Can you believe evolution exists while also being an Orthodox Christian?

[truefiction1]

That is not what YOU are doing here via philosophy. But it is what I am doing. I am talking about what really IS, what the child actually experiences, and not at all about representations, even of the rational mind. As I said, you have achieved over-sophistication. I repeat the words of our Lord, which are NOT "representation" of anything, but necessity for us adults steeped in what would then have been called "Greek wisdom". That we must become like children if we wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

You must rediscover the view of the child, even on philosophy, and discover that the child is right, and the adult is messed up. A good example of that is your saying "The power of Tradition is due to its nature and function as metaphor". That is not what the power of Tradition is. The power of Tradition is that it is TRUE, and teaches us realities, both ones we are capable of understanding and ones we are not. How can you be sure what is metaphor and what is not, unless valid Authority tells you it is? Many Protestants think on that basis that the Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ, imposing their own "wisdom" to decide that Christ can't have been serious and literal in saying that it is.

And your idea of what philosophy is seems cockamamie to me. I understand it as "the love of wisdom". We are SUPPOSED to love wisdom! And it is NOT a claim of "authentic knowledge of God". You are accusing authentic philosophy of trying to do something it doesn't try to do.

It IS subjectivism, though you twist this way and that trying to deny it. You refuse to affirm any truth, any knowledge, as true. I have asked up-front questions you do not respond to at all. I have encountered nothing but evasion from you. In everything you say, the ultimate authority determining whether anything is a metaphor is the individual, and Tradition is to you whatever you care to make of it. I insist that it must be something that can correct me, that has the power to say "Rusmeister is wrong.", and it can't do that if it cannot be defined. I can always worm out of any correction by the loopholes of indefinability, and propagate whatever heresy seems good and true to me as an individual, even "Orthodox fundamentalism". The one thing that can protect against both that and subjectivism, an anything-goes theology and praxis, is a Tradition that can clearly show you, me, or anyone to be in the wrong, where we can say that "the apostles and Church fathers agree that...", "Our Liturgy affirms that...", "Scripture says that.." in unison, general agreement, where yes, sometimes some fathers disagreed, and some things never agreed upon, but where there are many things that tey did, and these things have the authority to correct us, because they are TRUE, and we are silly and very temporary humans with our goofy ideas of what philosophy, theology and so on are.

Return to the reality of the child, of one who can be taught, and corrected. If Tradition can, in consensus, show me to be in the wrong about that, or about worldly knowledge and understandings, please show me and I will read, listen and learn.

I really don't believe that living authentically, in the Spirit, as a child does, beholding the face of God as it were, is subjectivism. I suggest that its of the utmost importance for us to approach things using the correct faculties.

 

[truefiction1]

dp

 

[truefiction1]

dp

 

[jckstraw72]

I wouldn't call it Orthodox fundamentalism, but rather, Protestant fundamentalism superimposed upon Orthodoxy.

poor St. Nektarios ... so badly under the spell of those pesky Protestants

 

[truefiction1]

I wouldn't call it Orthodox fundamentalism, but rather, Protestant fundamentalism superimposed upon Orthodoxy.

I'd still prefer to call it Orthodox fundamentalism, because it existed long before what is known today as Protestant fundamentalism.

 

[rusmeister]

I really don't believe that living authentically, in the Spirit, as a child does, beholding the face of God as it were, is subjectivism. I suggest that its of the utmost importance for us to approach things using the correct faculties.

No argument. But you completely deconstruct the only way anyone could know that they are not merely deluding themselves. Unless our Tradition is a definite and definable thing, there is no way of knowing whether one is beholding the face of God (something even Moses had difficulty with) or an angel of light. You can't know the reliability of your own faculties without something to measure them by. You need that which can tell you if/when you are in prelest. And your effort to cast Tradition as constantly evolving - which your entire context insists is actual change in understandings of Truth - makes the modern individual his own arbiter of what Truth is. THAT is Protestant, my friend, far more than the "fundamentalism" you fear so much.

 

[rusmeister]

I wouldn't call it Orthodox fundamentalism, but rather, Protestant fundamentalism superimposed upon Orthodoxy.

Of which the individual being his own arbiter of Tradition - rejecting consensus, because today we "know more", "know better" is the ultimate flowering. TF's position on Tradition means that, or it means nothing. Do you agree with him on Tradition?

That one's for everyone, especially Capp and Kristos. Do you agree with TF that Tradition is constantly "evolving" and needs to be "re-interpreted"?

 

[truefiction1]

No argument. But you completely deconstruct the only way anyone could know that they are not merely deluding themselves. Unless our Tradition is a definite and definable thing, there is no way of knowing whether one is beholding the face of God (something even Moses had difficulty with) or an angel of light. You can't know the reliability of your own faculties without something to measure them by. You need that which can tell you if/when you are in prelest. And your effort to cast Tradition as constantly evolving - which your entire context insists is actual change in understandings of Truth - makes the modern individual his own arbiter of what Truth is. THAT is Protestant, my friend, far more than the "fundamentalism" you fear so much.

dp.

 

[truefiction1]

No argument. But you completely deconstruct the only way anyone could know that they are not merely deluding themselves. Unless our Tradition is a definite and definable thing, there is no way of knowing whether one is beholding the face of God (something even Moses had difficulty with) or an angel of light. You can't know the reliability of your own faculties without something to measure them by. You need that which can tell you if/when you are in prelest. And your effort to cast Tradition as constantly evolving - which your entire context insists is actual change in understandings of Truth - makes the modern individual his own arbiter of what Truth is. THAT is Protestant, my friend, far more than the "fundamentalism" you fear so much.

A person knows, at some level, that they are in prelest, and chooses self-deception over Truth because of desire. The position I here attempt to explain does not cast Tradition as constantly evolving. It only casts human knowledge of things, both living and non-living, as an evolving body of knowledge which alters the collective consciousness of humankind over the course of time. The modern individual is hence not cast as arbiter of what Truth is, because Truth is not a What, as Pilate thought. Truth is found only within a Living relationship between a Who and another Who. It cannot be defined rationally, nor even touched by human rationality. It defies rationality. Truth is God -- inexhaustible and incomprehensible. Metaphorical words and images can point at Truth, but ordinary definitive language and the cognitive formulations they symbolize cannot share existence with that with which it has nothing in common. It is when we say, "we see", that we again become blind, and then our sin remains. Protestantism developed out of Latin rationalism, or more as a response to widespread in-authenticity of Faith within the Roman Catholic Church which had become increasingly rational and therefore, corrupt by all sorts of errant philosophy of highly definitive and legalistic quality. The reformation was an attempt to correct that. Unfortunately it only led to even greater in-authenticity. Orthodox fundamentalism exists because the same part of the mind that always attempts to dominate human experience is at work everywhere, so that it will usually succeed in some way, wherever it rears its ugly head. But its root cause is found in the same part of the mind that afflicts the Roman Church as well as the Protestant fundamentalists.

 

[rusmeister]

Why you think a person "knows" they are in prelest is beyond me. The "level the know it at" is obviously not sufficient to get them to want to get out of it.

There is a definite effect from your ideas. You have been applying your understanding of what you call human knowledge to Tradition.

It is true that Christ is the ultimate Truth and is a Person, not a thing. We have both said this. Well and good. But when we talk about what the Church has taught as certain knowledge, we speak about truths that happen to be True - transcendent truth, that does not "evolve" over space and time. And these truths CAN be defined. Yes, even language is Fallen - but we can still understand truth through it. The Word can reach us through words, if the words be right.

The final effect of your words is to say we cannot know what we know. All of the talk about Latin rationalism and the Reformation says we cannot be sure that the teachings of Tradition are true, or even teachings, that the things said in the past cannot be understood today. I acknowledge a possible danger of blindly following rules, of legalism. But there is an opposite danger, that of making out Tradition whatever you want it to be, into a subjective thing where you pick and choose what teachings you will accept and live by, and which you will ignore, and that is what I don't see you acknowledging, and it exactly where anyone can take your words and go in that direction. My position is that ALL can be corrected by Tradition, the "fundamentalist" and the "progressive", because it is a definite Thing outside of us, that teaches us about the Truth. It is because it can be defined that it can be identified and taught. And so if I get carried away with legalism, I can be corrected, because it is a definite authority outside of me that others can refer to, even if I won't, to correct me. But if you get carried away with progressivism, there is nothing in your words that can correct it. There is no authority outside of yourself that others can refer to and say that, on the basis of thus-and-such consistent teaching, you are wrong. I insist that I can be wrong and can be corrected. Your insistence that we cannot know prevents any such correction, of myself as well as of you.

 

[truefiction1]

Why you think a person "knows" they are in prelest is beyond me. The "level the know it at" is obviously not sufficient to get them to want to get out of it.

There is a definite effect from your ideas. You have been applying your understanding of what you call human knowledge to Tradition.

It is true that Christ is the ultimate Truth and is a Person, not a thing. We have both said this. Well and good. But when we talk about what the Church has taught as certain knowledge, we speak about truths that happen to be True - transcendent truth, that does not "evolve" over space and time. And these truths CAN be defined. Yes, even language is Fallen - but we can still understand truth through it. The Word can reach us through words, if the words be right.

The final effect of your words is to say we cannot know what we know. All of the talk about Latin rationalism and the Reformation says we cannot be sure that the teachings of Tradition are true, or even teachings, that the things said in the past cannot be understood today. I acknowledge a possible danger of blindly following rules, of legalism. But there is an opposite danger, that of making out Tradition whatever you want it to be, into a subjective thing where you pick and choose what teachings you will accept and live by, and which you will ignore, and that is what I don't see you acknowledging, and it exactly where anyone can take your words and go in that direction. My position is that ALL can be corrected by Tradition, the "fundamentalist" and the "progressive", because it is a definite Thing outside of us, that teaches us about the Truth. It is because it can be defined that it can be identified and taught. And so if I get carried away with legalism, I can be corrected, because it is a definite authority outside of me that others can refer to, even if I won't, to correct me. But if you get carried away with progressivism, there is nothing in your words that can correct it. There is no authority outside of yourself that others can refer to and say that, on the basis of thus-and-such consistent teaching, you are wrong. I insist that I can be wrong and can be corrected. Your insistence that we cannot know prevents any such correction, of myself as well as of you.

We cannot define Truth with language. We can merely point to it. Metaphorical language does this best. This is the meaning of your saying that the Word can reach us through words, if the words be right. In this you do in fact speak rightly. But nobody can make Tradition out out to be anything but what it is. It is the mystical Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and we enter into it by repentance. There is, of course, a progressive aspect into that Life on our end of the relationship, as we grow from glory to glory, becoming ever more partakers of the Divine nature by grace. But there is also, no doubt, a progressive aspect in the body of knowledge (come upon by man's striving to live and prosper in this created cosmos) about created things and creatures that has grown over time and continues to grow. As far as your concern about there being no authority outside of oneself that can be used as the basis of correction, this would be true in such cases where genuine repentance is discontinued. In this case, Truth is replaced by a false philosophy that is willingly embraced in its place (such as progressivism). Where repentance is ongoing, however, the Holy Spirit authoritatively instructs sinners in the Way, providing correction as needed and in the proper dosages. This repentance can carry on alongside of a person's learning and discovering more also about the physical nature of created things (See Romans 1:20 about how certain things about God can be known through observing that which God creates).

Tradition is not a Thing outside of us. Tradition is what happens between a person and another person when it is a right relationship. If it is a Thing, then it is a false god... an idol, because it is clearly defined, or in the words of the OP who asked about Tradition in a separate thread, delineated, is is become a graven image (a creation of man to be worshiped in place of the God Who cannot be defined). What you seem to mean by Tradition is the collection of things Orthodox Christians confess, believe, practice, etc. that come to us historically as gifts of Divine Revelation by the Holy Spirit via the fathers who built upon the foundation Who is Christ. I agree with that definition also, but with the clarification that a substantial amount of the building consists of a key building material called metaphor.

Just because something or someone can be deemed metaphorical does not mean that that thing or person is not literally true or real, but it does not of necessity need to be literally true or real if it points to something or someone Who Is. So it follows that in Scripture and in Tradition there are things and people who are both metaphors and also literally real, yet there are also things and people who are deemed metaphorical and not literally true or real. Your concern is that there would be no way for anyone to determine what is literally true and what is only metaphorically true. Because you deem it unreasonable that such a scenario should be allowed to exist, you insist that we have no choice but to insist that all things deemed revelatory authoritative must be taken literally. The reasonable thing, however, is simply to accept that people tell stories that are metaphorically true and not literally true. Even Jesus did the same when he taught in parables. The characters in His stories could easily have been any one of us or all of us. So, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in life and we will never be sure of all the answers. There isn't anything we can really do about that. It is the nature of our existence. This does not prevent us from repenting and seeking God. Thus, Tradition remains Alive even to those whose experience convince them if favor of evolution, and it also remains Alive for those whose experience leads them to feel that it is an incorrect theory.

 

[rusmeister]

TF, the theory you expound can and WILL be used to promote change in Church practice and teaching. It is as simple as that. All of those pushing to follow the world in consecrating priestesses, in accepting same-sex and other sexual relations and attitudes as acceptable and normative, and so on. This goes WAY beyond the question of evolutionary theory, which I stll think to lead to philosophical and theological chaos and nonsense in the name of promoting science and intellectualism within the Church (things that I think can have definite places, as long as they know their place, something your idea makes impossible).

I say SOME things ARE metaphors (so you are wrong in trying to reduce my position to a pure literalist one). Your idea means anything and everything could be only metaphorical. If you can't define it, if it cannot be expressed with language, then nothing can be certainly real. Not even Jesus Christ. Because language can't express it - or Him (according to your words). And I don't say "completely express all aspects", but I do say that we can express some real aspects of real things, and certainly know some things about them.

One huge question - for me an absolutely defining one - was Adam a real person or only a metaphor?

 

[truefiction1]

TF, the theory you expound can and WILL be used to promote change in Church practice and teaching. It is as simple as that. All of those pushing to follow the world in consecrating priestesses, in accepting same-sex and other sexual relations and attitudes as acceptable and normative, and so on. This goes WAY beyond the question of evolutionary theory, which I stll think to lead to philosophical and theological chaos and nonsense in the name of promoting science and intellectualism within the Church (things that I think can have definite places, as long as they know their place, something your idea makes impossible).

I don't think so, because the structure of the human soul remains as it was throughout the development of Tradition, so that much of the traditional morality will not be abandoned due to attacks by false philosophy. We are a people of Faith -- the elect children of God -- related through repentance and virtue. We are not philosophers.

I say SOME things ARE metaphors (so you are wrong in trying to reduce my position to a pure literalist one). Your idea means anything and everything could be only metaphorical. If you can't define it, if it cannot be expressed with language, then nothing can be certainly real. Not even Jesus Christ. Because language can't express it - or Him (according to your words). And I don't say "completely express all aspects", but I do say that we can express some real aspects of real things, and certainly know some things about them.

There is nothing that can be certainly real. Not even Jesus Christ. That is because language can never prove that which is not a matter of defining, but rather a matter of Faith.

One huge question - for me an absolutely defining one - was Adam a real person or only a metaphor?

It's likely that Adam was a real person, and also completely not necessary that he was the first person, because it is in his character within the story that I am personally led to an understanding of my own predicament. It is because Adam is metaphorical, connecting me to God in the same way that Adam is, that the story has any significance whatsoever to any of us. Adam, as metaphor, does not simply represent my fractured and conflicted and guilty self, he really is that broken, naked and ashamed self. What is true for Adam and Eve is true for us, because we, like them, are still in the age of Genesis. This age will not come to its conclusion until Christ's return, heralding the resurrection of all the dead and final judgment. Meanwhile the days of creation are ongoing. God rests on the seventh day. We, however, have not attained to the seventh day yet because we exist within a created timeline. Christ is not "plan B". The incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and glorification, along with the general resurrection and grand finale at the end of the ages all belong to God's plan that begins in Genesis with the words "Let Us make man in our own image, after our own likeness." (1:26)

Faith and repentance open up for us a gate leading into an alternate reality in which those realities depicted in Scripture using highly metaphorical conventions are known to be True. That alternate reality is the Kingdom of God, which Christ came to bear witness to (John 18:36-38). In the Kingdom where God becomes "all in all", then the question about whether Adam was a real person or purely fictional drops far below being significant.

 

[GregConstantine]

Great explanation truefiction! do you mind if I take some of what you said and use it when talking to others?

I would say the Kingdom of God is the true reality, not an alternate reality. What we see in our unrepentant, fallen state is a dimmed or dumbed down version of true reality. we think that's reality, or we think that's the extent of reality. But of course its not.

So that is why we cannot try to view such things as the creation narrative, or the Scriptures for that matter, in that dimmed, dumbed down vision of reality in our fallen condition.

This makes the whole dichotomy between faith and science false.

 

[truefiction1]

Great explanation truefiction! do you mind if I take some of what you said and use it when talking to others?

I would say the Kingdom of God is the true reality, not an alternate reality. What we see in our unrepentant, fallen state is a dimmed or dumbed down version of true reality. we think that's reality, or we think that's the extent of reality. But of course its not.

So that is why we cannot try to view such things as the creation narrative, or the Scriptures for that matter, in that dimmed, dumbed down vision of reality in our fallen condition.

This makes the whole dichotomy between faith and science false.

Thanks, and I don't mind.

 

[rusmeister]

You know, I am a huge fan of Christian intellectuals. No one can reasonably accuse me of being anti-intellectual. But if anything could ever make me anti-intellectual, it would be this inability to see simple things, this insane (as in mentally and spiritually unhealthy) complication of everything. It's good to know about metaphors. It's not good to begin to actually believe that realities are only metaphors. I have no argument with your metaphorical comparisons and I hope you don't try to convince me of metaphorical truths that I am already convinced of. It is when you doubt realities that you should not doubt, based on the Latin rationalism that you condemn with your words, but practice with your mental habits.

Adam is a great example. Did you know that there are Orthodox Christians whose name is "Adam", and that most of those that try to live their faith actually pray to him as a patron saint? Tradition affirms this. You can't doubt the reality of people the Church affirms that we can and should pray to. You can't suggest that they aren't real. But you do. According to you, "it is not necessary that he was the first person" and even that it is only "likely" that he existed". You can say the first, though having no basis in Tradition to say so, your statement is dubious at best within the Church, but you CAN'T say the second. But you do. We can no more doubt the reality of Adam than we can doubt the reality of Christ. But you put even the reality of Christ on the chopping block.

And being as fair as I can be, trying to assume mere misunderstanding between us (although it seems unlikely by this point) I'll assume for now that you are playing with a certain intellectual assumption of "certainty" that requires habeas corpus. But faith doesn't require it for certainty. Faith is choosing to be certain, and that's what I think you misunderstand about certainty in the sense it has always had within the Church. I leave it to Jackstraw to produce the hundred quotes from the Church fathers making that point (and if you deny it, I'll ask him to).

If you say, we have faith in everything, and are certain through faith, then I can agree with you. We have no argument in that event. If you say we cannot provide physical evidence that Adam or Christ were real, again, no argument. But when you start saying that we cannot be certain the Jesus Christ was real, and that Adam only "likely" existed, you have left the mind of the Church and are indeed engaged in your own private philosophy.

 

[truefiction1]

You know, I am a huge fan of Christian intellectuals. No one can reasonably accuse me of being anti-intellectual. But if anything could ever make me anti-intellectual, it would be this inability to see simple things, this insane (as in mentally and spiritually unhealthy) complication of everything. It's good to know about metaphors. It's not good to begin to actually believe that realities are only metaphors. I have no argument with your metaphorical comparisons and I hope you don't try to convince me of metaphorical truths that I am already convinced of. It is when you doubt realities that you should not doubt, based on the Latin rationalism that you condemn with your words, but practice with your mental habits.

Adam is a great example. Did you know that there are Orthodox Christians whose name is "Adam", and that most of those that try to live their faith actually pray to him as a patron saint? Tradition affirms this. You can't doubt the reality of people the Church affirms that we can and should pray to. You can't suggest that they aren't real. But you do. According to you, "it is not necessary that he was the first person" and even that it is only "likely" that he existed". You can say the first, though having no basis in Tradition to say so, your statement is dubious at best within the Church, but you CAN'T say the second. But you do. We can no more doubt the reality of Adam than we can doubt the reality of Christ. But you put even the reality of Christ on the chopping block.

And being as fair as I can be, trying to assume mere misunderstanding between us (although it seems unlikely by this point) I'll assume for now that you are playing with a certain intellectual assumption of "certainty" that requires habeas corpus. But faith doesn't require it for certainty. Faith is choosing to be certain, and that's what I think you misunderstand about certainty in the sense it has always had within the Church. I leave it to Jackstraw to produce the hundred quotes from the Church fathers making that point (and if you deny it, I'll ask him to).

If you say, we have faith in everything, and are certain through faith, then I can agree with you. We have no argument in that event. If you say we cannot provide physical evidence that Adam or Christ were real, again, no argument. But when you start saying that we cannot be certain the Jesus Christ was real, and that Adam only "likely" existed, you have left the mind of the Church and are indeed engaged in your own private philosophy.

Actually, it was you who suggested that if we don't adhere to your philosophy regarding the what of tradition, then there would be no way to prove that even Christ is real. I simply pointed out the obvious: that believing in Christ is not about proof, but Faith, and Adam is not about Adam, but about all of us. When we behold an icon of Christ reaching toward Adam and Eve following His crucifixion in order to hoist them out of their graves with His Almighty arms, it is we who are being rescued from the grip of death. This powerfully moving imagery speaks to us in our hearts, metaphorically. The stories point to very real relationships taking place in the present. Otherwise, they point to nothing meaningful to us at all. Even our homilies are designed to take a reading from Scripture and to help the faithful feel how the passage relates to us in the present.

Just to be clear, I am not an intellectual. I fix cars and houses and stuff. And you may certainly believe that everything written about your patron saint is literally true. I think that's just great. The important thing is for us to continue in bearing the fruits of repentance and to be changed from glory to glory through that Tradition. I know that Scripture is the Word of God and that there is Truth in there that is greater than literal, scientific or historical truth. I try not to confuse those Truth/truths of differing natures.

 

[rusmeister]

Actually, it was you who suggested that if we don't adhere to your philosophy regarding the what of tradition, then there would be no way to prove that even Christ is real. I simply pointed out the obvious: that believing in Christ is not about proof, but Faith, and Adam is not about Adam, but about all of us. When we behold an icon of Christ reaching toward Adam and Eve following His crucifixion in order to hoist them out of their graves with His Almighty arms, it is we who are being rescued from the grip of death. This powerfully moving imagery speaks to us in our hearts, metaphorically. The stories point to very real relationships taking place in the present. Otherwise, they point to nothing meaningful to us at all. Even our homilies are designed to take a reading from Scripture and to help the faithful feel how the passage relates to us in the present.

Just to be clear, I am not an intellectual. I fix cars and houses and stuff. And you may certainly believe that everything written about your patron saint is literally true. I think that's just great. The important thing is for us to continue in bearing the fruits of repentance and to be changed from glory to glory through that Tradition. I know that Scripture is the Word of God and that there is Truth in there that is greater than literal, scientific or historical truth. I try not to confuse those Truth/truths of differing natures.

TF, I've tried to say from the beginning that I am not interested in, and am even opposed to the idea of "my philosophy". I don't have any problem with what you are saying here; I have a problem with your saying that we can't define Tradition, say what is and be certain of what it says as true, and implying that our understandings of Truth "evolve"; that is, change over time. And that is the beginning of the justification from all manner of departures from Tradition, such as consecrating priestesses and blessing same-sex relations, as I have said, and it sure feels like you're writhing and squirming to avoid engaging that issue. You've said a lot not only on human evolution, but on the evolution of Tradition. You've implied that Adam may not be a real man because he also happens to metaphorically stand for us all; I say yes, he CAN be taken as a type for us all but that he MUST have been a real man, and that by suggesting he may not have existed you make nonsense out of the prayers of any Orthodox Christian named Adam who appeals to him in prayer as a patron saint. We don't pray to metaphors; we pray to real people. Say it now: Adam WAS real and definitely existed. Or I'll sock it to you. Just like on the playground.

It would also ease the minds of some of us if you would say clearly where you stand on those two issues of same-sex relations and priestesses in the Church. But start by admitting the real historical and literal existence of the man described in the book of Genesis as Adam. (If you won't, I advise you to stay clear of Russia. You wouldn't last very long.)

 

[truefiction1]

TF, I've tried to say from the beginning that I am not interested in, and am even opposed to the idea of "my philosophy". I don't have any problem with what you are saying here; I have a problem with your saying that we can't define Tradition, say what is and be certain of what it says as true, and implying that our understqndings of Truth "evolve"; that is, change over time. And that is the beginning of the justification from all manner of departures from Tradition, suchbas consecrating priestesses and blessing same-sex relations, as I have said, and it sure feels like you're writhing and squirming to avoid engaging that issue. You've said a lot not only on human evolution, but on the evolution of Tradition. You've implied that Adam may not be a real man because he also happens to metaphorically stand for us all; I say yes, he CAN be taken as a type for us all but that he MUST have been a real man, and that by suggesting he may not have existed you make nonsense out of the prayers of any Orthodox Christian named Adam who appeals to him in prayer as a patron saint. We don't pray to metaphors; we pray to real people. Say it now: Adam WAS real and definitely existed. Or I'll sock it to you. Just like on the playground.

It would also ease the minds of some of us if you would say clearly where you stand on those two issues of same-sex relations and priestesses in the Church. But start by admitting the real historical and literal existence of the man described in the book of Genesis as Adam. (If you won't, I advise you to stay clear of Russia. You wouldn't last very long.)

I do not agree with same sex relations and I don't agree with priestesses. I believe that Adam was a real person just as I believe that Noah and Moses were real people. I do not necessarily believe that everything that is written about them is literally true. It is not necessary to do so because these all point to Christ, metaphorically.

 

[jckstraw72]

the issue that i see, is that if the metaphors and allegories are not grounded in history, then they metaphorically point to Christ only to those of us who are reading about them in stories, but there was no real pointing to Christ in history itself - the people of the time were not given pointers -- the stories had not been invented yet. that means God's main action in history before the Incarnation is story-telling rather than real workings with the people.