OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 07:24:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   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 (15.9%)
No - 127 (38%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (46.1%)
Total Voters: 334

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 296217 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3870 on: October 27, 2011, 04:47:14 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.

I'm confused.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 7,817


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #3871 on: October 29, 2011, 08:33:40 PM »


I'm confused.


I agree.   Wink



Selam
Logged

“Lord, I say too many uncharitable things about people every day. I say them because they make me look clever. Help me to realize how cheap this is. I am stupid, quite as stupid as the people I ridicule. Help me to stop this selfishness, because I love You dear God." ~ FLANNERY O'CONNOR ~
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3872 on: October 30, 2011, 02:42:23 AM »

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.

I'm confused.
Do you agree that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world?
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.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3873 on: October 30, 2011, 03:21:20 AM »

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.

I'm confused.
Do you agree that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world?

Oh yes, I see what you mean! (I think  Undecided)
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)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3874 on: October 30, 2011, 08:45:41 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.

I'm confused.
Do you agree that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world?

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean either.  It's something I never really thought much about.
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 #3875 on: October 30, 2011, 08:59:51 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.

I'm confused.
Do you agree that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world?

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean either.  It's something I never really thought much about.

I'm kind of seeing it as somewhat layered. Time and outside of time. Like the event in history was foreknown and taken into account theologically.... somehow. I have no idea how to explain what I mean!!  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)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3876 on: October 30, 2011, 10:54:27 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.

I'm confused.
Do you agree that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world?

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean either.  It's something I never really thought much about.

I'm kind of seeing it as somewhat layered. Time and outside of time. Like the event in history was foreknown and taken into account theologically.... somehow. I have no idea how to explain what I mean!!  laugh

Well, I see in this something familiar to let's say Roman Catholic arguments on the Immaculate Conception, where it was Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that transcends time that made the Theotokos Immaculate.  And I wonder, why her and not others?

And then there are teachings where the appearance of the Son of God, or God in areas as a man was Christ simply going back in time while at the same time continuing His ministry at the time He chose.  These are interesting ideas, but to be honest, I'm inclined to believe that His sacrifice, as much as it had an effect on humanity past, present, and future, still happened within time, so as to preserve human nature's dependency on time.  Time I think is part of human nature.

But I don't know.  Perhaps, some patristic understanding of the verse in question would be helpful.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2011, 10:54:41 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
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3877 on: November 03, 2011, 12:22:08 PM »

[Catholic] Archbishop Nolan of NY writes on death. He seems to say that "death" is "natural":

Quote
No wonder Holy Mother Church advises us to contemplate death.
 
Does that scare us?  Is that, literally, morbid?
 
Not for the believer:  Death is as natural as birth.
 
Some trepidation is understandable.  After all, preservation of life, survival, is our most potent instinct.  Thus, in a human way, we shudder at the prospect of death, and we fight it.  Of course.  God wants us to savor and hold on to life until He calls us back to Him.
 
Way back on the day of our birth, we fought leaving the safety, security, and comfort of the womb, didn’t we?  “It’s nice and cozy in here, and who knows what’s out there, anyway?” is the question the baby in the womb unconsciously asks.  So we fought that birth, to our mother’s great discomfort!
 
And we also shudder at the birth to eternal life to which we all are invited.
 
But the believer embraces death as a friend, “brother death,” as Saint Francis called it.
 
We come from God, and we are destined to return to Him for all eternity.  We are marked, from the moment of conception, RETURN TO SENDER!
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.
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3878 on: December 05, 2011, 09:46:34 AM »

Woah. Death is natural? I would also like more explanation of this from an Orthodox Patristic view. Death was a result of sin , Sin has made us sick ( not a natural way of being )

This whole evolution / creation thing is quite odd to me. I stand with  Puddleglum " I stand for Aslan" (CS Lewis, The Silver Chair). You can believe in your description you have developed, I will accept the one given me by God because it is sufficient for my understanding.   It is good deal better than anything else I have heard.  I would prefer being thought foolish for this than being thought intelligent for accepting another source. 

Are there truths outside of what is revealed in scripture? Yes, I'm sure there are.  The source of that truth likely to be the sinful race of man who willfully corrupts creation and labours to deny God?
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3879 on: December 05, 2011, 08:28:50 PM »

Woah. Death is natural? I would also like more explanation of this from an Orthodox Patristic view. Death was a result of sin , Sin has made us sick ( not a natural way of being )

This whole evolution / creation thing is quite odd to me. I stand with  Puddleglum " I stand for Aslan" (CS Lewis, The Silver Chair). You can believe in your description you have developed, I will accept the one given me by God because it is sufficient for my understanding.   It is good deal better than anything else I have heard.  I would prefer being thought foolish for this than being thought intelligent for accepting another source. 

Are there truths outside of what is revealed in scripture? Yes, I'm sure there are.  The source of that truth likely to be the sinful race of man who willfully corrupts creation and labours to deny God?

You do realize CS Lewis was an evolutionist?
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.
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3880 on: December 06, 2011, 08:35:06 AM »

Woah. Death is natural? I would also like more explanation of this from an Orthodox Patristic view. Death was a result of sin , Sin has made us sick ( not a natural way of being )

This whole evolution / creation thing is quite odd to me. I stand with  Puddleglum " I stand for Aslan" (CS Lewis, The Silver Chair). You can believe in your description you have developed, I will accept the one given me by God because it is sufficient for my understanding.   It is good deal better than anything else I have heard.  I would prefer being thought foolish for this than being thought intelligent for accepting another source. 

Are there truths outside of what is revealed in scripture? Yes, I'm sure there are.  The source of that truth likely to be the sinful race of man who willfully corrupts creation and labours to deny God?

You do realize CS Lewis was an evolutionist?
Really ,Wow didn't know that , thank you. He shoulda listened to Puddle glum too. Joking.

I know the temptation to explain everything( I was Calvinist ) but buying into Darwin over scripture ? I would rather just  be called ignorant and a creationist, understanding there is mystery beyond what is revealed.
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3881 on: December 06, 2011, 09:08:35 AM »

Woah. Death is natural? I would also like more explanation of this from an Orthodox Patristic view. Death was a result of sin , Sin has made us sick ( not a natural way of being )

This whole evolution / creation thing is quite odd to me. I stand with  Puddleglum " I stand for Aslan" (CS Lewis, The Silver Chair). You can believe in your description you have developed, I will accept the one given me by God because it is sufficient for my understanding.   It is good deal better than anything else I have heard.  I would prefer being thought foolish for this than being thought intelligent for accepting another source. 

Are there truths outside of what is revealed in scripture? Yes, I'm sure there are.  The source of that truth likely to be the sinful race of man who willfully corrupts creation and labours to deny God?

You do realize CS Lewis was an evolutionist?
Really ,Wow didn't know that , thank you. He shoulda listened to Puddle glum too. Joking.

I know the temptation to explain everything( I was Calvinist ) but buying into Darwin over scripture ? I would rather just  be called ignorant and a creationist, understanding there is mystery beyond what is revealed.
I'm sure he would agree with you on the part of a mystery at a certain point.  But there are things that can be scientifically explained, and it is even in these explanations where one might marvel at the glory of the Lord.  No one is scientifically explaining theology, but merely physical phenomena.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 09:09:36 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.
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3882 on: December 06, 2011, 10:53:08 AM »

Woah. Death is natural? I would also like more explanation of this from an Orthodox Patristic view. Death was a result of sin , Sin has made us sick ( not a natural way of being )

This whole evolution / creation thing is quite odd to me. I stand with  Puddleglum " I stand for Aslan" (CS Lewis, The Silver Chair). You can believe in your description you have developed, I will accept the one given me by God because it is sufficient for my understanding.   It is good deal better than anything else I have heard.  I would prefer being thought foolish for this than being thought intelligent for accepting another source. 

Are there truths outside of what is revealed in scripture? Yes, I'm sure there are.  The source of that truth likely to be the sinful race of man who willfully corrupts creation and labours to deny God?

You do realize CS Lewis was an evolutionist?
Really ,Wow didn't know that , thank you. He shoulda listened to Puddle glum too. Joking.

I know the temptation to explain everything ( I was Calvinist ) but buying into Darwin over scripture ? I would rather just  be called ignorant and a creationist, understanding there is mystery beyond what is revealed.
I'm sure he would agree with you on the part of a mystery at a certain point.  But there are things that can be scientifically explained, and it is even in these explanations where one might marvel at the glory of the Lord.  No one is scientifically explaining theology, but merely physical phenomena.

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.  I know most would claim this is not objective. We all have black boxes or faith, that we accept as truth. Mine is there is no truth outside of God, He reveals Himself in many ways, including in His creation, our danger is our interpretation of revelation.

So does Chlorophyll exist in plants and is it a complex part of photosynthesis? I can accept this because it points to an all powerful Creator.  Is us coming from dust and having life breathed into us less believable than coming from sludge over millions of years? Not to me.  It becomes messy trying to use this poorly developed theory with revealed truth.  One must deal with Uncreated matter, intelligent design, not to mention issues of things breaking down rather than evolving higher with time.  Can it be merged together? Yes we could explain away all the inconsistencies, but why? to what end? to the glory of God? I like mystery much better.

The Holy Fathers , in my understanding , were forced to put together the Nicene creed to refute heresy.  They did not overstate, just define our Faith, and had to return several times to either add definition or affirm what had been said previously.  This caution and humility is good practice when investigating the mysterious.   

Applying an unproven (even by their own admission) theory that has been put together by someone quite opposed to God, and a theorist and amateur scientist does not seem scientific to me .  It seems conciliatory, like we're admitting they may have something there and ours is inadequate.  So is there some things that scripture does not explain?  yes.  Is there some things science can't explain?
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3883 on: December 06, 2011, 12:06:43 PM »

Is us coming from dust and having life breathed into us...
...consistent with evolution? I would say yes.
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.
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3884 on: December 06, 2011, 12:44:48 PM »

Is us coming from dust and having life breathed into us...
...consistent with evolution? I would say yes.
An overstatement and a theory, not necessarily truth.  I would not plant my banner in those ranks. Again, why explain what does not need further explanation. God created, anything more is an attempt at truth.

Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3885 on: December 06, 2011, 01:44:50 PM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3886 on: December 06, 2011, 02:39:37 PM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.

thats how it works if you confine it to within the scientific world, but we, being people of faith have other things to consider. We have to compare and contrast our beliefs with scientific theories. Our lives and our beliefs are not confined within the scientific world and method.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3887 on: December 06, 2011, 03:07:57 PM »

thats how it works if you confine it to within the scientific world, but we, being people of faith have other things to consider. We have to compare and contrast our beliefs with scientific theories. Our lives and our beliefs are not confined within the scientific world and method.
Agreed, but the physical world in which we currently exist does operate according to a set of principles that God himself authored.  I don't see how denying that is a valid other thing to consider.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3888 on: December 06, 2011, 03:11:05 PM »

thats how it works if you confine it to within the scientific world, but we, being people of faith have other things to consider. We have to compare and contrast our beliefs with scientific theories. Our lives and our beliefs are not confined within the scientific world and method.
Agreed, but the physical world in which we currently exist does operate according to a set of principles that God himself authored.  I don't see how denying that is a valid other thing to consider.

but the physical world in which we currently exist is not in the same condition as the world that Adam and Eve initially inhabited.
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3889 on: December 06, 2011, 09:37:55 PM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right. 

My point was that reason is infected by sin. This makes proper observation,  requiring reason, impossible. 

"Unless I am convinced by Science and plain reason, my conscience is captive to empirical evidence " sounds like a whole new realm of heresy.  Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.

So again, why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true. 

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

to take out "something" and replace it with "God"  does not erase the humanism that this is drenched in. 
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3890 on: December 06, 2011, 10:25:01 PM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right. 

My point was that reason is infected by sin. This makes proper observation,  requiring reason, impossible. 

"Unless I am convinced by Science and plain reason, my conscience is captive to empirical evidence " sounds like a whole new realm of heresy.  Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.

So again, why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true. 

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

to take out "something" and replace it with "God"  does not erase the humanism that this is drenched in. 

great post!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3891 on: December 06, 2011, 11:39:18 PM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.
The problem is that science has not concluded that. Sure, some persons have drawn that conclusion based on their understanding of science, but it's people who make such values judgments, not science.

My point was that reason is infected by sin. This makes proper observation,  requiring reason, impossible. 

"Unless I am convinced by Science and plain reason, my conscience is captive to empirical evidence "
1. Who said this?
2. Why do you blame this on science and not on the person who drew this conclusion?

sounds like a whole new realm of heresy.  Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.

So again, why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true. 

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

to take out "something" and replace it with "God"  does not erase the humanism that this is drenched in. 
Huh
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3892 on: December 07, 2011, 01:25:26 AM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.

That's as valid as saying Orthodox has found that the office of the emperor is a necessary part of the Orthodox faith, and that we should pray for the return of Holy Russia and Holy Constantinople.  I know bad religion right.

There is no scientific consensus on the personhood of a fetus.  The OB/GYNs I work with actually treat the fetus as a second patient with the mother.  So I don't know what scientific community you're thinking of.  The one I'm part of seems to see a viable person in that womb.  In fact, rarely do you even hear of an obstetrician doing an elective late term abortion.  They're there, but they're very few.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #3893 on: December 07, 2011, 01:31:05 AM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.

That's as valid as saying Orthodox has found that the office of the emperor is a necessary part of the Orthodox faith, and that we should pray for the return of Holy Russia and Holy Constantinople.  I know bad religion right.

There is no scientific consensus on the personhood of a fetus.  The OB/GYNs I work with actually treat the fetus as a second patient with the mother.  So I don't know what scientific community you're thinking of.  The one I'm part of seems to see a viable person in that womb.  In fact, rarely do you even hear of an obstetrician doing an elective late term abortion.  They're there, but they're very few.

Wait a minute. Are you saying there's no scientific consensus on the personhood of a fetus, or there's no consensus on the personhood of a late term fetus?
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,891


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #3894 on: December 07, 2011, 08:52:45 AM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.

That's as valid as saying Orthodox has found that the office of the emperor is a necessary part of the Orthodox faith, and that we should pray for the return of Holy Russia and Holy Constantinople.  I know bad religion right.

There is no scientific consensus on the personhood of a fetus.  The OB/GYNs I work with actually treat the fetus as a second patient with the mother.  So I don't know what scientific community you're thinking of.  The one I'm part of seems to see a viable person in that womb.  In fact, rarely do you even hear of an obstetrician doing an elective late term abortion.  They're there, but they're very few.

Wait a minute. Are you saying there's no scientific consensus on the personhood of a fetus, or there's no consensus on the personhood of a late term fetus?

Yes, there is no scientific consensus, simply because they don't know how to define personhood.  For instance, one conjectured that using EEGs can help define it.  The problem is, we can't use EEGs in a fetus.

That doesn't mean the scientific community doesn't see the fetus as a person.  It just simply means they can't scientifically define it.  That's much different than coming up with the false conclusion that a fetus is not a person.  For the most part, second and third trimester is hard to touch.  Most of the debate concerning elective abortion is with first trimesters.

In any case, this issue has become more philosophical than scientific.  The scientific community doesn't give an opinion on whether abortion is right or not.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 08:53:33 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.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3895 on: December 07, 2011, 01:54:48 PM »

Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.
And which other sciences do you believe are in error because of a misinterpretation of God's revelation in the physical world?

Chemists say that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen.  Do you suspect that conclusion is invalid?
Astronomy has shown that Europa conatins large amounts of water ice.  Are you skeptical?
Mathematicians believe that one cannot trisect the arbitrary angle.  Do you disagree?

How far does your distrust of science extend?
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3896 on: December 07, 2011, 11:47:11 PM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.
The problem is that science has not concluded that. Sure, some persons have drawn that conclusion based on their understanding of science, but it's people who make such values judgments, not science.


Yes, science has concluded that about abortion. And scientist carry it out, Scientist perform abortions, Doctors / surgeons are trained scientists  .  Other Scientists disagree and participate in the health and protection of the fetus.  Truth is not in science it is in the created world.  One can not say a long held belief of scientific truth that is shown to be wrong, is no longer science.  Those who came to the incorrect conclusion do not have all the fancy letters stripped from their name.  So science does not equal truth. 

My point was that reason is infected by sin. This makes proper observation,  requiring reason, impossible. 

"Unless I am convinced by Science and plain reason, my conscience is captive to empirical evidence "
1. Who said this?
2. Why do you blame this on science and not on the person who drew this conclusion?
I am sorry this was a juvinile twisting of Martin Luther's famous statement.  My point is reason is not easily objective.  Objectivity becomes more and more difficult the closer one gets to oneself.  Math easily observable, easily repeatable, easily predictable. Did that tylenol cure your headache? Was the headache a 5 or 6 in intensity in a scale from 1 - 10? everyone answers differently so we create a mean or average. Then we attempt to use science to understand the human psyche, the closer it gets to us the more unreliable and varied its claims of truth.

sounds like a whole new realm of heresy.  Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.

So again, why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true. 

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

to take out "something" and replace it with "God"  does not erase the humanism that this is drenched in. 
Huh

Not sure what you don't understand, I quoted a well known intellectual theorist and his description of evolution, to modify this so it does not = humanism you would end up with ..... creation.

I still have no answer , Why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true.   
Also, I don't understand why is it seen as so much more ridiculous and unbelievable than that we came from apes. 
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3897 on: December 08, 2011, 12:24:12 AM »

Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.
And which other sciences do you believe are in error because of a misinterpretation of God's revelation in the physical world?

Chemists say that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen.  Do you suspect that conclusion is invalid?
Astronomy has shown that Europa conatins large amounts of water ice.  Are you skeptical?
Mathematicians believe that one cannot trisect the arbitrary angle.  Do you disagree?

How far does your distrust of science extend?
 
This is also refering to objectivity, can we objectively approach math without our values, fears, beliefs and sin getting in the way. 
Can we approach chemistry?
How about astronomy?
theoretical physics? http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator?intcmp=239
Psychology? I think Freud said "God is a delusion"
Therapy?

We should not be surprised that science finds some truth. It's not science I distrust its the fallenness of man, Some how we in the west think man can rationally approach truth and recognize it everytime in it's fullness.   
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3898 on: December 08, 2011, 01:05:12 AM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.
The problem is that science has not concluded that. Sure, some persons have drawn that conclusion based on their understanding of science, but it's people who make such values judgments, not science.


Yes, science has concluded that about abortion.
How, then, do you define science that you attribute to it conclusions that only people can draw?

And scientist carry it out, Scientist perform abortions, Doctors / surgeons are trained scientists  .  Other Scientists disagree and participate in the health and protection of the fetus.  Truth is not in science it is in the created world.
And science is but one way of engaging truth in the created world.

One can not say a long held belief of scientific truth that is shown to be wrong, is no longer science.
No, we would just say that it's a scientific theory proven wrong by more recent scientific study. Science is not dogmatic, so what she posits is not truth. What she posits is potentially accurate explanations of observable facts, explanations that are often disproved as we uncover more facts.

Those who came to the incorrect conclusion do not have all the fancy letters stripped from their name.  So science does not equal truth.
Of course not! Grin

My point was that reason is infected by sin. This makes proper observation,  requiring reason, impossible. 

"Unless I am convinced by Science and plain reason, my conscience is captive to empirical evidence "
1. Who said this?
2. Why do you blame this on science and not on the person who drew this conclusion?
I am sorry this was a juvinile twisting of Martin Luther's famous statement.
But who made this "juvenile" twisting of Luther's words?

My point is reason is not easily objective.  Objectivity becomes more and more difficult the closer one gets to oneself.  Math easily observable, easily repeatable, easily predictable. Did that tylenol cure your headache? Was the headache a 5 or 6 in intensity in a scale from 1 - 10? everyone answers differently so we create a mean or average. Then we attempt to use science to understand the human psyche, the closer it gets to us the more unreliable and varied its claims of truth.
But again, science is not in the business of making truth claims.


sounds like a whole new realm of heresy.  Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.

So again, why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true. 

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

to take out "something" and replace it with "God"  does not erase the humanism that this is drenched in. 
Huh

Not sure what you don't understand, I quoted a well known intellectual theorist and his description of evolution, to modify this so it does not = humanism you would end up with ..... creation.

I still have no answer , Why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true.
What about creation is insufficient? After all, is not science a study of creation, regardless of what many scientists may say?

Also, I don't understand why is it seen as so much more ridiculous and unbelievable than that we came from apes.
You do realize that evolutionary theory does not posit that we evolved from apes? Rather, the theory posits that humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3899 on: December 08, 2011, 08:40:01 AM »

And explaining what we see with good scientific method may be achievable, though it still is subject to infected reason which limits its ability to be objective as it constantly is trying to flee from God.
What scientific discovery was later shown to be in error because of theologically infected reasoning?  It's my impression that errors in science have exclusively been discovered through additional application of the scientific method.
How many do you want? How about the personhood of the fetus? Science has found that the fetus is not enough of a person to be considered murder should you terminate that existence.  I know this is a legal definition but bases it on empirical evidence and backed by the "scientific comunity"  I know bad science right.
The problem is that science has not concluded that. Sure, some persons have drawn that conclusion based on their understanding of science, but it's people who make such values judgments, not science.


Yes, science has concluded that about abortion.
How, then, do you define science that you attribute to it conclusions that only people can draw?

And scientist carry it out, Scientist perform abortions, Doctors / surgeons are trained scientists  .  Other Scientists disagree and participate in the health and protection of the fetus.  Truth is not in science it is in the created world.
And science is but one way of engaging truth in the created world.

One can not say a long held belief of scientific truth that is shown to be wrong, is no longer science.
No, we would just say that it's a scientific theory proven wrong by more recent scientific study. Science is not dogmatic, so what she posits is not truth. What she posits is potentially accurate explanations of observable facts, explanations that are often disproved as we uncover more facts.

Those who came to the incorrect conclusion do not have all the fancy letters stripped from their name.  So science does not equal truth.
Of course not! Grin

My point was that reason is infected by sin. This makes proper observation,  requiring reason, impossible. 

"Unless I am convinced by Science and plain reason, my conscience is captive to empirical evidence "
1. Who said this?
2. Why do you blame this on science and not on the person who drew this conclusion?
I am sorry this was a juvinile twisting of Martin Luther's famous statement.
But who made this "juvenile" twisting of Luther's words?

My point is reason is not easily objective.  Objectivity becomes more and more difficult the closer one gets to oneself.  Math easily observable, easily repeatable, easily predictable. Did that tylenol cure your headache? Was the headache a 5 or 6 in intensity in a scale from 1 - 10? everyone answers differently so we create a mean or average. Then we attempt to use science to understand the human psyche, the closer it gets to us the more unreliable and varied its claims of truth.
But again, science is not in the business of making truth claims.


sounds like a whole new realm of heresy.  Observation and sound reason is as suspect  of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the physical world as scripture and sound reason is suspect of misinterpreting the revelation of God in the theological world.

So again, why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true. 

"For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

to take out "something" and replace it with "God"  does not erase the humanism that this is drenched in. 
Huh

Not sure what you don't understand, I quoted a well known intellectual theorist and his description of evolution, to modify this so it does not = humanism you would end up with ..... creation.

I still have no answer , Why is creation not sufficient?  Why do we attempt to attach another explanation on top that is bound to be, at very best, partially true.
What about creation is insufficient? After all, is not science a study of creation, regardless of what many scientists may say?

Also, I don't understand why is it seen as so much more ridiculous and unbelievable than that we came from apes.
You do realize that evolutionary theory does not posit that we evolved from apes? Rather, the theory posits that humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.

This thread is discussing evolution, creation and Orthodoxy, although I admit to not reading all 87 pages there were a number of people I interpreted as saying an evolutionary theory meshes with creation.  I am stating it doesn't make sense to adopt a theory that is unproven in the number of decades since its conception and is championed by people who wish to deny God.

I made up the revised Luther statement. angel

I apologize for the confusion but Science is not what is suspect per say. Limitted yes, corrupt itself no.  It's US I don't trust. So science is corrupted by US, Similar as Theology is corrupted by US, or better yet sin.

Whether we came from apes or an ape like creature, it does not appear that we evolved into the "image of God" (please don't ask me to explain what this means because I don't know, I just know we are) , we were created into it.
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3900 on: December 08, 2011, 11:12:26 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

1. Princeton professor of theology, Benjamin Warfield, one of the authors of The Fundamentals, published from 1910 to 1915, the classic book series outlining the basic elements of Protestant Fundamentalism, saw no contradiction between evolution as describing the mechanism by which species appeared after God had created the initial material of the cosmos. Warfield, though, maintained that God created each human soul by divine act, even if the physical body of the first human had evolved from some lower primate species. For Warfield, biblical literalism and evolution were compatible.

2. At the time of the Scopes' trial in 1925, there were no biblical literalists in mainstream Christian denominations who maintained a six, 24-hour, day creation. The one Christian group that held to that idea were the Seventh Day Adventists, whose belief in a six, 24-hour, day creation was not due to a "literal" reading of the Bible, but to the visions of their founder, prophetess Ellen G. White, whose visions were placed on the same level as the Bible by Seventh Day Adventists. White claimed that God showed her images of the world's creation in six, 24-hour, days, and of Noah's Flood causing the geological strata and fossils. For White and Adventists, biblical literalism and evolution were incompatible; a view not held by other Christian literalists of the 1920s.

3. A real "literal" interpretation of Genesis would lead to several conclusions:
   a. The whole earth is not said to be a perfect paradise; rather Eden, and specifically the garden within Eden, is paradise, and Eden's geographical limits are described.
   b. Adam and Eve are not created naturally immortal, but naturally mortal and are prohibited from the tree of Life, lest they eat of it and live forever.
   c. Adam, Eve, and family are not the only humans around, meaning that Cain can find a wife. It also means that these other people, in the land of Nod, are said to be capable of killing Cain.
   d. Adam and Eve are not the only beings with human-type intelligence. The serpent is described as having intelligence, reason, and the awareness of death; he knows God's commandments, and might even be smarter than the humans. And yet the serpent is not described as being in the image of God, implying that....
   e. The "image of God" does not refer to intelligence, reason, or other typically human characteristics. What exactly it refers to, is left open.
   f. The serpent is intentionally rebelling against God, implying that non-human animals had sinned before Adam and Eve; thus, Adam and Eve were created in a world (except for the garden in Eden) that already knew sin and death. There was an animal Fall into sin, that occurred before the human Fall into sin.
   g. Thus, there was death before the human Fall into sin. The serpent knew about death, because he mentioned it. Adam and Eve knew about death, because both God and the serpent mentioned death to them. And the people outside of Eden who could potentially kill Cain, obviously also know about death, because of their ability to kill other people.

(See Joshua Moritz, "The Search for Adam Revisited," Theology and Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 367-377)

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.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3901 on: December 09, 2011, 02:41:31 PM »

My parish is going thorugh the book from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon called Creation and the Patriarchal Histories: Orthodox Christian Reflections on the Book of Genesis. Im taking from it that the Fathers did not take Genesis completely literal, and they searched the Genesis accounts for theological truths found inside and not for scientific proofs of anything.

Hey, if it's good for the Fathers, its good enough for me Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3902 on: December 09, 2011, 03:06:37 PM »

My parish is going thorugh the book from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon called Creation and the Patriarchal Histories: Orthodox Christian Reflections on the Book of Genesis. Im taking from it that the Fathers did not take Genesis completely literal, and they searched the Genesis accounts for theological truths found inside and not for scientific proofs of anything.

Hey, if it's good for the Fathers, its good enough for me Smiley

PP

could you share some info from it? what parts do the Fathers not take literally?
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #3903 on: December 09, 2011, 03:12:22 PM »

My parish is going thorugh the book from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon called Creation and the Patriarchal Histories: Orthodox Christian Reflections on the Book of Genesis. Im taking from it that the Fathers did not take Genesis completely literal, and they searched the Genesis accounts for theological truths found inside and not for scientific proofs of anything.

Hey, if it's good for the Fathers, its good enough for me Smiley

PP

Now give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
Give me that old time religion
And it's good enough for me

It was good for our mothers,...

It was good for our fathers,...

It was good for the Hebrew children,...

It was good for Paul and Silas,....

It was good for the Pre-Nicene Fathers...

It was good for the Fathers of the First Council...

etc...


Why should the Protestants hijack our essential conservatism?  Wink

Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,839


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3904 on: December 09, 2011, 03:41:41 PM »

My parish is going thorugh the book from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon called Creation and the Patriarchal Histories: Orthodox Christian Reflections on the Book of Genesis. Im taking from it that the Fathers did not take Genesis completely literal, and they searched the Genesis accounts for theological truths found inside and not for scientific proofs of anything.

Hey, if it's good for the Fathers, its good enough for me Smiley

PP

could you share some info from it? what parts do the Fathers not take literally?
The jist of the book is not what parts they did or did not take literally, but that they looked for theological truths and ways that Genesis pointed to Christ. Like how the Ark and the Theotokos was both a vehicle for salvation, that sort of thing.


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3905 on: December 09, 2011, 04:49:34 PM »

My parish is going thorugh the book from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon called Creation and the Patriarchal Histories: Orthodox Christian Reflections on the Book of Genesis. Im taking from it that the Fathers did not take Genesis completely literal, and they searched the Genesis accounts for theological truths found inside and not for scientific proofs of anything.

Hey, if it's good for the Fathers, its good enough for me Smiley

PP

could you share some info from it? what parts do the Fathers not take literally?
The jist of the book is not what parts they did or did not take literally, but that they looked for theological truths and ways that Genesis pointed to Christ. Like how the Ark and the Theotokos was both a vehicle for salvation, that sort of thing.


PP

ah gotcha. the Creationist side certainly wouldnt disagree with that!
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #3906 on: December 09, 2011, 09:05:17 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

1. Princeton professor of theology, Benjamin Warfield, one of the authors of The Fundamentals, published from 1910 to 1915, the classic book series outlining the basic elements of Protestant Fundamentalism, saw no contradiction between evolution as describing the mechanism by which species appeared after God had created the initial material of the cosmos. Warfield, though, maintained that God created each human soul by divine act, even if the physical body of the first human had evolved from some lower primate species. For Warfield, biblical literalism and evolution were compatible.

2. At the time of the Scopes' trial in 1925, there were no biblical literalists in mainstream Christian denominations who maintained a six, 24-hour, day creation. The one Christian group that held to that idea were the Seventh Day Adventists, whose belief in a six, 24-hour, day creation was not due to a "literal" reading of the Bible, but to the visions of their founder, prophetess Ellen G. White, whose visions were placed on the same level as the Bible by Seventh Day Adventists. White claimed that God showed her images of the world's creation in six, 24-hour, days, and of Noah's Flood causing the geological strata and fossils. For White and Adventists, biblical literalism and evolution were incompatible; a view not held by other Christian literalists of the 1920s.

3. A real "literal" interpretation of Genesis would lead to several conclusions:
   a. The whole earth is not said to be a perfect paradise; rather Eden, and specifically the garden within Eden, is paradise, and Eden's geographical limits are described.
   b. Adam and Eve are not created naturally immortal, but naturally mortal and are prohibited from the tree of Life, lest they eat of it and live forever.
   c. Adam, Eve, and family are not the only humans around, meaning that Cain can find a wife. It also means that these other people, in the land of Nod, are said to be capable of killing Cain.
   d. Adam and Eve are not the only beings with human-type intelligence. The serpent is described as having intelligence, reason, and the awareness of death; he knows God's commandments, and might even be smarter than the humans. And yet the serpent is not described as being in the image of God, implying that....
   e. The "image of God" does not refer to intelligence, reason, or other typically human characteristics. What exactly it refers to, is left open.
   f. The serpent is intentionally rebelling against God, implying that non-human animals had sinned before Adam and Eve; thus, Adam and Eve were created in a world (except for the garden in Eden) that already knew sin and death. There was an animal Fall into sin, that occurred before the human Fall into sin.
   g. Thus, there was death before the human Fall into sin. The serpent knew about death, because he mentioned it. Adam and Eve knew about death, because both God and the serpent mentioned death to them. And the people outside of Eden who could potentially kill Cain, obviously also know about death, because of their ability to kill other people.

(See Joshua Moritz, "The Search for Adam Revisited," Theology and Science, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 367-377)


1.Benjamin Warfield-holds no authority on truth or recognizing it because he has been deluded and not part of the Church -same with Joshua Moritz

2.
"The Scopes Trial—formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes .............................. The trial was thus both a theological contest, and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

ve·rac·i·ty (v-rs-t)
n. pl. ve·rac·i·ties
1. Adherence to the truth; truthfulness. See Synonyms at truth.
2. Conformity to fact or truth; accuracy or precision: a report of doubtful veracity.
3. Something that is true.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/veracity

I thought no one was claiming science was truth?  I think part of the problem is that science has essentially become a belief in herself, so much so that, instead of studying the observable it now has to claim anything not visible is not real.  

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
"You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion."[26]  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
This had also been said in the trial.

Read the whole attachment, this started as a scam to draw attention to the area according to wikipedia.

3.
meh, my understanding is not sufficient.  These arguments are very weak and can be answered a plethora of ways, evolution is not the only answer to these questions.

I can not understand much of scripture. I certainly can't prove it scientifically. The devil, demons, heaven, hell, the birth of Christ, miracles of Christ, death of Christ, resurrection of Christ, (shall I go on?) are we going to develop scientific theories that would be more acceptable to  society (or to our notions) for each of these?  

Someone suggested that us coming from mud, or, being formed of dust and having life breathed into us, is compatible.  We are not going to be deceived by a worldview that is radically different are we.  Remember our battle is not against the observable.
 
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Ephesians 6:12

So by looking at the world through science (the observable) do we lose focus on the unobservable? Perhaps not so unintentional as we might think?  I am not suggesting science is evil, but it has been manipulated to draw many away from the Church.  Perhaps putting it back in it's proper place and stop trying to use it to explain something quite beyond its framework allows for, will remove some of the devilish impact it is having.  

I mean, unless we think we can build a tower high enough to be with God, of course.

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 09:07:57 PM by wasamwillbe » Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3907 on: December 10, 2011, 01:38:04 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.
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 #3908 on: December 10, 2011, 09:44:42 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:

Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282
No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, we must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names.

Pg. 287
Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the First Day continued for twelve hours each.

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3909 on: December 11, 2011, 12:27:50 AM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:
Was she? How do you know this?
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,069


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3910 on: December 11, 2011, 05:48:10 AM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:

Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282
.....

I don't believe St. Ephraim said anything about Noah's Flood causing geological strata and fossils (falsely appearing to be millions of years old) to be formed.

Quote
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired.
....
Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks.
....
For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.
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 #3911 on: December 11, 2011, 04:30:31 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:

Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282
.....

I don't believe St. Ephraim said anything about Noah's Flood causing geological strata and fossils (falsely appearing to be millions of years old) to be formed.

Quote
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired.
....
Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks.
....
For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

i dont really think she was reading St. Ephraim. I was simply pointing out that YEC didnt begin with her.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3912 on: December 11, 2011, 05:10:42 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:

Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282
.....

I don't believe St. Ephraim said anything about Noah's Flood causing geological strata and fossils (falsely appearing to be millions of years old) to be formed.

Quote
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired.
....
Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks.
....
For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

i dont really think she was reading St. Ephraim. I was simply pointing out that YEC didnt begin with her.
Somehow I don't think St. Ephraim thought of himself as a young-earth creationist and would probably bristle at the thought of being associated with them.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3913 on: December 11, 2011, 05:15:58 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:

Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282
.....

I don't believe St. Ephraim said anything about Noah's Flood causing geological strata and fossils (falsely appearing to be millions of years old) to be formed.

Quote
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired.
....
Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks.
....
For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

i dont really think she was reading St. Ephraim. I was simply pointing out that YEC didnt begin with her.
Somehow I don't think St. Ephraim thought of himself as a young-earth creationist and would probably bristle at the thought of being associated with them.

whats the difference between YECs and what St. Ephraim said in those quotes?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #3914 on: December 11, 2011, 06:00:00 PM »

What does it mean to read the Bible literally? A few points to consider:

....

Should we care if a secular court finds evolution compatible with creation?
 
The point in mentioning the 1925 Scopes' trial was not to discuss the trial itself, or the results from the trial, but to point out that the Creationist Young-Earth position of six, 24-hour, day creation is a result of the adoption of the visions of Ellen G. White.

maybe so, but Ellen G. White was reading St. Ephraim of Syria:

Commentary on Genesis 1, pg. 282
.....

I don't believe St. Ephraim said anything about Noah's Flood causing geological strata and fossils (falsely appearing to be millions of years old) to be formed.

Quote
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired.
....
Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks.
....
For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.

i dont really think she was reading St. Ephraim. I was simply pointing out that YEC didnt begin with her.
Somehow I don't think St. Ephraim thought of himself as a young-earth creationist and would probably bristle at the thought of being associated with them.

whats the difference between YECs and what St. Ephraim said in those quotes?
Did St. Ephraim assert that the Flood caused the geological strata and organized the fossil record into what we see today?
Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.258 seconds with 75 queries.