How do we explain Neanderthals?

[truefiction1]

"But let us return to the spectacle of creation. The easiest animals to catch are the most productive. It is on account of this that hares and wild goats produce many little ones, and that wild sheep have twins, for fear lest these species should disappear, consumed by carnivorous animals. Beasts of prey, on the contrary, produce only a few....Thus in nature all has been foreseen, all is the object of continual care" (Hex 9.5).

 

[truefiction1]

ahh, yes, ok. thank you for that quote - it gives opportunity to make an important clarification. that man and all the cosmos were in a state of incorruption is of course not due to their own makeup - God alone possesses these qualities in and of Himself. as St. Basil points out here, as beings coming into existence from non-existence, they are already beings rooted in change, in instability. in this sense all things are naturally mortal. but when we broaden our understanding of nature to include mode of existence then we see something different. then we see natural mortality being staved off by grace -- this is how St. Athanasius puts it about man - naturally mortal but sustained against this mortality by grace. creation does not naturally possess immortality in and of itself, but then again, it's natural job is to be a vessel of grace. man is even mortal in nature but yet receives grace and mediates it to all of creation. so while in the Hexaemeron St. Basil can speak about how the life of animals and plants naturally head towards death (for they are not the microcosm and mediator), in On the Origin of Man we can see that this mortality had no influence, no effect, no power, until nature divided against itself by cause of man's sin, and in this there is no contradiction.

So what you are saying is that God created nature in a particular way, and that particular way was a natural life/death cycle?

 

[jckstraw72]

i'm saying that it depends on what we mean by nature. Lossky says in Orthodoxy there is no such thing as pure nature -- nature wholly apart from grace. man is created - so of course he does not possess the Life of God in and of himself -- it must be granted by God. but man's natural job is to possess this life by grace and mediate it to all of creation. this is what was happening in the cosmos before the Fall. theologically we say that Adam and Eve in the Garden were living according to nature, and after sin they fell against nature. thus, it is the Paradise life that is natural, and the fallen life that is unnatural. yes, if we remove grace from the creation all will simply go into the grave. but grace IS part of the equation.

in Hexaemeron 9 St. Basil says animals reproduce lest they go extinct by being devoured by other animals -- but notice he says this is because all is FORESEEN. the fall was already foreseen and thus God created everything in such a way as to be able to handle this. we know from his On the Origin of Man that he did NOT believe animals were eating one another until the fall.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Basil also explicitly tells us, following Scripture, that God did NOT create death, characterizing it as evil:

Hexameron 2.4:
It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God; because the contrary cannot proceed from its contrary. Life does not engender death; darkness is not the origin of light; sickness is not the maker of health.

he goes on to tell us the origin of death:

"If then evil is neither uncreate nor created by God, from whence comes its nature? Certainly that evil exists, no one living in the world will deny. What shall we say then? Evil is not a living animated essence; it is the condition of the soul opposed to virtue, developed in the careless on account of their falling away from good."

 

[truefiction1]

i'm saying that it depends on what we mean by nature. Lossky says in Orthodoxy there is no such thing as pure nature -- nature wholly apart from grace. man is created - so of course he does not possess the Life of God in and of himself -- it must be granted by God. but man's natural job is to possess this life by grace and mediate it to all of creation. this is what was happening in the cosmos before the Fall. theologically we say that Adam and Eve in the Garden were living according to nature, and after sin they fell against nature. thus, it is the Paradise life that is natural, and the fallen life that is unnatural. yes, if we remove grace from the creation all will simply go into the grave. but grace IS part of the equation.

in Hexaemeron 9 St. Basil says animals reproduce lest they go extinct by being devoured by other animals -- but notice he says this is because all is FORESEEN. the fall was already foreseen and thus God created everything in such a way as to be able to handle this. we know from his On the Origin of Man that he did NOT believe animals were eating one another until the fall.

I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation. A deeper investigation of Basil's works, and the works of the Cappadocians might reveal a conviction that neither plants nor individual ordinary animals were understood to be immortal, but are created as God intended. Not certain at this point.

Why did God have to wait until after (in chronological time) the fall to allow plants and animals to die?

 

[jckstraw72]

By your interpretation St. Basil contradicts himself, not only between the two works under discussion here, but even within the very same work. Yes, created nature is unstable, but no, God is not the author of death - something evil in St. Basil's view. Yes, animals reproduce to continue their species, but no, they were not in fear of being eaten by other animals until after the Fall. His various statements are perfectly harmonizable.

 

[jckstraw72]

Why did God have to wait until after (in chronological time) the fall to allow plants and animals to die?

Conversely, why did He have to place death in the world?

 

[truefiction1]

Conversely, why did He have to place death in the world?

Because He knew of sin prior to "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1)?

 

[truefiction1]

Why did God have to wait until after the fall to allow plant and animal death?

 

[jckstraw72]

i'm

Because He knew of sin prior to "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1)?

that doesn't mean He HAD to allow for death even before the cause of death had happened. He also foresaw His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Second Coming. Should I then contend that all things are already restored, becuase, why should He wait?

why should God implant a-chronologicality (?) into chronological time? St. Paul even says the Old Testament saints had to wait for their salvation. Why? Dunno the whole mind of God, but He has chosen to place us in a chronology. Even the dead of the New Testament are still waiting. It's not God that waits, it's creation that waits.

Had God created them already in a state of corruption, He would be the author of death. St. Basil rejects that. Even if you want to say that He created them thusly because He knew sin would be coming, death would still not be the natural consequence of falling away from God, it would still be God's choice to implant death into creation. As sin hadn't happened there was no reason why death had to be there. It would be only by God's choice.

Further, St. Paul tells us that out of fear of death man is kept in bondage to sin. If God created death, He also created bondage to sin.

 

[truefiction1]

i'm


that doesn't mean He HAD to allow for death even before the cause of death had happened. He also foresaw His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Second Coming. Should I then contend that all things are already restored, becuase, why should He wait?

why should God implant a-chronologicality (?) into chronological time? St. Paul even says the Old Testament saints had to wait for their salvation. Why? Dunno the whole mind of God, but He has chosen to place us in a chronology. Even the dead of the New Testament are still waiting. It's not God that waits, it's creation that waits.

Had God created them already in a state of corruption, He would be the author of death. St. Basil rejects that. Even if you want to say that He created them thusly because He knew sin would be coming, death would still not be the natural consequence of falling away from God, it would still be God's choice to implant death into creation. As sin hadn't happened there was no reason why death had to be there. It would be only by God's choice.

Further, St. Paul tells us that out of fear of death man is kept in bondage to sin. If God created death, He also created bondage to sin.

If the falling away in Paradise occurred in a supernatural dimension beyond the confines of God's creative timeline, would it be that God created living things already in a state of corruption prior to His awareness that the fall has already occurred? I don't think so. I would think, in this case, that God was just being God.

 

[jckstraw72]

uhhh, what???

 

[truefiction1]

uhhh, what???

This should be your reaction when you read the Creation account of Genesis 1 and compare it to that of Genesis 2.

 

[jckstraw72]

If the falling away in Paradise occurred in a supernatural dimension beyond the confines of God's creative timeline

and who says it did?

This should be your reaction when you read the Creation account of Genesis 1 and compare it to that of Genesis 2.

i assume you're prepared to defend from Tradition the notion that they contradict. surely you wouldn't be interpreting Scripture on your own.

Surely you're aware of what the saints have to say on the matter:

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 4.8:
Don't worry, dearly beloved, don't think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself, learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it.

St. Peter of Damscus, Philokalia vol. 3, p. 144
Whenever a person even slightly illumined reads the Scriptures or sings psalms he finds in them matter for contemplation and theology, one text supporting another. But he whose intellect is still unenlightened thinks that the Holy Scriptures are contradictory. Yet there is no contradiction in the Holy Scriptures: God forbid that there should be.

 

[jckstraw72]

sorry, TrueFiciton, my "uhh what" response was rude. forgive me!

 

[truefiction1]

and who says it did?


i assume you're prepared to defend from Tradition the notion that they contradict. surely you wouldn't be interpreting Scripture on your own.

Surely you're aware of what the saints have to say on the matter:

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 4.8:
Don't worry, dearly beloved, don't think Sacred Scripture ever contradicts itself, learn instead the truth of what it says, hold fast what it teaches in truth, and close your ears to those who speak against it.

St. Peter of Damscus, Philokalia vol. 3, p. 144
Whenever a person even slightly illumined reads the Scriptures or sings psalms he finds in them matter for contemplation and theology, one text supporting another. But he whose intellect is still unenlightened thinks that the Holy Scriptures are contradictory. Yet there is no contradiction in the Holy Scriptures: God forbid that there should be.

I actually know that they don't contradict. They do, however, not agree, which is a sure indicator that there is something of a Mystery in the way that the two accounts reveal Truth when taken together (as they are meant to be taken).

 

[jckstraw72]

in what ways do they not agree on which the Fathers have not already addressed the seeming issue?

By the way, of course there is mystery -- we're talking about God here! The Fathers do exhort us many times to not try to dig deeper than what has been given to know - that we simply can't go there. that's precisely one of the problems with evolution - scientists going digging where they have no business digging.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Some appear to have, but that's necessary and not sufficient - most commentary isn't focused on that point. The case is somewhat open.

the case is not open. the case was closed at Pentecost according to the Lord Himself. every council, prayer, icon, and hymn has simply been an articulation of what was revealed to those in the Upper Room at Pentecost. the idea that this is open is a modern and Western view of how the Church forms her dogmas.

 

[Zoii]

How much faith do you have in your facts? Are they undeniable facts? What are scientific conclusions on the past based on? Can the hypotheses be tested by experiment and observation? Could there ever be unknown variables that would make hash of the assumptions?

Ive been to a few museums, and seen the skulls and skeletons. Theres tens of thousands of them across museums across the world.

 

[gzt]

Those are interesting thoughts indeed, and I don't mean this as a sortt of minimalism buy rather an acknowledgement in humility that things are more complicated than they seem, especially in light of the eminent bishops, priests, and theologians who disagree that this is an open and shut case.