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
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Iconodule said:
Ortho_cat said:
Basically, with regards to evolution, I have come to the conclusion that 1 of these options are possible:

A) God is tricking us (or "testing our faith")  
B) Satan planted all the evidence for evolution (including manipulating our DNA)
C) Evolution is true, deal with it.
D) The Omphalos hypothesis
E) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall.
F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.
I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say.  D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense.  D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems.  Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God.  Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old?  D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.
God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....
Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?
different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Iconodule said:
Ortho_cat said:
Basically, with regards to evolution, I have come to the conclusion that 1 of these options are possible:

A) God is tricking us (or "testing our faith")  
B) Satan planted all the evidence for evolution (including manipulating our DNA)
C) Evolution is true, deal with it.
D) The Omphalos hypothesis
E) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall.
F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.
I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say.  D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense.  D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems.  Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God.  Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old?  D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.
God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....
Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?
different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.
Okay, really?  How old are you?  This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith.  Lord, have mercy.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TryingtoConvert said:
I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source? That's nonsense. Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous
No, what is ridiculous is that there are those who actually believe this is what evolution theorizes.  It does nothing of the sort.  No fish ever crawled onto a beach and somehow formed legs.  If this is what you think evolution teaches, then it's no wonder you reject it.  What's disappointing is that you haven't educated yourself enough to understand something before rejecting it.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Iconodule said:
Ortho_cat said:
Basically, with regards to evolution, I have come to the conclusion that 1 of these options are possible:

A) God is tricking us (or "testing our faith")  
B) Satan planted all the evidence for evolution (including manipulating our DNA)
C) Evolution is true, deal with it.
D) The Omphalos hypothesis
E) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall.
F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.
I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say.  D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense.  D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems.  Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God.  Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old?  D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.
God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....
Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?
different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.
Okay, really?  How old are you?  This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith.  Lord, have mercy.
you proposed that if the earth is actually young, then God is deceptive for giving us no way of knowing that. How else would you expect someone to answer? Sorry I think a thread about understanding Genesis should necessarily involved the Church and faith.

but thanks for the sarcasm. its really neat.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Iconodule said:
Ortho_cat said:
Basically, with regards to evolution, I have come to the conclusion that 1 of these options are possible:

A) God is tricking us (or "testing our faith")  
B) Satan planted all the evidence for evolution (including manipulating our DNA)
C) Evolution is true, deal with it.
D) The Omphalos hypothesis
E) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall.
F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.
I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say.  D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense.  D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems.  Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God.  Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old?  D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.
God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....
Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?
different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.
Okay, really?  How old are you?  This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith.  Lord, have mercy.
you proposed that if the earth is actually young, then God is deceptive for giving us no way of knowing that. How else would you expect someone to answer? Sorry I think a thread about understanding Genesis should necessarily involved the Church and faith.

but thanks for the sarcasm. its really neat.
I would expect you avoid vain repetitions, and instead give me another new and different perspective of your same, unchanging, and old belief.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Iconodule said:
Ortho_cat said:
Basically, with regards to evolution, I have come to the conclusion that 1 of these options are possible:

A) God is tricking us (or "testing our faith")  
B) Satan planted all the evidence for evolution (including manipulating our DNA)
C) Evolution is true, deal with it.
D) The Omphalos hypothesis
E) Romans 8:19-22. The creation was corrupted by man's Fall; our examination of the creation today is therefore not a trustworthy guide to the creation before the Fall.
F)"Therefore, every literal reading of nature leads finally to idolatry... This is the true picture of idol worshippers, of both the scientific and the unscientific, on one side, and the enlightened Christians on the other. The first cleave with their senses and spirits to the symbols of nature, and the others see with their senses the symbols, but with the spirit they read in the spirit, i.e., the spiritual message in the symbols." - St. Nikolai Velimirovich (emphasis mine)

I think D) is intriguing but E) and F) are most reasonable.
I was about to reply to a question made much earlier that no one answered that I thought I can give a shot, but then I read this, and I thought that is would be a nice segway to what I want to say.  D and E actually sound very similar to A and B in a functional sense.  D mentions things are created in an orderly fashion and sometimes it means that some things are older than it seems.  Well, that's A then, because since things are older than it seems, it goes without question that the orderly fashion God creates also brings deception and limitation to God.  Is God so limited that He couldn't give us a means by which He can prove that creation is really less than 10,000 years old?  D, just make God not only a deceiver, but actually quite non-omnipotent at all.
God DID gives us a means to know that the Creation is less than 10,000 yrs old - the Scriptures and the Church! you just dont want to accept that ... although I can't think of what could be possibly more authoritative than that ....
Is there anything different and new you have to offer in this discussion?
different and new wouldnt be beneficial. Orthodoxy is the same and old.
Okay, really?  How old are you?  This isn't Sunday School.

I'm talking about this particular discussion, not the Orthodox faith.  Lord, have mercy.
you proposed that if the earth is actually young, then God is deceptive for giving us no way of knowing that. How else would you expect someone to answer? Sorry I think a thread about understanding Genesis should necessarily involved the Church and faith.

but thanks for the sarcasm. its really neat.
I would expect you avoid vain repetitions, and instead give me another new and different perspective of your same, unchanging, and old belief.
the answer hasnt changed ...
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
Rafa999 said:
I'm very worried that Rome accepts evolution as a possible explanation for Genesis 1 (and many if unfortunately not most priests are buying that Genesis 1 can be allegorized as evolution and it's all a "myth"). If you don't believe in Moses can you believe in Christ ? No of course not (John 5:45-47). I heard the Eastern Orthodox were starting to accept this evolution business and it's worrying me.
Why should what Rome does, worry you?
Because he's a Branch Theorist. Almost everyone of the East Syrian tradition is now.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
What it doesn't worry you that 1 billion of your brothers
In what way exactly are they our "brothers"?

They are not part of the Church of Christ.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
I assumed that you held to the idea that the Assyrian Church of the East is the True Church.
Hehe. Really?

I assume a minority of them do, and that is what their traditional teaching.

But the vast majority of them now are clearly Branch Theorists, just as the Romanists are becoming such, and as some EO and OO are EO-OO two branch Branch Theorists.

Jetavan said:
So, you're saying the Latin Catholic Church is also the True Church?
Indeed it would appear that at the very least he includes the ACE, OOC, EOC, and RCC as branches of the Church.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
we have branches of the true Church, ACOE does not believe in some sort of ecclesial supremacy (ie: things like papal primacy, first among equals, one Bishop having power over another ruthlessly).
That is not the issue. The issue is that imagining the Church as the Body of Christ to include members who will not share the Body of Christ in Holy Communion with each other is nonsensical.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
Rafa999 said:
Does the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Russian, etc.) accept the doctrine of evolution in any form? Do any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches accept this doctrine? Just wanted to know.
There is no such thing as "the doctrine of evolution." There exists a phenomenon of biological evolution, which is defined as a change of the genetic makeup of populations over time. There also exists the theory of biological evolution, which states that the diversity of life forms on our planet exits because of the ongoing biological evolution. That's all. I teach biological disciplines at a university, so I would know. :)
One often overlooked fact here is that it is possible to acknowledge the current reality of biological evolution while denying that it was involved in God's Creation.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
My theory: Orthodox acceptance of evolution heresy (I see here, don't know if it's true overall for the OC) is an unfortunate side-effect of communist takeover and over-secularism for some 80 years which indoctrinated people into this. Time to undo this mess,  reprimand all Bishops who don't believe Moses is telling the truth in Genesis 1 and that it's all a myth. There's still time to counter this heresy.
The problem is not whether Moses is telling the truth or not but whether he intended Genesis to be simply a literal, historical account. Often the Scriptures are not found written in this way. Why do you assume Genesis must be such?

Oh, maybe because of that dreadful Antiochian school of exegesis.  :p
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
Btw, the Bible says God made our bodies out of mud, and several Church Fathers say that our entire person--not just soul and spirit, but body as well--were made in the image of God, or rather, the image of the image of God (ie. Jesus). After being called a mud man, being modeled after an ape isn't exactly shocking.
LOL. Nice.  :laugh:
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
Rafa999 said:
Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right?
Most likely we are a type of ape.  ;)
Oh, we are.  ;)

Unless someone here wishes to argue we don't belong in Hominoidea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominoidea

If someone does make that argument, I really must insist they explain which superfamily of Catarrhini they would then place humanity in, and support their position. :)
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
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.
Huh?

Where do you get the idea that the Theory of Evolution necessitates Adam being originally subject to death?
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
laconicstudent said:
deusveritasest said:
Rafa999 said:
Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right?
Most likely we are a type of ape.  ;)
Oh, we are.  ;)

Unless someone here wishes to argue we don't belong in Hominoidea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominoidea

If someone does make that argument, I really must insist they explain which superfamily of Catarrhini they would then place humanity in, and support their position. :)


Homo Sapiens Obesus
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
Rafa999 said:
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.
It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.
so then youre prepared to scientifically demonstrate that there were immortal people at one point? or that immortality is possible?
Why would it be necessary to demonstrate?

It is not necessary to demonstrate something as true for it to be compatible with demonstrable science.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rafa999 said:
I challenge you to prove the immortal platypus ancestor so as to not infringe the canon of the "7th ecumenical council" !
Who said that all our ancestors had to be immortal?

It seems that it only really addressed our first human ones.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
TryingtoConvert said:
I reject Evolution because how can their be so many different species all derived from one source?
Different adaptations appropriate for different environments.

TryingtoConvert said:
Just like a fish going up a beach and somehow forms legs, that fish would have died outside of the water! Ridiculous
LOL

Evolution does not occur within the lifetime of an individual. It is a consequence of mutations set at conception.
 
Top