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
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.
im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?
That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...
perhaps Darwin did not directly say anything about Paradise, but I was really just using his name to represent evolutionary science/scientists. Evolution certainly does have an impact on how we understand Paradise, and whether or not we think there ever really was a Paradise! if death is just part of the normal plan of things then we have to believe either: A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

i have encountered both these beliefs in discussions with TE's, so im not just making this up! so obviously ppl interpret Scripture/Paradise according to scientific observations of the modern world. This is what I don't understand at all - I don't understand the attraction of this method of interpretation. As I see it, the Fathers were holy, drew near to God, so who could I possibly get a better understanding from?

here is what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:
Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67
I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.
im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?
That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...
perhaps Darwin did not directly say anything about Paradise, but I was really just using his name to represent evolutionary science/scientists. Evolution certainly does have an impact on how we understand Paradise, and whether or not we think there ever really was a Paradise! if death is just part of the normal plan of things then we have to believe either: A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

i have encountered both these beliefs in discussions with TE's, so im not just making this up! so obviously ppl interpret Scripture/Paradise according to scientific observations of the modern world. This is what I don't understand at all - I don't understand the attraction of this method of interpretation. As I see it, the Fathers were holy, drew near to God, so who could I possibly get a better understanding from?

here is what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:
Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67
I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.
Isn't it true that in Orthodoxy, the "Paradise" wasn't "perfect"?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.
im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?
That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...
perhaps Darwin did not directly say anything about Paradise, but I was really just using his name to represent evolutionary science/scientists. Evolution certainly does have an impact on how we understand Paradise, and whether or not we think there ever really was a Paradise! if death is just part of the normal plan of things then we have to believe either: A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.

i have encountered both these beliefs in discussions with TE's, so im not just making this up! so obviously ppl interpret Scripture/Paradise according to scientific observations of the modern world. This is what I don't understand at all - I don't understand the attraction of this method of interpretation. As I see it, the Fathers were holy, drew near to God, so who could I possibly get a better understanding from?

here is what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:
Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67
I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.
Isn't it true that in Orthodoxy, the "Paradise" wasn't "perfect"?
some Fathers talk about man and Paradise as being in between corruption and incorruption because it remained to be seen which way man would go with his free will, but others say that man and the entire creation were created incorrupt because man, and creation with him, would not necessarily die - that would only happen if man sinned, but since man was created without sin then he was created in an incorrupt state (although there was the possibility for that to change). so Paradise, and all of creation, was perfect in the sense that there was no sin or deatb, but yet it was called to a higher level of perfection.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Iconodule said:
I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.
Could you distinguish real science from fake science? Please be specific, e.g. name specific discoveries/theories, and explain why they are valid or invalid. We scientists will be listening.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Rufus said:
Iconodule said:
I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.
Could you distinguish real science from fake science? Please be specific, e.g. name specific discoveries/theories, and explain why they are valid or invalid. We scientists will be listening.
I think he talking about "science" by consensus and politics vs the science of consistent evidence.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.
I think this is a false dichotomy.  I don't see natural death as being opposed to a Paradise at all.  The creatures preceding man did not have the Breath of Life breathed upon them by the Spirit, so they died, as all creatures did, due to thermodynamics and the simple fact of being an organic organism.  It was only after God breathed upon the..."Mud Man" as someone else so wonderfully put it, that man was made in the image of God and was at a state of purity from which he could "fall."
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
A. there was death in Paradise or B. there never really was a Paradise.
I think this is a false dichotomy.  I don't see natural death as being opposed to a Paradise at all.  The creatures preceding man did not have the Breath of Life breathed upon them by the Spirit, so they died, as all creatures did, due to thermodynamics and the simple fact of being an organic organism.  It was only after God breathed upon the..."Mud Man" as someone else so wonderfully put it, that man was made in the image of God and was at a state of purity from which he could "fall."
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise
 

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
Rufus said:
Sleeper said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Sleeper said:
Whomever has done the verification is beside the point, as long as it has been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles.
In other words, if "they" tell you it's true then you'll believe it.  ::)

The theory of evolution has has not been verified by the most rigorous of scientific principles. That's why I suggested people read Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science." This book describes the fundamental tenets of the scientific method.


Selam
It sounds like "They" told you it wasn't true.
Indeed, Gebre, let's hold you to your own standard. Can you provide a parsimonious explanation for the vast amounts of information that point to an old earth and, to a lesser extent, evolution?
If “they” means the Church, then I certainly believe what “they” say. And I have not found anything the Church teaches that contradicts the evidence of empirical science. But if “they” means the consensus opinion of secular scientific philosophy, then I shall be much more discriminating in what opinions and views I accept.

Selam
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Assyrian Book of the Cave of Treasures written by Mar Ephrem (supposed author, not really known) says that Paradise in Eden was in Jerusalem on Earth, while Heaven (God with the Cherubim who dialogue with his face but can not know his very essence) is in the sphere of fire, underneath the waters above the firmament, and underneath the firmament with the stars. So it depends on what you mean by Paradise- Eden or the sphere of fire (if I am correct) which Adam is said to have ascended to for three hours before descending back to Eden and then the fall which took place at the same time as the Crucifixion.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Rufus said:
Iconodule said:
I'm just pointing out the inherent narrowness of a certain modern ideology called "science." I agree that real science has much higher aspirations.
Could you distinguish real science from fake science? Please be specific, e.g. name specific discoveries/theories, and explain why they are valid or invalid. We scientists will be listening.
I am not talking about specific discoveries/ theories, but of a general methodology. All the arguing about Darwinism, the age of the earth, etc., tends to miss the point. If you want to know what I mean, you can read this thread here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25971.0.html
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Basil did not believe in Evolution (See his Hexaemeron) and Mar Ephrem either. You dare dispute the Doctors of the Church with "evolution"?

THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED ATCARTHAGE p. 496
Therefore this council binding to orthodox (I am not sure) says that evolution is wrong because it says a mortal Ape was the first Adam subject to death.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
Basil did not believe in Evolution (See his Hexaemeron) and Mar Ephrem either. You dare dispute the Doctors of the Church with "evolution"?

THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. THE CANONS OF THE 217 BLESSED FATHERS WHO ASSEMBLED ATCARTHAGE p. 496
Therefore this council binding to orthodox (I am not sure) says that evolution is wrong because it says a mortal Ape was the first Adam subject to death.
that Canon is indeed binding since it was ratified by the 7th Ecumenical Council
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"Orthodox" defending evolution are anathema according to 7th ecumenical council. There's your response to Metropilitan Kallistos Heorji. I made sure my web was with one of your ecumenical councils. Respond to this blatant infrigement of the council (which the Blessed ACOE did not attend of course). That canon was aimed at Origen who allegorized Genesis 1 like the evolutionists.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
 

Rafa999

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
Agreed, but it is contrary to what Baconian/Newtonian ideology has fabricated.
 
Top