The Trinity

In my endeavor to understand "The Trinity," I can kinda imagine it like, let's say I wrote (suspension of disbelief, guys) a mod ("modification" for those non-sims fans) for The Sims (a video game) where the sims (virtual "sim"ulated people in this game) had souls and free will and I were to make a special sim whose actions came entirely from my input (keyboard, mouse, etc.) and I felt everything that he would feel (neural input? then, I guess, I've invented the Matrix), in a sense, his soul was me, but his body was of course still virtual.

Because the sims are confined by their nature (even if they could comprehend as limitedly as humans do) to understanding only the sim world, they could never comprehend me, my state of being, my power or my location; they couldn't comprehend the unity and separation between my sim spawn (son, offspring, sim self, whatever). Phrases like "I and the User (to use a term from Tron) are one," "If you have seen me, you have seen the User," "No sim has seen the User but me," "I do the will of the User," "The User became a sim," "I am the son of the User," even, "I am the User," can all make sense being said by (or of, with proper pronoun change) this character with this analogy. "That's me as a sim, he turned out well," might be more familiar. I would definitely have the body of a sim (especially from their perspective) while still maintaining my full Userness (hey, I can pull the plug if I have to!).

Of course, with any analogy, there are holes and this surely has some; I mean, I don't know every in and out of the hardware and program running all this stuff (though if I were to somehow program a soul, I would probably need to), and clearly, I'm relying on God for my own existence, but it wouldn't make sense for that to go up infinitely.

I thought this analogy up because in reading the Bible, it seems like a lot of passages make sense if read as Jesus, Lord, Yahweh, God, Holy Spirit, etc. are all different names of the same God, but also, as God interacts with Himself, He refers to Himself in the second or third person or in plural. Anyways, just a thought.

Is the god of theistic evolution the Christian God?

When you ask "who is that?" You expect to hear information about that person's present or past. "He's a computer programmer born in Kansas City, MO. Last time I saw him, he was leaving his office with a green plumbob hanging over his head." You expect to hear things about his personality, "He's a bit quirky, and a computer geek." And, perhaps something about his goals, "He wants to start a business making aglets."

A: Who is the god of theistic evolution?
B: Who is the God of Israel?

A: He created the heavens and the Earth extensively utilizing predominantly natural phenomenon over vast, perhaps unimaginable, spans of time and is still creating using these same means.
B:"in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." (Ex 20:11, by the mouth of God Himself)

A: He subjected all innocent life to billions of years of careless tinkering, causing all manner of genetic diseases and suffering in his death based specie diversification project...and is still doing it!
B: He is "the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles" (2 Cor 1:3-4) "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

A: He is unreliable (after all, he can't seem to make a good genome); he is the bringer of death (death is his tool); he's uncaring, as previously stated; for all appearances, he is limited in power or lazy (he started space/time by letting a bunch of matter/energy explode, but mostly just let it go from there).
B: "he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands." (Deut 7:9) "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." (1 John 4:9) I'm not even going to go into how many times He is called Almighty.

A: His plan seems to be to let the universe just run down into an icy coldness in billions of years destroying all innocent life with the guilty; no plans seem apparent for the survival of mankind.
B: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare." (2 Peter 3:10) "By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:7) "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." (Revelation 21:1)

A: He appears to have let us come to our own understanding about who he is, portraying some part in most religions.
B: "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (John 14:6) "Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust, who does not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods." (Psalm 40:4)

There is much more that I could say, but it should now be clearly obvious that the god of theistic evolution is not the God described in the Bible.

Now, some of these may not apply to some ideas of a god of theistic evolution, but these are compatible with the most consistent views I've seen. Especially in the plans for the future and viewpoints of other religions, there are those who may disagree. The essence of the idea of a god of theistic evolution is for religion to comply with the interpretations of fallible (though maybe well intentioned) men instead of relying on the unwavering truth of the perfect God. I find it inconsistent to try to merge the past of the god of theistic evolution (as dictated by conforming to secular views) but not the future or the view on religion in general.

But, even if only one of these sections applied, it would still be enough to say that these are not the same two entities.

Jesus's Parables: Historically Accurate?!?!

There were two men who lived in the same city. One was a kind man, well liked by those who knew him. The other was a known criminal. Though they had never met and were not closely related, they did have the same name and the same surname. Books are likened unto this, as you should not presume upon one by its name.

Jesus spoke a lot in relation to what is recorded in the Gospels; (thankfully, for) everything He spoke was good. After a recent discussion with a friend, I have come to question: are the parables that Jesus spoke historically accurate? This may seem an unusual question for I have never heard anyone question their historical accuracy, for even among Biblical Creationists who view the Bible as accurate to a straight-forward reading (which insists that Jesus in fact did actually speak the words indicated) the stories Jesus spoke were possibly, though indeterminately, entirely fiction.

However, I maintain that there are parables that Jesus spoke are demonstratively historically accurate (presuming the Bible's accuracy itself). Now, I've gone through all the items listed here and have come up with three categories that describe the parables.

Firstly, situational directions which are in the format, "if you are in this situation, do this", e.g. The Guests (and it may be likened to the kingdom of Heaven, as well as useful in other Earthly situations).

Secondly, there are hypothetical situations, in the format of "if you are in this situation, wouldn't you do this?", e.g. Friend at Night (which also may be likened to the kingdom of Heaven, etc.).

And thirdly, full Earthly stories that with a spiritual meaning, in the format "there was a certain so and so who did such and such" or "the something is like a such and such that did something or the other", e.g. The Two Debtors, The Parable of The Ten Virgins. (This is the primary meaning of the word parable.)

Demonstratively accurate are the last of the examples, most easily: If the scriptures are accurate and Jesus is God, who is always truthful, then his statement that there was a certain person, must indicate that there truly was an actual historical person.

But, to cover all the examples, my primary thought is this: If Jesus is God and God is all knowing, why would he need to make up fictitious stories to prove His point? The world currently has billions of people, God can see and has seen all of these since the beginning of the world. More than likely is that these stories have occurred fully by their descriptions many many times. But frankly, Jesus could very well have seen each of these stories with His own Earthly eyes during His time here on earth in the 30 or so years before His ministry.

Relative Truth

"What is your answer to someone who believes truth to be relative?" (From discussion group on facebook.com.)

I hope you don't mind me responding to some of your comments. The thread seems to be progressing very slowly. I obviously couldn't extrapolate on Father Johnny's comments as I wouldn't know where he would go with them, but hopefully my comments will still add something useful. Please don't take this in any offensive way; I fully respect you as a sister I love and though our viewpoints may differ, I am only trying to provide light to the situation and not condemn you in any way.

You made it clear that you believe that truth is relative, however, relative truth is something that cannot be honestly rationalized. That might seem to be a strange statement to make considering that most people who cling to the notion of relative truth consider themselves to be intellectuals, however, it is quite easy to demonstrate.

Strictly speaking, any attempt to rationalize relative truth comes with an insurmountable paradox. Honest rationalization requires faithful adherence to the laws of logic. One of these is the law (or principle) of contradiction. The idea of absolute truth is really just a rewording of this law. The law of contradiction is the notion that two contradictory ideas cannot simultaneously be true. That is, there is one, and only one ultimate truth and not multiple contradictory truths. Therefore, the process of rationalization itself requires a prerequisite of the existence of absolute truth.

If the principle of contradiction is removed from logic, in essence removing absolute truth from the prerequisites of logic, we encounter a separate problem. Without this principle nothing is reliable: contradictory ideas may be simultaneously true, thus a single idea may be simultaneously true and false (additionally violating the principle of identity, another fundamental law of logic); thus, nothing is ultimately determinable and all logic is unreliable. So even removing absolute truth from the requirements of logic does not cause relative truth to be rationally determined; it simply provides that nothing can be determined, effectively destroying logic and rational thought. It could be extrapolated that because of this, logic itself is an illusion, but this comes with the paradox that you must insert absolute truth (i.e. the law of contradiction) for reliable logic to form such an extrapolation, thereby voiding that extrapolation and, for the same reason, any other potentially useful extrapolations of this idea.

At first I thought that by relative truth, you really meant relative morality. Relative morality is an entirely different creature, one which can be rationalized...provided God does not exist. However, though it may be rationally attainable, it has no positive application (unless the ability to rationalize unconditional selfishness is a positive).

I have programmed computers for about 20 years, and have become very adept at the application of logic. For about 10 of those years, I wrestled internally with merging science and religion...as they both cannot be correct if they are contradictory; one has to take precedence and I chose science. I effectively operated at the level of theistic evolutionist, but I was aware that the cruel, wasteful and ultimately ineffective god of theistic evolution was intellectually indistinguishable to no God at all (and I acted that way). I could go into gruesome detail about the destructive logic attainable from this position, but what happened afterward is more important.

It wasn't until I applied the idea that God is as described in the Bible to real life, that everything began making sense. Morality makes sense. Suffering and evil make sense. Even scientific issues make more sense. Granted, I had to discard some mainstream scientific conclusions which rely on the effective nonexistence of God like the big bang and abiogenesis, but none of those ideas are particularly useful anyway except in intellectual discussion and scifi plot lines. I've never really seen a whole lot of things I would call "mysteries" in the Bible, but that's because I've always understood that the Bible only makes sense with the understanding of God existing as described in the Bible, even during my acceptance of the god of theistic evolution. Think of it as suspension of disbelief; it's like viewing Star Trek and suspending disbelief in aliens (especially Q), except it was the Bible and I suspended my disbelief in God as described therein. (And today I can still suspend disbelief in the big bang, etc. to enjoy a scifi every now and again.)

Christianity can be brutally rational because there is no logical or scientific reason that the God of the Bible not existing holds any merit over Him existing and things really do make more sense if He does exist. But if, held as prerequisite that God does not exist (or is ineffectual as the god of an evolutionary world), good and evil have absolutely no rational basis (hence, general societal confusion on the issue) and the only brutally rational moral system of which I'm aware is hedonism. When faced with the option of throwing out a few useless scientific conclusions or throwing out all reasoning behind morality and all rational explanations for evil and suffering, I'm choosing the first and I believe I am rational in doing so.

As far as the "average Joe" is concerned, it seems to me that he's already figured out the rationality of hedonism (you can apply a nicer term here if you like, but "pleasure-seeking as the highest goal" is my meaning, not some official doctrine or anything) as that's where society seems to be heading, and with hardly a church to tell them otherwise it's no wonder. Church after church is effectively conceding that the God of the Bible does not exist by conceding to the god of theistic evolution, who is NOT the same being. Mainstream scientists (at least prevalent atheist ones) are correctly explaining to the masses how that god is worthless. And everyone is calling both the same thing, "God." I've always held that at least on an individual basis, the general public is more intelligent than many give credit, but like any information processing machine, "garbage in, garbage out."

Where Did Evil Come From?

Below is a post I made in a forum previously. I thought it was pretty good and so I'm pasting it in here too.

---

There are essentially two types of evil (per the dictionary definition of "evil"), suffering and immorality. Suffering is a consequence of immorality (hence both have ultimately the same source). Immorality is any disobedience to God. All immorality is a decision because we are capable of doing, or not doing, all that God has dictated for us to do and not do. This ability to make moral decisions is, of course, what we call free will. Thus, the ability to choose evil is enabled in every being capable of free will.

The ultimate root of all evil is this: Pride. The first commandment ever broken by any sinner and the only commandment which is necessarily broken every time any commandment is broken is the first. The first commandment is often broken several times just deciding to break another commandment. Pride is the direct violation of the first commandment because if you believe your opinions can be placed above God’s Word, you are holding yourself higher than the Almighty.

Angels have free will too. In all of God’s creation, only one entity with free will (out of all the angels plus 2 humans) is known to have decided to sin without external temptation; how good a creation it must have been! And his first sin also must have been pride (via the logic above). Your question, Father Johny, was, "But how, pray, did it arise in the mind of Lucifer to do such a thing?" At some point this question entered his head, "Are you better than God?" And he sinned by deciding that he was. At minimum, God set up Lucifer’s existence in such a way that he would have eventually asked himself this; at maximum, God asked him the question directly. Either way, why would God put such a question into his mind? Perhaps it was to test him. Did God know he would fail? There is no alternative but that he must have known.

Then Lucifer enters history in the serpent of Genesis, tempting the lady with none other than pride, "when you eat of it...you will be like God." Through Adam's sin at this temptation passed on to him by Eve were he and all of his righteously cursed by the Almighty, hence all our suffering. We make it worse every day by continuing to be prideful and continuing to sin in every manner under Heaven. Every manner of suffering ultimately goes back to some cause of immorality (some more directly than others). I believe it was Paul who said that the entirety of creation groans because of this curse. Could God have stopped Lucifer from tempting Eve or her from tempting Adam? Certainly. Did God know Adam would fail the temptation passed to him by Eve and He would be forced by His own infinite justice to curse the world? He wouldn't be God if he didn't.

It all comes back to the main group topic, the confusion of why. Why would a loving God create a world He knew was destined to be cursed by His own mouth? He did it for us. For you, Father Johnny, and you, my wonderful sister Moniqua, and for me. You see, He wants us to know Him. He wants us to see His absolute justice and terrible wrath; without this curse, we could never have known Him this way. He wants us to know His incomparable jealousy, but how could we have known that if we had never put anything above Him? He wants us to know His infinite mercy and unimaginable love, such that He sent His Son, God, to suffer and die for all our sins and without our sins, we could never have known Him this way. He wants us to know His incredible forgiveness, but how could we have been forgiven had we never strayed. And His forgiveness is unlike that of anyone; He forgave us before He even created us, knowing that we would sin. He forgives us before we even ask Him to forgive us. All we have to do is love Him and choose Him and he will free us from all bonds. And compared to an eternity in the perfect world he plans for us, a few thousand years in this cursed world is not even a blinking of an eye (though it does seem like a long time when you're only twenty something).

Much of this may not mesh well with those who are not young earth creationists because of the alternate position that the fossil record contains history of millions of years of suffering before humans came about, much less sinned (instead of being a vivid reminder of God's terrible wrath executed in the flood). Though I would beckon any Christian who is not a young earth creationist to find out who it is that they are elevating above God and His Word (thereby breaking the first commandment), for God, Himself, said as recorded in Exodus (among many times in the Bible): "in six days Yahweh made the heavens, earth and sea and all that these contain." Besides that, the evolutionary worldview does not answer any ultimate question of where anything came from and doesn't even support the concept of evil, so a discussion of "Where did evil come from?" couldn't possibly make sense from that view anyways.

Our Father Visits Me in a Dream

Something happened to me yesterday morning that I feel I need to share. Though I frequently have very vivid dreams that often hold meaning for me, my dream yesterday morning was quite different than my normal dreams. Usually my dreams are reasonably lengthy and vague in purpose, but this one was short and pointed and I feel it was probably a vision from God, not just a normal dream.

In my vision, there was a large, intimidating storm cloud and as I stood there, it became a face; the face was in the cloud and it was the cloud, that is, the cloud became the face; it was a bearded and kind yet firm face though it was still a cloud. And, believing it was a manifestation of the Lord Father, I asked Him the question that has been troubling my heart, "Why can't these people understand?" And I was given an answer. "Because they choose not to be able to understand." That was my entire vision.

My question was regarding people's ability to understand His Word, understanding that the Scriptures say what they mean and are correct (specifically Gen 1-11, but in general the whole Bible). Though I believe the Bible says what it means and is correct, I can understand the world through what I would call the fiction of popular historical science (i.e. the big bang theory, the theory of universal common descent by evolutionary principles, the proposed abiogenesis of life) and I would have to be able to do that in order to comprehend other science fictions (like some of my favorites, Dr. Who, Stargate, Star Trek, etc.) as I would be lost watching them if I couldn't. It seems to me that everyone I know who believes the historical record in the Bible can similarly wrap their minds around these stories passed off as science and mixed with science and distinguish where science and stories begin and end. But others seem incapable of doing the reverse, understanding the world through the historical record of the Bible when they are convinced of the popular historical view.

In rememberance of 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ("Test everything. Hold on to the good."), I recollect 2 Peter 3:5: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water." (Contrast with the big bang theory which says that the earth formed from dust and gas condensing into a molten ball and cooling to form solid land, then water came later.) I test and even if this is not a bonafide "vision", it is still a good dream as it is aligned with the Scriptures.

So my vision is true; it means to me that those who are unable to understand the truth are unable because they have decided to be unable. After contemplating this and praying about it, I believe that it means that I should not focus on trying to make people understand but only bring the truth and let anyone who wants to understand it do so. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

Are there non-random mutations?

In my previous post, Flobi.com, The Blog: Does evolution contradict Christianity? I insulated that I believed that many of what evolutionists call "random mutations" are in fact not quite so random.

And, insofar as we can't specifically determine which genetic changes are in fact random and which are part of the existing design (to the point that the gene is actually programmed to alter it's own composition, notwithstanding how it became programmed such), we can say there is overwhelming evidence of genetic change and natural selection.

Yesterday on Answers in Genesis's Answers Research Journal in the article Genetics of Coat Color I: The Melanocortin 1 Receptor (MC1R), a similar idea has been observed. Here's a statement from the conclusions section of that article.

Thus, the MC1R appears to be a genetic locus that was designed to change and directed mutations are quite plausibly involved.

I find this interesting because when I made my previous post, I had only recently been introduced into the whole idea that the Bible could be trusted in all ways and up to that time, had totally avoided Answers in Genesis because of the severe societal stigma they have garnered which I now realize is part of the expected persecution for their mission of upholding the scriptures. I suppose I could expect the same considering my stance.

After rereading my post the other day, I would probably reword some things in it, but as it is, even though I have a few more months understanding I still agree with it.

On Tollerance, Continued

As I was taking a gander around, I noticed an article pop up this morning on the subject of my post yesterday and I thought that I would add some of the ideas from that to my ideas yesterday. Now, yesterday, I was focused specifically on homosexuality. I was thinking that it might be unfair for Christians to be more focused on the ways of the gay when in fact the Bible is totally against any non-marital sexual interaction, and even to focus on that, when there is so much more immorality out there, but I digress. I was asked about homosexuality, which is why I focused on it. Additionally, I don't remember the Bible using the word, "abomination," about any other sexual activity (though it's pretty harsh on bestiality, but I don't believe bestiality is quite as common as homosexuality).

What might have been unclear (but might have been if you read to the end and inferred appropriately), is that I believe Christians should not be judgmental. You might say that my continuing on talking about the immoralities in western culture is a sign of my judgment on western culture or those participating in these immoralities, but consider this (and this):

A close friend of yours is driving and you are a passenger. Your friend has a habit of not stopping at stop signs and he is about to pull up to one when you notice a police officer coming around the corner where your friend probably can't see. What do you do?

I know what I do, and I hope you would do something similar. I would tell my friend, "You better stop, the authorities are watching." Does that make me judgmental? I think not. I think that is specifically a sign of me being a caring individual. Even if I have my own problem stopping at stop signs, I think no one can disagree that it is caring for me to warn my friend.

If I tell an immoral person, "You better stop, the Authority is watching?" How is that any different? Just because I'm not perfect doesn't mean that I should not care that that person will get in trouble and if I see a way to help, I will.

Unfortunately, it often seems difficult for the onlooker to distinguish someone who actually cares from someone who is prideful in his own position and looks down on those who he views as lesser because of their problems (in this case with morality). Acknowledging this, I encourage anyone wanting to enlighten another of their iniquities, to first consider their own and then consider the person's willingness to hear constructive criticism (and your ability to provide it constructively and not pridefully).

Many view those who are trying to get governmental support for Christian morality (i.e. ban homosexual "marriage", ban the slaughter of the unborn, ban prostitution, etc.) as trying to, "impose," their morality, but I disagree. I view it as trying to get the government to stop condoning the morality of humanism and materialism, which are directly opposed to the laws of the true Authority.

On Tollerance

Before I loose this idea, I wanted to convey the thoughts from a conversation I had earlier today. Here's a story of a fictional conversation based on the conversation I had earlier. I was posted the question, "What are your thoughts on homosexuality?" I replied, "It's an abomination." Unfortunately, at that point in the conversation, this topic stopped in preference for another topic.

A few minutes later, my colleague came back to this issue posing a hypothetical situation. "Let's say your cousin was gay, what would you think."

"Well, I wouldn't let him bring his boyfriend to sleep over at my house," I replied.

"But I thought Christians were supposed to accept each other no matter who they are." Obviously my comments struck him as uncaring.

But I disagreed, "No, I would accept him. In fact, I love him. I love everyone because they are, like me, created in God's image. It's not him I would oppose, but his actions."

"But I thought homosexuality was genetic."

I chuckled at his comment and replied, "How exactly are two homosexuals supposed to pass on those genes? I imagine this is one anomaly that natural selection would have eliminated for uselessness."

He acknowledged the humor and irony in his statement and then we moved on. "I thought that people couldn't control whether or not they were gay."

"Sure they can." I probably paused a bit too long after saying that before I continued as he felt confused. "I will admit that it might not be possible for someone to stop having homosexual thoughts and desires, but thinking and doing are two quite different things. If they weren't, I'd be dead right now." At this point, I probably paused too long also, because if I had stopped there, I think I would have confused myself. "I had a number of suicidal thoughts a few years ago in my depression during the period of time when I abandoned God. Also, some other people would be dead because I also had a number of homicidal thoughts. It isn't what a person thinks that makes him (or her) gay, it's what he (or she) does."

I needed to leave, so the conversation was about over. Before parting, I pointed him at Romans 1:18-32 for him to notice that homosexual lust is one of the consequences of abandoning God. I believe western culture in general has done a mighty thorough job at pushing God out of their lives, out of their schools, workplaces, government, history, science, art, literature (am I missing anything?) and for most, out of their homes and hearts. It is not unexpected that these desires arise in a society like ours. There's a good bit other wrong just as described and it's only likely to get worse.

As for some of my comments, here's some Biblical representation:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22 (NIV). Other translations call it "an abomination", "abhorrent," "a detestable sin," "disgusting," "a hateful sin," and in one, God personally says about this, "I hate that." Most of the English translations say "abomination."

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35 (NIV).

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (emphasis added) Galatians 5:22-24 (NIV).

And if you've forgotten how to pray, perhaps this would be a good starting point: Matthew 6:9-13. "This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'" (NIV) I will note that if you do address God with this prayer, you might want to contemplate your own habits in the field of forgiveness.

What parts of the Bible should be taken literally?

This is from: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080802190624AAH1hua. I thought I had an insightful answer so I wanted to share it here:

First off, I'm Christian. I guess what I'm really asking is, what parts of the Bible should be taken figuratively? For many atheists or unbelievers, they point out many different things, things that might seem abominable to humanity, such as slavery, or the destruction of homosexuals. But those arguments are always countered with "No. That wasn't supposed to be taken literally."

So what is supposed to be taken literally, and what should be taken as figurative or symbolic? Isn't it wrong to make anything that sounds evil become "symbolically taken" and at the same time, claim it's right to accept anything loving as literal?

One story I'm referring to: Jesus sees a fig tree. It doesn't have fruit that he can eat. He cripples the tree so it can never bear fruit again.

So literally... Destroy those things that doesn't satisfy your desire simply because you are able. If something doesn't satisfy your desire, make it such that the thing will never satisfy your desire.

Symbolically... I've been told this represents that Jesus' arrival to Earth is inevitable. I really don't see the connection, but still.

So how are you able to know what's to be taken literally or figuratively?

First off, no one can answer this question definitely for you. If there was a definite answer to this question that satisfied everyone, there would be no separate denominations. Each person has to find the answer him/herself.

I personally take as literal, whatever is not contextually figurative. The oldest copies of the scriptures are written in languages that are fully developed, and fully capable of indicating what parts are metaphors, similes, parables, recommendations, etc. And a tremendous effort has been put forth to make sure it is accurately translated, including these literary devices.

Your second paragraph demonstrates my reason for my second paragraph. It is wrong to claim "symbolic" the things you don't like, and "literal" the things you do like. It is quite apparent to me from the Bible that God's view of what is abominable is quite different from the secular view, whether you like it, or not.

As far as your fig tree dilemma, by my standard, you would take this literally: Jesus cursed a fig tree because it was not providing the food he sought. He used this to demonstrate to his disciples the power of faith.

You can find that God may give you a different symbolic meaning than he gave me. He gave me the understanding that whatever doesn't serve God will be cursed, even plants. How much more will God curse those who can choose to serve him and don't when he cursed a tree which has no conscious choice such as this? But to those who believe, that for which they ask will be given them. Also, God's cursing is a bit more effective than dropping the F-bomb a few times, if you take it literally. I definitely don't want to be on his bad side when he comes back.

As far as taking the passage figuratively, I see no wording to indicate that this passage is a metaphor, parable or any other literary device besides a recount of events that took place. Except, perhaps as an example of God's personality.

On a side note: Yahoo! Answers can be a great resource, but I doubt it is the best place to get spiritual guidance.

Christians believing Evolution

I've been going over all this and come to the realization that the conclusion of my last post may be misleading. The answer to the question "Can a Christian believe in the aspects of evolution that directly contradict the Bible?" is in fact yes. But, and here's where I think my train of thought was going before I got side tracked, that answer was specifically geared to the person reading my post.

The person reading my post, by the time that (s)he got to that part should be aware that the Bible does contradict parts of evolution (and vice versa) and must admit that either the Bible lies or the science is faulty, or else plead ignorance. Pleading ignorance itself leads to another question, who to trust. Should God be trusted over man, or should man be trusted over God?

However, those who haven't been presented with the truth that there are contradictions between the Bible and the theory of evolution, and I believe they are few, haven't been remotely indoctrinated into either. For the beginning of the Bible states very clearly an opposite history than evolution presents. And evolution is seldom, if ever, taught in the order I presented it. It is generally taught beginning with what I've called the final extrapolation. I presented it in that order because it was easiest to demonstrate where the two contradict.

Notwithstanding all this, if someone actually believes that evolution can create the world without somehow contradicting the Bible, (though it would be through ignorance they would have to make that claim), I suppose that it is possible that they could be a faithful Christian. It is not my place to judge, though I can say it does not seem likely to me that one who honestly looks at this issue will remain ignorant for long. I have found that the people who I know who are ardent about evolution being true seem to lack some of the fundamental qualities Jesus told us we should display. I won't go into that, because it would be gossip, I'm sure.

Does evolution contradict Christianity?

This is very interesting. I believe I'll give a shot at answering these questions.

Does evolution contradict Christianity? and If so, how? What is in conflict? What is about evolution that is in conflict? Obviously you're asking about the current "theory of evolution" (as opposed to the "fact of evolution," described later), often referred to as neo-Darwinism. Well, let's see...

The main theory has 2 basic aspects, 1. "Natural selection" favors development in such a way that individuals with traits better suited for a specific environment will thrive; and 2. "Random mutations" change, increase or decrease the genetic code, sometimes in beneficial ways (though primarily in indifferent or harmful ways). Extrapolating these two base points, natural selection combined with these random mutations will cause beneficial mutations to dominate any given gene exchanging group (this includes gene exchange during reproduction into the new being as well as some species apparently which can exchange genes even without reproduction). And, insofar as we can't specifically determine which genetic changes are in fact random and which are part of the existing design (to the point that the gene is actually programmed to alter it's own composition, notwithstanding how it became programmed such), we can say there is overwhelming evidence of genetic change and natural selection. Nothing here contradicts, let's just say, the Bible. This, I believe, is called "microevolution" by both Creationists, Evolutionists and scientists.

Extrapolating further we would see that two identical groups of creatures which have stopped exchanging genes (probably by some physical separation) would eventually develop enough differences from each other genetically that they would be considered different species, naturally selecting genes that are more beneficial to the environment each occupies. Often this even happens to the point that the two different species are no longer capable of gene exchange. This is observable, confirmed and not contradictory to the Bible. On a side note, this extrapolation does not necessarily require both basic aspects, only the first. Natural selection alone could cause this to be seen even if no mutations occurred in either population provided enough original diversity was available in the group before separation. From what I've read, evolutionists primarily consider this the "fact of evolution" because it is a direct observation. Creationists call this "microevolution," and seem to overwhelmingly agree that it is observed. Again, nothing here necessarily contradicts the bible. Evolutionists however, also refer to this as "macroevolution," and when called to prove or demonstrate macroevolution, provide evidence for this mutually agreed upon observation instead of the following extrapolation which Creationists feel is lacking evidence (or worse) and are generally condemning.

Further extrapolation reveals that if we begin with a single population of sufficient ability to continue successful reproduction, it would, via random mutation and natural selection, eventually develop the genetic information required to build more advanced biological structures facilitating more advanced abilities to the point that every biological structure and ability available to all the creatures currently alive and possibly (eventually) even more. Creationists call this "macroevolution." Evolutionists call this "macroevolution" and use the evidence of the "fact of evolution" (see previous paragraph) along with elaborate biological categorization practices to demonstrate that it has already happened. I would call this "an interesting hypothesis," and I doubt a real scientist would comment on it because of the mud-throwing from both sides and I'm sure she's got real work to do. This is moderately contradictory to the bible in the fact that (Romans 8:20) Paul says that the world has been subjected to "futility." Possibly as a result of the "fall?" Additionally, this is also moderately contradictory to the results of breeding experimentation. Breeders simply can't breed horses any faster; they can't breed dogs any bigger or smaller than their current size limits; they can't seem to breed a chicken that will lay more than one egg a day. In fact, thoroughbreds are specifically bred to the point that they statistically should not change in future generations. Pure breeders could be said to rely on the fact that this extrapolation is not true.

Further extrapolation would lead one to the understanding that, notwithstanding a miraculous supernatural creation event, the only plausible explanation for the existence of the exceptional diversity we see is that this has already happened. This final extrapolation I suppose could be called "origin of all species by means of natural selection and random mutation." Because evolutionists are unwilling to admit the possibility of an unexplainable supernatural event and there are no other theories (or even plausible hypotheses) they are compelled to consider this extrapolation as "fact" and often refer to it as the "theory of evolution" or "fact of evolution" (the latter of which would be inaccurate). Creationists refuse to admit the possibility of the Bible being incorrect and are similarly compelled to consider this extrapolation false. Again, scientists are likely to stay out of this and I'm pretty sure you already know where I am on it.

There have been attempts to reconcile this final extrapolation with Biblical creation. One of the most famous is called "Intelligent Design." There are apparently numerous proponents of "Intelligent Design," and they are looked down upon by both Evolutionists as well as "Young Earth" Creationists, like Answers In Genesis. The basis of Intelligent Design is that essentially the final extrapolation is correct, except that instead of random mutations occurring over an extended period of time, some outside force imposed mutations specifically to enhance the otherwise natural process. This is looked down upon by Evolutionists because, like Biblical creation, there is still a problem of an unexplainable supernatural event, the possibility of which they are unwilling to concede. Creationists (which in this reply always refers to Young Earth Creationists) see the same inherent problems in I.D. that there are in the final extrapolation.

As for the contradictions: The final extrapolation requires an excessive period of time. Generally, evolution is paired with The Big Bang Theory (T.B.B.T.) or some other cosmic evolution theory because of the compatible time requirements for each, however, I don't believe many evolutionists would defend T.B.B.T. because the cosmos is not technically part of the biological evolution process. Since all the commonly accepted cosmic evolution theories (i.e. T.B.B.T.) have essentially the same order of events and time frames, I'm going to proceed pairing evolution with T.B.B.T. for the contradictions I list.

Here are some Bible facts that are directly contradicted with a T.B.B.T. based final extrapolation:

• The sun and stars was created after the earth. (Gen 1:1 - Earth, Gen 1:14 - Sun, Stars)
• Light was created after water and the earth. (Gen 1:1 - Earth, Gen 1:1-2 - Water, Gen 1:3 - Light)
• The measurement of a day was created before the sun, the moon or the stars. (Gen: 1:1-5 - The first day, Gen 1:14 - Sun, Moon, Stars)
• Dry land was created after oceans (Gen 1:9 - Separated oceans to form dry land)
• Plants (including land plants) were created before the sun, moon and stars, ocean life (Gen 1:11 - Plants, Gen 1:14 - Sun, Moon, Stars, Gen 1:20 - Ocean Life)
• Fruit-bearing plants were created before insects (Gen 1:11 - Plants, Gen 1:25 - Insects)
• Birds were created before Dinosaurs (Gen: 1:20 - Birds, Gen 1:24 - Dinosaurs)
• Whales were created before land mammals (Gen 1:20 - Whales, Gen 1:24 - Land Mammals)
• Livestock was created before mankind (Gen 1:24 - Livestock, Gen 1:26 - Mankind)
• Names were given to "all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field" before woman was created (Gen 2:19 - Names Given, Gen 2:22 - Woman Created)
• Viruses*, Thorns, Death, Sickness*, Thistles developed after Animals, Plants, and all other kinds of life was created. (Gen 3:6 - Death, Gen 3:18 - Thorns, Thistles)
• Homo (a biological classification including humans) death first occurred after the development of language, animal husbandry, agriculture, labor pains, animal sacrifice, agricultural sacrifice, gardens, clothing**
• God created Man (as opposed to Man created gods, or at least the idea of gods)
• Man created death through sin (as opposed to millions of years of death, i.e. natural selection, creating man)
• Sin predated death
• Man was created from dust (as opposed to being created from other animals)

* I have starred some items not mentioned this early in the Bible but I believe do not qualify as "very good" as described in Gen 1:31 at the end of creation you make your own interpretation.
** Okay, I started getting lazy. I've been working on this too long.

Can a Christian believe in evolution? I am going to change the question slightly to, "Can a Christian believe in the aspects of evolution that directly contradict the Bible?" The answer is no. I was going to say "yes, but..." but I realized while writing this post that is not true. To be a true Christian, one must believe in Christ. This can be extrapolated many ways, but probably the most obvious way is to trust that what he says is true. He says that the scriptures are true. If you do not believe what He says, how can you claim to believe in Him even in the most basic of ways. He claims to have been there when it happened. He claims Moses told the event correctly. How could someone to claim to be His follower and yet continuously call Him a liar? It would be at minimum hypocrisy and at worst blasphemy or sacrilege.

Final notes: Forgive me not putting any references, despite it's length and the time I spent on it, this is not intended to be a scientific paper, simply my viewpoint of how things are.

Here's a little more I added later:
I was hoping to include this last night, but it just got too late and I didn't have the time to look up the verse (found 3 copies once I started looking). If calling Jesus a liar is a sin, and I believe it is, one should be wary, perhaps very wary of teaching the final extrapolation of the theory of evolution as Jesus gives us fair warning: Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 say the same thing, this copy is from Mark.

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

Originally posted at ibcy.