- Dec 26, 2007
- 8,567
- 3,943
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Unorthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Unfortunately, AIG does a great diservice by actually making people think their arguments have some kind of scientific, valid backing, when they don't. Their audience format isn't very appealing either. Their clamoring to the child-like reader is akin to reading a creationist version of the book Everbody Poops.
One of things that used to drive it for me back when I read
AIGs material is that they made a direct connection
between a persons believing in the literal reading of
Genesis and that person's belief in the literal reading of the
gospel message.
In other words, their concern was that if a person didnt take
Genesis literally, they in turn might not take those
Scriptures literally which deal with Jesus, His atoning
sacrifice, etc., the result then being that they might not get
saved. And of course they had testimonials from people who
claimed that it was only when they finally believed in a
literal 6-day creation that they were then able to believe the
rest of the Bible and get saved.
I dont doubt that there are those out there for which this
was the case, but I no longer see ones beliefs about how
long it took for God to create everything as having such a
direct bearing on whether they believe anything else in the
Bible. In fact, I would hope that ones belief in God and the
effectiveness of His Sons sacrifice for us would not hinge on
something as specific as how long it took for God to get this
big ball rolling.
.
Upvote
0