Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[pmpn8rGPT]

I hope Pericles you understand that the books of the Old Testament must be held in high regard and great reverence.  Even if some passages are hard to be taken literally, I don't dismiss it as "Jewish Mythology" as if it lacks truth.  There is a great deal of respect and reverence one should still have for these writings.  Don't fall into the Marcion trap that we would pin the New Testament against the Old.

The NT is light that shines on the OT and reveals from within it the hidden Truth of Christ that was obscured before.  NT is the hand that ripped open the veil of the OT, that we may behold its true and deep glory.  Therefore, the tone by which one talks about the OT must be no different than how one handles the cup that holds the blood of Christ and the paten that holds the Body.  Just because the Eucharist is more important does not lessen the importance of what holds the elements of the Eucharist.  OT is sacred enough that you should be able to talk about it without insulting it as if it's the same as any other myth.  God was revealed through the Tanakh, and so we should honor the Tanakh and not dismiss it.

Well said! I do appreciate that and my calling Genesis mythology is meant in an academic sense and is not rhetorical. I understand mythology in its positive sense as a genra of sacred literature.

The thing is Pericles you compared it earlier to the myths of Hesiod.  It's not so much your use of academia, but here in the forums, there is an Orthodox veneration of these books and stories, which understandably does not exist in academia.  Nevertheless, you need to be careful how you word things.  A paten to an outsider can be just a regular gold plate, but to us as Orthodox we don't just say, "we should just use any plate."  It was consecrated for a purpose and therefore given a certain amount of respect.

If you're going to talk about the OT in this forum, you need to be careful how you talk about it.

Fair enough the point is to surprise not to offend. My reference to Hesiod was for effect and I have great respect for the literary and religious culture of Hellenism, of which Christianity is a part. However while I respect Genesis as a Judaeo-Christian creation narrative, I personally wouldn't advise a literal reading of any more that I would suggest a literal reading of Hesiod. The literary genre that both authors composed in is the same and differs in that Hesiods Theogony is poetry whilst Genesis is prose.

Wait are you suggesting that Christianity is more Pagan than (true) Jewish...

[Justin Kissel]

The anthropology of the Fathers was based, in large measure, on Genesis. Myth or not, it's foundational...

[Kerdy]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

Superior "academic" arrogance always attracts followers.  Usually people who don't think on their own, but followers nonetheless.

Well give it up then!

*slowly shakes head back and forth, generating a numb glare with the expression of a colossal lack of amusement and states,*

"Wow.  That was original..."

[That person]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.

There are no similarities between how the two are represented.

Ugh, why'd I look at this thread again?

[Kerdy]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura.  

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.”  

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.

There are no similarities between how the two are represented.

Ugh, why'd I look at this thread again?

I didn't say couldn't.  I said shouldn't, because it would be incorrect.  Amazing...

[Shiny]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.

There are no similarities between how the two are represented.

Ugh, why'd I look at this thread again?

Yeah me too.

[Pericles]

Wait are you suggesting that Christianity is more Pagan than (true) Jewish...

I'm suggesting that Christianity is more Hellenistic than (false) Jewish.

[Pericles]

The anthropology of the Fathers was based, in large measure, on Genesis.

And in larger measures of Greek Philosophy, especially Platonism.

[Justin Kissel]

The anthropology of the Fathers was based, in large measure, on Genesis.

And in larger measures of Greek Philosophy, especially Platonism.

What anthropological ideas would you say, in particular, were taken from Platonism?

[minasoliman]

Many people in the early Church (and Philo of Alexandria) believed that Plato actually stole ideas from the Tanakh itself, that Moses was the original Platonist before Plato existed.

I would say more accurately, the Church had perhaps a lot of its foundation in Hellenic Judaism.  Maybe elements of Aramaic Judaism existed in other parts of the Church, but for the Greek world, Judaism was still quite foundational, especially in liturgical development.

[Pericles]

I would say more accurately, the Church had perhaps a lot of its foundation in Hellenic Judaism.  Maybe elements of Aramaic Judaism existed in other parts of the Church, but for the Greek world, Judaism was still quite foundational, especially in liturgical development.

If one is looking for influences on Plato, Zoroastrianism is more likely candidate than Judaism. Yes Hellenistic Judaism would have been an influence on early Christianity. Hellenism didn't come into Christianity from outside, it was foundational. Christianity was from its inception a Hellenistic religion. All Hellenistic religions have a Greek element and a local element, Egyptian, Persian, Levantine etc. This is why we speak of 'Hellenism' and not Hellenic, when talking about Greek influence in the ancient classical world, its an important distinction lost on many.

[minasoliman]

Zoroastrianism and Judaism were very close.  It has been postulated that even Judaism received influence from Zoroastrianism, which I don't think might be a far stretch especially in the Babylonian Captivity.  At this time, the books of the Old Testament were being compiled, and some believe that some parts might have been added to or modified based on oral tradition within the texts.

Whatever the case is, all worked out in God's favor I suppose.  Still doesn't lessen the value of the Old Testament in the Church.  Gnosticism tried to turn Christianity into the pluralistic pagan system, and the Church refused, citing the exclusivist beliefs of Christianity, which is Jewish in nature.

Some of the most foundational phrases and hymns in the Church is Jewish in nature.  The very idea of a Liturgy is Jewish.

When Marcion tried to blot out the Old Testament, the Church rejected this, and showed the importance of the OT in the Church.  People who converted from paganism and became great leaders of the Church also were indebted to the "philosophical richness" of the Old Testament, which lead to ideas that Plato was really a follower of Moses.

The Syriac Church and the Ethiopian Church has a lot more Jewish elements in their respective liturgies than Hellenism.  They were on the margins or outside the empire. Thus, only imperial Christianity, not ALL Christianity maintained Hellenism.

Christianity in my opinion is a lot more complex than Hellenistic.  Truly, the Jewish nature is fully embedded and remains.  A lot of Hellenic culture and philosophy indeed permeated its beliefs simply because of the imperial nature of the Church, but we forget there were also churches not part of the imperial structure.

[pmpn8rGPT]

Wait are you suggesting that Christianity is more Pagan than (true) Jewish...

I'm suggesting that Christianity is more Hellenistic than (false) Jewish.

And the story of Genesis is falsely Jewish?  True Judaism is based on the Torah, false Judaism is based on the Talmud which is MUCH more similar to Pagan Mythology than Genesis.

[Kerdy]

I hope we all realize Satan's goal is not necessarily to convince us God does not exist or Jesus was not the Christ.  If he can confuse us into absolute frustration, he is just as happy.

[Kerdy]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

Sure it is.  It's fact and truth.

[Pericles]

Sure it is.  It's fact and truth.

Good luck to you with that one in the real world.

[Kerdy]

Sure it is.  It's fact and truth.

Good luck to you with that one in the real world.

Good luck to you with your slander in the real world.

[Romaios]

The anthropology of the Fathers was based, in large measure, on Genesis.

And in larger measures of Greek Philosophy, especially Platonism.

You should read the 11 chapters against Ioannes Italos from the Synodicon of Orthodoxy. Every day, with your morning and evening prayers, until you are cured of your "Hellenism".

To them who profess piety yet shamelessly, or rather impiously, introduce into the Orthodox and Catholic Church the ungodly doctrines of the Greeks concerning the souls of men, heaven and earth, and the rest of creation,

Anathema, anathema, anathema.

To them who maintain that although the wise men of the Greeks and the foremost of the heresiarchs were put under anathema by the Seven Holy and Catholic Councils and by all the fathers that shone forth in Orthodoxy as ones alien to the Catholic Church because of the adulterations and loathsome superabundance of error in their teachings, yet they are exceedingly more excellent, both here and in the future judgment, than those pious and orthodox men who, by human passion or by ignorance, have committed some offense,

Anathema, anathema, anathema.

To them who undertake Greek studies not only for purposes of education but also follow after their vain opinions, and are so thoroughly convinced of their truth and validity that they shamelessly introduce them and teach them to others, sometimes secretly and sometimes openly,

Anathema, anathema, anathema.

To them who of themselves refashion creation by means of mythical fabrications and accept the Platonic ideas as veritable, saying that matter, being self-subsistent, is given form by these ideas, and who thereby clearly calumniate the free will of the Creator Who brought all things into being out of non-being and Who, as Maker, established the beginning and end of all things by His authority and sovereignty,

Anathema, anathema, anathema.

To them who accept and transmit the vain Greek teachings that there is a pre-existence of souls and teach that all things were not produced and did not come into existence out of non-being, that there is an end to the torment or a restoration again of creation and of human affairs, meaning by such teachings that the Kingdom of the Heavens is entirely perishable and fleeting, whereas the Kingdom is eternal and indissoluble as Christ our God Himself taught and delivered to us, and as we have ascertained from the entire Old and New Scripture, that the torment is unending and the Kingdom everlasting to them who by such teachings both destroy themselves and become agents of eternal condemnation to others,

Anathema, anathema, anathema.

[Justin Kissel]

The anthropology of the Fathers was based, in large measure, on Genesis.

And in larger measures of Greek Philosophy, especially Platonism.

What anthropological ideas would you say, in particular, were taken from Platonism?

Thoughts? I can start, if you prefer. The seemingly unimportant phrase "garments of skin" (Gen. 3:21) played a not-insignificant role in many Fathers, as they saw in this phrase the whole of that which we were "clothed" with after the fall, including corruption (waste removal, need to eat, etc.) and many things that would seem to be neutral and can be used for both good or evil (sexual relations, work, etc.) Whether the Genesis account was literal (ie. whether they actually were given literal animal skins to wear) on this point was secondary to the Fathers, though not entirely meaningless; the larger issue was the anthropological content that the Fathers could fill the phrase with, using it as a rallying point for various anthropological beliefs.

[Pericles]

Every day, with your morning and evening prayers, until you are cured of your "Hellenism".

"Orthodoxy is Hellenism" Ecuemical Patriarch Bartholemew I

[Kerdy]

Every day, with your morning and evening prayers, until you are cured of your "Hellenism".

"Orthodoxy is Hellenism" Ecuemical Patriarch Bartholemew I

You already posted that.  I believe there were some responses.

[Pericles]

You already posted that.  I believe there were some responses.

If you're touting for business as a messenger you just failed the interview. Already saw it and addressed it, thanks. Besides it wasn't me that said it, it was the EP

[Kerdy]

You already posted that.  I believe there were some responses.

If you're touting for business as a messenger you just failed the interview. Already saw it and addressed it, thanks.

Chase your tail all you want. 

[Pericles]

Chase your tail all you want.  

Why would I need to when you are doing that for me

[Kerdy]

Chase your tail all you want.  

Why would I need to when you are doing that for me

Ugh, children...

[Pericles]

Ugh, children...

So grow up.

[Jetavan]

Happy Birthday, Charlie Brown...uh...Darwin!

[Justin Kissel]

Happy Birthday, Charlie Brown...uh...Darwin!

Finally! A holiday I can get behind!

[Jetavan]

Happy Birthday, Charlie Brown...uh...Darwin!

Finally! A holiday I can get behind!

(Gradual) Change you can believe in.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Selam

[Justin Kissel]

"Well...uh...it's lost."

By "proponents of Darwinism" giving this explanation (and others in the quote), did the good doctor mean 6th graders? The natural sciences were some of my worst subjects, and I don't have a doctorate, but I would be happy to learn him up some time if he'd like.

[Jetavan]

...

Selam

I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

"Well...uh...it's lost."

By "proponents of Darwinism" giving this explanation (and others in the quote), did the good doctor mean 6th graders? The natural sciences were some of my worst subjects, and I don't have a doctorate, but I would be happy to learn him up some time if he'd like.

Well... 109 pages into this thread and nobody has demonstrated it yet. The only answer we get  is, "You just don't understand science." But I think Dr. Ben Carson, the first doctor to successfully separate conjoined twins, understands science pretty well. So, as much as I respect your intelligence, I think I'll trust Dr. Ben Carson on this one.  



Selam

[Justin Kissel]

"Well...uh...it's lost."

By "proponents of Darwinism" giving this explanation (and others in the quote), did the good doctor mean 6th graders? The natural sciences were some of my worst subjects, and I don't have a doctorate, but I would be happy to learn him up some time if he'd like.

Well... 109 pages into this thread and nobody has demonstrated it yet. The only answer we get  is, "You just don't understand science." But I think Dr. Ben Carson, the first doctor to successfully separate conjoined twins, understands science pretty well. So, as much as I respect your intelligence, I think I'll trust Dr. Ben Carson on this one.  



Selam

But he was using straw men. Surely you can see that. Have you read books by evolutionists, and do they say things like "well...uh...it's lost"?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

...

Selam

I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?

Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  

[minasoliman]

May God continue to strengthen the hands of this great surgeon and enlighten him from the errors of his ways to join the Orthodox Church.

[biro]

...

Selam

I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?

Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  

There are so many fossils that there is no evidence?  I'm sorry, I don't understand.

[That person]

...

Selam

I like Dr. Carson, but does he offer another explanation for the past existence of Tiktaalik, Australopithecus, and Hyracotherium?

Rare anomalies in the fossil record that have the appearance of evidentiary import do not negate the overwhelming dearth of evidence in the fossil record that is normative.



Selam  

So how much evidence would there have to be for you to accept it?

[Android_Rewster]

Selam

Well, with regards to this post, I don't believe Mr. Carson (with all due respect) understands how the scientific process really works. Darwin theorized Evolution in 1859. Since then, the theory has been, added to, revised, and ultimately refined, and will continue to be until we can fully scientifically understand it. It's still a larger jump, with all of the evidence we have(even outside of the fossil record) against a literal genesis, to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old.

Respects,
 Andrew

[Kerdy]

It sure takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution.  Too bad people don't place that faith in Christ.

[Romaios]

Every day, with your morning and evening prayers, until you are cured of your "Hellenism".

"Orthodoxy is Hellenism" Ecuemical Patriarch Bartholemew I

\

The way you understand and argue for it, Hellenism is heresy. No point in hiding under the EP's skirt/omophorion.

[Pericles]

The way you understand and argue for it, Hellenism is heresy.

You have no grasp of how I understand it and have misconstrued my arguments. For you Hellenism is heresy, despite the EP's approval.

[Romaios]

You have no grasp of how I understand it and have misconstrued my arguments. For you Hellenism is heresy, despite the EP's approval.

I'm pretty sure the EP himself would not agree with your concept of Hellenism.

It is heretical because it's construed against Judaism. Therefore, it cannot be universal/catholic or Orthodox. If you exclude any single nation from Christ's fold, you are not in it yourself - you are with the elder brother who couldn't suffer his father to welcome the prodigal son back home. 

Romans 11:18-24

Do not be arrogant toward the branches (Jews); but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree (Hellenism/the Gentiles), and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree (Judaism), how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree?

[Pericles]

It is heretical because it's construed against Judaism.

You are talking complete tosh and I'm certain you know it. I've construed Hellenism as precisely what it is and applied that to the OT. If you want to believe in the Genesis creation narrative be my guest but dont try to make out people that don't are not Orthodox, the results of the poll above does not support that.

Personally I would call myself an Intelligent Design proponent, rather than a creationist, and happilly accept that God created the cosmos and yet I still maintain that Genesis should be read in context and not as a scientific account of creation.

Furthermore in case you're laboring under that false impression that I'm some sort of Greek nationalist, forget it...I'm British, born bread and educated. Hellenism and Helleno-Christianity mean to me what they were intended to mean and are not part of some nationalist agenda. It's the nationalistic versions of Hellenism that have been condemned as heresy.

To be anti-Judaic with regards importing elements or attitudes associated with Judaism into Christianity is not Anti-Semitism. It is in fact quite the opposite -respect. I'm not trying to appropriate the sacred-text of another religion, you are and thats cultural imperialism. Christianity is one religion Judaism is quite another, lets keep it that way.

Christ did not create the world in 7 days, he's still creating and it's taken 13.772 billion years to date!

[Romaios]

Personally I would call myself an Intelligent Design proponent, rather than a creationist, and happilly accept that God created the cosmos and yet I still maintain that Genesis should be read in context and not as a scientific account of creation.

Furthermore in case you're laboring under that false impression that I'm some sort of Greek nationalist, forget it...I'm British, born bread and educated. Hellenism and Helleno-Christianity mean to me what they were intended to mean and are not part of some nationalist agenda. It's the nationalistic versions of Hellenism that have been condemned as heresy.

To be anti-Judaic with regards importing elements or attitudes associated with Judaism into Christianity is not Anti-Semitism. It is in fact quite the opposite -respect. I'm not trying to appropriate the sacred-text of another religion, you are and thats cultural imperialism. Christianity is one religion Judaism is quite another, lets keep it that way.

Christ did not create the world in 7 days, he's still creating and it's taken 13.772 billion years to date!

Fwiw, I'm no creationist fundie either and I could define myself as a philhellene as well as a philosemite (being neither Jewish, nor Greek).

As long as you understand that the noble olive tree on which we are grafted through Christ is Judaism (while Hellenism is but a wild tree among others) and that "salvation is from the Jews" (not the Hellenes), you are in accord with St. Paul the Apostle and Orthodoxy. If you turn it around and believe the exact opposite, you cannot call yourself Christian.