OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 02:15:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 316262 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4095 on: April 23, 2012, 10:54:36 AM »

Orthodox Creationism is based upon the interpretations of the Fathers, not observations of the fallen world ...

You have fun with that, my priest has said the woe is an icon, which is quite enough for me to reject that attitude. Had more than enough of "the physical universe is a lie" as a fundie nondenominational anyways.

no one said its a lie. no one said science is a lie. but the fallen world is quite different from the pre-fallen world. Essentially what you're doing is looking at a cancer patient and assuming they always had cancer and always exhibited all the effects of cancer.

I dont understand the analogy.
He's saying that the Fall retroactively engineered the world to look like it had always been fallen.

It'd be tough to find that one in any of the Fathers, though. Stargate didn't come out until 1994.

thats not what I'm saying. perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly, but I've said nothing about the world looking like it's always been fallen. The fallenness that we see began with the Fall, and the Tradition tells us there was a time of Paradise before that which we do not see except through prayer. I'm saying that the Fathers tell us that the world was not always sunk into corruption and death. Once it was "healthy" -- without the "cancer" of corruption and death, but evolutionists are looking at the fallen world and assuming it is normative for the entire history of the earth. I do not believe that the fallenness we see now gives the impression that the world was always fallen -- that is more akin to the evolutionist position which holds that death has always existed.
This isn't just an evolutionist belief, FWIW. One of the fundamental assumptions of science is that we can only work with the evidence we have now and that science is powerless to posit anything other than a natural explanation of the evidence. Such stories as a paradisical world where death did not exist, where the laws of nature were totally different from what they are now, are beyond the reach of science. Could such a world have existed? Many Christians suggest that not only is it possible that such a world could have existed, we have evidence of such a world in the Scriptures. This belief, however, is the proper realm of religious faith, not of science, since science can only assume that the universe operates now as it always has.

sure, i agree with that. without this assumption of uniformity it'd be pretty darn hard to do any science. but recognizing this assumption puts a limit on science which is spoken of by the ancient and modern Fathers. the idea that science can only assume that the universe operates now as it always has does not have to negate the existence of a once-paradisiacal world -- for the Orthodox Christian we can understand it as the world operating as it has since the time of the Fall (or maybe even the Flood). This is what Fr. John Romanides says -- that science and philosophy can take us back to the Fall, but they cannot break the barrier of the Fall. Creationism isn't anti-science, it just sets stronger limits on science.

So what will take us back before the Fall?Is that understanding denied to us?

The Fathers are our guides because they held visions of creation in prayer, and the same mystical experiences are open to all of us. In recent times Elder Joseph of Vatopedi was granted a vision of Creation in which he saw it just as Moses reported it.

 Here is what St. Isaac the Syrian says about it:

Quote
Homily 21, Russian ed.; Homily 85, Greek ed.
Describing how men of the highest spiritual life are enraptured at the future life of incorruption: “And from this one is already exalted in his mind to that which preceded the (making) of the world, where there was no creature, no heaven, no earth, no angels, nothing of that which was brought into being, and to how God, solely by His good will, suddenly brought everything from non-being into being, and everything stood before Him in perfection.”


How did Joseph of Vatopedi saw it?

i do not know all the details. hopefully they will publish something about it. Monks there told one of my good friends. He basically said that Elder Joseph was concerned about this issue because it was causing turmoil for the faithful and so he asked God for clarity on the issue, and God granted him a vision. Fr. Patrick at the Energetic Procession blog is also aware of this vision. See his comment on Feb. 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM at http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/cosmologicalgeological-age-evolution-physical-laws-and-biblical-time-lines/.
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #4096 on: April 23, 2012, 11:04:21 AM »

I`m sorry and we should based these upon what certain fathers, priests, monks, etc see, on visions?Visions can be deceiving and mostly are.. Visions can come from the devil as our doctrine says.. Science can take us back to the moment of Big-Bang and the creation of our universe.. Thus even to the "Pre-fall times".. The creation of the universe precedes the creation of humans and the "Pre-Fall times"
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4097 on: April 23, 2012, 11:09:37 AM »

I`m sorry and we should based these upon what certain fathers, priests, monks, etc see, on visions?Visions can be deceiving and mostly are.. Visions can come from the devil as our doctrine says.. Science can take us back to the moment of Big-Bang and the creation of our universe.. Thus even to the "Pre-fall times".. The creation of the universe precedes the creation of humans and the "Pre-Fall times"

you're right, not every vision should be taken as dogma, but when we see the same teaching being handed down for 2000 yrs, Saints from the first millennium having the same vision as those of the 20th century, etc you start to see the mind of the Church. Theology at its height is the vision of Christ in glory, as was beheld by Sts. Paul, Symeon, Silouan, and so many others. Nothing is greater or more authoritative. Since vision is the heart of our theology, the Saint who has the vision stands there at the center.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 11:11:16 AM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #4098 on: April 23, 2012, 11:16:37 AM »

not even the same faith for thousands of years is an argument... and some denominations within the Orthodox and Catholic faiths would contradict you on that sameness stuff.. One can be in error thousands of years... Take a look at Paganism.. Take a look at Hinduism ... Take a look at Buddhism , Take a look at Taoism... Take a look at Judaism and take a look at Islam... All this religions , except Islam are more than 2000 years old and predate Christianity..
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 11:19:53 AM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4099 on: April 23, 2012, 06:36:21 PM »

I`m sorry and we should based these upon what certain fathers, priests, monks, etc see, on visions?Visions can be deceiving and mostly are.. Visions can come from the devil as our doctrine says..

"St. Gregory the Sinaite and other Holy Fathers of the highest spiritual life beheld the first-created world in the state of Divine vision, which is beyond all natural knowledge[.] St. Gregory the Sinaite himself states the “eight primary visions” of the state of perfect prayer are: (1) God, (2) the angelic powers, (3) “the composition of visible things,” (4) the condescension of the Word (the Incarnation), (5) the universal resurrection, (6) the Second Coming of Christ, (7) eternal torments, (Cool the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. Why should the “composition of visible things” be included together with the other objects of Divine vision which are all within the sphere of theological knowledge alone, and not scientific knowledge? Is it not because there is an aspect and state of creatures beyond the sphere of scientific knowledge, which can only be seen, as St. Isaac himself saw God’s creation, in vision by God’s grace? The objects of these visions, St. Gregory teaches, “are clearly beheld and known by those who have attained by grace complete purity of mind” (On Commandments and Doctrines 130, Philokalia 4, p. 248)." Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man (2011), p. 458.

Quote
Science can take us back to the moment of Big-Bang and the creation of our universe.. Thus even to the "Pre-fall times"..

this is an assumption, and one that the Saints do not agree with. You do not actually know that there wasn't a Paradise before the earliest remain that you find, you can only assume there wasn't.

Quote
The creation of the universe precedes the creation of humans and the "Pre-Fall times"

Creationists agree that the creation of the universe precedes that of humans, but the creation of the universe is within the pre-fallen times.
[/quote]
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #4100 on: April 23, 2012, 08:32:52 PM »

Orthodox Creationism is based upon the interpretations of the Fathers, not observations of the fallen world ...

You have fun with that, my priest has said the woe is an icon, which is quite enough for me to reject that attitude. Had more than enough of "the physical universe is a lie" as a fundie nondenominational anyways.

no one said its a lie. no one said science is a lie. but the fallen world is quite different from the pre-fallen world. Essentially what you're doing is looking at a cancer patient and assuming they always had cancer and always exhibited all the effects of cancer.

I dont understand the analogy.
He's saying that the Fall retroactively engineered the world to look like it had always been fallen.

It'd be tough to find that one in any of the Fathers, though. Stargate didn't come out until 1994.

thats not what I'm saying. perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly, but I've said nothing about the world looking like it's always been fallen. The fallenness that we see began with the Fall, and the Tradition tells us there was a time of Paradise before that which we do not see except through prayer. I'm saying that the Fathers tell us that the world was not always sunk into corruption and death. Once it was "healthy" -- without the "cancer" of corruption and death, but evolutionists are looking at the fallen world and assuming it is normative for the entire history of the earth. I do not believe that the fallenness we see now gives the impression that the world was always fallen -- that is more akin to the evolutionist position which holds that death has always existed.

That's an interesting way of putting it.  Nevertheless, even within fallen nature, we can see any human being with cancer, we can trace back exactly when this cancer started, and we can see traces of healthy cells still trying to fight the cancer cells.  With the creation of the world, there is no hint at all that any part of this world was "unfallen."  All consistent evidence leads to a fallen nature.  This means that the Paradise that Adam enjoyed was not of this world, at least to me.

Why would God not at least show an inconsistent unorganized scientific data of the fallen world rather than give us a fallen world that makes it look like some things died before others at certain times?

Also, what about those animals that were extinct?  Why didn't God preserve the dinosaurs in the Ark of Noah?  Why is it that God allowed some species to be killed off and extinct while saving others in the Ark?

The problem with understanding the "pre-fallen world" is that the world shows no trace that there was anything pre-fallen about it.  Unlike a cancer patient, we cannot tell when the world stopped having the "cancer of physical death."

In addition, God created the conditions of the Fall.  If man had sinned, God could have at least spared the animals from man's disastrous faults.  If man had sinned, God could have at least made conditions of the Fall different for those animals than for us humans.  Why specifically were our skins made to be cut in a weak way if we lose the grace of God?  Why specifically were our pains and emotions felt in a certain way if we lose the grace of God?  Could God have made conditions different if we lost His grace?  I think we all agree yes.  Could God have prevented our physical death and only allowed spiritual death because of our fault?  I think we all agree yes.  But the fact of the matter is, God created the conditions in a way in which if we delve any deeper, we cannot explain it in any other way that just say God did. 

Therefore, it really is no different to me theologically than considering that all animals did in fact experience death before the dawn of man.  Either way, God created the natural conditions for death, and we having human rational choice, chose that path by our disobedience.  We did not create physical death, but we are by nature prone to it because God created nature in a matter that it would be prone to death, but that He particularly created man in a matter that would also be prone to eternal life and communion with God, and with man's power, may even through God divinize creation around him.  Creation toiled that man may be born, and God breathed into that man the Divine Image, but man ruined it for all of creation by choosing to toil with it.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2012, 08:45:03 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.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #4101 on: April 24, 2012, 01:33:26 PM »

I`m sorry and we should based these upon what certain fathers, priests, monks, etc see, on visions?Visions can be deceiving and mostly are.. Visions can come from the devil as our doctrine says..

"St. Gregory the Sinaite and other Holy Fathers of the highest spiritual life beheld the first-created world in the state of Divine vision, which is beyond all natural knowledge[.] St. Gregory the Sinaite himself states the “eight primary visions” of the state of perfect prayer are: (1) God, (2) the angelic powers, (3) “the composition of visible things,” (4) the condescension of the Word (the Incarnation), (5) the universal resurrection, (6) the Second Coming of Christ, (7) eternal torments, (Cool the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. Why should the “composition of visible things” be included together with the other objects of Divine vision which are all within the sphere of theological knowledge alone, and not scientific knowledge? Is it not because there is an aspect and state of creatures beyond the sphere of scientific knowledge, which can only be seen, as St. Isaac himself saw God’s creation, in vision by God’s grace? The objects of these visions, St. Gregory teaches, “are clearly beheld and known by those who have attained by grace complete purity of mind” (On Commandments and Doctrines 130, Philokalia 4, p. 248)." Fr. Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man (2011), p. 458.

How many pious people in this worls have had visions and how many contradict each other or are incompatible with each other.. And I don`t mean here only Christianity.. Visions are a factor of faith not evidence... For one I had more than one vision/dream myself that marked me some way but i ascribe natural explanations to them..

Quote
Quote
Science can take us back to the moment of Big-Bang and the creation of our universe.. Thus even to the "Pre-fall times"..

this is an assumption, and one that the Saints do not agree with. You do not actually know that there wasn't a Paradise before the earliest remain that you find, you can only assume there wasn't.


Tell me one contemporan saint that denies contemporan astronomy.. The question we need to ask ourselves is how would the early fathers respond to modern science.. The biggest discoveries in science and astronomy were made in the last couple of centuries... The early church fathers did not have the information we have today about science and the universe.. There were a few fathers back than who believed in heliocentrism , or that the earth is plat , or that is currently wrong now , isn`t it?

Quote
Quote
The creation of the universe precedes the creation of humans and the "Pre-Fall times"

Creationists agree that the creation of the universe precedes that of humans, but the creation of the universe is within the pre-fallen times.

By that i was trying to make a point that science can take us back to Pre-Fall times that are Post - Universum Creatio..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Jonathan Gress
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,012


« Reply #4102 on: April 24, 2012, 04:42:58 PM »


That's an interesting way of putting it.  Nevertheless, even within fallen nature, we can see any human being with cancer, we can trace back exactly when this cancer started, and we can see traces of healthy cells still trying to fight the cancer cells.  With the creation of the world, there is no hint at all that any part of this world was "unfallen."  All consistent evidence leads to a fallen nature.  This means that the Paradise that Adam enjoyed was not of this world, at least to me.

I suppose this is where we can see the purpose of Genesis. If observation of nature now doesn't reveal anything unfallen about its origins, it makes a lot of sense that God would need to reveal those unfallen origins to us directly through prophecy.

Quote
Why would God not at least show an inconsistent unorganized scientific data of the fallen world rather than give us a fallen world that makes it look like some things died before others at certain times?

Good point, except again I think that is precisely why we have the Book of Genesis: we wouldn't have been able to figure this out on our own.

Quote
Also, what about those animals that were extinct?  Why didn't God preserve the dinosaurs in the Ark of Noah?  Why is it that God allowed some species to be killed off and extinct while saving others in the Ark?

Why should we be privy to all the reasons for God's actions? These are not unreasonable questions, but I don't think we should necessarily expect an answer to everything. What does the extinction or survival of dinosaurs have to do with our salvation?

Quote
The problem with understanding the "pre-fallen world" is that the world shows no trace that there was anything pre-fallen about it.  Unlike a cancer patient, we cannot tell when the world stopped having the "cancer of physical death."

This gets us back to the purpose of Genesis again.

Quote
In addition, God created the conditions of the Fall.  If man had sinned, God could have at least spared the animals from man's disastrous faults.  If man had sinned, God could have at least made conditions of the Fall different for those animals than for us humans.  Why specifically were our skins made to be cut in a weak way if we lose the grace of God?  Why specifically were our pains and emotions felt in a certain way if we lose the grace of God?  Could God have made conditions different if we lost His grace?  I think we all agree yes.  Could God have prevented our physical death and only allowed spiritual death because of our fault?  I think we all agree yes.  But the fact of the matter is, God created the conditions in a way in which if we delve any deeper, we cannot explain it in any other way that just say God did. 

It's a mystery why the rest of Creation fell under the law of corruption at the same time that Man did, but nevertheless this is what the Fathers teach. I see it, though, as an important symbol of our calling to be the head of material creation. If we are perfect, the rest of the world is perfect, but if we fall, the rest of the world falls with us.

Quote
Therefore, it really is no different to me theologically than considering that all animals did in fact experience death before the dawn of man.  Either way, God created the natural conditions for death, and we having human rational choice, chose that path by our disobedience.  We did not create physical death, but we are by nature prone to it because God created nature in a matter that it would be prone to death, but that He particularly created man in a matter that would also be prone to eternal life and communion with God, and with man's power, may even through God divinize creation around him.  Creation toiled that man may be born, and God breathed into that man the Divine Image, but man ruined it for all of creation by choosing to toil with it.

OK, where do you get that Creation toiled that man may be born? Is this your own interpretation or did some Father say this?

Here is St John Chrysostom commenting on Romans 8:19-20:

Quote
“For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth,” he says, “for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.”

And the meaning is something of this kind. The creation itself is in the midst of its pangs, waiting for and expecting these good things whereof we have just now spoken. For “earnest expectation” (ἀποκαραδοκία, looking out) implies expecting intensely. And so his discourse becomes more emphatic, and he personifies this whole world as the prophets also do, when they introduce the floods clapping their hands, and little hills leaping, and mountains skipping, not that we are to fancy them alive, or ascribe any reasoning power to them, but that we may learn the greatness of the blessings, so great as to reach even to things without sense also. The very same thing they do many times also in the case of afflicting things, since they bring in the vine lamenting, and the wine too, and the mountains, and the boardings of the Temple howling, and in this case too it is that we may understand the extremity of the evils. It is then in imitation of these that the Apostle makes a living person of the creature here, and says that it groaneth and travaileth: not that he heard any groan conveyed from the earth and heaven to him, but that he might show the exceeding greatness of the good things to come; and the desire of freedom from the ills which now pervaded them. “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same.” What is the meaning of, “the creation was made subject to vanity?” Why that it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of thee, O man. For since thou hast taken a body mortal and liable to suffering, the earth too hath received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles. But that the heaven, when it is waxen old along with the earth, is to change afterwards to a better portion (λἥξιν v. p. 384) hear from the Prophet in his words; “Thou, O Lord, from the beginning hast founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a cloak shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed.” (Ps. cii. 25, 26.) Isaiah too declares the same, when he says, “Look to the heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, for the heavens are as a firmament of smoke,1426 and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall perish in like manner.” (Is. li. 6.). Now you see in what sense the creation is “in bondage to vanity,” and how it is to be freed from the ruined state. For the one says, “Thou shalt fold them up as a garment, and they shall be changed;” and Isaiah says, “and they that dwell therein shall perish in like manner,” not of course meaning an utter perishing. For neither do they that dwell therein, mankind, that is, undergo such an one, but a temporary one, and through it they are changed into an incorruptible (1 Cor. xv. 53) state, and so therefore will the creature be. And all this he showed by the way, by his saying “in like manner” (2 Pet. iii. 13), which Paul also says farther on. At present, however, he speaks about the bondage itself, and shows for what reason it became such, and gives ourselves as the cause of it. What then? Was it harshly treated on another’s account? By no means, for it was on my account that it was made. What wrong then is done it, which was made for my sake, when it suffereth these things for my correction? Or, indeed, one has no need to moot the question of right and wrong at all in the case of things void of soul and feeling. But Paul, since he had made it a living person, makes use of none of these topics I have mentioned, but another kind of language, as desiring to comfort the hearer with the utmost advantage. And of what kind is this? What have you to say? he means. It was evil intreated for thy sake, and became corruptible; yet it has had no wrong done it. For incorruptible will it be for thy sake again. This then is the meaning of “in hope.” But when he says, it was “not willingly” that it was made subject, it is not to show that it is possessed of judgment that he says so, but that you may learn that the whole is brought about by Christ’s care, and this is no achievement of its own.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #4103 on: April 24, 2012, 08:44:08 PM »

Jonathan,

Quote
I suppose this is where we can see the purpose of Genesis. If observation of nature now doesn't reveal anything unfallen about its origins, it makes a lot of sense that God would need to reveal those unfallen origins to us directly through prophecy.

The purpose of beginning of Genesis is not to give us an over-literal account of history.  Therefore, I think this is where we disagree.

Quote
Good point, except again I think that is precisely why we have the Book of Genesis: we wouldn't have been able to figure this out on our own.

Then why the consistency of scientific principles in a fallen world?  The point is, the cancer symbolism doesn't follow.

Quote
Why should we be privy to all the reasons for God's actions? These are not unreasonable questions, but I don't think we should necessarily expect an answer to everything. What does the extinction or survival of dinosaurs have to do with our salvation?
Then in the same vein, what does the death or extinction of animals before the dawn of man have to do with our salvation?  If God is not the creator of the physical conditions we live in, then either the physical conditions are as powerful as God, or if God was not initially the "creator of death", He certainly showed no mercy afterwards to most animal species, while choosing some to be preserved.  The Church fathers did not know about the extinction of animal species.  I would imagine they felt ALL species possible were in the Ark of Noah, which we I have a lot of confidence is not true.

Quote
It's a mystery why the rest of Creation fell under the law of corruption at the same time that Man did, but nevertheless this is what the Fathers teach. I see it, though, as an important symbol of our calling to be the head of material creation. If we are perfect, the rest of the world is perfect, but if we fall, the rest of the world falls with us.

And man when falling, created conditions of the Fall much worse than what is naturally intended in the world. 

When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment. Indeed, they had in their sinning surpassed all limits; for, having invented wickedness in the beginning and so involved themselves in death and corruption, they had gone on gradually from bad to worse, not stopping at any one kind of evil, but continually, as with insatiable appetite, devising new kinds of sins. Adulteries and thefts were everywhere, murder and rapine filled the earth, law was disregarded in corruption and injustice, all kinds of iniquities were perpetrated by all, both singly and in common. Cities were warring with cities, nations were rising against nations, and the whole earth was rent with factions and battles, while each strove to outdo the other in wickedness. Even crimes contrary to nature were not unknown, but as the martyr-apostle of Christ says: "Their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature; and the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, flamed out in lust towards each other, perpetrating shameless acts with their own sex, and receiving in their own persons the due recompense of their pervertedness."

St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation"


Therefore, the verse concerning the moaning and groaning of creation seems to fall in line with that thought as well.  There's no need to think of creation before the dawn of man as a lack of predator-prey relationships for instance as this has no bearing on the faith.

Quote
OK, where do you get that Creation toiled that man may be born? Is this your own interpretation or did some Father say this?

My quote has nothing to do with the verse "made subject to vanity."  I'm using colorful language alluding to evolution processes.  Creation did toil, through deaths and rebirths of higher more advanced levels of life until God breathed His Spirit into the most perfect living creature that Creation gave birth to.  Man began as a seed growing in the womb of the cosmos according to God's creative powers, and when man was born, God took him into paradise and made him a rational creature.

For St. Athanasius, as I explained numerous times, the Image of God in man resulted in man's transcendence of his physically natural "impermanence", or immortality essentially.

As for St. John Chrysostom, as I explained earlier, some fathers may be wrong about things concerning the conditions of the world before man was created.  In fact, almost all fathers perhaps were scientifically wrong about something in the world before man was created until recently.  But this is not to diminish the central faith.  Almost all Church fathers in the first 300 years believed angels can copulate with women, which later on rejected.  "Patristic consensus" is only helpful on certain dogmatic issues.  The issues we fight about here, in my opinion, are petty, which is why there's no ecumenical council urgent enough to address this, and it seems a lot of bishops are accepting evolution as a reality not just post-Fall, but pre-Fall as well.  For death to occur in non-human species before the Fall is not something that should be concerning.  If God found it in His wisdom that some species should not be spared, then it makes no difference if they were alive before the Fall either.  If man continued obedience, then perhaps the world would have been lifted up into transcendance of its own natural proneness to death and corruption.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 09:02:33 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.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,059


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #4104 on: April 25, 2012, 04:37:26 AM »

  For death to occur in non-human species before the Fall is not something that should be concerning. 

Do you not realize that your own statement contradicts evolutionary theory? According to evolutionary theory, human species evolved from non-human species. But your statement implies that there initially existed human and non-human species.



Selam


Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #4105 on: April 25, 2012, 10:08:52 AM »

  For death to occur in non-human species before the Fall is not something that should be concerning.

Do you not realize that your own statement contradicts evolutionary theory? According to evolutionary theory, human species evolved from non-human species. But your statement implies that there initially existed human and non-human species.



Selam



No I didn't realize that.  In fact, I don't see where you see that implication.  I simply implied that it shouldn't be a theological problem for animals to have died efore man was created, which is at the same time as the Fall.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 10:10:07 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.
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #4106 on: May 11, 2012, 02:30:54 AM »

So, recently I had an odd thought/theory about Genesis in relation to natural science and I wanted to run this by my fellow Orthodox brethren who know more of theology than I do. I feel the idea is a bit too philosophical which made me wonder if it was bordering on Gnosticism, but I just find it so compelling. I know evolution is a hot-button issue, and I don't want the thread to turn polemical. If you are a young-earth creationist, fine by me; if you are a completely macro-evolutionist, fine by me. If you confess the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity according to the Ecumenical councils, you are my Orthodox brother/sister in Christ. So here goes:

 So, I personally greatly respect and admire Fr. Seraphim Rose; his writings were instrumental in my coming into the Church. His writings on Nihilism and the spiritual state of modern man and the ideas he holds are some of the most incisive evaluations of the human spirit I have ever read. That being said, I hated "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man", I thought he made a totally non-dogmatic issue in the Church into controversial hail-storm. I thought he was incredibly insensitive and unfair to his "evolutionist" brothers in Christ (such as Dobzhansky and Dr. Kalomiros) which I thought was odd, considering how much he stressed the Royal Path; being on neither the left nor the right, and he seemed very much on the right in a very protestant way. His arguments against evolution were also very Protestant and pretty much bunk, but would be excusable theories in the early eighties when he published the book. So, I simply cast the book aside and chalked up the mistake to him rejecting the world in it's entirety, even the things that are right and true.

 The other day, I was reading his biography again and I came across the chapter on "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" and decided to see Fr. Damascene's evaluation of the work, thinking that perhaps a point was missed among the mass of text. I realized there was. Fr. Seraphim certainly wasn't one for nonsense and he felt that the "Theistic Evolutionary" stance was an intellectually cowardly one. In which a person afraid to face the scientific "facts" of the day capitulated and invented a system by which to reconcile his beliefs with the science of the day. He further explains that to say that "man evolved into what he is today and then the image of God was bestowed on him" (and other such theories) weren't Orthodox in the slightest, as they flew in the face of Orthodox Anthropology: that man was created as he is, and that his disobedience to God subjected all creation to the fall and death. So, if man was a part of this imposed scheme of theistic evolutionists, then the world was subject to the aspects of the fall before man even arrived on the scene via evolution. I realized in this, that Fr. Seraphim was right in his objections, but I also felt that an atheist evolutionist could turn around and say that natural science proved our religion wrong. I began to think that Fr. Seraphim and the hypothetical atheist were being too rationalistic, subjecting a mystery to the either/or logical fallacy, and that there could be another explanation.

 Today, I was listening to Fr. Tom Hopko on evolution (because I felt he had studied the topic more fairly than Fr. Seraphim, and also probably more in-depth), and he further reinforced my realization that the theistic evolutionist viewpoint is theologically wrong in that it's often presenting the wrong god. Often times, the god in question just put the watch together and let it run (Deism) or is controlling every minute detail (Calvinism) and neither of these ideas are Orthodox (I'll have to listen to the other lectures, because as of yet, he hasn't given his own theologically informed opinion). After this I came to think about what I know, and what I don't know. I am not an agnostic theist, I know that God is He Who Is (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the existent One etc. and I really believe that), I'm fairly certain that it's a scientific fact that there was life before us, and that evolution is a well established theory. I also do not agree with Archbishop Lazar that one can just relegate Adam and Eve to the nebulous allegory bin and remain in Orthodox theology.

 Then I began to think, "this is a mystery, as are most things that pertains to God's actions in the world, so couldn't both be true?" I then began to consider what it means to be in the presence of God (as Adam and Eve in Eden)which is the fountain of life. As Peter says, "to be with God one day is as a thousand years", which made me think of the difference of Kairos (God's time) and Chronos (linear time). Chronos cannot be in the presence of God, because Chronos is inextricably tied to Death. In Greek thought, Chronos ate her children; Chronos kills everything: men, women, children, empires, and ideas. God became incarnate within Chronos to save mankind from death, and interesting enough, before the Chi-Rho came to stand for Christos, it was used to denote Chronos. I thought that was the coolest thing, because God became incarnate in time, just as the rest of creation to draw creation back to Himself. He has defeated one of the greatest tools of the last enemy to be destroyed, and mocks it. Anyways, my thought was this: in being cast out of Eden, man and all creation would have become subject to Chronos, which is why man came at a specific point in time and not at the very beginning as a linear understanding of the events of Genesis would lead one to believe.

There's my idea. It contains Orthodox ideas but I have never heard an Orthodox person ancient or modern express this view, so I have no confidence in it and am perfectly willing to disregard it if someone can show me that it isn't Orthodox. So, what do you guys make of this idea?

Peace to you in XC,
Mikha'el
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,454


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #4107 on: May 11, 2012, 02:51:06 AM »

You tried looking for this thread yet?

Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
Logged
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #4108 on: May 11, 2012, 02:29:39 PM »

You tried looking for this thread yet?

Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

I have, but it mostly concerns the general creation vs. evolution (and synthesis) discussion. I haven't seen an idea similar to this in the sticky. The idea is what the thread is about, not necessarily evolution and creationism
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #4109 on: May 11, 2012, 02:48:13 PM »

I think your theory is incomplete because while you incorporate Chronos, you fail to address the Titans.

Chronos was a male, by the way. The "os" ending is a clue.
Logged
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #4110 on: May 11, 2012, 02:53:49 PM »

I think your theory is incomplete because while you incorporate Chronos, you fail to address the Titans.

Chronos was a male, by the way. The "os" ending is a clue.
Hmmm.. it must have been a mistake in the homily I read that "she ate her children", but you get my point. I'm referring to Chronos in the philosophical sense of linear time, not as the personified titan. I'll need to edit that.

addendum: nevermind, it won't let me   Angry
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 02:56:18 PM by Michael36 » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #4111 on: May 12, 2012, 01:14:01 PM »

The Hearing Ear Pt 1
The Hearing Ear Pt 2

Quote
Anatomist Dr. David Menton takes you on a journey into the marvelous intricacies of the human ear, which has the clear stamp of the Creator and leaves skeptics speechless.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #4112 on: May 12, 2012, 03:56:07 PM »

The Hearing Ear Pt 1
The Hearing Ear Pt 2

Quote
Anatomist Dr. David Menton takes you on a journey into the marvelous intricacies of the human ear, which has the clear stamp of the Creator and leaves skeptics speechless.

"speechless"? Surely the uploader jests. Fox and Meng (1997) and Fay and Popper (2000) certainly aren't. Is that another version of the myth that evolution can't explain the human eye?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,454


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #4113 on: May 12, 2012, 04:15:12 PM »

The Hearing Ear Pt 1
The Hearing Ear Pt 2

Quote
Anatomist Dr. David Menton takes you on a journey into the marvelous intricacies of the human ear, which has the clear stamp of the Creator and leaves skeptics speechless.

"speechless"? Surely the uploader jests. Fox and Meng (1997) and Fay and Popper (2000) certainly aren't. Is that another version of the myth that evolution can't explain the human eye?
Intelligent design doesn't preclude evolution as an explanation of the how.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #4114 on: May 12, 2012, 04:35:27 PM »

The Hearing Ear Pt 1
The Hearing Ear Pt 2

Quote
Anatomist Dr. David Menton takes you on a journey into the marvelous intricacies of the human ear, which has the clear stamp of the Creator and leaves skeptics speechless.

"speechless"? Surely the uploader jests. Fox and Meng (1997) and Fay and Popper (2000) certainly aren't. Is that another version of the myth that evolution can't explain the human eye?
Intelligent design doesn't preclude evolution as an explanation of the how.

I think you are confusing intelligent design with theistic evolution. Intelligent design does preclude evolution as an explanation. That is the entire point of it: that evolution couldn't for some nebulous reason have resulted in life as we know it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,454


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #4115 on: May 12, 2012, 04:43:56 PM »

The Hearing Ear Pt 1
The Hearing Ear Pt 2

Quote
Anatomist Dr. David Menton takes you on a journey into the marvelous intricacies of the human ear, which has the clear stamp of the Creator and leaves skeptics speechless.

"speechless"? Surely the uploader jests. Fox and Meng (1997) and Fay and Popper (2000) certainly aren't. Is that another version of the myth that evolution can't explain the human eye?
Intelligent design doesn't preclude evolution as an explanation of the how.

I think you are confusing intelligent design with theistic evolution. Intelligent design does preclude evolution as an explanation. That is the entire point of it: that evolution couldn't for some nebulous reason have resulted in life as we know it.
Actually, no I'm not confusing intelligent design with theistic evolution, particularly since I'm not speaking of any of the formalized theories of intelligent design.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #4116 on: May 12, 2012, 04:47:08 PM »

The Hearing Ear Pt 1
The Hearing Ear Pt 2

Quote
Anatomist Dr. David Menton takes you on a journey into the marvelous intricacies of the human ear, which has the clear stamp of the Creator and leaves skeptics speechless.

"speechless"? Surely the uploader jests. Fox and Meng (1997) and Fay and Popper (2000) certainly aren't. Is that another version of the myth that evolution can't explain the human eye?
Intelligent design doesn't preclude evolution as an explanation of the how.

I think you are confusing intelligent design with theistic evolution. Intelligent design does preclude evolution as an explanation. That is the entire point of it: that evolution couldn't for some nebulous reason have resulted in life as we know it.
Actually, no I'm not confusing intelligent design with theistic evolution, particularly since I'm not speaking of any of the formalized theories of intelligent design.

Good for you I guess...
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,100


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4117 on: May 14, 2012, 06:55:35 PM »

Keep in mind...  Evolution is a THEORY.

So many claim it to be some kind of absolute fact, or speak of it as such.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,238



« Reply #4118 on: May 14, 2012, 07:06:01 PM »

Keep in mind...  Evolution is a THEORY.

So many claim it to be some kind of absolute fact, or speak of it as such.

Ok, I'm guessing you've said that before, and somewhere along the way someone has explained to you that the word as used in science does not mean the same thing as when most people use it in everyday language?

Though I agree with you that it's not an absolute fact. It's just a plain fact.  angel
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,100


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4119 on: May 14, 2012, 08:20:09 PM »

Keep in mind...  Evolution is a THEORY.

So many claim it to be some kind of absolute fact, or speak of it as such.

Ok, I'm guessing you've said that before, and somewhere along the way someone has explained to you that the word as used in science does not mean the same thing as when most people use it in everyday language?

Though I agree with you that it's not an absolute fact. It's just a plain fact.  angel

It would be a Scientific fact then if it was a fact.
Watch some Kent Hovind videos, very informative.   Too bad he's busted for taxes.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,238



« Reply #4120 on: May 14, 2012, 08:24:07 PM »

Watch some Kent Hovind videos, very informative. 

You're just trolling now. Have to be.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,100


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4121 on: May 14, 2012, 08:34:22 PM »

Watch some Kent Hovind videos, very informative. 

You're just trolling now. Have to be.

Nah.  He routinely pounded skeptics, scientists, and other people who believed in evolution in debates.   Many are on youtube.   He'd bring up many points and specific facts about the issues around evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isFpp42SSY0
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,238



« Reply #4122 on: May 14, 2012, 08:42:12 PM »

I watched all his stuff (letcures/debates) years ago on Google video. Literally all of it. It was great fun.

Again, you're just trolling. Have to be.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #4123 on: May 14, 2012, 09:01:07 PM »

So, recently I had an odd thought/theory about Genesis in relation to natural science and I wanted to run this by my fellow Orthodox brethren who know more of theology than I do. I feel the idea is a bit too philosophical which made me wonder if it was bordering on Gnosticism, but I just find it so compelling. I know evolution is a hot-button issue, and I don't want the thread to turn polemical. If you are a young-earth creationist, fine by me; if you are a completely macro-evolutionist, fine by me. If you confess the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity according to the Ecumenical councils, you are my Orthodox brother/sister in Christ. So here goes:

 So, I personally greatly respect and admire Fr. Seraphim Rose; his writings were instrumental in my coming into the Church. His writings on Nihilism and the spiritual state of modern man and the ideas he holds are some of the most incisive evaluations of the human spirit I have ever read. That being said, I hated "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man", I thought he made a totally non-dogmatic issue in the Church into controversial hail-storm. I thought he was incredibly insensitive and unfair to his "evolutionist" brothers in Christ (such as Dobzhansky and Dr. Kalomiros) which I thought was odd, considering how much he stressed the Royal Path; being on neither the left nor the right, and he seemed very much on the right in a very protestant way. His arguments against evolution were also very Protestant and pretty much bunk, but would be excusable theories in the early eighties when he published the book. So, I simply cast the book aside and chalked up the mistake to him rejecting the world in it's entirety, even the things that are right and true.

 The other day, I was reading his biography again and I came across the chapter on "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" and decided to see Fr. Damascene's evaluation of the work, thinking that perhaps a point was missed among the mass of text. I realized there was. Fr. Seraphim certainly wasn't one for nonsense and he felt that the "Theistic Evolutionary" stance was an intellectually cowardly one. In which a person afraid to face the scientific "facts" of the day capitulated and invented a system by which to reconcile his beliefs with the science of the day. He further explains that to say that "man evolved into what he is today and then the image of God was bestowed on him" (and other such theories) weren't Orthodox in the slightest, as they flew in the face of Orthodox Anthropology: that man was created as he is, and that his disobedience to God subjected all creation to the fall and death. So, if man was a part of this imposed scheme of theistic evolutionists, then the world was subject to the aspects of the fall before man even arrived on the scene via evolution. I realized in this, that Fr. Seraphim was right in his objections, but I also felt that an atheist evolutionist could turn around and say that natural science proved our religion wrong. I began to think that Fr. Seraphim and the hypothetical atheist were being too rationalistic, subjecting a mystery to the either/or logical fallacy, and that there could be another explanation.

 Today, I was listening to Fr. Tom Hopko on evolution (because I felt he had studied the topic more fairly than Fr. Seraphim, and also probably more in-depth), and he further reinforced my realization that the theistic evolutionist viewpoint is theologically wrong in that it's often presenting the wrong god. Often times, the god in question just put the watch together and let it run (Deism) or is controlling every minute detail (Calvinism) and neither of these ideas are Orthodox (I'll have to listen to the other lectures, because as of yet, he hasn't given his own theologically informed opinion). After this I came to think about what I know, and what I don't know. I am not an agnostic theist, I know that God is He Who Is (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the existent One etc. and I really believe that), I'm fairly certain that it's a scientific fact that there was life before us, and that evolution is a well established theory. I also do not agree with Archbishop Lazar that one can just relegate Adam and Eve to the nebulous allegory bin and remain in Orthodox theology.

 Then I began to think, "this is a mystery, as are most things that pertains to God's actions in the world, so couldn't both be true?" I then began to consider what it means to be in the presence of God (as Adam and Eve in Eden)which is the fountain of life. As Peter says, "to be with God one day is as a thousand years", which made me think of the difference of Kairos (God's time) and Chronos (linear time). Chronos cannot be in the presence of God, because Chronos is inextricably tied to Death. In Greek thought, Chronos ate her children; Chronos kills everything: men, women, children, empires, and ideas. God became incarnate within Chronos to save mankind from death, and interesting enough, before the Chi-Rho came to stand for Christos, it was used to denote Chronos. I thought that was the coolest thing, because God became incarnate in time, just as the rest of creation to draw creation back to Himself. He has defeated one of the greatest tools of the last enemy to be destroyed, and mocks it. Anyways, my thought was this: in being cast out of Eden, man and all creation would have become subject to Chronos, which is why man came at a specific point in time and not at the very beginning as a linear understanding of the events of Genesis would lead one to believe.

There's my idea. It contains Orthodox ideas but I have never heard an Orthodox person ancient or modern express this view, so I have no confidence in it and am perfectly willing to disregard it if someone can show me that it isn't Orthodox. So, what do you guys make of this idea?

Peace to you in XC,
Mikha'el

I don't understand.  It was my impression upon listening to Fr. Thomas Hopko that evolution does not need contradict Orthodox faith.
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.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,100


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4124 on: May 14, 2012, 09:17:44 PM »

I watched all his stuff (letcures/debates) years ago on Google video. Literally all of it. It was great fun.

Again, you're just trolling. Have to be.

Nope.  I do not believe in evolution.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #4125 on: May 14, 2012, 09:25:12 PM »

I watched all his stuff (letcures/debates) years ago on Google video. Literally all of it. It was great fun.

Again, you're just trolling. Have to be.

Nope.  I do not believe in evolution.
Well you don't to buy into the philosophy of social darwinism even if you accept evolution. So why don't you believe in evolution again?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #4126 on: May 14, 2012, 10:31:15 PM »

So, recently I had an odd thought/theory about Genesis in relation to natural science and I wanted to run this by my fellow Orthodox brethren who know more of theology than I do. I feel the idea is a bit too philosophical which made me wonder if it was bordering on Gnosticism, but I just find it so compelling. I know evolution is a hot-button issue, and I don't want the thread to turn polemical. If you are a young-earth creationist, fine by me; if you are a completely macro-evolutionist, fine by me. If you confess the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity according to the Ecumenical councils, you are my Orthodox brother/sister in Christ. So here goes:

 So, I personally greatly respect and admire Fr. Seraphim Rose; his writings were instrumental in my coming into the Church. His writings on Nihilism and the spiritual state of modern man and the ideas he holds are some of the most incisive evaluations of the human spirit I have ever read. That being said, I hated "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man", I thought he made a totally non-dogmatic issue in the Church into controversial hail-storm. I thought he was incredibly insensitive and unfair to his "evolutionist" brothers in Christ (such as Dobzhansky and Dr. Kalomiros) which I thought was odd, considering how much he stressed the Royal Path; being on neither the left nor the right, and he seemed very much on the right in a very protestant way. His arguments against evolution were also very Protestant and pretty much bunk, but would be excusable theories in the early eighties when he published the book. So, I simply cast the book aside and chalked up the mistake to him rejecting the world in it's entirety, even the things that are right and true.

 The other day, I was reading his biography again and I came across the chapter on "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" and decided to see Fr. Damascene's evaluation of the work, thinking that perhaps a point was missed among the mass of text. I realized there was. Fr. Seraphim certainly wasn't one for nonsense and he felt that the "Theistic Evolutionary" stance was an intellectually cowardly one. In which a person afraid to face the scientific "facts" of the day capitulated and invented a system by which to reconcile his beliefs with the science of the day. He further explains that to say that "man evolved into what he is today and then the image of God was bestowed on him" (and other such theories) weren't Orthodox in the slightest, as they flew in the face of Orthodox Anthropology: that man was created as he is, and that his disobedience to God subjected all creation to the fall and death. So, if man was a part of this imposed scheme of theistic evolutionists, then the world was subject to the aspects of the fall before man even arrived on the scene via evolution. I realized in this, that Fr. Seraphim was right in his objections, but I also felt that an atheist evolutionist could turn around and say that natural science proved our religion wrong. I began to think that Fr. Seraphim and the hypothetical atheist were being too rationalistic, subjecting a mystery to the either/or logical fallacy, and that there could be another explanation.

 Today, I was listening to Fr. Tom Hopko on evolution (because I felt he had studied the topic more fairly than Fr. Seraphim, and also probably more in-depth), and he further reinforced my realization that the theistic evolutionist viewpoint is theologically wrong in that it's often presenting the wrong god. Often times, the god in question just put the watch together and let it run (Deism) or is controlling every minute detail (Calvinism) and neither of these ideas are Orthodox (I'll have to listen to the other lectures, because as of yet, he hasn't given his own theologically informed opinion). After this I came to think about what I know, and what I don't know. I am not an agnostic theist, I know that God is He Who Is (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the existent One etc. and I really believe that), I'm fairly certain that it's a scientific fact that there was life before us, and that evolution is a well established theory. I also do not agree with Archbishop Lazar that one can just relegate Adam and Eve to the nebulous allegory bin and remain in Orthodox theology.

 Then I began to think, "this is a mystery, as are most things that pertains to God's actions in the world, so couldn't both be true?" I then began to consider what it means to be in the presence of God (as Adam and Eve in Eden)which is the fountain of life. As Peter says, "to be with God one day is as a thousand years", which made me think of the difference of Kairos (God's time) and Chronos (linear time). Chronos cannot be in the presence of God, because Chronos is inextricably tied to Death. In Greek thought, Chronos ate her children; Chronos kills everything: men, women, children, empires, and ideas. God became incarnate within Chronos to save mankind from death, and interesting enough, before the Chi-Rho came to stand for Christos, it was used to denote Chronos. I thought that was the coolest thing, because God became incarnate in time, just as the rest of creation to draw creation back to Himself. He has defeated one of the greatest tools of the last enemy to be destroyed, and mocks it. Anyways, my thought was this: in being cast out of Eden, man and all creation would have become subject to Chronos, which is why man came at a specific point in time and not at the very beginning as a linear understanding of the events of Genesis would lead one to believe.

There's my idea. It contains Orthodox ideas but I have never heard an Orthodox person ancient or modern express this view, so I have no confidence in it and am perfectly willing to disregard it if someone can show me that it isn't Orthodox. So, what do you guys make of this idea?

Peace to you in XC,
Mikha'el

I don't understand.  It was my impression upon listening to Fr. Thomas Hopko that evolution does not need contradict Orthodox faith.
He was criticizing Protestant approaches to Theistic evolutionism, as in God controls everything, or he made the watch and now it runs on it's own. I haven't gotten to the Orthodox opinion yet
Logged
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #4127 on: May 14, 2012, 10:33:05 PM »

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand it turned into an evolution debate. Why am I not surprised  Tongue
Logged
Michael36
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian Episcopate (OCA)
Posts: 50


« Reply #4128 on: May 14, 2012, 10:33:47 PM »

I watched all his stuff (letcures/debates) years ago on Google video. Literally all of it. It was great fun.

Again, you're just trolling. Have to be.
I honestly thought she was trolling too
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #4129 on: May 15, 2012, 10:05:57 AM »

Michael36 - I honestly don't understand what your idea is that is new. Once you brought in Chronos I don't think I followed you. However, I am glad you have re-evaluated Fr. Seraphim's work.
Logged
Sauron
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #4130 on: May 15, 2012, 10:43:09 AM »

Keep in mind...  Evolution is a THEORY.

So many claim it to be some kind of absolute fact, or speak of it as such.

Yes, and I am sitting in a high-rise building that was built using stress theory. My firm maintains its financial accounts using number theory. While commuting, I listen to songs subject to music theory.

Amazing that all of these things are imaginary.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,100


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4131 on: May 15, 2012, 11:00:06 AM »

I watched all his stuff (letcures/debates) years ago on Google video. Literally all of it. It was great fun.

Again, you're just trolling. Have to be.

Nope.  I do not believe in evolution.
Well you don't to buy into the philosophy of social darwinism even if you accept evolution. So why don't you believe in evolution again?

Any Christian or Jew that believes in evolution, is not really a Christian or Jew.   Man was created in God's image, and in his likeness.

I do not believe in evolution because it is against my faith.   The evidence from evolution comes from Science, which has been incorrect on dramatically important issues in history many many times.   (the world *is* flat).   Science has incorrect testing tools such as carbon dating, which has been proven erroneous many times.  

Even if carbon dating was accurate, there are still tremendous gaps in the fossils where entire periods of history are not accounted for.

Evolution is also illogical.
(condensed example)
A chimp exits
A chimp grows
A chimp becomes a cavman
Caveman becomes more tribal
Eventually modern man

The result
1) We have chimps
2) We have modern man

What about all the other stages?   Where's the planet of the apes types?  Ones whom have reduced language, capable of building fires, an incredibly low IQ, and incredibly reduced vocabularies?   If we still have the beginning stages (chimps), and the end results (man today), some of the middle stages should be here today as well.  Since evolution is based on mutation, that mutation should create a standard as it evolves, and then mutate again to new stages/standards.  

We should at least have some subhumans (all jokes aside) that are hairy, hunched over, and have linguistic dialog of reduced capacity.  Also capable of using tools... Who also are not capable of learning language of modern man (I say this to avoid people posting photos of tribal people in the world today who exist like that namely due to geographic reasons.  If you were to adopt out an infant from those tribes, they are capable of living as we would here in "modern civilization")

So no, I don't believe in evolution due to my faith, errors in Science, and it makes no logical sense at all to me.   Evolution is often coupled with another theory, the big bang.

To atheists, I believe in the "tooth fairy in the sky", which sounds like a collection of tall tales, myths, legends etc.  The view me as blind, who ignores their "facts", and consider my understanding as illogical.

To me, atheists are blind, who have been brainwashed by faithless men on a quest to find the Hy-gene.  They believe themselves as their own rulers, of their own lives.  They follow their own will, which makes them the ruler/god of their own life, (as Lucifer did in Isaiah 14).  They are groupless, and without any conformity of belief.  Atheists heavily disagree with other Atheists, and differ in belief in venues such as ghosts and aliens.

Evolution & the big bang is the foundation of atheism, because without creation, there isn't a God.    By using these theories to justify the age old question of "where did we come from", atheists who often try to base their views on education and logic create a paradox for themselves - as they allow for disputed and controversial evidence and testing methods to dictate these theories as facts.

Also there are a lot of things that Science can't prove that we know exists.   Love for instance (the actual feeling).   We know it exists, we feel it towards the people that we love.  Science has not put love into a box and tested it.   1 John 4:8  "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

So to conclude, I absolutely do not believe in many theories in Science.  Two of these are the Big Bang and Evolution.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,100


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #4132 on: May 15, 2012, 11:15:30 AM »

Keep in mind...  Evolution is a THEORY.

So many claim it to be some kind of absolute fact, or speak of it as such.

Yes, and I am sitting in a high-rise building that was built using stress theory. My firm maintains its financial accounts using number theory. While commuting, I listen to songs subject to music theory.

Amazing that all of these things are imaginary.

Actually it was built using steel beams and construction materials Smiley   Before steel framing, buildings were NOT high rise.  (sorry digressed)

Just because some theories appear to work, doesn't mean other theories are valid.
Number theory, there are so many paradoxes in our math system its ridiculous.

Number line for instance.

0---------------1----------------2------------------3----------->

0--------------------------------.5------------------------------1>
0--------------------------------.25-----------------------------.5>
0--------------------------------.125---------------------------.25>
0--------------------------------.0625--------------------------.125>

Or in layman's terms - you shoot an arrow at a target.  By math in order to get to the target, it must get halfway there first.   Before it can get to halfway, it must get halfway to halfway first.  Then halfway to halfway to halfway.  Then halfway to halfway to halfway to halfway.

By math & logic, the arrow can't ever hit the target because infinite halves exist between all.

Math, logic, and Science creates many paradoxes.  Of course math also considers 0 and infinity to be "not real" numbers.

But anyway, as you can see, this digresses FAR from the subject of evolution.   I just wanted to show that paradoxes and twists exist in everything people hold as fact, because it is theory.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #4133 on: May 15, 2012, 12:41:11 PM »

I personally believe in a Theistic Evolutionary system. That does not make me any less of a Christian.

Quote
Any Christian or Jew that believes in evolution, is not really a Christian or Jew
I missed that part in the Bible. Where was that again?



To me, this whole debate stems from some sort of need for word-for-word infallibility for Scripture. Trying to dogmatize the history of Creation is not what scripture was written for. The Fathers tried to find Christ on every page. That was their sole reason to study scripture. Not to explain the universe, and its infinite complexities.

Quote
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

The scriptures were not written to fulfill scientific hypotheses or to fulfill the dictates of Aristotelian logic. Trying to correlate your status as a Christian and the history of Creation belittles Christ. Nowhere is it stated that to be a Christian you must believe in Creation or Evolution.

I could be totally wrong about Theistic Evolution, or totally right. It does not help determine my eternal destination.

There are Creationists in Hell and Evolutionists in Heaven.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #4134 on: May 15, 2012, 02:49:12 PM »

I personally believe in a Theistic Evolutionary system. That does not make me any less of a Christian.

Quote
Any Christian or Jew that believes in evolution, is not really a Christian or Jew
I missed that part in the Bible. Where was that again?



To me, this whole debate stems from some sort of need for word-for-word infallibility for Scripture. Trying to dogmatize the history of Creation is not what scripture was written for. The Fathers tried to find Christ on every page. That was their sole reason to study scripture. Not to explain the universe, and its infinite complexities.

Quote
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

The scriptures were not written to fulfill scientific hypotheses or to fulfill the dictates of Aristotelian logic. Trying to correlate your status as a Christian and the history of Creation belittles Christ. Nowhere is it stated that to be a Christian you must believe in Creation or Evolution.

I could be totally wrong about Theistic Evolution, or totally right. It does not help determine my eternal destination.

There are Creationists in Hell and Evolutionists in Heaven.

PP


You know this how?  Cool
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,277


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #4135 on: May 15, 2012, 02:55:21 PM »


Evolution is also illogical.
(condensed example)
A chimp exits
A chimp grows
A chimp becomes a caveman....
Evolutionary theory has never stated that a chimpanzee became a human.
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.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #4136 on: May 15, 2012, 03:44:22 PM »


Evolution is also illogical.
(condensed example)
A chimp exits
A chimp grows
A chimp becomes a caveman....
Evolutionary theory has never stated that a chimpanzee became a human.

Oh yeah.....?




 Grin Grin Grin
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #4137 on: May 15, 2012, 03:57:50 PM »

I personally believe in a Theistic Evolutionary system. That does not make me any less of a Christian.

Quote
Any Christian or Jew that believes in evolution, is not really a Christian or Jew
I missed that part in the Bible. Where was that again?



To me, this whole debate stems from some sort of need for word-for-word infallibility for Scripture. Trying to dogmatize the history of Creation is not what scripture was written for. The Fathers tried to find Christ on every page. That was their sole reason to study scripture. Not to explain the universe, and its infinite complexities.

Quote
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

The scriptures were not written to fulfill scientific hypotheses or to fulfill the dictates of Aristotelian logic. Trying to correlate your status as a Christian and the history of Creation belittles Christ. Nowhere is it stated that to be a Christian you must believe in Creation or Evolution.

I could be totally wrong about Theistic Evolution, or totally right. It does not help determine my eternal destination.

There are Creationists in Hell and Evolutionists in Heaven.

PP


You know this how?  Cool
You're lucky I like you...... laugh

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #4138 on: May 15, 2012, 04:17:09 PM »

I personally believe in a Theistic Evolutionary system. That does not make me any less of a Christian.

Quote
Any Christian or Jew that believes in evolution, is not really a Christian or Jew
I missed that part in the Bible. Where was that again?



To me, this whole debate stems from some sort of need for word-for-word infallibility for Scripture. Trying to dogmatize the history of Creation is not what scripture was written for. The Fathers tried to find Christ on every page. That was their sole reason to study scripture. Not to explain the universe, and its infinite complexities.

Quote
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

The scriptures were not written to fulfill scientific hypotheses or to fulfill the dictates of Aristotelian logic. Trying to correlate your status as a Christian and the history of Creation belittles Christ. Nowhere is it stated that to be a Christian you must believe in Creation or Evolution.

I could be totally wrong about Theistic Evolution, or totally right. It does not help determine my eternal destination.

There are Creationists in Hell and Evolutionists in Heaven.

PP


You know this how?  Cool
You're lucky I like you...... laugh

PP

LOL!

I am, indeed!  laugh
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #4139 on: May 15, 2012, 04:42:39 PM »

Keep in mind...  Evolution is a THEORY.

So many claim it to be some kind of absolute fact, or speak of it as such.

Um, because it is. This would appear to be the eternal misconception that scientific theories aren't well established.

In other news, the concept that germs cause disease is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Valence bonds are theories. Cells are a theory.
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 0.206 seconds with 75 queries.