Re: Bill wrote:

John W Burgeson (johnwilliamburgeson@juno.com)
Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:29:34 -0600

Bill:

You wrote:

>Functional Integrity looks like
>deism to some people. After reading some of what Howard has written
>and some conversations with him, I know that's not what he's driving at.

>But that's how it looks to some observers.

Yes, I understand that.

>>...arguments about how God functions in time seem (to me)
>pretty inconsequential.

Again, I agree. But sometimes it is fun to do. <G>
I appreciate your POVs!

>You left out my favorite: 2x. An engineer who interacts with His
>creation for the sheer joy of seeing it respond to Him in the way He
designed
>it. Or perhaps He's like an artist who paints a series of paintings of
the
>same subject, emphasizing something different in each one, because He
has
>more than one message to communicate.

And that's one POV you've said a lot better than I've been able to do!
Thanks.
It's all metaphor, of course, but I don't see anything beter to use!

>Because I see God purposefully and lovingly engaged with His creation
>at all times, some people would categorize me as a progressive
>creationist, and I'm confortable with that as long as it isn't
interpreted to mean
>that God had to step in to fix things that broke (at least if the
>implication is that He didn't plan for them to break).

Hmm. We are, again, in "violent agreement!. < G >

>I don't see that functional integrity
>rules out God communicating with His creatures and intervening in the
>affairs of the created world. Functional integrity says some things
>about the mechanisms God created, but if you remember in the article
where
>Howard discusses what St. Augustine and St. Basil said about creation,
he
>quotes one of them (I believe it was Basil) as saying in essence that He

>created nature to respond to His commands. IOW He built (or built the
>components for) a very sophisticated somewhat self-organizing system
whose
>purpose was to provide a home for and support his interaction with men.
If these were his purposes, then I don't see that intervening to
communicate with
>men violates anything.

I stand corrected. My wording was imprecise. I said that "ruled out
Functional Integrity," it does not, of course, though I think it makes
the case for it somewhat weaker.

>OH, perhaps you might want to know where I'm going the next two weeks.
>Linda and I are going to Hawaii to celebrate our 25th anniversary

Hope your trip was great!

Cheers.

jb

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]