A Question for Creation Science Advocates

I have a couple of questions for Christians who are advocates of creation science:

• Assume a person said he read and believed the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Would you say that person was saved?
• What if the person then said that he didn't believe Genesis though? Would you say the person was still saved?
  
• Would you insist that they believe every word of Genesis as well in order to be saved?
• Is it possible such insistence would be a needless deterrent to belief in the Gospel?
  

The devil is in the details. The details of Genesis water down the grace and beauty of the gospel.

Our Imperfect Knowledge

Our knowledge, both religious and scientific, is imperfect. We need to show some humility and admit our imperfect understanding.

For example, old science books have a mix of truth and mistakes. The newer science books reflect a more nuanced and better understanding of scientific truths... but I am sure there are mistakes and flat out guesses. Is there any doubt that our future science books will correct many of today's scientific (mis)-understandings? But each of the science books of the past and the current probably had some level of truth. Our knowledge is imperfect. We can improve our understanding of scientific "truth" over time.

And so too, our spiritual knowledge is imperfect. Some will claim they know "the Truth", but really all we have are faith and belief. And while our beliefs may be close to the Truth, we are better served by humble assertions of belief rather than dogmatic claims of knowledge.

Dogmatic claims of knowledge alienate the non-believers.

The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason

God wants us to be free. God wants us to live and let live. God wants us to live in peace with the Earth, and with each other. God wants us to promote and preserve life. God wants us to prosper, because we prosper when we create value for each other.

All these things God would want, are things Reason would want.

But the name of God has been sullied by evil men. Wars have been waged in God's name. Men have been tortured and killed in God's name. Thoughts and tongues have been controlled in God's name. And the name for this is evil. Evil seeks control. God wants us to be free.

God allows us to sin and is merciful. We need to extend that mercy and allow others to sin.

There is a path to peace: if we appeal to the reason of the believers and embrace and endorse the righteousness of God's grace and freedom... we can live together in peace, each believing as we see fit and reasonable. :)

The Folly of Biblical Inerrancy

There is a lot about Christianity that is beautiful and thought-provoking. Jesus showed a path to peace. We learned to admire the good Samaritan. We learned to turn the other cheek. We learned to judge not.

There is so much that is beautiful in the Bible, but many of the religious right hurt the cause of Christ by insisting on Biblical inerrancy (that every word is without error and literally true).

How does this hurt the cause of Christ? Because it weakens the argument for Christianity. It makes it harder to be a believer. The beautiful parts of the Bible are easy to believe and endorse. The message of grace is so beautiful.

According to the Bible, the only thing you need to believe to be saved is that Christ is your savior. Do you need to believe Genesis is totally true in order to be saved? No.

Have you ever heard the phrase "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link"? By insisting we need to believe Genesis in its entirety, we introduce many more links in the chain. Some of which are weak links.

The insistence on an all-or-nothing approach to the Bible is polarizing. It drives some in the moderate middle to eschew the church. And that is the folly. Instead of making Christianity easy and accommodating, the religious right has made it difficult. It has alienated potential believers by creating unnecessary standards of belief.