Re: Back to Glenn
Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:54:50 -0500
At 10:51 AM 10/23/98 -0500, John P. McKiness wrote:
>At 08:27 PM 10/22/98 -0500, Glenn wrote in part:
>
>>I think we are not completely communicating. I was specifically referring
>>to fossil animals, not to miracles at Cana etc. While God does intervene,
>>it doesn't mean that God intervenes in everything. By intervene I mean the
>>contradiction of natural law (which is a constant expression of God's
>>sovreignty.)
>>
>>What allows you to make the assumption that God MUST intervene in the
>>creation of animals? God doesn't intervene in the motion of the planets.
>>
>
>Glenn,
>
>Your statement above seems very contradictory to me. If natural law means
>"a constant expression of God's sovreignty" what does intervention mean?
my statement is contradictory. It is contradictory because I am trying to
get Burgy to explain how one goes from miracles at Cana (which is a
contravention of natural law) to the view that god must deal that way with
everything. It is not my belief which is being discussed here. I am trying
to understand Burgy's views which I think do raise a contradiction which is
reflected above.
o
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm