From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:14:14 -0500, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2025-03-19 6:39 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:30:41 -0500, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2025-03-18 12:16 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 09:26:24 -0500, DB Cates    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2025-03-18 3:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:31:30 -0500, DB Cates    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-03-17 8:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 08:42:49 -0500, RonO    
   >>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> [giant snip]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Thank you for that. I had to stop snipping replies to Ron because if   
   >>>>>> you snip anything at all, he claims you were running from his   
   >>>>>> arguments and reposts the same stuff so you end up with a post 2 or 3   
   >>>>>> times longer than it needs to be :(   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> QUOTE:   
   >>>>>>>>> We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does in   
   >>>>>>>>> our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain   
   creation.   
   >>>>>>>>> END QUOTE:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> And again, nothing there about God tweaking life the way Behe claims.   
   >>>>>>>>      [another giant snip]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Out of curiosity, what do you think the phrase "he continues to   
   actively   
   >>>>>>> uphold and sustain creation." mean? I mean, in particular "continues"   
   >>>>>>> and "actively".   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I see this as a background thing, not a direct process. I have 5   
   >>>>>> grown-up children, all with children of their own. I continue to   
   >>>>>> actively uphold and sustain them in whatever way they need but I do   
   >>>>>> not *interfere* in their lives. If, for example, they make decisions   
   >>>>>> that I don't agree with, I *might* offer an opinion if I think it will   
   >>>>>> be welcome but the decision is entirely theirs and I fully accept and   
   >>>>>> support whatever they do decide. The help and support I (and my wife)   
   >>>>>> give them is on request, not pushed on them, though they know it is   
   >>>>>> available when needed, and is given unconditionally.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That's why I think the analogy of God as father is a particularly apt   
   >>>>>> one.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>> I'm having difficulty reconciling that view with a purported omniscient   
   >>>>> entity.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'm struggling to grasp what difficulty you have, can you elaborate?   
   >>>>   
   >>> IMHO, asked for tweaking is still tweaking and an omniscient tweaker is   
   >>> likely doing miracles.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe it's a language thing but I can't understand how you see giving   
   >> help on request as tweaking.   
   >>   
   >> My daughter messages me and says one of their kids has a dental   
   >> appointment and it's awkward for she or her husband to get off work   
   >> that day, can I take their kid to the appointment; is that tweaking or   
   >> interfering?   
   >>   
   >> My son comes to me because he has some work to do on his house; he can   
   >> get a grant for it but he has to complete the work first, can I help   
   >> him out with a temporary loan, I do that, he gets the grant and repays   
   >> me; have I interfered in or tweaked his life?   
   >>   
   >> My daughter comes to me and says she has been offered a new job but is   
   >> not sure whether or not to take it and would like my advice, which I   
   >> give, making clear that it has to be her decision; is that is that   
   >> tweaking or interfering?   
   >>   
   >> An important point relating to this is that all miracles or examples   
   >> of divine interference that I know of are related to *individuals* not   
   >> an entire species. I've asked Ron to give a specific example of a   
   >> miracle that he regards as tweaking but I won't hold my breath waiting   
   >> for it.   
   >   
   >Could you expand on how these hypotheticals analogize to an omniscient   
   >being as the 'father figure'. I don't see it.   
      
      
   Apologies for a somewhat elongated response to this but there isn't a   
   simple answer. For that reason, I'm generally hesitant of getting too   
   deeply into this kind of stuff in a Usenet post along with my general   
   experience that the people who least understand religious belief and   
   theology are those most likely to dismiss any attempt to rationalise   
   it - not applying that to you specifically, just my general   
   experience. That also of course applies to evolution, those who   
   question it most are often those who understand it least. Religious   
   belief is in its own way, as complex and wide-ranging as evolution and   
   trying to explain it to someone who has never studied it is a bit like   
   trying to explain the roles of natural selection and genetic drift to   
   someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of genetics.   
      
   Anyway, with that proviso in place, I will try to cover some of the   
   key aspects of what you are asking about.   
      
   First of all, the basic mistake made by both IDers and RonO, is that   
   they focus in on the *biological* evolution of the human body but the   
   relationship with God is a *spiritual* one, not a biological one. The   
   human body is important in Christian belief but only of secondary   
   importance as a container for the Soul - that's why the body is often   
   referred to as a "temple". How it developed biologically is   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)