OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 06:30:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
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 333322 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2205 on: November 18, 2010, 05:30:16 PM »

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?
Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction.
You've avoided the second part of my post.

Have you actually empirically verified the chemical principles that define and describe how sulfur behaves?  You've seen the electrons?  You've observed the protons and neutrons?

Have you emprically verified that the moon is not made of cheese? Have you emprically falsified that the universe was created by an ominoptent ant?



Selam

Exactly. You don't need to verify something in a test tube. If you can, that's good, but there are other forms of evidence. It is not a philosophy to say that the moon is made of rock; neither is evolution.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2206 on: November 18, 2010, 05:45:52 PM »

Have you emprically verified that the moon is not made of cheese?
Yes.  Several samples of moon material have definitively ruled out cheese as a component.
Quote
Have you emprically falsified that the universe was created by an ominoptent ant?
No.  Science, even at its ultimate best, has limits, and thus does not address things which are without limits, as your omnipotent insect would be.  The fact that you don't understand this is central to the fact that this discussion will, even after 49 pages, continue to go nowhere.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2207 on: November 18, 2010, 05:51:06 PM »

Have you emprically verified that the moon is not made of cheese?
Yes.  Several samples of moon material have definitively ruled out cheese as a component.
Quote
Have you emprically falsified that the universe was created by an ominoptent ant?
No.  Science, even at its ultimate best, has limits, and thus does not address things which are without limits, as your omnipotent insect would be.  The fact that you don't understand this is central to the fact that this discussion will, even after 49 pages, continue to go nowhere.
If the universe were made by an omnipotent ant, then how would we expect the universe to operate?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 05:51:23 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #2208 on: November 18, 2010, 05:52:16 PM »

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?
Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction.
You've avoided the second part of my post.

Have you actually empirically verified the chemical principles that define and describe how sulfur behaves?  You've seen the electrons?  You've observed the protons and neutrons?

Have you emprically verified that the moon is not made of cheese? Have you emprically falsified that the universe was created by an ominoptent ant?



Selam

Exactly. You don't need to verify something in a test tube. If you can, that's good, but there are other forms of evidence. It is not a philosophy to say that the moon is made of rock; neither is evolution.

So YOU have verified this yourself?

Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2209 on: November 18, 2010, 06:06:40 PM »

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?
Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction.
You've avoided the second part of my post.

Have you actually empirically verified the chemical principles that define and describe how sulfur behaves?  You've seen the electrons?  You've observed the protons and neutrons?

Have you empirically verified that the moon is not made of cheese? Have you empirically falsified that the universe was created by an omnipotent ant?



Selam

Exactly. You don't need to verify something in a test tube. If you can, that's good, but there are other forms of evidence. It is not a philosophy to say that the moon is made of rock; neither is evolution.

So YOU have verified this yourself?

Selam

I have not personally verified evolution in a strict sense, nor have I verified that the moon is not made of cheese. However, given what I do know, the alternative conclusions would not be tenable in my mind. Of course, the theory of evolution, like any theory, is constantly subject to revision, and it has changed a lot since Darwin. This does not discredit the theory in general: atomic theory has been revised substantially over the course of the last hundred years, and it was all done with "invisible" experiments. However, all the pieces fit together so well that no one questioned the existence of atoms.

If we're talking about literal young earth creationism, on the other hand, then evolution is honestly one of the weaker counter-arguments one could present. There are more compelling arguments in history, astronomy, anthropology, archeology, linguistics, geology...
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 06:07:04 PM by Rufus » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2210 on: November 18, 2010, 06:07:30 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2211 on: November 18, 2010, 06:13:53 PM »

Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

Without disagreeing, I would point out that the Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities... therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

Do you have some cites/references for this? I read a lot in the Fathers (e.g. St. Symeon) that suggest they thought Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. were literally real, although I'd like to find some more support for your POV.

Hi, Android. I posted a new topic to respond to your question here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31386.0.html
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #2212 on: November 18, 2010, 06:15:15 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.

In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  Roll Eyes

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #2213 on: November 18, 2010, 06:36:29 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.

In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  Roll Eyes

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam

There are many different approaches to the issue, just what constitutes a valid scientific theory. (I taught a class called "Philosophy and Science" and a class called "Research Methods," so I have done some homework on this.) There exists a classical "inductivist" (Baconian) approach; a "falcificationist" (Popperian) approach; a theory of paradigm shift (Kuhn), a theory of research programs (Lakatos), an anarchist theory (Feyerabend), and others. Most modern explorers of scientific methodology agree, essentially, that there is no such thing as one universal "scientific method."
Logged

Love never fails.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2214 on: November 18, 2010, 06:43:23 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.

In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  Roll Eyes

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam

It sounds like "They" told you it wasn't true.
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,254



« Reply #2215 on: November 18, 2010, 06:44:45 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.

In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  Roll Eyes

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam

If we can't trust our scientists to impart to us the best and most up-to-date science, who will we then trust? We trust doctors and scientists for modern medicine. I thank science for insulin injection systems and blood glucose readers (I'd be dead without them). I can verify their efficacy! We trust engineers to build safe structures, planes, and bridges. We trust science with everything around us (excepting the spiritual). Why not with biological evolution?

Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2216 on: November 18, 2010, 06:50:02 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.

In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  Roll Eyes

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam

It sounds like "They" told you it wasn't true.

Indeed, Gebre, let's hold you to your own standard. Can you provide a parsimonious explanation for the vast amounts of information that point to an old earth and, to a lesser extent, evolution?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2217 on: November 18, 2010, 07:31:49 PM »

If we can't trust our scientists to impart to us the best and most up-to-date science, who will we then trust? We trust doctors and scientists for modern medicine. I thank science for insulin injection systems and blood glucose readers (I'd be dead without them). I can verify their efficacy! We trust engineers to build safe structures, planes, and bridges.

Yes, modern science has produced many wonderful tools and toys. If that were the purpose of life, then modern science would be my god. I certainly appreciate many practical aspects of modern science, though one must also consider the novel poisons and illnesses it has introduced, not to mention the means of devastation unparalleled in history. But as modern science journeys out from the practical and earthy, into cosmology, natural history, etc., its fundamental flaws become more apparent.  Modern science seems to "work" so well because the standards by which we are assessing it are already worldly and low-minded. We would prefer an ideology that gives us rudimentary, earthly wealth over a science that gives us spiritual understanding.

Quote
We trust science with everything around us

Do you trust them when they genetically engineer your food? Do you trust them when they cut corners or falsify information for the sake of profit? Do you trust them when they invent weapons of mass destruction or devise new ways of proliferating poisons?

Quote
(excepting the spiritual).


Dividing the material world from the spiritual one so rigidly is the root of your problem here.

Quote
Why not with biological evolution?

Why not with literary theory? Why not with social organization? Why not with music?
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #2218 on: November 18, 2010, 08:06:17 PM »

Yes, modern science has produced many wonderful tools and toys. If that were the purpose of life, then modern science would be my god.

And it certainly is not the purpose of life, and so science is certainly not your (or my) god. So? How is this relevant to the question, how should one treat the theory of biological evolution - as a valid scientific theory or as a fallacy/heresy/lie?

I certainly appreciate many practical aspects of modern science, though one must also consider the novel poisons and illnesses it has introduced, not to mention the means of devastation unparalleled in history. But as modern science journeys out from the practical and earthy, into cosmology, natural history, etc., its fundamental flaws become more apparent.  Modern science seems to "work" so well because the standards by which we are assessing it are already worldly and low-minded. We would prefer an ideology that gives us rudimentary, earthly wealth over a science that gives us spiritual understanding.

I think you are narrowing the purpose of science too much. Basic science is actually not about any practical aspects. It is about finding out how the natural, material world works. Its main purpose is to make us, humans, better - more open-minded, more curious, more able to be amazed, to stand in awe, marveling at this huge, incredibly complex and yet so harmonious and organized and structured world. I am teaching biological disciplines, and each semester, as I lecture about, for example, the Krebs cycle or the electron transport chain in living cells, I find myself more and more in awe. I am amazed not only about how this teeny-tiny thing called mitochondrion is organized, but also about how several generations of people, scientists, kept digging, and digging, and digging - observing things, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, testing them, - for several decades, between ~1910 and today, building a beautiful, comprehensive model of harvesting energy in cells. By the way, it is not even legitimate to ask, is this model "right" or "wrong," because, like every model, it is constantly, endlessly subject to challenge, modification, even dismissal. This whole process of building models of the natural world, "doing science," is, in fact, very spiritual. People who are far from science do not appreciate its spirituality; I, for example, heard a number of times that I must be a very earthly-minded man because I study these "yucky dirty stinking bacteria." But thse people are wrong, they just don't know what they are talking about. Science is incredibly spiritual and inspired, like any human pursuit where we, humans, rise above our basic daily needs of food, shelter, power over others, etc.

When I was little, I read in one Soviet sci-fi novel (by brothers Arkadiy and Boris Strugatskiy) that there are two ways of spelling the words "human being." As long as a human being says, "I want to eat" - it's "human being." But from the moment when the human being says, "I want to know" - it's a Human Being, with the capital H and capital B.

One American scientist (can't recall the name right now - he was a physicist, an experimenter who worked in the 1940-s - 1960-s) said that (I quote from memory) "basic science has nothing whatsoever to do with (military) defense. But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." I agree very strongly.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 08:22:31 PM by Heorhij » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2219 on: November 18, 2010, 08:25:53 PM »

Yes, modern science has produced many wonderful tools and toys. If that were the purpose of life, then modern science would be my god.

And it certainly is not the purpose of life, and so science is certainly not your (or my) god./ So? How is this relevant to the question, how should one treat the theory of biological evolution - as a valid scientific theory or as a fallacy/heresy/lie?

The argument was that we should trust modern science with everything else, because it produces such wonderful practical benefits. Mind the context.

Quote
I think you are narrowing the purpose of science too much.

No, I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.

Quote
Basic science is actually not about any practical aspects. It is  about finding out how the natural, material world works. Its main purpose is to make us, humans, better - more open-minded, more curious, more able to be amazed, to stand in awe, marveling at this huge, incredibly complex and yet so harmonious and organized and structured world.

This is just a big, cosmic idol. Our awe should be directed the creator more than the creation and that is the main purpose of studying and admiring the beauty and harmony of the world.The materialist/dualist epistemology of "modern science"  is inimical to this, as it does not acknowledge any spiritual dimension to anything.
Studying the material world in itself, for itself, without rising to spiritual realities, is idolatry.

 
Quote
I am teaching biological disciplines, and each semester, as I lecture about, for example, the Krebs cycle or the electron transport chain in living cells, I find myself more and more in awe. I am amazed not only about how this teeny-tiny thing called mitochondrion is organized, but also about how several generations of people, scientists, kept digging, and digging, and digging - observing things, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, testing them, - for several decades, between ~1910 and today, building a beautiful, comprehensive model of harvesting energy in cells. By the way, it is not even legitimate to ask, is this model "right" or "wrong," because, like every model, it is constantly, endlessly subject to challenge, modification, even dismissal. This whole process of building models of the natural world, "doing science," is, in fact, very spiritual.

If it does not raise the mind to God- the true, personal God- it is just the false, lifeless, pantheistic "spirituality" of Carl Sagan. Its best icon is the black hole.
 
Quote
People who are far from science do not appreciate its spirituality; I, for example, heard a number of times that I must be a very earthly-minded man because I study these "yucky dirty stinking bacteria." But thse people are wrong, they just don't know what they are talking about. Science is incredibly spiritual and inspired, like any human pursuit where we, humans, rise above our basic daily needs of food, shelter, power over others, etc.

If we pursue comets and galaxies instead of food, we are just trading little idols for big ones, no better than worshippers of rocks and trees.

Quote
One American scientist (can't recall the name right now - he was a physicist, an experimenter who worked in the 1940-s - 1960-s) said that (I quote from memory) "basic science has nothing whatsoever to do with (military) defense. But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." I agree very strongly.

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2220 on: November 18, 2010, 08:50:39 PM »

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...

perhaps Darwin did not directly say anything about Paradise, but I was really just using his name to represent evolutionary science/scientists. Evolution certainly does have an impact on how we understand Paradise, and whether or not we think there ever really was a Paradise! if death is just part of the normal plan of things then we have to believe either: A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

i have encountered both these beliefs in discussions with TE's, so im not just making this up! so obviously ppl interpret Scripture/Paradise according to scientific observations of the modern world. This is what I don't understand at all - I don't understand the attraction of this method of interpretation. As I see it, the Fathers were holy, drew near to God, so who could I possibly get a better understanding from?

here is what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:
Quote
Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67
I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 08:52:18 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2221 on: November 18, 2010, 08:57:21 PM »

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...

perhaps Darwin did not directly say anything about Paradise, but I was really just using his name to represent evolutionary science/scientists. Evolution certainly does have an impact on how we understand Paradise, and whether or not we think there ever really was a Paradise! if death is just part of the normal plan of things then we have to believe either: A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

i have encountered both these beliefs in discussions with TE's, so im not just making this up! so obviously ppl interpret Scripture/Paradise according to scientific observations of the modern world. This is what I don't understand at all - I don't understand the attraction of this method of interpretation. As I see it, the Fathers were holy, drew near to God, so who could I possibly get a better understanding from?

here is what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:
Quote
Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67
I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.

Isn't it true that in Orthodoxy, the "Paradise" wasn't "perfect"?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2222 on: November 18, 2010, 10:02:45 PM »

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...

perhaps Darwin did not directly say anything about Paradise, but I was really just using his name to represent evolutionary science/scientists. Evolution certainly does have an impact on how we understand Paradise, and whether or not we think there ever really was a Paradise! if death is just part of the normal plan of things then we have to believe either: A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

i have encountered both these beliefs in discussions with TE's, so im not just making this up! so obviously ppl interpret Scripture/Paradise according to scientific observations of the modern world. This is what I don't understand at all - I don't understand the attraction of this method of interpretation. As I see it, the Fathers were holy, drew near to God, so who could I possibly get a better understanding from?

here is what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:
Quote
Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67
I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.

Isn't it true that in Orthodoxy, the "Paradise" wasn't "perfect"?

some Fathers talk about man and Paradise as being in between corruption and incorruption because it remained to be seen which way man would go with his free will, but others say that man and the entire creation were created incorrupt because man, and creation with him, would not necessarily die - that would only happen if man sinned, but since man was created without sin then he was created in an incorrupt state (although there was the possibility for that to change). so Paradise, and all of creation, was perfect in the sense that there was no sin or deatb, but yet it was called to a higher level of perfection.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2223 on: November 18, 2010, 10:04:35 PM »

I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.

Could you distinguish real science from fake science? Please be specific, e.g. name specific discoveries/theories, and explain why they are valid or invalid. We scientists will be listening.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2224 on: November 18, 2010, 10:37:43 PM »

I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.

Could you distinguish real science from fake science? Please be specific, e.g. name specific discoveries/theories, and explain why they are valid or invalid. We scientists will be listening.

I think he talking about "science" by consensus and politics vs the science of consistent evidence.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2225 on: November 18, 2010, 10:49:33 PM »

A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

I think this is a false dichotomy.  I don't see natural death as being opposed to a Paradise at all.  The creatures preceding man did not have the Breath of Life breathed upon them by the Spirit, so they died, as all creatures did, due to thermodynamics and the simple fact of being an organic organism.  It was only after God breathed upon the..."Mud Man" as someone else so wonderfully put it, that man was made in the image of God and was at a state of purity from which he could "fall."
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2226 on: November 18, 2010, 10:51:36 PM »

A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

I think this is a false dichotomy.  I don't see natural death as being opposed to a Paradise at all.  The creatures preceding man did not have the Breath of Life breathed upon them by the Spirit, so they died, as all creatures did, due to thermodynamics and the simple fact of being an organic organism.  It was only after God breathed upon the..."Mud Man" as someone else so wonderfully put it, that man was made in the image of God and was at a state of purity from which he could "fall."

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #2227 on: November 18, 2010, 10:57:47 PM »

Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.

In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  Roll Eyes

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam

It sounds like "They" told you it wasn't true.

Indeed, Gebre, let's hold you to your own standard. Can you provide a parsimonious explanation for the vast amounts of information that point to an old earth and, to a lesser extent, evolution?

If “they” means the Church, then I certainly believe what “they” say. And I have not found anything the Church teaches that contradicts the evidence of empirical science. But if “they” means the consensus opinion of secular scientific philosophy, then I shall be much more discriminating in what opinions and views I accept.

Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2228 on: November 18, 2010, 10:58:22 PM »

The Assyrian Book of the Cave of Treasures written by Mar Ephrem (supposed author, not really known) says that Paradise in Eden was in Jerusalem on Earth, while Heaven (God with the Cherubim who dialogue with his face but can not know his very essence) is in the sphere of fire, underneath the waters above the firmament, and underneath the firmament with the stars. So it depends on what you mean by Paradise- Eden or the sphere of fire (if I am correct) which Adam is said to have ascended to for three hours before descending back to Eden and then the fall which took place at the same time as the Crucifixion.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 10:59:54 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2229 on: November 18, 2010, 11:01:18 PM »

I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.

Could you distinguish real science from fake science? Please be specific, e.g. name specific discoveries/theories, and explain why they are valid or invalid. We scientists will be listening.

I am not talking about specific discoveries/ theories, but of a general methodology. All the arguing about Darwinism, the age of the earth, etc., tends to miss the point. If you want to know what I mean, you can read this thread here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25971.0.html
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2230 on: November 18, 2010, 11:08:27 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 11:09:22 PM by Sleeper » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2231 on: November 18, 2010, 11:11:09 PM »

Basil did not believe in Evolution (See his Hexaemeron) and Mar Ephrem either. You dare dispute the Doctors of the Church with "evolution"?

Quote
THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED ATCARTHAGE p. 496

Therefore this council binding to orthodox (I am not sure) says that evolution is wrong because it says a mortal Ape was the first Adam subject to death.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 11:14:55 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2232 on: November 18, 2010, 11:16:17 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2233 on: November 18, 2010, 11:17:03 PM »

Basil did not believe in Evolution (See his Hexaemeron) and Mar Ephrem either. You dare dispute the Doctors of the Church with "evolution"?

Quote
THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED ATCARTHAGE p. 496

Therefore this council binding to orthodox (I am not sure) says that evolution is wrong because it says a mortal Ape was the first Adam subject to death.

that Canon is indeed binding since it was ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2234 on: November 18, 2010, 11:20:50 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2235 on: November 18, 2010, 11:21:27 PM »

"Orthodox" defending evolution are anathema according to 7th ecumenical council. There's your response to Metropilitan Kallistos Heorji. I made sure my web was with one of your ecumenical councils. Respond to this blatant infrigement of the council (which the Blessed ACOE did not attend of course). That canon was aimed at Origen who allegorized Genesis 1 like the evolutionists.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 11:25:05 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2236 on: November 18, 2010, 11:26:55 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2237 on: November 18, 2010, 11:30:18 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #2238 on: November 18, 2010, 11:31:27 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.


Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 11:32:13 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2239 on: November 18, 2010, 11:34:13 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Agreed, but it is contrary to what Baconian/Newtonian ideology has fabricated.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2240 on: November 18, 2010, 11:34:49 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.


Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.

It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2241 on: November 18, 2010, 11:37:53 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2242 on: November 18, 2010, 11:39:18 PM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.


Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.

It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.

so then youre prepared to scientifically demonstrate that there were immortal people at one point? or that immortality is possible?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #2243 on: November 18, 2010, 11:49:33 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
Logged

Love never fails.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2244 on: November 19, 2010, 12:10:27 AM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

What about God walking in the garden?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2245 on: November 19, 2010, 12:16:10 AM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

What about God walking in the garden?

ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2246 on: November 19, 2010, 12:19:06 AM »

it absolutely is contrary...
If it were there's no way I would've converted to Orthodoxy.  I follow the truth where it leads.  Fortunately, scientific discovery is harmonious with Orthodoxy.

Quote
have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father
This true and, again, not contrary to common ancestry and natural selection.  It's only contrary if you force it to be so.

Quote
and that Eve is literally from his rib;
Right, no WAY that's figurative...

Quote
that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man;
So, Autumn and Winter are results of the Fall then?  Here I was giving God praise for the beauties of the seasons.  I'll be sure to save that solely for Spring & Summer.

Quote
that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old
We know this, beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever, to be completely and utterly false.

Quote
that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

I agree with this last part, that it is not compatible with evolution.  And for some reason, we missed this in my catechism...
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2247 on: November 19, 2010, 12:27:54 AM »

For anyone interested, this past summer Fr. Thomas Hopko did a wonderful series entitled "Darwin & Christianity" where he explored creation, nature, evolution and Orthodoxy.

You can find it here: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2248 on: November 19, 2010, 12:34:56 AM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

What about God walking in the garden?

ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.

So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2249 on: November 19, 2010, 01:14:11 AM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

What about God walking in the garden?

ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.

So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...

I agree that the Fathers are the key for interpretation, i in no way think it should be left up to the "common sense" of a sinner like me.

and either way, common sense tells me that Paradise is not to be interpreted according to scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries, but rather by those who have visited Paradise and attained Paradise in their souls. common sense also tells me that if there is a greater authority than the Church then I have no business being Orthodox.
Logged
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 0.222 seconds with 74 queries.