Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: LearsFool

On the flip side, a god that would have gone to great effort 6,000 years ago to make a universe that shows consistent and ubiquitous evidence of great age regardless of how one observes (whether as a physicist, geologist, geneticist, paleontologist, etc.) is a liar. A lying god is not worthy of worship.

In my world, God is not a liar. The great age of the universe and the evolutionary processes that shape all of creation are real. The story of Genesis is meant to teach morality.


128 posted on 05/17/2014 5:23:46 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: exDemMom

So you would say that Adam was a newborn babe when God created him, right?

Or perhaps you would say God didn’t actually create Adam? That the story God told us in Genesis isn’t really true?

This “consistent and ubiquitous evidence of great age” you speak of makes an unwarranted assumption about what the earth looked like when God created it - namely, that it looked “new”. What does a “new” earth look like?

But that is MAN’S assumption. If God’s account of creation is true, that assumption doesn’t fit the facts and can therefore be discarded.

If God created an oak tree, would it be a sprout just about to emerge from an acorn? Disbelievers say yes. Anything else (they say) would be a deception because it LOOKS OLDER than it really is. If God creates a large, shady oak tree, I call Him the Creator, while disbelievers call Him a con artist and a liar.

They tie God’s hands and say He not allowed to create anything unless He makes it look as old or as new as they think it should. But God doesn’t submit to man. It is man who ought to submit to God.

You say the “the story of Genesis is meant to teach morality,” but do you even believe it? What sort of morality can we learn from One who lies to us about the creation and makes up stories from the very start?

You say that the Bible “is not a scientific document, and should not be used like one.” That’s a cop-out for those who don’t believe the Bible. What will you say next? Will you deny the record of Jesus’ death and resurrection because “the Bible is not a history book and should not be used like one”? I hope not!

No one here is looking to the Bible for scientific instruction. We are looking to it to find out how the heavens and the earth came into existence. And that’s what we find, in as much detail as God chooses to give us.

Unless He’s a liar, that is.


145 posted on 05/17/2014 7:49:18 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson