OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 01:44:12 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 332036 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1845 on: January 30, 2010, 08:28:40 PM »

Depends on what your definition of "just as likely" is. Tongue 
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
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,076


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #1846 on: January 30, 2010, 08:43:24 PM »

Depends on what your definition of "just as likely" is. Tongue  

Oh okay...  There is no firm evidence that advanced life exists on other planets. It turns out that many disparate details all have to be present for life to arise. Even more variables need to be in place for that life to be at least as intelligent as us... The odds are far shorter than scientists had  assumed in the past.
On the other hand, evidence of  the existence of other dimensions of existence has steadily increased.

The Christian understanding is that there are other realms of existence. We believe that life exists there.    
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 08:44:39 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1847 on: January 30, 2010, 09:29:33 PM »


Death is in no way a natural occurance... I think all Orthodox would even agree to that.

Not exactly. I would say that it is natural in the sense of what humanity is naturally subject to in and of itself, but not natural in the sense of what God intends for humanity. Some think that humanity was not naturally subject to corruption before the Fall and that the Fall corrupted our very nature. Others have taught (such as Severus of Antioch) that corruption/death was a logical result of our limited nature as human beings but that God intended for us to supersede what we are naturally inclined to by His sanctifying grace. Corruption entered into our world because we rejected a life of unity with God and thus lost the sanctifying grace that would have prevented us from dying (we were not able to eat from the Tree of Life because we disobediently ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). This latter school of thought is what I personally adhere to, and thus why it could be appropriate to say that death is not natural in one respect and also that it is natural in another.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1848 on: January 30, 2010, 09:32:33 PM »


When we say that death isn't natural, it typically means that man's soul being torn from his body was never meant to happen.

It isn't what was meant to happen. But it is what we are naturally inclined to in and of ourselves.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #1849 on: January 30, 2010, 09:34:07 PM »

Others have taught (such as Severus of Antioch) that corruption/death was a logical result of our limited nature as human beings but that God intended for us to supersede what we are naturally inclined to by His sanctifying grace. Corruption entered into our world because we rejected a life of unity with God and thus lost the sanctifying grace that would have prevented us from dying (we were not able to eat from the Tree of Life because we disobediently ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). This latter school of thought is what I personally adhere to, and thus why it could be appropriate to say that death is not natural in one respect and also that it is natural in another.

This is more or less my understanding of the issue too.
Logged
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #1850 on: February 02, 2010, 11:23:46 AM »

The bishop's video was nice. Good to know that such people belong to the clergy.

So, you believe that there was a literal Eden where death did not occur sometime during the history of the Earth?  And outside of that, death has been a natural occurrence?
Yes, but it was only God's Rest, not the reformed world (the "8th Day").

Quote
Just look at Roman Catholics who think the Immaculate Conception refers to the the conception of Christ.
Haha, I love it when the atheists are doing it even more! It gives them a chance to see their theological ignorance.

The doctrine deusveritasest is talking about above is walking in hands with the one I'm following too. Only Adam & Eve were placed initially to live within God's Grace. The rest of humans (who were made long before the couple) were destined to follow God on their own.

Maybe we should rephrase this to 'no Christian should ever accept that God's intentions were to create us and let us be forever mortals'.
(Can we please use this for an anathema at the next council? I don't mind not getting the credit, but it'll be fun! Cheesy)
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1851 on: February 08, 2010, 04:09:31 PM »

The bishop's video was nice. Good to know that such people belong to the clergy.

So, you believe that there was a literal Eden where death did not occur sometime during the history of the Earth?  And outside of that, death has been a natural occurrence?
Yes, but it was only God's Rest, not the reformed world (the "8th Day").

Quote
Just look at Roman Catholics who think the Immaculate Conception refers to the the conception of Christ.
Haha, I love it when the atheists are doing it even more! It gives them a chance to see their theological ignorance.

The doctrine deusveritasest is talking about above is walking in hands with the one I'm following too. Only Adam & Eve were placed initially to live within God's Grace. The rest of humans (who were made long before the couple) were destined to follow God on their own.

Maybe we should rephrase this to 'no Christian should ever accept that God's intentions were to create us and let us be forever mortals'.
(Can we please use this for an anathema at the next council? I don't mind not getting the credit, but it'll be fun! Cheesy)

1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1852 on: February 08, 2010, 05:18:23 PM »

Death is in no way a natural occurance... I think all Orthodox would even agree to that.
Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Theologically, in evolution which could have profound implication upon orthodoxy you have death before sin, death before Adam.
Death is not only physical but spiritual.
If you're orthodox and believe that the two views are compatible, you have death before sin, which adam brought. and also you have God creating death (animal from latin anima meaning soul, and -al) before Adam.
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1853 on: February 08, 2010, 05:22:08 PM »

ζῷον animal, or beast  from greek Zoe meaning life:
and Animal from Latin anima meaning soul.
So in the Bible Animals clearly were alive, or had souls (according to the latin).
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1854 on: February 08, 2010, 05:29:00 PM »

Pro 12:10  A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Animals have life,to whom man brought death.
1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

any scientist will tell you that animals are living beings, but the Bible says by man came death, which evolution doesn't believe: I don't even know their answer as to why we have death.

and God didn't create death.
Wis 1:13  For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1855 on: February 08, 2010, 06:09:00 PM »

any scientist will tell you that animals are living beings, but the Bible says by man came death, which evolution doesn't believe: I don't even know their answer as to why we have death.

The inability of cells to function or reproduce due to genetic mutation or environmental factors (ionizing radiation, lack of oxygen, etc.), perhaps?

I would be most interested in hearing a detailed explanation of your theory from the perspective of cell biology. Not to mention the bio-physics of how pre-fall cells would be able to survive everything from the gravitational field inside a quantum singularity to energy levels capable of turning the atoms in the cell into plasma. After all, you said we were immortal, flying inside the event horizon of a black hole or to the center of an active star should have no effect...I'm just asking you to flesh out the details of your theory.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1856 on: February 08, 2010, 07:38:03 PM »


1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.

Do you also believe God was "walking" around in the Garden of Eden? How did God walk without a body? In fact, how can there have been a first day, (equaling a 24 hour period) before the sun was even created? (hence no 24 hour period)

You seem determined to "prove" Genesis' creation account is literal and that to deny it is "heresy". (first WHY? You claim the use of Latin etc often, are you a Roman Catholic? The RCC has said evolution is not contradictory to it's faith)

What I really wonder is a few questions if you don't mind.

1.) taking the position you do, just what do you do with the myriads of scientific evidence, in dozens of independent fields that all draw identical conclusions independently of one another, and that these conclusions is that the earth is ancient, and that animals lived and died long before humans appeared?

2.) Do you simply ignore these massive amounts of evidence?

3.) Do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists across at least a dozen scientific fields are in on some "conspiracy" to trick everyone?

4.) Do you also deny scientific evidence that supports Biblical Christianity along with the evidence that doesn't?  Or do you only throw out the evidence that "disagrees with the Bible"? And if so, why are you the best authority on what does and doesn't agree with the Bible? After all many people used to say Africans and Europeans were different "races" (by that they meant race as in, whites were human beings, blacks were not) and they used the Bible to "prove it". We now know through science, genetics, DNA and particularly evolution that such an idea is mumbo jumbo. but there are a few people still around who believe it, reject the science that proves them wrong because it "disagrees with the bible"...(more accurately their intepretation of the bible) Don't believe me, just try Googling Sheppard's Chapel, you'll see they still exist.

So by what criteria do you decide which science is "true" and which isn't? Or do you reject all science? (at least that would be consistent, and yes I have a friend who does reject pretty much all science, and believes we can't know anything about anything, so I know those people exist)

lastly, did you get a flu shot? (maybe not, I haven't due to a severe egg allergy) But if you did, you're benefiting from evolutionary theory since it's that theory that gives us stuff like flu vaccines, antibiotics and other cool stuff like polio vaccines. Smiley

As far as Adam, death etc, perhaps, Adam and Eve were simply the first hominids endowed with a "living soul", (ie eternal soul), or sapience, and the death has to do with spiritual death...or perhaps any number of other interpretations of Genesis that go back to at least Origen, and arguably even to before the time of Christ. However every Christian believed the same thing about this story up until Darwin, then I'd probably agree with you. But considering the ancient church was open to interpretations, I don't see why it should be an issue now. But that's just me. maybe as you say, I'm believing heresy, if so, then so be it. At least I don't live in the 8th century when "heresy" could get me exiled to some island, or worse. Smiley





Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1857 on: February 09, 2010, 12:30:09 AM »


1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.

Do you also believe God was "walking" around in the Garden of Eden? How did God walk without a body? In fact, how can there have been a first day, (equaling a 24 hour period) before the sun was even created? (hence no 24 hour period)

You seem determined to "prove" Genesis' creation account is literal and that to deny it is "heresy". (first WHY? You claim the use of Latin etc often, are you a Roman Catholic? The RCC has said evolution is not contradictory to it's faith)

What I really wonder is a few questions if you don't mind.

1.) taking the position you do, just what do you do with the myriads of scientific evidence, in dozens of independent fields that all draw identical conclusions independently of one another, and that these conclusions is that the earth is ancient, and that animals lived and died long before humans appeared?

2.) Do you simply ignore these massive amounts of evidence?

3.) Do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists across at least a dozen scientific fields are in on some "conspiracy" to trick everyone?

4.) Do you also deny scientific evidence that supports Biblical Christianity along with the evidence that doesn't?  Or do you only throw out the evidence that "disagrees with the Bible"? And if so, why are you the best authority on what does and doesn't agree with the Bible? After all many people used to say Africans and Europeans were different "races" (by that they meant race as in, whites were human beings, blacks were not) and they used the Bible to "prove it". We now know through science, genetics, DNA and particularly evolution that such an idea is mumbo jumbo. but there are a few people still around who believe it, reject the science that proves them wrong because it "disagrees with the bible"...(more accurately their intepretation of the bible) Don't believe me, just try Googling Sheppard's Chapel, you'll see they still exist.

So by what criteria do you decide which science is "true" and which isn't? Or do you reject all science? (at least that would be consistent, and yes I have a friend who does reject pretty much all science, and believes we can't know anything about anything, so I know those people exist)

lastly, did you get a flu shot? (maybe not, I haven't due to a severe egg allergy) But if you did, you're benefiting from evolutionary theory since it's that theory that gives us stuff like flu vaccines, antibiotics and other cool stuff like polio vaccines. Smiley

As far as Adam, death etc, perhaps, Adam and Eve were simply the first hominids endowed with a "living soul", (ie eternal soul), or sapience, and the death has to do with spiritual death...or perhaps any number of other interpretations of Genesis that go back to at least Origen, and arguably even to before the time of Christ. However every Christian believed the same thing about this story up until Darwin, then I'd probably agree with you. But considering the ancient church was open to interpretations, I don't see why it should be an issue now. But that's just me. maybe as you say, I'm believing heresy, if so, then so be it. At least I don't live in the 8th century when "heresy" could get me exiled to some island, or worse. Smiley






It's called the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution, and also not all scientists believe in evolution.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1858 on: February 09, 2010, 12:40:25 AM »


1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.

Do you also believe God was "walking" around in the Garden of Eden? How did God walk without a body? In fact, how can there have been a first day, (equaling a 24 hour period) before the sun was even created? (hence no 24 hour period)

You seem determined to "prove" Genesis' creation account is literal and that to deny it is "heresy". (first WHY? You claim the use of Latin etc often, are you a Roman Catholic? The RCC has said evolution is not contradictory to it's faith)

What I really wonder is a few questions if you don't mind.

1.) taking the position you do, just what do you do with the myriads of scientific evidence, in dozens of independent fields that all draw identical conclusions independently of one another, and that these conclusions is that the earth is ancient, and that animals lived and died long before humans appeared?

2.) Do you simply ignore these massive amounts of evidence?

3.) Do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists across at least a dozen scientific fields are in on some "conspiracy" to trick everyone?

4.) Do you also deny scientific evidence that supports Biblical Christianity along with the evidence that doesn't?  Or do you only throw out the evidence that "disagrees with the Bible"? And if so, why are you the best authority on what does and doesn't agree with the Bible? After all many people used to say Africans and Europeans were different "races" (by that they meant race as in, whites were human beings, blacks were not) and they used the Bible to "prove it". We now know through science, genetics, DNA and particularly evolution that such an idea is mumbo jumbo. but there are a few people still around who believe it, reject the science that proves them wrong because it "disagrees with the bible"...(more accurately their intepretation of the bible) Don't believe me, just try Googling Sheppard's Chapel, you'll see they still exist.

So by what criteria do you decide which science is "true" and which isn't? Or do you reject all science? (at least that would be consistent, and yes I have a friend who does reject pretty much all science, and believes we can't know anything about anything, so I know those people exist)

lastly, did you get a flu shot? (maybe not, I haven't due to a severe egg allergy) But if you did, you're benefiting from evolutionary theory since it's that theory that gives us stuff like flu vaccines, antibiotics and other cool stuff like polio vaccines. Smiley

As far as Adam, death etc, perhaps, Adam and Eve were simply the first hominids endowed with a "living soul", (ie eternal soul), or sapience, and the death has to do with spiritual death...or perhaps any number of other interpretations of Genesis that go back to at least Origen, and arguably even to before the time of Christ. However every Christian believed the same thing about this story up until Darwin, then I'd probably agree with you. But considering the ancient church was open to interpretations, I don't see why it should be an issue now. But that's just me. maybe as you say, I'm believing heresy, if so, then so be it. At least I don't live in the 8th century when "heresy" could get me exiled to some island, or worse. Smiley






It's called the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution, and also not all scientists believe in evolution.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs. 

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 12:43:25 AM by Riddikulus » 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)
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1859 on: February 09, 2010, 12:43:07 AM »

http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html
By Father Seraphim Rose.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1860 on: February 09, 2010, 12:49:03 AM »

Proof that those who lack an elementary understanding of science should not write about it, especially when they foolishly attempt to do so with any sort of authority on the matter.
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
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1861 on: February 09, 2010, 01:09:05 AM »

Proof that those who lack an elementary understanding of science should not write about it, especially when they foolishly attempt to do so with any sort of authority on the matter.
Christians are not ignorant of Science. It's like a stereotype to say that all Christians are ignorant of science, and like to burn all heretics, and call crusades on Muslims, burn witches etc.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, and many others.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1862 on: February 09, 2010, 01:16:50 AM »

Christians are not ignorant of Science. It's like a stereotype to say that all Christians are ignorant of science, and like to burn all heretics, and call crusades on Muslims, burn witches etc.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, and many others.
I didn't say all Christians are ignorant of Science.  All I said that it is evident that the authors of those articles are.

Also, it isn't hard to make an argument against the orthodoxy of Newton's Christianity.
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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1863 on: February 09, 2010, 01:28:56 AM »

Proof that those who lack an elementary understanding of science should not write about it, especially when they foolishly attempt to do so with any sort of authority on the matter.
Christians are not ignorant of Science. It's like a stereotype to say that all Christians are ignorant of science, and like to burn all heretics, and call crusades on Muslims, burn witches etc.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, and many others.

You are right; not all Christians are ignorant of science, and I don't think that Nebelpfade was suggesting any such thing.

Here's a list of articles and books by those Orthodox Christians who have accepted and written or spoken on the theory of evolution. I've added the urls where I was able, for the rest you will have to go to http://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution.

Woloschak, Gayle, Beauty and Unity in Creation: The evolution of life. (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1996) — Primer on the relationship between evolutionary biology and Orthodoxy by a scientist. ISBN 1880971275  

Boojamra, Dr. John, "The Orthodox Idea of Creation" The Word, June 1999, pp.31-34 An overview of Orthodox cosmology, intended for teachers and youth leaders as a background for discussion of various educational segments related to creation. Concise and useful for a general understanding of Orthodox cosmology.

Breck, Archpriest John V. "Ex Nihilo" Life in Christ, February 2008 #1. http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=148&MONTH=February&YEAR=2008

Fritts, Kevin Basil, "On the Dogma of Creation" The author is a contributor to this OrthodoxWiki article. http://blog.kevinbasil.com/on-the-dogma-of-creation/

Hallam, Fr. Gregory, "Orthodoxy and Creationism" http://antiochabouna.blogspot.com/2006/02/orthodoxy-and-creationism.html

Kalomiros, Dr. Alexandre, "The Six Dawns" http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/sixdawn1.htm

Kuraev, Fr. Deacon Andrey, "Can an Orthodox Become an Evolutionist?" http://www.hvmla.org/library/evolution.html

Kuraev, Fr. Deacon Andrey, "Orthodoxy and Creationism" http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/ort_creation.htm

Maletis, John P., "Let There Be Light: An Orthodox Christian Theory of Human Evolution for the 21st Century". Theandros Vol. 5 No. 3. http://www.theandros.com/protozoe.html

Metallinos, V. Rev. Prof. Dr. George, "Faith and Science in Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology" Very briefly mentions evolution, but overall states the traditional Orthodox position of separation between divine and earthly knowledge.

Mileant, Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires and South America (ROCOR). The Origins of the World and Mankind: An Attempt to Reconcile the Biblical Account with Scientific
Discoveries. Transl. by Karyn and Michael Grigoriev. Ed. by Natalia Semyanko. Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission, La Canada, California, 2004.
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/metallinos_faith_and_science.htm

Nicozisin, Fr. George, "Creationism versus Evolution" http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm

Smith, Allyne, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., Edward Hughes, and J. Henry, "Orthodoxy", in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition (2000): 268-273.

Theokritoff, George, with Elizabeth Theokritoff, "Genesis and Creation: Towards a debate" (PDF) — Review of Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Volume 46, Number 2 (2002). George Theokritoff is a paleontologist and Elizabeth is a theological scholar, author and editor of The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology (ISBN 0521683388).

Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos, "Orthodoxy and Evolution", video: answer to a question asked in a forum at Seattle Pacific University.

« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 01:31:27 AM by Riddikulus » 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)
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1864 on: February 09, 2010, 12:48:17 PM »



It's called the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution,

OK, a few points. First, it is not the "theory of evolution", as in "an idea that might or might not be true, let's now go find out." That's not what "theory" is in science. for scientists a theory is in fact, a, well fact.

In the scientific world what you think of as a "theory" would in fact be known as a hypothesis. Evolution is not an hypothesis. When science uses the word theory they are using it in a very different way than we are. Which is in large part why there is so much misunderstanding about this issue. I used to believe in 6 literal day creationism, so believe it or not I know where you're coming from. I had a horrible misunderstanding of science, in large part because of the horrible scientific educational system in this country. (and I've come to recognize in part, that it's horrible because religious communities have been putting pressure on science educators for a good 30 years now)

It's only been in recent years that I've gotten back into my childhood love of science and the natural world. And I now see how terribly I misunderstood Evolution, and in fact I'm still learning more every day. So I really do sympathize with your position.  

With that said, let's clear a few things up. It's actually not "the theory of evolution", in it's shortage phrase it is more accurately titled "Evolutionary theory". Like Gravitational theory, Germ theory, Heliocentric theory etc...

Heliocentrism of the solar system is also a "theory"...Germ theory is also a "theory", do also you deny that the earth goes around the sun, and that there are such things as germs? Of course not! But they are "theories" none the less. Again it's the fact that science uses the term theory in one since, and us non scientists use it in a totally different since that causes so much confusion. For science, theory is NOT synonymous with hypothesis, and no scientist uses it as such, even though in common usage we tend to do so.



Quote
and also not all scientists believe in evolution.

No scientists "believe" in Evolution. Evolution simply is. Like Gravity. whether one "believes" in Gravity or not is irrelevant. Gravity still is a law of nature and just "is" whether I believe it or not.

However using the word "believe" in the since you mean, not all scientists "believe" the earth goes around the sun, or even that the earth is round. Of course these people are crackpots and are rightly laughed out of the scientific community or just ignored. Not because scientists aren't open to other opinions, but because some things are just wrong. If indeed Evolution were not true, some scientist somewhere would have produced the evidence for it long ago, and believe it or not, they would have been heralded as heroes of science, the next Einstein, or the next Darwin. Many scientists in Darwin's time didn't like his conclusions, but as time went on they accepted it because it was true.

Science is open to anyone who actually wants to go out and do the science like Darwin did, or like Einstein did, (who was unpopular at first as well, until everyone figured out he was actually correct) So indeed, if Evolution wasn't true, and those who denied it had any leg to stand on at all, they'd in fact be the next nobel prize winner, but the truth is no credible scientist denies Evolutionary theory. It's been prove over and over again, specifically in the lab. The very fact that we have concepts like antibiotic resistance is in fact PROOF of evolution, as the bacteria are evolving to become resistant to antibiotics. of course I suppose if one truly believed Germ theory was "just a theory" none of that would "prove" anything. which is why when I often see people not washing their hands after using the restroom, I wonder if in fact those people simply don't "believe" in germs or not. But I guess that's another, disgusting conversation isn't it? Wink



« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 12:48:35 PM by NorthernPines » Logged
NorthernPines
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 934



« Reply #1865 on: February 09, 2010, 01:23:08 PM »



Here's a list of articles and books by those Orthodox Christians who have accepted and written or spoken on the theory of evolution. I've added the urls where I was able, for the rest you will have to go to http://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution.



Great links.

To Christianus, I'd also add a few other names to the list, including Francis Collins, who mapped the human genome and headed the human genome project, who also happens to be an "Evolutionist", yet a devout Roman Catholic. http://www.genome.gov/10000779

And Ken Miller, a biologist and another Roman Catholic has a fantastic website with dozens of book suggestions.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/


Also Bob Bakker (the paleontologist with the long grey beard, who was a science advisor on the Jurassic Park movies) is also an "evolutionist", (obviously) and I just found out he's also a Protestant preacher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker#Religious_beliefs


For a defense of evolution from a non-theist I'd recommend Why Darwin Matters by Michael Shermer. He's pretty much the most respectful and cordial writer in the atheist/agnostic Community (at least of those who actually write about these subjects, and he seems like a guy anyone could go watch the Superbowl with).

 Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.


The reason I mentioned 2 non-theists along with the above Christians is to show that people from all different backgrounds, beliefs, cultures (one used to be a Christian, then became agnostic, another used to be an atheist then became a Christian) end up drawing the same scientific conclusions. While Dawkins probably has nothing in common with Bob bakker, they both agree on the truth/ fact of evolutionary theory. Why would they do this, if it wasn't true?  Not to mention they are in 2 different scientific fields, both drawing the exact same conclusions about life on earth totally independent of one another. It simply doesn't make sense that this would happen, unless the conclusions were in fact true. They I'm sure disagree spiritually, philosophically, culturally, and probably politically etc, but agree on this one subject?

The same goes for Dawkins and Ken Miller, both biologists. My point is the science is just the science. It is what it is, and what is true is what is true. Science does not challenge faith. Now many other things challenge faith, and have challenged my faith very severely recently. But science, to me, is simply not one of them. History is by far more challenging to my faith (and also it's biggest support) than science is.

Anyways, I recommend Ken Miller's page as a good starting point, and go from there.


Logged
Jimmy
Maronite
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Maronite Catholic
Posts: 203


« Reply #1866 on: February 09, 2010, 03:37:28 PM »


That is essentially the view of Maximus the Confessor as well.  Man is mortal according to his nature but he was meant for deification.


Death is in no way a natural occurance... I think all Orthodox would even agree to that.

Not exactly. I would say that it is natural in the sense of what humanity is naturally subject to in and of itself, but not natural in the sense of what God intends for humanity. Some think that humanity was not naturally subject to corruption before the Fall and that the Fall corrupted our very nature. Others have taught (such as Severus of Antioch) that corruption/death was a logical result of our limited nature as human beings but that God intended for us to supersede what we are naturally inclined to by His sanctifying grace. Corruption entered into our world because we rejected a life of unity with God and thus lost the sanctifying grace that would have prevented us from dying (we were not able to eat from the Tree of Life because we disobediently ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). This latter school of thought is what I personally adhere to, and thus why it could be appropriate to say that death is not natural in one respect and also that it is natural in another.

Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1867 on: February 09, 2010, 06:22:04 PM »

Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.
I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #1868 on: February 09, 2010, 06:26:18 PM »

Proof that those who lack an elementary understanding of science should not write about it, especially when they foolishly attempt to do so with any sort of authority on the matter.
Christians are not ignorant of Science. It's like a stereotype to say that all Christians are ignorant of science, and like to burn all heretics, and call crusades on Muslims, burn witches etc.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, and many others.

But SOME Christians were total ignoramuses in science - Fr. Seraphim Rose, may his memory be eternal, most definitely was...  Embarrassed
Logged

Love never fails.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1869 on: February 09, 2010, 06:54:08 PM »

Fr. Seraphim Rose was essentially right, but he borrowed too many arguments from fundamentalist creationism and wasn't able to articulate the more fundamental philosophical arguments as well.

There are genuinely Orthodox reasons for rejecting evolutionism and the ideology of modern science which have nothing to do with fundamentalist creationism. There is a much deeper philosophical incompatibility. I recommend everyone read Philip Sherrard's Human Image, World Image: The Death and Resurrection of Sacred Cosmology. The fact that some leading scientists also happen to be Christians is not really relevant- it just demonstrates their ability to compartmentalize and avoid putting 2 and 2 together. The dualist/ materialist methodology which is inherent to their field of work is anti-Christian.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1870 on: February 09, 2010, 07:00:55 PM »

Dawkin's new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" is probably going to be the new definitive defense for the evidence of evolution but some people might be opposed to it just because it's a book by Richard Dawkins. (I'm reading it now and it is truly amazing how much new evidence has been dug up in just the last couple of years) However Shermer shows how Evolution in no way affects religious belief, and is pretty good at just showing how science works, while Dawkins is somewhat more technical, and of course, comes across a bit harsh in his writing at times.
I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.

Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.
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
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1871 on: February 09, 2010, 07:01:19 PM »

I'd definitely recommend Dawkins' book; once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  It strikes a nice balance between readability and the technical nature of the material.  Obviously though, it is still a primer when it comes to evolution.  If you want to really dive into the theoretical aspects of natural selection, it is time to pick up some scientific journals.

I seem to recall having this conversation with someone before (perhaps even you?), but if I may ask again, how would you compare this new book by Dawkins with his older scientific material? I know many praise Dawkins for his ability to articulate complex ideas in a way that your average person on the street can understand, but frankly, when I tried to read The Blind Watchmaker I thought it was exceedingly dry.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 07:02:09 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1872 on: February 09, 2010, 07:51:07 PM »

Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.
One thing that I thought was particularly well done were the illustrations and full-colour photo pages.  So many science books these days have illustrations that look like I drew them, with my left hand, in MS Paint...

I seem to recall having this conversation with someone before (perhaps even you?), but if I may ask again, how would you compare this new book by Dawkins with his older scientific material? I know many praise Dawkins for his ability to articulate complex ideas in a way that your average person on the street can understand, but frankly, when I tried to read The Blind Watchmaker I thought it was exceedingly dry.
I'd say the language/material is less dry than The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, but not quite as "lively" as say Unweaving the Rainbow.  It even has a small non-fiction horror story attached at the end, called "The History-Deniers".  laugh
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
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1873 on: February 09, 2010, 08:42:24 PM »

Oh dear, another book to order! BTW, I got Thank God for Evolution and am about half way through.
One thing that I thought was particularly well done were the illustrations and full-colour photo pages.  So many science books these days have illustrations that look like I drew them, with my left hand, in MS Paint...

I've added it to my wishlist. Have you read, by chance, Living with Darwin, by Philip Kitcher? I bought it sometime ago and haven't read it yet.

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)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1874 on: February 10, 2010, 12:24:18 AM »

I've added it to my wishlist. Have you read, by chance, Living with Darwin, by Philip Kitcher? I bought it sometime ago and haven't read it yet.


Yup!  It was surprisingly good.  I'm always a fan of an author who spars with the ID crowd, but it was interesting to see the argument from a more philosophical side.  He also brings up a lot of interesting points surrounding religious naturalism vs. the current faith climate, and how evolution has become a favourite target by some due to fear of its possible implications on the supernatural.
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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1875 on: February 10, 2010, 12:39:33 AM »

In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."


"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."


"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  


"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."


"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."


"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."


"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."



-Father Seraphim Rose-



Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1876 on: February 10, 2010, 12:41:24 AM »

Fr. Seraphim Rose has spoken. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 12:41:59 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1877 on: February 10, 2010, 12:43:48 AM »

Proof that those who lack an elementary understanding of science should not write about it, especially when they foolishly attempt to do so with any sort of authority on the matter.
Christians are not ignorant of Science. It's like a stereotype to say that all Christians are ignorant of science, and like to burn all heretics, and call crusades on Muslims, burn witches etc.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, and many others.

But SOME Christians were total ignoramuses in science - Fr. Seraphim Rose, may his memory be eternal, most definitely was...  Embarrassed

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1878 on: February 10, 2010, 12:46:34 AM »

Fr. Seraphim Rose has spoken. Roll Eyes

And so have you. And respectfully, I choose to listen to Father Rose over the enlightened Asteriktos. Wink


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1879 on: February 10, 2010, 12:54:26 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1880 on: February 10, 2010, 01:01:26 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1881 on: February 10, 2010, 01:06:32 AM »

Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  angel
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1882 on: February 10, 2010, 01:23:15 AM »

Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  angel

And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 01:25:38 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1883 on: February 10, 2010, 01:23:51 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam

And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Get_Behind_Me_Satan
2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Julian Calender
Posts: 160



« Reply #1884 on: February 10, 2010, 01:26:28 AM »

I will give $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to whoever can explain to me how anything exists at all.
Logged

“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!
Get_Behind_Me_Satan
2Cor. 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Julian Calender
Posts: 160



« Reply #1885 on: February 10, 2010, 01:26:30 AM »

Depends on what your definition of "just as likely" is. Tongue  

Oh okay...  There is no firm evidence that advanced life exists on other planets. It turns out that many disparate details all have to be present for life to arise. Even more variables need to be in place for that life to be at least as intelligent as us... The odds are far shorter than scientists had  assumed in the past.
On the other hand, evidence of  the existence of other dimensions of existence has steadily increased.

The Christian understanding is that there are other realms of existence. We believe that life exists there.    

I know this is off topic, but your picture of conan deserves it, look at him:

http://hellwhenidie.ytmnd.com/

He is so awful. To think, I was 13 when I first saw this.

Its satans #1 song, he's telling everyone else to join the fire.

Its so ridiculous its not even funny, maybe when I was 13 it was.

I used to love watching his lunacy. He is very funny, but this is just wrong.
Logged

“The testimonies of the western teachers I neither recognize or accept. I surmise that they are corrupted.
There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

St Mark Of Ephesus, Doctor of the church. (True Church)

Down with ecumenism!
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1886 on: February 10, 2010, 01:31:13 AM »

I will give $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to whoever can explain to me how anything exists at all.
^ Which has absolutely zilch to do with evolution.  Tongue
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
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1887 on: February 10, 2010, 01:32:17 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam

And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #1888 on: February 10, 2010, 01:34:17 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam

And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam

How do you know the Earth is round, and not flat??
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,342

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #1889 on: February 10, 2010, 01:38:05 AM »

Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam

There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.

Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam

And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)

I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam

How do you know the Earth is round, and not flat??

It is a scientific fact.

1.  During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is
always round.  If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always
be circular (it could degenerate to a line!).  But this is never observed,
regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse.  Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote
about this.  The third point, below, is also credited to Aristotle.

2. Eratosthanes (276-195(?) BCE) did a famous experiment on measuring the
angle of the sun at noon in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Syrene.  Finding the
difference in the angles and knowing the distance between the two points,
the circumference can be calculated.  He calculated the circumference in
stadia, which we do not know the conversion to our present day measure.

3. If you travel north or south a signigicant distance, you will see a
different set of stars at night.  This will not happen on a flat surface.





Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
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 0.202 seconds with 74 queries.