Church for a couple years, but...

[Viro8999]

I used to go to church when I was younger for a number of years, but stopped around middle school. About two years ago, I started going to church again as my significant other is Christian so I thought I would give it a shot. In this time, I really haven't gotten any closer to God, and in fact, may be further away than ever. That said, I do think I have learned a lot about the faith, enough to ask some questions/make some observations...

Here are some of my thoughts on Christianity so far in the two years I have spent attending church recently:

The Good
I've always believed in evolution/science and had a hard time believing creationism. That said, it recently occurred to me; couldn't God have created the earth with dinosaur fossils already in the ground, for example? Seems possible to me! +1 for closer to God

The Bad
Some stories in the Bible seem extremely far fetched, such as Noah's Ark. I have an extremely hard time believing some guy near Jerusalem built an ark an animals all over the world (including from South America, for example) migrated to get onto this ark. The logistics/idea of this seem a lot closer to something like Greek mythology than something that could/did actually happy. -1 from God

The Ugly
I keep hearing that God is all knowing, all powerful, and everything is part of his plan. This actually makes me very uncomfortable... Hitler was part of God's plan? Children getting cancer is part of God's plan? Numerous deadly natural disasters have been part of God's plan? I would feel a lot better about all of this if I was taught, "God has a plan, but sometimes the devil has small wins, but God overall will conquer all," or something like that, but nobody seems to teach this. How do Christians reconcile the above events being part of God's plan? -a lot from God :*(

I would like to apologize if my post seems blasphemous/too direct, but I really wanted to put this out there and see what Christians had to say. I would love to get some opinions on The Bad and The Ugly from Christians and learn more about this.

I have many more questions, but for now, I'll just leave it at this. Thanks!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I've always believed in evolution/science and had a hard time believing creationism. That said, it recently occurred to me; couldn't God have created the earth with dinosaur fossils already in the ground, for example? Seems possible to me! +1 for closer to God

I'm a Christian who believes God created the universe by way of evolution. Most criticize the idea you've presented because it turns God into a deceiver, tricking us to believe what never happened. Instead the story of creation might be a way of explaining evolution in "short form" without getting into the details.

The Bad
Some stories in the Bible seem extremely far fetched, such as Noah's Ark. I have an extremely hard time believing some guy near Jerusalem built an ark an animals all over the world (including from South America, for example) migrated to get onto this ark. The logistics/idea of this seem a lot closer to something like Greek mythology than something that could/did actually happy. -1 from God

I also believe there was no world-wide flood. But in Noah's eyes, it was a world wide flood. I believe the animals carried on the ark were every animal he could find.

The Ugly
I keep hearing that God is all knowing, all powerful, and everything is part of his plan. This actually makes me very uncomfortable... Hitler was part of God's plan? Children getting cancer is part of God's plan? Numerous deadly natural disasters have been part of God's plan? I would feel a lot better about all of this if I was taught, "God has a plan, but sometimes the devil has small wins, but God overall will conquer all," or something like that, but nobody seems to teach this. How do Christians reconcile the above events being part of God's plan? -a lot from God :*(

Again, exactly what I believe! Ha, you're posting these things for me! You could look into two views: Open Theism and Molonism. I prefer Open Theism but many agree with Molonism.

I could point you in the direction of some good teachers (who people here will criticize, but the way you are reasoning I think you will like them): Jonathan Welton, Bill Johnson.

(p.s. I'm not sure of their view on creation, they never talk about it, but they present fantastic teaching on the way God interacts with humanity).

 

[Shane2336]

I'm only going to touch on the last point here. I'm sure plenty others will take the first two points and run with them. I would agree that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I also agree with you that God indeed does conquer over all. It's very easy for us to get caught up in this doctrine of God's plan. Specifically, people tend to get hung up on God's plan for their life. Now, I'm certainly here to say that God does indeed have a plan. But we have to remember that we are a fallen creation living in a fallen world. When I say this, I mean to say that we and the earth have been taken captive by Sin and fallen out of God's grace. Also, the Scriptures tell us that the "Prince of the Air" has charge of this world. The earth is under the stewardship of the old serpent. Before Christ's death, he himself said that he had no more to say, because the evil one was drawing near. I tell you that, to tell you this: As Christians, we know how this story ends. The devil will be defeated and Sin will be purged and removed from creation, once and for all. But until that time, the earth, and man, is still cursed. Mind you, God is not condemning anyone to hell or causing these terrible things, we have done that ourselves when we turned away from God and relied on our own understanding in Eden.

 

[Viro8999]

I'm a Christian who believes God created the universe by way of evolution. Most criticize the idea you've presented because it turns God into a deceiver, tricking us to believe what never happened. Instead the story of creation might be a way of explaining evolution in "short form" without getting into the details.

Curious: if my idea is frowned upon because it turns God into a deceiver and, at least in my experience, your idea doesn't seem to be that common among the Christians at the church I go to, how do many Christians reconciles dinosaurs/fossils/etc? Also, for the record, the church I go to is non-denominational, but seems to be pretty "by the book". If it is written in the Bible, it happened, including Noah's flood.

I also believe there was no world-wide flood. But in Noah's eyes, it was a world wide flood. I believe the animals carried on the ark were every animal he could find.

Speaking of which, this is a really interesting view and something I think I can understand and reconcile. According to the history that I know, man wouldn't even know about the western hemisphere in Noah's time, so this does actually make some sense to me. How common is this belief among Christians?

Again, exactly what I believe! Ha, you're posting these things for me! You could look into two views: Open Theism and Molonism. I prefer Open Theism but many agree with Molonism.

I could point you in the direction of some good teachers (who people here will criticize, but the way you are reasoning I think you will like them): Jonathan Welton, Bill Johnson.

Again, very interesting. I feel like at the church I go to, these kinds of answers may be frowned upon haha, but I appreciate them and it makes more sense to me. Would be interesting to get some other opinions as well though.

I'm only going to touch on the last point here. I'm sure plenty others will take the first two points and run with them. I would agree that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. I also agree with you that God indeed does conquer over all. It's very easy for us to get caught up in this doctrine of God's plan. Specifically, people tend to get hung up on God's plan for their life. Now, I'm certainly here to say that God does indeed have a plan. .....

Hmm, so the overarching idea here is that while God does have a plan and his overall plan is that he has given salvation to humanity through Jesus, his plan didn't necessarily include Hitler/these other terrible things. We bring these things upon ourselves. Am I interpreting this correctly? Also, digging in a bit further: why does God not intervene in these types of circumstances?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

how do many Christians reconciles dinosaurs/fossils/etc?

Are you asking this with regard to how creationists reconcile dinosaurs or evolutionists? Many creationists say "the fall" caused a huge shift in our universe meaning dating methods are incorrect. Others rely on the world wide flood for incorrect dating methods. Evolutionists have no problem. My own personal view is that the devil was given a creative role in this universe before he sinned. After sinning he was cast to earth where he continued/continues to influence the world, including the creative process. You will probably have a lot of questions, and you don't have to agree with me, I'm still exploring this as well. A pretty good resource website is http://biologos.org/

If it is written in the Bible, it happened, including Noah's flood.

A literal reading of the Bible is only a recent phenomena. Church fathers such as Augustine taught that a lot of the book of Genesis is allegory/parable to teach us rather than literal. The Bible keeps a record of humanities interaction with God and the covenants He and humanity have made together. I believe there can be mistakes and errors in the Bible but the overall story is true and message is true. It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have and therefore the highest authority on spiritual matters.

Speaking of which, this is a really interesting view and something I think I can understand and reconcile. According to the history that I know, man wouldn't even know about the western hemisphere in Noah's time, so this does actually make some sense to me. How common is this belief among Christians?

I'm not quite sure to tell you the truth. My hunch is it is rare unfortunately.

Again, very interesting. I feel like at the church I go to, these kinds of answers may be frowned upon haha, but I appreciate them and it makes more sense to me. Would be interesting to get some other opinions as well though.

Yes, they probably will be frowned upon. Even here on christian forums many retaliate quite strongly against such "open" views. For me, I am quite comfortable and happy with my position so I try not to talk about it much unless it comes up in conversation and the person is open to discussing it. Churches... great for social time and corporate worship, usually not so good for discussing difficult questions... depending on the group of people of course.

There is SO much to say about the origin and reason for pain and suffering. Books and books. In short, the position I'm in at the moment is: God desires meaningful relationship. Meaningful relationship requires another "free" agent (e.g. angels, humans etc). But at the very moment he creates a "free" agent he creates the potential for evil; because the free agent can choose to break relationship with God and do as it wants. Satan was the first that we know of to make this decision. Adam and Eve were the second. So God must have wanted to create us THAT MUCH, that He would even risk all this pain and suffering. He didn't make any of it happen, we could have simply remained in relationship with Him. But we didn't, and His "back up plan" was sending Jesus.

 

[Shane2336]

Hmm, so the overarching idea here is that while God does have a plan and his overall plan is that he has given salvation to humanity through Jesus, his plan didn't necessarily include Hitler/these other terrible things. We bring these things upon ourselves. Am I interpreting this correctly? Also, digging in a bit further: why does God not intervene in these types of circumstances?

I would say you picked up what I was saying perfectly. Who are we to say he hasn't? God has used evil men many, many times for His glory.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I used to go to church when I was younger for a number of years, but stopped around middle school. About two years ago, I started going to church again as my significant other is Christian so I thought I would give it a shot. In this time, I really haven't gotten any closer to God, and in fact, may be further away than ever. That said, I do think I have learned a lot about the faith, enough to ask some questions/make some observations...

Here are some of my thoughts on Christianity so far in the two years I have spent attending church recently:

The Good
I've always believed in evolution/science and had a hard time believing creationism. That said, it recently occurred to me; couldn't God have created the earth with dinosaur fossils already in the ground, for example? Seems possible to me! +1 for closer to God

The Bad
Some stories in the Bible seem extremely far fetched, such as Noah's Ark. I have an extremely hard time believing some guy near Jerusalem built an ark an animals all over the world (including from South America, for example) migrated to get onto this ark. The logistics/idea of this seem a lot closer to something like Greek mythology than something that could/did actually happy. -1 from God

The Ugly
I keep hearing that God is all knowing, all powerful, and everything is part of his plan. This actually makes me very uncomfortable... Hitler was part of God's plan? Children getting cancer is part of God's plan? Numerous deadly natural disasters have been part of God's plan? I would feel a lot better about all of this if I was taught, "God has a plan, but sometimes the devil has small wins, but God overall will conquer all," or something like that, but nobody seems to teach this. How do Christians reconcile the above events being part of God's plan? -a lot from God :*(

I would like to apologize if my post seems blasphemous/too direct, but I really wanted to put this out there and see what Christians had to say. I would love to get some opinions on The Bad and The Ugly from Christians and learn more about this.

I have many more questions, but for now, I'll just leave it at this. Thanks!

Hi Viro,

I'll keep this short.

I realize that at the present time you're attending a more fundamentally oriented church with your wife. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing, and as far as family time and basic worship is concerned, it is definitely a good thing. However, I recognize that you are a person who wants answers that are a bit deeper and of a more coherent caliber than as is typically available at the local evangelical church, and if this continues with no other alternative Christian input from a wider perspective of about the Bible, you will probably also continue to feel like you keep coming up short of faith.

What I'd recommend is that you realize there are other ways to approach the Christian faith, ways that while not necessarily affirmative of everything found in the average evangelical interpretive framework, still retain a context of authentic faith in a real biblical God, still affirming a resurrected Jesus as Lord and Messiah, but at the same time allowing for more realistic measures to guide your faith in Christ.

It's something to think about, Viro.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[crossnote]

Jesus dies for the sins of viro8999.
Viro8999 refuses the sacrifice of Jesus that covers his sin.
-∞ for viro.

 

[Ken Behrens]

So many ex-Christians ask these questions. I could answer them, but that's not really the point. (In short - thye would each need a chapter of a book- Gen. 1 does not address the ball of dirt, but the world of God's love. There was a flood, but it was a malfunction of sin based technology, like we are afraid of nuclear war; when you read the Hebrew, and the stories from other cultures, this emerges. God allows evil, since He wishes to be loved in return; if we did not know evil, we would not know Him, and could not make the choice to love. Most people do not make the choice to love, and that is why all the natural disasters remain.)

When people (like significant others and parents, for example) go to church, hopefully it is because they have made the choice to follow Jesus, and church helps them to do this. Sadly, some who go to church have not made this choice, and do it to please someone else, or to placate their consciences, or hedge their bets about eternity. This is why it is so hard to get answers to such questions. If you want to discuss such question, I will do so with you. But why not ask Jesus to show you Himself. Then you and He can talk these things over. He's way smarter than I am, and can speak to you with an intimacy I cannot.

 

[1watchman]

Good points, Ken, and one needs to see salvation in Christ and not be TRYING TO WIN HEAVEN by religious endeavors. The orig. post is a carnal view of man's efforts, rather than faith and trust in God's immutable Word with salvation in His "only begotten Son".

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Good points, Ken, and one needs to see salvation in Christ and not be TRYING TO WIN HEAVEN by religious endeavors. The orig. post is a carnal view of man's efforts, rather than faith and trust in God's immutable Word with salvation in His "only begotten Son".

A carnal view? Or an honest analysis! How dare you judge someone seeking for answers! There's not a lot that makes me angry, but when a person accuses and judges someone seeking for answers!!!! HOW DARE YOU JUDGE!!!!

 

[Balugon]

Here are some of my thoughts on Christianity so far in the two years I have spent attending church recently:

I have many more questions, but for now, I'll just leave it at this. Thanks!

Not all Christians believe in young Earth creationism. Some people believe in theistic evolution- that God planted the seeds and watched over them, but that he grew new species (or let them grow) over time through what we know as evolution. If one believes in theistic evolution, there is no reason to believe that the dinosaurs had a messed up time frame.

There would be no reason for Hell if people did not have free will. If people have free will, then they have the choice to make life go worse or better according to their actions. Therefore, not everything is part of God's plan.

Some people read the Bible as if everything has to be interpreted literally- a literal Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a literal belief in women being silent in the church, a literal group of giant stinging insects things coming to the Earth during the end times to torture people. Other people choose to read the Bible in the context of the rest of Scripture, in the context of the culture, and in the context of the times. The Bible was never "one book." It is a collection of writings written by different people at different times and for different audiences. Some of the "books" in the Bible are literally private letters to certain people. When looking for meaning/understanding, it helps to keep all this in mind.

 

[AvgJoe]

I used to go to church when I was younger for a number of years, but stopped around middle school. About two years ago, I started going to church again as my significant other is Christian so I thought I would give it a shot. In this time, I really haven't gotten any closer to God, and in fact, may be further away than ever. That said, I do think I have learned a lot about the faith, enough to ask some questions/make some observations...

Here are some of my thoughts on Christianity so far in the two years I have spent attending church recently:

The Good
I've always believed in evolution/science and had a hard time believing creationism. That said, it recently occurred to me; couldn't God have created the earth with dinosaur fossils already in the ground, for example? Seems possible to me! +1 for closer to God

We get into difficulty if we say that, during Creation Week, God supernaturally created the thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks containing billions of impressions in the rocks that looked like, but were not, the fossilized remains of plants and animals, because those creatures would never have existed. God is neither a liar nor a deceiver (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), yet this scenario would involve God in deception for several reasons.

First, a great percentage of those fossils show evidence of disease, including cancer, arthritis, carnivorous activity, violent death and even being buried alive. What conceivable purpose would God have for creating stones with impressions that look like the diseases we have today and which we and God call evil? It would seem to be deliberate deception on God’s part to make us think that those impressions in the rocks are the fossilized remains of animals that lived with disease and ate one another, when in fact those rocky impressions were simply His creations during His “very good” Creation Week.

Second, some of those impressions in the rocks are not completely stone, but are partially organic material, virtually identical to the organic material in very similar living creatures today. What purpose would God have for creating such partially fossilized organic material? Again, it would appear to be deception.

Lastly, attributing the fossils to Creation Week leaves us with a Noahic Flood that produced no evidence of its occurrence, even though we have good scientific evidence that the Flood could and would have produced fossils and partially fossilized remains—just like the impressions we find in sedimentary rocks. The Flood would also have produced the kinds of sedimentation and erosion features that we see, which in some cases show that the sediments with their fossils were deposited in one place and then eroded and redeposited elsewhere. A year-long, global, catastrophic Flood, as described in Genesis 6–9, could not have occurred without leaving a massive amount of geological evidence. To attribute the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks to Creation Week would require us to treat the Flood as a myth, contrary to the way Genesis and the rest of the Bible present it as a literal, historical event. In Genesis 6:7 and 6:13, God said that the purpose of the Flood was to destroy all the land animals, birds and people, and the surface of the earth itself, which thereby would also have destroyed many sea creatures. The geological record is exactly what we would expect from the Genesis Flood, though a few sediments and fossils would have been deposited in the pre-Flood and post-Flood periods.

Due to the above reasons, we cannot attribute the fossils found in rock layers to the creative activity of God during His “very good” Creation Week.

The Bad
Some stories in the Bible seem extremely far fetched, such as Noah's Ark. I have an extremely hard time believing some guy near Jerusalem built an ark an animals all over the world (including from South America, for example) migrated to get onto this ark. The logistics/idea of this seem a lot closer to something like Greek mythology than something that could/did actually happy. -1 from God

As for the ark, Noah had somewhere around 100 years to build it, and he had 3 sons, so he had help. That's doable. And the gathering of the animals, Noah didn't have to fool with that because God brought the animals to the ark (Genesis 6:20). The Bible seems to say that, in the beginning, all land was connected, like a super continent. Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place”, which would have made the migration of the animals to the ark possible. At the end of the flood, God changed the topography of the earth (Psalm 104:6-9). And just to be clear, according to the Bible the flood was global (Genesis 6:18-20).

Have you looked into the evidence for any of these things in the Bible that you don't agree with and/or don't understand? You might be surprised with what you find. Following are some good resources to look into:

1. Fossils: Evidence for Biblical creation: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=CWV53IeYDzE
2. Was Noah's flood global?: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=c36LQILHQ18
3. Continental drift and the Bible: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=uyhOKnyWASE
4. Radiometric back flips; how solid are those dates?: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=jga_Ha_LCZk

 

[YouAreAwesome]

We get into difficulty if we say that, during Creation Week, God supernaturally created the thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks containing billions of impressions in the rocks that looked like, but were not, the fossilized remains of plants and animals, because those creatures would never have existed. God is neither a liar nor a deceiver (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), yet this scenario would involve God in deception for several reasons.

First, a great percentage of those fossils show evidence of disease, including cancer, arthritis, carnivorous activity, violent death and even being buried alive. What conceivable purpose would God have for creating stones with impressions that look like the diseases we have today and which we and God call evil? It would seem to be deliberate deception on God’s part to make us think that those impressions in the rocks are the fossilized remains of animals that lived with disease and ate one another, when in fact those rocky impressions were simply His creations during His “very good” Creation Week.

Second, some of those impressions in the rocks are not completely stone, but are partially organic material, virtually identical to the organic material in very similar living creatures today. What purpose would God have for creating such partially fossilized organic material? Again, it would appear to be deception.

Lastly, attributing the fossils to Creation Week leaves us with a Noahic Flood that produced no evidence of its occurrence, even though we have good scientific evidence that the Flood could and would have produced fossils and partially fossilized remains—just like the impressions we find in sedimentary rocks. The Flood would also have produced the kinds of sedimentation and erosion features that we see, which in some cases show that the sediments with their fossils were deposited in one place and then eroded and redeposited elsewhere. A year-long, global, catastrophic Flood, as described in Genesis 6–9, could not have occurred without leaving a massive amount of geological evidence. To attribute the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks to Creation Week would require us to treat the Flood as a myth, contrary to the way Genesis and the rest of the Bible present it as a literal, historical event. In Genesis 6:7 and 6:13, God said that the purpose of the Flood was to destroy all the land animals, birds and people, and the surface of the earth itself, which thereby would also have destroyed many sea creatures. The geological record is exactly what we would expect from the Genesis Flood, though a few sediments and fossils would have been deposited in the pre-Flood and post-Flood periods.

Due to the above reasons, we cannot attribute the fossils found in rock layers to the creative activity of God during His “very good” Creation Week.




As for the ark, Noah had somewhere around 100 years to build it, and he had 3 sons, so he had help. That's doable. And the gathering of the animals, Noah didn't have to fool with that because God brought the animals to the ark (Genesis 6:20). The Bible seems to say that, in the beginning, all land was connected, like a super continent. Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place”, which would have made the migration of the animals to the ark possible. At the end of the flood, God changed the topography of the earth (Psalm 104:6-9). And just to be clear, according to the Bible the flood was global (Genesis 6:18-20).

Have you looked into the evidence for any of these things in the Bible that you don't agree with and/or don't understand? You might be surprised with what you find. Following are some good resources to look into:

1. Fossils: Evidence for Biblical creation: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=CWV53IeYDzE
2. Was Noah's flood global?: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=c36LQILHQ18
3. Continental drift and the Bible: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=uyhOKnyWASE
4. Radiometric back flips; how solid are those dates?: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=jga_Ha_LCZk

Very good, and some good counter arguments to balance it out are found here http://talkorigins.org

 

[1watchman]

A carnal view? Or an honest analysis! How dare you judge someone seeking for answers! There's not a lot that makes me angry, but when a person accuses and judges someone seeking for answers!!!! HOW DARE YOU JUDGE!!!!

You are judging here now, friend! I simply said the post appears to be acting carnal (in the flesh) in your reasoning and missing Bible truth by not taking God at His Word. Your theory is based on man's ideas and rejects what God is saying. I make no offense, but speak of what you are doing, and hope that you will come to read and believe what God says. Look up always!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

You are judging here now, friend! I simply said the post appears to be acting carnal (in the flesh) in your reasoning and missing Bible truth by not taking God at His Word. Your theory is based on man's ideas and rejects what God is saying. I make no offense, but speak of what you are doing, and hope that you will come to read and believe what God says. Look up always!

Judge me all you want, just don't judge the OP, he is asking very logical and reasonable questions.

 

[AvgJoe]

Very good, and some good counter arguments to balance it out are found here http://talkorigins.org

I find it funny that that website calls creation science a pseudoscience. Evolution is a pseudoscience. Darwin's theory of evolution is not a scientific fact, it is unproven. A scientific theory is a reasoned explanation that appears to fit all the facts at hand but that cannot be tested and verified as scientific law through the observed results of repeated experiments according to the scientific method. Evolutionary theory cannot be verified through observation because it has supposedly transpired over eons of time—and therefore must remain a theory rather than a proven law.

However, Darwinian evolution should not truly be classed as a scientific theory since it does not really fit the evidence that exists in a reasonable way. Charles Darwin admitted that the available fossil evidence didn’t support his theory of “survival of the fittest,” better known as evolution. But he expected that plenty of evidence would be found in the coming years. Now, more than a century and a half later, the evidence still fails to support his theory—showing people accept Darwinian evolution more as an article of faith rather than of fact.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I find it funny that that website calls creation science a pseudoscience. Evolution is a pseudoscience. Darwin's theory of evolution is not a scientific fact, it is unproven. A scientific theory is a reasoned explanation that appears to fit all the facts at hand but that cannot be tested and verified as scientific law through the observed results of repeated experiments according to the scientific method. Evolutionary theory cannot be verified through observation because it has supposedly transpired over eons of time—and therefore must remain a theory rather than a proven law.

However, Darwinian evolution should not truly be classed as a scientific theory since it does not really fit the evidence that exists in a reasonable way. Charles Darwin admitted that the available fossil evidence didn’t support his theory of “survival of the fittest,” better known as evolution. But he expected that plenty of evidence would be found in the coming years. Now, more than a century and a half later, the evidence still fails to support his theory—showing people accept Darwinian evolution more as an article of faith rather than of fact.

I'm not here to debate, but to inform Viro8999 that there are many scholarly Christians who believe God created by way of evolution and that God is not the God presented by Calvin. To let him know that there are other options such as Open Theism which better preserve the love of God and the effectiveness of prayer. That he is not alone in his very reasonable and excellent questions.

 

[Viro8999]

Jesus dies for the sins of viro8999.
Viro8999 refuses the sacrifice of Jesus that covers his sin.
-∞ for viro.

Haha, I'm here working on it! That's the best I can do for now.

Also, thank you all for your many responses! I won't reply to each one as I'm mostly here to listen to others, not debate anything. That said, I do appreciate the variety of perspectives and I think this post has given me a lot to think about.