mathematics are simply the four different ways of saying the same thing. —E. Michael Jones