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
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
i had a geology professor who told the whole class that we were fools if we did not believe in evolution. 10 mins later he told us there were millions of years of gaps in the rock layers that can't be explained ....
Anecdotal evidence from your experience with only one professor.  Hardly convincing of any widespread, sweeping agenda.

jckstraw72 said:
anyhoo, ive talked to plenty of evolutionists who will say they don't see it as absolute fact, but they function exactly as if they do. same thing with atheism --- they say they're open to the idea of God, but they function as pure, hardcore atheists.
And how, in your eyes, does someone function as if they believe evolution to be a fact?  Define this "they function exactly as...", and tell me how this interpretation is not subjective.
they come out to debate the campus preachers literally every day for hours about creation vs. evolution, bc, as they admit, their entire worldview hinges upon evolution. so they'll say they don't know 100% thats its fact but their lives are centered around the theory and they will ridicule anyone who doesnt believe in evolution. one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
 

Thegra

Newbie
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Dan-Romania said:
scientific fact ... not really , as AlexanderOfBergamo said.
Thanks for your understanding!
ytterbiumanalyst said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Not at all: geocentrism is also a theory, but as you can see it was not true. A theory is a model of explaining nature, which might match more or less well with reality. For its purposes, geocentrism was a good description of the universe up to Copernicus, when it was doubted by another theory. Strict 6-days creation seems to be disproved by geology which furnishes a good point in favour of evolution, but we might still not get the full picture. Evolution supports a random process. I think this is what strikes jckstraw72 when he says scientists behave as atheists: they support chaos and don't see that the processes must be governed by a superior project. A good scientist might say 'Evolution occurs in a way we can't still understand, providing adaptation of the species in a given ecosystem. We don't know if the process is entirely dictated by random modifications or by some unknown law leading from simpler to more complex forms of life". But this is not what the official definition of evolution says. In this sense, science (or at least the official one) sounds entirely atheistic.
PeterTheAleut said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Dan-Romania said:
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the
evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Careful examinations of the evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's just good science.
Yeah, CAREFUL examinations... but when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Are they REALLY posting evolution as a truth, or are creationists merely interpreting scientific statements as if they are positing evolution as a truth?  I used to agree with your take on the scientific community, but I'm not sure anymore that that's a fair assessment.
It is not important how the scientific community presents the theory of evolution (or the evolutionary model, if you prefer). The truth is that in magazines, on TV and in schools (at least in Italy I see this everyday) the alternatives are never discussed. When studying science or history, darwinian evolution is given as a fact, more or less as it is a fact that the earth orbits around the sun or that World War II ended in 1945. It's this attitude which destroys a true freedom of thought and brings many children of today to grow atheists of tomorrow. Even in a country like Italy, where the lesson of religion is present in schools via the Concordate between RCC and Republic, the matter is never touched, thus leaving children without a guide who might see how Genesis and Science can easily match with each other just recognizing God's hand behind the origin of universe and life. It is this lack which is dangerous in our times of relativism, scientism and religious denial. I'm not telling this but by personal experience: most of those of my friends who received Confirmation with me are now atheists, agnostics, or deists (the latter is rare, of course). A few of them don't attend any church but confess themselves as Catholics, and even fewer live fully the Catholic faith but heavily discuss the ecclesiastical authority or see the Bible as a good but mythological fairy tale at the same time!!!

Now the point is that Christian scientists should let their voices be heard louder... they should be public witnesses of God's creative work and power, of his plan that gave origin to such a complex and fascinating world.

That's all I had to say, I think.
In Christ,    Alex
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
^ Just one question.  Did you even BOTHER to read ONE of Heorhij's post on this thread?  ONE?  Or one of DOZENS of others on this thread that show that believing in evolution and believing in Jesus Christ are not contradictory?  ONE?  ??? ??? ???  ::)

 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
ytterbiumanalyst said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Only to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.

Thegra said:
jckstraw72 said:
one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.
Well said.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I read almost all of them. Still the expression "I believe that evolution is not contradictory with belief in Jesus Christ" is an oxymoron. As I mantioned before, it's the word "evolution" that means a RANDOM change of species from one generation to another which brings to the development of new species. I am not contrary to the "evolution of species". I am contrary to the "RANDOM" change... which is the official definition of this scientific theory. So, i don't believe in evolution, and I think that believing in darwinian evolution contradicts the Christian faith. Since in our culture "evolution" stands for "random/darwinian evolution", the use of evolution without any explicit clarification sounds to me incompatible with the message of Christianity.

Hope I've been clear enough.

In Christ,   Alex
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Pravoslavbob said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
when the scientific community gives Evolution not as a theory but as a scientific truth, the situation is different.
Um...aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?
Only to someone who knows what he or she is talking about.
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I have at hand thus defines "theory" and "truth".

Theory: 1) a formal set of ideas that is intended to explain why sth happens or exists: "According to the theory or relativity, nothing can travel faster then light". 2) the principles on which a particular subject is based: "The theory and practice of language teaching". 3) an opinion or idea that sb believes is true but that is not proved: "I have this theory that people prefer being at work to being at home"

Truth: the true facts about sth, rather then the things that have been invented or guessed: "do you think she's telling the truth?" "We are determined to get at the truth" "The truth of the matter is we can't afford to keep all the staff on" "I don't think you are telling me the whole truth about what happened" 2) the quality or state of being based on fact. "There is no truth in the rumors" "There is not a grain of truth in what she says"

In other words: truth is real independently of the theories. A theory, such as geocentrism was (it is in fact known as "the geocentric theory") was disproved by direct observation. A truth cannot be disproved, on the contrary. You can question it, and even find alternative temporary explanations, but truth never changes. This the same for faith, for example: the Trinity is a truth or a theory? Since we can't verify it directly, it is scientifically speaking a theory. Only by faith we can affirm it as a doctrine... there is no maths in the Trinity, no experiment to do... That doesn't mean it is false: it is just unknown if that's true or not. Personally, I'm happy we have no certainties, so that we might truly exercise our faith without a sort of "proof".

I hope I was clear enough.
In Christ,   Alex
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Since in our culture "evolution" stands for "random/darwinian evolution", the use of evolution without any explicit clarification sounds to me incompatible with the message of Christianity.
"Our" culture?  Whose culture are you talking about?  This is a pan-Orthodox board whose members are found around the globe, not just "Bible Belt, USA", or Bergamo, Italy, for that matter.  

Here's an old post of mine that I think is relevant to the discussion at hand.:


Pravoslavbob said:
88Devin12 said:
I'm only against those theories that exclude God as creator. I think you can have forms of evolution, which was started/caused by God. However, you cannot have absolute darwinism/evolution, because it takes God out of the picture.
In order to avoid duplication of arguments, could you please seek out the  many discussions we've had? You see, we've been over this topic....ummm, well, quite a few times here at OC.net.  I am expecting Heorhij to enter the picture any second with a reasoned refutation of your remarks, so I will try and save him the trouble....

Scientific theories cannot, by their very nature, either include or exclude God.  It is not within the realm of how science works to incorporate or not incorporate an element of the divine.  Unfortunately, people who are otherwise very competent scientists seem to be incompetent enough in other areas of life that they arrogantly assume, (along with some theologians who should know better) that science has all the answers for any metaphysical  questions that might trouble humanity.  Other theologians who should know better (and many who are simply incompetent and incapable of knowing better) oppose these scientists and apostate(?) theologians, replaying the scene that has been played on the Western stage of civilisation since at least the time of Galileo and probably earlier.  The Western Church, by agreeing to counter "science" on its own playing field (ie, on terms defined by "science"), has condemned itself to losing the war, since only "scientific" criteria of "proof" can be accepted as evidence.  And we all know that if anything isn't rational, it must by definition be irrational, don't we? ;)  After all, we live in the post-Enlightenment West.  Of course, I shouldn't just cite the West and leave out the East, because the whole world is now so under the thraal of Western categories of "normalcy", that it doesn't know what has hit it.  It seems to me that a lot of Orthodox have this kind of knee-jerk reaction to the whole debate and side with "creationists".  It's like they're saying to themselves:  "hmmm.  Orthodoxy is "conservative", right?  Guess I'd better show my conseravative colours and stand up for "creationism"!"  (Of course, Orthodoxy is neither conservative nor liberal, but the living faith of the apostles...but this is a discussion for another thread.)  

BTW, I'd like to pre-empt a bashing from GIC or lubeltri or whoever else who would like to accuse me of being anti-Enlightenment or anti-Western.  I actually think that a lot of good things came out of the Enlightenment.  I really value science, in fact I am a scientist of sorts, though of a much humbler variety than Heorhij.  I don't mean to say that science cannot enter the realm of the metaphysical at times; in fact, fascinating work being done in physics right is going in this direction, and it's mind boggling.  But in the field of evolution?  For now, at any rate, there is no mixture at all.

I am a convinced Orthodox Christian.  I am also a convinced believer in evolution.  Are there things that we don't understand fully?  Absolutely, on both the theological and scientific end of things.  Just because evolution appears to be random is no reason at all to deny God's hand in things.  (How spiritually childish and oafishly cataphatic can one be?  This points to  one reason of several why I personally find this debate so tiresome.)  What appears as being "random" to us limited human creatures indeed hides greater mysteries beyond our understanding.


 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary I have at hand thus defines "theory" and "truth".
So what is your point?  First of all, ytterbiumanalyst was speaking of scientific truth.  A scientific theory is as close as science comes to "truth."  If I may be so bold as to say so, ytterbiumanalyst appears to me to be indirectly pointing out that there is really no such thing as "scientific truth", since this is not how science works.  Science deliberately disciplines itself to discovering things about how the physical universe works by using empirical means to try and disprove theories.  In scientific parlance, to say that something is a theory is not the same thing as saying that "it's only a theory" or "my grandmother has a theory about how to make the best brownies".  In the realm of science, theories go through rigourous testing through empirical means of trying to disprove them.  The longer a theory stands up to scrutiny, the more likely its tenets appear to be.  In the case of evolution, this has been shown to be very, very likely.  This is what Mr. Y means when he asks the question "aren't a theory and a scientific truth the same thing?"  A theory that has stood up to an empirical barrage of questioning for a long period  of time is as close as you are ever going to get to "scientific truth", a new oxymoron that has been created on this thread to go with its venerable friend, "scientific proof". 

As I mentioned in the previous post, competent scientists, who are arrogant enough to believe that science answers all questions that anyone might have about anything, become incompetent theologians and philosophers when they cross the line into expressing this publicly.  I might also add, that, ironically, IMHO, they discredit themselves in the scientific community, since they do not seem to understand that science by its very nature has clearly defined limits that do not allow it to venture forth into the worlds of theology and philosophy, new discoveries concerning string theories notwithstanding.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
Evidently I tend to use the two terms in different ways... a use truth for Truth, always and unchangeably. I am a linguist, so I love to use precise and adequate words when they exist. Of course, I tend to err since I'm not an English speaker myself (I was recently reproached - and for a fully correct reason - due to an inappropriate use of the word "worship" as a synonim for "veneration"). The last reasoning you made is the point of my insistance on the denial of evolution. I don't like compromises. I repeat that I'm no creationist... I believe in those billion years from the Big Bang to the appearance of Man, which official science affirms. But as a thinking being... am I BOUND to subscribe the position of those atheists, who form a large and prevalent section of the scientific community, who ALSO affirm that evolution is a random process? Will my children been taught in schools such a deistic or even atheistic position because it is largely prevalent among scientists? It is not universal, of course. A great (and also criticized for that) scientist of our time, Italian physicist Antonio Zichichi, one of the maximum authorities in the CERN, has publicly shown his concerns with evolutionism, saying that science must be described in the Galilean method of repeatable observation (thus, experimental science) and mathematics. Biology ordinarily is experimental, which makes it science. Paleontology is based both on mathematics and experiments, since to date a dead animal we need to know how fast C14 decays to identify in which strata belong specific creatures. But is the Evolution Theory a science? We can't experiment "live" that dinosaurs finally evolved into birds, and there's no mathematical process in the changes since its a question of "chance" that one mutation would occur, no mathematic rule at all! For that reason, Prof. Zichichi gives Evolutionism no universal value, and qualifies it as one among many possible theories on the subject, and even the most controversial.
I would add that some creaturese are still difficult to catalogue. For example: whence did the "eye" come from during the Cambrian Explosion? We would expect to have prototype eyes appearing over time, but suddenly in the Cambrian Era appeared thousands and thousands of creatures with fully developped and functional eyes. Isn't this a proof against darwinism? Isn't this a demonstration that evolution "jumps forward" (to use a concept present in the intro of X-Men 1) at certain times of history? This is something which contradicts the theory of evolution as it is actually defined, but there's still time to correct it in the future to include those "strange cases" as anormalities imposed by Someone who created everythin'...

In Christ,    Alex

PS: I'll get back to this discussion tomorrow.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Isn't this a demonstration that evolution "jumps forward" (to use a concept present in the intro of X-Men 1) at certain times of history?
And why should we prefer over the time-proved theories of science a man who gets his facts from Hollywood?
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I used the X-Men image as a "concept". I'm not saying X-Men is science, otherwise I would testimony the existence of mutants and metahumans in our days (which is an absurdity).  You continue to misinterpret every single word I write, which shows how poor your arguments are. Now answer to my direct question: where are the pre-cambrian creatures with eyes "in development"? Where are the dinosaurs with partial wings who could not yet fly? Where are those mammals who, according to modern evolutionary theories, began to develop an adaptation to the sea so that they became dolphins? I just think it is easier to admit that there isn't yet any trace of this creatures and that we can't confess an uncertain theory when there's no match with historical data. We know there were blind creatures, and suddenly we find eyed creatures all around the world, but no trace of intermediate states. We can only guess there could be intermediate state, but we can also propose that a sudden mutation in DNA occured so that fully functional eyes appeared in 2-3 generations and we have no true trace of this change as in the official timeline is too short, then affirming a long process of development for the ocular organs. The same can be said of wings (Archeopterix's wings were already functional, so he can't be used alone as a missing ring in the evolutionary chain from dinos to birds) and for the evolution of dolphins and whales. My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"? do you think God created the initial Big Bang singularity, programmed it to have conditions for life, and then let it work by its own? How can you explain when the Bible says things such as "And God made the firmament", or
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning. I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived. neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out: The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth: He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths: When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters: When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth; I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men." (Ecclesiastes, 8:22-31)? Is God attributing to himself a prerogative he didn't have? Is God saying a falsity? Of course not! God is saying that what he made was is project, that he made things out of nothing and that they were modelled after his design. There is no chaos, for God is a God of order... from chaos the cosmos was formed... because God is the cosmos=order that models and sustains the Earth. Evolution denies this: evolution says that what happens to this world regarding the biological devolpment of life is the product of case, that there's no predictibility, that is a fortunate case that we exist, and not a law of the world has it was projected by God himself. How many people dare to accuse God of being a liar and prefere the earthly and limited wisdom of atheist and deist scientists... Is science a sort of new religion, so that I and many others are accused of a sort of scientific heresy when we express some DOUBTS on the mechanics of darwinism? Is science so superior to religion, that I must obey to scientists and take religion as a fairy tale? I repeat that I'm a concordist. What has been observed by scientists is correct, including the billion years of formation of the universe. But is that enough to believe the entire theory? No, because I think there's no wisdom but from God. Scientists are just looking to objective truths, but try to explain them in a model which is a fruit of pure human speculation which says there is no initial cause in the universe. Those scientists who believe in a projectuality of the universe, on the contrary, can see the hand of God, and see every step in evolution as a providential progress, and I'm on their side, entirely.
If you want you can call me an heretic for not believing in scientific official statements on conjectures. I'm glad of being heretic in human wisdom, and orthodox in divine religion. Everytime I look in the universe I see how marvelous is the God who made all this for us, and how miserable we are in front of God's power.
Please answer to my question on the role you ascribe to God in creation, and maybe we'll understand each other far better, for I can't even think you might believe in pure deism.

In Christ,  trying to keep as humble as I can,
and to listen to your positions opening my mind to them,
        your brother Alex
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Now answer to my direct question: where are the pre-cambrian creatures with eyes "in development"? Where are the dinosaurs with partial wings who could not yet fly? Where are those mammals who, according to modern evolutionary theories, began to develop an adaptation to the sea so that they became dolphins?
Those aren't the right questions. The question is "Where are the ancestors to the modern animals we know and observe?" I don't know the answer to that, as my expertise is in the English and Spanish languages, but if you ask a biologist, they should be able to tell you.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
do you think God created the initial Big Bang singularity, programmed it to have conditions for life, and then let it work by its own?
This is an anachronism. God is not subject to time; what He does, He does from eternity. From our perspective, God has done things, is doing things, and will do things. From His perspective, He does things. We must not ascribe to God the human concept of time, and constrain Him to a linear existence. He does not exist as we do.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
There is no chaos, for God is a God of order... from chaos the cosmos was formed... because God is the cosmos=order that models and sustains the Earth. Evolution denies this: evolution says that what happens to this world regarding the biological devolpment of life is the product of case, that there's no predictibility, that is a fortunate case that we exist, and not a law of the world has it was projected by God himself.
You make the same mistake many do: They assume that scientists are out to disprove God's role in creation. This is not so: Real science does not even consider God, but only seeks to understand the natural processes of the universe. In fact, to put God into a scientific equation by necessity makes such an equation unscientific. So you see, scientists do not deny God's existence, but they do not consider His existence. There is a big difference.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
How many people dare to accuse God of being a liar and prefere the earthly and limited wisdom of atheist and deist scientists... Is science a sort of new religion, so that I and many others are accused of a sort of scientific heresy when we express some DOUBTS on the mechanics of darwinism? Is science so superior to religion, that I must obey to scientists and take religion as a fairy tale?
Yawn. Wake me up when you come up with something original to say. But first, you might want to read the dozens of posts on this very thread which ask you and others of your persuasion to do some research and come up with a theory of speciation that is superior to Darwin's. When you do, we'll accept it instead of Darwin's. Until you do, you are merely bloviating.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Scientists are just looking to objective truths, but try to explain them in a model which is a fruit of pure human speculation which says there is no initial cause in the universe.
No, they say we cannot know scientifically what the initial cause of the universe is. Big difference. Again, I point you to the analogy of trying to take someone's temperature with a shovel. Both the thermometer and the shovel are useful tools, but can only be used for a single purpose. Similarly, religion and science are both useful, but one cannot use science to prove theology, and one cannot use religion to prove science.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
Those scientists who believe in a projectuality of the universe, on the contrary, can see the hand of God, and see every step in evolution as a providential progress, and I'm on their side, entirely.
What of those who can see in the randomness in the universe the beauty of God's creation? I look at the orbits of the Earth, for instance, and I see a rock which has just so happened to land in the gravity well of a small dwarf star in such a way as to create for most of us four distinct and yet complementary seasons. It would be one thing for God to have placed the Earth in just the right position--but it is a far greater power which allows the Earth to place itself, and then uses that placement to create life; which uses that life's propensity to replicate itself to bring about the creation of humanity; and which uses humanity's free will to venerate Him.

In short, I see in the randomness of the universe God's complete desire for the freedom of every person, of every creature, of every object in the universe. God does not control by force; but He uses our choices to bring about His will. This, I think, is not only a more accurate view of God's role in creation than yours, but reveals with greater clarity His infinite goodness.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.
Science tells you what they want to be as a possibility to prove there is no God, what do you think all this BS and agitation is about , on science rats?the evolution theory is incompatible with the world God has made and with the scripture;it is incompatible with His power to do anything , it`s incompatible with God`s caring , presence and love towards creation , it is incompatible with God`s perfection , making from God and from normality and natural , and from beauty , chaos , mutation denaturing God`s beauty , Almightyness , Perfection , The Caring of God and His presence in the Creation.Let`s not discuss with all the other incompatibilities from Genesis , as the first man , the denaturation of the image of God , the incompatibility with the fall and Eden.This is what Evolution theory does it denaturates the image of God , trough people , by making the image of God like beast without wisedom, by saying that we are from apes , making God`s likeness as an beast or an apes, presenting us an imperfect and mutational God ,uncaring , diminuating God`s presence in the Creation and his Love , diminuating his AllMightyness.

Get your senses back in your head ytterbiumanalyst. If you really wanna see how God made everything read in Genesis and what the apostle says, that He made everything from nothing , trough faith , trough His Word , He said and they came to beeing in an instant , that is how the Church Fathers also say He made all things.You have the Scriptures and the Fathers.Another thing if you people are so smart and any of you who believes the universe/earth is billions of years old , make some math and see that the population of the world in this case would have been overfloated , and now we would walking on thousands and thousands of billion of corpses , just look at a grafic about the groweth of population.Let`s be serious , this mumbo jumbo `science` are just fairy tales.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Dan-Romania said:
My question to you darwinian evolutionists is: if evolution occured randomly, how can you say every Sunday "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, of ALL things visible and invisible"?
With our tongues? But seriously, I believe God created everything visible and invisible. My religion tells me that He did it; science tells me how He did it.
Science tells you what they want to be as a possibility to prove there is no God, what do you think all this BS and agitation is about , on science rats?
Have you not been reading this thread?  Whereas some scientists may indeed want to prove that there is no God, science itself can desire no such thing, for argument on the existence of the Divine is not properly even within the realm of science.

Dan-Romania said:
the evolution theory is incompatible with the world God has made and with the scripture;it is incompatible with His power to do anything , it`s incompatible with God`s caring , presence and love towards creation , it is incompatible with God`s perfection , making from God and from normality and natural , and from beauty , chaos , mutation denaturing God`s beauty , Almightyness , Perfection , The Caring of God and His presence in the Creation.Let`s not discuss with all the other incompatibilities from Genesis , as the first man , the denaturation of the image of God , the incompatibility with the fall and Eden.This is what Evolution theory does it denaturates the image of God , trough people , by making the image of God like beast without wisedom, by saying that we are from apes , making God`s likeness as an beast or an apes, presenting us an imperfect and mutational God ,uncaring , diminuating God`s presence in the Creation and his Love , diminuating his AllMightyness.
Isn't this all just your subjective opinion, especially when ytterbiumanalyst voiced his countering opinion that the scientific observation of creation has only strengthened his awe of the Almighty Creator?

Dan-Romania said:
Get your senses back in your head ytterbiumanalyst. If you really wanna see how God made everything read in Genesis and what the apostle says, that He made everything from nothing , trough faith , trough His Word , He said and they came to beeing in an instant , that is how the Church Fathers also say He made all things.You have the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Why should we believe the Fathers on this when they knew nothing of modern science?  Did the Holy Spirit reveal things scientific to the Holy Fathers?  Are we to take the Holy Spirit's revelation to the Fathers as a source for scientific axioms?  Isn't this the mistake Christians made several centuries ago when they argued that we MUST believe the earth to be the center of the universe because the Scriptures and all the Fathers said so?

Dan-Romania said:
Another thing if you people are so smart and any of you who believes the universe/earth is billions of years old , make some math and see that the population of the world in this case would have been overfloated , and now we would walking on thousands and thousands of billion of corpses , just look at a grafic about the groweth of population.
1.  What are the numbers we need to plug into this math to get the results you want us to see?
2.  You ask us to look at a population growth graph.  Surely, if one exists, you should be able to submit it to this discussion so we can see it.  Can you do this for us?
3.  Have you failed to take into account the decay of corpses?  What of the production of fossil fuels?

Dan-Romania said:
Let`s be serious , this mumbo jumbo `science` are just fairy tales.
Where's your evidence?
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
you are just a deceived fool:

here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

so we see in here the estimated population in the world at certain years;

6,7 billions in 2008 , 2,5 billions in 1950 , 1,2 billions in 1850 ,750 millions in 1750 , 310 mil in 1000 , 200 mill in 1, 100 mil in 500 BC , around 10 000 BC is said to be only 1 mill people on earth and on 70 000BC under one mill.Look how much the population has grown in 2000 years .In 2000 years it groweth 33,5 times regarding also the black middle-ages where a big part of the planet died from diseases.In groweth in 2000 years (from year 1 Christ to 2008) as much as it groewth from 70 000BC to 2000BC that is 68 000 years!!! 68 000 years = 2000 x 34 years.Think about that.If the earth is really millions , or billions as they claim , than how come from millions/billions of years untill 70 000BC the population of the world hasn`t even reached 1 million? If we raported to our days in manners of less than ten years the population has grown with at least a million.Sure other times , medicine etc.But Still billions of years!! an tens of thousands of years!!!Even if the population would have grown normally now the earth would have been overfloated , and full of corpses.billions and billions of billions, uncountable.If we consider also the evolution theory , man evolved from apes so at the begining there were not just 2 apes , or 2 humans if you please , but many , so in billions/millions of years they would over populate the entire Universe and planets.Again think think think.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dan-Romania said:
you are just a deceived fool:

here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

so we see in here the estimated population in the world at certain years;

6,7 billions in 2008 , 2,5 billions in 1950 , 1,2 billions in 1850 ,750 millions in 1750 , 310 mil in 1000 , 200 mill in 1, 100 mil in 500 BC , around 10 000 BC is said to be only 1 mill people on earth and on 70 000BC under one mill.Look how much the population has grown in 2000 years .In 2000 years it groweth 33,5 times regarding also the black middle-ages where a big part of the planet died from diseases.In groweth in 2000 years (from year 1 Christ to 2008) as much as it groewth from 70 000BC to 2000BC that is 68 000 years!!! 68 000 years = 2000 x 34 years.Think about that.If the earth is really millions , or billions as they claim , than how come from millions/billions of years untill 70 000BC the population of the world hasn`t even reached 1 million? If we raported to our days in manners of less than ten years the population has grown with at least a million.Sure other times , medicine etc.But Still billions of years!! an tens of thousands of years!!!Even if the population would have grown normally now the earth would have been overfloated , and full of corpses.billions and billions of billions, uncountable.If we consider also the evolution theory , man evolved from apes so at the begining there were not just 2 apes , or 2 humans if you please , but many , so in billions/millions of years they would over populate the entire Universe and planets.Again think think think.
forgive my insult, i tried to edit the insult but i couldn`t ... so here it is
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I don't wanna have to discuss with an extremist darwinian evolutionist on one side, and with an ultra-creationist on the other side. I believe that both positions miss the mark and they show remnants of hatred. I hate science when it has no mathematics or experimental test in it. Science is physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry and zoology... but neither darwinian evolution nor Young Earth creationism are science. I am bound by conscience and faith to leave both of you in your incomplete, extremist and fundamentalist visions, on both sides. I thought my position could easily be understood as a "middle way" between to useless extremes, living more space for God. So take your "randomly evolved apes" on one side and your "clay figurines with a spirit" on the other side. I don't want to discuss with you anymore, especially because you don't tolerate my position, which I express as a result of free speculation. You, ytterbiumanalyst, consider me a fool because I want to underline God's active role in creation; and you, Dan-Romania, want me to renounce to the faith of the Apostle who wrote "Don't you know that the worlds are of old?" and consider me a fool for that. You both contradict the message of Scripture and Tradition:
"Who shall see him, and declare him? and who shall magnify him as he is from the beginning? There are many things hidden from us that are greater than these: for we have seen but a few of his works. But the Lord hath made all things, and to the godly he hath given wisdom." (Wisdom of Sirach, 43:35-37)
   "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colosseans 2:8)
  "The mountains also, and the hills, end the foundations of the earth: when God shall look upon them, they shall be shaken with trembling. And in all these things the heart is senseless: and every heart is understood by him: And his ways who shall understand, and the storm, which no eye of man see? For many of his works are hidden: hut the works of his justice who shall declare? or who shall endure? for the testament is far from some, and the examination of all is in the end. He that wanteth understanding thinketh vain things: and the foolish, and erring man, thinketh foolish things" (Wisdom of Sirach, 16:20-23)
  "Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Upon what are its bases grounded? or who laid the corner stone thereof, When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing out of the womb: when I made a cloud the garment thereof, and wrapped it in a mist as in swaddling bands? I set my bounds around it, and made it bars and doors: 11 And I said: Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves" (Job 38:2-11)
May God have mercy of us all for are vain and useless attempts to discuss what is known to God alone: let's ask for a better wisdom, the wisdom of faith, and for the vain philosophies of humankind.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: I'm glad that you corrected your message, at least I'm no more a fool, as you also aren't, and yttebiumanalyst too. We should just have respect for each other and say that we can freely believe whatever we want. Those who support official science shouldn't accuse creationists to be anachronistic or fool, and creationists shouldn't attack everything which is labelled as science just because most or many scientists are atheists. Let's stay close to what the Bible theologically says:
1)God created all things, visible and invisible, including space, time, matter, energy, and the spiritual beings.
2)Man was made different then other animals, so that he received a sentient spirit and was asked to govern the world as a responsible guardian and not as a master.
3)We are asked to see God's hand in creation, and be thankful for what he did for us, including creating this world
4)We should ask for God's pardon for having been bad guardians to the world, since we are progressively destroying it with our irresponsibility
5)We should ask God to restore in us the image of God, so that the entire universe might benefit from our spiritual change.

In Christ,  Alex
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
I don't wanna have to discuss with an extremist darwinian evolutionist on one side,
Neither do I. Let me know when you find one on this board.

AlexanderOfBergamo said:
You, ytterbiumanalyst, consider me a fool because I want to underline God's active role in creation;
No, I think you want to limit God's active role in creation to what you can understand. This, I think, is a mistake.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My insult Alex was not for you , but for Peter, anyway i took it back, i have nothing against you Alex , even the contrary i appreciate your posts.

I`ve just seen a show on National Geographic about , galaxies , universe , etc.The Universe is an amazing place , and can make one feel really small looking at the enormity of it.

Where does it speak in the Scripture that the world(s) are of old?

I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.I don`t reject totally the possibility for the world to be billions of years, the Universe.Anyway , the Scripture tells us that everything was made by God , He said and they all came in being , the same as the fathers say and teach , and the same I believed even before reading the fathers about this.God is Almighty , sure He could create all into an instances all being and life , but He chose to create it in cycle of days , to make a home and a house for all , the resourses for all , all with patience and organised , with love and caring.He made first the kingdom , and prepared a kingdom for this ruler who is man , to rule upon the fishes of the sea , the beasts on earth , the birds from the sky , He made a place for everything.The Scripture says it was evening and than morning, about every cycle of time of the creation, in totall 6 days of creation.So is a normal day , morning and night.Giving us the understanding and raport as to a human day.I believe God could have done what He said and everything He did in 6 days.And I`m not alone among the fathers many are of this opinion.Anyway God uses time in alegory in many cases , and the six days could have been 6 periods of time , undeterminable.There are also fathers who believe this.But by saying it was night and than morning , i understand that He made all this from non-being to being, trough His Word , as we see in Genesis : "And God said" and as in John says , everything was maybe by the Word and trough the Word, and without Him nothing was made.Also the Apostle Paul says that God made everything from nothing , trough His Word.Also by saying that and if everything was created in an instant, than i think that God made everything in six literal days, as it is possible everything with God.I think in that is shown and revealed God`s Mightyness, that He could create everything in 6 days.Sure He could do it all at once , in one day.But by this we see the order God has instituated , making a place for everything , and finding something suitable for everything, for everything , a room , a place by order and discipline.Not only because of this , but because of His love and caring, for everything and everyone to have a place of it`s own.By the things that God is a Creator and He made even the smallest things , we can see by reading the wisedom books and the psalms of David , Job , etc.Sure Genesis starts with : at the beggining God made the heavens and the earth, and that darkness was over the deep.We also see that the Universe has a lot of black materia , i`m not sure if i used the corect words.It can also be interpret it , the Universe to be this darkness from the beggining as I said in the beggining of my post , the Universe is an imensity.So I don`t exclude the possibility of the Universe being of old and of billions of years, but not people on earth or life on earth.Anyway see my other post regarding the population and overpopulation.Again I am of the opinion that the 6 days from the Creation are 6 days, but i don`t totally exclude the possibility for them to be thousands or even millions/billions.What i`m against of is Evolution and Darwinism.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Dan-Romania said:
I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.
If it is true, as you say, that most scientists are atheists, consider the possibility that it is stupidity like this that causes them to reject Christianity.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Thegra said:
jckstraw72 said:
one atheist guy said the other day the big issue that divides him from Christians is evolution.
All the more reason to stop insisting it's false. Creationists only make the rest of Christians look worse. When you argue that a scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt is inherently atheistic, you only drive people away, and make them atheists. You're playing right into the atheists' hands.
no he didnt mean he'd be a Christian if we'd all accept evolution. He said that evolution is the very foundation of his worldview which therefore gives Him a wholly different worldview than one that is founded upon Christ.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pravoslavbob said:
^ Just one question.  Did you even BOTHER to read ONE of Heorhij's post on this thread?  ONE?  Or one of DOZENS of others on this thread that show that believing in evolution and believing in Jesus Christ are not contradictory?  ONE?  ??? ??? ???  ::)
he has not satisfactorily demonstrated that. If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good. Thus Christ destroyed His own good creation. It makes God contradictory. The Book of Wisdom specifically tells us that God did not create death. Heorhij can post what he wants, I will side with the Saints and Scripture. I find it really hard to believe that men the likes of St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, Elder Cleopa, etc etc were just too naieve or foolish or whatever to see that evolution and Christ actually go hand in hand.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Dan-Romania said:
I am against the theory of evolution , not of plain science.
If it is true, as you say, that most scientists are atheists, consider the possibility that it is stupidity like this that causes them to reject Christianity.
consider that it is their materialistic worldview borne out of the Enlightenment that leads them to reject Christianity.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jckstraw72 said:
If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good.
Not necessarily. We believe that God used death to destroy death and give us eternal life. Could he not also use death to create the infinite diversity of life we see in our universe?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good.
Not necessarily. We believe that God used death to destroy death and give us eternal life. Could he not also use death to create the infinite diversity of life we see in our universe?
Besides, is it death itself, even the death of animals, or merely the death of humans created in the image and likeness of immortal God that is intrinsically evil?  I suppose if one were to carry the reasoning, "Death itself is evil," to its logical extreme, we could even say that God intended not that a star should ever explode in a supernova and leave a black hole behind as its corpse, that even this is a result of the fall of man.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good.
Not necessarily. We believe that God used death to destroy death and give us eternal life. Could he not also use death to create the infinite diversity of life we see in our universe?
Besides, is it death itself, even the death of animals, or merely the death of humans created in the image and likeness of immortal God that is intrinsically evil?  I suppose if one were to carry the reasoning, "Death itself is evil," to its logical extreme, we could even say that God intended not that a star should ever explode in a supernova and leave a black hole behind as its corpse, that even this is a result of the fall of man.
God gave man an incorrupt world as his habitation. Nothing died according to the Fathers because all of creation was for the good of man. So incorrupt man was given an incorrupt earth. Saints that have had visions of Paradise have described it as a place of incorruption.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good.
Not necessarily. We believe that God used death to destroy death and give us eternal life. Could he not also use death to create the infinite diversity of life we see in our universe?
The fact that God destroyed death shows that it is not good. He used death to defeat it because that is the only way He could have taken on our enemy. Furthermore, the book of Wisdom tells us that God did not create death. also:

1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
If God created via evolution then God is the author of death, and thus death is good.
Not necessarily. We believe that God used death to destroy death and give us eternal life. Could he not also use death to create the infinite diversity of life we see in our universe?
Besides, is it death itself, even the death of animals, or merely the death of humans created in the image and likeness of immortal God that is intrinsically evil?  I suppose if one were to carry the reasoning, "Death itself is evil," to its logical extreme, we could even say that God intended not that a star should ever explode in a supernova and leave a black hole behind as its corpse, that even this is a result of the fall of man.
God gave man an incorrupt world as his habitation. Nothing died according to the Fathers because all of creation was for the good of man. So incorrupt man was given an incorrupt earth.
What Fathers?  Name them, cite their works, and prove that they spoke in consensus.

You also failed to answer my question or even address my point.  About what death did the Fathers speak?  The death of humans?  The death of animals and plants?  The death of stars and star systems?

jckstraw72 said:
Saints that have had visions of Paradise have described it as a place of incorruption.
Don't confuse the world before the fall of man with the blessed foretaste of the eternal world to come.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
jckstraw72 said:
... If God created via evolution then God is the author of death....
You are so sure of that, are you?  You are so very sure about the nature of the Fall, that it happened at a certain point in time on Earth, and that before that moment in time there was no Fall?  You have this whole mystery figured out?   Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are really sure about all of that, then there is little point in continuing this discussion.

ytterbiumanalyst said:
No, I think you want to limit God's active role in creation to what you can understand. This, I think, is a mistake.
Pravoslavbob said:
....How spiritually childish and oafishly cataphatic can [one's arguments] be?.... What appears as being "random" to us limited human creatures indeed hides greater mysteries beyond our understanding.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
After relaxing last night with my friends, I have now found new strength to face this topic once again in a more moderate spirit. I hope I can control myself... in the next few days I was so exhausted by a terrible weak at work that everything could drive me out of my mind.

Now, let's see what I can say.

1) To Dan-Romania: I am glad that your position is so similar to mine: I'm a day-age theory supporter. I don't like to discuss whether creation happened through an evolutionary process (having in mind that the process was divinely controlled, or at least that God put some limits and rules in ongoing process) or through a progressive direct creation. This is not the main purpose of my reflections: I only want to keep in agreement with the wisdom of the Bible and Tradition, i.e. the certainty that God formed the worlds with his own energies at work. Anyway, the passage on the antiquity of the world is 2 Peter 3:5 which says: "For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. ". Curiously, the same passage supports both the antiquity of the world and the historical account of Genesis on the flood, which is taken as historical, and accuses of ignorance both those who denied the world's antiquity and the historicity of the flood. On the latter, anyway, there's no direct support of the extent of the flood, since the word "world" is ambiguous, and I found at least one element which puts a global flood in contradiction with the Bible itself.
On this subject, I offer to you the time spans a Jewish scientist proposed for the six "days". Every period of time is twice as long as the following:
From 15 to 9450 milion years: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth". Formation of the universe as we know it, with space-time-matter-energy linked with each other by common forces and laws. This precedes the 6 days.
From 9450 to 4650 milion years: Creation of light, i.e. of the protostar which will later become the Sun. Through Earth's atmosphere sunlight began to shine, but the sun was not yet visible due to the clouds.
From 4650 to 2250 million years: Creation of the hydrical cycle: ice melts and forms the seas, and a stabile atmosphere becomes to develop. It is intended that microrganisms (of which the Bible authors were not aware) began to spawn at this time.
From 2250 to 1050 million years: Creation of the first continent, Pangaea, where the dry lands and the seas are rigidly separated. Vegetation begins to appear both in the seas and on the dry lands, as a green mantle for the earth.
From 1050 to 450 million years: Thanks to the plants, the atmosphere is now translucent, so that sun, moon and stars shine in their glory over the Earth. Also, the rhythm of years, seasons, months and days can now be mesured accurately using these planets and stars as references.
From 450 to 150 million years: The first dinosaurs=dragons (=often mistranslated as whale), sea creatures (fish, muscles, plesiosaurs etc...) and flying creatures (insects, pterosaurs and prototype birds such as Archeopterix) all develop at this time.
From 150 to c.ca 12000-10000 years ago: Creation of all mammals and modern cold-blood reptiles. Humans are finally formed.
When I read this timescale, I was so attracted by it that I immediately embraced the day-age theory. As for you, Dan-Romania, what do you think about it?

2) To jckstraw72: Adam was also condemned to "death" on the same day he would eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, yet he survived for some 1000 years. Most Church Fathers saw in this a demonstration that by death was meant the mortality of the entire human being, both spiritual and physical. The theology of some Fathers supporting a mortal Adam who was offered the gift of immortality explains very well how natural physical death might have pre-existed to Adam. Spiritual death and human mortality definitively entered the world after Adam's sin, and the world became corrupted in the sense that Adam had no more power over nature. Nature, too tell it in other words, had become an enemy of Adam, and Adam had to suffer to obtain what he needed in order to survive. Whether, on the contrary, you would support the alternative model that Adam lived a day of a thousand years, you would be putting a gun at your head, since you clearly demonstrate that Genesis used "day" for a symbolic period, and thus the six days can legitimately be interpreted figuratively, as Dan-Romania and I are supporting.

3) To ytterbiumanalyst: I don't think I ever limited God's creative power; on the contrary, I believe that God limited the freedom of the creative process. If God hadn't ruled the process, the world could have developed in a sterile universe. You certainly know that a slight difference in the balance of some universal constants (akin the speed of light, the mass of electrons, etc...) or in the constitution of our solar system could have affected the formation of life - and especially sentient life. In the former case, life could have been totally different or inexistent... in the latter: we could have had a fast-aging Sun consuming before humanity could develop, or a moon with gravitational effects sufficient to provoke daily floods of the entire continents, and a solar system placed in the center of the Galaxy or too near to supernovae being invested by such enormous amounts of radioactivity to stop any evolutionary process and wipe out all life at its beginnings. Also, a complete freedom in life evolution could have created carnivors capable of producing the extinction of many other animals, so that no good creature could be chosen to be the "image of God". If we look at what humans have been able to do since our appearence on Earth, and how many species we have endangered or how many catastrophes we have been able to produce (the atom bomb and Chernobyl, for example) is a sufficient proof that a free evolution of sentient life might have endangered the existence of the planet even long time ago.
In conclusion, I just think that God either put limits on nature, or that nature was manipulated by God's energies so that it conformed over time to fit in God's project. I prefer neither of the two possibilities... I recognize them the same level of accuracy in explaining how the universe comes to be as good as we can see it, and I think both Bible and Tradition don't give explanations in favour of one of the two.

Hope this helps in discussing the subject. I beg your pardon (to ALL of you) if I have been rude these last few days. May God have mercy on me!

In Christ,  Alex
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alex that is a plausible theory to make peace between bible and evolutionary science view of Genesis.I don`t really believe like that , exactly as you said , call me a fool or laugh at me , but i believe God made everything in 6 days, 24 hours.Look for example of the population scale as i posted a few posts ago in this thread.I rather think that God created everything is six literall days 24 hours.I also dislike the idea that the sun of there just that he wasn`t seen by the clouds, etc.God made all the laws of the nature and everything, yes I believe dinosaurs existed , and many other creatures and species of animals, it`s not known how they were called and if they were called dinosaurs than.That is a interesting view , AlexOfBergamo and it is the best i`ve seen putting harmony between science and religion reconciliating both, even if I don`t see it perfect.I must say I don`t know much about science or astronomy(astrology) but I always liked the Universe , planets , stars , etc.As I said I don`t exclude the possibility for the days to be not literall days but ages or times.Again , I am totally against the evolution theory.

And yes the reason i reject the age and the days being ages it`s because it kind of implies a life-death circle before the fall.

What is interesting to know is how they measured the time: upon wich conditions , machines laws or instruments :).
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
for me that I believe the Universe being of old means , and I don`t deny that God preparing everything from of Old , and the heavens being of old; I assimilate the Universe , galaxies and stars and the unbounded and enormous things to something much small as humans , angels , etc , representatives of our destinies,the paths we make , etc , the light we receive , I see them representative as spiritual things ,this I understand by the word of the gospel 2Peter 3:5 , and Genesis 1:2 , that is what I understand by waters; a vision of mine;
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I have nothing against your particular view, Dan-Romania, just because I think that all creationist or intelligent-design positions equally try to be respectful of religion, and they are all equally acceptable in the light of Church tradition. Both possibilities (day-age theory and 24-hour days) were equally held by the Fathers of the Church; both positions on the mortality or immortality by nature of Adam before the fall are witnessed as private understandings by the early Christian writers; and of course no specific decision or declaration has been affirmed by the Church on the matter in the Ecumenical Councils so, in conclusion, I can't judge whoever recognizes a divine origin and order in the world.
I must also add an explanation that Jewish scientist gave to the different dating system, i.e. on how God could well call those ages "days". As the theory of General Relativity affirms, time is not constant: it's a dimension whose speed 'changes' according to the mass of the objects nearby. In a super-dense world such as that reconstructed in the Big Bang theory, time would have flowed differently then in our time, so that in God's perspective it was only a day, but in ours (or better, in the perspective of cosmology) time flew 'faster' with the rapid expansion of the universe, named 'inflation'. This explanation is consistent with modern Now a question for you: how do you explain the 1000-years day of Adam according to the prophecy of God that Adam was to die on the same day he ate the fruit? Do you have your position in this regards?

In Christ,  Alex
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In this quote we have St. Justin Martyr talking about the word “day” in Genesis meaning a period of a thousand years by pointing out that despite God telling Adam he would die within a day of sinning he lived over 900 years. That is to say that the days were not literal 24 hour periods. This view is not limited to St. Justin as we see in the next quote Irenaeus speaks of a similar idea:

“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin.”
(Against Herasies, 5:23 [AD 189])


Here he is not arguing for a specific view but rather finding fault with the literalists. Next we move onto someone everyone must be familiar with, St. Justin Martyr.
“For as Adam was told that in the [d]ay [h]e ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.”
(Dialog with Typho the Jew chapter 81 [AD 155])

I believe as it is written here , Adam death on <1000 years meaning that he will not enter in the eternity of God , and not remain in the rest of God, fall from the rest of God and from the paradisiac wealthness.
I see the rest of the Lord as of many many years , even eternal.

I also liked this quote:

St. Augustine also comments on his view of the word “day” in the Creation Week. In City of God St. Augustine expressed his amazement of the creation days:

“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”
(City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

Let us start with the Early Father of the Church, Origen. In his book Against Celus he stated:

“…We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God's "commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created," when we quoted the words, "He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;" remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son--the Word--to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone, and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."
(Against Celus 6:60 [AD 248])

It appears that this view of each day containing a thousand years was popular among Early Church Fathers as we read from St. Cyprian of Carthage:

““As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven”
(Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])

source : http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

Thinking again , i would say that is possible that the world would have been created in many years,ages , in an old and of old time, "the generations of the heavens and the earth" , i like this , i kind of always felt that way about of the times of old.Anyway let us remmeber this , that after God made Adam(wich means man/human) He brought all animals to Adam so that he would name them.

Also as I have heard number seven symbolises perfection , fullness , entirely , sacradness , etc.It is possible that the days were completely allegorical and poetic, using numbers and other symbols to give us a perspective of things, to imagine and understand that the whole of God`s will, work(and rest) is included in seven days.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pravoslavbob said:
jckstraw72 said:
... If God created via evolution then God is the author of death....
You are so sure of that, are you?  You are so very sure about the nature of the Fall, that it happened at a certain point in time on Earth, and that before that moment in time there was no Fall?  You have this whole mystery figured out?   Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are really sure about all of that, then there is little point in continuing this discussion.
the Church understands its own Scriptures by divine illumination. it has nothing to do with me figuring anything out. of course the Fall happened in time at a specific point -- when Adam and Eve sinned -- are you suggesting perhaps that the animals or plants sinned and caused the Fall instead, or what? do you have a reason from within the Tradition to suggest such a wildly allegorical treatment of Genesis that you would question whether the Fall happened in time and because of man?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
What Fathers?  Name them, cite their works, and prove that they spoke in consensus.

You also failed to answer my question or even address my point.  About what death did the Fathers speak?  The death of humans?  The death of animals and plants?  The death of stars and star systems?
every kind of death entered because of sin. otherwise we would have to believe that the God Who is life itself actually desires death, and then we'd have to question why man is called to redeem the entire earth and cosmos if they are actually meant to die.

The Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. 14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII.XII
When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which is called second death,—we must answer, It is all. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death, which consists of all. For, as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the Church universal of many churches, so death universal consists of all deaths.

For the body would not return to the earth from which it was made, save only by the death proper to itself, which occurs when it is forsaken of the soul, its life. And therefore it is agreed among all Christians who truthfully hold the catholic faith, that we are subject to the death of the body, not by the law of nature, by which God ordained no death for man, but by His righteous infliction on account of sin; for God, taking vengeance on sin, said to the man, in whom we all then were, "Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return." St. Augustine, City of God Book XIII.XV

By this He signifies to us, that the whole earth was at that time watered by a divine fountain, and had no need that man should till it; but the earth produced all things spontaneously by the command of God, that man might not be wearied by tilling it. Theophilus to Autolycus, Book II.XIX

And the animals are named wild beasts [qhria], from their being hunted [qhreuesqai], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first--for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,--but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him . . . so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man's sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness. Theophilus to Autolycus Book II.XVII

God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestor at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! Instead, He did much more . . . Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible. It was this world, as we said, which was given to Adam and to his descendants for their enjoyment. Does this seem strange to you? It should not. St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1, in On the Mystical Life, vol. 1, p. 21

God gave man in Paradise "every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh, full of sweetness,j and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For it was fitting that their incorruptible bodies be supplied with incorruptible food." St. Symeon, Ethical Discrouses 1.1

[God] wills to hold it [Paradise] out to us as a type of the indissoluble life to come, an icon of the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. If this were not the case, then the Garden, too, would have had to be cursed, since it was the scene of the transgression. However, God does not do this, but instead curses the whole rest of the earth which, as we have said, was incorruptible just like Paradise, and produced fruit of its own accord. St. Symeon, Ethical Discourses 1.2

Doubtless indeed vultures did not look around the earth when living things came to be. For nothing yet died of these things given meaning or brought into being by God, so that vultures might eat it. Nature was not divided, for it was in its prime; nor did hunters kill, for that not yet the custom of human beings; nor did wild beasts claw their prey, for they were not yet carnivores. And it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows. St. Basil the Great, On the Origin of Humanity 2.6

God did not create death, but we brought it upon ourselves by a wicked intention. St. Basil the Great, Homily Explaining that God is not the Cause of Evil 7

  The earth, created, adorned, blessed by God, did not have any deficiencies. It was overflowing with refinement. "God saw," after the completion of the whole creation of the world, "everything that He had made: and, behold, it was very good." (Gen. 1:31).
  Now the earth is presented to our eyes in a completely different look. We do not know her condition in holy virginity; we know her in the condition of corruption and accursedness, we know her already sentenced to burning; she was created for eternity. . . . Plants were not subjected either to decay or to diseases; both decay and diseases and the weeds themselves, appeared after the alteration of the earth following the fall of man . . . According to its creation, there was on it only the splendid, only the wholesome, there was only that which was suitable for the immortal and blessed life of its inhabitants . . . The beasts and other animals lived in perfect harmony among themselves, nourishing themselves on plant life. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, Homily on Man

We don't know what kind of moon there was then, what kind of sun, what kind of light . . . All of this changed after the fall. Elder Barsanuphius of Optina by Victor Afanasiev, pg. 280

The beautiful things of this world are only hints of that beauty with which the first-created world was filled, as Adam and Eve saw it. That beauty was destroyed by the sin of the first people . . . Thus also did the fall into sin of the first people destroy the beauty of God's world, and there remain to us only fragments of it by which we may judge concerning the primordial beauty. Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, pg. 468

The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering, and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death. St. Gregory Palamas, To the Most Revered Nun Xenia 10

Of necessity bodily death followed [Adam's] spiritual death, so the evil one caused our double death by his single death. St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16.25

In not wishing to be nourished by Him [God], the first man rightly fell away from the Divine life, and took death as another parent. Accordingly he put on himself the irrational form, and blackened the inconceivable beauty of the Divine, and delivered over the whole of nature as food for death. Death is living on this through the whole of this temporal period, making us his food. St. Maximus, Ambiguum 10.

God, at the very moment humanity fell . . . gave the body the capacity to suffer, undergo corruption, and be wholly dissolved -- as was evinced when God covered the body with garments of skin. St. Maximus, Ambiguum 8

What I am saying is that in the beginning sin seduced Adam and persuaded him to transgress God's commandment, whereby sin gave rise to pleasure and, by means of this pleasure, nailed itself in Adam to the very depths of our nature, thus condemning our whole human nature to death and, via humanity, pressing the nature of (all) created beings toward mortal extinction. St. Maximus, Ad Thalassium 6.1

[man] was clothed with the roughness of this wretched life -- for that is what the fig leaves signify -- and put on death, that is to say, the mortality and the grossness of the flesh -- for that is what the garment of skins signifies; he was excluded from Paradise by the just judgment of God; and was condemned to death and made subject to corruption. St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 3.1

The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness and as a punishment and a help. "For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things" (Wisdom 1:!3). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam's transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 2.28

Commenting on Romans 8:20: What is the meaning of "the creation was made subject to futility"? That it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you took a body mortal and subject to suffering, so also the earth received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 14.

He [the Apostle Paul] discourses concerning creation's bondage, an shows for whose sake such a thing has occurred -- and he places the blame on us. What then? In suffering these things on account of another, has creation been maltreated? By no means, for it has come into being for my sake. So then, how could that which has come into being for my sake be unjustly treated in suffering those things for my correction? St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 14

What armed death against the cosmos? The fact that one man tasted of the tree only. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 10.

It is said that when the world was first created it was not subject to flux and corruption. According to Scripture it was only later corrupted and "made subject to futility" -- that is, to man -- not by its own choice but by the will of Him to whom it is subject, the expectation being that Adam, who had fallen into corruption, would be restored to his original state. St. Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines 11

Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain [orthodox persons] are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, and of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the [earthly] kingdom which is the commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature . . . It is fitting, therefore, that the creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made this plain in the Epistle to the Romans, when he thus speaks: “For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature has been subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; since the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.32.1

For the creation was made subject to futility, [St. Paul] says, and he expects that it will be set free from such servitude, as he intends to call this world by the name of creation. For it is not what is unseen [the angelic world] but what is seen that is subject to corruption. The creation, then, after being restored to a better and more seemly state, remains, rejoicing and exulting over the children of God at the resurrection; for whose sake it now groans and travails, waiting itself also for our redemption from the corruption of the body, that, when when we have risen and shaken off the mortality of the flesh . . . and have been set free from sin, it also shall be freed from corruption and be subject no longer to futility, but to righteousness.  St. Methodios of Olympus and Patara, Discourse on the Resurrection, ANF, vol. 6, p. 366

The fate of visible nature has, from the beginning of its existence, been under the power of the influence of man . . . Organically and mystically connected with man as with a God-like creature of God, nature in the essence of its life depends upon man and always moves strictly commensurately with man. When man chose the path of sin and death as his path through history, all of nature, as the results of its inner dependency on man, followed after him. The fall of man was at the same time the fall of nature, and the curse of man became the curse of nature. And from that time man and nature, like two inseparable twins, blinded by one and the same darkness, deadened by one and the same death, burdened by one and the same curse, go hand in hand through history, through the abysmal wilderness of sin and evil. Together they stumble, together they fall, and together they arise, ceaselessly striving toward the distant conclusion of their sorrowful history. St. Justin Popvich, The Orthodox Philosophy of Truth: The Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church vol. 3 p. 792

Adam was placed as lord and king of all the creatures . . . And so, when he was taken captive, the creation which ministered to and served him was taken captive together with him. For through him death came to reign over every soul. St. Macarius the Great, Homilies 11.5

"Death is not natural; rather it is unnatural. And death is not from nature; rather it is against nature. All of nature in horror cries out: "I do not know death! I do not wish death! I am afraid of death! I strive against death!" Death is an uninvited stranger in nature . . . Even when one hundred philosophers declare that "death is natural!" all of nature trembles in indignation and shouts: " No! I have no use for death! It is an uninvited stranger!" And the voice of nature is not sophistry. The protest of nature against death outweighs all excuses thought up to justify death. And if there is something that nature struggles to express in its untouched harmony, doing so without exception in a unison of voices, then it is a protest against death. It is its unanimous, frantic, and heaven-shaking elegy of death.  St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Selected Writings

God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves . . . received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were. St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 4

Yet here too he [Adam] makes a gain, namely death, and the cutting off of sin, in order that evil may not be immortal. Thus his punishment is changed into a mercy; for it is in mercy, I am persuaded, that God inflicts punishment. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 38

Death dissolves this living thing and on the one hand ceases the action of wickedness; on the other hand, it saves man from further anguish, liberates him from sweat, drives away pain and sorrow, and brings the body's sufferings to an end. The Judge mixed punishment with such philanthrophy! Blessed Thedoret of Cyrus, On the Inhumanation of the Lord 6

Paradise, even heaven itself, is accessible to man; and the creation, both of the world and above the world, which long ago was set at variance with itself, is fit together in friendship; and we men are made to join in the angels' song, offering the worship of their praise to God. St. Gregory of Nyssa, A Sermon for the Feast of the Lights

Now the [General] Resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, 17.2

But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves. St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124

For the heavenly Logos, a spirit emanating from the Father and a Logos from the Logos-power, in imitation of the Father who begat Him made man an image of immortality, so that, as incorruption is with God, in like manner, man, sharing in a part of God, might have the immortal principle also. Tatian, Address to the Greeks 7

the very same we hold to be the angel of evil, the source of error, the corrupter of the whole world, by whom in the beginning man was entrapped into breaking the commandment of God. And (the man) being given over to death on account of his sin, the entire human race, tainted in their descent from him, were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation. Tertullian, The Soul's Testimony 3

As for our own views, indeed, we know what was man’s origin, and we boldly assert and persistently maintain that death happens not by way of natural consequence to man, but owing to a fault and defect which is not itself natural; although it is easy enough, no doubt, to apply the term natural to faults and circumstances which seem to have been (though from the emergence of an external cause) inseparable to us from our very birth.  If man had been directly appointed to die as the condition of his creation, then of course death must be imputed to nature.  Now, that he was not thus appointed to die, is proved by the very law which made his condition depend on a warning, and death result from man’s arbitrary choice. Indeed, if he had not sinned, he certainly would not have died.  That cannot be nature which happens by the exercise of volition after an alternative has been proposed to it, and not by necessity—the result of an inflexible and unalterable condition. Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul 52

Look at the total result: how fruitful was the Word! God issued His fiat, and it was done: God also saw that it was good; not as if He were ignorant of the good until He saw it; but because it was good, He therefore saw it, and honoured it, and set His seal upon it; and consummated the goodness of His works by His vouchsafing to them that contemplation. Thus God blessed what He made good, in order that He might commend Himself to you as whole and perfect, good both in word and act. As yet the Word knew no malediction, because He was a stranger to malefaction. We shall see what reasons required this also of God. Meanwhile the world consisted of all things good, plainly foreshowing how much good was preparing for him for whom all this was provided. Who indeed was so worthy of dwelling amongst the works of God, as he who was His own image and likeness? Tertullian, Against Marcion 2.4

As long as Adam loved God and observed His commandment, he dwelt in the Paradise of God and God abode in the paradisiacal heart of Adam. Naked Adam was clothed with the grace of God and, surrounded by the animals, he held and caressed them lovingly, and they, in turn, licked him devoutly, as their Master. When Adam violated God's commandment., he was stripped of the grace of God, clothed with a garment of skin and exiled from Paradise. Grace-filled Adam became wild, and many animals, because of Adam, were also made savage, and instead of approaching him with devoutness and licking him with love, they lashed out at him with rage in order to tear at or bite him. Elder Paisios, Epistles, pg. 203-204

From these testimonies it is clear that God, having created man according to His image and likeness, conducted him into a Paradise of sweetness to till the immortal gardens. St. Paisius Velichovsky, The Scroll, 6 Chapters on Mental Prayer, chap. 2

Man, having received as his lot an exhausting fast and sorrows, was given over to illnesses, sufferings, and the other bitter things as to a kind of bridle. Because he did not sensibly restrain himself in that life which was free from labors and sorrows, he is given over to misfortunes so that by sufferings he might heal in himself the disease which came upon him in the midst of blessedness. St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Lord

Behold the life of innocent Adam in Eden, the lordship of man over creation, which together with us groans because of our fall and thirsts to be delivered into the "liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21). The Life of St. Paul of Obnora, in the Northern Thebaid

 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
You contradict yourself, dear jckstraw72,
when you say that if animals are mortal by nature as in a billion-years old universe, they must also be sinful. Now my question is: were animals responsible for Adam's sin too, so that they suddenly became mortal due to Adam's sin? Are new-born children mortal by nature because they're guilty of anything? I don't think the Church Fathers did believe like this. The mortalist position, saying that Adam (and pre-adamitic animals) were ordinarily mortal and that Adam was offered immortality but renounced to it in Eden, is probably a more accurate position. In fact, if Jesus the New Adam was like the first Adam, wouldn't he be immortal in his human nature, so that all attempts to kill him would have miserably failed, including the Cross? And if you deny that immortality doesn't make invulnerable, then you must believe that our spiritual bodies, which we will be turned into the same renewed nature as Jesus', will be immortal but still vulnerable to accidental death or to murder... I think this makes your attempts sound absurd. Evidently Adam was created mortal, because natural death for creatures without a spirit is nothing but a cycle of nature, like the sun raising and falling under the horizon, or the alternation of seasons and years. Nature is by itself CYCLICAL... it's the spirit which makes ETERNAL as God and angels are... In other words, I firmly believe that salvation is a process freeing us from the natural cycle of the universe and elevating us to the eternity of our Creator. The only way to deny this, is to prove that Adam was certainly immortal before the Fall... A thing which must be proved by the Canons, or the Scriptures, or even by a more solid Tradition then the one you portray in your post (which I don't think to prove that the Church entire believed in an immortal Adam... a theory supported by Augustinians such as the Western Churches but not typical of the Eastern Church).

In Christ,    Alex
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jckstraw72 said:
every kind of death entered because of sin. otherwise we would have to believe that the God Who is life itself actually desires death, and then we'd have to question why man is called to redeem the entire earth and cosmos if they are actually meant to die.
You confuse several issues here:
1. Did the Fall occur at one point in time?
2. Is the death spoken of in Genesis 2 and Romans 6 a literal, physical death?
3. Are there things which exist which are not created by God?
4. Is the existence of something proof that God wants it to exist?

I will address these issues presently:
1. You seem to believe that Adam and Eve sinned at one particular point, and that before them no one sinned, and after them all sin because of their sin. Consider this: Adam and Eve did actually sin, but their story is included in Scripture not because their sin causes us death, but because all of us sin in exactly the same way they did. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were banished from the place of ease to a life of hard, painful work, and they had to live a life of repentance in order to receive Eden once again. In the same way, our sin isolates us from others, causes us heavy labour, and forces us to repent to God and to others.

2. We become spiritually dead when we sin. The question of whether physical death is brought about by sin is not one I think we can address. We simply do not know enough about death. Certainly, in some instances, physical death is the direct result of sin. For example, a person can murder, and that death is the result of sin; furthermore, the death penalty brought by our government in punishment for that sin is the result of the sin. However, the murdered person may not have sinned, and yet died anyway.

3. Now, in Romans 6, St. Paul tells us that the Law was instituted to bring us to repentance. In this way, he states that even sin (the breaking of the Law) can be used by God to bring us salvation. Does that mean that God created sin? Absolutely not! St. Paul himself states that even though grace increases as a result of increasing sin, it is impermissible to use God's grace as an excuse to sin. So God can use even the things which He opposes to bring salvation.

4. So, then, if sin and death are not created by God, yet they can be used by Him to save us, then we can say that all things exist for God's glory. Now, can we also say that if God uses something for His glory, that He desires it to exist? I believe that is a leap unsupported by reason or evidence. Certainly we understand that God does not desire us to sin, and even Scripture tells us that God desires that none should perish, but that all repent. So I believe it is fair to say that God opposes sin and death, yet uses even that which is antithetical to His Being to grant us salvation.
 
Top