DiscussMormonism.com

In the carbon date thread an article by a Dr Parker explaining why he converted to yec and Morris flood theory was introduced. Spotlight proposed that it contained a theological argument against theistic evolution which was convincing though it moved spotlight to atheism instead of Morris style flood dreams.
///
"In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin. By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption -- how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man's sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things."

/////
Because I am tired I am going to be brief about this perhaps inviting others comments. I find this argument repulsive and representative of a form of theology which I think is at best limiting and distorting. I find it a curious parallel to his bad evolution theology where everything was supposed to be comfortable getting better and better. The same desire for a simple theological bundle providing safety as this oversimplified theology.

Any way a person pictures creation by God as good before Adams fall must take into account that its goodness led to sin death disease disasters bubonic plague earthquakes and other horrors. To think of salvation as returning to that preadamic good is an invitation to despair. Clearly God declared creation good because it had the potential to fulfill his purpose and our potential not that creation arrived at that at some time in the past.

perhaps this will get to the article. I did not enjoy it.
https://www.icr.org/article/95/

I may have difficulty finding an angle which opens interest in this subject.

Continuing my observations about the article linked in the previous post I find the following:

"But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mindstretching eternal perspective."

In my reading of the Bible God asks us to follow his paths by having us ask questions about what actions are good and participate in loving our neighbors. Distinctions of right and wrong are invitations to think and understand. To be directed in Gods paths is to pursue the question of how to love my neighbor with honest desire to understand.

Am I wrong in hearing in the quote a substitution of a different idea of following God? It sounds like personal decisions and understanding are to be forgone in favor of some divination of purposes with religious technique or perhaps feelings.. In this context just accepting the words of the Bible can give the feeling of following Gods lead. Just accepting the words may give a feeling of following direction which the uncertainty created by seeking to understand may not give.

I think the first view, training your own mind and spirits ability to see and understand, is the actual Biblical one. I think the second is a foreign idea slipped into Bible studies sometimes. It can make the group feel more cohesive. It can give people access to techniques to feel more spiritual and religious. Those very feelings may be an impediment to understanding. They might even sometimes be an impediment to understanding other people and other peoples needs.