OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 21, 2014, 12:24:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 326986 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 539



« Reply #5625 on: February 24, 2014, 07:24:43 PM »

Well, since you ask ...

The acme* of Judaic OT commentary is ArtScroll: http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/bbs.html

If there was an Orthodox equivalent of ArtScroll publishing house, I'd melt like butter. They've got commentary anthologies by book of the Bible. I've got Genesis, Ruth and Job. Honestly, an Orthodox version of these books would be worth their weight in gold.

* By 'acme' I mean: if I were to sit down and try to edit an Orthodox commentary anthology on Genesis, I would try to do it like ArtScroll did here with Judaic commentary. I guess you'd have to look at a copy of one of these to see what I mean.

What I wish we had was an Orthodox source of exegesis that was as articulate, cogent, and clear to read as what Judaism has. In English, too. An index would also be helpful.

Clearly, if such a source existed, many of the issues you raise below would be easily addressed.

If someone wants to understand Judaic exegesis on a particular scripture today, they could do it.  Is the same true for Orthodoxy?

What are the "sources" of exegesis in Judaism that are articulate, cogent, and clear in helping us understand all of the OT and/or particular passages thereof?  If we are comparing these sources to what's available in Orthodoxy, we should be clear on what we're talking about.  
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 07:32:29 PM by Rambam » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #5626 on: February 24, 2014, 07:35:43 PM »

I have a Siddur pubilshed by ArtScroll among the "Jewish" books in my personal library, and it is quite nice.  I haven't seen their biblical volumes, so I can't comment on those or their contents.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #5627 on: February 24, 2014, 07:37:36 PM »

They've got commentary anthologies by book of the Bible.

How would these volumes differ from, say, the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 539



« Reply #5628 on: February 24, 2014, 08:00:07 PM »

They're very close. Asteriktos mentioned these yesterday, so I found the Genesis 1-11 volume on Amazon and flipped through the preview pages. They're definitely useful, but they do seem less substantial than the ArtScroll commentary. For instance, two of the issues I mentioned earlier -- the 'bet' and the 'aleph tov' -- these issues probably take up 10 pages in the ArtScroll. They aren't touched on here.

It's this difference that leads me to say the Judaic exegesis feels a bit more 'aggressive' than what is available in Orthodoxy. I don't mean aggressive = correct. I just mean that the rebbis seem willing to parse things out, letter for letter.

From this, one might conclude either one of two things to be true: 1) Either the fathers tend not to read as close as their Jewish counterparts. Or, 2) the fathers do read as close as their Jewish counterparts, but there just isn't a handy ArtScroll-esque anthology of their commentary. I tend to think the latter is the truth, so I'm just moaning about the lack of a handy book in English.

Orthodox4Christ mentioned a few replies up that there was a close commentary out there on Ezekiel ... I'll look it up.





They've got commentary anthologies by book of the Bible.

How would these volumes differ from, say, the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series?
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #5629 on: February 24, 2014, 08:32:30 PM »

From this, one might conclude either one of two things to be true: 1) Either the fathers tend not to read as close as their Jewish counterparts. Or, 2) the fathers do read as close as their Jewish counterparts, but there just isn't a handy ArtScroll-esque anthology of their commentary. I tend to think the latter is the truth, so I'm just moaning about the lack of a handy book in English.

Of course, there's at least one other possibility.  The fathers read Scripture as closely as their Jewish counterparts, but because they already know the underlying presupposition of all the Scriptures, their "aggressive exegesis" will always look different from that of the Jews.  They are not sifting for clues about what the presupposition of Scripture is: knowing that it is Christ himself, they sift through the details to confirm this presupposition, learn more about it, understand how it was revealed, etc. 

St Paul speaks of this, in a way, in II Cor 3.4-4.6.  There, we read in part:

Quote
II Corinthians 3

12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed.

With that said, it would be a mistake to believe that the fathers did not look at details like words, word order, the significance of details, etc.  They do, but it is not done in the same exact way as the Jews, and I'm not sure we should expect it to be otherwise.  It's like yearning for the meat, the fish, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic of Egypt when God's raining down bread from heaven, making water flow from rocks, drowning your former masters in the Red Sea, and destroying Amalek handily as long as Moses stands in the form of a crucified man on the top of a hill overlooking the people.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,855



« Reply #5630 on: February 24, 2014, 08:37:42 PM »

Rambam,

One reason I asked about what languages you could read fluently, so as to know what to suggest, is that there are oodles of books in Greek, Latin, etc. which have never been translated. Even if you include all the stuff in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene collection, the Fathers series put out by the Catholic University of America, etc. you are still only dealing with a fraction of what was written. If you can read French and German this helps, but there's still be a lot you wouldn't have direct access to.

Another thing is, I don't think it'd matter. I already gave my thoughts on this, so I'll just it briefly as, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry, but this thread is a testament to that. You could buy volumes and volumes of interpretations of Gen. 1-3 by the Church Fathers. And yet, here we are arguing about it. I think people should have access to the information, but let's not think that having that information will resolve much.

And finally, even if you had all the works of the Fathers bundled up in a handy and searchable package, it wouldn't matter much as it relates to the example you are giving. Many Fathers were surprisingly open to things Hebrew--a fact many Orthodox apologists ignore. For example, quite a few Fathers--and I'm talking about some of the most famous and important ones--discussed the number of letters in the Hebrew Alphabet when outlining their Old Testament. Obviously if they were anti-Hebrew, or even if Hebrew was merely superfluous or meaningless, there wouldn't have been a reason for it to be mentioned by any of them, let alone many prominent ones. Nonetheless, the Scripture and preference of the Orthodox Fathers, with a few possible exceptions, was Greek (and later, for some, Latin). For them the Greek Septuagint was what was used for the OT, and it was generally thought to be sufficient. Of course an Origen, or a Jerome, did take the time to learn Hebrew, and they used it to some extent. And St. John Chrysostom, though not knowing Hebrew, sometimes did consult with people who spoke similar languages, in an attempt to understand what a cultural term might have meant, or what the meaning behind a name was. But these were exceptions, especially after there was less and less contact with people in places where Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. would have been used more frequently. So, in a word, most of the Fathers wouldn't have had a clue about the letters you are asking about, nor would they have spent pages writing about the topic. Their theological obsessions lay with other matters (or in some cases, other letters).
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 08:40:16 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"No man gives the same exegesis twice: for he is not the same man, and it is not the same text." - St. Heraclitus
Rambam
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 539



« Reply #5631 on: February 24, 2014, 08:55:50 PM »

Thanks Asteriktos ... great answer.

I guess the next question would be: "What's a fellow to do with his ArtScroll edition of Ruth?"

If the Church fathers don't touch on these topics -- which is understandable -- then why couldn't a guy go ahead and take a peak at what the Judaic commentary is? It seems like the fathers' inattention to these details -- due to their attention to other, more important details -- frees up the possibility of examining what others' have said. If I really want to know Rambam's (the real Rambam, that is) explanation for why Boaz takes off his shoe to 'seal the deal' with Ruth, and the fathers haven't talked about this minute detail, what's the harm?

Honestly, if the Church doesn't have an "official" opinion, or any opinion, on these sorts of issues, doesn't that mean one is free to roam a bit?

One of the things that convinced me to 'opt in' to Orthodoxy was something said by the priest who ran my inquirer's course. He said that as long as you stuck to the rails on the major issues (i.e., the creed), then a little 'free thought' never hurt anyone. Seems like that's the root issue here.



Rambam,

One reason I asked about what languages you could read fluently, so as to know what to suggest, is that there are oodles of books in Greek, Latin, etc. which have never been translated. Even if you include all the stuff in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene collection, the Fathers series put out by the Catholic University of America, etc. you are still only dealing with a fraction of what was written. If you can read French and German this helps, but there's still be a lot you wouldn't have direct access to.

Another thing is, I don't think it'd matter. I already gave my thoughts on this, so I'll just it briefly as, it doesn't matter. I'm sorry, but this thread is a testament to that. You could buy volumes and volumes of interpretations of Gen. 1-3 by the Church Fathers. And yet, here we are arguing about it. I think people should have access to the information, but let's not think that having that information will resolve much.

And finally, even if you had all the works of the Fathers bundled up in a handy and searchable package, it wouldn't matter much as it relates to the example you are giving. Many Fathers were surprisingly open to things Hebrew--a fact many Orthodox apologists ignore. For example, quite a few Fathers--and I'm talking about some of the most famous and important ones--discussed the number of letters in the Hebrew Alphabet when outlining their Old Testament. Obviously if they were anti-Hebrew, or even if Hebrew was merely superfluous or meaningless, there wouldn't have been a reason for it to be mentioned by any of them, let alone many prominent ones. Nonetheless, the Scripture and preference of the Orthodox Fathers, with a few possible exceptions, was Greek (and later, for some, Latin). For them the Greek Septuagint was what was used for the OT, and it was generally thought to be sufficient. Of course an Origen, or a Jerome, did take the time to learn Hebrew, and they used it to some extent. And St. John Chrysostom, though not knowing Hebrew, sometimes did consult with people who spoke similar languages, in an attempt to understand what a cultural term might have meant, or what the meaning behind a name was. But these were exceptions, especially after there was less and less contact with people in places where Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. would have been used more frequently. So, in a word, most of the Fathers wouldn't have had a clue about the letters you are asking about, nor would they have spent pages writing about the topic. Their theological obsessions lay with other matters (or in some cases, other letters).
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,698


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #5632 on: February 24, 2014, 09:11:37 PM »

I somewhat relate to what you're talking about, Rambam. For instance, I've always wondered whatever became of Dinah after the Shechem incident, and there's some interesting stuff in Rashi's commentary about that. It's interesting to think about in the same vein as "Whatever happened to the lost colony of Roanoke?" and I don't mind turning to rabbinic sources for answers on those little things, because it's just possibilities that are otherwise unimportant to Christian doctrine. Whatever happened to Dinah doesn't alter how I would view the message of Christ or anything of the sort, if that makes sense.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,140


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #5633 on: February 24, 2014, 09:40:26 PM »

Honestly, if the Church doesn't have an "official" opinion, or any opinion, on these sorts of issues, doesn't that mean one is free to roam a bit?

I won't presume to answer for Asteriktos, but IMO there isn't really a problem with consulting Jewish commentaries in theory.  I don't consult the types of commentaries you and ZZ seem to have experience with, but I keep a few volumes to consult as I see fit, and I acquired those precisely because I thought a "Jewish perspective" might be useful.  But I wouldn't recommend that just anyone do this.  I'm not sure what the benefit would be of consulting Jewish commentary on Scripture if you don't first understand Scripture in light of Christ.  An Orthodox Christian should be--needs to be--grounded in Orthodox Scriptural exegesis and/or competent to engage in it before "Jewish commentary" would be useful.  Fire generates light but also smoke.   
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5634 on: March 04, 2014, 04:08:11 PM »

Bryan College, a small, evangelical college in Dayton, Tennessee (the same town in which the Scopes "Monkey" Trial took place in 1925) has clarified a part of its Statement of Belief.

Item #4 in the Statement of Belief says:

"that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God; that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death;"

The Board of Trustees clarifies this statement, to mean:

"We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms.”

The clarification severely restricts the range of possible interpretative avenues regarding human evolution.
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.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« Reply #5635 on: March 04, 2014, 04:27:50 PM »

Next, they should add dinosaurs to their statement of belief.



Bryan College, a small, evangelical college in Dayton, Tennessee (the same town in which the Scopes "Monkey" Trial took place in 1925) has clarified a part of its Statement of Belief.

Item #4 in the Statement of Belief says:

"that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God; that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death;"

The Board of Trustees clarifies this statement, to mean:

"We believe that all humanity is descended from Adam and Eve. They are historical persons created by God in a special formative act, and not from previously existing life forms.”

The clarification severely restricts the range of possible interpretative avenues regarding human evolution.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 04:32:33 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5636 on: March 08, 2014, 09:07:56 AM »

Bryan College faculty say "No Way!"

Quote
"Bryan College faculty overwhelmingly issued the first no-confidence vote against their president in school history after trustees clarified the creationist nature of the school's Statement of Belief.
....
The faculty outcry, focused more on how the change was done rather than what was changed, is the latest sign of how the creation-evolution debate has shifted to the search for the historical Adam, prompting a resulting crisis of faith statements."
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.
Cackles
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (Canada)
Posts: 335



« Reply #5637 on: March 18, 2014, 08:57:43 PM »

I didn't read the first 125 pages, so I'm not sure if this belongs here, but I thought this was interesting:

Quote
Cosmic inflation: 'Spectacular' discovery hailed

Scientists say they have extraordinary new evidence to support a Big Bang Theory for the origin of the Universe.

Researchers believe they have found the signal left in the sky by the super-rapid expansion of space that must have occurred just fractions of a second after everything came into being.

It takes the form of a distinctive twist in the oldest light detectable with telescopes.

The work will be scrutinised carefully, but already there is talk of a Nobel.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974

Laughable.

It really is funny to see the games they play with tax dollars to keep the ball rolling to make it like they're discovering something new.

The big bag was debunked 25 years ago and breaks the second law of thermo dynamics. You cant create something out of nothing....

Like a 5 year old can understand:

- you have nothing
- now there is something...
- that something was created from.... Welll... Nothing. IMPOSSIBLE.

The GOOD NEWS IS, the big bang theory is great because it PROVES 100% that something was indeed created. But it was created by something that stood OUTSIDE of matter which can only be God.

They can play with telescopes all they want and work with the media to promote their agenda to fund their lavish pensions, salaries, and benefits. And hey, they break the peoples faith in God at the same time. Even Bishops in our own Church deny they're created by God so its working.
Logged

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5638 on: April 04, 2014, 06:04:09 PM »

The South Carolina state senate has passed a bill designating the Columbian Mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) as the state's official fossil; the bill will soon be voted on by the house. What's strange about this is that the proposal for the Mammoth to be the state's official fossil was suggested by a young girl, but her version of the bill was rejected until new language was inserted into the bill (new language is underlined):

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 06:06:11 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 84



« Reply #5639 on: April 05, 2014, 07:31:33 AM »

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

Wow, talk about a direct violation of the First Amendment.  Roll Eyes
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,412


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #5640 on: April 05, 2014, 08:12:32 AM »

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

Wow, talk about a direct violation of the First Amendment.  Roll Eyes

Fools make Faith appear foolish. The devil laughs at us while his minions spread discord.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5641 on: April 05, 2014, 11:09:25 AM »

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

Wow, talk about a direct violation of the First Amendment.  Roll Eyes
I'm not sure it's a violation. The U.S. Congress and U.S. Presidents have designated a National Day of Prayer for decades (though it has been challenged unsuccessfully recently on 1st Amendment grounds).
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.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5642 on: April 05, 2014, 12:41:33 PM »

The South Carolina state senate has passed a bill designating the Columbian Mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) as the state's official fossil; the bill will soon be voted on by the house. What's strange about this is that the proposal for the Mammoth to be the state's official fossil was suggested by a young girl, but her version of the bill was rejected until new language was inserted into the bill (new language is underlined):

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

This was the revision of an addition placed in by a politician after the girl had help submitting the request.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« Reply #5643 on: April 15, 2014, 02:10:30 PM »

Baptist Church: God did it.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 02:10:56 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Ferd Berfel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 84



« Reply #5644 on: April 23, 2014, 05:18:54 AM »

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

Wow, talk about a direct violation of the First Amendment.  Roll Eyes
I'm not sure it's a violation. The U.S. Congress and U.S. Presidents have designated a National Day of Prayer for decades (though it has been challenged unsuccessfully recently on 1st Amendment grounds).


I can understand the national day of prayer surviving that challenge; prayer is not exclusive to a single religion. I don’t necessarily support the idea of having such a day at all, but at least it’s not “national evangelical prayer day”.

On the other hand, the text of this bill is directly stating a specific view of creationism that is unique to a very specific religion. Essentially, this is endorsing a specific religion above all others, which the government is not permitted to do.

Then again, I am absolutely not a constitutional lawyer nor do I have any education in this subject beyond a basic 100 level college course (essentially, I really don’t know anything at all about it). I could be entirely wrong, and I would accept that wholeheartedly if someone that knows more about this than I do was to give an informed opinion.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #5645 on: April 28, 2014, 02:54:56 PM »

On the other hand, the text of this bill is directly stating a specific view of creationism that is unique to a very specific religion.

Actually, there are several religions which ascribe a creation of the world. 
Logged
Rhinosaur
Homo Vivius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Orthodox Inquirer)
Posts: 167



« Reply #5646 on: May 01, 2014, 01:25:54 PM »

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists

Quote
Scientists have concluded that Neanderthals were not the primitive dimwits they are commonly portrayed to have been.

The view of Neanderthals as club-wielding brutes is one of the most enduring stereotypes in science, but researchers who trawled the archaeological evidence say the image has no basis whatsoever.

They said scientists had fuelled the impression of Neanderthals being less than gifted in scores of theories that purport to explain why they died out while supposedly superior modern humans survived.

Wil Roebroeks at Leiden University in the Netherlands said: "The connotation is generally negative. For instance, after incidents with the Dutch Ajax football hooligans about a week ago, one Dutch newspaper piece pleaded to make football stadiums off-limits for such 'Neanderthals'."

The Neanderthals are believed to have lived between roughly 350,000 and 40,000 years ago, their populations spreading from Portugal in the west to the Altai mountains in central Asia in the east. They vanished from the fossil record when modern humans arrived in Europe.
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 893



« Reply #5647 on: May 01, 2014, 03:55:24 PM »

Maybe the Neanderthals were the Bene Elohim, a distinct and physically large human race, whom the Hebrews took for giants. Humans and Neanderthals interbred, and Neanderthals even had some social organization and buried their dead. The Bene Elohim show up in Genesis prior to the Flood, and then disappear.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« Reply #5648 on: May 01, 2014, 04:01:59 PM »

Maybe the Neanderthals were the Bene Elohim, a distinct and physically large human race, whom the Hebrews took for giants. Humans and Neanderthals interbred, and Neanderthals even had some social organization and buried their dead. The Bene Elohim show up in Genesis prior to the Flood, and then disappear.

Problem is the Neanderthals were shorter than us, though they were probably stronger.
Logged
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 893



« Reply #5649 on: May 01, 2014, 04:03:56 PM »

Then who would be the Bene Elohim? There is no third human race that has interbred with Homo sapiens (modern humans).
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 04:04:20 PM by ilyazhito » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« Reply #5650 on: May 01, 2014, 04:12:47 PM »

Then who would be the Bene Elohim? There is no third human race that has interbred with Homo sapiens (modern humans).

Not according to geneticists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan#Interbreeding

EDIT: No evidence for an extinct race of exceptionally tall but anatomically modern humans. But then there's no evidence in the geological and archeological record for a lot of stuff in the Old Testament.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 04:14:57 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Rhinosaur
Homo Vivius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Orthodox Inquirer)
Posts: 167



« Reply #5651 on: May 01, 2014, 06:13:02 PM »

Then who would be the Bene Elohim? There is no third human race that has interbred with Homo sapiens (modern humans).

Not according to geneticists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan#Interbreeding

EDIT: No evidence for an extinct race of exceptionally tall but anatomically modern humans. But then there's no evidence in the geological and archeological record for a lot of stuff in the Old Testament.

DNA evidence has shown that there was in fact a fourth hominid species that interbred with homo sapiens in central Africa:

http://io9.com/5929245/does-the-african-genome-hold-the-secrets-of-a-previously-unknown-race-of-hominids

As well as a fifth Asian species:

http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5652 on: May 16, 2014, 09:14:41 AM »

The South Carolina state senate has passed a bill designating the Columbian Mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) as the state's official fossil; the bill will soon be voted on by the house. What's strange about this is that the proposal for the Mammoth to be the state's official fossil was suggested by a young girl, but her version of the bill was rejected until new language was inserted into the bill (new language is underlined):

"Section 1-1-712A.    The Columbian Mammoth, which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field, is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina and must be officially referred to as the 'Columbian Mammoth', which was created on the Sixth Day with the other beasts of the field."

The South Carolina house and senate have approved the final version of the bill, sans 'sixth day' references:

Quote
SECTION    1.    Article 9, Chapter 1, Title 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 1-1-691.  The Columbian Mammoth is designated as the official State Fossil of South Carolina."

Now, the governor just has to sign it.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 09:15:54 AM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (Canada)
Posts: 335



« Reply #5653 on: May 24, 2014, 02:48:53 PM »

Baptist Church: God did it.

Yeah i love coming to this forum.. The place where members scoff at God. The ever righteous oc.net...
Logged

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.
Rhinosaur
Homo Vivius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Orthodox Inquirer)
Posts: 167



« Reply #5654 on: June 02, 2014, 02:34:21 PM »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140527-brain-muscle-metabolism-genes-apes-science/

Quote
Published May 27, 2014

We humans may be weaklings by nature.

Humans appear to have evolved puny muscles even faster than they grew big brains, according to a new metabolic study that pitted people against chimps and monkeys in contests of strength.

The upshot, says biologist Roland Roberts, is that "weak muscles may be the price we pay for the metabolic demands of our amazing cognitive powers."

Scientists have long noted that the major difference between modern humans and other apes, like chimps, is our possession of an oversize, energy-hungry brain. (Related: "Human Origins Project.") It was the development of that brain that drove the evolution of our early human ancestors away from an apelike ancestor, starting roughly six million years ago.

But the question of just why and how we evolved such big brains, which consume 20 percent of our energy, has long bedeviled science.

"A major difference in muscular strength between humans and nonhuman primates provide one possible explanation," suggests the new study, led by Katarzyna Bozek of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5655 on: July 10, 2014, 11:31:31 AM »

"Grandmother Fish is the first book to teach evolution to preschoolers. While listening to the story, the child mimics the motions and sounds of our ancestors, such as wiggling like a fish or hooting like an ape. Like magic, evolution becomes fun, accessible, and personal. Grandmother Fish will be a full-size (10 x 8 ), full-color, 32-page, hardback book full of appealing animal illustrations, perfect for your bookshelf. US publishers consider evolution to be too “hot” a topic for children, but with help from people like you, we are making this book happen ourselves."


« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 11:31:45 AM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5656 on: July 14, 2014, 08:21:57 PM »



Does this cartoon belong in a high school biology class?

Notice that the evolution side is bombing the foundations of the creation side, while the creation side is only shooting at peripheral targets (or missing completely).
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 08:23:23 PM by Jetavan » Logged

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

Faith: Roman Catholic (Orthodox Inquirer)
Posts: 167



« Reply #5657 on: July 14, 2014, 08:47:41 PM »

Honestly, that cartoon could go either way.  It could either be an attack on evolution or on creationism; it's really just awkward and confusing.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,063



« Reply #5658 on: July 14, 2014, 10:38:55 PM »

Since when is the creation story the bedrock of the Christian faith?  I always thought that was, you know, the Triune God.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,094


« Reply #5659 on: July 15, 2014, 01:04:05 PM »

Since when is the creation story the bedrock of the Christian faith?  I always thought that was, you know, the Triune God.

Well, you see, if you accept evolution then you deny all the rest of Christian dogma because Fr Seraphim.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 01:04:34 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,063



« Reply #5660 on: July 15, 2014, 01:05:40 PM »

Since when is the creation story the bedrock of the Christian faith?  I always thought that was, you know, the Triune God.

Well, you see, if you accept evolution then you deny all the rest of Christian dogma because Fr Seraphim.
Maybe we should put Fr. Seraphim at the base of the castle then.  Wink
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,431


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


WWW
« Reply #5661 on: July 15, 2014, 01:05:46 PM »

Honestly, that cartoon could go either way.  It could either be an attack on evolution or on creationism; it's really just awkward and confusing.

I think that's the point of the cartoon, to show the confusion and dichotomy of the debate, and at times both sides are guilty of this.
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.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,213



« Reply #5662 on: July 29, 2014, 01:54:25 AM »

'That's messed up'
Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5663 on: July 31, 2014, 04:50:08 PM »

Ronald Osborn, in his book Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, surveys the animal kingdom to critique the literalism of “scientific creationism” and wrestle with questions of divine goodness.
....
RNS: What about people who say that there was probably no animal death before the fall, that the “lion laid down with the lamb,” so to speak, because this is what God originally intended? Does that defang your argument?

RO: The Isaiah passage about lions laying down with lambs hints at a future eschatological horizon in which peace is brought to the animal kingdom. However, it says nothing about the character of the creation from the beginning. The clearest biblical statement on the question of animal ferocity as part of God’s creation comes in the final chapters of the book of Job when God speaks from out of the whirlwind. The theology of creation developed in Job is radically non-anthropocentric. The Creator glories not in lions that have been defanged but in lions on the hunt, in fierce eagles, and in the Behemoth and the Leviathan.
Logged

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

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5664 on: August 29, 2014, 07:27:37 PM »

How did the earliest birds take wing? Did they fall from trees and learn to flap their forelimbs to avoid crashing? Or did they run along the ground and pump their "arms" to get aloft?

The answer is buried 150 million years in the past, but a new University of California, Berkeley, study provides a new piece of evidence -- birds have an innate ability to maneuver in midair, a talent that could have helped their ancestors learn to fly rather than fall from a perch.

[The researchers found that] even ungainly, day-old baby birds successfully use their flapping wings to right themselves when they fall from a nest, a skill that improves with age until they become coordinated and graceful flyers.

"From day one, post-hatching, 25 percent of these birds can basically roll in midair and land on their feet when you drop them," said Dudley, who also is affiliated with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Balboa, Panama. "This suggests that even rudimentary wings can serve a very useful aerodynamic purpose."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.148 seconds with 70 queries.