Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Of the finches, you mean? I can't say I'm well-versed enough in paleozoology to tell you what that is, let alone when it lived. But thanks to science, I do know the method by which the modern species of finches evolved from it.

You see, some truths can be extrapolated from data. Galileo saw Jupiter's moons orbiting around the planet, and extrapolated that the planets must similarly orbit around the Sun. Darwin saw the offspring of finches having different characteristics based upon their parents' environment, and extrapolated that all species must similarly be suited to their parents' environment. It's sound science.
well before you said it was science bc Darwin's actual observations  could be reduced, now youre saying the whole thing abotu common ancestors is not observed, but is rather an presumably accurate extrapolation. its now left the realm of hard science and gone into philosophy based on assumptions/presuppositions.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Of the finches, you mean? I can't say I'm well-versed enough in paleozoology to tell you what that is, let alone when it lived. But thanks to science, I do know the method by which the modern species of finches evolved from it.

You see, some truths can be extrapolated from data. Galileo saw Jupiter's moons orbiting around the planet, and extrapolated that the planets must similarly orbit around the Sun. Darwin saw the offspring of finches having different characteristics based upon their parents' environment, and extrapolated that all species must similarly be suited to their parents' environment. It's sound science.
well before you said it was science bc Darwin's actual observations  could be reduced, now youre saying the whole thing abotu common ancestors is not observed, but is rather an presumably accurate extrapolation. its now left the realm of hard science and gone into philosophy based on assumptions/presuppositions.
These are two different ideas. You have to realize that science is an ever-changing process. It's not as though scientists hold Darwin's ideas as able to speak for all time. They are actually not quite accurate, based upon scientific data we have discovered since Darwin's time.

The first idea of which I spoke was Darwin's observations of natural selection, which can be and in fact are observed constantly in laboratories and in nature. It is of course easiest to see natural selection in creatures that have short generational spans, such as bacteria or flies. But all creatures undergo the same change, even species whose offspring take decades to mature. It just takes more time in species with a long generational span.

The second idea of which I spoke is a much later revelation, the idea of a common ancestry. Obviously we are unable to see the ancestors of modern species, because they do not live today. However, through the study of genetics we are able to show how genetic traits have been passed down and modified through the ages. I do not have access to such research, but if you go to your local university or Library of Congress repository, they should be able to direct you to peer-reviewed journal articles detailing how the extrapolations were deduced.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Of the finches, you mean? I can't say I'm well-versed enough in paleozoology to tell you what that is, let alone when it lived. But thanks to science, I do know the method by which the modern species of finches evolved from it.

You see, some truths can be extrapolated from data. Galileo saw Jupiter's moons orbiting around the planet, and extrapolated that the planets must similarly orbit around the Sun. Darwin saw the offspring of finches having different characteristics based upon their parents' environment, and extrapolated that all species must similarly be suited to their parents' environment. It's sound science.
well before you said it was science bc Darwin's actual observations  could be reduced, now youre saying the whole thing abotu common ancestors is not observed, but is rather an presumably accurate extrapolation. its now left the realm of hard science and gone into philosophy based on assumptions/presuppositions.
These are two different ideas. You have to realize that science is an ever-changing process. It's not as though scientists hold Darwin's ideas as able to speak for all time. They are actually not quite accurate, based upon scientific data we have discovered since Darwin's time.

The first idea of which I spoke was Darwin's observations of natural selection, which can be and in fact are observed constantly in laboratories and in nature. It is of course easiest to see natural selection in creatures that have short generational spans, such as bacteria or flies. But all creatures undergo the same change, even species whose offspring take decades to mature. It just takes more time in species with a long generational span.

The second idea of which I spoke is a much later revelation, the idea of a common ancestry. Obviously we are unable to see the ancestors of modern species, because they do not live today. However, through the study of genetics we are able to show how genetic traits have been passed down and modified through the ages. I do not have access to such research, but if you go to your local university or Library of Congress repository, they should be able to direct you to peer-reviewed journal articles detailing how the extrapolations were deduced.
but of course these extrapolations inherently involve certain presuppositions, since this long line of descent was not actually observed by anyone. so concerning matters of the past, i consider the Church to be a more authoritative source than science, so if the presuppositions of these extrapolations conflict with the Church, i dont see any reason why i would accept them. if i dont accept the presuppositions, then i would also see the extrapolations as being inaccurate. i believe that the world was once completely Paradisiacal, and thus literally nothing died. therefore i dont accept uniformitarianism. and since uniformitarianism, with respect to the past, was not actually observed, but rather it is assumed, i am not at odds with science in rejecting it. i am simply at odds with certain presuppositions. i dont deny that which is actually observed (not saying you said i do ... but creationists are often accused of rejecting/denying science)
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
jckstraw72 said:
but of course these extrapolations inherently involve certain presuppositions, since this long line of descent was not actually observed by anyone. so concerning matters of the past, i consider the Church to be a more authoritative source than science, so if the presuppositions of these extrapolations conflict with the Church, i dont see any reason why i would accept them. if i dont accept the presuppositions, then i would also see the extrapolations as being inaccurate. i believe that the world was once completely Paradisiacal, and thus literally nothing died. therefore i dont accept uniformitarianism. and since uniformitarianism, with respect to the past, was not actually observed, but rather it is assumed, i am not at odds with science in rejecting it. i am simply at odds with certain presuppositions. i dont deny that which is actually observed (not saying you said i do ... but creationists are often accused of rejecting/denying science)
Very good points. But I doubt if they will resonate with those who slavishly serve the subjectivity of materialistic science.


Selam
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
jckstraw72 said:
but of course these extrapolations inherently involve certain presuppositions, since this long line of descent was not actually observed by anyone. so concerning matters of the past, i consider the Church to be a more authoritative source than science, so if the presuppositions of these extrapolations conflict with the Church, i dont see any reason why i would accept them. if i dont accept the presuppositions, then i would also see the extrapolations as being inaccurate. i believe that the world was once completely Paradisiacal, and thus literally nothing died. therefore i dont accept uniformitarianism. and since uniformitarianism, with respect to the past, was not actually observed, but rather it is assumed, i am not at odds with science in rejecting it. i am simply at odds with certain presuppositions. i dont deny that which is actually observed (not saying you said i do ... but creationists are often accused of rejecting/denying science)
Very good points. But I doubt if they will resonate with those who slavishly serve the subjectivity of materialistic science.


Selam
thank you Gebre. I think Fr. Schmemann's assessment of man's condition, including his science, is spot on (from Great Lent, pg. 94-95):
The unfathomable tragedy of Adam is that he ate for its own sake. More than that, he ate “apart” from God in order to be independent of Him. And if he did it, it is because he believed that food had life in itself and that he, by partaking of that food, could be like God, i.e., have life in himself. To put it very simply: he believed in food, whereas the only object of belief, of faith, of dependence is God and God alone. World, food, became his gods, the sources and principles of his life. He became their slave. Adam – in Hebrew – means “man.” It is my name, our common name. Man is still Adam, still the slave of “food.” He may claim that he believes in God, but God is not his life, his food, the all-embracing content of his existence. He may claim that he receives his life from God but he doesn’t live in God and for God. His science, his experience, his self-consciousness are all built on that same principle: “by bread alone.” We eat in order to be alive but we are not alive in God. This is the sin of all sins. This is the verdict of death pronounced on our life.”
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I highly doubt Fr. Alexander was anti-evolution as you try to make him out to be, or even anti-science.

Medicine is by definition materialistic.  I must rely on the body and on the tools of the materialistic world around me to make diagnoses, to treat the patient, to help the patient.  But unlike atheistic physicians, I personally do medicine for the glory of God, and ask God everyday to help me.

There are many religious evolutionists around, many who I am sure are not merely studying because the subject fascinates them, but they connect also with the way they felt God created, and many pray asking God to bless them to learn more about his ways.

When we eat food today, before we eat we pray to give thanks to God.  Without giving thanks to God, we are simply following a materialistic lifestyle in eating food.

It is perhaps the exclusion of doing anything for the glory of God that Fr. Alexander is criticizing.  I don't think Fr. Alexander would let's say be anti-medicine, or pro-emaciation of the human species.  Many Church fathers have believed that the eating of the tree of knowledge was saved at a particular time when Adam and Eve were mature enough to handle it.  Instead, they forgot about God, and did what they personally wanted to do.  They forgot the glory of God, and they therefore lost that glory.  That's the lesson we learn from Fr. Alexander.

Indeed, let us not live by bread alone, nor medicine alone, nor learning science alone, but also by giving due glory to God.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
I highly doubt Fr. Alexander was anti-evolution as you try to make him out to be, or even anti-science.

Medicine is by definition materialistic.  I must rely on the body and on the tools of the materialistic world around me to make diagnoses, to treat the patient, to help the patient.  But unlike atheistic physicians, I personally do medicine for the glory of God, and ask God everyday to help me.

There are many religious evolutionists around, many who I am sure are not merely studying because the subject fascinates them, but they connect also with the way they felt God created, and many pray asking God to bless them to learn more about his ways.

When we eat food today, before we eat we pray to give thanks to God.  Without giving thanks to God, we are simply following a materialistic lifestyle in eating food.

It is perhaps the exclusion of doing anything for the glory of God that Fr. Alexander is criticizing.  I don't think Fr. Alexander would let's say be anti-medicine, or pro-emaciation of the human species.  Many Church fathers have believed that the eating of the tree of knowledge was saved at a particular time when Adam and Eve were mature enough to handle it.  Instead, they forgot about God, and did what they personally wanted to do.  They forgot the glory of God, and they therefore lost that glory.  That's the lesson we learn from Fr. Alexander.

Indeed, let us not live by bread alone, nor medicine alone, nor learning science alone, but also by giving due glory to God.
everything ive read of Fr. Alexander where he mentions Genesis is literal -- he even specifically says that the stories arent just allegories as so many ppl like to make them out to be. ive never seen him specifically comment on evolution, but his theology is pretty incompatible with evolution as far as i can see.

anyhoo, im not saying he's anti-science, but he's obviously recognizing a problem with modern-day science. i doubt he just accidentally put that in his book, he obviously meant something by it, so id have to say that yes, he had a problem with science to some degree.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Interesting....I have to get rid of my stereotypes of St. Vladimir's deans then.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Of the finches, you mean? I can't say I'm well-versed enough in paleozoology to tell you what that is, let alone when it lived. But thanks to science, I do know the method by which the modern species of finches evolved from it.

You see, some truths can be extrapolated from data. Galileo saw Jupiter's moons orbiting around the planet, and extrapolated that the planets must similarly orbit around the Sun. Darwin saw the offspring of finches having different characteristics based upon their parents' environment, and extrapolated that all species must similarly be suited to their parents' environment. It's sound science.
well before you said it was science bc Darwin's actual observations  could be reduced, now youre saying the whole thing abotu common ancestors is not observed, but is rather an presumably accurate extrapolation. its now left the realm of hard science and gone into philosophy based on assumptions/presuppositions.
These are two different ideas. You have to realize that science is an ever-changing process. It's not as though scientists hold Darwin's ideas as able to speak for all time. They are actually not quite accurate, based upon scientific data we have discovered since Darwin's time.

The first idea of which I spoke was Darwin's observations of natural selection, which can be and in fact are observed constantly in laboratories and in nature. It is of course easiest to see natural selection in creatures that have short generational spans, such as bacteria or flies. But all creatures undergo the same change, even species whose offspring take decades to mature. It just takes more time in species with a long generational span.

The second idea of which I spoke is a much later revelation, the idea of a common ancestry. Obviously we are unable to see the ancestors of modern species, because they do not live today. However, through the study of genetics we are able to show how genetic traits have been passed down and modified through the ages. I do not have access to such research, but if you go to your local university or Library of Congress repository, they should be able to direct you to peer-reviewed journal articles detailing how the extrapolations were deduced.
but of course these extrapolations inherently involve certain presuppositions, since this long line of descent was not actually observed by anyone. so concerning matters of the past, i consider the Church to be a more authoritative source than science, so if the presuppositions of these extrapolations conflict with the Church, i dont see any reason why i would accept them. if i dont accept the presuppositions, then i would also see the extrapolations as being inaccurate. i believe that the world was once completely Paradisiacal, and thus literally nothing died. therefore i dont accept uniformitarianism. and since uniformitarianism, with respect to the past, was not actually observed, but rather it is assumed, i am not at odds with science in rejecting it. i am simply at odds with certain presuppositions. i dont deny that which is actually observed (not saying you said i do ... but creationists are often accused of rejecting/denying science)
Good points. I agree with you for the most part, especially the part about uniformitarianism. I do believe that to be an unproven and unprovable assumption, though I admit I don't have a better idea about how to calculate the things which occur in the natural world.

It should be said, though, that most of what you've said here is not scientific. My beef with most creationists is not with their beliefs, it's that they try to pass off their beliefs as science. To say that God created the world is religion/philosophy, not science. What happens unfortunately with some is that they elevate science to be the only or the primary truth. Philosophy has a lot to teach us as well, and there is such a thing as philosophical truth. That God created the world I believe is a philosophical truth. It can never be proven scientifically, but it doesn't need to be. I think most people would have no problem with creationism if the creationists would simply state their philosophical truth, without trying to make it something it's not. They may disagree with it, and that's just fine in the realm of philosophy, but I think we wouldn't see the reaction to it that we see now.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Of the finches, you mean? I can't say I'm well-versed enough in paleozoology to tell you what that is, let alone when it lived. But thanks to science, I do know the method by which the modern species of finches evolved from it.

You see, some truths can be extrapolated from data. Galileo saw Jupiter's moons orbiting around the planet, and extrapolated that the planets must similarly orbit around the Sun. Darwin saw the offspring of finches having different characteristics based upon their parents' environment, and extrapolated that all species must similarly be suited to their parents' environment. It's sound science.
well before you said it was science bc Darwin's actual observations  could be reduced, now youre saying the whole thing abotu common ancestors is not observed, but is rather an presumably accurate extrapolation. its now left the realm of hard science and gone into philosophy based on assumptions/presuppositions.
These are two different ideas. You have to realize that science is an ever-changing process. It's not as though scientists hold Darwin's ideas as able to speak for all time. They are actually not quite accurate, based upon scientific data we have discovered since Darwin's time.

The first idea of which I spoke was Darwin's observations of natural selection, which can be and in fact are observed constantly in laboratories and in nature. It is of course easiest to see natural selection in creatures that have short generational spans, such as bacteria or flies. But all creatures undergo the same change, even species whose offspring take decades to mature. It just takes more time in species with a long generational span.

The second idea of which I spoke is a much later revelation, the idea of a common ancestry. Obviously we are unable to see the ancestors of modern species, because they do not live today. However, through the study of genetics we are able to show how genetic traits have been passed down and modified through the ages. I do not have access to such research, but if you go to your local university or Library of Congress repository, they should be able to direct you to peer-reviewed journal articles detailing how the extrapolations were deduced.
but of course these extrapolations inherently involve certain presuppositions, since this long line of descent was not actually observed by anyone. so concerning matters of the past, i consider the Church to be a more authoritative source than science, so if the presuppositions of these extrapolations conflict with the Church, i dont see any reason why i would accept them. if i dont accept the presuppositions, then i would also see the extrapolations as being inaccurate. i believe that the world was once completely Paradisiacal, and thus literally nothing died. therefore i dont accept uniformitarianism. and since uniformitarianism, with respect to the past, was not actually observed, but rather it is assumed, i am not at odds with science in rejecting it. i am simply at odds with certain presuppositions. i dont deny that which is actually observed (not saying you said i do ... but creationists are often accused of rejecting/denying science)
Good points. I agree with you for the most part, especially the part about uniformitarianism. I do believe that to be an unproven and unprovable assumption, though I admit I don't have a better idea about how to calculate the things which occur in the natural world.

It should be said, though, that most of what you've said here is not scientific. My beef with most creationists is not with their beliefs, it's that they try to pass off their beliefs as science. To say that God created the world is religion/philosophy, not science. What happens unfortunately with some is that they elevate science to be the only or the primary truth. Philosophy has a lot to teach us as well, and there is such a thing as philosophical truth. That God created the world I believe is a philosophical truth. It can never be proven scientifically, but it doesn't need to be. I think most people would have no problem with creationism if the creationists would simply state their philosophical truth, without trying to make it something it's not. They may disagree with it, and that's just fine in the realm of philosophy, but I think we wouldn't see the reaction to it that we see now.
Dare I say it....? I actually agree with much of what you say here. As for the highlighted portion above, I have the same beef- except it's with the evolutionists. ;)

Selam
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Demetrios G. said:
Observable? Who was their to observe it? ;)
Who was their what? ;D

Darwin, for one. All of us can reproduce his observations. Hence, it's science.
Darwin observed finches in the 19th century. who observed the supposed common ancestor?
Of the finches, you mean? I can't say I'm well-versed enough in paleozoology to tell you what that is, let alone when it lived. But thanks to science, I do know the method by which the modern species of finches evolved from it.

You see, some truths can be extrapolated from data. Galileo saw Jupiter's moons orbiting around the planet, and extrapolated that the planets must similarly orbit around the Sun. Darwin saw the offspring of finches having different characteristics based upon their parents' environment, and extrapolated that all species must similarly be suited to their parents' environment. It's sound science.
well before you said it was science bc Darwin's actual observations  could be reduced, now youre saying the whole thing abotu common ancestors is not observed, but is rather an presumably accurate extrapolation. its now left the realm of hard science and gone into philosophy based on assumptions/presuppositions.
These are two different ideas. You have to realize that science is an ever-changing process. It's not as though scientists hold Darwin's ideas as able to speak for all time. They are actually not quite accurate, based upon scientific data we have discovered since Darwin's time.

The first idea of which I spoke was Darwin's observations of natural selection, which can be and in fact are observed constantly in laboratories and in nature. It is of course easiest to see natural selection in creatures that have short generational spans, such as bacteria or flies. But all creatures undergo the same change, even species whose offspring take decades to mature. It just takes more time in species with a long generational span.

The second idea of which I spoke is a much later revelation, the idea of a common ancestry. Obviously we are unable to see the ancestors of modern species, because they do not live today. However, through the study of genetics we are able to show how genetic traits have been passed down and modified through the ages. I do not have access to such research, but if you go to your local university or Library of Congress repository, they should be able to direct you to peer-reviewed journal articles detailing how the extrapolations were deduced.
but of course these extrapolations inherently involve certain presuppositions, since this long line of descent was not actually observed by anyone. so concerning matters of the past, i consider the Church to be a more authoritative source than science, so if the presuppositions of these extrapolations conflict with the Church, i dont see any reason why i would accept them. if i dont accept the presuppositions, then i would also see the extrapolations as being inaccurate. i believe that the world was once completely Paradisiacal, and thus literally nothing died. therefore i dont accept uniformitarianism. and since uniformitarianism, with respect to the past, was not actually observed, but rather it is assumed, i am not at odds with science in rejecting it. i am simply at odds with certain presuppositions. i dont deny that which is actually observed (not saying you said i do ... but creationists are often accused of rejecting/denying science)
Good points. I agree with you for the most part, especially the part about uniformitarianism. I do believe that to be an unproven and unprovable assumption, though I admit I don't have a better idea about how to calculate the things which occur in the natural world.
i agree, if you scrap uniformitarianism then it becomes basically impossible to do science of the past -- but im not convinced that its convenience makes it true. for the present day we can actually observe that things are pretty uniform with ten years ago (or however long specific observations have been going on), so i dont think it proves any hindrance to studying the natural world that we know.

It should be said, though, that most of what you've said here is not scientific. My beef with most creationists is not with their beliefs, it's that they try to pass off their beliefs as science. To say that God created the world is religion/philosophy, not science. What happens unfortunately with some is that they elevate science to be the only or the primary truth. Philosophy has a lot to teach us as well, and there is such a thing as philosophical truth. That God created the world I believe is a philosophical truth. It can never be proven scientifically, but it doesn't need to be. I think most people would have no problem with creationism if the creationists would simply state their philosophical truth, without trying to make it something it's not. They may disagree with it, and that's just fine in the realm of philosophy, but I think we wouldn't see the reaction to it that we see now.
i agree with you here, its impossible to scientifically prove God, and i could care less about that. but just as the existence of God, and the truth of our Tradition are philisophical truths, and thus perhaps not a solid basis for science, so is uniformitarianism. its unprovable, as you said, and thus its a philisophical truth (or non-truth). Creation science and evolutionary science are on equal footing as far as i can see. they both begin with unprovable presuppositions. ppl just have to choose which presupposition they like better.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Interesting....I have to get rid of my stereotypes of St. Vladimir's deans then.
not sure what your stereotype is, but i hope you dont look negatively upon Fr. Schmemann -- he rocks face! as does Fr. Hopko!
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Interesting....I have to get rid of my stereotypes of St. Vladimir's deans then.
not sure what your stereotype is, but i hope you dont look negatively upon Fr. Schmemann -- he rocks face! as does Fr. Hopko!
Huh? ???  Can you rephrase that in terms us old farts can understand?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Interesting....I have to get rid of my stereotypes of St. Vladimir's deans then.
not sure what your stereotype is, but i hope you dont look negatively upon Fr. Schmemann -- he rocks face! as does Fr. Hopko!
Huh? ???  Can you rephrase that in terms us old farts can understand?
haha rocking face is a good thing! i like Fr. Schmemann and Fr. Hopko, theyre pretty awesome.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I have nothing but reverence and respect for Fr. Schmemann and Fr. Hopko.  I find them very refreshing when reading their spiritual and philosophical ideas.  I just assumed St. Vlad's deans were non-literalists when it comes to Scripture, which makes one open to the science of evolution.

Where can I read Fr. Schmemann's interpretation of Genesis?

PS although not a dean, I also do have a respect for Fr. Seraphim Rose, despite my disagreement with his views on evolution
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
I have nothing but reverence and respect for Fr. Schmemann and Fr. Hopko.  I find them very refreshing when reading their spiritual and philosophical ideas.  I just assumed St. Vlad's deans were non-literalists when it comes to Scripture, which makes one open to the science of evolution.

Where can I read Fr. Schmemann's interpretation of Genesis?

PS although not a dean, I also do have a respect for Fr. Seraphim Rose, despite my disagreement with his views on evolution
i dont know of any place where he just goes into an interpretation of Genesis, but the subject comes up quite a bit in his book Great Lent, and in some other works. here's a few relevant quotes:

Fr. Schmemann, Great Lent, pg. 40
The “continuous reading” of Genesis, Isaiah, and Proverbs has its origin at the time when Lent was still the main pre-baptismal season of the Church and lenten services were predominantly catechetical in their character, i.e., dedicated to the indoctrination of the catechumen. Each of the three books corresponds to one of the three basic aspects of the Old Testament: the history of God’s activity in Creation, prophecy, and the ethical or moral teachings. The Book of Genesis gives, as it were, the “framework” of the Church’s faith. It contains the story of Creation, of the Fall, and finally that of the promise and the beginning of salvation through God’s covenant with his chosen people. It conveys the three fundamental dimensions of the Church’s belief in God as Creator, Judge, and Savior. It reveals the roots of the Christian understanding of man as created in the “image and likeness of God,” as falling away from God, and as remaining the object of divine love, care, and ultimately salvation. It discloses the meaning of history as the history of salvation leading to and fulfilled in Christ. It announces the mystery of the Church through the images and realities of the People of God, Covenant, Ark, etc.

Pg. 64
With a unique art, St. Andrew interwove the great biblical themes – Adam and Eve, Paradise and Fall, the Patriarchs, Noah and the Flood, David, the Promised Land, and ultimately Christ and the Church – with confession of sin and repentance. The events of sacred history are revealed as events of my life, God’s acts in the past as acts aimed at me and my salvation, the tragedy of sin and betrayal as my personal tragedy. My life is shown to me as part of the great and all-embracing fight between God and the powers of darkness which rebel against Him . . . Thus, for four evenings the nine odes of the Canon tell me again and again the spiritual story of the world which is also my story. They challenge me with the decisive events and acts of the past whose meaning and power, however, are eternal because every human soul – unique and irreplaceable – moves, as it were, through the same drama, is faced with the same ultimate choices, discovers the same ultimate reality. Scriptural examples are more than mere “allegories” as many people think, and who therefore find this Canon too “overworked,” too loaded with irrelevant names and episodes. Why speak, they ask, of Cain and Able, of David and Solomon, when it should be so much simpler just to say: “I have sinned”?

Pg. 72-73
Because of sin and betrayal, the joyful day of Creation [Saturday] has become the day of death; for Creation, by “subjecting itself to futility” (Rom. 8:20), has itself become death. But Christ’s Death restores the seventh day, making it the day of re-creation, of the overcoming and destruction of that which made this world a triumph of death. And the ultimate purpose of Lent is to restore in us the “eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God” which is the content of the Christian faith, love, and hope.

pg. 93
It is important, therefore, to discern the uniquely Christian content of fasting. It is first of all revealed to us in the interdependence between two events which we find in the Bible: one at the beginning of the Old Testament and the other at the beginning of the New Testament. The first event is the “breaking of the fast” by Adam in Paradise. He ate of the forbidden fruit. This is how man’s original sin is revealed to us. Christ, the New Adam – and this is the second event – begins by fasting. Adam was tempted and he succumbed to temptation; Christ was tempted and He overcame that temptation. The result of Adam’s failure is expulsion from Paradise and death. The fruits of Christ’s victory are the destruction of death and our return to Paradise.

pg. 94

God, we are told, “created no death.” He is the Giver of Life. How then did life become mortal? Why is death and death alone the only absolute condition of that which exists? The Church answers: because man rejected life as it was offered and given to him by God and preferred a life depending not on God alone but on “bread alone.”

pg. 94-95
The unfathomable tragedy of Adam is that he ate for its own sake. More than that, he ate “apart” from God in order to be independent of Him. And if he did it, it is because he believed that food had life in itself and that he, by partaking of that food, could be like God, i.e., have life in himself. To put it very simply: he believed in food, whereas the only object of belief, of faith, of dependence is God and God alone. World, food, became his gods, the sources and principles of his life. He became their slave. Adam – in Hebrew – means “man.” It is my name, our common name. Man is still Adam, still the slave of “food.” He may claim that he believes in God, but God is not his life, his food, the all-embracing content of his existence. He may claim that he receives his life from God but he doesn’t live in God and for God. His science, his experience, his self-consciousness are all built on that same principle: “by bread alone.” We eat in order to be alive but we are not alive in God. This is the sin of all sins. This is the verdict of death pronounced on our life.”

The Eucharist, pg. 61
Any consecration in the Church is not a creation of “sacred objects,” by their sanctity contraposed to the “profane,” i.e. the unconsecrated, but their referral to their original and at the same time ultimate meaning – God’s conception of them. For the entire world was created as an “altar of God,” as a temple, as a symbol of the kingdom. According to its conception, it is all sacred, and not “profane,” for its essence lies in the divine “very good” of Genesis. The sin of man consists in the fact that he has darkened the “very good” in his very being and as such has torn the world away from God, made it an “end in itself,” and therefore a fall and death.

But God has saved the world. He saved it in that he again revealed its goal: the kingdom of God; its life: to be the path to this kingdom; its meaning: to be in communion with God, and in him with all creation. And therefore,  in contrast to the pagan “sanctification,” which consists in the sacralization of separate parts and objects of the world, the Christian sanctification consists in the restoration to everything in the world of its symbolic nature, its “sacramentality,” in referring everything to the ultimate aim of being. All our worship services therefore are an ascent to the altar and a return back to “this world” for witness to “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Co 2:9).
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
minasoliman said:
In the ancient past, science and philosophy was the same thing.  There was no distinction between the two.  Today, there is a huge distinction.
This is only because of the triumph of dualism and materialism, and the metaphysical assumption that science must be free of metaphysical assumptions- not because the character of natural philosophy ("science") has changed. Actually the basic principles of contemporary mainstream science are not far off from what was laid out by Epicurus and his followers.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have nothing but reverence and respect for Fr. Schmemann and Fr. Hopko.  I find them very refreshing when reading their spiritual and philosophical ideas.  I just assumed St. Vlad's deans were non-literalists when it comes to Scripture, which makes one open to the science of evolution.

Where can I read Fr. Schmemann's interpretation of Genesis?

PS although not a dean, I also do have a respect for Fr. Seraphim Rose, despite my disagreement with his views on evolution
i dont know of any place where he just goes into an interpretation of Genesis, but the subject comes up quite a bit in his book Great Lent, and in some other works. here's a few relevant quotes:

Fr. Schmemann, Great Lent, pg. 40
The “continuous reading” of Genesis, Isaiah, and Proverbs has its origin at the time when Lent was still the main pre-baptismal season of the Church and lenten services were predominantly catechetical in their character, i.e., dedicated to the indoctrination of the catechumen. Each of the three books corresponds to one of the three basic aspects of the Old Testament: the history of God’s activity in Creation, prophecy, and the ethical or moral teachings. The Book of Genesis gives, as it were, the “framework” of the Church’s faith. It contains the story of Creation, of the Fall, and finally that of the promise and the beginning of salvation through God’s covenant with his chosen people. It conveys the three fundamental dimensions of the Church’s belief in God as Creator, Judge, and Savior. It reveals the roots of the Christian understanding of man as created in the “image and likeness of God,” as falling away from God, and as remaining the object of divine love, care, and ultimately salvation. It discloses the meaning of history as the history of salvation leading to and fulfilled in Christ. It announces the mystery of the Church through the images and realities of the People of God, Covenant, Ark, etc.

Pg. 64
With a unique art, St. Andrew interwove the great biblical themes – Adam and Eve, Paradise and Fall, the Patriarchs, Noah and the Flood, David, the Promised Land, and ultimately Christ and the Church – with confession of sin and repentance. The events of sacred history are revealed as events of my life, God’s acts in the past as acts aimed at me and my salvation, the tragedy of sin and betrayal as my personal tragedy. My life is shown to me as part of the great and all-embracing fight between God and the powers of darkness which rebel against Him . . . Thus, for four evenings the nine odes of the Canon tell me again and again the spiritual story of the world which is also my story. They challenge me with the decisive events and acts of the past whose meaning and power, however, are eternal because every human soul – unique and irreplaceable – moves, as it were, through the same drama, is faced with the same ultimate choices, discovers the same ultimate reality. Scriptural examples are more than mere “allegories” as many people think, and who therefore find this Canon too “overworked,” too loaded with irrelevant names and episodes. Why speak, they ask, of Cain and Able, of David and Solomon, when it should be so much simpler just to say: “I have sinned”?

Pg. 72-73
Because of sin and betrayal, the joyful day of Creation [Saturday] has become the day of death; for Creation, by “subjecting itself to futility” (Rom. 8:20), has itself become death. But Christ’s Death restores the seventh day, making it the day of re-creation, of the overcoming and destruction of that which made this world a triumph of death. And the ultimate purpose of Lent is to restore in us the “eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God” which is the content of the Christian faith, love, and hope.

pg. 93
It is important, therefore, to discern the uniquely Christian content of fasting. It is first of all revealed to us in the interdependence between two events which we find in the Bible: one at the beginning of the Old Testament and the other at the beginning of the New Testament. The first event is the “breaking of the fast” by Adam in Paradise. He ate of the forbidden fruit. This is how man’s original sin is revealed to us. Christ, the New Adam – and this is the second event – begins by fasting. Adam was tempted and he succumbed to temptation; Christ was tempted and He overcame that temptation. The result of Adam’s failure is expulsion from Paradise and death. The fruits of Christ’s victory are the destruction of death and our return to Paradise.

pg. 94

God, we are told, “created no death.” He is the Giver of Life. How then did life become mortal? Why is death and death alone the only absolute condition of that which exists? The Church answers: because man rejected life as it was offered and given to him by God and preferred a life depending not on God alone but on “bread alone.”

pg. 94-95
The unfathomable tragedy of Adam is that he ate for its own sake. More than that, he ate “apart” from God in order to be independent of Him. And if he did it, it is because he believed that food had life in itself and that he, by partaking of that food, could be like God, i.e., have life in himself. To put it very simply: he believed in food, whereas the only object of belief, of faith, of dependence is God and God alone. World, food, became his gods, the sources and principles of his life. He became their slave. Adam – in Hebrew – means “man.” It is my name, our common name. Man is still Adam, still the slave of “food.” He may claim that he believes in God, but God is not his life, his food, the all-embracing content of his existence. He may claim that he receives his life from God but he doesn’t live in God and for God. His science, his experience, his self-consciousness are all built on that same principle: “by bread alone.” We eat in order to be alive but we are not alive in God. This is the sin of all sins. This is the verdict of death pronounced on our life.”

The Eucharist, pg. 61
Any consecration in the Church is not a creation of “sacred objects,” by their sanctity contraposed to the “profane,” i.e. the unconsecrated, but their referral to their original and at the same time ultimate meaning – God’s conception of them. For the entire world was created as an “altar of God,” as a temple, as a symbol of the kingdom. According to its conception, it is all sacred, and not “profane,” for its essence lies in the divine “very good” of Genesis. The sin of man consists in the fact that he has darkened the “very good” in his very being and as such has torn the world away from God, made it an “end in itself,” and therefore a fall and death.

But God has saved the world. He saved it in that he again revealed its goal: the kingdom of God; its life: to be the path to this kingdom; its meaning: to be in communion with God, and in him with all creation. And therefore,  in contrast to the pagan “sanctification,” which consists in the sacralization of separate parts and objects of the world, the Christian sanctification consists in the restoration to everything in the world of its symbolic nature, its “sacramentality,” in referring everything to the ultimate aim of being. All our worship services therefore are an ascent to the altar and a return back to “this world” for witness to “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Co 2:9).
I don't find anything that you quoted here to be incompatible in what I believe in.  In fact, I find myself in agreement with every word you quoted here.

God bless.
 
Top