OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:49:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 329045 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3825 on: October 05, 2011, 08:54:05 PM »

I think it's a mistake to think that only spiritual death was the result of Adam's sin.  If Adam have not sinned, He could have lived an immortal and incorrupt life, and might even eventually through growth and maturation, and through the incarnation of Christ, bring the rest of the world with him.  However, the rest of the world did not partake of the grace of incorruption and immortality as Adam.  Therefore, I also would agree that Adam had to have born and lived an incorrupt life with God in the Paradise of Joy away from the world.  Adam brought death upon the human race, a race that wasn't supposed to die.  I think the question lies centrally on whether all plants and animals around Adam even before Adam existed died or not.  And to that, I think the answer according to the material evidence we find, yes.  That is how I personally have been able to reconcile the science of evolution and the faith of the Church fathers.

Hm, well I guess this is where I disagree, since we have e.g. St Simeon the New Theologian, who at least in the EO Church enjoys enormous authority, saying explicitly that there was not even any animal death before the fall; St Gregory of Sinai is another father who explicitly taught that there was no death of any kind originally. Also, the teaching that the earth was cursed for Adam's sake makes much more sense if the earth was not cursed before his sin, i.e. that death in the rest of creation followed upon Adam's disobedience (since Adam was the crown of the material world). Paradise was not, in my understanding, a place where death was exceptionally absent, but it's main significance was as the location of the tree of life. Also, after the earth was cursed, Paradise was removed from the earth and remains uncursed as the abode of the saints.



No death would mean that canines didn't exist prior to the fall. Or any other animals of prey such as hawks, fish and the like.

Canines would have existed, just they wouldn't kill to eat. When Prophet Isaiah prophesies that the wolf will lie down with the lamb (or was it the lion and lamb?), the wolf/lion doesn't cease to be a wolf/lion. It just becomes a vegetarian wolf/lion. Smiley

And the animals are named wild beasts [qhria], from their being hunted [qhreuesqai], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first--for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good....
Why is venom evil?
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.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,223


« Reply #3826 on: October 05, 2011, 08:57:33 PM »

I guess because venom kills? Or at least, if they did have venom, they didn't use it. Tongue
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3827 on: October 05, 2011, 10:47:17 PM »

I guess because venom kills? Or at least, if they did have venom, they didn't use it. Tongue

Somehow I just can't imagine a natural born killer such as a great white shark feasting on seaweed.  I just believe that because of the limits of there understanding the fathers could have "dare I say it" bin wrong or fibbing. I say the latter. What do you say of St. Athanasius teaching that death was always a part of creation even in paradise.

Quote
St. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation of the Word, writes:

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked-namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise...But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption

You see that death always existed and that gods grace is what maintained life everlasting. Without that grace death ensued. Not that it never existed but that gods grace keeps it at bay.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 10:48:11 PM by Tzimis » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3828 on: October 05, 2011, 10:56:48 PM »

I guess because venom kills? Or at least, if they did have venom, they didn't use it. Tongue

Somehow I just can't imagine a natural born killer such as a great white shark feasting on seaweed.  I just believe that because of the limits of there understanding the fathers could have "dare I say it" bin wrong or fibbing. I say the latter. What do you say of St. Athanasius teaching that death was always a part of creation even in paradise.

Quote
St. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation of the Word, writes:

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked-namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise...But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption

You see that death always existed and that gods grace is what maintained life everlasting. Without that grace death ensued. Not that it never existed but that gods grace keeps it at bay.


St. Athanasius is using "natural" to mean the existence of man without the grace of God - just man by himself. Some of the Fathers speak of creation in this way - since it is created it is subject to change and corruption, for incorruption belongs only to God by nature, but man and the rest of creation initially possessed it by grace. This state, of being without God's grace did not exist until man sinned. St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #3829 on: October 06, 2011, 01:35:25 AM »

I think it's a mistake to think that only spiritual death was the result of Adam's sin.  If Adam have not sinned, He could have lived an immortal and incorrupt life, and might even eventually through growth and maturation, and through the incarnation of Christ, bring the rest of the world with him.  However, the rest of the world did not partake of the grace of incorruption and immortality as Adam.  Therefore, I also would agree that Adam had to have born and lived an incorrupt life with God in the Paradise of Joy away from the world.  Adam brought death upon the human race, a race that wasn't supposed to die.  I think the question lies centrally on whether all plants and animals around Adam even before Adam existed died or not.  And to that, I think the answer according to the material evidence we find, yes.  That is how I personally have been able to reconcile the science of evolution and the faith of the Church fathers.

Hm, well I guess this is where I disagree, since we have e.g. St Simeon the New Theologian, who at least in the EO Church enjoys enormous authority, saying explicitly that there was not even any animal death before the fall; St Gregory of Sinai is another father who explicitly taught that there was no death of any kind originally. Also, the teaching that the earth was cursed for Adam's sake makes much more sense if the earth was not cursed before his sin, i.e. that death in the rest of creation followed upon Adam's disobedience (since Adam was the crown of the material world). Paradise was not, in my understanding, a place where death was exceptionally absent, but it's main significance was as the location of the tree of life. Also, after the earth was cursed, Paradise was removed from the earth and remains uncursed as the abode of the saints.

I understand that, when we use the UP to work out the relative age of various animal and plant remains, we find that they are older than the oldest remains of humans. But again, it's about the UP and whether we give it completely free rein when investigating the distant past.

This is a topic I am really interested in, but the timing of this conversation is not compatible with my schedule and this post is more or less to leave a bookmark.

I do have some initial questions because the topic is confusing and for that reason my thoughts are rather simple minded:
In order for something on earth to die it has to be a living organism. Is that incorrect? (I never know what I do not know until someone tells me.)
1) Are plants living organisms in the eyes of God?
2) Are bacteria living organisms in the eyes of God? (and I still think they are the pinnacle of evolution or creation)
3) Are invertebrates like molluscs and insects living organisms in the eyes of God?

A no answer to any of the questions 1-3 represents a slippery slope for further questions. (position A)

A yes answer for all three questions means that all sustenance is provided by God. (position B)

How many examples are there between positions A and B in scripture or Church Fathers or any E/O Orthodox writer?

Right now only position B seems logically viable to me. But in this case, all organisms on earth are not what they appear to be prior to the fall, they are all just drawings with no distinctive attributes. A Tyrannosaurus Rex (which by the way' would be incompatible with foraging for seeds, nuts, algae in position A) would be equivalent to a clam in its attributes. All branches of life appear superficial, so why even give them a name?

Just some initial thoughts


Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,223


« Reply #3830 on: October 06, 2011, 01:57:13 AM »

Thanks, Opus. I think that your position B is not only logically but dogmatically correct: all sustenance is from God. I'm not sure I follow the rest of your points, though. I'm guessing that you are wondering about the hierarchy of sustenance, e.g. in Paradise Adam and Eve were blessed to eat fruits and seeds, but I think it's understood that no death resulted. You may ask how you can eat fruit without killing something, though as far as I know eating an apple doesn't kill the apple tree. Maybe in Paradise individual cells could "die", but not whole organisms. Who knows? Who cares? After the Fall Adam was instructed to earn his bread by toil (no more carefree plucking of juicy fruits from the bough), but note that he was not yet blessed to eat meat or fish; that only came after the Flood. The case of invertebrates I'm not sure about. I don't know if Tradition says anything about when Man was first blessed to eat them, though the common fasting practices suggest that they are either treated on the same level as fruits and vegetables, or else maybe one grade above, but not as high as fish.

I imagine maybe another point you're getting at is whether some kind of death must have been inevitable even in Paradise, given e.g. germs and so forth. My personal rude frank opinion is that at this point the questions become idle and frivolous. They are the equivalent of asking precisely how Christ's Body was resuscitated on the third day, and how this is incompatible with this or that biological law blah blah blah. It's a miracle; deal with it.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3831 on: October 06, 2011, 08:16:05 AM »

After the Fall Adam was instructed to earn his bread by toil (no more carefree plucking of juicy fruits from the bough), but note that he was not yet blessed to eat meat or fish; that only came after the Flood. The case of invertebrates I'm not sure about.
Since Noah only rescued land animals and birds, and did not need to rescue fish, perhaps fish were already part of the pre-Flood diet?

The Jains of India are vegetarian, but in a very strict sense, reminiscent of the Edenic diet: Jains only eat those vegetarian foods that do not lead to the death of the organism. Thus, potatoes and carrots, though vegetables, are prohibited.

Maybe the "fruit" that Adam and Eve ate, was such a vegetable, eating of which meant the "death" of the organism -- thus introducing "death" (humanly caused) into the world. I know; it's a stretch. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 08:21:05 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.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3832 on: October 06, 2011, 09:09:59 AM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3833 on: October 06, 2011, 10:10:26 AM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.

there's no indication, that im aware of, from the Scriptures or Fathers that God stepped in and gave immortality, but rather that man had it, by grace, from the moment of his creation.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #3834 on: October 06, 2011, 10:58:15 AM »

Thanks, Opus. I think that your position B is not only logically but dogmatically correct: all sustenance is from God. I'm not sure I follow the rest of your points, though. I'm guessing that you are wondering about the hierarchy of sustenance, e.g. in Paradise Adam and Eve were blessed to eat fruits and seeds, but I think it's understood that no death resulted. You may ask how you can eat fruit without killing something, though as far as I know eating an apple doesn't kill the apple tree. Maybe in Paradise individual cells could "die", but not whole organisms. Who knows? Who cares? After the Fall Adam was instructed to earn his bread by toil (no more carefree plucking of juicy fruits from the bough), but note that he was not yet blessed to eat meat or fish; that only came after the Flood. The case of invertebrates I'm not sure about. I don't know if Tradition says anything about when Man was first blessed to eat them, though the common fasting practices suggest that they are either treated on the same level as fruits and vegetables, or else maybe one grade above, but not as high as fish.

I imagine maybe another point you're getting at is whether some kind of death must have been inevitable even in Paradise, given e.g. germs and so forth. My personal rude frank opinion is that at this point the questions become idle and frivolous. They are the equivalent of asking precisely how Christ's Body was resuscitated on the third day, and how this is incompatible with this or that biological law blah blah blah. It's a miracle; deal with it.

Thanks Jonathan,

You answered my main question and you also provided some ideas that are worthwhile contemplating. My comment about position B was unclear because it was a random thought: I am still trying to get my head around the concept and its consequences.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,223


« Reply #3835 on: October 06, 2011, 11:40:53 AM »

After the Fall Adam was instructed to earn his bread by toil (no more carefree plucking of juicy fruits from the bough), but note that he was not yet blessed to eat meat or fish; that only came after the Flood. The case of invertebrates I'm not sure about.
Since Noah only rescued land animals and birds, and did not need to rescue fish, perhaps fish were already part of the pre-Flood diet?

The Jains of India are vegetarian, but in a very strict sense, reminiscent of the Edenic diet: Jains only eat those vegetarian foods that do not lead to the death of the organism. Thus, potatoes and carrots, though vegetables, are prohibited.

Maybe the "fruit" that Adam and Eve ate, was such a vegetable, eating of which meant the "death" of the organism -- thus introducing "death" (humanly caused) into the world. I know; it's a stretch. Roll Eyes

Good point about the fish no doubt surviving the Flood, but I think Genesis actually has God explicitly tell Noah after the Ark lands that he can now eat fish, which kind of implies he didn't eat fish before.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3836 on: October 06, 2011, 01:38:25 PM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.
On what authority do you assure us of your correctness?
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3837 on: October 06, 2011, 03:02:12 PM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.
On what authority do you assure us of your correctness?
On the same authority that presumes others are correct.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3838 on: October 06, 2011, 03:39:52 PM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.
On what authority do you assure us of your correctness?
On the same authority that presumes others are correct.
And what authority would that be? And don't say it's the same authority as something else.
Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #3839 on: October 07, 2011, 09:28:58 AM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.
On what authority do you assure us of your correctness?
On the same authority that presumes others are correct.
And what authority would that be? And don't say it's the same authority as something else.
Your question is loaded. It's similar to a prediction of the outcome of a football game.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3840 on: October 07, 2011, 07:40:37 PM »

St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.

Again, it's all about perception. When viewed through Adams eye's it's a cosmological choice. Only because he was the first man and he was given the chance to be elevated to a god like condition along with humanity. Not that he was already there. Adam, capable of death wouldn't have died if he chose correctly. If he chose correctly death would never have existed for him. You see. Take a look at our life in reverse. We are alive now but one day we won't be. So we are truly naked and dead even when we are alive.  Because the inevitable will occur. Now if god stepped in and gave us immortality it would be as if we never could die. Because he intervene before the event. Making it not possible to see death. I know it's a very hard concept to grasp. But I assure you I am correct.
On what authority do you assure us of your correctness?
On the same authority that presumes others are correct.
And what authority would that be? And don't say it's the same authority as something else.
Your question is loaded. It's similar to a prediction of the outcome of a football game.
You're reverting back to your games of dodgeball, Demetrios. I don't see any reason to press this line of questioning any farther, but do be advised that I still remember the games you like to play.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2011, 07:41:40 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3841 on: October 11, 2011, 06:24:53 AM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
Mathematics and science are both abstractions developed by the mind of man and his attempts to explain creation.  The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3842 on: October 11, 2011, 12:44:39 PM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
Mathematics and science are both abstractions developed by the mind of man and his attempts to explain creation.  The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Who says I don't? Wink
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,427


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3843 on: October 11, 2011, 01:14:06 PM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Who says I don't? Wink

Would that belief be kind of like "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,331


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #3844 on: October 11, 2011, 01:48:47 PM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Who says I don't? Wink

Would that belief be kind of like "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it......"
"If a man says something and there's no one around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
« Last Edit: October 11, 2011, 01:49:01 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3845 on: October 11, 2011, 01:58:50 PM »

I guess because venom kills? Or at least, if they did have venom, they didn't use it. Tongue

Somehow I just can't imagine a natural born killer such as a great white shark feasting on seaweed.  I just believe that because of the limits of there understanding the fathers could have "dare I say it" bin wrong or fibbing. I say the latter. What do you say of St. Athanasius teaching that death was always a part of creation even in paradise.

Quote
St. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation of the Word, writes:

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked-namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise...But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption

You see that death always existed and that gods grace is what maintained life everlasting. Without that grace death ensued. Not that it never existed but that gods grace keeps it at bay.


St. Athanasius is using "natural" to mean the existence of man without the grace of God - just man by himself. Some of the Fathers speak of creation in this way - since it is created it is subject to change and corruption, for incorruption belongs only to God by nature, but man and the rest of creation initially possessed it by grace. This state, of being without God's grace did not exist until man sinned. St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.


Yes, but St. Athanasius seemed to have implied that only man was given immortality.  Fr. John Romanides' also had no problems with evolution.
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 #3846 on: October 11, 2011, 02:01:27 PM »

I guess because venom kills? Or at least, if they did have venom, they didn't use it. Tongue

Somehow I just can't imagine a natural born killer such as a great white shark feasting on seaweed.  I just believe that because of the limits of there understanding the fathers could have "dare I say it" bin wrong or fibbing. I say the latter. What do you say of St. Athanasius teaching that death was always a part of creation even in paradise.

Quote
St. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation of the Word, writes:

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked-namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise...But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption

You see that death always existed and that gods grace is what maintained life everlasting. Without that grace death ensued. Not that it never existed but that gods grace keeps it at bay.


St. Athanasius is using "natural" to mean the existence of man without the grace of God - just man by himself. Some of the Fathers speak of creation in this way - since it is created it is subject to change and corruption, for incorruption belongs only to God by nature, but man and the rest of creation initially possessed it by grace. This state, of being without God's grace did not exist until man sinned. St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.


Yes, but St. Athanasius seemed to have implied that only man was given immortality.  Fr. John Romanides' also had no problems with evolution.

I think St. Athanasius says that only man has immortality by virtue of being created in the image of God, but that doesnt mean that the rest of creation doesnt have immortality through the mediation and priesthood of man. I haven't seen Fr. Romanides specifically commenting on evolution, but he states flat out in his Ancestral Sin that nothing in creation died until man sinned, and that God in no way created anything with death as a necessity.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3847 on: October 11, 2011, 02:36:56 PM »

I guess because venom kills? Or at least, if they did have venom, they didn't use it. Tongue

Somehow I just can't imagine a natural born killer such as a great white shark feasting on seaweed.  I just believe that because of the limits of there understanding the fathers could have "dare I say it" bin wrong or fibbing. I say the latter. What do you say of St. Athanasius teaching that death was always a part of creation even in paradise.

Quote
St. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation of the Word, writes:

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked-namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise...But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption

You see that death always existed and that gods grace is what maintained life everlasting. Without that grace death ensued. Not that it never existed but that gods grace keeps it at bay.


St. Athanasius is using "natural" to mean the existence of man without the grace of God - just man by himself. Some of the Fathers speak of creation in this way - since it is created it is subject to change and corruption, for incorruption belongs only to God by nature, but man and the rest of creation initially possessed it by grace. This state, of being without God's grace did not exist until man sinned. St. Athanasius also says:

Quote
On the Incarnation 7
4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

for St. Athanasius, man is corrupt by nature simply by virtue of being created. but from another point of view, you could say that man's natural state is to be sustained by God's grace, because this is the state we were created and the state we are meant to always be in. So although he says corruption is our nature, death did not exist until man sinned and walked away from the life that we were participating in by participating in God's grace. Whether you view it as St. Athanasius and say that man is naturally mortal, or as some other Fathers and say that man is naturally immortal, the teaching is the same - that death did not exist until sin. Fr. John Romanides' Ancestral Sin is a great look at all of these issues.


Yes, but St. Athanasius seemed to have implied that only man was given immortality.  Fr. John Romanides' also had no problems with evolution.

I think St. Athanasius says that only man has immortality by virtue of being created in the image of God, but that doesnt mean that the rest of creation doesnt have immortality through the mediation and priesthood of man. I haven't seen Fr. Romanides specifically commenting on evolution, but he states flat out in his Ancestral Sin that nothing in creation died until man sinned, and that God in no way created anything with death as a necessity.

I mentioned it somewhere earlier.  Fr. John Romanides talked about it in an article about aliens and the Orthodox Church.

It would be interesting to see if there is any research on St. Athanasius if he dwelled further on this subject.
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.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3848 on: October 11, 2011, 10:38:14 PM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Who says I don't? Wink

Would that belief be kind of like "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it......"
"If a man says something and there's no one around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
What is right and wrong?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #3849 on: October 12, 2011, 12:12:48 AM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Who says I don't? Wink

Would that belief be kind of like "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it......"
"If a man says something and there's no one around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
What is right and wrong?

If this statement wasn't trite in you mind you would have started a thread on it by this time. Get some sleep. I still prefer Aposphet, you are so irrationally stubborn in this matter.

nuff sed

Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3850 on: October 12, 2011, 01:15:33 AM »

Peter I wanted to compliment you on your earlier posts in this thread, fantastic stuff.
The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Good gem here, even if you don't believe this anymore.
Who says I don't? Wink

Would that belief be kind of like "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it......"
"If a man says something and there's no one around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
What is right and wrong?

If this statement wasn't trite in you mind you would have started a thread on it by this time.
Hahahahahahaha.

Quote
Get some sleep. I still prefer Aposphet, you are so irrationally stubborn in this matter.
Yes I am.

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
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3851 on: October 16, 2011, 11:20:30 AM »

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution.

This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins​.
 
Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”?



From a strictly biological perspective, "altruism" indeed might be viewed as a way of genetic survival; that has little if any relevance to the spiritual significance of altruism, that is, the effect altruism has upon the nous.

« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 11:24:00 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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3852 on: October 16, 2011, 12:00:13 PM »

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution.

This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins​.
 
Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”?



From a strictly biological perspective, "altruism" indeed might be viewed as a way of genetic survival; that has little if any relevance to the spiritual significance of altruism, that is, the effect altruism has upon the nous.



As for man being meant to be monogamous, but evolution saying otherwise, it is clear that there is many things in a materialistic sense we MUST fight against, even if it the materialistic world allows it.

Quote from: Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

   So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The materialistic altruism is one in which you love your friends.  The altruism of the gospel extends this love to one's enemies, which is unacceptable in materialistic standards.  Dembski seems to be blind to this fact.

Many people are clouded by this, and Dembski thinks the same way Dawkins think, both clouded by their own perceptions.  But the truth is Christianity has superseded morality.  There is no mere morality.  It is a morality on theosis.  It takes what is already accepted in humanity (Romans 2:14) and transcended it.  There is a Gentile view or understanding of morality, and then there's Christianity, which takes it to a whole new level, challenging the natural laws that we live in.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 12:05:56 PM 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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3853 on: October 16, 2011, 01:06:28 PM »

Trailer for "Test of Faith":

The relationship between science and faith is often represented as a battleground. The claim is that science has pushed God into the margins. But is the truth more complex? Talking to leading scientist-believers, we probe the issues at the heart of this debate. Has science really murdered God? Or is the God question being redefined in new ways by science? Does the possibility of a Creator remain an ineradicable challenge?
....
Test of Faith is coming to the US, with a four-week tour to churches, colleges and universities in September and October 2011. Events will include a film showing and panel discussion.
....
The last two US screenings are in Southern California (of course):

When:7pm - 9pm, Mon 17 October
Where:Ellipse Chapel, 3900 Lomaland Drive, San Diego, CA 92106
Hosts:Point Loma Nazarene University, The BioLogos Foundation & San Diego First Church of the Nazarene

When:8pm - 9.30pm, Tues 18 October
Where:Noyes Hall - Room #153, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Hosts:Life Christian Fellowship and Caltech Christian Fellowship
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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3854 on: October 16, 2011, 01:10:35 PM »

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution.

This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins​.
 
Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”?



From a strictly biological perspective, "altruism" indeed might be viewed as a way of genetic survival; that has little if any relevance to the spiritual significance of altruism, that is, the effect altruism has upon the nous.



As for man being meant to be monogamous, but evolution saying otherwise, it is clear that there is many things in a materialistic sense we MUST fight against, even if it the materialistic world allows it.

Quote from: Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

   So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The materialistic altruism is one in which you love your friends.  The altruism of the gospel extends this love to one's enemies, which is unacceptable in materialistic standards.  Dembski seems to be blind to this fact.

Many people are clouded by this, and Dembski thinks the same way Dawkins think, both clouded by their own perceptions.  But the truth is Christianity has superseded morality.  There is no mere morality.  It is a morality on theosis.  It takes what is already accepted in humanity (Romans 2:14) and transcended it.  There is a Gentile view or understanding of morality, and then there's Christianity, which takes it to a whole new level, challenging the natural laws that we live in.
Francis Colllins discusses altruism.
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3855 on: October 16, 2011, 11:39:35 PM »

In Christian Darwinism: Why Theistic Evolution Fails As Science and Theology (Broadman and Holman, November 2011), mathematician Dembski and journalist O’Leary address a powerful new trend to accommodate Christianity with atheist materialism, via acceptance of Darwinian (“survival of the fittest”) evolution.

This trend includes “Evolution Sundays” at churches and endorsements by high administration officials like Francis Collins​.
 
Dembski and O’Leary say it all just doesn’t work. How can we accommodate self-sacrifice as the imitation of Christ with “altruism is just another way you spread your selfish genes!” How can we accommodate monogamy as the image of Christ and his church – for which he gave himself up – with “The human animal was never meant to be monogamous!”?



From a strictly biological perspective, "altruism" indeed might be viewed as a way of genetic survival; that has little if any relevance to the spiritual significance of altruism, that is, the effect altruism has upon the nous.



As for man being meant to be monogamous, but evolution saying otherwise, it is clear that there is many things in a materialistic sense we MUST fight against, even if it the materialistic world allows it.

Quote from: Romans 7
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

   So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

The materialistic altruism is one in which you love your friends.  The altruism of the gospel extends this love to one's enemies, which is unacceptable in materialistic standards.  Dembski seems to be blind to this fact.

Many people are clouded by this, and Dembski thinks the same way Dawkins think, both clouded by their own perceptions.  But the truth is Christianity has superseded morality.  There is no mere morality.  It is a morality on theosis.  It takes what is already accepted in humanity (Romans 2:14) and transcended it.  There is a Gentile view or understanding of morality, and then there's Christianity, which takes it to a whole new level, challenging the natural laws that we live in.
Francis Colllins discusses altruism.

I wonder if Dr. Collins ever read about Orthodoxy.
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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3856 on: October 25, 2011, 08:22:04 AM »

Did Darwin kill God?
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 #3857 on: October 25, 2011, 08:40:59 AM »

Did Darwin kill God?

he had a hand in it
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3858 on: October 25, 2011, 10:21:18 AM »

Did Darwin kill God?

Did Einstein kill the Japanese?
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.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,223


« Reply #3859 on: October 25, 2011, 11:30:06 AM »

Did Darwin kill God?

Did Einstein kill the Japanese?

I think actually he is supposed to have felt some kind of responsibility for the use of his theoretical insights. Likewise, I seem to remember reading about how Darwin felt queasy about the implications of his theories.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3860 on: October 25, 2011, 12:19:18 PM »

Did Darwin kill God?

Did Einstein kill the Japanese?

I think actually he is supposed to have felt some kind of responsibility for the use of his theoretical insights. Likewise, I seem to remember reading about how Darwin felt queasy about the implications of his theories.

Because they knew people would use it for the wrong reasons.  No less would the creator of alloys be responsible for the making of swords.  Or the Divine Creator of the Tree of Knowledge be responsible for Adam's sin.

Darwin is also responsible for advances in cancer research and bacteriology, and he would have never known it.

Let's be honest.  No matter what good man see, discovers, or creates, demons will twist into evil.  Einstein's theory, though used for evil, is no less true and good, because it is God's creation after all.  It is the understanding of the stars of the heavens that give us light, and it is the understanding of man's journey to harness its energy.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 12:23:47 PM 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.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,223


« Reply #3861 on: October 25, 2011, 12:32:23 PM »

Did Darwin kill God?

Did Einstein kill the Japanese?

I think actually he is supposed to have felt some kind of responsibility for the use of his theoretical insights. Likewise, I seem to remember reading about how Darwin felt queasy about the implications of his theories.

Because they knew people would use it for the wrong reasons.  No less would the creator of alloys be responsible for the making of swords.  Or the Divine Creator of the Tree of Knowledge be responsible for Adam's sin.

Darwin is also responsible for advances in cancer research and bacteriology, and he would have never known it.

Let's be honest.  No matter what good man see, discovers, or creates, demons will twist into evil.

I think a more appropriate analogy would be when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There's no indication such knowledge was evil in itself, but that Adam in his spiritual state was not ready for such knowledge. God knew beforehand such knowledge would lead Adam to sin and death, although He gave him the freedom to choose it anyway.

Likewise, I think you could make a strong argument that we as humanity were not spiritually ready for this knowledge. Instead of seeking knowledge to find God's hand in Creation, we seek it in order to explain Creation without God. Einstein may have given us nuclear energy, and Darwin may (at a stretch) be responsible for understanding cancer and bacteria, but they, or their ideas, are also responsible for a lot of atheism today (I'm not even speaking of atomic bombs and racial mass murder, which, horrible though they be, are spiritually less significant). "God doesn't play with dice", that much is true: as St Basil teaches, to believe in chance is atheism and incompatible with Orthodoxy. But it's also true that we may not be privy to all of God's purposes, and attempting to interpret the world with the assumption that we know quite well how God "should" have done it is dangerously hubristic.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3862 on: October 25, 2011, 01:05:38 PM »

But it's also true that we may not be privy to all of God's purposes, and attempting to interpret the world with the assumption that we know quite well how God "should" have done it is dangerously hubristic.
Are you implying that Darwin should not have put forward his hypothesis of natural selection, because such an attempt to find out how God did things, would be hubristic?
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3863 on: October 25, 2011, 01:33:14 PM »

Did Darwin kill God?

Did Einstein kill the Japanese?

I think actually he is supposed to have felt some kind of responsibility for the use of his theoretical insights. Likewise, I seem to remember reading about how Darwin felt queasy about the implications of his theories.

Because they knew people would use it for the wrong reasons.  No less would the creator of alloys be responsible for the making of swords.  Or the Divine Creator of the Tree of Knowledge be responsible for Adam's sin.

Darwin is also responsible for advances in cancer research and bacteriology, and he would have never known it.

Let's be honest.  No matter what good man see, discovers, or creates, demons will twist into evil.

I think a more appropriate analogy would be when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There's no indication such knowledge was evil in itself, but that Adam in his spiritual state was not ready for such knowledge. God knew beforehand such knowledge would lead Adam to sin and death, although He gave him the freedom to choose it anyway.

Likewise, I think you could make a strong argument that we as humanity were not spiritually ready for this knowledge. Instead of seeking knowledge to find God's hand in Creation, we seek it in order to explain Creation without God. Einstein may have given us nuclear energy, and Darwin may (at a stretch) be responsible for understanding cancer and bacteria, but they, or their ideas, are also responsible for a lot of atheism today (I'm not even speaking of atomic bombs and racial mass murder, which, horrible though they be, are spiritually less significant). "God doesn't play with dice", that much is true: as St Basil teaches, to believe in chance is atheism and incompatible with Orthodoxy. But it's also true that we may not be privy to all of God's purposes, and attempting to interpret the world with the assumption that we know quite well how God "should" have done it is dangerously hubristic.

Well, you see your points made here don't generally contradict the points I made earlier.  Still the Tree was created and placed there for a more opportune time for man to partake of it, and yet the demons deceived man to receive at a more greedier time.

Does this still occur today?  Does man keep planting Trees of Knowledge to partake of in an unworthy manner?  Have we continually disobeyed God by, for example, creating vaccines and medicines that might also have side effects?  I'm not sure what you're getting at with your argument here.

I think much like the Eucharist, there are those who will partake of discoveries and inventions worthily and those who partake of it as a form of condemnation to themselves.  We don't live in the Old Covenant anymore when pork was unclean.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 01:37:08 PM 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.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,223


« Reply #3864 on: October 25, 2011, 01:39:57 PM »

But it's also true that we may not be privy to all of God's purposes, and attempting to interpret the world with the assumption that we know quite well how God "should" have done it is dangerously hubristic.
Are you implying that Darwin should not have put forward his hypothesis of natural selection, because such an attempt to find out how God did things, would be hubristic?

I guess it depends. A simple example could be an interpretation of evolution as "theistic", in which natural selection is simply the manner in which God formed us from clay. There might be some truth in that, but the way it's framed by biologists makes it seem much more like we arose out of purely random interactions, and it's hard not to think of it any other way, if you're taking evolution seriously, since it's supposed to be a non-teleological process. If you really believe that, than it's hard to think of humans as anything particularly special, certainly not the crown of the material creation as the Church teaches. But biology has been mainly practiced by atheistic types who are trying to keep God out of all science, and the small minority of believing biologists have no choice but to support the consensus. It's really hard to imagine how biology could have turned out differently if the theories had been framed by Orthodox believers, but it could have been very different. I'm speculating, but it's possible that, as intelligent designers claim, the homologies we see between organisms are in fact functionally explicable, and if we study biology with that assumption, rather than the assumption that apparent homologies indicate common descent, we might end up with a radically different theory accounting for the same facts. And finally, even if theistic evolutionism is true, it raises questions about things like death, which are supposed to have been absent in the original creation. If this is not true, why do Scripture and Tradition tell us otherwise? Why did God not tell Moses the truth about his origins, instead of a complete fable? The simple fact is that we're not able to answer these questions satisfactorily, and the only result of Darwinism spiritually speaking has been to sow lots of doubt in lots of minds. That's what I mean about us not being spiritually ready for this knowledge.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,656


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


WWW
« Reply #3865 on: October 25, 2011, 01:49:25 PM »

But it's also true that we may not be privy to all of God's purposes, and attempting to interpret the world with the assumption that we know quite well how God "should" have done it is dangerously hubristic.
Are you implying that Darwin should not have put forward his hypothesis of natural selection, because such an attempt to find out how God did things, would be hubristic?

I guess it depends. A simple example could be an interpretation of evolution as "theistic", in which natural selection is simply the manner in which God formed us from clay. There might be some truth in that, but the way it's framed by biologists makes it seem much more like we arose out of purely random interactions, and it's hard not to think of it any other way, if you're taking evolution seriously, since it's supposed to be a non-teleological process. If you really believe that, than it's hard to think of humans as anything particularly special, certainly not the crown of the material creation as the Church teaches. But biology has been mainly practiced by atheistic types who are trying to keep God out of all science, and the small minority of believing biologists have no choice but to support the consensus. It's really hard to imagine how biology could have turned out differently if the theories had been framed by Orthodox believers, but it could have been very different. I'm speculating, but it's possible that, as intelligent designers claim, the homologies we see between organisms are in fact functionally explicable, and if we study biology with that assumption, rather than the assumption that apparent homologies indicate common descent, we might end up with a radically different theory accounting for the same facts. And finally, even if theistic evolutionism is true, it raises questions about things like death, which are supposed to have been absent in the original creation. If this is not true, why do Scripture and Tradition tell us otherwise? Why did God not tell Moses the truth about his origins, instead of a complete fable? The simple fact is that we're not able to answer these questions satisfactorily, and the only result of Darwinism spiritually speaking has been to sow lots of doubt in lots of minds. That's what I mean about us not being spiritually ready for this knowledge.

You're absolutely right into calling the question of death, which seems to be a fork in the Orthodox world.  I think we do have a vastly different question to answer than the Protestant take on Sola "literal" Scriptura.

In this case, I'm not sure what the answer is.  In practical life, one can see that the world we live in is ruled by natural laws of natural selection and genetic mutations, i.e. evolution.  How that relates with natural history is a bother to some here.

Up until now, I see only quotes flying from both sides.  But it would be nice to find a thesis somewhere on how Orthodoxy can answer this question.  I think this is key to help the final acceptance of this specific scientific theory.  The Big Bang for instance, despite its "randomness" mixed with laws of physics to create the planets and stars poses no problems to an Orthodox Christian as opposed to the theory of evolution which is riddled with death and new life.

The question of "randomness" is also highly misunderstood.  It is random so long as it works within the framework of the laws of science.  Oil and water "randomly" separate for instance.  As for my own personal existence, despite the randomness of one sperm that brought about who I am today, God knew me before that union with the egg happened.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 01:52:46 PM 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.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,551



« Reply #3866 on: October 26, 2011, 11:35:00 AM »

Did Darwin kill God?

I thought this was a pretty good program and entertaining. The viewer comments, like those at HuffPost, contained too much chaff to make it worthwhile reading (I gave up after a few minutes). The question and answer session with the executive producer was easier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=6446558
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3867 on: October 27, 2011, 12:57:37 PM »

Are evolutionary death and Genesis incompatible?

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13: 8 ), before humanity committed sin, and, yet, because humanity committed sin.

Perhaps the entrance of evolutionary death into the world, and human sin, exist in a non-chronological relationship: the first act of sin, though manifesting chronologically after death, was, at the same time, the cause of death entering the world.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 12:57:59 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3868 on: October 27, 2011, 01:49:59 PM »

Are evolutionary death and Genesis incompatible?

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13: 8 ), before humanity committed sin, and, yet, because humanity committed sin.

Perhaps the entrance of evolutionary death into the world, and human sin, exist in a non-chronological relationship: the first act of sin, though manifesting chronologically after death, was, at the same time, the cause of death entering the world.

thats an idea ive heard before, but it is incompatible with the Patristic idea that the world was once incorrupt until Adam sinned. i guess the question is whether or not to accept the Fathers as a guide on this issue.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

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


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3869 on: October 27, 2011, 02:09:06 PM »

Are evolutionary death and Genesis incompatible?

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13: 8 ), before humanity committed sin, and, yet, because humanity committed sin.

Perhaps the entrance of evolutionary death into the world, and human sin, exist in a non-chronological relationship: the first act of sin, though manifesting chronologically after death, was, at the same time, the cause of death entering the world.

thats an idea ive heard before, but it is incompatible with the Patristic idea that the world was once incorrupt until Adam sinned. i guess the question is whether or not to accept the Fathers as a guide on this issue.
...well, most Fathers.
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.
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 0.227 seconds with 75 queries.