OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:21:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 328941 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5310 on: September 15, 2013, 02:02:22 AM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs

Selam

Thoughts?

I am at work (Youtube=inappropriate). What I could find text-wise was that a female student confronted him with the question as to how abiogenesis (creating a gene by random assortment) could occur. I guess the thought never occurred to him. I am not sure how this led him to reject evolution (that line of reasoning was not in the text that I read).

I watched the video. It is incoherent. The issues are obscured and mixed up based on what I read as the account. Richard Lumsden died in 1997 and cannot comment.

Fact: Evolution cannot explain the creation of life.
Fact: Evolution can explain adaptation of pre-existing proteins to gain or lose function. It is simple.


I think that's the crux of the matter- people confuse adaptation for evolution. Adaptation and evolution within existing species is empirically verifiable. Transition from one species to another is not - especially on a mass scale such as evolutionary theory purports - is not.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5311 on: September 15, 2013, 02:05:51 AM »

It's interesting that you bring up alchemy, as I was going to mention that earlier, and how even smart people can believe silly things, like Isaac Newton with alchemy. That's why I asked you earlier for your thoughts on the video you posted. I didn't want to just have a knee-jerk reaction dismissal of it, but at the same time I'm not sure what it really means that 20 years ago a guy I've never heard of decided that he had more questions about evolution than he realized... so... thoughts?  Smiley

It seems he realized that evolutionary theory is not an empirical fact. Too many unanswered questions, gaps, and holes in the theory.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,550



« Reply #5312 on: September 15, 2013, 11:09:42 AM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs

Selam

Thoughts?

I am at work (Youtube=inappropriate). What I could find text-wise was that a female student confronted him with the question as to how abiogenesis (creating a gene by random assortment) could occur. I guess the thought never occurred to him. I am not sure how this led him to reject evolution (that line of reasoning was not in the text that I read).

I watched the video. It is incoherent. The issues are obscured and mixed up based on what I read as the account. Richard Lumsden died in 1997 and cannot comment.

Fact: Evolution cannot explain the creation of life.
Fact: Evolution can explain adaptation of pre-existing proteins to gain or lose function. It is simple.


I think that's the crux of the matter- people confuse adaptation for evolution. Adaptation and evolution within existing species is empirically verifiable. Transition from one species to another is not - especially on a mass scale such as evolutionary theory purports - is not.


Selam

If you add isolation of populations of the same species to the equation, you get new species over time. If there is no isolation, it is just adaptation of the entire population.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5313 on: September 15, 2013, 06:52:47 PM »

Tulane biology professor is converted from evolutionism by one of his students. (Please ignore the extremely annoying fundamentalist at the end of the video.  Roll Eyes )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3jrcP-o6Vs

Selam

Thoughts?

I am at work (Youtube=inappropriate). What I could find text-wise was that a female student confronted him with the question as to how abiogenesis (creating a gene by random assortment) could occur. I guess the thought never occurred to him. I am not sure how this led him to reject evolution (that line of reasoning was not in the text that I read).

I watched the video. It is incoherent. The issues are obscured and mixed up based on what I read as the account. Richard Lumsden died in 1997 and cannot comment.

Fact: Evolution cannot explain the creation of life.
Fact: Evolution can explain adaptation of pre-existing proteins to gain or lose function. It is simple.


I think that's the crux of the matter- people confuse adaptation for evolution. Adaptation and evolution within existing species is empirically verifiable. Transition from one species to another is not - especially on a mass scale such as evolutionary theory purports - is not.


Selam

If you add isolation of populations of the same species to the equation, you get new species over time. If there is no isolation, it is just adaptation of the entire population.
This.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5314 on: September 15, 2013, 07:31:59 PM »


If you add isolation of populations of the same species to the equation, you get new species over time. If there is no isolation, it is just adaptation of the entire population.

It is still a small step if we compare it with what the theory claims. The rabbits are still rabbits and the seagulls are still seagulls. The theory claims that given enough time a rabbit can turn into a seagull and they both share a common ancestor with a bacteria, a tree and a butterfly.
And i don`t know how much is evolution and how much is a loss of information when we talk about these "new species ". Some populations have lost the ability to mate with their own kind. See, this is evolution !  Smiley
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5315 on: September 15, 2013, 07:41:15 PM »


If you add isolation of populations of the same species to the equation, you get new species over time. If there is no isolation, it is just adaptation of the entire population.

It is still a small step if we compare it with what the theory claims. The rabbits are still rabbits and the seagulls are still seagulls. The theory claims that given enough time a rabbit can turn into a seagull and they both share a common ancestor with a bacteria, a tree and a butterfly.
And i don`t know how much is evolution and how much is a loss of information when we talk about these "new species ". Some populations have lost the ability to mate with their own kind. See, this is evolution !  Smiley
A rabbit is only a rabbit because you call it a rabbit.  If you spent thousands of years specifically breeding rabbits, you could get their features to change so radically, they would not even look the same as they do now.  Evolution is the exact same thing except humans breed animals for specific features, evolution causes changes without and final goal in place, so the changes are not as direct.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5316 on: September 15, 2013, 08:02:19 PM »


A rabbit is only a rabbit because you call it a rabbit.  If you spent thousands of years specifically breeding rabbits, you could get their features to change so radically, they would not even look the same as they do now.  Evolution is the exact same thing except humans breed animals for specific features, evolution causes changes without and final goal in place, so the changes are not as direct.

If you spend thousands of years breeding them it wouldn`t be evolution anymore, because evolution doesn`t have a purpose. Also, no one knows what can happen in thousands of years, that is time of the gaps, something you have to imagine it happens because we are here and something must had happened. We need to wait thousands of years and maybe then we will have recorded history about how rabbits developed wings or seagulls started to bark. What we can see is that rabbits have rabbits babies.
Species is an arbitrary classification, and it is not too clear what is a specie and when there is a new specie. Maybe the rabbits don`t know they should stay inside the same specie. But the extrapolation from what we observe to what we must imagine it can happen in billions of years has nothing to do with science. Certainly is not the same as the theory of electricity.
Also from breeders experience we know that there are limits of how much one can go with the new "features". This is what we can observe. There seems to be no limit in our imagination.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,550



« Reply #5317 on: September 15, 2013, 08:41:15 PM »


If you add isolation of populations of the same species to the equation, you get new species over time. If there is no isolation, it is just adaptation of the entire population.

It is still a small step if we compare it with what the theory claims. The rabbits are still rabbits and the seagulls are still seagulls. The theory claims that given enough time a rabbit can turn into a seagull and they both share a common ancestor with a bacteria, a tree and a butterfly.
And i don`t know how much is evolution and how much is a loss of information when we talk about these "new species ". Some populations have lost the ability to mate with their own kind. See, this is evolution !  Smiley

Davillas, from my perspective, we humans are not that much different from other vertebrates.

In regard to what I think is a question (although not posed as a question because you are not really interested in an answer), if you ever decide to read the prior posts in this thread and respond to them, you would know that turning a rabbit into a bird involves de-evolving a rabbit to the common ancestor  between birds and mammals. Previously, Ativan wanted me to change a dog to become a cat. I told him it would be much easier to change a dog into a whale.

You need to think about the common ancestor when posing these thoughts. If you do not think about this you do not understand evolution.

Let me know if you do not understand what I am saying.

Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5318 on: September 15, 2013, 09:49:53 PM »



Davillas, from my perspective, we humans are not that much different from other vertebrates.

In regard to what I think is a question (although not posed as a question because you are not really interested in an answer), if you ever decide to read the prior posts in this thread and respond to them, you would know that turning a rabbit into a bird involves de-evolving a rabbit to the common ancestor  between birds and mammals. Previously, Ativan wanted me to change a dog to become a cat. I told him it would be much easier to change a dog into a whale.

You need to think about the common ancestor when posing these thoughts. If you do not think about this you do not understand evolution.

Let me know if you do not understand what I am saying.



I don`t think any of us is interested in an answer. We already believe we know everything and we are ready to share our wisdom to those willing to find an answer. But no one needs it.  Smiley

De-evolving a rabbit to the common ancestor assumes it happened. Again, without a single piece of empirical evidence from what we can observe today, we assume it happened and it will happen if we wait enough time. And what is the reason behind this assumption ? Well....we are here and we must explain how we got here in the first place. ( Remember Darwin knew nothing about DNA and what`s inside a cell )
So one can say that the common DNA proves that there was a common ancestor between birds and rabbits. And the common DNA all life forms are sharing is a good "evidence" for someone willing to accept the evolution.But in the same time why should it be 100% different and what does it mean to share some DNA with other life forms ? I am sure Windows and Office are sharing some "DNA" too. But Office didn`t appeared because someone made copies of copies of copies of copies .... of Windows. They were both created and the creator took the parts that he was able to use on Office from Windows. And i believe it is much easier to make an Office by making copies of copies...of copies of Windows than to turn a dog into a whale.
We know from our experience that new information appears only when it is created. I don`t care how many stories there are with monkeys typing some nonsense. These are stories and have nothing to do with our empirical evidence.
The theory of evolution can be a hypothesis but unless someone can show you some real results ( like that guy Lensky, if he can make at least 20 different bugs or worms appear from his bacterias ) it means you can`t compare it with the theory of electricity. You push the switch -> you have light. You breed bacterias -> you have bacterias. It doesn`t work yet so let`s wait a couple of trillions of years.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5319 on: September 15, 2013, 10:02:45 PM »

Plus, looks like even the monkeys typing nonsense needed 10 billions years for us to be here, so they started doing it a long time ago in a galaxy far far away :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2311757/Did-life-exist-BEFORE-Earth-Researchers-calculate-existed.html
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,968


black metal cat


« Reply #5320 on: September 15, 2013, 10:05:07 PM »

Often when reading this thread I need to say to myself: "Just remember, Justin, you used to say things just as dumb less than ten years ago. People can change."
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #5321 on: September 15, 2013, 10:09:36 PM »

Often when reading this thread I need to say to myself: "Just remember, Justin, you used to say things just as dumb less than ten years ago. People can change."

There is no way of knowing if you are smarter today. Even if you are less smart than 10 years ago you won`t be able to realize that.
But i agree, people can change.  Smiley
Logged
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA- Denver
Posts: 372



« Reply #5322 on: October 12, 2013, 04:33:06 PM »

... or at least think it is fine for Orthodox Christians to believe in theistic evolution, what do you make of the argument that evolution is unacceptable because it contradicts a literal understanding of Genesis and the age of the earth (created in 6000 BC) as taught by Early Church Fathers?

Please respect that I am only looking for responses from those who believe in evolution or at least see it as compatible with the Orthodox faith.
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,315


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #5323 on: October 12, 2013, 04:35:44 PM »

[...] a literal understanding of Genesis and the age of the earth (created in 6000 BC) as taught by Early Church Fathers?

How sure are you about that?
Logged

"Eheu fugaces, Postume, Postume,
labuntur anni"
-Horace, Odes II:14
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,317


« Reply #5324 on: October 12, 2013, 04:56:32 PM »

... or at least think it is fine for Orthodox Christians to believe in theistic evolution, what do you make of the argument that evolution is unacceptable because it contradicts a literal understanding of Genesis and the age of the earth (created in 6000 BC) as taught by Early Church Fathers?

I laugh at it while reading this thread.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 04:57:58 PM by dzheremi » Logged

xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #5325 on: October 12, 2013, 05:22:39 PM »

All I know is God did it. I don't really care how, and it's not for me to know anyway. The same thing with the Eucharist.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #5326 on: October 12, 2013, 06:49:54 PM »

All I know is God did it. I don't really care how, and it's not for me to know anyway. The same thing with the Eucharist.
Except that the analogy isn't 100% accurate.  One could also argue that it's not for us to understand what makes some bridges collapse.  But since we can understand quite a lot about bridges it would be irresponsible, and indeed unchristian, to refuse to acknowledge the science.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #5327 on: October 12, 2013, 07:01:16 PM »

All I know is God did it. I don't really care how, and it's not for me to know anyway. The same thing with the Eucharist.
Except that the analogy isn't 100% accurate.  One could also argue that it's not for us to understand what makes some bridges collapse.  But since we can understand quite a lot about bridges it would be irresponsible, and indeed unchristian, to refuse to acknowledge the science.

Of course, which is why I believe in Evolution. Just because I can choose to not care doesn't mean I don't.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5328 on: October 12, 2013, 07:29:50 PM »

... or at least think it is fine for Orthodox Christians to believe in theistic evolution, what do you make of the argument that evolution is unacceptable because it contradicts a literal understanding of Genesis and the age of the earth (created in 6000 BC) as taught by Early Church Fathers?

Please respect that I am only looking for responses from those who believe in evolution or at least see it as compatible with the Orthodox faith.
I trust the Church Fathers for matters of faith, not for matters of science.  I am not going to start believing in Phoenixes just because St. Clement of Rome, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and a few others thought it existed.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA- Denver
Posts: 372



« Reply #5329 on: October 12, 2013, 08:09:22 PM »

... or at least think it is fine for Orthodox Christians to believe in theistic evolution, what do you make of the argument that evolution is unacceptable because it contradicts a literal understanding of Genesis and the age of the earth (created in 6000 BC) as taught by Early Church Fathers?

Please respect that I am only looking for responses from those who believe in evolution or at least see it as compatible with the Orthodox faith.
I trust the Church Fathers for matters of faith, not for matters of science.  I am not going to start believing in Phoenixes just because St. Clement of Rome, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and a few others thought it existed.
The Orthodox Christians I have been talking to claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis isn't just pious opinion, but authoritative teaching. They say that because enough Orthodox saints teach it (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Seraphim Rose) and because most monks even today teach it it is the only Orthodox way to interpret Genesis. Basically a appeal to majority argument.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5330 on: October 12, 2013, 08:14:06 PM »

... or at least think it is fine for Orthodox Christians to believe in theistic evolution, what do you make of the argument that evolution is unacceptable because it contradicts a literal understanding of Genesis and the age of the earth (created in 6000 BC) as taught by Early Church Fathers?

Please respect that I am only looking for responses from those who believe in evolution or at least see it as compatible with the Orthodox faith.
I trust the Church Fathers for matters of faith, not for matters of science.  I am not going to start believing in Phoenixes just because St. Clement of Rome, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and a few others thought it existed.
The Orthodox Christians I have been talking to claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis isn't just pious opinion, but authoritative teaching. They say that because enough Orthodox saints teach it (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Seraphim Rose) and because most monks even today teach it it is the only Orthodox way to interpret Genesis. Basically a appeal to majority argument.
That is certainly an opinion.  Wink

Of course most saints taught a literal view of it, but that is because they had no knowledge of the scientific facts.  We can't expect 1800 years of saints to anticipate evolution or have God divinely notify them of the theory of evolution, that isn't the way God works.

Regardless of what many might say, the Church has never dogmatized a literal interpretation of Genesis and I don't expect that it ever will.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 907



« Reply #5331 on: October 13, 2013, 08:51:25 PM »

What about Seraphim Rose of blessed memory? He was a creationist, yet he lived in the 20th century. So he does not really conform to your argument. I think that both creationists and evolutionists are Orthodox, but I personally lean more towards the former.
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #5332 on: October 13, 2013, 09:21:29 PM »

What about Seraphim Rose of blessed memory? He was a creationist, yet he lived in the 20th century. So he does not really conform to your argument. I think that both creationists and evolutionists are Orthodox, but I personally lean more towards the former.

Seraphim Rose did not have an educational or professional background in the sciences, and Genesis, Creation, and Early Man betrays certain gaps in his understanding of evolutionary biology. On the other hand, those Orthodox with such a background (e.g. Bishop Alexander Mileant of blessed memory, Theodosius Dobzhansky, several of our members here such as minasoliman or celticfan1888) have demonstrated that reconciliation between that field and Orthodoxy is possible.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 09:22:36 PM by NightOwl » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5333 on: October 13, 2013, 10:04:29 PM »

What about Seraphim Rose of blessed memory? He was a creationist, yet he lived in the 20th century. So he does not really conform to your argument. I think that both creationists and evolutionists are Orthodox, but I personally lean more towards the former.
There are certainly a multitude of modern Orthodox who are staunch creationists.  There are also a number who accept evolution.  I was merely explaining why looking at patristic sources can be problematic when trying to decipher the creation/evolution debate.

I believe that believing in evolution and excluding the involvement of God is against Orthodoxy, but if you can accept the sovereignty of God and the scientific fact of evolution, there is no dogma in Orthodoxy that refutes that.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Nikolaos Greek
Last among equals
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Greece
Posts: 203



« Reply #5334 on: October 17, 2013, 08:35:25 AM »

Saints made mistakes as they were humans.
But why would there be death before Adam?
Logged

God is Love.
Ό Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστί.
There is no luck, there is no fate. There are always two ways. One is God's and one is devil's. And in each step of your life you have to pick one, always.
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #5335 on: October 18, 2013, 01:41:50 AM »

This is why evolution as explained today is impossible. It is not possible for death to have entered into the world in any other way than as the scriptures say: "Through one man death came into the world."

If we deny that, then we admit that death is not the result of Adam or mankind's sin (if you go for polygenism). As such, the incarnation loses all of its significance, as does the crucifixion and the entire economy of the incarnation of the Logos. He chose to redeem humanity as the second Adam, but if Adam is not responsible for all, then it is a pointless and empty gesture, and is totally aimed at the wrong source (of death). Theosis becomes impossible, because then the Word incarnate did not become man in order to trample upon death as God-become-man (which loses its entire meaning if death is "natural" and not the result of moral failure), but for no purpose at all. How could he defeat death as the second Adam if it was a part of the order of creation?

No, death must be unnatural, but in order for it to be against nature, it must be foreign to it, and that is not possible unless the order of reality was compromised by free agents. Hence, we come back to Adam and Eve, and the incarnation, and the death and glorious resurrection.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5336 on: October 18, 2013, 07:52:11 AM »

Scripture states that Adam and Eve would not die, not that there was no death whatsoever. Every day, millions of bacteria die.  If that didn't happen, our bodies would quickly consume itself.  I have no doubt that that same process occurred before the fall as it does now.

Further, God told Adam that in the day that he eats of the tree, he will surely die.  Adam did not physically die the same day that he ate the fruit, so if we are going to take everything absolutely literally, you would make God out to be dishonest or mistaken.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #5337 on: October 18, 2013, 09:32:33 AM »

So then, you deny that through one man death came into the world?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 09:33:28 AM by Daniel Smith » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5338 on: October 18, 2013, 09:48:03 AM »

So then, you deny that through one man death came into the world?
Spiritual death?  No.  I think Scripture is quite clear that through Adam, spiritual death entered the world.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #5339 on: October 18, 2013, 10:00:03 AM »

Your distinction is not scriptural. The scripture aimply says death. Thanatos. Death as principle at every level of reality. Hebrews 2, all sinned because all feared death. Corporal bodily death. This is the entire perspective of the Orthodox east. As st. Isaac of Syria says, the soul is by nature dispassionate, but due to its unity with a body subject to mortality death and corruption, it experiences and shares in the physical amd emotional futility caused by mortality, resulting in spiritual confusion.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,328



« Reply #5340 on: October 18, 2013, 10:05:16 AM »

Your distinction is not scriptural. The scripture aimply says death. Thanatos. Death as principle at every level of reality. Hebrews 2, all sinned because all feared death. Corporal bodily death. This is the entire perspective of the Orthodox east. As st. Isaac of Syria says, the soul is by nature dispassionate, but due to its unity with a body subject to mortality death and corruption, it experiences and shares in the physical amd emotional futility caused by mortality, resulting in spiritual confusion.

So in Genesis 2:17, did Adam die as principle at every level of reality on the day that he ate of the fruit?  That would make it rather difficult for him to leave the garden if he was bodily dead.

Quote
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
Daniel Smith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA
Posts: 121


« Reply #5341 on: October 18, 2013, 02:58:34 PM »

No, he initiated the process. Christ said I  the day you eat of it you will surwly die. And spiritual death came into the qorld as well as bodily illness. Through the envy of the devil, and the deceit of Adam, death came into the world. God did not create death. It is the result of moral failure.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,304



« Reply #5342 on: October 18, 2013, 03:01:49 PM »

So then, you deny that through one man death came into the world?

Romans 5:12 doesn't say 'through' but 'because' this is a mistranslation of the Latin Vulgate, not of the Greek New Testament.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #5343 on: October 20, 2013, 12:48:02 AM »

What about Seraphim Rose of blessed memory? He was a creationist, yet he lived in the 20th century. So he does not really conform to your argument. I think that both creationists and evolutionists are Orthodox, but I personally lean more towards the former.

Seraphim Rose did not have an educational or professional background in the sciences, and Genesis, Creation, and Early Man betrays certain gaps in his understanding of evolutionary biology. On the other hand, those Orthodox with such a background (e.g. Bishop Alexander Mileant of blessed memory, Theodosius Dobzhansky, several of our members here such as minasoliman or celticfan1888) have demonstrated that reconciliation between that field and Orthodoxy is possible.

When has this ever happened? Link to a post or article that does it. I've been eagerly awaiting some kind of explanation. I came to this forum as an ardent evolutionist but it seems dumber and dumber as time goes on from an Orthodox perspective. I've wanted to find the magic answer that makes it all okay. But with evolution you can't get around it; God made the universe broken. The only posts I've seen are evolutionists saying "it's a scientific fact, not up for debate." That's probably true, but it does not "demonstrate a reconciliation." It just invalidates Orthodoxy.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #5344 on: October 20, 2013, 12:52:58 AM »

What about Seraphim Rose of blessed memory? He was a creationist, yet he lived in the 20th century. So he does not really conform to your argument. I think that both creationists and evolutionists are Orthodox, but I personally lean more towards the former.

Seraphim Rose did not have an educational or professional background in the sciences, and Genesis, Creation, and Early Man betrays certain gaps in his understanding of evolutionary biology. On the other hand, those Orthodox with such a background (e.g. Bishop Alexander Mileant of blessed memory, Theodosius Dobzhansky, several of our members here such as minasoliman or celticfan1888) have demonstrated that reconciliation between that field and Orthodoxy is possible.

When has this ever happened? Link to a post or article that does it. I've been eagerly awaiting some kind of explanation. I came to this forum as an ardent evolutionist but it seems dumber and dumber as time goes on from an Orthodox perspective. I've wanted to find the magic answer that makes it all okay. But with evolution you can't get around it; God made the universe broken. The only posts I've seen are evolutionists saying "it's a scientific fact, not up for debate." That's probably true, but it does not "demonstrate a reconciliation." It just invalidates Orthodoxy.
ialmisry is actually a compatibilist. I doubt he looks at this thread, you should send him a PM.

Personally I have no problem reconciling Orthodoxy with evolution.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #5345 on: October 20, 2013, 01:02:28 AM »

What about Seraphim Rose of blessed memory? He was a creationist, yet he lived in the 20th century. So he does not really conform to your argument. I think that both creationists and evolutionists are Orthodox, but I personally lean more towards the former.

Seraphim Rose did not have an educational or professional background in the sciences, and Genesis, Creation, and Early Man betrays certain gaps in his understanding of evolutionary biology. On the other hand, those Orthodox with such a background (e.g. Bishop Alexander Mileant of blessed memory, Theodosius Dobzhansky, several of our members here such as minasoliman or celticfan1888) have demonstrated that reconciliation between that field and Orthodoxy is possible.

When has this ever happened? Link to a post or article that does it. I've been eagerly awaiting some kind of explanation. I came to this forum as an ardent evolutionist but it seems dumber and dumber as time goes on from an Orthodox perspective. I've wanted to find the magic answer that makes it all okay. But with evolution you can't get around it; God made the universe broken. The only posts I've seen are evolutionists saying "it's a scientific fact, not up for debate." That's probably true, but it does not "demonstrate a reconciliation." It just invalidates Orthodoxy.
ialmisry is actually a compatibilist. I doubt he looks at this thread, you should send him a PM.

Personally I have no problem reconciling Orthodoxy with evolution.

But how do you explain it without just saying
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Hawkeye
Onomatodoxicologist
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: With a schismatic twist.
Jurisdiction: An Old Rite soglasie
Posts: 620


My grandfather, the mad Mike


« Reply #5346 on: October 20, 2013, 01:08:32 AM »

William, I myself don't see why anyone should.

I'm probably going to regret it but if I may opine, I find debates regarding "Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy" to be incredibly meaningless.

Perhaps there is something wrong with me but none of the alleged inconsistencies bother me in the slightest. The same tongue with which I testify to the existence of our fore-father Adam, I discuss the differences between all the homos in my Anthropology course.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for speculation within Orthodoxy, only that all such speculation can't be healthy.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 01:14:40 AM by Hawkeye » Logged

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

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #5347 on: October 20, 2013, 01:09:57 AM »

But how do you explain it without just saying

Can you please explain how evolution invalidates Orthodoxy?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Time-wasting self-embarrassing anti-Christian hater
Posts: 4,351



« Reply #5348 on: October 20, 2013, 01:17:23 AM »

But how do you explain it without just saying

Can you please explain how evolution invalidates Orthodoxy?

Daniel Smith's post sum it up very well. In evolution, death is an essential part of the universe, always has been. In Orthodoxy, death is a result of sin.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #5349 on: October 20, 2013, 02:21:27 AM »

But how do you explain it without just saying

Can you please explain how evolution invalidates Orthodoxy?

Daniel Smith's post sum it up very well. In evolution, death is an essential part of the universe, always has been. In Orthodoxy, death is a result of sin.
Biological death, yes. Man is more than his biology. Is death not different for us?
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 02:24:18 AM by Achronos » Logged

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

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

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5350 on: October 20, 2013, 02:54:40 AM »

But how do you explain it without just saying

Can you please explain how evolution invalidates Orthodoxy?

Daniel Smith's post sum it up very well. In evolution, death is an essential part of the universe, always has been. In Orthodoxy, death is a result of sin.
Biological death, yes. Man is more than his biology. Is death not different for us?

Biological and spiritual death resulted from the fall. We are body and soul, and whatever affects one affects the other. So to affirm evolution is to acquiesce with the heretical notion that God rather than sin is responsible for death. I understand the theistic evolutionists' desire to bifurcate spiritual and physical death, for that's the only way they can reconcile evolution with Orthodox theology. But such a bifurcation is itself unorthodox, because the physical and the spiritual are merely two aspects of one human life. "Too be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." [II Corinthians 5:8] And yet our bodies will ultimately be resurrected as well. [Romans 8:23]


Selam
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:05:48 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #5351 on: October 20, 2013, 03:48:01 AM »

I believe that evolution and the Scriptures are mutually exclusive in so much that they answer different questions.

I also think that Darwin caused inexcusable harm by what can be derived logically from his theory. Whether it be from eugenics to social darwinism, it has shaped our world for the worse. It places little value and worth on human beings. I can't help but shift some of the blame on to Darwin for Nazism. It would have been better to repent for his blunder, but the damage is done.

But really that is my objection against people using Darwin's theory, even more so dogmatically. I have no problem seeing in the world how things evolved on a micro and macro level, it makes the most sense to me.

Again evolution vs. creationism, or whatever is nonsense. Christ is risen. Sorry if that sounds like a cop out.
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #5352 on: October 20, 2013, 03:56:37 AM »

Gebre, and the part where God warned A&E not to eat the forbidden fruit unless they die? So they must have had some conception of death, then. Or that may have been an oversight of the author of Genesis pulling from his own experience.

Willi, I think my main point is that human death itself, is a seperation of the soul from the body. This was never supposed to happen. Whereas animals dying cannot participate in communion with God...let alone be a part of theosis. (Put aside "the world is a living icon" rhetoric for a minute).

You may find this useful.
Orthodoxy and Creationism
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm

From recalling my memory a bit, I believe the consensus amongst the Church Fathers is there was no death before creation. More so placing man's sin as affecting the entire cosmos.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:57:09 AM by Achronos » Logged

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

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

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5353 on: October 20, 2013, 04:12:52 AM »

I believe that evolution and the Scriptures are mutually exclusive in so much that they answer different questions.

I also think that Darwin caused inexcusable harm by what can be derived logically from his theory. Whether it be from eugenics to social darwinism, it has shaped our world for the worse. It places little value and worth on human beings. I can't help but shift some of the blame on to Darwin for Nazism. It would have been better to repent for his blunder, but the damage is done.

But really that is my objection against people using Darwin's theory, even more so dogmatically. I have no problem seeing in the world how things evolved on a micro and macro level, it makes the most sense to me.

Again evolution vs. creationism, or whatever is nonsense. Christ is risen. Sorry if that sounds like a cop out.

I can agree with you on this. Our existence is ultimately a mystery. I think all Christians agree that God is the author of this mystery of life. So, it's not a cop out as far as I'm concerned. But just like with theological issues where human logic tries to go beyond sufficient truth (i.e. the language of "two natures," and the filioque), we must be careful not to assert conjecture as truth. I remain open to the scientific plausibility of evolution, but I won't assert it as a fact until it is proven to be factual. And if it is proven to be factual, then I will have to compromise my theology or abandon it altogether, because if evolution is truth then the theology of death entering the world through sin is error.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,312

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #5354 on: October 20, 2013, 04:19:24 AM »

Gebre, and the part where God warned A&E not to eat the forbidden fruit unless they die? So they must have had some conception of death, then. Or that may have been an oversight of the author of Genesis pulling from his own experience.


Interesting thought. But I think that prior to the fall, when man had perfect communion with God, then he understood everything God said. Adam and Eve recognized that they were created, and therefore they must have intuitively understood that their existence was contingent upon their Creator. So even if they had never seen death, they must have intuitively sensed it's possibility. Again, it is most certainly a mystery.


Selam
Logged

"Those who have nothing constructive to offer are masters at belittling the offerings of others." +GMK+
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 0.178 seconds with 74 queries.