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

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Also you seem very dogmatic about something you "can't" observe.
That's like telling a 15th Century cartographer that he's very dogmatic about his maps of something he can't view from aerial distance.

The Church fathers (and St. Paul) are clear that humanity has a nature similar to animals and a nature similar to angels, two natures in one.  The Bible teaches us we were made from dust, just like the land animals, while being breathed into.  The "Image of God" according to St. Athanasius is the special something we have that are different from animals, not the whole of humanity.

God bless.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.

also St. Gregory Palamas says in his 150 Chapters in chap. 38:

it is shown to men of understanding that man's spirit, the life-giving power in his body, is intellectual love; it is from the mind and the word, and exists in the word and the mind, and possesses both the word and the mind within itself Through it the soul naturally possesses such a bond of love with its own body that it never wishes to leave it and will not do so at all unless force is brought to bear on it externally from some very serious disease or trauma.

he would seem to say that the image of  God definitely involves the body, which is naturally connected to the soul -- not something implanted into a body that has been in the works for millions of years.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.
Which Fathers?
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.
Which Fathers?
Papa John.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
PeterTheAleut said:
Alveus Lacuna said:
GiC said:
Papa John.


Great pizza!

But is it the product of evolution?!?!
Perhaps the cows from which they sliced the pepperonis are the product of evolution.
And the wheat they made the dough from and the tomatos they got the sauce from and the cows they got the cheese from...but it's still not bad pizza for a chain ;)
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
GiC said:
And the wheat they made the dough from and the tomatos they got the sauce from and the cows they got the cheese from...but it's still not bad pizza for a chain ;)
Ah, the apostate and the catechumen, holding hands in laughter!  :laugh:

Perhaps we represent the circle of life!
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Alveus Lacuna said:
GiC said:
And the wheat they made the dough from and the tomatos they got the sauce from and the cows they got the cheese from...but it's still not bad pizza for a chain ;)
Ah, the apostate and the catechumen, holding hands in laughter!  :laugh:

Perhaps we represent the circle of life!
LOL...maybe, maybe not...but we can at least get together for pizza and, perhaps, beer. ;)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.

also St. Gregory Palamas says in his 150 Chapters in chap. 38:

it is shown to men of understanding that man's spirit, the life-giving power in his body, is intellectual love; it is from the mind and the word, and exists in the word and the mind, and possesses both the word and the mind within itself Through it the soul naturally possesses such a bond of love with its own body that it never wishes to leave it and will not do so at all unless force is brought to bear on it externally from some very serious disease or trauma.

he would seem to say that the image of  God definitely involves the body, which is naturally connected to the soul -- not something implanted into a body that has been in the works for millions of years.
I don't think that contradicts what I just said.  It would seem to you, but this can definitely be interpreted differently.  He obviously alludes to the dual nature of man, while talks about the wholeness and essence of man himself, how it is unnatural for a separation between the two.  He clearly talks about the importance of the spirit of man, and how that spirit benefits and is bound to the body.  In other words, man is an intelligent animal, just as Christ bears a Life-Giving humanity.  Rings music to my ears, and does not contradict my scientific understandings.

I like that quote you gave, and I'm going to add this to the excellent quote you gave:

Athanasius--On the Incarnation said:
Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise.
God bless.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
and the Church Fathers are also clear that our formation from dust and the in-breathing of our soul was instantaneous, not a process requiring millions of years. We can't trust them on one point and throw 'em out the window on the next.
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.
i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...


are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jnorm888 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
Not necessarily. Depending upon how one defines "human", it is possible that within a population of pre-humans, the first one or two "true humans" were born.
how would you define human to make this possible? im not exactly sure what you're saying by that.
Me too. From the point of view of pure biology, "first humans," "first oaks," "first amoebas," etc. is nonsense. The evolution of life simply doesn't work that way. Two divergently evolving populations become two truly separate biological species very slowly and inconspicuously, so that there is no single "defining moment" when the new species (including Homo sapiens) is "born."
If that was the case then how can all humans wordwide procreate with one another? There has to be "first humans" somewhere or else we all would be different in the sense of pro-creation.

Also you seem very dogmatic about something you "can't" observe. Yes we evolve slowly as human beings. Religion evolves slowly too, but Christianity will never evolve into Islam, and Islam will never evolve into Buddhism.

To assume that humans worldwide evolved from different monkeys worldwide is a belief you shouldn't be dogmatic about. For how can all humans pro-create if we all came from different monkeys?

And how can we all pro-create if "evolution" is mindless? In school we were forced fed that evolution was progressive, but why can't it be regressive? why can't we believe in "devolution"? Why can't evolution be "relative" according to the observer? For what may be evolution to you might be devolution to somone else.





JNORM888
JNORM, please take a biology class. The theory of biological evolution is not philosophy. You don't really philosophize about the work of the car engine, right? So why is biology supposed to be different from mechanics, physics?

As far as the biological side of us humans is concerned, we are not any kind of exception from the universal law of biological evolution. So no, there were never any "first" humans (again, this is explained in very much detail in a college or even high school biology course).
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
jckstraw72 said:
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.
i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...


are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
I believe that Christ rose from the dead not because I read about it in the Bible or in the writings of the Fathers - rather, because there exists this whole thing called the Church.

As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... :)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.
i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...
But I'm not talking about interpreting the Scriptures through the eyes of science; rather, I'm talking about using the Bible or various patristic interpretations of the Bible as the basis for quasi-scientific proclamations.

jckstraw72 said:
are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
There are scientists who will acknowledge that science is incapable of speaking on supernatural exceptions to the normal laws of creation.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
There are scientists who will acknowledge that science is incapable of speaking on supernatural exceptions to the normal laws of creation.
Well said. :)
 

Demetrios G.

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,821
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
wilderness
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
When the Fathers speak on scientific matters outside their area of study, then yes, we can.
i dont understand how interpreting Scripture becomes a scientific matter rather than one left to those illumined by God ...


are there any scientists that affirm that its possible to raise someone from the dead after 4 days? or that its possible to give sight to a man via mud?
I believe that Christ rose from the dead not because I read about it in the Bible or in the writings of the Fathers - rather, because there exists this whole thing called the Church.

As far as the illumination by God goes, St. John of Damascus wrote that the number of "stikhia" (elements) is four: water, earth, air, and fire. I, however, know that this number actually exceeds 100 and includes things like berillium, lithium, polonium, technecium, ruthenium, plutonium, etc. etc., etc.... :)
And all 100 can be found in those four. ;)
 

jnorm888

Archon
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Website
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com
Heorhij said:
jnorm888 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
Not necessarily. Depending upon how one defines "human", it is possible that within a population of pre-humans, the first one or two "true humans" were born.
how would you define human to make this possible? im not exactly sure what you're saying by that.
Me too. From the point of view of pure biology, "first humans," "first oaks," "first amoebas," etc. is nonsense. The evolution of life simply doesn't work that way. Two divergently evolving populations become two truly separate biological species very slowly and inconspicuously, so that there is no single "defining moment" when the new species (including Homo sapiens) is "born."
If that was the case then how can all humans wordwide procreate with one another? There has to be "first humans" somewhere or else we all would be different in the sense of pro-creation.

Also you seem very dogmatic about something you "can't" observe. Yes we evolve slowly as human beings. Religion evolves slowly too, but Christianity will never evolve into Islam, and Islam will never evolve into Buddhism.

To assume that humans worldwide evolved from different monkeys worldwide is a belief you shouldn't be dogmatic about. For how can all humans pro-create if we all came from different monkeys?

And how can we all pro-create if "evolution" is mindless? In school we were forced fed that evolution was progressive, but why can't it be regressive? why can't we believe in "devolution"? Why can't evolution be "relative" according to the observer? For what may be evolution to you might be devolution to somone else.





JNORM888
JNORM, please take a biology class. The theory of biological evolution is not philosophy. You don't really philosophize about the work of the car engine, right? So why is biology supposed to be different from mechanics, physics?

As far as the biological side of us humans is concerned, we are not any kind of exception from the universal law of biological evolution. So no, there were never any "first" humans (again, this is explained in very much detail in a college or even high school biology course).

You still didn't answer my questions. Good teachers are those that can explain things in laymen terms. If you can't do that then maybe you don't understand biology as much as you think you do.

And yes there is philosophy in everything......including bio. Everything must be explained through the lens of Naturalism........and that is philosophical.

So instead of taking arrogant jabs, why not answer simple questions. If you can't answer them........just say so.

There is nothing wrong in admitting you don't know the answer to something. People learn by asking questions......you should actually like that.

And since when did Biological evultion from one species(whatever that means...for there isn't universal agreement on what is and isn't a species....but you will ignore this and continue to talk down on people, instead of actually doing some research to see if it's true or false) to another become a "universal law"? I believe in universal laws, but this ain't one of them.

Why don't you explain right now, why there could never be no first humans? If you can't explain it, and if I'm not allowed to ask questions and question it, then why in the world should I believe it? Alot of things were tought in school that are now passe for some new idea........so why must I embrace everything I was tought in school. No, I only embrace all the hard sciences I was tought in school. I only embrace the hard emperical evidence stuff. Everything else must be re-interpreted.

So whatever "facts" you have.....that are truely facts/hard evidence........I will embrace. Whatever assumptions you have I will always questions. If you don't like that.......too bad.

For this is how I learn. I don't just eat up what everyone says.........teachers included.





JNORM888
 
Top