You obviously believe in a form of Evolution. The Bible has no room for Evolution because if you ad up all the “begats” you’d get a figure of about 6000 years, allowing for a few generations that haven’t been mentioned. But wars and kings have been mentioned that archaeologists and historians can date. So why should I believe you if you teach a Doctrine different to GODS word?
Wow. First of all, I am not teaching you and there are no particular reasons you should believe ME. I am just a layman and a rank-and-file participant in OC.net discussions, not here to make anyone believe me. Second, the Orthodox Church has never been against figurative, allegoric interpretations of Genesis rather than literal, historical interpretations of it. Third, God's Word is not the Bible but the God-Man Jesus Christ, the Logos Incarnate, Who is always present in His Church. It is He Who teaches us, using a large variety of things: the Divine Liturgy, the Holy Mysteries, the Scriptures, the doctrinal documents of the Ecumenical Councils, the iconography, the architecture, and many other things...
You said some Church Fathers were Platonists. Then you tell me to consult my Spiritual Father. Who says that all Spiritual Fathers know what they are talking about? Is my Spiritual Father a Platonist?
Not likely, because after the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), Platonism and Neo-Platonism suffered a decisive blow and never really made a comeback into the Church doctrine (see the famous Anathemas against Origen that dealt with the "matter - bad, spirit - good" mentality, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html
). If your spiritual Father is a seminary graduate, he most certainly knows that Platonism is not compatible with being an Orthodox presbyter. But in the 2-nd, 3-d, even 4-th century Platonism and Neo-Platonism (Plotinus) did influence the mentality and the language of many Church Fathers quite a lot.
Been an Orthodox is like been in the school debating team or a philosophy class. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed might have the truth of what Orthodoxy believes but the Orthodox clergy (and Church Fathers) have ignored it and added and taught whatever dream they’ve dreamt.
That's not true. First of all, the Nicene Creed IS ITSELF a product of many decades of deliberations of the many Church Fathers (BTW, same thing the Bible canon). From what you are saying, it seems like there was this Creed, fallen from the sky, and then these bad Fathers came and changed everything. Here, you are arguing like an extreme Sola Scriptura evangelical: we have this Bible (fallen from the sky), and then those bad Orthodox and Catholics added a lot of things to it. This is naive and inaccurate. Second, what was, indeed, added to the Church dogmatics, was added not arbitrarily (like someone dreaded a dream), but through meetings of many, many Ecumenical and local Councils. While some of these councils (like the Stoglav I mentioned) did not contribute much of substance and are today viewed as superfluous, other councils produced true gems of our faith like the Christological dogmat about the two natures of the Logos Incarnate (Chalcedon, 451). And lastly, if you have this preconceived notion that the Orthodox Church teaches falsehoods, why are you discussing on this forum? I am afraid we aren't going to convince you in anything if you have already made up your mind, and you will certainly not convince us (the Orthodox). Maybe we should start over, without you assuming that we are bad, lying, or childishly naive people?