This was a compromise invented by men who wanted to make both sides of the evolutionary debate happy but ended up making neither side happy. (This is more generically referred to outside the Catholic Church as "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation".) This recently invented concept is comparable to patronizing Jesus as simply a "good man" but not divine. But good men do not claim to be God unless they really are, otherwise they are liars and hence not good. So there is no middle ground on whether Jesus was God or an idiot, nor is there middle ground on this issue. Mitigated evolution was invented to make the Bible "fit" our modern society's evolution-based paradigm of the world and is not based on scripture. Jesus warns us of taking seemingly neutral, or appeasing, attitudes towards lies and falsehood (Revelation 3:15-16).

By the way, there were numerous compromise positions invented in the last couple centuries to force God's account of our origin to align with man's ideas. Here is a decent but partial list:

• Mitigated Evolution / Theistic Evolution / Progressive Creation (molecules to man evolution following a Big Bang happened just as atheist scientists claim but God was in control of it all)
• Day-Age Theory (each day in Genesis 1 is not 24 hours but instead an unlimited/​undefined length of time spanning millions of years or more)
• Gap Theory (a gap of unlimited time is implied between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, potentially lasting billions of years)
• Local or Peacefull Flood (the flood description of Genesis 7:19-24 was errant and the flood was either just in the Mesopotamia area or it was completely tranquil and had no serious effects.)

Jesus was patronized when He walked the earth. One recorded example was John 7:12. God was patronized in the Old Testament when Israel pretended to worship Him but only on their own terms. A small sampling of God's responses were Isaiah 1:11-17, Amos 5:21–24, Malachi 3:8-10, 13-15. And don't forget Proverbs 18:2.

First of all, God said He used supernatural creation and didn't leave ambiguity about long duration processes for us to figure out. He said He created the world in 6 days and by definition any other belief is anti-Biblical. Paul referred to a similar concept in 2 Corinthians 10:5. But why call evolution anti Christian?

Darwinian Evolution is a common term used today to refer to the changing of one kind into another over long ages of time, including the process that would cause a fish to eventually turn into an elephant or an eagle. The term gets it's name from Charles Darwin who published his infamous book, On the Origin of Species in 1859 (and it's sequel, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871). A great deal of inspiration for that book was attributed to his 6 year voyage on the Beagle (1831-1836) which is when he visited the Galopagos islands and observed those finches. Darwin said in a letter in 1844 "I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains & that I never acknowledge this sufficiently... for I have always thought that the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind".

Charles Lyell popularized the concept that "the present is the key to the past" in his 1830 book Principles of Geology. He saw himself as "the spiritual saviour of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses." He wanted to divorce science from God. How much more anti-Christian can we get? Don't underestimate this concept. It was given the name "uniformitarianism" and is so dangerous it was critically prophesied about (warned of) in the Bible in 2 Peter 3:3-6. The belief in uniformitarianism is understood to be a direct contrast to catastrophism (a belief in the global flood of Genesis 6-8) because the whole purpose of uniformitarianism is to explain geology without any Biblical-scale catastrophes.

In the 21st century, one of the most famous evolutionists, Richard Dawkins, has flat out said that evolution is diametrically opposed to the whole of Christian theology. For example, in 2011 he said "I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity." A lesser known atheist, Michael Ruse, said this in 2000: "evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint... the literalists [creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Honest evolutionists recognize their anti-God religion for what it is, and people who try to have it both ways are naive. Although apparently Michael Ruse is embarrassed by Richard Dawkin's logic, so my apologies for quoting them in the same paragraph.

Because of a misplaced desire to compromise with atheist scientists who falsely interpret evidence for evolution in the world (but sound smart while doing it, Isaiah 47:10) many well meaning Christians have damaged the Church and tarnished the [earthly] glory of God with their anti-Biblical explanations of how God could have used atheist ideas to accomplish His will (briefly mentioned in the previous answer). Because countless people have used these false compromise ideas as reasons to decide the history of Genesis is false and therefore the rest of the Bible is false, and these people then deny their need for a savior and the reality of what Jesus did and who He really is, it's not a stretch to call evolutionary philosophy anti-Christian. Still uncomfortable with the classification? Let's ask, how many people have become believers in Christ because of what they "learned" about evolution, and how many have become an apostate because of that same knowledge? The ratio is quite skewed, and none of these philosophies nor the philosophers who advocate for them deserve your loyalty. God does (Joel 2:12).

Evolution believing Christians are in serious danger of hearing from God what the Israelites heard from God's prophet in Ezekiel 36:21-23. Atheist evolutionists are in serious eternal danger (besides the obvious by definition of denying God) if they fit the description of 2 Peter 2:10 (though read all of chapter 2 for full context).

» AiG: Millions of Years: Where Did the Idea Come From?
» Wiki: Charles Darwin
» [Darwin's Letter] To Leonard Horner 29 August 1844
» Wiki: Charles Lyell
» AiG: Atheist Richard Dawkins: “Evangelical Christians Have Really Sort Of Got It Right”
» Wiki: History of Evolutionary Thought
» Michael Ruse, A-Z Quotes

No, the original Hebrew is just like the days of the week. This is again just another compromise. Let's count the reasons.

• Notice that at the end of days 1-6 (chapter 1 verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31) it says "there was evening, and there was morning" (NIV). No other length of time is separated by an "evening" and a "morning". Why would it say this six times in a row if it was not trying to be painfully clear that the days are referring to literal 24 hour days as we know them now?
• If you want to attempt the stance that the people of Moses's day were "simpletons" and could not understand evolutionary timescales, then consider these verses that describe astronomical numbers without cryptically and inconveniently reusing another word (like "day"): Genesis 16:9-10, 22:15-18, 41:47-49, and Jeremiah 33:22. Contrast that to John 4:10-15 where Jesus cryptically reuses the term water.
• If the six days of creation were just philosophical representations of larger time period(s), then why is it never explained later (consider the harmony of the Bible) yet consider how ridiculously strongly God ties the modern seven day week to the literal week of creation in Exodus 31:12-17.
• Four of the authors of scripture took Genesis 2:7 (which says God formed man directly from the dust of the earth) literally: Job 10:9,34:15, Psalms 90:3,103:14,104:29, Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:47. That's not even including how Moses also quotes Abraham in Genesis 18:27. Zero even hint at any other origin of man, especially not biological evolution of proteins to people.
• If the six days of creation were just made up hypothetical references, then why would God keep referring back to them as literal days and never once clarifying them as nebulous, astronomically long "time periods"?
• If you think the reference to death in Genesis 2:17 is only spiritual then perhaps you didn't notice that thorns (Genesis 3:18) and returning to dust (Genesis 3:19) didn't come until the curse. Either Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 are right or they're not. If there were millions of years of evolution before the "story" of Adam and Eve, then there would be countless examples of suffering and death during the time God said everything was good (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) and before the events of Genesis 3. This would logically require a conclusion that Genesis 1 and 2 contain innumerable falsities. The hope for this logic to be true is strategically why evolutionists have a death grip on their long ages timeline, and why you are being ridiculous if you compromise with them.

As usual the question is really just "can we take God at his word", or to rephrase "can we take God seriously"? Because then there is the opposite problem that in Genesis 5 the Bible does a 180 and describes how six of the nine people in the lineage from Adam to Noah lived over 900 years and the rest lived over 300! Jacob (Israel) told Pharaoh he was "only 130" in Genesis 47:9, saying he had lived a short life compared to his ancestors. Either the record is right or it is not. The Jews are not a people group who accepted such blatant inaccuracy, if that is what it was. At the very least someone in the thousands of years between Moses and the orthodox church would have fudged the numbers to make them more reasonable if anyone did not believe them to be literal and accurate. And let's not confuse the purpose of 2 Peter 3:8 (the "a thousand years is like a day" verse) which is just pointing out God is above time and therefore not in any hurry. It isn't Peter making excuses for inaccuracies in the past but rather both a warning and reassurance about the future. Read the context in 2 Peter 3:7-9.

» AIG: If evolution over millions of years was the way God created, He could easily have said so in simple words.

Atheists think they've got a stumper here. And from an evolutionary perspective, it would be. But from a Biblical worldview, it's real easy. First, light exists independent of it's source, so God could have easily just "created light" without creating the light source, since He is after all omnipotent. But that's the boring answer. As we look through the scriptures, we see that God is light:

• Isaiah 60:19-20  hub
• Ezekiel 10:4  hub
• Ezekiel 43:2  hub
• Habakkuk 3:4  hub
• Matthew 28:3  hub

• Luke 2:9  hub
• 1 John 1:5  hub
• Revelation 18:1  hub
• Revelation 21:23-24  hub

When we consider the practical significance of Isaiah 60:19-20, Ezekiel 43:2, Revelation 18:1 and 21:23-24, and that in the future God will be the source of light, then why would it be difficult to believe that in the past, during the first 72-84 hours of creation, He was the source of light, too? The Bible does not specify what the source was, but it's not a theological problem to come up with numerous ways God could have done it, nor is it practically necessary that the question be answered definitively.

As supporting trivia:

• God is also described as fire in Deuteronomy 4:24, Ezekiel 1:27-28, and Revelation 19:12.
• Angels glow for the same reason Moses did in Exodus 34:29.
• Angels aren't the only ones who glow, even demons and Satan are invited into the presence of God on occasion: Job 1:6, 2:1, and 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
• In addition to verses just mentioned above, angels are described as luminary in Job 38:7, Psalm 104:4, Ezekiel 1:13-14, and Acts 12:7.

» Light Before the Sun

There is an allegation that the first two chapters of the Bible contradict each other in their orders of creation. The straightforward answer is Genesis 1:1-2:4 is an account of the creation of the universe, the Earth and everything on the Earth, which happened in seven days (including a day of rest). Genesis 2:4-25 expounds on what happened on day 6 and more importantly begins the critical account of the origins of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. The key is Genesis 2 is specifically describing the dawn of time from Adam's perspective (even though it is written in the third person) and Genesis 1 was written more broadly.

As usual, this is just another attack on the authority of scripture (Psalm 11:3) for the purpose of removing God's perceived ability to speak into our lives (John 3:12 and 5:46-47) so that we can think we can do whatever we want without accountability (Judges 17:6 and 21:25). For anyone interested in more than a FAQ, I wrote a blog post expanding on this concept, too. Read it here.

» Are there two creation accounts?
» Genesis contradictions?
» Two Contradictory Creation Accounts

You need to understand how naïve it is to blend flat-out contradictory religions (called syncretism). Theologians can't agree on a single definition of religion, so here are a few:

• A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (dictionary.com)
• A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (Merriam-Webster)
• A set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by (Microsoft Encarta)
• A social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. (Wikipedia)
• Human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence (Encyclopedia Britanica)
• The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (Lexico.com / Oxford)

The origin of the universe, the earth, and human life was not observed by any human alive today nor has anything comparable ever been observed, nor can the process be repeated for future observation, so any belief about how it really happened requires faith. People who do not want to believe in (or be accountable to) any God usually find comfort in the concepts of the big bang succeeded by biological evolution. This has become those peoples' religion, an anti-god religion where God is neither necessary nor wanted (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Most people who call themselves Christian believe the Bible when it claims to be the inspired word of God. (It does this explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16.) But this is not blind faith because we believe that the God of the Bible is a living God (Deuteronomy 5:26, Psalm 84:2, Jeremiah 10:10, Daniel 6:26, Matthew 16:16, Hebrews 10:31, Revelation 7:2) and that He is actively involved in our lives. At some point (especially if you are a follower of Christ) we must stop asking ourselves what God could have done (used millions of years/​evolution) and we must ask what God says He did. Let's take a close look at what God says in Genesis 1:1-2:23.

• God says He made light three days before He made the Sun, moon & stars (GE 1:3). Big bang proponents do not believe in any universal light sources other than from stars.
• God says the Earth was at first all water. Then He added the sky and lastly He formed dry ground (GE 1:6-10). Big bang proponents say the earth formed from stellar dust/​gas, condensed to become all molten rock, and only after it cooled for a long time did water appear.
• God says He made the atmosphere before the land (GE 1:8-9). Evolutionists believe the atmosphere came from volcanic eruptions, which are part of the land.
• God says He made vegetation capable of producing seeds and fruit the day before He made the Sun (GE 1:11-16). Old Earth, or "long ages" proponents say the Sun had to come way before any plants.
• God says He made the Sun 3-4 days after He made the Earth, depending on how you count (GE 1:1, 1:14-19). Any high school student of evolution can tell you the Big Bang model requires the Sun to have formed before or at the same time as the Earth, depending on how you count. There is no way, according to secular science, that planet Earth had taken full geologic shape before the Sun existed.
• God says He created sea dwelling animals and flying animals on the same day (GE 1:20-21). Evolutionists believe life originated in the ocean and took a long time to evolve into birds.
• God says He created land animals the day after He created birds (GE 1:24). Biological evolutionary chronology dictates the opposite: that birds evolved from land animals.
• God says He created all life independently after its own kind (GE 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24-25, 2:19), not that He created a first life and then diversified it. Evolution postulates that life evolved once and then somehow, miraculously survived long enough to figure out how to reproduce and diversify.
• God says He formed the first man directly from the dust (GE 2:7). Biological evolutionists want us to believe man evolved from apes, who evolved from smaller animals, who evolved from less complex life forms, who evolved from single-celled organisms, who evolved from inanimate/​non-living proteins.
• God says He formed the first woman directly from the first man (GE 2:22). This contradicts all secularly recorded human history, as no man has ever given birth. The closest thing is human cloning, but clearly that requires a lot of intelligence to pull off!

So why did God create things out of order? God is all-knowing (Psalm 139:1-4, Hebrews 4:13), never changing (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17), and cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18) therefore He must have done it on purpose. I think He did it this way to discourage us from making up dumb stories like "everything came to be on its own" and so we would not even think about blending those ideas with His word (Isaiah 45:5-12, Romans 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 1:19-21). And just as important (if not more) there's a recurring theme in scripture that God cares a great deal about getting credit for what He did/​does (Exodus 20:4-6, Deuteronomy 6:14-15, Isaiah 42:8, John 8:50, John 11:4).

» ICR: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
» AIG: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias
» AIG: Religion and Evolution

There is no scriptural basis what-so-ever for a local flood. There is no way to read scripture and come to the conclusion that it was anything but a global flood. If you think it was local, that belief was 'fed' to you. Read it yourself in Genesis 7:19-24.

• The concepts of 'highest on earth' and 'every living thing on earth' are found six times in those five verses. This would be gross negligence if the author didn't mean what he wrote.
• God himself, speaking to Isaiah approximately 1,600 years later, reiterates the flood "covered the earth" in Isaiah 54:9.
• The apostle Peter believed it was accurate, as stated in 2 Peter 3:3-7.
• From another angle, after it's all done God promises in Genesis 9:11-16 never to do again what He just did. Not because He was wrong to have done it the first time, but because of His plan. This is what the rainbow was (and still is) a sign of remembrance of. If He was promising never to allow/​send a local flood again, then He's a liar. If He was promising never to send a global flood again (like He explicitly said when He mentioned "all life on earth" twice) then He's truthful (John 3:32-33).
• For external confirmation consider the Biblically sound explanations for the origin of the grand canyon, the ice age, fish fossils in the middle of deserts & on top of mountains, etc.

» Canyon Ministries
» Grand Canyon-what is the message?
» Where Does the Ice Age Fit?

Nope. It is only implied (read in) by compromisers. Though really, since the universe was built mature to begin with, there is no direct observable evidence of its actual age, anywhere.

While this webpage has made the case that we have perfectly good reason to believe the world and the universe are relatively young, there is no physical evidence for a specifically six-day supernatural creation outside the eyewitness testimony recorded in the Bible. But that shouldn't be surprising since the natural cannot be used to prove nor explain the supernatural. This is why secular humanists and atheists have such a hard time with it. But the Bible and the Torah have, for thousands of years, firmly declared a single worldwide flood about 2000 years before Christ. And there is plenty of observable evidence of this worldwide flood. If the flood described in the Bible was true, and the Earth is young as the Bible describes, then it's very likely that the way the Bible describes creation (six days) was accurate too. This is why atheists won't allow anyone to believe in the flood of Noah's day, nor that the Earth is young, lest we draw the obvious conclusion. Remember, the origin of the earth and the universe are non-observable and non-repeatable, which means the scientific method cannot be used, which leaves scientists with a feeling of helplessness they attempt to compensate for with arrogance. The origin of the physical world is more a matter of faith than of science, based on:

1. our acceptance or rejection of eyewitness testimonies in the Biblical text,
2. our acceptance or rejection of supernatural corroboration of Biblical truths that still occur today, and
3. our willingness to believe in (and believe the word of) a divine Creator to whom we are accountable.

1. Jesus clearly confirmed that (1) creation was recent and (2) Adam and Eve were real historical people when He was defending marriage and said these first two people existed at the beginning, not billions of years after the universe and Earth had come into existence (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6). If the universe were billions of years old then the entire span of human existence has all occurred in the last 1% of universal time (or "at the end", not the beginning). And He didn't say "at the beginning of man," He just said, unqualified, "at the beginning."
2. Jesus named Abel in Matthew 23:35 when criticizing some self-righteous leaders, referring to Abel as a truly righteous person. (Abel was born in Genesis 4:2 to Adam and Eve then died in Genesis 4:8 at the hand of his older brother.)
3. Jesus referred to Noah as a real historical person, the Flood as a real historical event, and that it killed everyone alive (besides the 8 on the Ark) in His teaching about the "coming of the Son of man" (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27).
4. Jesus warned the Jews of his day to believe what Moses wrote (John 5:45-47). Moses is widely recognized as writing the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis and Exodus, which is where the literal account of creation and the Ten Commandments (referenced above) are found. If he had to warn the Jews of his day to believe in special creation then it is no surprise we have to remind people today. (By the way, I blogged about Moses being the author of the Torah, here.)
5. Jesus criticized His people a couple of times on their ability to understand the natural world around them while maintaining ignorance of the supernatural (especially when it was staring them in the face). Specifically, Luke 12:54-56 and Matthew 16:1-4, which aren't completely unrelated to Matthew 23:13 and 27. As Spock said in Star Trek VI, "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end," or in other words, we need more than pure science to understand our existence, our place in the world, and secure our eternal future.

» AIG: Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture

Yes! Consider these references, besides the dozens mentioned above.

• In the Old Testament, a six-day creation was explicitly cited and was the only explanation for the 4th of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) which were given to Moses written in stone by God himself. If you do not think he was being literal, read his elaboration in Exodus 31:12-17.
• Moses gave an extremely important discourse about God in Deuteronomy 4-6 (with the 10 Commandments in the middle) and he reiterated God made man in a single day in Deuteronomy 4:32.
• Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, confirmed Adam was formed directly from dust, not apes (1 Corinthians 15:47).
• Paul also aluded to Adam while trying to persuade a bunch of Greeks of this new "strange idea" in Acts 17:26.
• Peter, who was one of the apostles, said the flood was absolute and exactly 8 people were saved (1 Peter 3:19-21).
• Peter named Noah, the flood, and the exact number of people on his Ark in 2 Peter 2:5.
• Peter also warned his friends that in the last days people will deliberately forget that "in the beginning God created" and that He "brought the earth out from the water" (2 Peter 3:3-7). In verse 4 of that same passage, he prophesied (in a critical way) the paradigm of Uniformitarianism with his comment "all things continue as they were from the beginning." (Uniformitarianism is a belief that the present is the key to the past and slow, small, consistent changes are responsible for all forms of evolution from astronomy to biology to geology.) Jesus's brother made a similar prophecy (referring to naturalism rather than uniformitarianism) in Jude 1:18-19.
• The author of Hebrews was unanimously considered an expert in Jewish theology and history and he refers to the literal day seven, not a vague "end of creation" (Hebrews 4:3-4).

Here is a small list of reasons, in ascending importance...

• Evolution is the ultimate justification for racism, which quickly spawns eugenics, genetic engineering/​discrimination, abortion, genocide, etc.
• If we teach kids in schools that they evolved from apes which in turn eventually evolved from single-celled organisms which in turn came from inanimate sludge, then on what ground can you stand and tell them they may not murder nor have sex with whoever and whatever they choose?
• If we tell people to ignore the first few chapters of God's word how can we tell them when He says "do not murder" that He really means it? (John 3:12)
• The most important thing in the universe is what we believe (Romans 10:9-10). What you believe dictates how you behave.
• If we have no Creator then we have no accountability.
• Taking God's word seriously matters because He gave His recount of accurate history as an example of why He's God. Rewrite history and we pretend we can take His place: Isaiah 44:7, 50:10‭-‬11.
• The meaning of everything comes from its origin. So the meaning of life is wrapped up in this question. (Only the originator, his superior, successor or equal may change the meaning of a thing after it has been created but God has none of these.)
• The Bible says that death entered the world through Adam & Eve's sin (Genesis 2:16-17,3:6) and that redemption/​salvation only comes from Jesus' sacrifice (Romans 5:17 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Denial of half of this principle is denial of the whole. Or put another way, how can you take God at his word when he describes the plan of salvation if you cannot trust his description of creation? Charles Templeton may be the most famous example in the 20th century and James Watson is another more recent example.
• While creation is not a matter of salvation, it's about the perception/​trust of the next generation in the word of God. People (not just children) see the hypocrisy of putting your salvation on John but reinterpreting Genesis and they will tune you and God out.
• The underlying question here is not where we came from, but can we take God at his word, period? (By definition of being God, our answer should be "yes".)

This time let's take another angle. Aside from truth mattering (John 8:32), there is another important element. God cares about His reputation:

• Exodus 9:16  hub
• Leviticus 19:12  hub
• Deuteronomy 18:20  hub
• Psalms 46:10  hub
• Psalms 106:8  hub
• Isaiah 46:8-10  hub
• Ezekiel 36:22-23  hub (back story Ezekiel 22:2-16)
• John 12:27-28  hub
• Romans 2:24  hub

He's jealous of glory we give anywhere else:

• Exodus 20:4-6  hub
• Exodus 34:14  hub
• Deuteronomy 4:24  hub
• Deuteronomy 6:14-15  hub
• Psalm 78:58  hub
• Isaiah 42:8  hub
• Matthew 22:1-14  hub

Making up and believing stories, then teaching others these alternatives about how He could have done it, is insulting when He told us how He did it:

• Job 38:1-11  hub
• Job 38:31-36  hub
• Job 40:6-9  hub

We can't mock God without there being numerous consequences:

• Exodus 20:7  hub
• Deuteronomy 8:11-20  hub
• 1 Samuel 12:24-25  hub
• 2 Chronicles 32:15-23  hub (compare 2 Kings 19:28-37)
• Psalm 14:1  hub
• Psalm 81:8-16  hub
• Proverbs 14:34-35  hub
• Matthew 25:24-30  hub
• John 15:5-6  hub
• Romans 1:25-30  hub
• Galatians 6:7  hub

When Jesus was asked by the religious leaders of His day, what is the most important commandment in all the law, remember the response (Mark 12:28-34, Matthew 22:34-40). As James alludes to (James 2:19), loving anyone isn't supposed to be limited to believing in them, but also believing them, and requires taking them seriously.

---