> Some on this listserve would claim that most people who believe in a
> young earth feel that it NECESSARY for a Christina to believe in a young
> earth. Do you have many acquaintances who lean as you do and how do they
> feel about this.
>
Well, first a personal distinction. As a matter of semantics, I know saved
(heaven-bound, believing, what-have-you) people who are not Christian. That
is to say, they have believed on Jesus as the only means of salvation, and
have accepted his free gift of eternal life, but they are carnal and lovers
of the world, and not at all Christlike (Christian = Christlike, not
[necessarily] saved). Now comes the question, how would Jesus handle these
frivolous debates in which each of us must love to partake? The answer, of
course, is that we cannot be completely Christlike in these matters because
none of us possesses his knowledge and authority.
That aside, I think that none of this is an urgent matter of salvation and
that none of it really matters in the long run. The blood bought of Christ
will all know one day, and with respect to the grand scheme of time, we'll
know soon. I do not believe I have ever met anyone of any camp deem their
view of creation to be necessary for anything other than a debate. I think
everyone with whom I've dealt knows that we're all in this for the thrill of
the fight, so to speak.
> That particular sequence is what "Big Bang" theory would say also. Light
> (electromagnetic force) came about in the first second of time while
> matter and stars came later. (For what it is worth.)
I see a good point there, but I have the same difficulty presented by the
classical YEC argument that the Big Bang (and evolution in general) is in
violation of the second law of thermodynamics. I also have trouble
reconciling an evolutionary model with the fall of man and the curse of the
Earth.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 22:54:33 EST