The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the appar

1. Human beings cannot understand abstract, invisible realities without first learning visible, concrete references. Electricity is a good example. Spiritual matters are likewise not amenable to direct mental comprehension.2. It is impossible to understand the Bible merely with the finite human mind alone, regardless of how much time and theology you employ to do so. The truths contained in the Bible must be REVEALED spiritually in order to be correctly understood mentally.3. The best means to convey this is the illustration of learning a language. You cannot directly learn a language, the components of the language must first be directly correlated to visible concrete objects. A human being (a child, for instance) is first shown a visible picture of a physical object and then the audible or written symbolic language component is linked to it to give comprehension.4. Likewise, the spiritual reality to come forth in the New Testament would be totally incomprehensible without firstly having the detailed typology of the Old Testament.This is the crux of the reason why the mind alone is incapable of understanding the Bible: some of the accounts are literal, and some are allegorical. Without revelation, you confuse the two and fall into systematized error.5. For example: "Behold the Lamb of God". Certainly allegorical- Christ is not being described as the 4-legged offspring of a sheep here. 'The New Jerusalem, the bride of the lamb'. Is the lamb marrying a physical city? No! Again, obviously allegorical. If the Bible is the Word of God, then scientific, empirical knowledge cannot help but verify it. Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations of either secular or scriptural evidence. C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don't you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?Now, to apply these parameters to the crux of the matter.Life, like electricity, is abstract and mysterious: it cannot be analyzed and comprehended directly. So any depiction of the process of life must be communicated allegorically.6. The Bible is a book of LIFE, NOT a book of knowledge. Genesis Chapter One is an account of the propagation of life, NOT creation per se. It is an allegorical depiction of the relationship of the Spirit, the Word, light, and life. It is NOT a scientific chronology of creation. If a person interprets it literally instead of allegorically, then they are doomed to try to fit the square peg of the fossil record into the round hole of their mistaken (and incorrect scripturally) dogmatic, religious fallacy.To my dear brothers and sisters: When did 'Creationism, et. al.' become an article of the faith? Why is it virtually considered heresy to believe that God may have used evolution to create man?To those who are not yet my brothers and sisters: The world is headed inexorably in one direction, and no one can prevent it. Christ will return and, by all indications, sooner not later. THIS FACT, and not any amount of accumulation of the details of the physical universe, needs to be your primary consideration. The outward picture of the Flood and the Ark is a type foretelling a spiritual reality to come. It would be 'wise and prudent' for you to expend a modicum of time and effort to ascertain what the 'ark' symbolizes, and how you can enter into Him before the flood comes.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the blank lines.

Thread copied here from the The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs. 'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the appar thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, and I have a book here that you cannot understand with your puny human mind.. it tells how a boy wizard was sent from a magical school on a triple decker bus to save all of humanity from evil wizards. But you probably think it's just a work of fiction, because your finite human mind cannot comprehend. ok.. so Burning bush? allegorical or not allegorical?
Talking snake? world wide flood? fishes and loaves? walking on water? coming back from the dead?... allegorical or not allegorical?You use the word "Obviously" here, why is one story "Obviously" allegorical (genesis perhaps?) but not another? (Healing a blind man).
What is the test you apply to determine whether a fantastic story is allegorical? uh.. no. electricity is not abstract or mysterious. It is very well understood, and to a large extent controlledEdited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Yeah I figured this line destroyed any credibility the OP had. Not that it had much, but when someone actually says something like this there is no point in even engaging them.

what can I say, I'm weak.. I couldn't help myself.

I imagine that no adult, atheist or Christian, believer or non-believer thinks that the Bible is saying that Christ was really a baby sheep. If this and electricity are the great mysteries in your life, then you don't have much imagination. Or much of a point.

Hi PaulAs a Christian I view the category mistake that you are making is to make the Bible the focus of your faith instead of it being Jesus. Understanding the Bible as being inerrant leaves you with a very confused image of God.An inerrant Bible leaves us with a God that tells us to love our enemy but also told His followers to go and slaughter their neighbours including men women and children. It leaves you with a God who tells us that we will be forgiven as we forgive but then tells his followers to get together and stone to death some poor schmuck for picking up firewood on the Sabbath.I've said this before but I suggest that you remember that it is CHRISTianity and not Biblianity. The two are not compatible.Just read through the "Sermon on the Mount" and see the number of times Jesus corrects what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures which we now call the OT.

Mebbe so. I'm rather fond of analogies myself. The difference is that electricity is real. It can be demonstrated reliably, which suggests that we have some understanding of it. "Spiritual matters" can not be demonstrated reliably. One religion thinks it's AC, another thinks it's DC and another thinks it's static. Revelation is the ultimate source of systematized error - different revelations for different folks. It has been revealed to me that he will not.

Okay. But you're wrong.
The truth of the Bible hasn't been REVEALED spiritually to you yet. You've fallen into a systematized error, forever thinking you've nailed it, but always being left behind in the realm of darkness. It's not heresy, it's just wrong. Again, the truth has not been REVEALED spiritually to you yet. If it had, you wouldn't be saying such strange things. You're so lost in your own systematized error you can't even tell. Obviously you haven't met me yet. Wow, really? The systematized error is strong with this one.
I think it will be a very long process for you to open your mind to God so that you can hear the truth He's trying so hard to scream at you. Just relax and try to read the Bible with a Godly mind. The truth is obvious to all those filled with the spirit. Just try it, it will come to you.

Are you saying that the reason for the EvC controversy is because God's word is so convoluted and confusing that it takes special powers to understand it?Have you ever heard of a guy named "Jesus"? He had a great message: fuck all that complicated nonsense, just love God and love each other.He had a point...Anyways, the actual reason for the EvC controversy is that some people are unable to accept that the facts that science has uncovered show that their interpretation of their holy book actually contains some errors. Instead of realizing the errors, they've created this "controversy".

I think that you are quite correct in that the creationists do not understand the Bible and are applying inappropriate and wrong interpretations.The entire origin of the creation/evolution "controversy" is because of the "creationists" who have no idea what they are talking about.

Sorry, Percy. I sent it twice by mistake.

Okay: additional clarification. No human being has ever seen electricity. We are able to evaluate electricity indirectly by measuring its effects and thus determine its properties. No human being has ever seen or captured life. Again, the characteristics of life have to be observed indirectly. The properties and characteristics of inorganic matter do not change under direct analysis. The same is not true for organic matter. If you dissect it, it dies and, consequently, there is a change in its properties and characteristics. Maybe radio waves are a better illustration than electricity. They definitely exist, but are totally invisible and undetectable to our five senses. Likewise, spiritual matters are not directly detectable or perceivable by the human mind. The mind is not the correct organ to receive spiritual revelation- it is, however, the correct organ to understand what the human spirit receives.
'The soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him.'
'That which is born of Spirit is spirit.'
'God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit.'
'...dividing the soul from the spirit.'
'The mind set on the spirit...'
'The letter (of the Bible) kills, but the Spirit gives life.'
Whether or not the Bible is dead-letter knowledge to a reader, or whether it gives life (and revelation) depends on which organ the reader uses to touch it: only the mind; or with the mind set on the spirit.
I reiterate: the six-day account in Genesis is NOT an account of creation sequentially. Therefore the chronological discrepancy of the order of mentioning of the six forms of life in it with the known order from evolution, etc. is NOT a conflict- it is moot.
And if your traditional dogmatism is that the days were literal 24-hour days, you are totally removed from truth- both scientific AND scripturally. Time periods were not assigned to the luminaries until the fourth day. It is theologically unjustified and incorrect to believe in a 'young earth'.Edited by PaulGL, : left out a word

You're making an incorrect distinction between direct and indirect observation. All observations are inherently indirect. Light is reflected from objects into the eye where it causes chemical changes which cause electrical changes which are interpreted in the brain with reference to other electrical changes that have been stored.What difference does it make if the light is reflected from a physical object or from a line drawn by a machine that is "looking" at the physical object?

How do you determine if you're getting the right message or not?If your spirit receives one message, and mine receives a conflicting one, how can we ever know who is correct?