Want Some Answers ???


And thanks Brian, nice of you to reply.

>>Thank you for your e-mail Mark. I can relate to a lot of what you say because I used to think the same way myself. However, I should clarify that it was not the inane blatherings of Hugh Ross that turned me off the gospel (I was already on my way out the door at that point).<<

Yes as I said, it "wasn't Ross but an acceptance of what you think is scientifically proven".

>>I was a biblical literalist and a young earth creationist for many years, but I eventually realized that the bible was not inerrant. At that point it lost it's power over me<<

Yes the result of evolutionary philosophy, it's contrary to the 'biblical literalist'. Yet you seem ignorant of the scientific evidence against the Big Bang and billions of years of evolution. Why? A real 'young earth creationist' is bullet-proof to big bang cosmology and evolutionary philosophy. I've never heard of anyone re-fooled (as it were). But judging by your lack of investigations with the big bang, you could be an exception.

>>I began to seriously investigate the claims of charlatans like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, not to mention prophecy experts like Grant Jefferies and Hal Lindsey. At that point I still really wanted to believe in the gospel, but for the first time in my life I was ready to disbelieve if that's where the evidence led me.<<

Ken Ham a 'charlatan'? What did you discovered? Can you tell me?

So thinking it through; you reject God's love because of Ken Ham's etc., imperfections. Isn't that a lame excuse? Are there no frauds or charlatans among evolutionists? You are not as neutral as you claim, I suspect a spiritual-problem, not an 'evidence'-problem.

>>This is a crucial point. When you want to believe in something enough you can trick yourself into seeing what you want to see.<<

Yes which is far more true of evolutionary theory. It's so plastic evolutionists can embrace anything as evidence they 'want to see'. Facts interpreted in the light of the theory. Whereas, the bible specifies the evidence to expect (eg if there was a worldwide flood).

>>In my bible thumper days I managed to read the bible from front to back three times without seeing a single contradiction. Now I can hardly flip the thing open at random without seeing an error. I would suggest that if you were to just read the bible with a totally neutral opinion, you would be surprised to find that it does not really hold up. If you were honest, you'd have a difficult time just making it past the first chapter of Genesis.<<

Yet nobody has a 'totally neutral opinion'. Everyone has some bias. So 'if you were honest', when one wants to reject something they can find any excuse anywhere. Just as scientists are also human as everyone else. They are fallible, biased and sinful.

Now, you mention about '
error', 'truth', 'charlatans', right and wrong etc. How can there be anything true, or right or wrong, if there's no God? Everything becomes just nebulous opinion. I suggest your 'bible error' is only your opinion and won't 'hold up'. I have a number of doctorates, & one in theology. So why not tell me about this error?

To be honest, '
Genesis' provides the best foundation for a correct understanding of life on earth. The earth & mankind are everything we would expect them to be, if the bible is true. Since I base what I believe on what I know is true (not on what I don't know), how can I reject what's true?

>>As for my empty unbelief, I have to say that I find my life more satisfying and meaningful than I ever did as a christian sitting around waiting for the rapture to happen. I feel like I "found the truth and truth has set me free". Keep on Searching, Brian<<

Yes a drunk, gambler, or anyone can claim to be 'satisfied' and have 'meaning'. But do you have anything worth believing? Any answers to the big questions in life? No, so you must keep searching. At best, all you have is opinion and nothing certain.

There's no explanation for life on earth if there is no God. Man becomes just an animal. What it means to be human changes for the worse. The sanctity of life is a transcendental concept and has no
meaning otherwise. If there is no God life cannot have sanctity. And no truth or freedom either. Only God's existence means such concepts can really exist. In evolutionary philosophy they can't - just death, suffering and despair.


"What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mt.16:26).