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

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When we say that death isn't natural, it typically means that man's soul being torn from his body was never meant to happen.
Now, I'm sure some people like to get specific and say that cellular death is natural, but the death man experiences is not. However, I haven't heard that explanation anywhere outside of this forum. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a common view, but I haven't heard it from any Orthodox person i've met in real life, and I haven't heard it taught by any Priest or even on Ancient Faith Radio or the Orthodox Christian Network. (or even any of the books i've read)
 

murse

Newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Points
0
here is a clip of Bishop Kallistos Ware on the subject...

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=d32e16f75c0e84e66464

I think it's a pretty good ;)

Whether you are an evolutionary theist or a fundamental creationist, this should not be a point of division in the body of Christ and cause one to refuse communion with another christian. The Nicene Creed says we "believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of all things visible and invisible".
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
murse said:
here is a clip of Bishop Kallistos Ware on the subject...

http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=d32e16f75c0e84e66464

I think it's a pretty good ;)

Whether you are an evolutionary theist or a fundamental creationist, this should not be a point of division in the body of Christ and cause one to refuse communion with another christian. The Nicene Creed says we "believe in one God the Father Almighty maker of all things visible and invisible".
Quite true, it shouldn't be a point of division, but in practice this subject has been elevated to a deciding factor for judging the faith of others. I've heard many claim - family members amongst them - that one cannot accept evolution and be a Christian.

I like the video, too.  :)
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
Nebelpfade said:
deusveritasest said:
What are you asking? How it is true that modern science is not in conflict with Genesis?
I was wondering what this 'true', non-allegorical and non-literal understanding was (which also happens to not conflict with modern science)?

It has more to do with where Christ and the Church came than with humanity itself.
What if 'the Word became alien' when life on Earth hadn't even left the primordial soup and we are simply unaware?  Why wouldn't they be the "true children of God"?  Humanity as placed itself on a pedestal for quite some time now, and it is always evident in the various creation myths that have sprung up over human history.  As Dr. Sagan said "Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark".
It' also jut as likely that "Aliens" are exactly what the Judeo-Christian Tradition has always said existed, beings from another realm of existence ( Demons, Angles etc etc.). They already know about God.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
Nebelpfade said:
Depends on what your definition of "just as likely" is. :p  
Oh okay...  There is no firm evidence that advanced life exists on other planets. It turns out that many disparate details all have to be present for life to arise. Even more variables need to be in place for that life to be at least as intelligent as us... The odds are far shorter than scientists had  assumed in the past.
On the other hand, evidence of  the existence of other dimensions of existence has steadily increased.

The Christian understanding is that there are other realms of existence. We believe that life exists there.    
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
Death is in no way a natural occurance... I think all Orthodox would even agree to that.
Not exactly. I would say that it is natural in the sense of what humanity is naturally subject to in and of itself, but not natural in the sense of what God intends for humanity. Some think that humanity was not naturally subject to corruption before the Fall and that the Fall corrupted our very nature. Others have taught (such as Severus of Antioch) that corruption/death was a logical result of our limited nature as human beings but that God intended for us to supersede what we are naturally inclined to by His sanctifying grace. Corruption entered into our world because we rejected a life of unity with God and thus lost the sanctifying grace that would have prevented us from dying (we were not able to eat from the Tree of Life because we disobediently ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). This latter school of thought is what I personally adhere to, and thus why it could be appropriate to say that death is not natural in one respect and also that it is natural in another.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
When we say that death isn't natural, it typically means that man's soul being torn from his body was never meant to happen.
It isn't what was meant to happen. But it is what we are naturally inclined to in and of ourselves.
 

Orthodox11

Archon
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
Others have taught (such as Severus of Antioch) that corruption/death was a logical result of our limited nature as human beings but that God intended for us to supersede what we are naturally inclined to by His sanctifying grace. Corruption entered into our world because we rejected a life of unity with God and thus lost the sanctifying grace that would have prevented us from dying (we were not able to eat from the Tree of Life because we disobediently ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). This latter school of thought is what I personally adhere to, and thus why it could be appropriate to say that death is not natural in one respect and also that it is natural in another.
This is more or less my understanding of the issue too.
 

GammaRay

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Greece
The bishop's video was nice. Good to know that such people belong to the clergy.

Nebelpfade said:
So, you believe that there was a literal Eden where death did not occur sometime during the history of the Earth?  And outside of that, death has been a natural occurrence?
Yes, but it was only God's Rest, not the reformed world (the "8th Day").

Just look at Roman Catholics who think the Immaculate Conception refers to the the conception of Christ.
Haha, I love it when the atheists are doing it even more! It gives them a chance to see their theological ignorance.

The doctrine deusveritasest is talking about above is walking in hands with the one I'm following too. Only Adam & Eve were placed initially to live within God's Grace. The rest of humans (who were made long before the couple) were destined to follow God on their own.

Maybe we should rephrase this to 'no Christian should ever accept that God's intentions were to create us and let us be forever mortals'.
(Can we please use this for an anathema at the next council? I don't mind not getting the credit, but it'll be fun! :D)
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
GammaRay said:
The bishop's video was nice. Good to know that such people belong to the clergy.

Nebelpfade said:
So, you believe that there was a literal Eden where death did not occur sometime during the history of the Earth?  And outside of that, death has been a natural occurrence?
Yes, but it was only God's Rest, not the reformed world (the "8th Day").

Just look at Roman Catholics who think the Immaculate Conception refers to the the conception of Christ.
Haha, I love it when the atheists are doing it even more! It gives them a chance to see their theological ignorance.

The doctrine deusveritasest is talking about above is walking in hands with the one I'm following too. Only Adam & Eve were placed initially to live within God's Grace. The rest of humans (who were made long before the couple) were destined to follow God on their own.

Maybe we should rephrase this to 'no Christian should ever accept that God's intentions were to create us and let us be forever mortals'.
(Can we please use this for an anathema at the next council? I don't mind not getting the credit, but it'll be fun! :D)
1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
Death is in no way a natural occurance... I think all Orthodox would even agree to that.
Rom 6:23  For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Theologically, in evolution which could have profound implication upon orthodoxy you have death before sin, death before Adam.
Death is not only physical but spiritual.
If you're orthodox and believe that the two views are compatible, you have death before sin, which adam brought. and also you have God creating death (animal from latin anima meaning soul, and -al) before Adam.
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ζῷον animal, or beast  from greek Zoe meaning life:
and Animal from Latin anima meaning soul.
So in the Bible Animals clearly were alive, or had souls (according to the latin).
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pro 12:10  A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Animals have life,to whom man brought death.
1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

any scientist will tell you that animals are living beings, but the Bible says by man came death, which evolution doesn't believe: I don't even know their answer as to why we have death.

and God didn't create death.
Wis 1:13  For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Christianus said:
any scientist will tell you that animals are living beings, but the Bible says by man came death, which evolution doesn't believe: I don't even know their answer as to why we have death.
The inability of cells to function or reproduce due to genetic mutation or environmental factors (ionizing radiation, lack of oxygen, etc.), perhaps?

I would be most interested in hearing a detailed explanation of your theory from the perspective of cell biology. Not to mention the bio-physics of how pre-fall cells would be able to survive everything from the gravitational field inside a quantum singularity to energy levels capable of turning the atoms in the cell into plasma. After all, you said we were immortal, flying inside the event horizon of a black hole or to the center of an active star should have no effect...I'm just asking you to flesh out the details of your theory.
 

NorthernPines

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
Wisconsin
Christianus said:
1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.
Do you also believe God was "walking" around in the Garden of Eden? How did God walk without a body? In fact, how can there have been a first day, (equaling a 24 hour period) before the sun was even created? (hence no 24 hour period)

You seem determined to "prove" Genesis' creation account is literal and that to deny it is "heresy". (first WHY? You claim the use of Latin etc often, are you a Roman Catholic? The RCC has said evolution is not contradictory to it's faith)

What I really wonder is a few questions if you don't mind.

1.) taking the position you do, just what do you do with the myriads of scientific evidence, in dozens of independent fields that all draw identical conclusions independently of one another, and that these conclusions is that the earth is ancient, and that animals lived and died long before humans appeared?

2.) Do you simply ignore these massive amounts of evidence?

3.) Do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists across at least a dozen scientific fields are in on some "conspiracy" to trick everyone?

4.) Do you also deny scientific evidence that supports Biblical Christianity along with the evidence that doesn't?  Or do you only throw out the evidence that "disagrees with the Bible"? And if so, why are you the best authority on what does and doesn't agree with the Bible? After all many people used to say Africans and Europeans were different "races" (by that they meant race as in, whites were human beings, blacks were not) and they used the Bible to "prove it". We now know through science, genetics, DNA and particularly evolution that such an idea is mumbo jumbo. but there are a few people still around who believe it, reject the science that proves them wrong because it "disagrees with the bible"...(more accurately their intepretation of the bible) Don't believe me, just try Googling Sheppard's Chapel, you'll see they still exist.

So by what criteria do you decide which science is "true" and which isn't? Or do you reject all science? (at least that would be consistent, and yes I have a friend who does reject pretty much all science, and believes we can't know anything about anything, so I know those people exist)

lastly, did you get a flu shot? (maybe not, I haven't due to a severe egg allergy) But if you did, you're benefiting from evolutionary theory since it's that theory that gives us stuff like flu vaccines, antibiotics and other cool stuff like polio vaccines. :)

As far as Adam, death etc, perhaps, Adam and Eve were simply the first hominids endowed with a "living soul", (ie eternal soul), or sapience, and the death has to do with spiritual death...or perhaps any number of other interpretations of Genesis that go back to at least Origen, and arguably even to before the time of Christ. However every Christian believed the same thing about this story up until Darwin, then I'd probably agree with you. But considering the ancient church was open to interpretations, I don't see why it should be an issue now. But that's just me. maybe as you say, I'm believing heresy, if so, then so be it. At least I don't live in the 8th century when "heresy" could get me exiled to some island, or worse. :)





 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NorthernPines said:
Christianus said:
1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.
Do you also believe God was "walking" around in the Garden of Eden? How did God walk without a body? In fact, how can there have been a first day, (equaling a 24 hour period) before the sun was even created? (hence no 24 hour period)

You seem determined to "prove" Genesis' creation account is literal and that to deny it is "heresy". (first WHY? You claim the use of Latin etc often, are you a Roman Catholic? The RCC has said evolution is not contradictory to it's faith)

What I really wonder is a few questions if you don't mind.

1.) taking the position you do, just what do you do with the myriads of scientific evidence, in dozens of independent fields that all draw identical conclusions independently of one another, and that these conclusions is that the earth is ancient, and that animals lived and died long before humans appeared?

2.) Do you simply ignore these massive amounts of evidence?

3.) Do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists across at least a dozen scientific fields are in on some "conspiracy" to trick everyone?

4.) Do you also deny scientific evidence that supports Biblical Christianity along with the evidence that doesn't?  Or do you only throw out the evidence that "disagrees with the Bible"? And if so, why are you the best authority on what does and doesn't agree with the Bible? After all many people used to say Africans and Europeans were different "races" (by that they meant race as in, whites were human beings, blacks were not) and they used the Bible to "prove it". We now know through science, genetics, DNA and particularly evolution that such an idea is mumbo jumbo. but there are a few people still around who believe it, reject the science that proves them wrong because it "disagrees with the bible"...(more accurately their intepretation of the bible) Don't believe me, just try Googling Sheppard's Chapel, you'll see they still exist.

So by what criteria do you decide which science is "true" and which isn't? Or do you reject all science? (at least that would be consistent, and yes I have a friend who does reject pretty much all science, and believes we can't know anything about anything, so I know those people exist)

lastly, did you get a flu shot? (maybe not, I haven't due to a severe egg allergy) But if you did, you're benefiting from evolutionary theory since it's that theory that gives us stuff like flu vaccines, antibiotics and other cool stuff like polio vaccines. :)

As far as Adam, death etc, perhaps, Adam and Eve were simply the first hominids endowed with a "living soul", (ie eternal soul), or sapience, and the death has to do with spiritual death...or perhaps any number of other interpretations of Genesis that go back to at least Origen, and arguably even to before the time of Christ. However every Christian believed the same thing about this story up until Darwin, then I'd probably agree with you. But considering the ancient church was open to interpretations, I don't see why it should be an issue now. But that's just me. maybe as you say, I'm believing heresy, if so, then so be it. At least I don't live in the 8th century when "heresy" could get me exiled to some island, or worse. :)
It's called the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution, and also not all scientists believe in evolution.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Christianus said:
NorthernPines said:
Christianus said:
1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Adam is the first man on earth, God did not make death book of wisdom Deus non mortem fecit.
It's a heresy to say that people died before adam sinned.
Do you also believe God was "walking" around in the Garden of Eden? How did God walk without a body? In fact, how can there have been a first day, (equaling a 24 hour period) before the sun was even created? (hence no 24 hour period)

You seem determined to "prove" Genesis' creation account is literal and that to deny it is "heresy". (first WHY? You claim the use of Latin etc often, are you a Roman Catholic? The RCC has said evolution is not contradictory to it's faith)

What I really wonder is a few questions if you don't mind.

1.) taking the position you do, just what do you do with the myriads of scientific evidence, in dozens of independent fields that all draw identical conclusions independently of one another, and that these conclusions is that the earth is ancient, and that animals lived and died long before humans appeared?

2.) Do you simply ignore these massive amounts of evidence?

3.) Do you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists across at least a dozen scientific fields are in on some "conspiracy" to trick everyone?

4.) Do you also deny scientific evidence that supports Biblical Christianity along with the evidence that doesn't?  Or do you only throw out the evidence that "disagrees with the Bible"? And if so, why are you the best authority on what does and doesn't agree with the Bible? After all many people used to say Africans and Europeans were different "races" (by that they meant race as in, whites were human beings, blacks were not) and they used the Bible to "prove it". We now know through science, genetics, DNA and particularly evolution that such an idea is mumbo jumbo. but there are a few people still around who believe it, reject the science that proves them wrong because it "disagrees with the bible"...(more accurately their intepretation of the bible) Don't believe me, just try Googling Sheppard's Chapel, you'll see they still exist.

So by what criteria do you decide which science is "true" and which isn't? Or do you reject all science? (at least that would be consistent, and yes I have a friend who does reject pretty much all science, and believes we can't know anything about anything, so I know those people exist)

lastly, did you get a flu shot? (maybe not, I haven't due to a severe egg allergy) But if you did, you're benefiting from evolutionary theory since it's that theory that gives us stuff like flu vaccines, antibiotics and other cool stuff like polio vaccines. :)

As far as Adam, death etc, perhaps, Adam and Eve were simply the first hominids endowed with a "living soul", (ie eternal soul), or sapience, and the death has to do with spiritual death...or perhaps any number of other interpretations of Genesis that go back to at least Origen, and arguably even to before the time of Christ. However every Christian believed the same thing about this story up until Darwin, then I'd probably agree with you. But considering the ancient church was open to interpretations, I don't see why it should be an issue now. But that's just me. maybe as you say, I'm believing heresy, if so, then so be it. At least I don't live in the 8th century when "heresy" could get me exiled to some island, or worse. :)
It's called the THEORY of evolution, not the fact of evolution, and also not all scientists believe in evolution.
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs. 

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
 

Christianus

Elder
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
312
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html
By Father Seraphim Rose.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html
 
Top