OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 09:47:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I am turning into a creationist ;D  (Read 9043 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2003, 03:50:18 PM »

Time is a function of the sun and moon; therefore there cannot be Time without the sun and moon.  

Well, time is measured locally (ie, on the earth) in reference to the sun and moon, but time itself preceded the creation of the sun and moon whether one subscribes to the Big Bang or to strict six 24-hour-days "Creationism".  For example, most scientists believe the Big Bang preceded the formation of the earth (and the sun and moon, for that matter) by at least several billion years.  During this time many physical processes are said to have taken place in the space-time universe.

Quote
Scripture says that to the Lord a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like a day.  Remember: the text in question, was written by a finite man trying to understand an infinite God.  

This is true, but from our vantage point "one day" and "1000 years" both refer to specific periods of time.  To the Lord, however, who is ABOVE time, both are seen in the same way by Him.  Smiley

Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
lutheraninquirer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2003, 07:00:17 PM »

There really is quite an amusing debate on this same subject going on at catholic-convert.com.  I had no idea there was such a vocal "fundamentalist Catholic" minority who insists on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2003, 07:13:24 PM »

Quote
There really is quite an amusing debate on this same subject going on at catholic-convert.com.

There's some cool animations on that forum.
Logged
spaceviking
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


OC.net


« Reply #48 on: December 19, 2003, 07:19:54 PM »

As for evolution, one thing that frustrates scientists to no end in this debate is that critics only poke holes in the existing theory but do not put forward theories that explain all of the evidence.  It is remarkable to me that Darwin proposed his theory without any knowledge of genetics, and all new discoveries in that field have confirmed and strengthened his theory.  


That's somewhat of an overstatement, IMHO.  There is a growing movement of scientists who not only demonstrate glaring flaws in certain aspects of Darwinian mythology but who also seek to offer positive criteria for identifying intelligent design.

I have to admit I'm not totally versed in Intelligent Design, although a quick perusal of the Discovery Institute Web site leads to a fruitless search for what they actually think happened.  It seems they might contend that:
1) Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (bya)
2) Designer "creates" life ~4 bya
3) Micro-organisms undergo micro-evolution for 3.5 bya
4) Designer induces Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago
5) Designer periodically causes macro-evolution over the next 500 million years
6) Designer finally causes macro-evolution from a common ancestor of humans and monkees.

I would be interested if the ID (intelligent design) people made some specific hypotheses based on their theory for particular instances of evolution.  Like why did the "designer" wait 4.5 billion years before bringing about humans?  

Science is judged by publishing in scientific journals: while ID people cite a number of articles, none of them actually explain the theory of ID.  Unless we accept the idea that the science community is actively suppressing ID because of some atheistic, materialistic conspiracy, we are forced to conclude that those articles don't exist because their science is faulty.

Paul
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #49 on: December 19, 2003, 09:15:07 PM »


I have to admit I'm not totally versed in Intelligent Design, although a quick perusal of the Discovery Institute Web site leads to a fruitless search for what they actually think happened.  It seems they might contend that:
1) Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (bya)
2) Designer "creates" life ~4 bya
3) Micro-organisms undergo micro-evolution for 3.5 bya
4) Designer induces Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago
5) Designer periodically causes macro-evolution over the next 500 million years
6) Designer finally causes macro-evolution from a common ancestor of humans and monkees.

There is actually a variety of viewpoints under the ID umbrella.  Some like biochemist Michael Behe accept the general idea of common descent.  Others like Bill Dembski would not.  Both would agree that proposed Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for ALL the complex diversity of life, namely irreducibly complex microbiological systems and complex specified information.  Remember, the ID movement is very young so I wouldn't expect an ambitious account of the entire earth's history anytime soon (spelling out every single instance in which an intelligent agent has ever acted).  The immediate goal is to put the idea of intelligent design on the table to explain phenomena which Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for.

Quote
I would be interested if the ID (intelligent design) people made some specific hypotheses based on their theory for particular instances of evolution.  Like why did the "designer" wait 4.5 billion years before bringing about humans?
 

Speculating into why the "designer" did things the way "he" did is not the goal of the scientific program of design.  Such belongs to philosophy and ultimately perhaps theology.  ID is interested in formulating testable criteria in identifying the work of an intelligent agent(s).


Quote
Science is judged by publishing in scientific journals: while ID people cite a number of articles, none of them actually explain the theory of ID.

Not quite true.  They have begun writing books and articles that do just that.  The Design Inference by Dembski  discusses the theoretical criteria for establishing intelligent agency.

Quote
Unless we accept the idea that the science community is actively suppressing ID because of some atheistic, materialistic conspiracy, we are forced to conclude that those articles don't exist because their science is faulty.
 

Wow, do you really doubt this?  The Darwinian establishment is and has been dominated by metaphysical naturalists (at the very least, by methodological naturalists) for decades.  Such a philosophical mindset is diametrically opposed to the possibility of a transcedent intelligence which is capable of acting in the material universe. The Darwinian creation myth is the reigning paradigm in our secular society and is defended with great zeal by those who go to great lengths to dismiss a priori ANYTHING that might smack of a Creator.   By their sheer numbers and positions entrenched in secular academia, one could say there is at least an ipso facto "conspiracy" among Darwinists to suppress any movement that could represent a potentially competitive paradigm to their pet theory.  (In addition to that, the ID movement is relatively new which could be another reason for the apparent lack of peer reviewed articles.)
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Aidan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 126



« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2011, 04:54:35 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2011, 05:09:01 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?

Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,113


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #52 on: October 06, 2011, 05:41:49 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?

Give him until 2019 to answer, that way he has as much time as you did.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,812



« Reply #53 on: October 06, 2011, 05:42:04 AM »

Thank you spaceviking. I am not a frequent poster and therefore reltively unknown but that being understood, I welcome you.

This whole business bothers me because it seems that Darwinism, which proposes the descent of man ultimately by mass death and disaster, cannot be compatible with the view that death IS the ultimate disaster. However I can live with that.

What really bothers me of late is the view that life is implicit in the universe. So, once the big bang is started somewhere in that event the seeds of life will exist and manifest themselves when conditions are right. A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification. I think it was the physisist David Bohm who brought this idea to my attention.

This notion seems more attractive that a Thor model of the creator God which I obviously have. Does anyone have a more attractive model?

Not to rain on your parade, and I'm not saying that your points and/or questions are not worth discussing, but I wouldn't expect a response from spaceviking any time soon, considering that he hasn't signed on since December 19, 2003, one day after he/she registered Smiley  Anyway, never mind me... continue on...
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #54 on: October 06, 2011, 06:28:37 AM »

^ Says Mr. Notorious thread bumper.  Tongue Cheesy
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2011, 08:48:14 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 08:48:44 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aidan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 126



« Reply #56 on: October 06, 2011, 09:41:01 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 06, 2011, 09:47:50 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 09:53:46 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aidan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 126



« Reply #58 on: October 06, 2011, 10:13:40 AM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Sorry, I'm only a quasi nerd so I don't understand the reference.
My wife belongs to a Japanese (quasi) Buddhist organisation and their belief about creation is as I have described it. I find it very f f appealing. I find OUR belief less appealing to the imagination although I don't deny it. My perception is probably at fault.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 06, 2011, 10:39:07 AM »

While I have my evolutionary doubts, most people shouldn't be entering into this conflict.

These battles, out in the open, are inevtiably dominated by two groups who are both doggedly wrong. First, there are the atheistic types who dogmatize evolution as a rejoinder to religious faith. This position is questionable in its science; and in science, if your opinions are questionable they might as well be wrong.

Basically they make two scientific mistakes. First, they assume that they know enough about the mechanisms of evolution. They don't. There's a lot of speculation about how genetic change enters into this, and it seems to me, based on what they are finding out about cloning (namely, that it doesn't work very well on animals) that there are some fundamental elements of genetic transmission that they don't know anything about. Also, they really don't know much about how this change could produce new structures.

Second, it's pretty clear that they don't know much about what forces may or may not drive evolution. This is something that is very controversial in the field, and Steven Gould for one has attacked the Established Position at length. I don't agree with him entirely, but it's clear that "survival of the fittest" isn't all that's going on.

You are right, it isn't. But there certainly are other driving forces of evolution: migrations (gene flow), sudden disappearance of certain alleles or genotypes because of a catastrophy (genetic drift), non-stochastic sexual reproduction.

Also, homeotic mutations seem to be very interesting because they explain, at least to some extent, the non-linear, "jumping" nature of the biological evolution.
Logged

Love never fails.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2011, 11:32:56 AM »

non-stochastic sexual reproduction.

Who wants that?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 06, 2011, 12:21:31 PM »

non-stochastic sexual reproduction.

Who wants that?

The "dominants."  Lips Sealed
Logged

Love never fails.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2011, 12:32:20 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?

Anyway, why are we all encouraging thread necromancy?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #63 on: October 06, 2011, 12:34:12 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?

Anyway, why are we all encouraging thread necromancy?

More or less dangerous than a Ouija board?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2011, 01:42:14 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?

Anyway, why are we all encouraging thread necromancy?
Especially when we have a sticky on Religious Topics that you never have to dig up?
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #65 on: October 06, 2011, 01:46:45 PM »

Creationism does violence to the text of Genesis. It yankes it out of its historical and literary context and forces a meaning upon it which God did NOT intend it to have.  It keeps the reader from reading the text as the word of God and turns it into a textbook.  If you want to believe the world was created in 6 days, fine, it can't be proven or disproven.  But creation "science" just tries to account for everything with some rather wild theories.

anastasios

Thank you for this, Father.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #66 on: October 06, 2011, 02:04:41 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 02:07:24 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2011, 02:10:58 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday. Does anybody bother to check date/time stamps anymore?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 02:11:45 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2011, 03:20:26 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday. Does anybody bother to check date/time stamps anymore?

nope!  Kiss
Logged
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #69 on: October 06, 2011, 03:25:52 PM »

I just assume any of the related threads I clicked on are all from 2004. I laugh every time I see a resurrected one from such a long time ago.

Although it's better than cluttering up the boards with new threads.
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,165



« Reply #70 on: October 06, 2011, 03:52:17 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday. Does anybody bother to check date/time stamps anymore?

nope!  Kiss
Yes
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 03:52:48 PM by Gamliel » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #71 on: October 06, 2011, 03:55:42 PM »

I just assume any of the related threads I clicked on are all from 2004. I laugh every time I see a resurrected one from such a long time ago.

Although it's better than cluttering up the boards with new threads.

Bring back the real avatars finally.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #72 on: October 06, 2011, 03:57:38 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.

I think the second passage can be understood as God shaping everything from formless matter after it had already been created from nothing on the first day (anyway, citing the book of Wisdom is hardly evidence that the original meaning of Genesis was not creation ex nihilo, given that by all accounts Wisdom was composed centuries later than Genesis).

As for the first quotation, those notes reflect the opinion of some secular biblical scholars and don't have any doctrinal authority. I would be interested to see some patristic quotes that Genesis should not be interpreted as teaching creation ex nihilo.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #73 on: October 06, 2011, 03:57:59 PM »

Funny! Someone resurrects a thread so old it's fossilized, and now everyone believes every post on this thread was submitted yesterday.
...Forum Post Creationism?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #74 on: October 06, 2011, 03:58:35 PM »

I just assume any of the related threads I clicked on are all from 2004. I laugh every time I see a resurrected one from such a long time ago.

Although it's better than cluttering up the boards with new threads.

Bring back the real avatars finally.
Don't you guys know how to use Google?
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #75 on: October 06, 2011, 03:58:40 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.

I think the second passage can be understood as God shaping everything from formless matter after it had already been created from nothing on the first day (anyway, citing the book of Wisdom is hardly evidence that the original meaning of Genesis was not creation ex nihilo, given that by all accounts Wisdom was composed centuries later than Genesis).

As for the first quotation, those notes reflect the opinion of some secular biblical scholars and don't have any doctrinal authority. I would be interested to see some patristic quotes that Genesis should not be interpreted as teaching creation ex nihilo.
Did God create what we call "nothing"?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #76 on: October 06, 2011, 03:59:06 PM »

Creationism does violence to the text of Genesis. It yankes it out of its historical and literary context and forces a meaning upon it which God did NOT intend it to have.  It keeps the reader from reading the text as the word of God and turns it into a textbook.  If you want to believe the world was created in 6 days, fine, it can't be proven or disproven.  But creation "science" just tries to account for everything with some rather wild theories.

anastasios

Thank you for this, Father.

I'm not sure Fr A would continue to endorse these statements. Wink
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #77 on: October 06, 2011, 04:00:27 PM »

A sort of quasi Buddhist view doing away with the need for a creator but obviously still needing much clarification.
That's not distinctively Buddhist. Lots of non-Buddhist philosophies do away with the need for a "creator".
Thank you Jetavan. As Basil Fawlty might say, that insight is in the realms of the bleedin' obvious.

When my phone alerts me to a message at least let it be amusing and not an excuse to bump up your astronomical number of posts.
Ditto. You could have easily said 'quasi-archaic Hebrew', since Genesis was not originally understood as referring to ex nihilo creation.

Says who?
The New American Bible, Revised Edition:

1. Notes on Genesis chapters 1 and 2:

* [1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon 11:17:

For not without means was your almighty hand,
that had fashioned the universe from formless matter,
to send upon them many bears or fierce lions....

See also Creatio Ex Nihilo, by Gerhard May, which discusses the genealogy of creatio ex nihilo, addressing the 2 Maccabees 7:28 statement, among others.

I think the second passage can be understood as God shaping everything from formless matter after it had already been created from nothing on the first day (anyway, citing the book of Wisdom is hardly evidence that the original meaning of Genesis was not creation ex nihilo, given that by all accounts Wisdom was composed centuries later than Genesis).

As for the first quotation, those notes reflect the opinion of some secular biblical scholars and don't have any doctrinal authority. I would be interested to see some patristic quotes that Genesis should not be interpreted as teaching creation ex nihilo.
Did God create what we call "nothing"?

Well, how can "nothing" be created? It's like asking how can God die.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #78 on: October 06, 2011, 04:03:14 PM »


Well, how can "nothing" be created? It's like asking how can God die.
If it's nothing relative to something, it can be.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #79 on: October 06, 2011, 04:14:58 PM »

Oh nothingness . . . How I have longed for you.

Let's see how your ontologists handle this.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,091


« Reply #80 on: October 06, 2011, 05:02:37 PM »

Oh nothingness . . . How I have longed for you.

Let's see how your ontologists handle this.



I'm turning all pointless conversations over to the experts. Wink
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #81 on: October 06, 2011, 05:10:59 PM »

Oh nothingness . . . How I have longed for you.

Let's see how your ontologists handle this.



I'm turning all pointless conversations over to the experts. Wink

Yeah, except I really haven't read much of an account from a Church Father on the nothing nor nothingness. Sure they sorta work out that apophatic stuff, but that is JV thought.

Nothingness?

It is really is varsity philosophiez.

Thought some smart guy would suggest a reading. I'm baiting for such elsewhere.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 05:11:39 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #82 on: October 06, 2011, 05:36:45 PM »

Could it be that God is the "nothing" out of which he created all things? If all things that exist are created by him, couldn't he be other than something that exists, therefore "nothing"? Do I know what the heck I'm talking about?  Undecided
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,182


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #83 on: October 06, 2011, 05:53:23 PM »

Could it be that God is the "nothing" out of which he created all things?
I don't think so, since then all things would be consubstantial with God--all things would be Divine. We believe that God is everywhere present filling all things, but we don't believe that God IS all things or that all things are God.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #84 on: October 06, 2011, 06:45:15 PM »

Could it be that God is the "nothing" out of which he created all things?
I don't think so, since then all things would be consubstantial with God--all things would be Divine. We believe that God is everywhere present filling all things, but we don't believe that God IS all things or that all things are God.

That answers my question as to knowing what I was talking about.  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,812



« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2011, 10:06:00 PM »

^ Says Mr. Notorious thread bumper.  Tongue Cheesy

Well, but I generally bump threads just for the sheer pleasure of resurrecting threads. Behold, I bring life to dead men's bones. I don't actually expect responses from many of the people I respond to. Though since I sometimes respond to one of my own posts from 6+ years ago, sometimes my thread bump is itself a response, and my response is a response to my own response. Right-o!
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Tags: creationism evolution Genesis 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.157 seconds with 67 queries.