• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Creation poll

Which view of creation do you hold?

  • Six 24-hour days of creation around 7500 years ago; creationism; Genesis is primarily historical.

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • Macro-evolutionary process over approximately 13.8 billion years; theistic evolution; Genesis is pri

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • Total voters
    6

matthewtnagel

Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2018
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I understand that this may be annoying of me given that there is already a pinned poll about this, but I find the option "both metaphorically and literally" to be far too vague, and given that this was the majority answer chosen, I'd like to retry this poll in the hope of gaining a more precise understanding, if people are up for it. If you feel that the categories I have given are too narrow, feel free to express the nuances of your view. A suitable rephrasing of the poll question would be, "Which view of creation most closely represents your own view?". I understand that both options may not describe your view with complete accuracy, but generally people fall much closer to one end than the other.

I have chosen these categories operating under the assumption that any Creed-affirming Orthodox Christian believes that the "Holy Spirit spoke by the prophets", and thus, that Holy Scripture is not merely the writings of men, but the words of our God spoken through men.

I suspect that some may take issue with the term "allegorical". The definition given here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory (I have no idea how to turn a single word into a clickable link) most adequately represents my usage in the poll question. Hopefully this definition is adequate for the purpose of this poll.

One thought to add for my part; understand that holding creationism does not negate the fact that there is immense symbolism and typology throughout the entire Bible, just as theistic evolution does not necessarily exclude all historical aspects of the Bible not explicitly spoken of in the Creed.

I hope that those who engage in discussion over this poll do so in a spirit of humility and brotherly love. I look forward to seeing the results.

God bless.
 

Volnutt

Hoplitarches
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
15,089
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Age
36
Faith
Evangelical by default
Jurisdiction
Spiritually homeless
I'm somewhere in between. I think that deep time/evolution is proven at least in its broad strokes, but I also think that being too quick to push the "allegory" button isn't often helpful. I think the truth has to be somehow in the middle. Last Thursdayism/Omphalos is one possibility, but it bothers me for a lot of different reasons. Gap theory has never made much sense to me. I suppose a Fall that "backfed" deep time and evolution into the past is possible as well.

Here's another kind of "in between" point that I keep coming back to from a previous discussion on this issue. I have to admit that I still struggle with it a lot, but it's interesting food for thought:

Iconodule said:
Volnutt said:
Iconodule said:
Trying to answer these big theological/ anthropological questions using naturalistic scientific models is akin to trying to program a calculator to write poetry.
I see what you're getting at, and it's an outlook that I'm sympathetic to. But at the same time, when I look at the situation on the ground I don't see a lot of options. How old is the Earth? Are all humans descended from one couple? Was there a global flood? What is the shape of the Earth?

It seems like these are relatively simple questions that should have intelligible answers one way or the other. I mean, if they found the skeleton of Christ, I wouldn't be able to remain a Christian by appealing to some kind of nebulousity of the intersect between history and faith, would you? What makes something like Adam and Eve different from that theoretical upper bound?

I can kind of fudge it and say that Adam and Eve were two people who existed at some point and are still our parents spiritually, but I realize that it puts me in a tough situation and would probably get my ears boxed by an Orthodox priest (but only because I tell myself that Adam and Eve are not as important as Christ really having rose from the dead, though to hear some talk it would sound like they are). But at that same time, I don't see a lot of a place for literalism on this point.
A Christian literalism (and it's a term I prefer to steer away from) is something inclusive of materiality but seeing the foundation of truth in heavenly reality, in God. What is usually called literalism in these discussions is something which, if not strictly materialist, assumes that matter and sensory data are the firm foundation of truth. This kind of literalism needs to be ejected from Christian thinking like a deadly poison. We confess in the creed that the Lord came down from heaven, not that he ascended to earth.

These questions like, What is the shape of the earth? How old is the earth? while interesting and useful on some level, are distantly secondary to the questions of the origin and purpose of man. And on these grand questions a natural science unaided by theology must stray far off course, because the shadows of reality (and degraded shadows, at that) are being mistaken for reality itself. St Nikolai of Zicha said it well: whoever reads the natural without knowing the spiritual content and significance of what he has read, reads death, sees death, appropriates death. Also, whoever considers visible nature as the only reality and not as a riddle in the mirror of the spirit, does not know more than the child who may recognize letters but is far from understanding written words.

Our archaeologists will never find the skeleton of Christ; on the other hand, the landscape of materialism is littered with what purport to be his bones. You can see these bones without any particular training. Simply by looking out the window, they're hanging from the trees and dotting the grass. Most of all they are strewn throughout our entire culture and even, sometimes, poking out from clergymen's sleeves. The bones are lies but the prevailing ideology of natural literalism leaves us with no tools to discern that.

Yet another idea that I've been playing with for the past few years is that we live in a multiverse in which Genesis is literal but not referring to our universe specifically. But the Liturgy and the process of communion with Christ mystically and miraculously breaks down all quantum barriers and thus makes Genesis the only truth that really matters on an absolute scale.
 

isxodnik

High Elder
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
794
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
RF
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
ROC
Six 24-hour days

Time belongs to the created world. God is beyond his control. Is it appropriate in this context to talk about the hour?
 

sestir

Bokareis
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
355
Reaction score
30
Points
28
Age
41
Location
Vittsjö, Scania
Website
weihos.eu
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
independent
matthewtnagel said:
I hope that those who engage in discussion over this poll do so in a spirit of humility [...]
If we do, we will, imho, qualify as (at least spiritually) children of Adam, since he was formed
... of the dust of the ground ...
χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς
עפר מן־האדמה
— Genesis 2:7.
Etymology of humility: from humilis "lowly, humble," literally "on the ground," from humus "earth," from PIE root *dhghem- "earth." — Etymonline.
 

Luke

Merarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
8,175
Reaction score
568
Points
113
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Metropolis of San Francisco
I cannot choose either answer.  I believe the Lord created everything, but I am not sure of when.  He may have done it 4 billion years ago; He may have done it sooner.
 
Top