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

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
DavidH said:
orthonorm said:
Hiwot said:
DavidH said:
orthonorm said:
DavidH said:
orthonorm said:
I like to think you are using this translation:

Friends love through all kinds of weather,
  and families stick together in all kinds of trouble.


What translation is that, Norm?

I was looking at the RSV-CE2 "A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity."

Since we have been at odds tonight and we are both Orthodox I am just considering it as brothers arguing- so what?- that's what brothers do.
I know your point and it is well taken in its charity. I just like to get The Message translation out there whenever I can.

Although this is not one of its finer moments (it is often more humorous or insightful or both).
"The Message"- SERIOUSLY?- now we are at odds again! That paraphrase makes my eyes and ears bleed! I can't believe someone actually quoted The Message on me! That's worse than your servile adherence to the secularist creation myth from the Book of Darwin, geez!
LOL!!! I am still recovering from Psalm 1 of The Message, actually I do not think I will ever recover from that trauma.
Psalm 1


  How well God must like you— you don't hang out at Sin Saloon, you don't slink along Dead-End Road,
  you don't go to Smart-Mouth College.

2-3 Instead you thrill to God's Word,
     you chew on Scripture day and night.
  You're a tree replanted in Eden,
     bearing fresh fruit every month,
  Never dropping a leaf,
     always in blossom.

4-5 You're not at all like the wicked,
     who are mere windblown dust—
  Without defense in court,
     unfit company for innocent people.

6 God charts the road you take.
  The road they take is Skid Row.
EDIT: Dying here.
Dude. Really. The city of Augsburg in the Middle Ages declared the selling of bad beer as a crime against Christian love. This rendition of Psalm 1 is marginally worse. And it requires a beer to recover from.
Ecclesiastes is great.

A fellow board member once said:

"The Message succeeds in making Ecclesiastes even more depressing."
 

Nicene

High Elder
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
630
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Zealand
I've struggled with evolution recently, I was at once a rabid fundamentalist who was fully into the Old earth creation idea till I saw what evidence there was scientifically and I could not answer the evolutionists anymore and It soon became apparent I was wrong.

But when I found orthodoxy I realised something fundamental to Christainity, that is the ressurection and death. Death is the enemy so how could god Create a system in which animals die which would lead to us? I find this to be the only real problem concerning evolution in my mind, the problem of death and how it merges with Christanity and what Paul says, that death is the enemy.

At this moment I don't know, I don't begrudge the ardent evolutionist nor really the creationist, I simply see it as an issue which is of little importance when compared to the ressurection.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Nicene said:
Death is the enemy so how could god Create a system in which animals die which would lead to us?
"Forming light, preparing darkness; making peace, preparing evil: I am the Lord, doing all these things." -Isaiah 45

God brings good out of chaos, does he not?
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
I believe that evolution for people can be very axiomatic but I must reject that, as I also believe it to be interconnected with nihilism. It is extremely odious to rationally accept that the "germation" period from which man was wrought indicates its true value. The assured fact that you are the direct result of amino acids and proteins from a cauldron shows that man's worth is essentially worthless. I also outright reject any notion to classify or categorize man, because the best answer for a man is simply mystery. Man is against the entirety of the animals based on his being and to box him into a nice little chart about what he supposedly is, simply is futile. Man can be animalistic, yes, but he can also be divine. However in order to understand the full scope of man it must be viewed in the lens of God creating man in His own image and likeness. If we remove the latter, then there is nothing remarkable about man and his supposed origin does nothing but undermine him. Now I'm not entirely obdurate in my position, and I do remain a strong agnostic but I am less hesitant than I was a year ago on being more receptive to evolution because I do feel it has consequences. Whatever happened with death before the Fall has no bearing on my faith and I'm sure with enough cerebration I can resolve it. But I don't need to give it much attention or thought, leaving man as a mystery more than fulfills me.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Also even with what I said, the most important part about man is the less he is like Christ the less human he is. Just like the more one becomes Christ the more he is human.
 

neon_knights

High Elder
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
513
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Achronos said:
Also even with what I said, the most important part about man is the less he is like Christ the less human he is. Just like the more one becomes Christ the more he is human.
I like this idea.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
neon_knights said:
Achronos said:
Also even with what I said, the most important part about man is the less he is like Christ the less human he is. Just like the more one becomes Christ the more he is human.
I like this idea.
I understand the sentiment behind this comment, and I think I essentially agree with it. However, the wording troubles me. I think we have to be careful about assessing "how human" people are. Such assessments can lead to insidious consequences. I would prefer to say that "the less he is like Christ, the less he is acting in accordance with his divine image. Just like the more one become like Christ, the more he is acting in accordance with his divine image."



Selam

 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Every time I see new posts in the thread, I cringe. But this time, I actually thought some people were raising some interesting points.

I've had several Evolution discussions with friends, but I always come away disappointed. It seems that very, very few Christians actually think about the real implications of Evolution. For the record, I believe in the theory without reservations, and I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that educated people continue to deny its existence publically. That's a much bigger problem than any theological issues.

orthonorm said:
NicholasMyra said:
Achronos said:
Ok I think you said it earlier but the conception of death before the Fall is problematic.
If you allegorize the Garden of Eden to mean "the pre-lapsarian world", perhaps. But that is an allegorical statement that many disagree with.
The Garden of Eden is not an allegory. It is a myth. Whether allegory is proper to myth is another question.

This is where knowing your genre is helpful.

But this is old news and boring. Anyone who tries to allegorize it to fit science or simply to take it as science it just missing the point completely and uninteresting.
Historically, there have been three Christian views on the Creation and Eden narratives: either they are literally true, or they are allegories, or some combination of the two. I agree with you that "myth" is the proper description. There is no way to fit the stories to the known narrative of the human past without obfuscating their point. This compells some of us to say that the Church Fathers were generally incorrect in their precise understanding of these passages, a fact which makes it impossible to discuss these issues within some Orthodox circles. I'm willing to bite the bullet on "following" the Church Fathers when it comes to things like this.

The big problem is clearly mortality before the Fall. There are various solutions to this issue, none without their own problems.

But the issue of prelapsarian death doesn't occurr to most people. Most people get caught up on the question of whether humans are animals. I say that humans are, indeed, animals. The fact that we have relatively powerful intellects doesn't change that. I think this is a non-problem.

I don't know what other questions Evolution raises for us. I haven't been able to think of any.

Ruf
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Rufus said:
Every time I see new posts in the thread, I cringe. But this time, I actually thought some people were raising some interesting points.

I've had several Evolution discussions with friends, but I always come away disappointed. It seems that very, very few Christians actually think about the real implications of Evolution. For the record, I believe in the theory without reservations, and I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that educated people continue to deny its existence publically. That's a much bigger problem than any theological issues.

orthonorm said:
NicholasMyra said:
Achronos said:
Ok I think you said it earlier but the conception of death before the Fall is problematic.
If you allegorize the Garden of Eden to mean "the pre-lapsarian world", perhaps. But that is an allegorical statement that many disagree with.
The Garden of Eden is not an allegory. It is a myth. Whether allegory is proper to myth is another question.

This is where knowing your genre is helpful.

But this is old news and boring. Anyone who tries to allegorize it to fit science or simply to take it as science it just missing the point completely and uninteresting.
Historically, there have been three Christian views on the Creation and Eden narratives: either they are literally true, or they are allegories, or some combination of the two. I agree with you that "myth" is the proper description. There is no way to fit the stories to the known narrative of the human past without obfuscating their point. This compells some of us to say that the Church Fathers were generally incorrect in their precise understanding of these passages, a fact which makes it impossible to discuss these issues within some Orthodox circles. I'm willing to bite the bullet on "following" the Church Fathers when it comes to things like this.

The big problem is clearly mortality before the Fall. There are various solutions to this issue, none without their own problems.

But the issue of prelapsarian death doesn't occurr to most people. Most people get caught up on the question of whether humans are animals. I say that humans are, indeed, animals. The fact that we have relatively powerful intellects doesn't change that. I think this is a non-problem.

I don't know what other questions Evolution raises for us. I haven't been able to think of any.

Ruf
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
Oh, I don't know. It's certainly more of a problem for Evangelicals, but I know more Orthodox than I'd like to think who insist on Scriptural literalism. It is, after all, the predominant traditional view in the Orthodox Church, although not so much among theologians.
 

Manalive

Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.

"Of what use men are geometry--the calculations of arithmetic--the study of solids and far-famed astronomy, this laborious vanity, if those who pursue them imagine that this visible world is co-eternal with the Creator of all things, with God Himself; if they attribute to this limited world, which has a material body, the same glory as to the incomprehensible and invisible nature; if they cannot conceive that a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts? But they have become "vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Some have affirmed that heaven co-exists with God from all eternity; others that it is God Himself without beginning or end, and the cause of the particular arrangement of all things...  At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.
On The Hexaemeron by St. Basil the Great
http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron.html
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.

"Of what use men are geometry--the calculations of arithmetic--the study of solids and far-famed astronomy, this laborious vanity, if those who pursue them imagine that this visible world is co-eternal with the Creator of all things, with God Himself; if they attribute to this limited world, which has a material body, the same glory as to the incomprehensible and invisible nature; if they cannot conceive that a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts? But they have become "vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Some have affirmed that heaven co-exists with God from all eternity; others that it is God Himself without beginning or end, and the cause of the particular arrangement of all things...  At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.
On The Hexaemeron by St. Basil the Great
http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron.html
I don't think that anyone here is denying a creative act by a deity. Why couldn't god be the creator of the big bang for instance. This entire mystery of the universe is tied intrinsically into our understanding of our own nature. Clarity is a gift from god and than. The rendition of the creation narrative is view in a different light.
 

Manalive

Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Tzimis said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.

"Of what use men are geometry--the calculations of arithmetic--the study of solids and far-famed astronomy, this laborious vanity, if those who pursue them imagine that this visible world is co-eternal with the Creator of all things, with God Himself; if they attribute to this limited world, which has a material body, the same glory as to the incomprehensible and invisible nature; if they cannot conceive that a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts? But they have become "vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Some have affirmed that heaven co-exists with God from all eternity; others that it is God Himself without beginning or end, and the cause of the particular arrangement of all things...  At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.
On The Hexaemeron by St. Basil the Great
http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron.html
I don't think that anyone here is denying a creative act by a deity. Why couldn't god be the creator of the big bang for instance. This entire mystery of the universe is tied intrinsically into our understanding of our own nature. Clarity is a gift from god and than. The rendition of the creation narrative is view in a different light.
I'm not arguing anyone is denying a creative act by God. I'm arguing the Fathers interpreted Genesis literally. Why couldn't God be the creator of things as is understood by the Fathers?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.
So the fall of man from grace totally and radically changed the whole universe, including those quasars billions of light years away from earth?
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"Knowledge will increase, but it will not save them."

As a result of the repeated errors made by scientists, I have little faith in there massive claims and hold firmly to the biblical account of creationism.  I find it impossible to merge evolution with the biblical account of creation.  Of course, those who believe in evolution think me foolish and ridicule my views, but they never are able to answer some very basic questions and repeat the mantra, "We are learning more everyday." That is when I start to remember bits of scripture related to mankind in the, then, future.  In our self-righteous quest to control all things and be the biggest brain on the block, we have lost our path in relation to God.  When someone can prove evolution, I will believe it.  So far, no one has been able to do so.  Their inability is the force which drove me away from it.  And please do not ask me what I need proven.  I need nothing after decades of failure.  I know what I now believe after extensive investigation.  I only provide my thoughts here.
 

Manalive

Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
289
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.
So the fall of man from grace totally and radically changed the whole universe, including those quasars billions of light years away from earth?
In as much as we've contacted it, I might guess. I have little knowledge about our own earth I walk on, much less something far away. I know the entire natural world was corrupted by our fall.

Are Adam and Eve real or allegorical to you Peter?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Manalive said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.
So the fall of man from grace totally and radically changed the whole universe, including those quasars billions of light years away from earth?
In as much as we've contacted it, I might guess. I have little knowledge about our own earth I walk on, much less something far away. I know the entire natural world was corrupted by our fall.

Are Adam and Eve real or allegorical to you Peter?
Why only those two options?
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
By default- they did not have access to the science that we now do. The Fathers could have believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth, would we be bound to believe that, too?
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.
So the fall of man from grace totally and radically changed the whole universe, including those quasars billions of light years away from earth?
In as much as we've contacted it, I might guess. I have little knowledge about our own earth I walk on, much less something far away. I know the entire natural world was corrupted by our fall.

Are Adam and Eve real or allegorical to you Peter?
Why only those two options?
Peter, please forgive my intrusion into your conversation.  I was hoping you could elaborate and explain what other options are possible outside real or not real.  I am genuinely curious.  Thank you.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
I don't understand this antipatristic stand for literalism. For example, was the phrase "garments of skin" taken literally or allegorically by the Fathers? The answer is both, and they gave an interpretation that rose above both and resulted in a unified interpretation that got at the spiritually important (=deathly important) stuff involved in such passages.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Kerdy said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.
So the fall of man from grace totally and radically changed the whole universe, including those quasars billions of light years away from earth?
In as much as we've contacted it, I might guess. I have little knowledge about our own earth I walk on, much less something far away. I know the entire natural world was corrupted by our fall.

Are Adam and Eve real or allegorical to you Peter?
Why only those two options?
Peter, please forgive my intrusion into your conversation.  I was hoping you could elaborate and explain what other options are possible outside real or not real.  I am genuinely curious.  Thank you.
I'm questioning only Manalive's dichotomy between real and allegorical. You're bringing up a different dichotomy, that of real vs. unreal. I don't believe that allegorical necessarily equals not real.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
Kerdy said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.

minasoliman said:
I would say Scriptural literalism is a problem with Protestants primarily.  With Orthodox, it's primarily preAdamic mortality.  The idea that humans are animals is just an added ridicule mixed with semantics by any group who grows to loathe evolution.
This is the stuff Chesterton talks about in "The Everlasting Man" and "Orthodoxy"-- people have replaced their ability to imagine with a rationalistic mindset that takes everything at face value. The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall. I don't have a problem believing in Six Days of Creation because the principles of nature were drastically different before then.
So the fall of man from grace totally and radically changed the whole universe, including those quasars billions of light years away from earth?
In as much as we've contacted it, I might guess. I have little knowledge about our own earth I walk on, much less something far away. I know the entire natural world was corrupted by our fall.

Are Adam and Eve real or allegorical to you Peter?
Why only those two options?
Peter, please forgive my intrusion into your conversation.  I was hoping you could elaborate and explain what other options are possible outside real or not real.  I am genuinely curious.  Thank you.
I'm questioning only Manalive's dichotomy between real and allegorical. You're bringing up a different dichotomy, that of real vs. unreal. I don't believe that allegorical necessarily equals not real.
I understand and see now where I became confused.  Thank you for explaining.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Manalive said:
The world was different before the Fall. Who knows what anything was like before then? The science of fallen man can't understand or measure the world before the Fall.
Science doesn't attempt to address the Fall at all.  But what science can do is to understand that animals existed and were killing and eating each other for many millions of years before man even existed, and to measure the time in which they were doing that.
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers.
And understanding evolution doesn't require denying creation.
Manalive said:
Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.
There was a time that the liturgy included praying for those traveling by land and by sea.  Later, it included those traveling by air.  And later it included those traveling by space.  How does learning new things and achieving greater understanding violate the spirit of the Fathers?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,121
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Age
41
ZealousZeal said:
Manalive said:
Creation is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in evolution is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
By default- they did not have access to the science that we now do. The Fathers could have believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth, would we be bound to believe that, too?
Another one--one we still use in our hymns, as far as I know--is the concept of the four elements making up everything that exists.
 

NicholasMyra

Merarches
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
8,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
hyperdoxherman.tumblr.com
Manalive said:
Geocentrism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Heliocentrism is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 15th century.
Manalive said:
Humorism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Modern Medicine is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers. You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
Manalive said:
Celestial Spheres were taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Elliptical Orbits is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 17th century.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
It is quite true that evolution is false because clearly my co-worker hasn't moved up the evolutionary chain like the rest of us have.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
NicholasMyra said:
Manalive said:
Geocentrism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Heliocentrism is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 15th century.
Manalive said:
Humorism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Modern Medicine is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers. You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
Manalive said:
Celestial Spheres were taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Elliptical Orbits is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 17th century.
This is actually a project I want someone to do, to list all the geocentric, humorist, celestial sphere quotes of the Church fathers all together.  I've already collected quotes where the first 300 years of the church, all church fathers that talked about the Nephilim believed that they were the result of angel/human mixture.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
It is quite true that evolution is false because clearly my co-worker hasn't moved up the evolutionary chain like the rest of us have.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
minasoliman said:
NicholasMyra said:
Manalive said:
Geocentrism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Heliocentrism is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 15th century.
Manalive said:
Humorism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Modern Medicine is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers. You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
Manalive said:
Celestial Spheres were taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Elliptical Orbits is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 17th century.
This is actually a project I want someone to do, to list all the geocentric, humorist, celestial sphere quotes of the Church fathers all together.  I've already collected quotes where the first 300 years of the church, all church fathers that talked about the Nephilim believed that they were the result of angel/human mixture.
Sounds interesting!
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
minasoliman said:
NicholasMyra said:
Manalive said:
Geocentrism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Heliocentrism is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 15th century.
Manalive said:
Humorism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Modern Medicine is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers. You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
Manalive said:
Celestial Spheres were taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Elliptical Orbits is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 17th century.
This is actually a project I want someone to do, to list all the geocentric, humorist, celestial sphere quotes of the Church fathers all together.  I've already collected quotes where the first 300 years of the church, all church fathers that talked about the Nephilim believed that they were the result of angel/human mixture.
No, thank you. Man only lives fourscore years, and this does not look like a productive way to spend them.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Rufus said:
minasoliman said:
NicholasMyra said:
Manalive said:
Geocentrism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Heliocentrism is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 15th century.
Manalive said:
Humorism is taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Modern Medicine is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers. You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 19th century.
Manalive said:
Celestial Spheres were taught by the Church Fathers. Anyone who believes in Elliptical Orbits is following their own judgments and is not in the spirit of the Fathers.  You only have this allegory and myth nonsense to interpreting Genesis since the 17th century.
This is actually a project I want someone to do, to list all the geocentric, humorist, celestial sphere quotes of the Church fathers all together.  I've already collected quotes where the first 300 years of the church, all church fathers that talked about the Nephilim believed that they were the result of angel/human mixture.
No, thank you. Man only lives fourscore years, and this does not look like a productive way to spend them.
Surely, you must know there's a point behind this exercise.  It's not just for fun one does something like this.
 
Top