Re: agreeing about a mere creation?

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 23:29:43 EDT

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:57:45 -0400 Peter Cook <pwcook@optonline.net>
writes:
> People,
>
> Given this post, and those leading to it, I would like to see
> something on
> what folks believe is the meaning of something like
> "God being involved even in processes that are totally natural." In
> my
> technical work, I have written many lines of code, and executed many
> designs
> of circuits in use today, and I suppose one can say that when those
> lines of
> code are executed or those circuits operate, I am involved - but
> this is
> almost explicitly in a Deistic sense: the code or circuits are doing
> what
> they were intended to do, but I am not "there" and if I were to die
> tomorrow, the code and circuits would continue to function without
> me. I do
> not think this is generally what we have in mind when we speak of
> God being
> involved in His creation, or the creation being upheld by Him. What
> do we
> mean? Is such a statement just a Christian type of political
> correctness?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete Cook

When you become both immanent and transcendent, and the creator /ex
nihilo/ of program and the hardware it runs on, then your analogy will
have relevance. Paul's "in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts
17:28) has no reference to miraculous interventions, and it certainly is
not deism. Luther's notion that natural laws are the masks of God, that
is, that the natural order we depend on is the hand of God though we do
not detect it, is another way to phrase it. However we try to understand
ultimate matters, we must not view God as reduced to our dimensions and
abilities.
Dave
Received on Sat Aug 20 23:36:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 20 2005 - 23:36:08 EDT