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
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
ok, then you should listen to them when it comes to interpreting Genesis ... and Ive already posted many Saints on the subject, but that seems to have been in large part overlooked.

you can find many Saints quoted here: http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html and I can post more sometime ... im working on job applications right now

 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
But you are misusing their opinions about Genesis. By insisting that we need to take Genesis as literally as many of them did, you are making them the arbitrators of what scientific model we can accept.
im doing nothing more than making them, and the Church as a whole, the interpreter of Scripture. if that has scientific implications you're uncomfortable with, then i guess thats something you have to work out.
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ukiemeister said:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
1. and yet St. Augustine interpreted Genesis literally
2. you assume St. Augustine would apply these quotes to "Creationists." Studying biology in what is seen today is one thing -- extrapolating into the distant past based on the present is a philosophy.
 

philalethe00

Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece-Hellas
Website
philalethe00.wordpress.com
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
Where can we find this teaching (i.e., the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church") in the doctrines of the Fathers?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
Ukiemeister said:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
1. and yet St. Augustine interpreted Genesis literally
And, according to the statements he made in the above quotes, he did so while taking great care to not make statements that the scientists of his day could easily prove foolish.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
But you are misusing their opinions about Genesis. By insisting that we need to take Genesis as literally as many of them did, you are making them the arbitrators of what scientific model we can accept.
im doing nothing more than making them, and the Church as a whole, the interpreter of Scripture. if that has scientific implications you're uncomfortable with, then i guess thats something you have to work out.
I'm far from uncomfortable with the scientific implications. :)
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
Ukiemeister said:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
1. and yet St. Augustine interpreted Genesis literally
2. you assume St. Augustine would apply these quotes to "Creationists." Studying biology in what is seen today is one thing -- extrapolating into the distant past based on the present is a philosophy.
No, St Augustine did not interpret Genesis literally. And please don't say that he just didn't interpret the six days as literal days, because that means he didn't interpret Genesis literally. St Augustine would apply these quotes to anyone making fools of themselves in speaking idiotically about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. Too many, if not all, modern Creationists certainly would qualify on that score. 

Forgive me if I cause offence, but quite honestly it seems to me that this decomposing equine should be laid to rest.  ;)
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ukiemeister said:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
1. and yet St. Augustine interpreted Genesis literally
And, according to the statements he made in the above quotes, he did so while taking great care to not make statements that the scientists of his day could easily prove foolish.
It does seem that St. Augustine was ahead of his time when he described his philosophy on Biblical interpretation; particularly when the inferences appear to conflict with science and reason.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
Where can we find this teaching (i.e., the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church") in the doctrines of the Fathers?
St. Basil's Hexaemeron, St. Ephrem's Hexaemeron, St. Ambrose's Hexaemeron, St. Augustine's the City of God, St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis, and lots of other places. References to Genesis are scattered all throughout the ECF's writings. They reference Genesis on many subjects.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ukiemeister said:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
1. and yet St. Augustine interpreted Genesis literally
2. you assume St. Augustine would apply these quotes to "Creationists." Studying biology in what is seen today is one thing -- extrapolating into the distant past based on the present is a philosophy.
No, St Augustine did not interpret Genesis literally. And please don't say that he just didn't interpret the six days as literal days, because that means he didn't interpret Genesis literally. St Augustine would apply these quotes to anyone making fools of themselves in speaking idiotically about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. Too many, if not all, modern Creationists certainly would qualify on that score. 

Forgive me if I cause offence, but quite honestly it seems to me that this decomposing equine should be laid to rest.  ;)
St. Augustine most certainly did interpret Genesis literally. You continually point to one very minor aspect, bc thats all you can cling to when it comes to the Fathers. If you want to honestly look at what St. Augustine believed you need to look at his entire view of Genesis, not just one minor aspect.

He said:

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? City of God, Book XVIII.XL 
see? he says no historian of the past (including biological history) is more trustworthy than Moses. He says stick to the timeline give in the ascertained truth. His timeline differed from the other Fathers by 6 or 7 days, not the billions of years ya'll propose.



and why do you keep referring back to St. Augustine's quote about science, yet keep telling us that the Fathers aren't an authority on science?! make up your mind! do you care what the Fathers think about Genesis or not?!

he also says:
St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII.XXI
On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ!" No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's experience of it is not good.
. . .These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.
your evolutionary view is impossible to harmonize with St. Augustine

some more:

so we cannot believe that Adam was deceived, and supposed the devil's word to be truth, and therefore transgressed God's law, but that he by the drawings of kindred yielded to the woman, the husband to the wife, the one human being to the only other human being. City of God, Book XIV.XII
.... Adam and Eve were literally the only human beings alive at the time they were created.

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." Book XIII.XV
bodily death occurs because of sin, not because God created the evolutionary process ...

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XII.XVIII
For there is nothing so social by nature, so unsocial by its corruption, as this race. And human nature has nothing more appropriate, either for the prevention of discord, or for the healing of it, where it exists, than the remembrance of that first parent of us all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all men might be derived from one, and that they might thus be admonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude. But from the fact that the woman was made for him from his side, it was plainly meant that we should learn how dear the bond between man and wife should be.
St. Augustine, City of God, Book XII.24
For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God's hand is God's power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ukiemeister said:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
1. and yet St. Augustine interpreted Genesis literally
2. you assume St. Augustine would apply these quotes to "Creationists." Studying biology in what is seen today is one thing -- extrapolating into the distant past based on the present is a philosophy.
No, St Augustine did not interpret Genesis literally. And please don't say that he just didn't interpret the six days as literal days, because that means he didn't interpret Genesis literally. St Augustine would apply these quotes to anyone making fools of themselves in speaking idiotically about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. Too many, if not all, modern Creationists certainly would qualify on that score. 

Forgive me if I cause offence, but quite honestly it seems to me that this decomposing equine should be laid to rest.  ;)
you merely assume that St. Augustine would agree with you about Creationists. However, since evolution involves many assumptions, and it has never been observed on the marco-scale, it is a philosophy, not a science.

Dating methods are flawed because they must assume the amount of the daughter element present in the object being dated at its creation, and they must also assume a constant rate of decay. It is also an assumption that micro-changes will necessarily compound into macro-changes, such as all living things coming from one common ancestor. no such thing has ever been observed.

even some scientists are honest enough to admit the assumptions and absurdities:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31
Stephen Jay Gould, speaking of Charles Lyell who first proposed uniformitarianism, "Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian view as the only true geology ... Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence" (Gould, Ever Since Darwin, pp. 149-150)
leading British evolutionary biologist, Prof. L. Harrison Matthews, in a foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species: "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory -- is it then a science or a faith? ... Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
 

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:
jckstraw72 said:
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
Where can we find this teaching (i.e., the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church") in the doctrines of the Fathers?
St. Basil's Hexaemeron, St. Ephrem's Hexaemeron, St. Ambrose's Hexaemeron, St. Augustine's the City of God, St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis, and lots of other places. References to Genesis are scattered all throughout the ECF's writings. They reference Genesis on many subjects.
You totally missed my point.  I asked you where you can find in the Fathers the teaching that the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church".
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
Where can we find this teaching (i.e., the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church") in the doctrines of the Fathers?
St. Basil's Hexaemeron, St. Ephrem's Hexaemeron, St. Ambrose's Hexaemeron, St. Augustine's the City of God, St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis, and lots of other places. References to Genesis are scattered all throughout the ECF's writings. They reference Genesis on many subjects.
You totally missed my point.  I asked you where you can find in the Fathers the teaching that the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church".
ah si si. well ive never heard this notion questioned before ... if i recall correctly its in Ware's the Orthodox Church, its mentioned here on this wiki page : http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_Fathers, its mentioned in this article http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/st_ch5.aspx, also see here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/rose_mind1.aspx

St. Gregory Palamas says: "if one of the Fathers says the same thing as do those from without, the concordance is only verbal, the thought being quite different.  The former, in fact, have, according to Paul, "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) Triad 1:11

... as far as i know, having the mind of Christ is the same as having the mind of the Church.


is there another theological point on which the concensus of the Fathers is disregarded? ive never heard of this phenomenon other than on this one issue.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
is there another theological point on which the concensus of the Fathers is disregarded? ive never heard of this phenomenon other than on this one issue.
Consensus of the Fathers disregarded on the issue of evolution?  No, I don't see anyone disregarding an established consensus Patrum here.  What I do see is someone asserting that a consensus exists where I doubt there ever was one, and with little more than a smattering of proof texts.  You can go ahead and hit us with all the proof texts you want, but this still may not be enough to prove that the Fathers spoke with near unanimity on this issue, for unanimity or consensus is a connection that exists, if it exists at all, between and above the doctrines of each individual Father.  A similar issue where I've seen or heard someone debunk the asserted existence of a Patristic consensus is the belief that Adam and Eve did not have sex before the Fall.

You see, jckstraw72, the problem I have with the assertion of a consensus Patrum on a point of doctrine is that such consensus is so easily manufactured.  All you need to do is disregard the teaching of any Father who disagrees with the "consensus" you want to prove, so that you end up with the very circular logic of "this teaching has the 100% support of every Father who supports this teaching."  In the field of logic, this manipulation of data is known as "stacking the deck".
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
is there another theological point on which the concensus of the Fathers is disregarded? ive never heard of this phenomenon other than on this one issue.
Consensus of the Fathers disregarded on the issue of evolution?  No, I don't see anyone disregarding an established consensus Patrum here.  What I do see is someone asserting that a consensus exists where I doubt there ever was one, and with little more than a smattering of proof texts.  You can go ahead and hit us with all the proof texts you want, but this still may not be enough to prove that the Fathers spoke with near unanimity on this issue, for unanimity or consensus is a connection that exists, if it exists at all, between and above the doctrines of each individual Father.  A similar issue where I've seen or heard someone debunk the asserted existence of a Patristic consensus is the belief that Adam and Eve did not have sex before the Fall.

You see, jckstraw72, the problem I have with the assertion of a consensus Patrum on a point of doctrine is that such consensus is so easily manufactured.  All you need to do is disregard the teaching of any Father who disagrees with the "consensus" you want to prove, so that you end up with the very circular logic of "this teaching has the 100% support of every Father who supports this teaching."  In the field of logic, this manipulation of data is known as "stacking the deck".
im not talking about a concensus on evoultion!! please read my actual argument. im talking about a concensus on GENESIS. of course the Fathers werent commenting on a theory that came about over a millennium later. this discussion is going nowhere because we can't even talk about the actual issue, i have to keep repeating that the important question for an Orthodox Christian is how to understand Scripture, not the theory of evolution. if you want to understand evolution thats fine, but that is a separate issue from understanding Scripture, for which we look to the Church. Concerning looking to secular sources to understand our faith, St. Gregory Palamas says: "we absolutely forbid to expect any precision whatever in the knowledge of Divine things; for it is not possible to draw from it any certain teaching on the subject of God. For "God hath made it foolish." (Triad 1:12).  The Holy Fathers tell us that the 6 days were a period wholly unlike anything we know in the post-Fall world, and thus we can only know about it what God tells us about it -- secular studies are completely incapable of learning about this period.

regarding the question of sex before the Fall -- im not talking about someone demonstrating that there isnt actually a concensus, im talking about just outright disregarding a concensus.

and if quoting the Fathers to demonstrate their belief doesnt demonstrate a concensus, then what would you ever accept, on any question, to demonstrate a concensus? i believe your side is the one using prooftexts. you keep falling back on 3 or 4 quotes that deal only with the length of the days to try to disprove an overall literal interpretation of Genensis, when I have demonstrated with multiple quotes that all those same Fathers you quote actually held quite literal views of Genesis, which are in no way compatible with evolution.

I can give you evidence from well over 50 Saints and modern holy elders demonstrating that they interpreted Genesis literally, in a manner incompatible with evolution. I am not prepared to do this now, and it would take some time to type them all up, but it would be quite possible.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
Where can we find this teaching (i.e., the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church") in the doctrines of the Fathers?
St. Basil's Hexaemeron, St. Ephrem's Hexaemeron, St. Ambrose's Hexaemeron, St. Augustine's the City of God, St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis, and lots of other places. References to Genesis are scattered all throughout the ECF's writings. They reference Genesis on many subjects.
You totally missed my point.  I asked you where you can find in the Fathers the teaching that the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church".
ah si si. well ive never heard this notion questioned before ... if i recall correctly its in Ware's the Orthodox Church, its mentioned here on this wiki page : http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_Fathers, its mentioned in this article http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/st_ch5.aspx, also see here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/rose_mind1.aspx

St. Gregory Palamas says: "if one of the Fathers says the same thing as do those from without, the concordance is only verbal, the thought being quite different.  The former, in fact, have, according to Paul, "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) Triad 1:11

... as far as i know, having the mind of Christ is the same as having the mind of the Church.


is there another theological point on which the concensus of the Fathers is disregarded? ive never heard of this phenomenon other than on this one issue.
The Fathers aren't disregarded in their opinions on Genesis as a theological point. They are disregarded in their opinions on Genesis as a scientific point. And we do not, nor should anyone insist that we should, allow their lack of erudition on the subject to restrict our search for knowledge of the universe in which we live.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
philalethe00 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
It is true, that the Saints, and according to the spiritual charisma they had, were receiving internal information from God for a great deal of other matters. For example, Elder Porphyrius, was able to conduct charismatic diagnosis, and therefore correct the errors of several doctors who judged superficially at times.
Of course, we are not sure which of the views of the Saints were actually from God and which of them were simple views at topics that were "theologoumena"... And it is true that most Saints had charisma of dicretion of spirits, and, so, they knew which thoughts were from God and which from their own soul and personality, and which from the demonic spirits......  :)
we can know what is truly the mind of the Church as opposed to theologumena when the teaching appears similarly in all Fathers who comment on the subject and in all areas of the Church's teachings.
Where can we find this teaching (i.e., the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church") in the doctrines of the Fathers?
St. Basil's Hexaemeron, St. Ephrem's Hexaemeron, St. Ambrose's Hexaemeron, St. Augustine's the City of God, St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis, and lots of other places. References to Genesis are scattered all throughout the ECF's writings. They reference Genesis on many subjects.
You totally missed my point.  I asked you where you can find in the Fathers the teaching that the Fathers, when speaking in consensus, constitute the "mind of the Church".
ah si si. well ive never heard this notion questioned before ... if i recall correctly its in Ware's the Orthodox Church, its mentioned here on this wiki page : http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_Fathers, its mentioned in this article http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/st_ch5.aspx, also see here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/rose_mind1.aspx

St. Gregory Palamas says: "if one of the Fathers says the same thing as do those from without, the concordance is only verbal, the thought being quite different.  The former, in fact, have, according to Paul, "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) Triad 1:11

... as far as i know, having the mind of Christ is the same as having the mind of the Church.


is there another theological point on which the concensus of the Fathers is disregarded? ive never heard of this phenomenon other than on this one issue.
The Fathers aren't disregarded in their opinions on Genesis as a theological point. They are disregarded in their opinions on Genesis as a scientific point. And we do not, nor should anyone insist that we should, allow their lack of erudition on the subject to restrict our search for knowledge of the universe in which we live.

so you see things like their insistence that God's creative acts of each day being instantaneous, no death of any kind before the fall because the whole creation is created for and connected to man (thus God is not the author of death), the body and the soul were created simultaneously (thus no dualism), Adam and Eve were literal people with a literal fall and thus we literally need redemption including a bodily resurrection ... as being points of science rather than theology, and thus you can ignore them?!
 
Top