OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 03:04:57 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 - 54 (15.7%)
No - 133 (38.6%)
both metaphorically and literally - 158 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 345

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 343207 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3105 on: April 15, 2011, 03:56:51 AM »

I do not understand why you keep harping about 19th century Darwinism. Perhaps you should leave it to the 21st century scientists to deal with the orthodox Darwinsists that remain. I am pretty sure your attitude would be counter productive to the task.
I don't know any other Darwinism and that's why. But all other theories of evolution (random changes leading to new species formation) will  be wrong. You have to name concrete theory to discuss it further.

Quote
From my perspective, HeLa cells are not a new species since, at least on a microscopic level, the original genetic information remains intact (although it may not in reality and I would change my answer if so). Your quote above is the reason why I chose HeLa cells in regard to what is a species, yet you made the statement in the above quote without seeing it. Chromosome 3 no longer exists in HeLa cells. This is an example of what can happen if a virus gets into the germ line. Doesn't this show you how loss of a chromosome can occur circa 1950? I plan to respond to your prior post that responds to mine more fully after Easter
What is the point of you argument? Yes, chromosomes can change in the cell. Then what? Did this cell line appear by itself or was it intelligently selected? Of course it's intelligently selected cell lines and humans can select more. I did not doubt that, did I? This cell line is artificially selected. It can't exist if not artificially supported. It can't give you any organism.

Quote
So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
You are putting your words in my mouth. I did not argue theories can't predict. Theories may predict but it doesn't mean the can predict because they are right. Besides I've mentioned some theories have pragmatic significance. If they work use it. You don't need to go beyond that and say since they work the premises underling it must be wright. Hopefully I'm clear in here. Another question is how it can be so? That's whole new area of speculations.

chrevbel
Quote
All of science is wrong?  And has nothing to do with reality?  Nothing?

Is this a tenet of the Orthodox Church?
Yes, ultimately all of them are wrong. This does not mean one should not learn science. I've read science books and I still read them. I get information and see how wrong it is. More I read more I get it. So, if you think I advertise total ignorance I want to assure you that's not right at all. I'd love children to know lots of things in science and be thought lots of things but I'd love also to see it is not thought dogmatically like it's done everywhere now.

I don't know if it's a tenet of Orthodox Church. But from what I've read everything is mystery, whole creation is mystery. Which means in the end we will know nothing through the logical inquiry but we can know God's creation by Revelation through the Grace of the Lord.

Dimitrios-Georgios
Quote
Really? How about not taking any medicine next time you're sick, since science is wrong? If antibiotics, painkillers and other drugs have nothing to do with reality whatsoever, why don't you stick to your words and refuse them the next time you're sick, huh?
Even if I took medicine for something how does it prove that science is right? Does my lack of faith prove science is right? There are many people who have stronger faith then I do and miracles happen because of their faith. I know hundreds of these. How does it fit within science that a patient with chronic hepatitis C causing cirrhosis with esophageal varices and deadly gastrointestinal bleeds whom no doctor can cure, who was given prognosis to die in weeks, is brought to a Great Saints tomb on a gurney, is laid down on it and within minutes he can get up and walk and within days and weeks he's completely cured of the problem? Where's is you science here? How can you explain it though science? You can't. The only thing you can do is deny it. And I've seen Orthodox people who ridicule and deny miracles. I'm not saying you are the one but there are many. They even don't believe the Lord's words that if we had little faith we could move mountains. This is not some figurative statement. This is completely true. How can science explain this miracles? I don't take much medicine though. Rarely I will take one. Nobody and Nothing can take care of me except All Glorious and All merciful God if I had a little faith. I don't have it that much though.

Glory to the Father, to the Lord Jesus Christ Son of God and Glory to the Holy Spirit. The Creation belongs to Trinity and we Orthodox people should rightly glorify Him
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3106 on: April 15, 2011, 08:10:06 AM »

Yes, ultimately all of them are wrong. This does not mean one should not learn science. I've read science books and I still read them. I get information and see how wrong it is. More I read more I get it.
So, the only reason for learning science is to understand how wrong it all is?  Does this apply to other areas of human knowledge as well?  Mathematics?  Linguistics?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3107 on: April 15, 2011, 08:37:43 AM »

its totally awesome how everyone just picks up on one line out of his entire posts and interprets it in the most extreme way possible and then asks ridiculous questions as if that somehow makes a point! its so cool!
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 08:45:49 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3108 on: April 15, 2011, 10:17:49 AM »

I don't see how you can call my interpretation extreme.  It's perfectly in line with ativan's own posts.  Or if it's not, then by all means feel free to say "No, you miss the point; what he's saying is..."  So far, of course, he himself hasn't chosen to do so.  I asked "All of science is wrong?  And has nothing to do with reality?", and his response was "Yes, ultimately all of them are wrong."  In what way can my continuation of that discourse be considered extreme?

I didn't mean my questions to be curt.  I meant them to be succinct.  My personal pet peeve in these forums is multi-nested quotes that go on for inches, followed by a single question for which it is impossible to see the context.  My posts merely reflect my own preferences.

I think my questions are valid.  ativan has clearly indicated that he considers scientific inquiry to be wasted effort, devoid of value.  (Though if there's anything I've missed, by all means let me know.)  I'm interested in hearing his thoughts on other areas of human knowledge, hence my last set of questions.  Are all attempts at human understanding simply futile?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #3109 on: April 15, 2011, 10:22:23 AM »

I don't take much medicine though. Rarely I will take one. Nobody and Nothing can take care of me except All Glorious and All merciful God if I had a little faith. I don't have it that much though.

You should happily take medicine, and trust the doctor. Faith is not above such things, it works in conjunction with them. That's what the Scripture says, anyway.  Smiley
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3110 on: April 16, 2011, 04:41:58 AM »

So, the only reason for learning science is to understand how wrong it all is?  Does this apply to other areas of human knowledge as well?  Mathematics?  Linguistics?
For me, yes. I don't know what is the reason for you. People all have different aspirations and I pointed out this clearly - I don't speak on your behalf or somebody else's befalf. For me all science is wrong in the end and one should be ready to abandon everything he has learned if he desires to see God, if he loves God. When a person comes to a point where attraction to God's kingdom increases in him he needs no science. In fact, as I've pointed out, science is an obstacle.

Quote
I think my questions are valid.  ativan has clearly indicated that he considers scientific inquiry to be wasted effort, devoid of value.
I've not indicated that. Your interpretation of what I said is wrong and very vague. The question of "value" is vague. Value in what? How do you measure this value? It has value for a given person of course. A scientist who does science sees value in it and I don't say it waste of time from some objective point of view. But it is waste of time once you decide God is the Only One you want. In this case it is total waste of time. And even here it is total waste of time only if you are attached to science and scientific theories as something true. One can still do science with an understanding that whole science is ultimately wrong. In fact, I believe, if a person can accept anything and is not restricted with restrictions that science imposes (the are called laws of nature) can do better science. But in science this people are called crackpots or something like that.

Quote
Are all attempts at human understanding simply futile?
This shows me that you did not get what I said. How can I say Peter's life, or John's life, or David's life is futile? Life is life. These are not the question I can answer. I'm a little man.

Are we going to go back to the discussion on Darwinism?

Asteriktos
Quote
You should happily take medicine, and trust the doctor. Faith is not above such things, it works in conjunction with them. That's what the Scripture says, anyway.
OK I take that point partially. But can you say the same thing about homeopathic remedies or about acupuncture? What about consecrated water or communion Bread and Wine? Or simple oil for anointing? Do you think of these remedies same way or only drugs and interventions that went though some standard scientific big word procedures (like double blind placebo controlled randomized trials) qualify as medicines for you?

Or do you think a man can posses gift of curing (and even better than doctors in usual sense of this word) without ever reading medical book and graduating from Harvard or somewhere else?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,676


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #3111 on: April 16, 2011, 09:41:06 AM »

Ativan, I don't think anyone understands fully what you mean by "wrong."  For instance, science shows us that the force of an object is dependent on its mass and the acceleration it's going.  Are you saying that that formula is wrong, or are you saying that the knowledge of such formula is futile when it comes to eternity with God?  Someone reading your message can think, "I don't need to go to the doctor if I have an infection or cancer.  I can just take communion and pray God will cure it, and if He doesn't then it's His will."  The Church never taught such a thing.  In fact, even St. Paul who wrought miracles on people gave some advise for someone to take a little wine for the pains he's been having, an advise based on their own "science" of the day. Can you honestly tell someone that he's wrong for going to the doctor for a disease and not relying on the Church alone?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3112 on: April 16, 2011, 03:23:33 PM »

Ativan, I don't think anyone understands fully what you mean by "wrong."  For instance, science shows us that the force of an object is dependent on its mass and the acceleration it's going.  Are you saying that that formula is wrong, or are you saying that the knowledge of such formula is futile when it comes to eternity with God?
1) No scientist knows what is mass; 2) No scientist knows what is force; 3) No scientist knows what is movement; 4) Observation (like galaxy rotation curves) show that there's discrepancy between calculated and observed mass of many galaxies; So original law either A) has to be modified (called modified Newtonian dynamics) or B) some yet unidentified matter (called dark matter) has to be speculated or C) one can think correct way in this manner: we won't be able to know it ever. Taking this into account we can be pragmatic and use any of these theories just for practical purpose and do not go further asserting what really is going on; 5) God's miracles (like completely controlling space and time) done through his Saints defy any science; All these together is "science is wrong in the end".

Quote
Someone reading your message can think, "I don't need to go to the doctor if I have an infection or cancer.  I can just take communion and pray God will cure it, and if He doesn't then it's His will."  The Church never taught such a thing.  In fact, even St. Paul who wrought miracles on people gave some advise for someone to take a little wine for the pains he's been having, an advise based on their own "science" of the day. Can you honestly tell someone that he's wrong for going to the doctor for a disease and not relying on the Church alone?
That is someone's problem. I speak of people who have faith (not people like me). Surely Saints (even nowadays) go to doctors not because they can get sick. How can God's man and woman can get sick when the Life-giving Lord lives in them? They can't but they still visit Doctors. Saints know what they're doing. They affect people in a way we sinners will never know. Yes, people should visit to doctors and they are sick. But almost all of them exclusively rely on doctors and on drugs and only doctors who are licensed through certain procedures adn only drugs devised by scientists.

Now I have asked previous questions and I want to know Orthodox faithful's opinion on these:
Quote
But can you say the same thing about homeopathic remedies or about acupuncture? What about consecrated water or communion Bread and Wine? Or simple oil for anointing? Do you think of these remedies same way or only drugs and interventions that went though some standard scientific big word procedures (like double blind placebo controlled randomized trials) qualify as medicines for you?

Or do you think a man can posses gift of curing (and even better than doctors in usual sense of this word) without ever reading medical book and graduating from Harvard or somewhere else?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3113 on: April 16, 2011, 09:10:26 PM »

I don't take much medicine though. Rarely I will take one. Nobody and Nothing can take care of me except All Glorious and All merciful God if I had a little faith. I don't have it that much though.

You should happily take medicine, and trust the doctor. Faith is not above such things, it works in conjunction with them. That's what the Scripture says, anyway.  Smiley

Have you read Sirach 38, ativan?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3114 on: April 16, 2011, 09:14:33 PM »

Quote
So we should ditch our theories of chemical kinetics because they presuppose random collisions that determine the outcome of a reaction?
You are putting your words in my mouth. I did not argue theories can't predict. Theories may predict but it doesn't mean the can predict because they are right. Besides I've mentioned some theories have pragmatic significance. If they work use it. You don't need to go beyond that and say since they work the premises underling it must be wright. Hopefully I'm clear in here. Another question is how it can be so? That's whole new area of speculations.

If evolution is a theory of pragmatic significance, why can't we use it for practical purposes?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3115 on: April 16, 2011, 09:35:33 PM »

What do you mean by asking whether God directly wills a match to light or not? Isn't God omnipresent and omnipotent? Or do you imagine God really has no direct involvement with the "everyday" workings of nature?

Of course God is involved. I do not pretend to know how God is involved. However, it is absurd to say that we must reject natural explanations of phenomena simply because "God did it." Lighting a match might be a perfect example of a process that is ultimately willed by God and simultaneously a natural process not requiring supernatural interference.

Why are you putting words into my mouth? And I think you have a strange concept of the "natural/supernatural" distinction. It's almost as if you believe there is a separate force called "Nature" which acts independently of God.

Why are you putting words into my mouth?

Quote
On the contrary, natural law is simply what we call one way in which God works in the world. Through natural law, God makes Himself known to us through our ability to reason and discern such a law. We see how everything in the universe follows its appropriate order and are thereby led to worship the Creator of that order. But the order itself is not some independent actor.

That's why I said:
Quote
a process that is ultimately willed by God and simultaneously a natural process not requiring supernatural interference.
for lack of a better way of putting it.

Quote
The point of our discussion originally was that you appeared to be attributing some kind of objective reality to "chance". However, in Orthodoxy we do not believe in chance, i.e. that there is any true randomness.

What does the Church teach about randomness at the quantum level?

Quote
There may be phenomena appearing to be random, but the randomness is simply a failure of our ability to understand the actual causes behind it. In reality, we believe everything is determined by God, with the exception of those things determined by the wills of rational creatures, whether men or angels.

I'm not aware of any theological basis for such a precise concept of how God relates to the universe. I'm tempted to just ask you to prove it. Strictly speaking, there's also no scientific basis for determinism. Many aspects of quantum physics are inclusive of the possibility of randomness, an idea which Einstein was uncomfortable with. Not that I'm saying everything is actually random: I'll only say that I have no ides how exactly God designed the cosmos to work. If you claim to know, I frankly don't believe you.

The bottom line is that, for all empirical purposes, there is randomness in the universe. What is actually behind this perceived randomness is totally beside the point in this discussion, because no one here is arguing that humans exist by accident.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,676


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #3116 on: April 17, 2011, 12:43:45 AM »

Quote
But can you say the same thing about homeopathic remedies or about acupuncture? What about consecrated water or communion Bread and Wine? Or simple oil for anointing? Do you think of these remedies same way or only drugs and interventions that went though some standard scientific big word procedures (like double blind placebo controlled randomized trials) qualify as medicines for you?

Or do you think a man can posses gift of curing (and even better than doctors in usual sense of this word) without ever reading medical book and graduating from Harvard or somewhere else?

What about homeopathic remedies or acupuncture?  I don't understand what you're getting at.  But to compare them to the sacraments I don't think is fair.  The sacraments involve a mystery of grace for spiritual uplifting.  Medicine involves the treatment of physical ailments.  As for miracle-workers, I have a feeling God gives these gifts to those who use it wisely, not to the merely educated.  Certainly, God does not squander gifts or miracles in vain.  It's why we don't have or see miracle-workers around us as much.  They are guided by the Holy Spirit for those who are willing to receive spiritual enlightenment through them.  I can imagine every miracle done by Christ was not a miracle wasted, but a miracle that involved a spiritual enlightenment more importantly than physical healing.  Remember the famous parable about Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, and the man in Hades?  The man offerred that he show himself to unbelievers to warn them of their ways, and God did not allow it because they won't change from their ways when they see it.

Many of us look for miracles as magic or physical healing, and not a matter by which one receives spiritual enlightenment.  How do you know if when you receive a miracle, not only would you be better spiritually, but continue to live that way?  But seeing the way people enjoy a show, like David Blain, or seek selfishly for physical healing rather than spiritual healing, it's no wonder why there's no miracles.  If we understand miracles as a means by which we don't need science or medicine in the end, then I feel you have a spiritual misunderstanding of miracles and of sacraments in the Church.

At the same time, the Church never condoned or taught anything that is remotely close to saying "medicine is wrong."  The Church taught that all things are futile without God, but the word "wrong" has a different connotation.  If you feel all things are wrong before God, then that's no different that the Gnostics or the Manicheans who saw the world and the physical bodies as evil, and that is heretical.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2011, 12:51:10 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3117 on: April 17, 2011, 03:27:54 AM »

Have you read Sirach 38, ativan?
I just read it after you asked me. And what is the point, if I may?

Quote
If evolution is a theory of pragmatic significance, why can't we use it for practical purposes.
Because its only pragmatic significance is devilish nothing else. All it does it blasphemes and creates ground for those who finally seek to free themselves from God.

There's no question of real pragmatic significance that cannot be asked without knowledge of Darwinism. And statements like Darwinism helping us understand certain phenomena is fallacy.

What about homeopathic remedies or acupuncture?  I don't understand what you're getting at.  But to compare them to the sacraments I don't think is fair.
Did I compare them to sacraments? I'm sorry if I made such impression but I didn't even think about it. I compared homeopathy to other treatments. You see, the point is we argue here how science is good that it gives us all those medicines. But I'm almost sure when such discussion arises people don't think of other treatments as remedies and they put them in the fringe science (or whatever science) area. This show my point more clearly. People don't want to consider them medicines. I think  one of the reasons is because it is outside of any explanation. So science wants to stick only to its materialistic base and by flat out denying other treatments they are reinforcing this materialistic dogma. This is what I'm talking about. This is why I ask you and others: Do you consider these treatments as good as or maybe even better then medicines designed through application of certain rigorous procedures? Same applies to healer outside of medical profession.

Quote
As for miracle-workers, I have a feeling God gives these gifts to those who use it wisely, not to the merely educated.  Certainly, God does not squander gifts or miracles in vain.  It's why we don't have or see miracle-workers around us as much.  They are guided by the Holy Spirit for those who are willing to receive spiritual enlightenment through them.  I can imagine every miracle done by Christ was not a miracle wasted, but a miracle that involved a spiritual enlightenment more importantly than physical healing.
Yes God gives the gift of healing and miracle working to those who have passed all the tests of life. As a matter of fact there are enough of God's people on the earth. One just needs to have a zeal, a passion to seek God's Holy Saints and God will show him/her those Saints. But anyways this is beyond the point. Question here is how this miracles fall within the scientific knowledge. That is what I was asking. Let's take an example. Such Holy people can walk on the water, can transport themselves though time and space instantaneously, materializing things and so on. How does this fit within science. You don't have much options. Either you can deny this (as so called skeptics do) or you can accept it but this will invalidate science and very basic laws of it. I brought these examples exactly to prove the point "science is ultimately wrong".

Quote
At the same time, the Church never condoned or taught anything that is remotely close to saying "medicine is wrong."  The Church taught that all things are futile without God, but the word "wrong" has a different connotation.  If you feel all things are wrong before God, then that's no different that the Gnostics or the Manicheans who saw the world and the physical bodies as evil, and that is heretical.
I never said "medicine is wrong." You can go through my posts again and what I've said is in there. I apologize if I'm blunt to you but repeating myself won't help.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3118 on: April 17, 2011, 02:21:09 PM »

Have you read Sirach 38, ativan?
I just read it after you asked me. And what is the point, if I may?

Quote
If evolution is a theory of pragmatic significance, why can't we use it for practical purposes.
Because its only pragmatic significance is devilish nothing else. All it does it blasphemes and creates ground for those who finally seek to free themselves from God.

There's no question of real pragmatic significance that cannot be asked without knowledge of Darwinism. And statements like Darwinism helping us understand certain phenomena is fallacy.

What about homeopathic remedies or acupuncture?  I don't understand what you're getting at.  But to compare them to the sacraments I don't think is fair.
Did I compare them to sacraments? I'm sorry if I made such impression but I didn't even think about it. I compared homeopathy to other treatments. You see, the point is we argue here how science is good that it gives us all those medicines. But I'm almost sure when such discussion arises people don't think of other treatments as remedies and they put them in the fringe science (or whatever science) area. This show my point more clearly. People don't want to consider them medicines. I think  one of the reasons is because it is outside of any explanation. So science wants to stick only to its materialistic base and by flat out denying other treatments they are reinforcing this materialistic dogma. This is what I'm talking about. This is why I ask you and others: Do you consider these treatments as good as or maybe even better then medicines designed through application of certain rigorous procedures? Same applies to healer outside of medical profession.

Quote
As for miracle-workers, I have a feeling God gives these gifts to those who use it wisely, not to the merely educated.  Certainly, God does not squander gifts or miracles in vain.  It's why we don't have or see miracle-workers around us as much.  They are guided by the Holy Spirit for those who are willing to receive spiritual enlightenment through them.  I can imagine every miracle done by Christ was not a miracle wasted, but a miracle that involved a spiritual enlightenment more importantly than physical healing.
Yes God gives the gift of healing and miracle working to those who have passed all the tests of life. As a matter of fact there are enough of God's people on the earth. One just needs to have a zeal, a passion to seek God's Holy Saints and God will show him/her those Saints. But anyways this is beyond the point. Question here is how this miracles fall within the scientific knowledge. That is what I was asking. Let's take an example. Such Holy people can walk on the water, can transport themselves though time and space instantaneously, materializing things and so on. How does this fit within science. You don't have much options. Either you can deny this (as so called skeptics do) or you can accept it but this will invalidate science and very basic laws of it. I brought these examples exactly to prove the point "science is ultimately wrong".

Quote
At the same time, the Church never condoned or taught anything that is remotely close to saying "medicine is wrong."  The Church taught that all things are futile without God, but the word "wrong" has a different connotation.  If you feel all things are wrong before God, then that's no different that the Gnostics or the Manicheans who saw the world and the physical bodies as evil, and that is heretical.
I never said "medicine is wrong." You can go through my posts again and what I've said is in there. I apologize if I'm blunt to you but repeating myself won't help.

Ativan, i agree that your use of the word "wrong" is, well, wrong. Just by using a computer and the internet you're obviously using science. i think the point you're trying to convey is still pretty clear in context of all your posts, but you should find a better word than "wrong."
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3119 on: April 17, 2011, 03:44:11 PM »

Have you read Sirach 38, ativan?
I just read it after you asked me. And what is the point, if I may?

It says to go to the doctor.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #3120 on: April 17, 2011, 03:51:57 PM »

Have you read Sirach 38, ativan?
I just read it after you asked me. And what is the point, if I may?

Quote
If evolution is a theory of pragmatic significance, why can't we use it for practical purposes.
Because its only pragmatic significance is devilish nothing else. All it does it blasphemes and creates ground for those who finally seek to free themselves from God.

There's no question of real pragmatic significance that cannot be asked without knowledge of Darwinism. And statements like Darwinism helping us understand certain phenomena is fallacy.

 Huh

1. disease research

2. agriculture

3. population tracking

4. genealogy

5. animal husbandry

6. predictive/preventative medicine

7. research in animal models

8. bioengineering
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3121 on: April 17, 2011, 04:36:21 PM »

It says to go to the doctor.
And which doctor: a doctor like Saint Panteleimon or a doctor sitting in the office taking 15 minutes only to deal with one problem, then find out which charge applies and treating patients only with current so called evidence based medicine drugs (e.g. doctors like me)?

Quote
1. disease research

2. agriculture

3. population tracking

4. genealogy

5. animal husbandry

6. predictive/preventative medicine

7. research in animal models

8. bioengineering
1. No
2. No
3. No
.
.
.
8. No

None of them need anything from Darwinisms and all the questions can be posed and appropriate research done without ever referring to it.

jckstraw72
Quote
Ativan, i agree that your use of the word "wrong" is, well, wrong. Just by using a computer and the internet you're obviously using science. i think the point you're trying to convey is still pretty clear in context of all your posts, but you should find a better word than "wrong."
Maybe you are right. But since the context of what I said has defined what "wrong" means, it shouldn't be problem. Any case I'm not attached to that word and I can change it to anything. Let's call it unclear, relativistic, with no real foundation but nevertheless practical result giving and pragmatic in secular sense.

I think I've already indicated what I meant in science. The definition of the word (at least approximate) is also important. What we see as a result of scientific endeavor (like internet and so on) is not what I call wrong. Same things can be probably achieved by God oriented science; When man, a scientists glorifies God's work and everything he achieves he knows its from God; Asks and prays to Him to show the wonders of His Creation; He can do more in this case, much more. So by itself the result is possibly neutral. It is when science is done in egocentric and human-centric manner that I call science is wrong. I'll tell you something more that I believe: there are probably Saints too working in science.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #3122 on: April 17, 2011, 05:24:48 PM »



Quote
1. disease research

2. agriculture

3. population tracking

4. genealogy

5. animal husbandry

6. predictive/preventative medicine

7. research in animal models

8. bioengineering
1. No

1. Sorry, but yes, diseases aren't static.

2. No

2. Yes, crops have evolved with the development of agriculture.

3. No

3. Yes. This really isn't open to debate. We track populations through genetics, proof.


.
.
.

 Huh

8. No

It happens.

None of them need anything from Darwinisms and all the questions can be posed and appropriate research done without ever referring to it.

We can address issues such as the evolution of corn over the past thousand years without the concept that genetic mutations lead to different phenotypes?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #3123 on: April 18, 2011, 03:30:45 PM »

It says to go to the doctor.
And which doctor: a doctor like Saint Panteleimon or a doctor sitting in the office taking 15 minutes only to deal with one problem, then find out which charge applies and treating patients only with current so called evidence based medicine drugs (e.g. doctors like me)?

Since Saint Panteleimons are few and far between, and since the text makes no qualifications, and since Saint Panteleimon and a pagan doctor would probably come up with the same diagnosis, it probably doesn't mean that you should restrict your medical attention to praying Christian doctors.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #3124 on: April 20, 2011, 04:22:56 PM »

Dear Friends,

I am concerned about the various species under the homo genus. According to an extinction theory, man outlasted this primitive race, but what would be the Orthodox understanding of this sort of relative relationship to certain ancestors in the genus?

Sorry if this has been repeated, but am curious.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #3125 on: June 27, 2011, 05:37:52 PM »

I was watching a video on youtube and this guy was talking about how evolution doesn't have truth, those who believe it are misguided. This was a teenage convert and a reader talking, but it made me wonder...

What's the Orthodox Christian stance on evolution?
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #3126 on: June 27, 2011, 05:39:14 PM »

Yes.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3127 on: June 27, 2011, 05:45:51 PM »

Many that I have met are evolutionists. I am an evoluntist.

That said, some are not. This is usually converts bringing over their Young-Earth Creationist perspective, or very old school folks (monks, a lot of times) who still use the Byzantine calendar, which counts years "from the creation of the world."
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3128 on: June 27, 2011, 06:17:34 PM »

Some do, some don't, and some mean different things when they say "evolution."

What I've seen with most Orthodox and non-Orthodox is that there are two "camps," basically. One wants to change or re-interpret the Bible and Fathers based on science. One wants to change or re-interpret science based on the Bible and the Fathers. I prefer not to mix the two. I'm perfectly all right accepting young earth creationism on faith AND have no trouble learning about scientific discoveries. Maybe I'm weird, but I think mixing them together into a single narrative cheapens both. A real scientist and a real theologian would both agree that the world is full of complex mysteries that may never be discovered, and it would be presumptuous of us to claim to know all the answers and how things fit together.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #3129 on: June 27, 2011, 06:20:22 PM »

Many that I have met are evolutionists. I am an evoluntist.

That said, some are not. This is usually converts bringing over their Young-Earth Creationist perspective, or very old school folks (monks, a lot of times) who still use the Byzantine calendar, which counts years "from the creation of the world."

It is actually those that have read the Church Fathers and see that the Church has always taught that Genesis was literal.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #3130 on: June 27, 2011, 06:25:07 PM »

1 can of nightcrawlers please.
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Ioannis Climacus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


"There is no religion higher than TRUTH"


« Reply #3131 on: June 27, 2011, 06:28:26 PM »

Unfortunately, yes. Many Orthodox Christians do profess belief in the theory of evolution. It is widespread amongst those of us who think of ourselves as "progressive" and "intellectual" (though they are at odds with the monks and glorified saints). I would recommend reading Fr. Seraphim of Platina's book Genesis, Creation and Early Man.
Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3132 on: June 27, 2011, 06:44:56 PM »

It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3133 on: June 27, 2011, 06:52:45 PM »

It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...



Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3134 on: June 27, 2011, 06:54:03 PM »

It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...



Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?

Yes.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,287



« Reply #3135 on: June 27, 2011, 07:00:07 PM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3136 on: June 27, 2011, 07:07:54 PM »

It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...



Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?

Yes.

Okay. We might be able to share the same sandbox, from time to time.

I am not an absolutist on this topic--to the point where I believe there is a conspiracy amongst scientists, I just prefer to keep hands-off the traditional interpretation of the Church. I don't think it's my place to try and explain the Genesis narrative in a way which tries to fit in evolution. Evolution, and even physics, tells little about God, and Genesis itself tells little about the underlying forces operating at the creation of the universe. I don't think it would be fare to characterize Orthodox creationists as being in any way in league with  the Protestant version of creationism. There are major differences, I believe. I do not believe in "creation science" either. I think it's intellectually weak. However, I believe I have a decent understanding of the limits of science, the diversity of opinions amongst reputable scientists, and the mysteries which have yet to be explained. I believe it is quite possible that scientific calculations point to an earth billions of years old and an evolution from simple to more complex species. I don't feel compelled, however, to say or speculate how man is descended from an ape-like ancestor or an amoeba. The theological adoption of that narrative warps our theology, and the scientific adoption of a strict Genesis narrative warps science (Genesis is, after all, a "prophetic" vision of the past, a revelation to Moses, which makes it kin to the other prophetic books and Apocalypse, and a bit different from, say the Gospels, although the Gospels are just written accounts of the actual revelation of God in the flesh.). The creation was miraculous. Just as the resurrection and the virgin birth and many other things. Glory to God for it all. I don't see the need to dogmatize on detail.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3137 on: June 27, 2011, 07:15:44 PM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results. We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory. If evolution is wrong, fine. If evolution is right, fine. Ultimately, it should not effect our religion, because you are right. It is God's determination. He is sovereign.

What gets me is people who argue so strongly against it, when science does have some compelling information. We can neither state evolution is perfect fact, nor can we dismiss it as something hair-brained. The word "yom" in Hebrew does not always mean a literal 24-hour day, and the first few chapters of Genesis are beautiful poetry that overturns the upside-down perspective on Creation given by other creation narratives that are both earlier than and contemporary with it. Even so, the ancients did not conceive of time quite that way. No one really did, until the invention of mechanical time pieces!
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #3138 on: June 27, 2011, 07:26:47 PM »

It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...



Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?

Yes.

Okay. We might be able to share the same sandbox, from time to time.

I am not an absolutist on this topic--to the point where I believe there is a conspiracy amongst scientists, I just prefer to keep hands-off the traditional interpretation of the Church. I don't think it's my place to try and explain the Genesis narrative in a way which tries to fit in evolution. Evolution, and even physics, tells little about God, and Genesis itself tells little about the underlying forces operating at the creation of the universe. I don't think it would be fare to characterize Orthodox creationists as being in any way in league with  the Protestant version of creationism. There are major differences, I believe. I do not believe in "creation science" either. I think it's intellectually weak. However, I believe I have a decent understanding of the limits of science, the diversity of opinions amongst reputable scientists, and the mysteries which have yet to be explained. I believe it is quite possible that scientific calculations point to an earth billions of years old and an evolution from simple to more complex species. I don't feel compelled, however, to say or speculate how man is descended from an ape-like ancestor or an amoeba. The theological adoption of that narrative warps our theology, and the scientific adoption of a strict Genesis narrative warps science (Genesis is, after all, a "prophetic" vision of the past, a revelation to Moses, which makes it kin to the other prophetic books and Apocalypse, and a bit different from, say the Gospels, although the Gospels are just written accounts of the actual revelation of God in the flesh.). The creation was miraculous. Just as the resurrection and the virgin birth and many other things. Glory to God for it all. I don't see the need to dogmatize on detail.

I'm fine with that. I'm even to the point that I have no issue interpreting Genesis literally, in the context of the Church. I don't believe the Bible can be used as a book of science, that's not the point, but it's written that way for a reason, and is inspired. My problem comes when we start using that literal interpretation to fight with modern science. To me, it cheapens the narrative and makes it "just a book of facts" which in all honesty, cannot be backed up. Why can't it be? Because that's not the point.

Many Orthodox do not hold to creation science, which is good, but I've met those that do. These are the ones that really bother me, for the reasons I just stated above. I don't think we need to talk about evolution theologically, because it's science theory, not theology. Genesis is theology. in the same way, Genesis is not science, and shouldn't be in a text book.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #3139 on: June 27, 2011, 07:38:05 PM »

Ugh...another pew thread under a different name.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #3140 on: June 27, 2011, 07:50:26 PM »

My priest told me that to reduce the creation accounts in Genesis to either 4.5 billion years or less than 10 thousand years is to miss the point.  I'm really not sure why either side takes such an absolutist stance.  Personally, I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  But what I think about it means absolutely nothing.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #3141 on: June 27, 2011, 07:56:03 PM »

The word "yom" in Hebrew does not always mean a literal 24-hour day, and the first few chapters of Genesis are beautiful poetry that overturns the upside-down perspective on Creation given by other creation narratives that are both earlier than and contemporary with it. Even so, the ancients did not conceive of time quite that way.

Not to mention that the first "day" passes before the Lord creates the great lights of the sky by which the ancients measured minutes, days, weeks, months, years.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #3142 on: June 27, 2011, 10:03:37 PM »

Ugh...another pew thread under a different name.
Exactly. I don't disagree, but my thoughts led me to discussions arising from the question "So when is the Rapture?"  Cheesy

If believing in evolution leads you to salvation, go for it. If it leads you astray, run in the opposite direction. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
Logged
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 #3143 on: June 27, 2011, 10:13:13 PM »

Assuming the two are not merged, what are the chances this thread will end up as long as the other thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.0.html ? Smiley
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3144 on: June 28, 2011, 12:21:03 AM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,287



« Reply #3145 on: June 28, 2011, 02:01:00 AM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
Fortunately there are still some who question it and keep on looking.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3146 on: June 28, 2011, 03:36:13 AM »

I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.

I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
Fortunately there are still some who question it and keep on looking.
As very well they should, since science cannot afford to be dogmatic. Looking at this from a scientific point of view, we may yet find a theory that explains the facts better than our current theory. We may uncover data we've never known before, data that requires a new explanation. If we're exercising the scientific method correctly, we have a responsibility to always maintain the falsifiability of a theory, because only then can we keep ourselves open to new information. That's the problem I see with creation "science": it's not falsifiable; therefore, it's not open to being corrected by new information.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2011, 03:36:55 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #3147 on: June 28, 2011, 03:53:19 AM »

I am cradle Orthodox and I remember almost 50 years ago being taught in Sunday School that the Book of Genesis does not contain literal truth but it does contain spiritual truth...I was a zoolology major for a while in University and never had trouble with my religious beliefs...
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #3148 on: June 28, 2011, 04:22:20 AM »

Ugh...another pew thread under a different name.
Exactly. I don't disagree, but my thoughts led me to discussions arising from the question "So when is the Rapture?"  Cheesy

If believing in evolution leads you to salvation, go for it. If it leads you astray, run in the opposite direction. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.

Exactly so.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
pasadi97
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 572


« Reply #3149 on: June 28, 2011, 09:41:08 AM »

Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 »   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 0.197 seconds with 75 queries.