Bill>> I think you have a non sequiter here. God intervenes in human history
>> because it suits His purposes. If He can accomplish His purposes in
>> biological history without intervening, then I presume He wouldn't.
Brian> I tend to agree with Bill on this. Suppose we rearranged Bill's idea
> slightly ;-) to say "If He can accomplish His purposes in human history
> without intervening, then I presume He wouldn't". What do you think?
> I think this is most likely the case.
Even if humans didn't rebel, I think God would "intervene" to establish
"personal relationships" with us. (e.g. verbal communication from God to
humans is an "intervention.")
Brian> God intervenes in human history
> because man's rebellion throws his plans off course. Man rebels because
> of his free will. Can nature rebel, necessitating God's intervention?
> Thus, I think the analogy between God's intervention in human and
> natural history is very weak.
Loren Haarsma