OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 02:47:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 317775 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #810 on: May 07, 2009, 04:10:41 PM »

No, they're short bald men in robes. "Monkees," however are quite different.

Indeed they are.. "Hey, Hey, We're the Monkees"

http://www.monkees.net/default.htm
 Cheesy

I first heard Renaissance Spanish Christmas music on that show when they sang "Riu, Riu Chiu" one year.  It was wonderful and has stayed with me for over 40 years.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,180


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #811 on: May 07, 2009, 05:17:37 PM »

Indeed they are.. "Hey, Hey, We're the Monkees"

I beat you to it over on the "random postings" thread.  Wink
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 05:41:17 PM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #812 on: May 07, 2009, 10:00:30 PM »

A person who believes in God cannot be a philosophical materialist....

That depends upon how God is defined. Pandeists believe that when God made the cosmos, God became the cosmos, so that God no longer exists as an independent entity. However, at some point in the future, the cosmos will change back into God.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #813 on: June 03, 2009, 03:48:19 AM »

The following few pages split off from this thread in Reviews:  Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision

- PtA




Not everything can be understood trough reason , you need to have faith . With faith God created the world he made everything from nothing as it says in the Scripture.When you will find the `particle of God` announce me  laugh
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 03:54:40 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #814 on: June 03, 2009, 08:56:00 AM »

Not everything can be understood trough reason , you need to have faith . With faith God created the world he made everything from nothing as it says in the Scripture.When you will find the `particle of God` announce me  laugh

That's not funny to me because that's a very bad theology.Smiley

The material, physical world can, and should, be understood through reason. The principal ABSENCE of any "particle of God" from this world is what we know through faith (because Scripture and Holy Tradition of our Church say that God is transcendent to the world).
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 08:56:14 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #815 on: June 03, 2009, 09:40:02 AM »

Not everything can be understood trough reason , you need to have faith . With faith God created the world he made everything from nothing as it says in the Scripture.When you will find the `particle of God` announce me  laugh


But there are plenty of things that *can* be understood through reason and it was God who created the ability to think and reason in the human race. So using it would seem to be a good thing and part of the plan for the Universe.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
GammaRay
The Awful Preacher
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 574


Alexandros Papadiamantis


« Reply #816 on: June 03, 2009, 09:41:00 AM »

I apologize for resurrecting that thread, but maybe I will provoke some further discussion.

The Scripture isn't a scientific book. It just shows us the way to Salvation. People in 4.000 BC in Ancient Judea were in need of a moral code, of someone to help them, not science. So God gave them Genesis, I don't think that people really cared about how the world was made anyway.
Fortunately, God gave us logic and let us explore His world through another God-sent gift; science. I believe in almost every scientific theory I've read about so far (I think).
After all, the Orthodox Church was always into science, hehe. Wink

By the way, even if all scientists agree that this world can still function without God or any other plane (i.e.: matter on its own can create the world), how are we to know for sure that there isn't someone "behind the scenes" moving everything?
Logged

Though I've walked the valley of the shadow of the death, I've fallen not. Not completely. Not yet.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #817 on: June 03, 2009, 04:19:39 PM »

no one's claiming its a science textbook, but that doesnt mean we cant take it at its word.

St. Basil the Great in his Hexaemeron writes:

Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion.... (But) when I hear "grass," I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox. Indeed, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16)."... (Some) have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written

St. Ephraim the Syrian tells us similarly in the Commentary on Genesis:

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

St. John Chrysostom, speaking specifically of the rivers of Paradise, writes:

Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own wisdom here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill, in those who allow themselves to listen to them, the idea that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But I entreat you, let us not pay heed to these people, let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #818 on: June 03, 2009, 04:21:46 PM »

Quote
While the spiritual advice of the Church Fathers for the sake of our salvation is everlasting, their "scientific" dissertations are well and truly out of date.

why do you classify interpretations of Genesis as scientific dissertations rather than God-inspired interpretations? are there other Patristic subjects you would do the same for? i cant imagine science supports things like the resurrection of Lazarus or Christ -- should we bend to science there too?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #819 on: June 03, 2009, 05:03:13 PM »

no one's claiming its a science textbook, but that doesnt mean we cant take it at its word.

St. Basil the Great in his Hexaemeron writes:

Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion.... (But) when I hear "grass," I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox. Indeed, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16)."... (Some) have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written

St. Ephraim the Syrian tells us similarly in the Commentary on Genesis:

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

St. John Chrysostom, speaking specifically of the rivers of Paradise, writes:

Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own wisdom here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill, in those who allow themselves to listen to them, the idea that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But I entreat you, let us not pay heed to these people, let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.

I believe Fathers wanted to stress that the created physical world was, and is, real, and that the Genesis story really reflects this creation of the world. Maybe if we look at these quotes in their historical context, we could find out that the Fathers actually debated various heretics - especially Gnostics, - who tended to interpret the creation story allegorically. If I am not mistaken, Origen taught that the "intellects" or "nouses" of humans pre-existed the physical creation; so, he tended to look at the story told in the first three chapters of Genesis as an allegory describing the original "purely spiritual paradise" (where rivers were not actually rivers but some metaphors, etc.), and the "fall" of man as the acquizition by him of a material body, which Origen thought was our punishment for sin.
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #820 on: June 03, 2009, 05:07:26 PM »

Quote
While the spiritual advice of the Church Fathers for the sake of our salvation is everlasting, their "scientific" dissertations are well and truly out of date.

why do you classify interpretations of Genesis as scientific dissertations rather than God-inspired interpretations? are there other Patristic subjects you would do the same for? i cant imagine science supports things like the resurrection of Lazarus or Christ -- should we bend to science there too?

Science certainly does not support things like resurrection of Lazarus or Christ occurring NATURALLY. The Church, however, teaches that Christ did wonders, i.e. SUPERNATURAL deeds, and His own resurrection was the biggest of these SUPERNATURAL wonders.

Biological evolution, on the other hand, is a purely natural phenomenon about which the Fathers simply did not know. We do. And the Church does not mind us finding out new things, previously unknown even to inspired Fathers (like the heliocentric system, or biological evolution, or genetics, or quantum mechanics, etc.).
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 05:10:13 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #821 on: June 03, 2009, 05:09:58 PM »

Quote
Biological evolution, however, is a purely natural phenomenon about which the Fathers simply did not know. We do.

isn't the creation of the world an act of God?
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #822 on: June 03, 2009, 05:12:05 PM »

sure they were combating certain heresies, but they don't seem to indicate that in their writings against purely allegorical understandings. they seem to codemn ALL such interpretations, not just in the case of the specific heresies they were fighting at the time. furthermore, beyond just warning against certain heresies, they go on to provide the interpretation the Church was teaching in their time -- which included the literal, while not ignoring, deeper, spiritual truths.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #823 on: June 03, 2009, 05:13:15 PM »

Quote
Biological evolution, however, is a purely natural phenomenon about which the Fathers simply did not know. We do.

isn't the creation of the world an act of God?

Of course, but there is no revelation to us about HOW, "mechanically," did/does He act in order to create the world. It is absolutely clear that He created the heaven and the earth out of nothing: He said, "let it be," and it appeared. But then all these physical laws began to act, and from that point on, we can comprehend the way these laws work, using our experience and reason. The biological evolution is one of these laws.
Logged

Love never fails.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #824 on: June 03, 2009, 05:39:51 PM »

I apologize for resurrecting that thread, but maybe I will provoke some further discussion.

The Scripture isn't a scientific book. It just shows us the way to Salvation. People in 4.000 BC in Ancient Judea were in need of a moral code, of someone to help them, not science. So God gave them Genesis, I don't think that people really cared about how the world was made anyway.
Fortunately, God gave us logic and let us explore His world through another God-sent gift; science. I believe in almost every scientific theory I've read about so far (I think).
After all, the Orthodox Church was always into science, hehe. Wink

By the way, even if all scientists agree that this world can still function without God or any other plane (i.e.: matter on its own can create the world), how are we to know for sure that there isn't someone "behind the scenes" moving everything?


Genesis is mostly oral tradition. My whole concern is how do we know that something is true in the "absolute" sense? I believe wholeheartedly that we should test and question all things with the name "science" taged to it. After seeing so many ideas come and go, I think we should take a real hard look at what's going on. We should know why people are saying what they are saying and the philosophy behind it.

What I want is something stable. I am sick and tired of dumping ideas that were forced down my throat for new ones. Truth is truth and it shouldn't change but these ideas keep changing and I want to know why.

So the issue is really one of "knowledge" and absolute truth. What is knowledge, what is truth, how can we know that something is true or not, how can we know that we truely know something........ect.

From what I see, and I could be wrong about this, but it seems as if these ideas are nothing more then a string of assumptions put together to explain the evidence/data of whatever subject.

And if this is the case then this is why these ideas keep changing. And this is why I don't like it. What I want is something stable..........people can keep their egotistical predictions to themselves for I see that as being the heart of the problem. Just give me the facts/data and not your predictions. For this is the reason why modern science is unstable.




Jnorm888
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 05:47:12 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #825 on: June 03, 2009, 05:48:37 PM »

I apologize for resurrecting that thread, but maybe I will provoke some further discussion.

The Scripture isn't a scientific book. It just shows us the way to Salvation. People in 4.000 BC in Ancient Judea were in need of a moral code, of someone to help them, not science. So God gave them Genesis, I don't think that people really cared about how the world was made anyway.
Fortunately, God gave us logic and let us explore His world through another God-sent gift; science. I believe in almost every scientific theory I've read about so far (I think).
After all, the Orthodox Church was always into science, hehe. Wink

By the way, even if all scientists agree that this world can still function without God or any other plane (i.e.: matter on its own can create the world), how are we to know for sure that there isn't someone "behind the scenes" moving everything?


Genesis is mostly oral tradition. My whole concern is how do we know that something is true in the "absolute" sense? I believe wholeheartedly that we should test and question all things with the name "science" tag to it. After seeing so many ideas come and go, I think we should take a real hard look at what's going on. We should know why people are saying what they are saying and the philosophy behind it.

What I want is something stable. I am sick and tired of dumping ideas that were forced down my throat for new ones. Truth is truth and it shouldn't change but these ideas keep changing and I want to know why.

So the issue is really one of "knowledge" and absolute truth. What is knowledge, what is truth, how can we know that something is true or not, how can we know that we truely know something........ect.




Jnorm888

As far as faith is concerned, it is my understanding that we come to know things through the teaching of our Church. She works on us, causing us to just "see" things through the "eyes of faith." It is not necessarily rational or logical, although often one can find some very clear logic in the teachings.

As far as natural sciences are concerned... oh my. That's a can of worms.Smiley As you perhaps know (because you seem to be interested in the philosophy of science), there are some very different, even opposite views on how knowledge is acquired and verified in science. Popper taught that the way to advance the scientific knowledge involves mostly "falsifying" various hypotheses. Kuhn disagreed and proposed his own theory of "paradigm shifts." Lakatos further modified the paradigm theory. Feyerabend and some other "postmodernists" radically disagreed with both Popper and Kuhn, saying, essentially, that the process of scientific advancement is "anarchistic" and "existential" (no two scientists proceed in the exact same way). So, it is... complicated. Smiley But, nonetheless, look at all these technological wonders, medicine, etc. - even though philosophers disagree, science does progress! Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #826 on: June 03, 2009, 06:12:29 PM »

I apologize for resurrecting that thread, but maybe I will provoke some further discussion.

The Scripture isn't a scientific book. It just shows us the way to Salvation. People in 4.000 BC in Ancient Judea were in need of a moral code, of someone to help them, not science. So God gave them Genesis, I don't think that people really cared about how the world was made anyway.
Fortunately, God gave us logic and let us explore His world through another God-sent gift; science. I believe in almost every scientific theory I've read about so far (I think).
After all, the Orthodox Church was always into science, hehe. Wink

By the way, even if all scientists agree that this world can still function without God or any other plane (i.e.: matter on its own can create the world), how are we to know for sure that there isn't someone "behind the scenes" moving everything?


Genesis is mostly oral tradition. My whole concern is how do we know that something is true in the "absolute" sense? I believe wholeheartedly that we should test and question all things with the name "science" tag to it. After seeing so many ideas come and go, I think we should take a real hard look at what's going on. We should know why people are saying what they are saying and the philosophy behind it.

What I want is something stable. I am sick and tired of dumping ideas that were forced down my throat for new ones. Truth is truth and it shouldn't change but these ideas keep changing and I want to know why.

So the issue is really one of "knowledge" and absolute truth. What is knowledge, what is truth, how can we know that something is true or not, how can we know that we truely know something........ect.




Jnorm888

As far as faith is concerned, it is my understanding that we come to know things through the teaching of our Church. She works on us, causing us to just "see" things through the "eyes of faith." It is not necessarily rational or logical, although often one can find some very clear logic in the teachings.

As far as natural sciences are concerned... oh my. That's a can of worms.Smiley As you perhaps know (because you seem to be interested in the philosophy of science), there are some very different, even opposite views on how knowledge is acquired and verified in science. Popper taught that the way to advance the scientific knowledge involves mostly "falsifying" various hypotheses. Kuhn disagreed and proposed his own theory of "paradigm shifts." Lakatos further modified the paradigm theory. Feyerabend and some other "postmodernists" radically disagreed with both Popper and Kuhn, saying, essentially, that the process of scientific advancement is "anarchistic" and "existential" (no two scientists proceed in the exact same way). So, it is... complicated. Smiley But, nonetheless, look at all these technological wonders, medicine, etc. - even though philosophers disagree, science does progress! Smiley

I once heard Fr. Thomas Hopko talk about "intuition" and how we can learn or know that way as well. I once had a friend who would only study 2 to 4 hours a day and he would get "A's" on his tests, he mentioned that he would always listen to the first thought that came to mind in his head. Now I don't know what that is, but it seems to me that there is an "observable and experimental aspect to religion.

When I look at the monks and nuns and see what they do, I see "internal observations and experimentation". But it seems as if "modern" science is only concerned about "external" observations and experiments. Why? Why can't we include internal observations as being a form of "science"? Why must it be "external" only?
 
By the way, I agree with Kuhn. But you are right. Our technology is progressing, and this dispite the confusion. But this is why I believe that everyone can do science. Science doesn't just belong to the Atheists and Agnostics. It belongs to everybody, and everyone can advance their own form of science. We don't need a universal philosophy.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 06:15:19 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #827 on: June 03, 2009, 09:00:04 PM »

Quote
Of course, but there is no revelation to us about HOW, "mechanically," did/does He act in order to create the world. It is absolutely clear that He created the heaven and the earth out of nothing: He said, "let it be," and it appeared. But then all these physical laws began to act, and from that point on, we can comprehend the way these laws work, using our experience and reason. The biological evolution is one of these laws.

yes, of course we cant understand the "how" -- the Fathers are clear on that. How does God "speak" and out comes creation? who knows? but the Fathers are certainly the key to understanding as much as God has revealed. They can tell us that a day means literally a day without delving into how God created. the Scripture is there for the Church to interpret and use to its benefit, and thus the Fathers did just that. I think it was St. Ireneaus or another early Father who said something like it would be ridiculous to try to discover the how of our origins, and to be content with what the Church knows of what God has provided about the creation.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #828 on: June 03, 2009, 09:54:10 PM »

Quote
Of course, but there is no revelation to us about HOW, "mechanically," did/does He act in order to create the world. It is absolutely clear that He created the heaven and the earth out of nothing: He said, "let it be," and it appeared. But then all these physical laws began to act, and from that point on, we can comprehend the way these laws work, using our experience and reason. The biological evolution is one of these laws.

yes, of course we cant understand the "how" -- the Fathers are clear on that. How does God "speak" and out comes creation? who knows? but the Fathers are certainly the key to understanding as much as God has revealed. They can tell us that a day means literally a day without delving into how God created. the Scripture is there for the Church to interpret and use to its benefit, and thus the Fathers did just that. I think it was St. Ireneaus or another early Father who said something like it would be ridiculous to try to discover the how of our origins, and to be content with what the Church knows of what God has provided about the creation.

Well, apparently not all Fathers interpreted all of the Genesis literally. Here is a verbatim quote from a person who is a lot more knowledgeable in patristics than me, an Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware):

"The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned

with certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical

criticism, Greek Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than literally."


http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/__P13.HTM
Logged

Love never fails.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #829 on: June 03, 2009, 10:02:54 PM »

Quote
Of course, but there is no revelation to us about HOW, "mechanically," did/does He act in order to create the world. It is absolutely clear that He created the heaven and the earth out of nothing: He said, "let it be," and it appeared. But then all these physical laws began to act, and from that point on, we can comprehend the way these laws work, using our experience and reason. The biological evolution is one of these laws.

yes, of course we cant understand the "how" -- the Fathers are clear on that. How does God "speak" and out comes creation? who knows? but the Fathers are certainly the key to understanding as much as God has revealed. They can tell us that a day means literally a day without delving into how God created. the Scripture is there for the Church to interpret and use to its benefit, and thus the Fathers did just that. I think it was St. Ireneaus or another early Father who said something like it would be ridiculous to try to discover the how of our origins, and to be content with what the Church knows of what God has provided about the creation.

And Scripture also says that a day is like a thousand years in the sight of God. Clearly not all days mentioned in Scripture are literally a day consisting of a 24 hour period. Therefore, could the creation "days" be such a day; not literal, at all? I would disagree that Scripture is there for the Church to interpret for the purpose of scientific interpretation.  For our spiritual growth and the healing of our sins, yes, but not for advancing scientific knowlege about our surroundings, nor our biological makeup.

And why would God create an intelligent creature like mankind, knowing that we would grow in knowledge, knowledge that has saved millions from the ravages of disease and pestilance: things that are a conditions of the past? Do you wish to live without modern scientific knowledge where the mortality rate of infants is a horrendous game of Russian Roulette? Did the interpretation of Scripture ever cure a childhood disease? Isn't it a case that human beings, often Christians inspired by their belief in God and love and Scripture, in seeking to help their fellow beings, have sought answers not given Scripture?

In his work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Saint Augustine, back in the 4th Century, provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Edited for clarity (we can always hope).


« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:06:23 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #830 on: June 03, 2009, 11:59:37 PM »

does Met. Kallistos provide quotes? I have yet to see a single quote from any Father that is allegorical to the exclusion of a literal interpretation.

as for the days are as a thousand years, that is quite obviously symbolic since God is outside time -- its not like a day is literally like a thousand years to God --- that would mean God experiences time and ages. On the other hand, the Fathers almost unanimously interpret the length of the days in Genesis to be literal (and that is the only issue where I have seen variance, but even the likes of Origen believed the earth was less than 10,000 yrs old in his day -- still nowhere near enough time for evolution).

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #831 on: June 04, 2009, 03:24:57 AM »

Just a few quotes...

 “For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.”
Justin Martyr (Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

In this quote St. Justin Martyr speaks of the “day” in Genesis meaning a period of a thousand years by pointing out that despite God telling Adam he would die the day of sinning he lived over 900 years. That is to say that the days were not literal 24 hour periods. This view is not limited to St. Justin.

St Irenaeus expresses a similar idea;

“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin.”
(Against Herasies, 5:23 [AD 189])

Source: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...m#P9216_2679777

It appears that this view of each day containing a thousand years was popular among Early Church Fathers as we read from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

“As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven”
(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0507.htm

Clement of Alexandria writes that we cannot know when creation took place from reading Scripture:

“That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day."
(Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

St. Augustine says the following of his view of the word “day” in the Creation Week.

“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm

As St Augustine refers to the days as “impossible to conceive”, it is doubtful that he has 24 hour days in mind, for they are aren't inconceivable, after all.

Though people claim that there is a universal consesus on interpreting Genesis amongst the Church Fathers, in reality that doesn't seem to be the case, at all.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #832 on: June 04, 2009, 03:33:19 AM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPrB_rMjJmA&feature=channel_page

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_jOIRf3Tuk&feature=channel_page

Fundamentalism and Actual Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RBjkHBEfqE&feature=related
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #833 on: June 04, 2009, 07:17:16 AM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

How about the Copernican heliocentric theory? There is no doubt that ALL Fathers unanimously thought of the earth to be the immobile center of the universe, right? Why would one then "fit" THIS "secularist scientific theory into Scripture and patristics?"
Logged

Love never fails.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #834 on: June 04, 2009, 09:26:15 AM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

How about the Copernican heliocentric theory? There is no doubt that ALL Fathers unanimously thought of the earth to be the immobile center of the universe, right? Why would one then "fit" THIS "secularist scientific theory into Scripture and patristics?"
Technically even the sun isn't the center of the universe. There's no geographical centre in our four-dimensional world. Even gravity doesn't establish a center since all bodies are attracted to each other. Yet, we know for sure that Earth is the center of life. Everything was created for the earth to exist, as a decorated wall to contain a house. Earth is indeed a "spiritual" and geographical center for the universe.
God placed the constellations and the planets in the sky so that they would be seen in a special way from earth. It doesn't matter that stars and planets don't orbit around us, but what matters is their apparent movement in the sky... which is based exclusively for a terrestrial perspective.

In Christ,  Alex
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 09:27:23 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #835 on: June 04, 2009, 10:23:54 AM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

How about the Copernican heliocentric theory? There is no doubt that ALL Fathers unanimously thought of the earth to be the immobile center of the universe, right? Why would one then "fit" THIS "secularist scientific theory into Scripture and patristics?"
Technically even the sun isn't the center of the universe. There's no geographical centre in our four-dimensional world. Even gravity doesn't establish a center since all bodies are attracted to each other. Yet, we know for sure that Earth is the center of life. Everything was created for the earth to exist, as a decorated wall to contain a house. Earth is indeed a "spiritual" and geographical center for the universe.
God placed the constellations and the planets in the sky so that they would be seen in a special way from earth. It doesn't matter that stars and planets don't orbit around us, but what matters is their apparent movement in the sky... which is based exclusively for a terrestrial perspective.

In Christ,  Alex
Wow, that's not an incredibly egotistical way to view the universe.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #836 on: June 04, 2009, 10:43:22 AM »

Wow, that's not an incredibly egotistical way to view the universe.
Are we not the crown of God's Creation?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #837 on: June 04, 2009, 11:01:01 AM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

How about the Copernican heliocentric theory? There is no doubt that ALL Fathers unanimously thought of the earth to be the immobile center of the universe, right? Why would one then "fit" THIS "secularist scientific theory into Scripture and patristics?"
Technically even the sun isn't the center of the universe. There's no geographical centre in our four-dimensional world. Even gravity doesn't establish a center since all bodies are attracted to each other. Yet, we know for sure that Earth is the center of life. Everything was created for the earth to exist, as a decorated wall to contain a house. Earth is indeed a "spiritual" and geographical center for the universe.
God placed the constellations and the planets in the sky so that they would be seen in a special way from earth. It doesn't matter that stars and planets don't orbit around us, but what matters is their apparent movement in the sky... which is based exclusively for a terrestrial perspective.

In Christ,  Alex

Alex, this is a legitimate philosophical or religious outlook on the situation, but I was talking about something totally different. To any person who lived in the Greco-Roman world of the first several centuries A.D., it was absolutely "KNOWN" (without a shadow of a doubt) that the earth is stationary and the planets and the stars (the "celestial bodies") move around it. That was the completely accepted view based on teachings of Ptolemy and Aristotle. Similarly, all "learned" people "knew" that the "kinds" (or species, genera etc.) of living creatures were created separately and forever. So, can't we explain the literal creationism of the Fathers simply by the fact that at their time, no alternative view on the diversity of life was known or seemed acceptable? Yet, it does not mean that to us today their naive creationism must be acceptable, just like it does not mean that the heliocentric model of the universe (in a strictly physical, not philosophical sense) has to be acceptable to us because it was acceptable to them.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 01:00:09 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #838 on: June 04, 2009, 12:57:21 PM »

Wow, that's not an incredibly egotistical way to view the universe.
Are we not the crown of God's Creation?
And that's an incredibly egotistical way to view humanity.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #839 on: June 04, 2009, 06:04:44 PM »

[How about the Copernican heliocentric theory? There is no doubt that ALL Fathers unanimously thought of the earth to be the immobile center of the universe, right? Why would one then "fit" THIS "secularist scientific theory into Scripture and patristics?"]

well if they actually all thought that did it derive from Scriptural interpretation, or just the prevailing view of their day? cause we are discussing actual interpretation of Genesis.

and like i said, their is slight variation on the length of the days, but longer days doesnt necessitate that evolution happened in those days. the length of the days is perhaps the least important issue. furthermore, the Church adopted a calendar that tell us we are now in the 7500s from creation, so it gave approval to the literal understanding.

however, as far as Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromate Book 4.25 he writes:

Whence He commands them not to touch dead bodies, or approach the dead; not that the body was polluted, but that sin and disobedience were incarnate, and embodied, and dead, and therefore abominable. It was only, then, when a father and mother, a son and daughter died, that the priest was allowed to enter, because these were related only by flesh and seed, to whom the priest was indebted for the immediate cause of his entrance into life. And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which Creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is celebrated; and on the eighth he brings a propitiation, as is written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is to be received.

thus he accepted the days as literal days.

regarding St. Justin Martyr's statement, just because he applies the allegorical meaning to Adam's age doesn't necessarily mean he applied it to the days of creation. If Adam lived and died within the 6th day of creation (being 1000 yrs long) then that means 900 yrs worth of his descendants also lived in the 6th day of creation, before God rested on the 7th. so after 1000 yrs God rested from His creative acts? Did He rest for 1000 yrs then?

aaand of course even having the days as 1000 yrs doesnt live nearly enough time for evolution.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #840 on: June 04, 2009, 06:07:22 PM »

man is of course the crown of creation.

St. Gregory the Theologian writes:

To the days (of creation) is added a certain firstness, secondness, thirdness, and so on to the seventh day of rest from works, and by these days is divided all that is created, being brought into order by unutterable laws, but not produced in an instant, by the Almighty Word, for Whom to think or to speak means already to perform the deed. If man appeared in the world last, honored by the handiwork and image of God, this is not in the least surprising; since for him, as for a king, the royal dwelling had to be prepared and only then was the king to be led in, accompanied by all creatures.

In the same vein St. John Chrysostom writes:

The Almighty right hand of God and His limitless wisdom would have had no difficulty in creating everything in a single day. And what do I say, in a single day? - in an instant. But since He created everything that exists not for His own benefit, because He needs nothing, being All-sufficient unto Himself, on the contrary He created everything in His love of mankind and goodness, and so He creates in parts and offers us by the mouth of the blessed Prophet a clear teaching of what is created so that we, having found out about this in detail, would not fall under the influence of those who are drawn away by human reasonings... And why, you will say, was man created afterwards, if he surpassed all these creatures? For a good reason. When a king intends to enter a city, his armsbearers and others must go ahead, so that the king might enter chambers already prepared for him. Precisely thus did God now, intending to place as it were a king and master over everything earthly, at first arrange all this adornment, and only then did He create the master (man).
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,531


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #841 on: June 04, 2009, 06:21:54 PM »

however, as far as Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromate Book 4.25 he writes:

Whence He commands them not to touch dead bodies, or approach the dead; not that the body was polluted, but that sin and disobedience were incarnate, and embodied, and dead, and therefore abominable. It was only, then, when a father and mother, a son and daughter died, that the priest was allowed to enter, because these were related only by flesh and seed, to whom the priest was indebted for the immediate cause of his entrance into life. And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which Creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is celebrated; and on the eighth he brings a propitiation, as is written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is to be received.

thus he accepted the days as literal days.
We have Riddikulus offering us evidence from the writings of Clement of Alexandria that he taught a more indefinite allegorical interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives and of the length of a creation day, and we have you offering us evidence that this same Clement of Alexandria taught a literal interpretation of the creation day.  Now, who's right, you or Riddikulus?  You can't both be right, since you contradict each other.

Tell you what.  Riddikulus gave us links to web sites where we can read Clement of Alexandria for ourselves.  Can you do the same?


regarding St. Justin Martyr's statement, just because he applies the allegorical meaning to Adam's age doesn't necessarily mean he applied it to the days of creation. If Adam lived and died within the 6th day of creation (being 1000 yrs long) then that means 900 yrs worth of his descendants also lived in the 6th day of creation, before God rested on the 7th. so after 1000 yrs God rested from His creative acts? Did He rest for 1000 yrs then?

aaand of course even having the days as 1000 yrs doesnt live nearly enough time for evolution.
Sorry, your point got lost in your senseless reductio ad absurdum.
Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #842 on: June 04, 2009, 06:44:28 PM »

And that's an incredibly egotistical way to view humanity.
You're right. Man wasn't the reason for the creation.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #843 on: June 04, 2009, 06:51:43 PM »

[How about the Copernican heliocentric theory? There is no doubt that ALL Fathers unanimously thought of the earth to be the immobile center of the universe, right? Why would one then "fit" THIS "secularist scientific theory into Scripture and patristics?"]

well if they actually all thought that did it derive from Scriptural interpretation, or just the prevailing view of their day? cause we are discussing actual interpretation of Genesis.

The heliocentric system was the prevailing view of the day, and so was creationism (i.e. the notion that all biological species were created separately, once and forever). So, just like Fathers could not possibly say that the first chapter of Genesis describes the appearence of various galaxies, of which ours is a small and rather peripheral, etc., and that when the text says, "created the earth," it means created one of the astronomical number of planets, each moving around its star in a certain galaxy - similarly they COULD NOT interpret the Genesis text when it talks about biological species as implying their evolution. But it does not mean that we have to follow them in that, simply because we know a lot more - e.g., about the Earth orbiting the Sun, and about all these galaxies, and about evolution of life.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 06:52:09 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #844 on: June 04, 2009, 06:53:54 PM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPrB_rMjJmA&feature=channel_page

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_jOIRf3Tuk&feature=channel_page

Fundamentalism and Actual Biblical Inerrancy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RBjkHBEfqE&feature=related

Thanks for these links, Ukiemeister.

This quote speaks volumes, I believe.

"People who dogmatise ignorance in order to preserve their ideology, they do not have faith in God. It is a lack of faith that generates fundamentalism, not an act of faith."
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #845 on: June 04, 2009, 07:00:05 PM »

And that's an incredibly egotistical way to view humanity.
You're right. Man wasn't the reason for the creation.

Actually, Vladimir Lossky wrote in his "Dogmatic Theology" literally this (I am quoting from its Russian original, http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/lossky2/Main.htm): "творение - это свободный акт, дарственный акт Бога. Для Божественного существа оно не обусловлено никакой "внутренней необходимостью". Даже те нравственные мотивы, которыми иногда пытаются обосновать творение, лишены смысла и безвкусны" (my translation: "Creation is a free act of God granting everything. For the Divine Being it has no "intrinsic necessity" whatsoever. Even those ethical motives that are sometimes used to explain Creation are senseless and tasteless.")
Logged

Love never fails.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #846 on: June 04, 2009, 08:33:32 PM »

i really just dont understand why some people think its so important to fit a secularist scientific theory into Scripture and Patristic where its obviously such a huge stretch. i really just cant figure out that mindset.

I'd say that it's more like some people trying to fit a literal reading of Genesis onto the data and information that has been acquired over time as to how old things are, that there were many creatures that lived once and long before humans and much more.  They insist that scientific knowledge that is gained by using the brains and abilities that God created in people is wrong or anti-God or the like.  Labeling it as "secularist" is to attempt to cast it in a negative light.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #847 on: June 04, 2009, 08:42:05 PM »

Yet, we know for sure that Earth is the center of life.

We do?   Huh  We know that there is abundant and varied life on Earth.  But we don't know about anywhere else.  That's not the same thing. 

Everything, the universe, was created for itself to exist in all its wonders.  Constellations/asterisms are different in other cultures.  Which is the "correct" ones, the "Western" ones?
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #848 on: June 04, 2009, 10:52:45 PM »

you can read Clement of Alexandria on www.ccel.org. as for the other St. Clement quote, when u read his entire work in which he mentions creation several various times, it seems as those he is saying we dont know when God created, as in time did not already exist when God began creating. He's saying its not like 100 yrs or 200 yrs (or any amount of time) passed before God created -- that would put God's creation within time. rather what He is saying is that God exists in eternity -- not within time, thus creation began in eternity but the moment it began, so did time.

my point about St. Justin's idea was fairly simple i thought -- if each day of creation was really 1000 yrs with Adam living 900 some years, and thus less than the entirety of that 6th "day" then are you saying all his descendants also lived in that 6th "day" before God rested on the 7th?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,531


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #849 on: June 05, 2009, 03:56:22 AM »

my point about St. Justin's idea was fairly simple i thought -- if each day of creation was really 1000 yrs with Adam living 900 some years, and thus less than the entirety of that 6th "day" then are you saying all his descendants also lived in that 6th "day" before God rested on the 7th?
And if we are, what's your point?
Logged
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #850 on: June 05, 2009, 05:02:44 AM »

Forgive my question : What does creationist and evolutionist means ?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #851 on: June 05, 2009, 09:35:18 AM »

Forgive my question : What does creationist and evolutionist means ?

Dan, these are rather meaningless terms. A "creationist" is a person who does not understand biology and claims that the biological evolution either does not occur at all, or occurs but does not lead to the emrgence of new species. Both beliefs are something like a belief that if you put two fingers in the electric socket, you will not be electrocuted because the book of Genesis does not mention electricity (so it is "just a theory" and a secularist one). An "evolutionist" is a fictional term; "evolutionists" do not exist, instead there exist people who know biology, understand it.
Logged

Love never fails.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #852 on: June 05, 2009, 05:37:31 PM »

[And if we are, what's your point?]  just wondering if you were ok with saying that .... ive never heard anyone make that claim before.

but if each day is 1000 yrs long, then i wonder when the 7th day was over ... since God gave the Jews the Sabbath because He rested on the 7th day, that means by then the 7th day was already passed ... i wonder if the Law came more than 2000 yrs after Adam ... ill have to look up that chronology.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #853 on: June 06, 2009, 09:49:14 AM »

[And if we are, what's your point?]  just wondering if you were ok with saying that .... ive never heard anyone make that claim before.

but if each day is 1000 yrs long, then i wonder when the 7th day was over ... since God gave the Jews the Sabbath because He rested on the 7th day, that means by then the 7th day was already passed ... i wonder if the Law came more than 2000 yrs after Adam ... ill have to look up that chronology.
You're being much, much too literal about this. If Adam was a real person, the Law came many, many millenia after him. The years in Genesis are similar to the years in other ancient documents. In the annals of the Sumerian kings, for example, how long a ruler was purported to live was dependent on his power relative to other rulers. In fact, several of these rulers were said to have ruled for several thousand years.

Here's a link to an English translation of this text:
http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #854 on: June 06, 2009, 09:33:18 PM »

[You're being much, much too literal about this. If Adam was a real person, the Law came many, many millenia after him. The years in Genesis are similar to the years in other ancient documents. In the annals of the Sumerian kings, for example, how long a ruler was purported to live was dependent on his power relative to other rulers. In fact, several of these rulers were said to have ruled for several thousand years.]

well St. Justin Martyr's quote was used in opposition to the majority ECF view of literal days, so I was thinking along the lines of his quote to try to see if it lined up.

but if these years aren't literal, why did the ECF's so completely miss that? irregardless of their views on the length of the first week, its a concensus that the earth would be no more than 10,000 yrs by now. Ive never seen any quote from any Father, including on anti-creation websites, that would suggest otherwise. Even Origen believed in a young earth.
Logged
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.181 seconds with 74 queries.