Danny,
You asked:
Do you think Paul believed that the Earth was created in six literal days?
Do you believe the Earth was created in six literal days?
Do you think Paul believed that the Earth was only a few thousand years old?
Do you believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old?
I'm going to answer a tentative "yes" to all four questions, though I don't think we will ever know for sure. What Paul thought on this was never expressed in his writings, and (more importantly) he never based any of his moral teachings on whatever he thought about the age of the earth. Therefore, if we believed one way or the other on any of your four questions, we would not find ourselves at odds with apostolic teaching.
If you are implying that Paul held views that have since been debunked by scientific discovery, I would not be surprised to find that you are correct, as Paul was probably the product of his times in many ways. However, I do not think that Paul was mistaken in his theological or moral teachings. If he was, then what has become of apostolic authority, and why did Jesus pick such an unreliable witness to speak on His behalf?
I also wanted to comment on the suggestion (made by others) that a Christian needn't be concerned about same-sex marriages, because "it doesn't affect us." I remember hearing a secular talk show host say something similar. He said, "How is
my marriage endangered by allowing homosexuals to marry?"
This seemed to me as a typically narcissistic American comment.
My marriage and
my life may never be affected by what other people choose to do in this area (unless, of course, their actions bring God's judgment upon the society in which I live, affecting me, my children and my grandchildren). But when was I ever, as a Christian, encouraged to take a moral position based on how the matter affects
me?
If the changing of the definition of marriage should deprive a whole future generation or more of the knowledge of what normal marriage and family life were created to be, our generation will have performed a social experiment the likes of which no society, pagan or Christian, has every attempted—with no certain knowledge of the safety of its outcome. It is so typical of our self-centered generation to pollute our children's world, to live on our children's inheritance, to seek short-term financial security at the expense of future generations of tax-payers, and to change the moral structure of the universe to please our lusts, without the slightest concern for the morally-mutant race that our descendants may become as a result.
Those who do these things cannot be said to be loving their neighbors—nor even their offspring. It is an attitude totally devoid of the love of Christ for humanity.
It is similarly unloving to the homosexual person for us simply to raise no protest against sinful behavior that is known to be self-destructive, that places him in a high-risk category for early death, and that (according to scripture) guarantees that he will never inherit the kingdom of God. Sin is bad for people. That is why a loving God, graciously revealed what is right (and safe) to do, and what is not. Those who love sinners will tell them these things (2 Cor.5:11).
Denying homosexuals permission to marry each other (or even to fornicate with each other) does indeed impose a great hardship upon them. Righteousness is like that—inconvenient. That's why Jesus said the path was difficult that leads to life. It is not unloving to ask homosexuals to make sacrifices in the area of immoral indulgence, unless we are unwilling to make similar sacrifices, as necessary. It costs something to live right—but it costs much more to do otherwise.
If Christians lose sight of these facts, we will soon convince ourselves that the pagans are right in viewing any mention of sin as a hate-crime. In our desire to "speak the truth in love," we must not neglect to speak the truth—or else we will be neglecting the love as well.