OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 01:47:52 AM *
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  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 324554 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1350 on: September 11, 2009, 07:41:34 PM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1351 on: September 11, 2009, 09:24:57 PM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1352 on: September 12, 2009, 01:03:33 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.
I'm with Mr. Y on this.  jckstraw, the one thing you're trying to do on this thread that has drawn my objection more than anything else has nothing to do with HOW you have gone about trying to prove a patristic consensus, even though this has been superficially the focus of my questioning.  What I reject most is your very goal of trying to make a dogmatic proclamation on evolution where none is necessary or even desired.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1353 on: September 12, 2009, 04:00:47 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.

Hear, hear!
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)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1354 on: September 12, 2009, 04:02:14 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.
I'm with Mr. Y on this.  jckstraw, the one thing you're trying to do on this thread that has drawn my objection more than anything else has nothing to do with HOW you have gone about trying to prove a patristic consensus, even though this has been superficially the focus of my questioning.  What I reject most is your very goal of trying to make a dogmatic proclamation on evolution where none is necessary or even desired.

Hear, hear!
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)
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1355 on: September 12, 2009, 05:28:40 AM »

This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth,       

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:   
         
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.               
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?         
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—   
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,             
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1356 on: September 12, 2009, 08:51:27 AM »

1) I believe that the Church MIGHT have the authority to express doctrines concerning creation/evolution controversy, and that no matter what the Church says, I will obey to it after an official proclamation THROUGH A VALIDLY ESTABLISHED ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.
2) The fact that up to now the Church has never expressed her interpretation on Genesis is that either (a) the question has been clear in itself up to recent times when the fight between literalists and allegorists has begun (b) there's no sufficiently solid tradition on the matter, so the question is voluntarily left open to private interpretation (c) the Church sees no contradiction of ANY of the positions involved, and as a loving Mother is protecting her children from schisms based on questions which don't affect theology either directly or indirectly. I find anyway that this omission by the Church hierarchy is GOOD. Christians should be educated in accepting different opinions WITHIN the Orthodox Faith.

Quote
As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.

If such a little aspect of Orthodoxy is sufficient to make you leave the true Church, then you must be more faithful to god-wisdom than to God-Almighty. The Church indeed has authority to explain the theology BEHIND the Bible and Tradition, even affecting science, and when the Church sets a doctrine, she is giving it from God's revelation. The anathemas against those who don't believe that Adam was immortal (either by nature or by grace, the question is open) can't be avoided, since the Church has infallibly stated this in her Ecumenical Councils. If you reject this authority, you can step back and look for another church.
At this time you're lucky, anyway, seems the church has no official opinion, so you can stay in Orthodoxy. Hope that this doesn't change!

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1357 on: September 12, 2009, 01:21:05 PM »

how old is the earth according to the Church?How many years passed untill Christ?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1358 on: September 12, 2009, 02:28:38 PM »

This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth,       

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:   
         
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.               
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?         
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—   
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,             
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
You could at least offer us the common courtesy of telling us this came out of Job (Job 38:4-11).  Come to think of it, this doesn't really do much for your strident anti-evolutionist position, either, since all you've done is assert one source of positive knowledge against another.  Were YOU present to see God create the heavens and the earth that you think you know so much about this?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1359 on: September 12, 2009, 02:29:12 PM »

how old is the earth according to the Church?How many years passed untill Christ?
What's your point?
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1360 on: September 12, 2009, 03:37:37 PM »

my last posts have nothing to do with evolution , i`m not curious about evolution in this thread;i`m interested in years as you may see;so how many years are accounted by the Church to have passed untill Christ?or how many years untill nowadays?Are this years , this calculations established more estimatively?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #1361 on: September 12, 2009, 04:05:19 PM »

I admit I am daunted by 31 dense pages, but for those who have been in this discussion for a long time, has the subject of the age of the universe been discussed?

We know that the most distant known object is 13 billion light years away (GRB 090423). That means that the star exploded 13 billion years ago, since the speed of light is constant. So the universe simply HAS to be that old, plus it took time for the star to form, so add another half billion to that.

I am genuinely open minded when it comes to biological evolution vs. creationism, because I don't know. I don't really understand that, but I do understand outer space. But, since the universe is at least 13 billion years old, doesn't it seem more likely that slow processes like evolution, guided by GOd, caused nature to develop?

[edit] Because, clearly the Fathers could not have known about such things. Can we not admit that they were still products of their day and age, much as St Paul's attitude towards slavery?  Or can we just say this is not a salvation issue, and the age of the rock in front of Jesus' tomb does not change the fact that it was rolled aside?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2009, 04:16:15 PM by bogdan » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1362 on: September 12, 2009, 04:09:13 PM »

my last posts have nothing to do with evolution , i`m not curious about evolution in this thread;i`m interested in years as you may see;so how many years are accounted by the Church to have passed untill Christ?or how many years untill nowadays?Are this years , this calculations established more estimatively?
Unless you can wrap this into the discussion of creationism, evolution, AND the Orthodox faith, your attempt to discuss the age of the earth is off topic and needs to be taken up on a new thread.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1363 on: September 13, 2009, 12:16:47 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

well ive actually quoted over 30 Fathers on issues concerning the literal level of Genesis -- not only the length of the days -- my position does not hinge solely on that issue, as does yours. ive also presented evidence from modern Saints who are quite explicitly agianst evolution, and also the Church's adopted calendar that used a literal reading of Genesis.

Quote
As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.

i dont expect the Church to make statements about science. but it does make statements about its own Scripture. thats what this thread is about, if you read the OP. you can keep trying to reframe so that you can talk about how the Church isnt a science teacher, but thats really completely beside the issue. Scientists aren't exegetes of Scripture.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1364 on: September 13, 2009, 12:18:32 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.
I'm with Mr. Y on this.  jckstraw, the one thing you're trying to do on this thread that has drawn my objection more than anything else has nothing to do with HOW you have gone about trying to prove a patristic consensus, even though this has been superficially the focus of my questioning.  What I reject most is your very goal of trying to make a dogmatic proclamation on evolution where none is necessary or even desired.

im attempting to discuss the proper interpretation of Scripture.
but, at the same time, people desire things that you don't and people find things necessary (including modern Saints who found it necessary to write against evolution) even if you don't. thats a wild concept aint it?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1365 on: September 13, 2009, 12:20:07 AM »

I admit I am daunted by 31 dense pages, but for those who have been in this discussion for a long time, has the subject of the age of the universe been discussed?

We know that the most distant known object is 13 billion light years away (GRB 090423). That means that the star exploded 13 billion years ago, since the speed of light is constant. So the universe simply HAS to be that old, plus it took time for the star to form, so add another half billion to that.

unless that light was already reaching earth from the time of creation. the Fathers teach that God created a mature earth -- so even though trees were literally only a second old, they were fully grown. so it could easily be the case that God created stars such that their light was already reaching earth. i see no reason to assume that it wasn't.

Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1366 on: September 13, 2009, 12:27:01 AM »

1) I believe that the Church MIGHT have the authority to express doctrines concerning creation/evolution controversy, and that no matter what the Church says, I will obey to it after an official proclamation THROUGH A VALIDLY ESTABLISHED ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

is an Ecumenical Council really the absolutely only way the Church expresses its teachings to us?
Quote
2) The fact that up to now the Church has never expressed her interpretation on Genesis

what do you consider Scripture, Patristics, canons, hymns, icons, etc about Genesis then? Is the Church so saturated with mere opinion?

Quote
is that either (a) the question has been clear in itself up to recent times when the fight between literalists and allegorists has begun

i think this is the answer. if you look at the Church Fathers throughout the centuries you find the exact same teaching on this issue -- there doesn't seem to be any widespread argumentation. however, you do find some Fathers talking about how some groups were going wild with allegories in Genesis and denying the literal level and how this is wrong. St. John of Damascus said that to interpet Genesis allegorically is actually a very early heresy in the Church, and both St. Augustine and the Venerable Bede said its fine to interpret Genesis allegorically as long as you don't deny the literal, historic truth.

Quote
If such a little aspect of Orthodoxy is sufficient to make you leave the true Church, then you must be more faithful to god-wisdom than to God-Almighty. The Church indeed has authority to explain the theology BEHIND the Bible and Tradition, even affecting science, and when the Church sets a doctrine, she is giving it from God's revelation. The anathemas against those who don't believe that Adam was immortal (either by nature or by grace, the question is open) can't be avoided, since the Church has infallibly stated this in her Ecumenical Councils. If you reject this authority, you can step back and look for another church.

thank you for pointing this out again, as that evidence seems to be continually ignored when I put it forth. the Church has ecumenically declared that we must believe Adam was created physically immortal which is obviously contradictory to evolution.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1367 on: September 13, 2009, 12:31:08 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.
I'm with Mr. Y on this.  jckstraw, the one thing you're trying to do on this thread that has drawn my objection more than anything else has nothing to do with HOW you have gone about trying to prove a patristic consensus, even though this has been superficially the focus of my questioning.  What I reject most is your very goal of trying to make a dogmatic proclamation on evolution where none is necessary or even desired.

im attempting to discuss the proper interpretation of Scripture.
but, at the same time, people desire things that you don't and people find things necessary (including modern Saints who found it necessary to write against evolution) even if you don't. thats a wild concept aint it?
Well, maybe if you need a dogmatic proclamation, then force one onto yourself.  Just don't force it onto those who don't need one.  When it comes to dogmas, though, it really doesn't matter what you need or what I need or what a handful of modern saints say we need, since dogma necessarily demands delineation of heresy and judgment of heretics.  The question then becomes:  Does the Church need a dogma on this issue?  I don't think so, and until such time that a council of general authority convenes to discuss the issue of evolution, I will hold to my position.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1368 on: September 13, 2009, 12:36:28 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.
I'm with Mr. Y on this.  jckstraw, the one thing you're trying to do on this thread that has drawn my objection more than anything else has nothing to do with HOW you have gone about trying to prove a patristic consensus, even though this has been superficially the focus of my questioning.  What I reject most is your very goal of trying to make a dogmatic proclamation on evolution where none is necessary or even desired.

im attempting to discuss the proper interpretation of Scripture.
but, at the same time, people desire things that you don't and people find things necessary (including modern Saints who found it necessary to write against evolution) even if you don't. thats a wild concept aint it?
Well, maybe if you need a dogmatic proclamation, then force one onto yourself.  Just don't force it onto those who don't need one.  When it comes to dogmas, though, it really doesn't matter what you need or what I need or what a handful of modern saints say we need, since dogma necessarily demands delineation of heresy and judgment of heretics.  The question then becomes:  Does the Church need a dogma on this issue?  I don't think so, and until such time that a council of general authority convenes to discuss the issue of evolution, I will hold to my position.

so essentially, unless all the Patristic writings are gathered into an Ecumenical statement, they are essentially worthless? because any ol' joe can just choose to ignore them, right?

as both Alexander and I have pointed out, the Church has Ecumenically pronounced that physical death is a result of sin, which is a huge factor in this whole issue.

i must hand it to you -- im quite amazed that you really understand Scripture better than every major Church Father.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 12:38:01 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1369 on: September 13, 2009, 12:41:57 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

well ive actually quoted over 30 Fathers on issues concerning the literal level of Genesis
30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth.

-- not only the length of the days -- my position does not hinge solely on that issue, as does yours.
Straw man alert!

ive also presented evidence from modern Saints who are quite explicitly agianst evolution, and also the Church's adopted calendar that used a literal reading of Genesis.

Quote
As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.

i dont expect the Church to make statements about science. but it does make statements about its own Scripture. thats what this thread is about, if you read the OP.
Actually, if you want to know what this thread is about, read the title.  This thread is about Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy.  It is NOT about how we understand the Scriptures.  Besides, this thread is now a conglomerate of many pre-existing separate threads, so the contents of the OP really don't describe what this thread is about anymore.

you can keep trying to reframe so that you can talk about how the Church isnt a science teacher, but thats really completely beside the issue. Scientists aren't exegetes of Scripture.
Actually, what the Church is qualified to say about modern science is very much the issue of this thread, since we're talking about how the Orthodox Church and her faithful view the creationism vs. evolution debate.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1370 on: September 13, 2009, 12:48:07 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

well ive actually quoted over 30 Fathers on issues concerning the literal level of Genesis
30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth.

how can you have such disdain for our Holy Fathers? you're seriously blowing my mind here. it proves that the interpretation i follow is firmly within the Church. yours is quite obviously not.

Quote
-- not only the length of the days -- my position does not hinge solely on that issue, as does yours.
Straw man alert!

not at all. there has been not a single Patristic quote presented which has dealt with anything other than the length of the days.

ive also presented evidence from modern Saints who are quite explicitly agianst evolution, and also the Church's adopted calendar that used a literal reading of Genesis.

Quote
As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.

i dont expect the Church to make statements about science. but it does make statements about its own Scripture. thats what this thread is about, if you read the OP.


this thread is about how to properly interpret Scripture. yes, that has scientific implications, but that doesn't mean the Church would therefore be making a scientific proclamation. what you fail to realize is that theology and science are necessarily interrelated as two facets of one truth.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 12:49:51 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1371 on: September 13, 2009, 12:50:39 AM »

so essentially, unless all the Patristic writings are gathered into an Ecumenical statement, they are essentially worthless? because any ol' joe can just choose to ignore them, right?
You're not going to get anywhere in this debate by constantly misrepresenting the positions of your opponents.  I never said the writings of the Fathers are worthless.  I have always argued that your attempts to formulate a dogma on the issue of evolution and your subsequent attempts to proclaim this dogma on this thread are misguided.

as both Alexander and I have pointed out, the Church has Ecumenically pronounced that physical death is a result of sin, which is a huge factor in this whole issue.
Maybe if you're trying to win this argument once and for all by asserting a dogma on this issue and condemning your evolutionist opponents as heretics by implication.

i must hand it to you -- im quite amazed that you really understand Scripture better than every major Church Father.
Nah, I never asserted any such thing.  I'm really not even asserting any interpretation of Scripture, which makes this statement an attempt to discredit my position by setting up a straw man.  I really don't care one way or the other whether evolution is believable or not; I'm skeptical of the theory itself, but I'm also just as skeptical of what many Orthodox faithful are trying to do to discredit the theory and call it heresy.  Therefore, all I have done on this thread is whatever I need to do to resist your attempts to articulate a dogma that requires the condemnation of your opponents.  I don't think you're qualified to proclaim a dogma on the issue of evolution.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1372 on: September 13, 2009, 12:56:31 AM »

so essentially, unless all the Patristic writings are gathered into an Ecumenical statement, they are essentially worthless? because any ol' joe can just choose to ignore them, right?
You're not going to get anywhere in this debate by constantly misrepresenting the positions of your opponents.  I never said the writings of the Fathers are worthless.  I have always argued that your attempts to formulate a dogma on the issue of evolution and your subsequent attempts to proclaim this dogma on this thread are misguided.

you have made it clear that you will disagree with any number of Fathers on this issue because you believe the lack of Ecumenical proclamation allows you that right. thus, the Fathers writings on this issue are effectively worthless for you, except for you to say whoop-de-doo to them.

as both Alexander and I have pointed out, the Church has Ecumenically pronounced that physical death is a result of sin, which is a huge factor in this whole issue.
Quote
Maybe if you're trying to win this argument once and for all by asserting a dogma on this issue and condemning your evolutionist opponents as heretics by implication.

im merely asserting what the Ecumenical canon says. we are not allowed to believe that physical death is natural.

i must hand it to you -- im quite amazed that you really understand Scripture better than every major Church Father.
Quote
Nah, I never asserted any such thing.  I'm really not even asserting any interpretation of Scripture, which makes this statement an attempt to discredit my position by setting up a straw man.  I really don't care one way or the other whether evolution is believable or not; I'm skeptical of the theory itself, but I'm also just as skeptical of what many Orthodox faithful are trying to do to discredit the theory and call it heresy.  Therefore, all I have done on this thread is whatever I need to do to resist your attempts to articulate a dogma that requires the condemnation of your opponents.  I don't think you're qualified to proclaim a dogma on the issue of evolution.

of course not im not. thats why i have made a single argument from my own reasoning, but rather everything i have said has come straight from the Church.

and you have implicitly asserted that you know more than the Fathers and modern Saints. if you didn't think you knew more then you would accept their teaching! its really that simple.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 12:57:13 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1373 on: September 13, 2009, 12:57:00 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

well ive actually quoted over 30 Fathers on issues concerning the literal level of Genesis
30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth.

how can you have such disdain for our Holy Fathers? you're seriously blowing my mind here. it proves that the interpretation i follow is firmly within the Church. yours is quite obviously not.
Nah, my disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.  How many times have I said that already?
My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.
My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.
My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.

Get the point?

My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.

Quote
-- not only the length of the days -- my position does not hinge solely on that issue, as does yours.
Straw man alert!

not at all. there has been not a single Patristic quote presented which has dealt with anything other than the length of the days.
Listen to the podcast linked in Reply #1331, then tell me that.

ive also presented evidence from modern Saints who are quite explicitly agianst evolution, and also the Church's adopted calendar that used a literal reading of Genesis.

Quote
As I have said before, if the Orthodox Church is going to be making statements about scientific theories, which it is wholly unqualified to do, then it is no better than the Roman church, and I don't want to be part of it.

i dont expect the Church to make statements about science. but it does make statements about its own Scripture. thats what this thread is about, if you read the OP.


this thread is about how to properly interpret Scripture. yes, that has scientific implications, but that doesn't mean the Church would therefore be making a scientific proclamation. what you fail to realize is that theology and science are necessarily interrelated as two facets of one truth.
Quite an ironic statement coming from you who would oppose theology to science and say that theology is the only truth we should follow.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 12:58:39 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1374 on: September 13, 2009, 01:01:17 AM »

and if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a concensus then there isn't a whole lot that we can actually believe.
I would correct that by saying that if 3 or 4 Fathers really overturns a consensus then there isn't a whole lot we can actually proclaim as dogma, which is actually a good thing.

im sorry, i just dont see how a few random quotes about the length of the days of creation overthrows everything else in the Church which accepts the literal level of Genesis, including many more issues than just the relatively unimportant length of the days.
And I don't see how a few random quotes about the literal days of Genesis establishes a consensus. You're going to have to do better than that.

well ive actually quoted over 30 Fathers on issues concerning the literal level of Genesis
30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth.

how can you have such disdain for our Holy Fathers? you're seriously blowing my mind here. it proves that the interpretation i follow is firmly within the Church. yours is quite obviously not.
Quote
Nah, my disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.  How many times have I said that already?  My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.  My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.  My disdain is only for your methods of argument on this thread.  Get the point?  It's all about you.

i have done nothing more than present the teachings of Church authorities and you have said whoop-de-doo to them. you ignore them at every turn, even that Ecumenical canon, even though you say you will only listen to an Ecumenical statement!

Quote
this thread is about how to properly interpret Scripture. yes, that has scientific implications, but that doesn't mean the Church would therefore be making a scientific proclamation. what you fail to realize is that theology and science are necessarily interrelated as two facets of one truth.
Quote
Quite an ironic statement coming from you who would oppose theology to science and say that theology is the only truth we should follow.

talk about straw men hahahaha. i never said theology is the only truth we should follow. i dont believe in evolution. thats it. that doesnt mean i dont believe in science at all. i think there is absolutely a scientific truth to Genesis, but evolution aint it. the fact that you (and basically every evolutionist ive ever talked to) so easily equate evolution with the entirety of science demonstrates well how dogmatic evolution has really become.


and yeah, i still need to listen to the podcast. whoop-de-doo you have one presbytera agreeing with you!
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 01:04:16 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1375 on: September 13, 2009, 01:09:17 AM »

i have done nothing more than present the teachings of Church authorities and you have said whoop-de-doo to them. you ignore them at every turn, even that Ecumenical canon, even though you say you will only listen to an Ecumenical statement!
You just don't get it.  I said whoop-dee-doo to YOU.  I ignore--er, argue with--YOU at every turn.  I have defended myself by saying I do not accept YOUR authority on this matter.  When will you take my words at face value and recognize this is all about YOU?

Seeing that I have failed to help you see the REAL issue here, I fear that I must bow out and truly ignore you (except as I may need to exercise any moderatorial authority on this thread), since you have thus far been too pig-headed to recognize the REAL problem with your arguments.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 01:10:39 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1376 on: September 13, 2009, 01:10:15 AM »

You mean you don't like the Solus Patrum Ecclesiae (pardon my awful Latin) doctrine, PtA?  Wink
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1377 on: September 13, 2009, 02:26:38 AM »

I admit I am daunted by 31 dense pages, but for those who have been in this discussion for a long time, has the subject of the age of the universe been discussed?

We know that the most distant known object is 13 billion light years away (GRB 090423). That means that the star exploded 13 billion years ago, since the speed of light is constant. So the universe simply HAS to be that old, plus it took time for the star to form, so add another half billion to that.

unless that light was already reaching earth from the time of creation. the Fathers teach that God created a mature earth -- so even though trees were literally only a second old, they were fully grown. so it could easily be the case that God created stars such that their light was already reaching earth. i see no reason to assume that it wasn't.

jckstraw72,
"GRB" stands for "Gamma Ray Burst". It is not a star, but an often short-lived event in time.  It occurs when a rapidly spinning star collapses and sends out massive beams of electromagnetic energy (including visible light) from it's poles. In the case of GRB 090423, one of the light beams just happened to be directed at Earth, so on April 23, 2009 at 07:55:19 UTC anyone looking in the right direction in the sky would have observed a ten second flash of light marking the star's death and the birth of a Black Hole. This event in time- the star's collapse, took place 13 billion light years away, so it actually took place 13 billion years ago, and we only just saw it this year because it took that long for the light to reach us.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1378 on: September 13, 2009, 04:09:08 AM »

As usual, we didn't understand each other, jckstraw72. I NEVER said that animals were created immortal. In the other thread I meant that Adam's body was created physically mortal but made immortal by grace. Animals, also formed as mortal creatures, were put under the authority of Adam when Adam named them. To me, this means animals became immortal at that time, or in better words, they finally fulfilled the purpose of God to have an incorruptible universe of which Adam was to be the guardian. This happened in Genesis 1-2. When the Fall occurred, Adam lost his immortality because of sin, and God expelled him from Eden so that he couldn't "become immortal in sin". Since Adam was now deprived of that grace which sustained him, animals under his authority couldn't benefit anymore of immortality, and not only they became immortal, but they also began to rule themselves under the principles of "jungle law": the strongest wins. This corruption of the original MODEL God wanted to create is what we can see nowadays, with carnivor animals attacking humans for food, and preying herbivors.
My position also explains two things consistent with the progressive apparition of new species before humanity's appearance: The existence of carnivors before Adam is made compatible with the subordination of animals to Adam and the inexistence, for a very brief period of time, of any trace of their vegetarian period. It is self-evident that tigers or t-rex were physiological created for a carnivorous diet. If God created them this way, then their characteristics must have been in the intentions of God. If you think that these animals weren't created like this then you must explain why we don't have traces of vegetarian tigers in the past, and how this change could happen without a super-rapid biological evolution within a period of 5500 years from Adam to Christ.
I also don't think that an immortal Adam could be per se contrary to evolution. One can believe in evolution, and state that Adam was conceived by a humanoid endowed with immortality and an internal human spirit; yet the matter coming from the mother will be a product of biological evolution (I don't subscribe myself to this opinion, since I believe in a special creation of man, yet this is nevertheless consistent with the evolutionary model and doesn't affect theology).

In Christ,   Alex

To Dan-Romania: this is the list of possible datings of Creation by the Church Fathers and the official Ecclesiastical Calendars of the early centuries. You will see a great variety of possible dates spanning from c. 8000 to c. 4000 years before Christ. I'll try and give the reasons offered by the Fathers for that dating, when possible.

8000---6000 BCE - Origen gives a date under 10000 years before his time, with no clearer specifications.
5537 BCE - Julius Africanus. He reconstructed a chronology from the LXX.
5529 BCE - Theophilus of Antioch. He reconstructed a chronology from the LXX
5508 BCE - Byzantine Creation Era, officially adopted by the Empire. The Church followed this system to date the Quinisext Council.
5507 BCE - Chronicon Paschale, an ancestor of the Byzantine Creation Era, created in the 7th century CE.
5500 BCE - Hippolitus of Rome - He uses an allegorical interpretation of Christs death in the "sixth hour", as meaning during the 6th millennium of humanity.
5493 BCE - Alexandrian Era, also adopted by Maximus the Confessor and Theophanes the Confessor. Possibly based on an impossible 7 CE Christ birth.
5200 BCE - Eusebius of Caesaria, chronographer of the Church. His dating of creation was also used by the RCC at least up to Dante Alighieri's time.
5000 BCE - John Chrysostom says that Paradise was closed to man for "some 5000 years"
3952 BCE - Venerable Bede, 725 CE





Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1379 on: September 13, 2009, 05:13:57 AM »

thanks , AlexOfBergamo , i see that the age is more estimatively than sure;I`m asking this because i remmeber i saw some documentary about antic Egypt some writings and artefacts that date from 8000BC or around 10 000BC , i can`t remmeber exactly.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1380 on: September 13, 2009, 02:54:57 PM »

As usual, we didn't understand each other, jckstraw72. I NEVER said that animals were created immortal. In the other thread I meant that Adam's body was created physically mortal but made immortal by grace. Animals, also formed as mortal creatures, were put under the authority of Adam when Adam named them. To me, this means animals became immortal at that time, or in better words, they finally fulfilled the purpose of God to have an incorruptible universe of which Adam was to be the guardian. This happened in Genesis 1-2. When the Fall occurred, Adam lost his immortality because of sin, and God expelled him from Eden so that he couldn't "become immortal in sin". Since Adam was now deprived of that grace which sustained him, animals under his authority couldn't benefit anymore of immortality, and not only they became immortal, but they also began to rule themselves under the principles of "jungle law": the strongest wins. This corruption of the original MODEL God wanted to create is what we can see nowadays, with carnivor animals attacking humans for food, and preying herbivors.
My position also explains two things consistent with the progressive apparition of new species before humanity's appearance: The existence of carnivors before Adam is made compatible with the subordination of animals to Adam and the inexistence, for a very brief period of time, of any trace of their vegetarian period. It is self-evident that tigers or t-rex were physiological created for a carnivorous diet. If God created them this way, then their characteristics must have been in the intentions of God. If you think that these animals weren't created like this then you must explain why we don't have traces of vegetarian tigers in the past, and how this change could happen without a super-rapid biological evolution within a period of 5500 years from Adam to Christ.
I also don't think that an immortal Adam could be per se contrary to evolution. One can believe in evolution, and state that Adam was conceived by a humanoid endowed with immortality and an internal human spirit; yet the matter coming from the mother will be a product of biological evolution (I don't subscribe myself to this opinion, since I believe in a special creation of man, yet this is nevertheless consistent with the evolutionary model and doesn't affect theology).

 the only thing i would ask is is there any Church evidence that death reigned in animals before they came under the rule of Adam?

Quote
To Dan-Romania: this is the list of possible datings of Creation by the Church Fathers and the official Ecclesiastical Calendars of the early centuries. You will see a great variety of possible dates spanning from c. 8000 to c. 4000 years before Christ. I'll try and give the reasons offered by the Fathers for that dating, when possible.

8000---6000 BCE - Origen gives a date under 10000 years before his time, with no clearer specifications.
5537 BCE - Julius Africanus. He reconstructed a chronology from the LXX.
5529 BCE - Theophilus of Antioch. He reconstructed a chronology from the LXX
5508 BCE - Byzantine Creation Era, officially adopted by the Empire. The Church followed this system to date the Quinisext Council.
5507 BCE - Chronicon Paschale, an ancestor of the Byzantine Creation Era, created in the 7th century CE.
5500 BCE - Hippolitus of Rome - He uses an allegorical interpretation of Christs death in the "sixth hour", as meaning during the 6th millennium of humanity.
5493 BCE - Alexandrian Era, also adopted by Maximus the Confessor and Theophanes the Confessor. Possibly based on an impossible 7 CE Christ birth.
5200 BCE - Eusebius of Caesaria, chronographer of the Church. His dating of creation was also used by the RCC at least up to Dante Alighieri's time.
5000 BCE - John Chrysostom says that Paradise was closed to man for "some 5000 years"
3952 BCE - Venerable Bede, 725 CE

thank you for this helpful list. I would assume the Venerable Bede's calculation is traced back to the Hebrew rather than the Septuagint. This demonstrates that the Church looked to Scripture for its age of the earth rather than secular science. It also demonstrates that the Church cared about the age of the earth, although most people today would argue that it doesn't matter. for some reason it mattered to the early Church.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1381 on: September 13, 2009, 02:59:23 PM »

i have done nothing more than present the teachings of Church authorities and you have said whoop-de-doo to them. you ignore them at every turn, even that Ecumenical canon, even though you say you will only listen to an Ecumenical statement!
You just don't get it.  I said whoop-dee-doo to YOU.  I ignore--er, argue with--YOU at every turn.  I have defended myself by saying I do not accept YOUR authority on this matter.  When will you take my words at face value and recognize this is all about YOU?

Seeing that I have failed to help you see the REAL issue here, I fear that I must bow out and truly ignore you (except as I may need to exercise any moderatorial authority on this thread), since you have thus far been too pig-headed to recognize the REAL problem with your arguments.

your exact quote is: "30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth."

you whoop-dee-dooed the 30 Fathers. to you the fact that 30 preeminent Fathers teach as with one voice apparently means nothing. if i am really fabricating a false concensus then you should offer alternative explanations from within the Church, or perhaps address the actual quotes rather than downplaying 2000 yrs of a consistent teaching.

your problem is with my method, yes i get that. the problem is that my method is to say, here look at what the Church has to say. there is absolutely no reason why that should be a problem for any Orthodox Christian, unless he wants to ignore what the Church has to say. so implicitly you have a problem with me clinging to the Church's authority rather than that of modern science.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1382 on: September 13, 2009, 04:40:40 PM »

i have done nothing more than present the teachings of Church authorities and you have said whoop-de-doo to them. you ignore them at every turn, even that Ecumenical canon, even though you say you will only listen to an Ecumenical statement!
You just don't get it.  I said whoop-dee-doo to YOU.  I ignore--er, argue with--YOU at every turn.  I have defended myself by saying I do not accept YOUR authority on this matter.  When will you take my words at face value and recognize this is all about YOU?

Seeing that I have failed to help you see the REAL issue here, I fear that I must bow out and truly ignore you (except as I may need to exercise any moderatorial authority on this thread), since you have thus far been too pig-headed to recognize the REAL problem with your arguments.

your exact quote is: "30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth."

you whoop-dee-dooed the 30 Fathers. to you the fact that 30 preeminent Fathers teach as with one voice apparently means nothing. if i am really fabricating a false concensus then you should offer alternative explanations from within the Church, or perhaps address the actual quotes rather than downplaying 2000 yrs of a consistent teaching.

your problem is with my method, yes i get that. the problem is that my method is to say, here look at what the Church has to say. there is absolutely no reason why that should be a problem for any Orthodox Christian, unless he wants to ignore what the Church has to say. so implicitly you have a problem with me clinging to the Church's authority rather than that of modern science.
Obviously, none of the Fathers you quote are able to log on to this forum to defend themselves and explain their statements directly to us, without a mediator.  All we have, then, is your word on what they said.  Why should we trust you?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 04:45:59 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #1383 on: September 13, 2009, 10:45:58 PM »

i have done nothing more than present the teachings of Church authorities and you have said whoop-de-doo to them. you ignore them at every turn, even that Ecumenical canon, even though you say you will only listen to an Ecumenical statement!
You just don't get it.  I said whoop-dee-doo to YOU.  I ignore--er, argue with--YOU at every turn.  I have defended myself by saying I do not accept YOUR authority on this matter.  When will you take my words at face value and recognize this is all about YOU?

Seeing that I have failed to help you see the REAL issue here, I fear that I must bow out and truly ignore you (except as I may need to exercise any moderatorial authority on this thread), since you have thus far been too pig-headed to recognize the REAL problem with your arguments.

your exact quote is: "30 Fathers...  Whoop-dee-doo! Roll Eyes  What does that prove, except that 30 Fathers agree with you, whatever that's worth."

you whoop-dee-dooed the 30 Fathers. to you the fact that 30 preeminent Fathers teach as with one voice apparently means nothing. if i am really fabricating a false concensus then you should offer alternative explanations from within the Church, or perhaps address the actual quotes rather than downplaying 2000 yrs of a consistent teaching.

your problem is with my method, yes i get that. the problem is that my method is to say, here look at what the Church has to say. there is absolutely no reason why that should be a problem for any Orthodox Christian, unless he wants to ignore what the Church has to say. so implicitly you have a problem with me clinging to the Church's authority rather than that of modern science.
Obviously, none of the Fathers you quote are able to log on to this forum to defend themselves and explain their statements directly to us, without a mediator.  All we have, then, is your word on what they said.  Why should we trust you?

bc im actually quoting them to you .... unless you think im lying about the quotes .... have you ever trusted an Orthodox person who taught you something about Orthodoxy based on what the Fathers taught? did you assume the person was lying or misquoting or something? seems you have a rather unnecessarily skeptical attitude about such things. (not that I'm claiming to be some great teacher, just not sure why you would question the quotes im providing you with ...)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2009, 10:48:26 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #1384 on: September 14, 2009, 06:44:55 AM »

As usual, we didn't understand each other, jckstraw72. I NEVER said that animals were created immortal. In the other thread I meant that Adam's body was created physically mortal but made immortal by grace. Animals, also formed as mortal creatures, were put under the authority of Adam when Adam named them. To me, this means animals became immortal at that time, or in better words, they finally fulfilled the purpose of God to have an incorruptible universe of which Adam was to be the guardian. This happened in Genesis 1-2. When the Fall occurred, Adam lost his immortality because of sin, and God expelled him from Eden so that he couldn't "become immortal in sin". Since Adam was now deprived of that grace which sustained him, animals under his authority couldn't benefit anymore of immortality, and not only they became immortal, but they also began to rule themselves under the principles of "jungle law": the strongest wins. This corruption of the original MODEL God wanted to create is what we can see nowadays, with carnivor animals attacking humans for food, and preying herbivors.
My position also explains two things consistent with the progressive apparition of new species before humanity's appearance: The existence of carnivors before Adam is made compatible with the subordination of animals to Adam and the inexistence, for a very brief period of time, of any trace of their vegetarian period. It is self-evident that tigers or t-rex were physiological created for a carnivorous diet. If God created them this way, then their characteristics must have been in the intentions of God. If you think that these animals weren't created like this then you must explain why we don't have traces of vegetarian tigers in the past, and how this change could happen without a super-rapid biological evolution within a period of 5500 years from Adam to Christ.
I also don't think that an immortal Adam could be per se contrary to evolution. One can believe in evolution, and state that Adam was conceived by a humanoid endowed with immortality and an internal human spirit; yet the matter coming from the mother will be a product of biological evolution (I don't subscribe myself to this opinion, since I believe in a special creation of man, yet this is nevertheless consistent with the evolutionary model and doesn't affect theology).

 the only thing i would ask is is there any Church evidence that death reigned in animals before they came under the rule of Adam?

I don`t think that it was , it says in Genesis that after God made Adam , He bring forth all the animals to Adam so that he would name them.It also says after he made Adam , He said that He will give Adam power to rule over all animals , and in the next verse He says : I will give the grass as food for the animals.Again in Genesis 2 it says , "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,". By saying in the day God made the earth it unites all creation in one, bringing the whole creation together as one.If there would have been so much time between the creation of the animals or beast and the creation of man,Adam, than God would have provide a source of food for the animals and beast before Adam, but in Genesis 1:28-30 says that God gave the humans and the animals the source of food at the same time in the 6th day, even if animals were created from the 4th day.In Genesis 2:19-20 it says that God bringeth forward all the animals to Adam to see how he will name them.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1385 on: September 14, 2009, 07:31:33 AM »

Your statement, Dan-Romania, sounds really strange. Did God let land animals starve for an entire day before he decided their diet? On the contrary, the same result could be achieved if you might see that those herbs are established/ reserved explicitly as the base of the elementary chain for animals (which is true), and that humans ordinarily don't eat grass, but were adapt to eat fruits also. Technically, I think there might be thousands of different explanations to this passage, and we could never find one which is more proper.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1386 on: October 02, 2009, 10:09:17 AM »

Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy

Quote
QUOTE:
"WASHINGTON – The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about "Ardi," a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

This older skeleton reverses the common wisdom of human evolution, said anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University.

Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor — but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," said Tim White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

The lines that evolved into modern humans and living apes probably shared an ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago, White said in a telephone interview.

But Ardi has many traits that do not appear in modern-day African apes, leading to the conclusion that the apes evolved extensively since we shared that last common ancestor.

A study of Ardi, under way since the first bones were discovered in 1994, indicates the species lived in the woodlands and could climb on all fours along tree branches, but the development of their arms and legs indicates they didn't spend much time in the trees. And they could walk upright, on two legs, when on the ground.

To read the rest, please visit the link. I wonder what all the people who were so sure and certain that we evolved directly from Apes or chimps are gonna say now? This person is saying both chimps and humans came from a common ancestor, but we evolved separately.  Yet, some on this board thought that such and such was a fact and as certain as gravity.


What they need to do is stop forcing speculation down our throughts in school! They need to be honest about the assumptions made, that way, there will be no need to keep changing ones mind every 5 to 10 years.
Just think of all the liberal secular people who died believing in the myth/fantasy/fairy tale that Lucy was the oldest, and that mankind came from Kenya, and evolved directly from Apes.

The truth is, as long as they keep assuming/speculating, then there will "ALWAYS" be room for error! Who knows, maybe 10 years from now, they may find older bones somewhere in China or Iran, and they will have to change the story again.

I remember when I was a kid, they said a super volcano destroyed the dinosaurs, now they are saying it was an astroid, 10 years from now, they may say it was some super solar flare or some mega cosmic ray or something.......anything and everything but the flood.

The truth is, they really don't know, and as long as there is room for "speculation", then there will always be "room" for error.










ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 10:26:22 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1387 on: October 02, 2009, 10:31:36 AM »


The truth is, as long as they keep assuming/speculating, then there will "ALWAYS" be room for error! Who knows, maybe 10 years from now, they may find older bones somewhere in China or Iran, and they will have to change the story again.


So, what's wrong with that?

The nature of the human knowledge is hypothetical.

People advance hypotheses, or, plainly put, GUESS about things. Then some guesses turn out to be plain wrong, and are fogotten. Other guesses receive some factual support and are held as "working hypotheses," or scientific theories for a while, to be later changed by newer theories. That's ALL there is to science. There are no revelations, no dogmas. No "knowledge" if under knowledge you understand something final, something that will reveal the whole truth and will never change.

But it is because of this hypothetical nature of the human knowledge that we now have electric bulbs, computers, spaceships, insulin for diabetics, Zoloft for clinically depressed, chlorine in tap water, life expectancy of 70 or higher, refrigerators, wildlife refuges, movements aiming to save the endangered species...

The truth is, they really don't know, and as long as there is room for "speculation", then there will always be "room" for error.

Of course! But that's good... We learn from errors. 

« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 10:31:55 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1388 on: October 02, 2009, 10:50:53 AM »

People advance hypotheses, or, plainly put, GUESS about things. Then some guesses turn out to be plain wrong, and are fogotten. Other guesses receive some factual support and are held as "working hypotheses," or scientific theories for a while, to be later changed by newer theories. That's ALL there is to science. There are no revelations, no dogmas. No "knowledge" if under knowledge you understand something final, something that will reveal the whole truth and will never change.


that's entirely true.  I think part of the "problem" is that hypotheses are often exhibit as fact long before they are proven or disproven, especially by the media at large which does not understand science, at all.  Also, you can't tell me that the hypothesis of so-called "global warming" has not been presented as fact (eg "dogma") by both scientists that believe it to be true and the media.  We rarely, if ever, hear about the growing dissent amongst climatologists, meteorologists and the like as the the veracity of this particular hypothesis.

This is not a "modern" phenomenon, either, but as old as newspapers.  It's quite saddening.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1389 on: October 02, 2009, 11:03:58 AM »


The truth is, as long as they keep assuming/speculating, then there will "ALWAYS" be room for error! Who knows, maybe 10 years from now, they may find older bones somewhere in China or Iran, and they will have to change the story again.


So, what's wrong with that?

The nature of the human knowledge is hypothetical.

People advance hypotheses, or, plainly put, GUESS about things. Then some guesses turn out to be plain wrong, and are fogotten. Other guesses receive some factual support and are held as "working hypotheses," or scientific theories for a while, to be later changed by newer theories. That's ALL there is to science. There are no revelations, no dogmas. No "knowledge" if under knowledge you understand something final, something that will reveal the whole truth and will never change.

But it is because of this hypothetical nature of the human knowledge that we now have electric bulbs, computers, spaceships, insulin for diabetics, Zoloft for clinically depressed, chlorine in tap water, life expectancy of 70 or higher, refrigerators, wildlife refuges, movements aiming to save the endangered species...

The truth is, they really don't know, and as long as there is room for "speculation", then there will always be "room" for error.

Of course! But that's good... We learn from errors. 



While I don't buy the exaggerated anti-science attitude of jnorm88 (but that's just because it's an ordinary thing to find older and older fossils in the geological column), I am not so sure of the certainty of the speculations of scientists. The fact that these speculations are often proven wrong, and the new conclusions can also be disproved later, clearly indicates how science "doesn't learn from errors". Scientists should study what is certain (physics, biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy) in the light of what the universe IS today, and not of what the universe WAS in the past. Many absolute certainties of the past on the previous history of our universe have fallen under scrutiny and have been disproved over time, nevertheless the new majority theory is always treated as if it were a "sure" quasi-mathematical conclusion.
This is especially true when we give a look at the study of paleontology and cosmogony. Just a century ago, in Einstein's time, there was a solid belief in a stationary universe. The same Einstein introduced a cosmological constant in his relativistic theory (the worst error in his life, as he called it) to justify a stationary cosmos. Then, the Big Bang theory became official, but science nowadays is debating the date, the ways, and even the reality of the Big Bang event itself. There are such incongruences in the BB model that can't be overcome at the moment, but even if this theory is "in crisis", all science books and documentaries put the Big Bang as a certainty, a sort of reveal truth from "God Science". The same problem was the conviction, perpetrated for decades, that Archaeopterix was the ancestor of all birds, while older proto-birds are now generally recognized this title.
So what's the problem? It's that science works by hypothesis and speculation but proposes all discoveries as definitive truths, time after time, until a new theory will replace it as another "truth". Maybe scientists should stop using expressions such as "X years ago the world was thus" and replace them with "It is speculated/it is a general opinion of the scientific community that X years ago the world was thus". That would make science maybe a little less credible, but surely more humble in its approach to the world.

In Christ,  Alex

PS: Are you so sure that humans can learn from errors? I could give you a billion contrary examples!
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1390 on: October 02, 2009, 11:04:46 AM »

People advance hypotheses, or, plainly put, GUESS about things. Then some guesses turn out to be plain wrong, and are fogotten. Other guesses receive some factual support and are held as "working hypotheses," or scientific theories for a while, to be later changed by newer theories. That's ALL there is to science. There are no revelations, no dogmas. No "knowledge" if under knowledge you understand something final, something that will reveal the whole truth and will never change.


that's entirely true.  I think part of the "problem" is that hypotheses are often exhibit as fact long before they are proven or disproven, especially by the media at large which does not understand science, at all.  Also, you can't tell me that the hypothesis of so-called "global warming" has not been presented as fact (eg "dogma") by both scientists that believe it to be true and the media.  We rarely, if ever, hear about the growing dissent amongst climatologists, meteorologists and the like as the the veracity of this particular hypothesis.

This is not a "modern" phenomenon, either, but as old as newspapers.  It's quite saddening.

Oops... didn't see that your answer is almost like mine, and that I wasted my time: I wrote thrice as you for the same concept!!!
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1391 on: October 02, 2009, 11:10:12 AM »


The truth is, as long as they keep assuming/speculating, then there will "ALWAYS" be room for error! Who knows, maybe 10 years from now, they may find older bones somewhere in China or Iran, and they will have to change the story again.


So, what's wrong with that?

The nature of the human knowledge is hypothetical.

People advance hypotheses, or, plainly put, GUESS about things. Then some guesses turn out to be plain wrong, and are fogotten. Other guesses receive some factual support and are held as "working hypotheses," or scientific theories for a while, to be later changed by newer theories. That's ALL there is to science. There are no revelations, no dogmas. No "knowledge" if under knowledge you understand something final, something that will reveal the whole truth and will never change.

But it is because of this hypothetical nature of the human knowledge that we now have electric bulbs, computers, spaceships, insulin for diabetics, Zoloft for clinically depressed, chlorine in tap water, life expectancy of 70 or higher, refrigerators, wildlife refuges, movements aiming to save the endangered species...

The truth is, they really don't know, and as long as there is room for "speculation", then there will always be "room" for error.

Of course! But that's good... We learn from errors.



What's wrong is how it is presented to us in school, in the books, and the History channel, PBS, and other liberal TV channels. Few of them are honest when it comes to calling it a "theory". They want to push it down our throat as a "fact". But when news like this comes out, then it turns their so called unquestionable "fact" into a "myth".

This is the problem. They want to push things down our throats as "facts", when it's really not. Yeah, I will embrace the evidence, but don't overstate the evidence, but this is what tends to happen when such things are tought to the public at large, it tends to get exaggerated.

So it's not that I don't trust science, I just don't trust certain people and school books, and tv channels when it comes to the indoctrination of this stuff. And this is why I try to by pass them and figure out how we know what we know. If they were honest, then more people like myself would trust them, but after being told that something was a fact "more than once", only to see it change into a "myth" within my own lifetime, causes me to question "what we really know".

We should be honest about what we teach and tell the public. If we are speculating, then we should make that known to the public......I tend to think "pride" gets in the way, for who wants to admit they are "speculating"? It takes a humble soul to admit such a thing.


When Lucy was tought to us in school, they should of told us that "at this point in time" she is the oldest such and such found......etc. And when 'talking about darwinian evolution in regards to humans, they should of said, "at this point in time, we think we came directly from Apes or the Chimpanzee.......etc"

This is what they should of said instead of making such things as "facts", because in my mind, "facts" are "unchangable". So they have to be careful about what they are calling "facts". They have to make a distinction between the knowledge that won't change, from the knowledge that may change.

If science is suppose to be about facts building upon facts until we know everything there is to know about the Universe, then you can't have this chaos of changing the foundation of a previous view, that we have today.........and this happens often.......so I'm like, ok, what can we really know? What can we really know that won't change? I'm getting old, and I want more stability..........I am tired of ideas being forced down my throat only to be discarded for another idea that will be forced down my throat.......just be honest and leave my throat alone..........that's all I want. I want stability.....we have more stability when it comes to other forms of science like engineering......etc.


Also, I consider the science of "electric bulbs", "computers", and "spaceships" as totally different from the science of "origins" and stuff like that.......to me, one is a "hard science" (mostly facts with few assumptions), while the other is a "soft science"(mostly assumptions with few facts)

So in my mind, there is a huge difference between the science of making cars and cell phones from the more narrative drivin sciences.







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 11:22:09 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1392 on: October 02, 2009, 11:20:04 AM »

The problem with science is this:



Science is merely the attempt to explain the natural world around us.  Our scientific forefathers used philosophy, whether through abstract or "empirical", to do this.  As our knowledge grew, technology advanced, as have our questions about the world around us and the means through which we go about trying to unravel the nature of the cosmos.  Science is always progressing towards what we have the capability of proving as "true" (which often requires certain hypotheses and assumptions), and it will keep progressing as such, as computers grow stronger, space travel grows longer, etc.  Personally, I would weep for the day that science grew stagnant.  It would be the day our inquisitive nature died.

Personally I am waiting to read from some of the first hand documents.  Not because I "fear" change, but so I can understand it better and build upon it.  You are acting like this "change" hurts science.  All it will do is learn from this and move forward.  This might be a great day for science, not some proof of its faults.

Also:

Quote
science of making cars and cell phones

I don't want to be too picky, but that is more engineering, rather than "science".
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,181


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #1393 on: October 02, 2009, 11:26:34 AM »

I wonder what all the people who were so sure and certain that we evolved directly from Apes or chimps are gonna say now?

Yaaawwwwwwn.   Roll Eyes  No one ever said that we evolved directly from "apes" or "chimps."  Evolutionary theory posits that we share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we evolved from them.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 11:29:41 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1394 on: October 02, 2009, 11:27:06 AM »

Engineering is a science. All forms of Engineering are derivatives of Physics.


Infact, Engineering is called a "Hard Science", whereas other forms of sciences are called "Soft Sciences".

To me, Engineering is real Science.......about as real as you can get.











ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: October 02, 2009, 11:28:14 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   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 0.225 seconds with 74 queries.