>
> Secondly, a comparison of a belief in a young earth with a belief in the
> resurrection seems to miss the fact that the resurrection is central to the
> nature of Christianity while the age of the earth is not. Without the
> resurrection, there is no uniqueness to Christianity. It is like other
> religions that revere a great teacher or philosopher. Further, without the
> resurrection then the central Christian concept of accepting Christ into
> our hearts and lives is faulty. In contrast, evidence for an ancient earth
> does not contradict our belief in a risen Saviour.
I have to agree that the resurrection is the central belief. However, it seems to
me that ones view of origins is highly important. To me it seems that a God who
would tolerate tooth and claw, violence, death, pain and agony for at least a good
part of a billion years and think of it as business as usual would not be the kind
of God that I would hope for, if that makes any difference. It would be easier to
live with the thought of a God who would tolerate these things for a few thousand
years as a "temporary" situation necessatated by His careful response to a rebelion
made possible by His granting of a high degree of freedom to His creatures. I am
not pretending to argue in favor of the latter notion here. I am just saying that
it is a question that does make a great deal of difference to me.
Norm Smith
74532,66@compuserve.com