OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 06:11:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 326742 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 11,425


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


WWW
« Reply #3645 on: September 16, 2011, 03:43:43 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)



From what I understand, Allister McGrath is pro-evolution.  I never knew he was a biochemist.  I thought he was an Anglican pastor.

And I wouldn't shut down biochemistry as a field to ignore.  They are just as highly qualified to talk about evolution as biologists.  Dr. Behe is an anomaly who doesn't even deny the theory of common descent anyway.

To be specific, he has a Ph.D. in biophysics, but as far as I can tell, he has never worked in that capacity. (although I have a history degree, I do not call myself a historian)

I disagree that biochemists are equally qualified to discuss evolution as biologists because their field of study is the chemical reactions within organisms. They can talk about the role that formaldehyde plays in human metabolism, for example, but not very much about the evolution of feathers, for example. And of course, not all biologists are equally qualified. I would give more credence to an evolutionary biologist than a cellular biologist if I had a question about evolution. I experience this issue in my life as well - when people hear I am a lawyer, they do not hesitate to ask me questions about child support or automobile accidents when I have no idea about any of that stuff. I do business law.

But, I digress. I am still waiting for a theology text by biologists.



The very science of genetics is rooted in biochemistry.  Genetics is a necessary component of understanding evolution.  To say that biochemists are not qualified is mind-boggling to me.
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.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3646 on: September 16, 2011, 04:33:30 PM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3647 on: September 16, 2011, 05:54:44 PM »

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!
Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)
It's a branch of biology -- unless you reject the branch theory of biology.

Please refer to my post above regarding specialization within biology.

Of course, even if we except him as a biologist, (to my knowledge, he has never worked as a biochemist), my point was not that there is no such book. While I have never read the book you link, I imagine he does not appeal to his scientific expertise as giving him theological insight. My point is that there is a dearth of such books. Real experts are generally very aware of the limitations of their own knowledge of expertise. To whit:

Number of books written by biologists about theology: miniscule to nil
Number of books written by Christians with no expertise stating opinions that fly in the face of scientific consensus: thousands

So much for humility!

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3648 on: September 16, 2011, 05:56:24 PM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3649 on: September 16, 2011, 10:13:19 PM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?



perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #3650 on: September 17, 2011, 12:20:51 AM »

First, I want to commend you for Reply #3636, it had the attribute of being thoughtful, helpful and appropriate.

I thought I should respond to this quote as a biochemist:
I disagree that biochemists are equally qualified to discuss evolution as biologists because their field of study is the chemical reactions within organisms. They can talk about the role that formaldehyde plays in human metabolism, for example, but not very much about the evolution of feathers, for example. And of course, not all biologists are equally qualified. I would give more credence to an evolutionary biologist than a cellular biologist if I had a question about evolution. I experience this issue in my life as well - when people hear I am a lawyer, they do not hesitate to ask me questions about child support or automobile accidents when I have no idea about any of that stuff. I do business law.

But, I digress. I am still waiting for a theology text by biologists.

You are correct, in that there is a large swath of biochemists that deal with metabolism who discover and analyze therapeutic inhibitors of enzyme functions that relate to an assortment of metabolic diseases. You would probably also be correct that a large fraction of these people would not be that knowledgeable about evolution.
That being said, there is also a large swath of biochemists that are more knowledgeable about evolution than evolutionary biologists. Most biochemists are not in a biochemistry department, they are spread out in other departments, some of which one would think has little to do with biochemistry (especially at medical schools and NIH). For example I am in the molecular biology division of a biology department, molecular biology used to be the realm of biophysicists, but got taken over by molecular geneticists (biochemists). Quitting here so as to not belabor the point since I can see where you are coming from.

Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3651 on: September 17, 2011, 07:44:58 AM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?



perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?

« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:45:32 AM by Sauron » Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,504


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #3652 on: September 17, 2011, 10:49:10 AM »

hi, mina soliman (reply 3617)
i agree with that article in all except the added square brackets [and other homo sapiens].
i really didn't find enough evidence of other humans (not descended from adam) to question the idea that adam was a literal first human made in the image of God.
anyway, i am moving house soon so will not have time to debate this more (sorry sauron), but thanks for the link.
apart from the square brackets above, that guy is generally in agreement with father athanasius.
may God bless u all.
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: 11,425


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


WWW
« Reply #3653 on: September 17, 2011, 11:06:06 AM »

hi, mina soliman (reply 3617)
i agree with that article in all except the added square brackets [and other homo sapiens].
i really didn't find enough evidence of other humans (not descended from adam) to question the idea that adam was a literal first human made in the image of God.
anyway, i am moving house soon so will not have time to debate this more (sorry sauron), but thanks for the link.
apart from the square brackets above, that guy is generally in agreement with father athanasius.
may God bless u all.

Maybe Fr. Athanasius changed over the years.  I don't know.  Long time ago, when I listened to Fr. Athanasius' lectures he was anti-evolution, even if he makes himself out to be pro-science (I do commend him however for acknowledging that it would be madness to be think that the earth is young in age).  The article I gave you is pro-evolution.  That's the difference between Fr. Athanasius and Dr. Reda Fayek.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 11:06:35 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.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3654 on: September 17, 2011, 02:11:24 PM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?



perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?



he does not deny the observations that are made. i dont know anyone that does. he takes issue with the interpretation of the observations. no matter what you say, common descent was observed by no one - its an extrapolation. you may think its a correct extrapolation but its certainly not an observation. i dont know what a bailiwick is. to describe the physical universe is mainly the job of scientists, but to describe the act of Creation and to describe Paradise - well that is clearly the job of a theologian. to interpret Genesis is clearly the job of a theologian and this is mainly what the book is about.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3655 on: September 17, 2011, 04:51:33 PM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?



perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?



he does not deny the observations that are made. i dont know anyone that does. he takes issue with the interpretation of the observations. no matter what you say, common descent was observed by no one - its an extrapolation. you may think its a correct extrapolation but its certainly not an observation. i dont know what a bailiwick is. to describe the physical universe is mainly the job of scientists, but to describe the act of Creation and to describe Paradise - well that is clearly the job of a theologian. to interpret Genesis is clearly the job of a theologian and this is mainly what the book is about.

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3656 on: September 17, 2011, 07:40:52 PM »

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?



perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?



he does not deny the observations that are made. i dont know anyone that does. he takes issue with the interpretation of the observations. no matter what you say, common descent was observed by no one - its an extrapolation. you may think its a correct extrapolation but its certainly not an observation. i dont know what a bailiwick is. to describe the physical universe is mainly the job of scientists, but to describe the act of Creation and to describe Paradise - well that is clearly the job of a theologian. to interpret Genesis is clearly the job of a theologian and this is mainly what the book is about.

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.



thats different - i actually observed my house before and after the ransacking, so i know something happened. the world was not observed before the billions of years of evolution. what is observed is remains of the past (not the past itself)- but they must be interpreted. a more accurate parallel would be for me to walk into a random house and see that on Monday its clean but by Friday it has become messy. Since I have observed the house get steadily messier, then I can extrapolate that the condition of the house on Monday is actually messier than it was on the previous Monday, and that Monday was messier than its previous Monday, etc etc. Since I've seen the house get messier then obviously as i go back in time it would get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, etc. thats a proper parallel for the theory of common descent.

you lend first credence to presuppositional extrapolations of physical observations when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding Paradise and the pre-fallen world. Creationism lends first credence to those who have seen God. there's no common ground to start from.

and i didnt deny speciation. you seem like a smart chap, im sure you can figure out my actual position.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:41:58 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3657 on: September 17, 2011, 07:51:00 PM »

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

thats different - i actually observed my house before and after the ransacking, so i know something happened. the world was not observed before the billions of years of evolution. what is observed is remains of the past (not the past itself)- but they must be interpreted. a more accurate parallel would be for me to walk into a random house and see that on Monday its clean but by Friday it has become messy. Since I have observed the house get steadily messier, then I can extrapolate that the condition of the house on Monday is actually messier than it was on the previous Monday, and that Monday was messier than its previous Monday, etc etc. Since I've seen the house get messier then obviously as i go back in time it would get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, etc. thats a proper parallel for the theory of common descent.

So what if you saw your house before it was ransacked? You did not see how it actually got to that condition. Until you understand this, you will continue to rant about "no one saw common descent!" ineffectively.

Quote
you lend first credence to presuppositional extrapolations of physical observations when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding Paradise and the pre-fallen world. Creationism lends first credence to those who have seen God. there's no common ground to start from.

and i didnt deny speciation. you seem like a smart chap, im sure you can figure out my actual position.

I really don't know your position. If you don't deny speciation, I don't see how you deny common descent. Speciation is how common descent happens.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2011, 07:51:24 PM by Sauron » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3658 on: September 17, 2011, 09:25:52 PM »

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

thats different - i actually observed my house before and after the ransacking, so i know something happened. the world was not observed before the billions of years of evolution. what is observed is remains of the past (not the past itself)- but they must be interpreted. a more accurate parallel would be for me to walk into a random house and see that on Monday its clean but by Friday it has become messy. Since I have observed the house get steadily messier, then I can extrapolate that the condition of the house on Monday is actually messier than it was on the previous Monday, and that Monday was messier than its previous Monday, etc etc. Since I've seen the house get messier then obviously as i go back in time it would get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, etc. thats a proper parallel for the theory of common descent.

So what if you saw your house before it was ransacked? You did not see how it actually got to that condition. Until you understand this, you will continue to rant about "no one saw common descent!" ineffectively.

Quote
you lend first credence to presuppositional extrapolations of physical observations when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding Paradise and the pre-fallen world. Creationism lends first credence to those who have seen God. there's no common ground to start from.

and i didnt deny speciation. you seem like a smart chap, im sure you can figure out my actual position.

I really don't know your position. If you don't deny speciation, I don't see how you deny common descent. Speciation is how common descent happens.



well anyways, i just wanted to let people know about the book in case anyone would be interested. we're not going to agree.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #3659 on: September 18, 2011, 03:58:40 PM »

The truth about evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_NdQ6QjLI&feature=relmfu
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,186



« Reply #3660 on: September 26, 2011, 01:35:02 AM »

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 01:47:03 AM by Anastasia1 » Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3661 on: September 26, 2011, 01:49:00 AM »

Have you taken a look yet at this thread?  Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3662 on: September 26, 2011, 01:49:24 AM »

Might want to let the Ethopians weigh in on this.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,186



« Reply #3663 on: September 26, 2011, 02:02:08 AM »

Thank you.
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
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: 11,425


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


WWW
« Reply #3664 on: September 26, 2011, 02:04:54 AM »


LOL...I completely passed over this post...

...But I must say, Egyptians are the first humans.  In fact, Alexander the Great acknowledged this by making Alexandria, Egypt the best place in the world!  Come on now...Greek people really had to go to Alexandria for education to become qualified to be called "homo sapiens"

Pythagoreas?  True, he was Greek, but he lived in Alexandria.  Your welcome, Greece  Wink
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.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3665 on: September 26, 2011, 02:23:25 AM »

I expected him to have knocked himself out with his Kombolói by the end of the *lecture*!  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #3666 on: September 26, 2011, 10:52:05 AM »


LOL...I completely passed over this post...

...But I must say, Egyptians are the first humans.  In fact, Alexander the Great acknowledged this by making Alexandria, Egypt the best place in the world!  Come on now...Greek people really had to go to Alexandria for education to become qualified to be called "homo sapiens"

Pythagoreas?  True, he was Greek, but he lived in Alexandria.  Your welcome, Greece  Wink

Black Athena was discredited some time ago. I remember a student trying to raise it during one of my graduate school history courses, and the professor shot her down pretty easily.

While classics was not my area of study, do you have some citations for the claim that Pythagoras lived in Alexandria? He established his school in Italy.
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: 11,425


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


WWW
« Reply #3667 on: September 26, 2011, 10:58:06 AM »


LOL...I completely passed over this post...

...But I must say, Egyptians are the first humans.  In fact, Alexander the Great acknowledged this by making Alexandria, Egypt the best place in the world!  Come on now...Greek people really had to go to Alexandria for education to become qualified to be called "homo sapiens"

Pythagoreas?  True, he was Greek, but he lived in Alexandria.  Your welcome, Greece  Wink

Black Athena was discredited some time ago. I remember a student trying to raise it during one of my graduate school history courses, and the professor shot her down pretty easily.

While classics was not my area of study, do you have some citations for the claim that Pythagoras lived in Alexandria? He established his school in Italy.


Dude, I'm joking around.  Please don't dwell on a joke.  Second of all, I'm not talking about "Black Athena" theories.  In fact, I find a problem with "Black Egypt" theories as well.
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.
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,250



« Reply #3668 on: September 26, 2011, 10:58:40 AM »

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?
Not an issue?
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3669 on: September 26, 2011, 11:11:16 AM »

Have you taken a look yet at this thread?  Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Staring. Abyss. And all that.

Unless you want to end up in Arkham, I advise not clicking that link, unless . . . no really just don't click it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #3670 on: September 26, 2011, 01:13:34 PM »

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?
I stump for the latter because I don't think it's Christian to completely reject modern science.

At the same time I'm quite afraid I've committed myself to a slippery slope which will end in denying the Resurrection, not that cognitive dissonance isn't my live-in girlfriend these days in other areas anyway...
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 01:14:05 PM by Volnutt » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3671 on: September 26, 2011, 01:22:52 PM »

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?
I stump for the latter because I don't think it's Christian to completely reject modern science.

At the same time I'm quite afraid I've committed myself to a slippery slope which will end in denying the Resurrection, not that cognitive dissonance isn't my live-in girlfriend these days in other areas anyway...

Just as long as you are living as brother and sister as not understood by the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (there's an oxymoron for you), you should be fine.

//:=)
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,009


"My god is greater."


« Reply #3672 on: September 26, 2011, 01:23:56 PM »

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?
I stump for the latter because I don't think it's Christian to completely reject modern science.

At the same time I'm quite afraid I've committed myself to a slippery slope which will end in denying the Resurrection, not that cognitive dissonance isn't my live-in girlfriend these days in other areas anyway...

Folks who are really vexed about this question might benefit from reading Philip Sherrard's Human Image: World Image and also St. Nikolai of Zicha's The Universe as Symbols and Signs.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3673 on: September 26, 2011, 01:28:24 PM »

In our Parish we're reading Creation and the Patriarchial Histories and it really goes in depth concerning these topics.

http://conciliarpress.com/products/Creation_and_the_Patriarchal_Histories-496-0.html

If you're interested. Its fantastic.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3674 on: September 26, 2011, 01:35:34 PM »

What would be interesting is if those of us who reject "young earth", aka the reasonable folks, could have a thread without the barbs of pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists intervening about the REAL problems of belief in "evolution" pose for Christian thought.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 01:36:02 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3675 on: September 26, 2011, 02:04:32 PM »

What would be interesting is if those of us who reject "young earth", aka the reasonable folks, could have a thread without the barbs of pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists intervening about the REAL problems of belief in "evolution" pose for Christian thought.
+1


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3676 on: September 26, 2011, 02:14:54 PM »

what would be even better would be a thread where "old-earthers" didnt feel the need to judge and mock "young-earthers," especially considering that our Saints from ancient to present times are "young-earthers!"
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3677 on: September 26, 2011, 02:18:16 PM »

what would be even better would be a thread where "old-earthers" didnt feel the need to judge and mock "young-earthers," especially considering that our Saints from ancient to present times are "young-earthers!"
Last I looked, belief in young-earth creationism was not needed for salvation.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3678 on: September 26, 2011, 02:18:22 PM »

What would be interesting is if those of us who reject "young earth", aka the reasonable folks, could have a thread without the barbs of pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists intervening about the REAL problems of belief in "evolution" pose for Christian thought.



Impossible!  laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3679 on: September 26, 2011, 02:19:48 PM »

what would be even better would be a thread where "old-earthers" didnt feel the need to judge and mock "young-earthers," especially considering that our Saints from ancient to present times are "young-earthers!"
Are our saints infallible?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3680 on: September 26, 2011, 02:21:37 PM »

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #3681 on: September 26, 2011, 02:30:19 PM »

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

Time / Place.

They live in theirs. You live in yours.

Did the Fathers teach the cosmology of OT? (Get back to me.) Do you?

Stop LARPing and live now and where ever you are.

I ain't looking for any big technological achievements to be coming outta Mt. Athos anytime soon.

Should we let all the "elders" write our science down for us?

Nonsense.

And I never called anyone unreasonable. I said some people were reasonable. You would think an Orthodox would understand something about the logic of privatives.

But to make it clear. I AM calling you somewhat unreasonable. In this case, displaying a relative lack of reason. Next time at least get your opponent's words correct.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3682 on: September 26, 2011, 02:34:52 PM »

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

Time / Place.

They live in theirs. You live in yours.

Did the Fathers teach the cosmology of OT? (Get back to me.) Do you?

Stop LARPing and live now and where ever you are.

I ain't looking for any big technological achievements to be coming outta Mt. Athos anytime soon.

Should we let all the "elders" write our science down for us?

Nonsense.

And I never called anyone unreasonable. I said some people were reasonable. You would think an Orthodox would understand something about the logic of privatives.

But to make it clear. I AM calling you somewhat unreasonable. In this case, displaying a relative lack of reason. Next time at least get your opponent's words correct.



by calling old-earthers the reasonable people you obviously imply that the young-earthers are unreasonable. so i said it'd be nice to see a thread where the old-earthers didnt devolve into mocking and judging. to make the point stronger i pointed out that you are thereby referring to our Saints (including many Saints who have lived since Darwin) as unreasonable. I like it to be clear just exactly who it is that the old-earthers are aiming their attacks at.

i just find it interesting that old-earthers/evolutionists seem to have a very hard time being civil.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 02:36:05 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #3683 on: September 26, 2011, 02:49:17 PM »

I almost posted a thread about this the other day.  I recently sent a question to "Orthodox Answers" and they just answered me back yesterday.  It seems that the reason, obviously, that many saints were "young earthers" is because they didnt have the science we have today.  it just wasnt a topic that concerned them. and although it is a fascinating topic, i would argue that it still shouldnt concern us that much today. it still doesnt change the death and resurrection of Christ.

if you care to read the Priests full response to me, here it is! http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1132/
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3684 on: September 26, 2011, 02:57:37 PM »

I simply believe that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

HOW He did it is up to him.
If He chose to use evolution, fine.
If he chose to use the verbatim account of Genesis and cover up His tracks, ok by me.


Do I believe it was 6,000 years ago? No. I have something in my closet older than that.
Random genetic evolution? No.
We're all just one big accident? Heck no.
He did it on purpose (whatever medium he used)? Yep.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,209


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3685 on: September 26, 2011, 03:28:22 PM »

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

Time / Place.

They live in theirs. You live in yours.

Did the Fathers teach the cosmology of OT? (Get back to me.) Do you?

Stop LARPing and live now and where ever you are.

I ain't looking for any big technological achievements to be coming outta Mt. Athos anytime soon.

Should we let all the "elders" write our science down for us?

Nonsense.

And I never called anyone unreasonable. I said some people were reasonable. You would think an Orthodox would understand something about the logic of privatives.

But to make it clear. I AM calling you somewhat unreasonable. In this case, displaying a relative lack of reason. Next time at least get your opponent's words correct.



by calling old-earthers the reasonable people you obviously imply that the young-earthers are unreasonable. so i said it'd be nice to see a thread where the old-earthers didnt devolve into mocking and judging. to make the point stronger i pointed out that you are thereby referring to our Saints (including many Saints who have lived since Darwin) as unreasonable. I like it to be clear just exactly who it is that the old-earthers are aiming their attacks at.

i just find it interesting that old-earthers/evolutionists seem to have a very hard time being civil.
It's not just the "old-earthers/evolutionists" who seem to have a hard time being civil on this forum.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #3686 on: September 26, 2011, 04:07:33 PM »

I almost posted a thread about this the other day.  I recently sent a question to "Orthodox Answers" and they just answered me back yesterday.  It seems that the reason, obviously, that many saints were "young earthers" is because they didnt have the science we have today.  it just wasnt a topic that concerned them. and although it is a fascinating topic, i would argue that it still shouldnt concern us that much today. it still doesnt change the death and resurrection of Christ.

if you care to read the Priests full response to me, here it is! http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1132/
I like Fr. Laurent's answer.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #3687 on: September 26, 2011, 04:08:06 PM »

I simply believe that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

HOW He did it is up to him.
If He chose to use evolution, fine.
If he chose to use the verbatim account of Genesis and cover up His tracks, ok by me.


Do I believe it was 6,000 years ago? No. I have something in my closet older than that.
Random genetic evolution? No.
We're all just one big accident? Heck no.
He did it on purpose (whatever medium he used)? Yep.

PP
Indeed, with God there is actually no such thing as a random event.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3688 on: September 26, 2011, 04:11:23 PM »

I simply believe that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

HOW He did it is up to him.
If He chose to use evolution, fine.
If he chose to use the verbatim account of Genesis and cover up His tracks, ok by me.


Do I believe it was 6,000 years ago? No. I have something in my closet older than that.
Random genetic evolution? No.
We're all just one big accident? Heck no.
He did it on purpose (whatever medium he used)? Yep.

PP
Indeed, with God there is actually no such thing as a random event.

However, a small part of me wishes that when we get to see God and ask Him, he'll just look at us and say, "Young Earth evolution? Heh, no my children.... epic gigantic mice.....thats how I did it......


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,892


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #3689 on: September 26, 2011, 05:10:42 PM »

Saints reference the Four Humors of the body. All true Orthodox must believe in Humorism.
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
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 0.177 seconds with 75 queries.