OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 07:59:05 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 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

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 318534 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3420 on: August 10, 2011, 03:40:57 PM »

All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.

Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?

It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?


The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.

So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?

I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. Tongue
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3421 on: August 10, 2011, 03:50:23 PM »

All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.

Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?

It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?


The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.

So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?

I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. Tongue

My questions were not about how hard to understand the issues are. I asked, according to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work, if there was respiration, and about Adam's anatomy. Please be responsive. I think we could agree that the pre-fall world has respiration because of the reference to animals and people having the "breath of life", yes?

I truly do not understand what you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,364


« Reply #3422 on: August 10, 2011, 03:54:33 PM »

Something I posted earlier in the thread, fwiw...

Quote
Before he dressed himself in the garments of skin man wore a "divinely woven" [99] attire, his psychosomatic dress which had been woven with grace, with the light and glory of God. Our first parents "were clothed in glory from above... the heavenly glory covered them better than any garment could do." [100] This refers to the attire of the "in the image," the prelapsarian human nature formed by the breath of God and endowed with a deiform structure. This attire shone with "the likeness to the divine" which was constituted, not by a "shape" or a "color," but by "dispassion," "blessedness" and "incorruption," the characteristics by which "the divine is contemplated as beauty." [101]

The first man, according to the succinct expression of St Gregory the Theologian, was "naked by virtue of his simplicity." [102] This means, as St Maximos explains, that his body did not contain within it the mutually contradictory "qualities" which now pull it in different directions, scourge it with corruption and make it decay, but it possessed "another temperament which befitted it, a temperament maintained by simple qualities compatible with each other." It was "without flux or wastage," free from "constant change depending  on which quality was predominant," and for this reason was not bereft "of immortality by grace." [103] If we understand the "nakedness" as transparency, we can say that the body of Adam was so simple that it was in reality transparent, open to the material creation without resisting it in any way, and without the world offering any resistance to the body--the world had been surrendered to it. The human body, while maintaining its own peculiar constitution and separate identity with regard to the world, was nevertheless not divided from it at all.


[99] This is the usual characteristic which hymnology attributes to the prelapsarian human attire: "Thou hast dressed me in a divinely woven attire, O Savior" (canticle 6, troparian 1, Canon of the Sunday of Cheesefare). Cf. Romanos Melodos, Kontakion on Epiphany, Oikos 2. See also the study of the Great Canon below, pp. 173-4. For the general condition of the first human beings before the fall according to St Gregory of Nyssa, see J. Gaith, La conception de liberte chez Gregoire de Nysse, 52 ff.

[100] St John Chrysostom, On Genesis 15,4, PG 53, 123 and 16, 5, PG 53, 131. Cf E. Peterson, Pour une theologie du vetement, 5-9, who also gives references to Sts Irenaeus, Ambrose, and Augustine

[101] St Gregory of Nyssa, On Those Who Have Fallen Asleep, PG 46, 521D

[102] St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45, 8, PG 36, 632C

[103] St Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua, PG 91, 1353AB


--Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person, pp. 52-53

Though I realise some have issues with the concepts...
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 03:58:07 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

There are many foolish priests out there.
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3423 on: August 10, 2011, 03:54:55 PM »

All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.

Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?

It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?


The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.

So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?

I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. Tongue

My questions were not about how hard to understand the issues are. I asked, according to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work, if there was respiration, and about Adam's anatomy. Please be responsive. I think we could agree that the pre-fall world has respiration because of the reference to animals and people having the "breath of life", yes?

I truly do not understand what you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?


I'm saying that it was different in some way. Given that prelapsarian nature operated under different laws than our postlapsarian nature, as we observe it today with our scientific tools, we don't really have any grounds, logically speaking, to object to descriptions that seem to contradict our current understanding of nature, viz. absence of death, rotting, defecation, sexual intercourse etc.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,094


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3424 on: August 10, 2011, 09:45:29 PM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?



I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin. Let's try to remember the context of this discussion. We are dealing with the concept of death in an Orthodox Christian context. Within this context it is clear that death means physical and spiritual death of animate life. The Fall effected all of creation, but Scripture gives a clear indication of what constitutes "life". Atonement was always made by the shedding of blood, and by His blood
we have hope of salvation.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,601


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3425 on: August 10, 2011, 09:49:07 PM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?



I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin. Let's try to remember the context of this discussion. We are dealing with the concept of death in an Orthodox Christian context. Within this context it is clear that death means physical and spiritual death of animate life.
If by "animate life" you mean non-human forms of life, then no, it is NOT clear that death means what you say it means, and no amount of repetition is going to make it otherwise.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 09:49:58 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,300


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3426 on: August 10, 2011, 09:50:30 PM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin.
But, like the rest of creation, don't they groan and labor with pain, because of sin (Romans 8:22)?
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 #3427 on: August 10, 2011, 10:39:07 PM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin.
But, like the rest of creation, don't they groan and labor with pain, because of sin (Romans 8:22)?

arent you thereby acknowledging that even animals and plants and the earth itself suffer from our sin?
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3428 on: August 10, 2011, 11:27:34 PM »

St. Augustine said that the Bible (including Genesis) should not be interpreted literally if it goes against what we know from science and reason.

In regards to what St. Augustine says:

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

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

Forgive my sins.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,094


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3429 on: August 10, 2011, 11:30:37 PM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin.
But, like the rest of creation, don't they groan and labor with pain, because of sin (Romans 8:22)?

arent you thereby acknowledging that even animals and plants and the earth itself suffer from our sin?


Indeed, the whole creation suffers from sin. But Christ came to die for sinners, not for plants.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #3430 on: August 11, 2011, 01:41:14 AM »

Indeed, the whole creation suffers from sin. But Christ came to die for sinners, not for plants.


Selam

Logged

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

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,300


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3431 on: August 11, 2011, 07:15:54 AM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin.
But, like the rest of creation, don't they groan and labor with pain, because of sin (Romans 8:22)?

arent you thereby acknowledging that even animals and plants and the earth itself suffer from our sin?
Either human sin, or angelic sin.
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 #3432 on: August 11, 2011, 08:57:06 AM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin.
But, like the rest of creation, don't they groan and labor with pain, because of sin (Romans 8:22)?

arent you thereby acknowledging that even animals and plants and the earth itself suffer from our sin?
Either human sin, or angelic sin.

do you think thats compatible with evolution?
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,300


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3433 on: August 11, 2011, 09:19:10 AM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin.
But, like the rest of creation, don't they groan and labor with pain, because of sin (Romans 8:22)?

arent you thereby acknowledging that even animals and plants and the earth itself suffer from our sin?
Either human sin, or angelic sin.

do you think thats compatible with evolution?
Sure. We killed off the Passenger Pigeon, the Dodo, among many others; and we aren't done yet. We pollute the air, water, and land. I'd say that animals, plants, and the earth are all suffering from our sins.

But you probably didn't mean that type of suffering, the suffering produced by modern industrial civilization. You probably are referring to human sin of a more basic kind.

I think that human sin having an effect upon creation, is consistent with evolution. We humans have a level of self-awareness and other-awareness that is lacking in other species, and, because of that, we humans have greater power to destroy the creation around us. This greater power to destroy is due to the image and likeness of God within us.

Do I think that human sin is that which produced physical death in the non-human world? No, but I do think that human sin produces a much deeper type of death, a spiritual death, a "groaning and laboring in pain", in the non-human world.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 09:21:46 AM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3434 on: August 11, 2011, 09:46:19 AM »

All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.

Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?

It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?


The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.

So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?

I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. Tongue

My questions were not about how hard to understand the issues are. I asked, according to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work, if there was respiration, and about Adam's anatomy. Please be responsive. I think we could agree that the pre-fall world has respiration because of the reference to animals and people having the "breath of life", yes?

I truly do not understand what you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?


I'm saying that it was different in some way. Given that prelapsarian nature operated under different laws than our postlapsarian nature, as we observe it today with our scientific tools, we don't really have any grounds, logically speaking, to object to descriptions that seem to contradict our current understanding of nature, viz. absence of death, rotting, defecation, sexual intercourse etc.

Do you understand why saying, "oh, it was different somehow" is not an explanation of anything?

Beyond that, you have failed to respond to my questions. I asked if the patristic quotes had an explanation for the nitrogen cycle in Paradise. Do they?

I asked if you think there was breathing in the Paradise. Was there?

I asked if Adam has intestines and an anus. Did he?

I asked you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

I do not know how I can make my inquiry any clearer.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3435 on: August 11, 2011, 09:47:58 AM »

St. Augustine said that the Bible (including Genesis) should not be interpreted literally if it goes against what we know from science and reason.

In regards to what St. Augustine says:

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

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

Isn't it amazing that a 5th-century theologian can understand this concept but some 21st-century Christians cannot?
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3436 on: August 11, 2011, 09:49:38 AM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?



I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin. Let's try to remember the context of this discussion. We are dealing with the concept of death in an Orthodox Christian context. Within this context it is clear that death means physical and spiritual death of animate life. The Fall effected all of creation, but Scripture gives a clear indication of what constitutes "life". Atonement was always made by the shedding of blood, and by His blood
we have hope of salvation.


Selam

Who cares what you think about sponges and jellyfish? They are alive, yet have no blood. I hasten to add that they are also animate, as any trip to an aquarium will reveal.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3437 on: August 11, 2011, 01:19:18 PM »

All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.

Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?

It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?


The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.

So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?

I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. Tongue

My questions were not about how hard to understand the issues are. I asked, according to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work, if there was respiration, and about Adam's anatomy. Please be responsive. I think we could agree that the pre-fall world has respiration because of the reference to animals and people having the "breath of life", yes?

I truly do not understand what you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?


I'm saying that it was different in some way. Given that prelapsarian nature operated under different laws than our postlapsarian nature, as we observe it today with our scientific tools, we don't really have any grounds, logically speaking, to object to descriptions that seem to contradict our current understanding of nature, viz. absence of death, rotting, defecation, sexual intercourse etc.

Do you understand why saying, "oh, it was different somehow" is not an explanation of anything?

Beyond that, you have failed to respond to my questions. I asked if the patristic quotes had an explanation for the nitrogen cycle in Paradise. Do they?

I asked if you think there was breathing in the Paradise. Was there?

I asked if Adam has intestines and an anus. Did he?

I asked you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

I do not know how I can make my inquiry any clearer.

You might as well be asking how is it physically possible for the risen Christ to pass through closed doors. Stop being so obtuse. The definition of a mystery is that it's inexplicable by ordinary natural laws.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3438 on: August 11, 2011, 01:23:42 PM »

St. Augustine said that the Bible (including Genesis) should not be interpreted literally if it goes against what we know from science and reason.

In regards to what St. Augustine says:

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

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

Isn't it amazing that a 5th-century theologian can understand this concept but some 21st-century Christians cannot?


The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,385


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


WWW
« Reply #3439 on: August 11, 2011, 01:53:43 PM »

The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.

I totally agree.
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.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3440 on: August 11, 2011, 02:16:07 PM »

All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.

Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?

It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?


The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.

So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?

I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. Tongue

My questions were not about how hard to understand the issues are. I asked, according to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work, if there was respiration, and about Adam's anatomy. Please be responsive. I think we could agree that the pre-fall world has respiration because of the reference to animals and people having the "breath of life", yes?

I truly do not understand what you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?


I'm saying that it was different in some way. Given that prelapsarian nature operated under different laws than our postlapsarian nature, as we observe it today with our scientific tools, we don't really have any grounds, logically speaking, to object to descriptions that seem to contradict our current understanding of nature, viz. absence of death, rotting, defecation, sexual intercourse etc.

Do you understand why saying, "oh, it was different somehow" is not an explanation of anything?

Beyond that, you have failed to respond to my questions. I asked if the patristic quotes had an explanation for the nitrogen cycle in Paradise. Do they?

I asked if you think there was breathing in the Paradise. Was there?

I asked if Adam has intestines and an anus. Did he?

I asked you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

I do not know how I can make my inquiry any clearer.

You might as well be asking how is it physically possible for the risen Christ to pass through closed doors. Stop being so obtuse. The definition of a mystery is that it's inexplicable by ordinary natural laws.

That is a non sequitur and not responsive.

I think Genesis 2 makes it pretty clear that Adam breathed. I don't know why you don't even concede that point.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3441 on: August 11, 2011, 02:23:46 PM »

St. Augustine said that the Bible (including Genesis) should not be interpreted literally if it goes against what we know from science and reason.

In regards to what St. Augustine says:

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

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

Isn't it amazing that a 5th-century theologian can understand this concept but some 21st-century Christians cannot?


The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.

Who cares what many believe about the implications of a scientific concept? If a theory describes physical reality, either it is true or it is not. People who are concerned with the moral and dogmatic implications don't get to vote on physical reality.

The conflict between any scientific principle and Christianity is man-made. The fact that species of plants and animals evolve from each other has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not I should avoid anger, subdue my passions, be charitable, be humble, and so on.

I very much agree with your statement that it is folly "to refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe."
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,018


« Reply #3442 on: August 11, 2011, 05:30:07 PM »

The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.

I totally agree.

Thanks. Smiley

Of course, we don't know for certain if these scientific theories are right, and we should always be humble enough to acknowledge we might be wrong. At the same time, we should think carefully about how our beliefs might be affected by incontrovertible evidence that these theories are true.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3443 on: August 11, 2011, 05:39:49 PM »

So where did Cain find his wife?

 Wink
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,300


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3444 on: August 11, 2011, 09:20:47 PM »

So where did Cain find his wife?

 Wink
match.com
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.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3445 on: August 11, 2011, 09:22:03 PM »

So where did Cain find his wife?

 Wink
match.com
I was thinking more of Bruce Almighty but that works I suppose.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,094


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3446 on: August 11, 2011, 11:09:39 PM »


i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.

I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?




With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?



Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam

The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?



I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin. Let's try to remember the context of this discussion. We are dealing with the concept of death in an Orthodox Christian context. Within this context it is clear that death means physical and spiritual death of animate life. The Fall effected all of creation, but Scripture gives a clear indication of what constitutes "life". Atonement was always made by the shedding of blood, and by His blood
we have hope of salvation.


Selam

Who cares what you think about sponges and jellyfish? They are alive, yet have no blood. I hasten to add that they are also animate, as any trip to an aquarium will reveal.



Your response didn't address my point.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3447 on: August 11, 2011, 11:32:52 PM »

Your response didn't address my point.


Selam


 Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley

Logged

Forgive my sins.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,385


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


WWW
« Reply #3448 on: August 11, 2011, 11:42:39 PM »

The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.

I totally agree.

Thanks. Smiley

Of course, we don't know for certain if these scientific theories are right, and we should always be humble enough to acknowledge we might be wrong. At the same time, we should think carefully about how our beliefs might be affected by incontrovertible evidence that these theories are true.

I wish I had something better to say, but you said it best Smiley
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,385


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


WWW
« Reply #3449 on: August 11, 2011, 11:47:24 PM »

So where did Cain find his wife?

 Wink

Does the answer to this question really matter for you?  I might have made a big deal about it, but not anymore.  We need to ask ourselves how does answering this question affects my faith and if it doesn't then there's no need.
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.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,094


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3450 on: August 12, 2011, 12:02:39 AM »

Your response didn't address my point.


Selam


 Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley




Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. Wink


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,385


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


WWW
« Reply #3451 on: August 12, 2011, 12:24:20 AM »

So where did Cain find his wife?

 Wink

Does the answer to this question really matter for you?  I might have made a big deal about it, but not anymore.  We need to ask ourselves how does answering this question affects my faith and if it doesn't then there's no need.

Just in case, to cover my bases, you probably were joking, and I have nothing against you for that.  In the past, I might have used this as a sticking point, and so if anything, I'm also criticizing my own past as well as anyone else to does ask this question seriously.
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.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3452 on: August 12, 2011, 12:28:47 AM »

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus

Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. Wink


Selam


Everytime someone answers your questions in a way you don't like, you blow it off. That's what I was referencing. Wink
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,094


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3453 on: August 12, 2011, 03:39:07 AM »

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus

Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. Wink


Selam


Everytime someone answers your questions in a way you don't like, you blow it off. That's what I was referencing. Wink



Lighten up my friend. I was only trying to be humorous.

I haven't blown off any answers by the way. In fact, the two fundamental issues I repeatedly raise have been blown off for pages on this thread. I'm still waiting for a reasonable response. So far, all I've gotten is that hair tissue and figernails have dead tissue, so that must prove that there was death prior to the Fall. If such arguments are the best that theistic evolutionists can come up with, then I feel pretty secure in my position. But I do applaud the creativity. Evolutionists are very ingenious in concocting ad hoc after ad hoc hypotheses. It's pretty entertaining actually. 


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3454 on: August 12, 2011, 08:24:13 AM »

Your response didn't address my point.


Selam


 Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley




Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. Wink


Selam


Correct. For an overview of human evolution in historical times, I commend to your attention the recent book, "The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution" by Cochran and Harpending.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3455 on: August 12, 2011, 08:26:54 AM »

Quote from: Gebre Menfes Kidus

Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. Wink


Selam


Everytime someone answers your questions in a way you don't like, you blow it off. That's what I was referencing. Wink



Lighten up my friend. I was only trying to be humorous.

I haven't blown off any answers by the way. In fact, the two fundamental issues I repeatedly raise have been blown off for pages on this thread. I'm still waiting for a reasonable response. So far, all I've gotten is that hair tissue and figernails have dead tissue, so that must prove that there was death prior to the Fall. If such arguments are the best that theistic evolutionists can come up with, then I feel pretty secure in my position. But I do applaud the creativity. Evolutionists are very ingenious in concocting ad hoc after ad hoc hypotheses. It's pretty entertaining actually. 


Selam


Of course, you have not responded to a number of points, such as:

1. Dead hair cells in a world with no death
2. The need to procreate in a world with no death
3. The need to eat in a world with no death
4. The nitrogen cycle in a world with no death
5. The need for green plants in a world with no death

I await your addressing of these issues. If you have to ask about the relevance of any of them, you do not understand enough about biology to participate in the discussion.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3456 on: August 13, 2011, 11:05:57 PM »

I haven't blown off any answers by the way. In fact, the two fundamental issues I repeatedly raise have been blown off for pages on this thread. I'm still waiting for a reasonable response. So far, all I've gotten is that hair tissue and figernails have dead tissue, so that must prove that there was death prior to the Fall. If such arguments are the best that theistic evolutionists can come up with, then I feel pretty secure in my position. But I do applaud the creativity. Evolutionists are very ingenious in concocting ad hoc after ad hoc hypotheses. It's pretty entertaining actually. 


Selam


Yes you have.

It's reasonable to those of us that comprehend it. If you don't just say you dont and we can fill you in on it.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3457 on: August 17, 2011, 02:33:26 PM »

For the evolutionist: why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,300


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3458 on: August 17, 2011, 02:43:56 PM »

For the evolutionist: why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?
To get to the other side.
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.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3459 on: August 17, 2011, 02:46:47 PM »

For the evolutionist: why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?

I do not understand the purpose of the question. It appears premised on a false presumption. Science is generally not concerned with "why" but "how".

However, assuming that you genuinely wish to learn about the evolution of metamorphosis, I commend the following article to your attention:

Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452.

http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf

Let us resume the discussion once you have read the article.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3460 on: August 17, 2011, 02:58:07 PM »

Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3461 on: August 17, 2011, 03:01:22 PM »

For the evolutionist: why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?

That's an absurd question.

Why do you grow taller and get more teeth and hair with age?

Butterflies have a 4 part lifecycle:  egg, larva, pupa and adult. With Larva being a Caterpillar.

Let dead dogs lie.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3462 on: August 17, 2011, 03:04:11 PM »

Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.

Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 03:04:38 PM by Sauron » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3463 on: August 17, 2011, 03:07:32 PM »

Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.

Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.

That's exactly my point.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 844


« Reply #3464 on: August 17, 2011, 03:09:26 PM »

Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.

Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.

That's exactly my point.

Which is what?
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 0.243 seconds with 75 queries.