How do we explain Neanderthals?

[gzt]

Also while it is certainly entertaining to see canons quoted at me, I'm not quite sure why you think they should be persuasive?

 

[prodromos]

This is also not implying a need for exact agreement.

How does diametrically opposed fit into this?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Those are interesting thoughts, but I note hat we must immediately stop talking about "the Fathers" as a group here once we start getting into the weeds, as there are disagreements within the Fathers and our readings on tihs only disagree on some points with some Fathers. This is also not implying a need for exact agreement.

no, but we are not talking about simple disagreements, but flat out rejection. while the Fathers did not articulate all of Genesis in the same way, that does not give us the okay to openly contradict them.

 

[jckstraw72]

Also while it is certainly entertaining to see canons quoted at me, I'm not quite sure why you think they should be persuasive?

i just like to make sure you know just how much of Tradition you're willingly snubbing.

so now you're rejecting even Ecumenical Canons. so not even the Ecumenical Councils can be trusted as the voice of the Church ... it's not the Scriptures, it's not the Fathers, it's not the Councils ... it seems the Church only speaks through a ragtag band of TAW posters ...

 

[gzt]

Another interesting assertion. No, nobody is flat-out rejecting patristic interpretation of Genesis, though some are rejecting some of what some of them say about one particular aspect that is almost always not their main point.

 

[gzt]

I'm not saying that I am, I'm deferring the interpretation of canons to canonical authorities.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, nobody is flat-out rejecting patristic interpretation of Genesis, though some are rejecting some of what some of them say about one particular aspect that is almost always not their main point.

yeah, they are. no Father just cherry picks what previous Fathers have said, in order to maintain a conclusion that NONE of them made

 

[gzt]

As for the relation of those canons to the evolutionary narrative, I'll defer to the bishops, priests, and theologians who teach it. Who am I to say? But I will again note that it is the bishops of the church who apply canons, and they haven't seen fit to censure people teaching evolution. I've been cautioned against reading the canons, so who am I to say?

 

[gzt]

yeah, they are. no Father just cherry picks what previous Fathers have said, in order to maintain a conclusion that NONE of them made

Good thing that's not what anybody is doing.

 

[gzt]

The only people I'm openly contradicting are you two when you say that this si obviously the only way that is allowable in the Church. No, it's not.

 

[jckstraw72]

The only people I'm openly contradicting are you two when you say that this si obviously the only way that is allowable in the Church. No, it's not.

actually, you're contradicting any saint who has ever spoken on the matter. you're contradicting Scripture, you're contradicting Ecumenical Councils. ok, so you don't contradict a handful of pet theologians. that's called Protestantism.

i realize you are completely closed to considering anything other than your personal amalgamation of current scientific trends and Orthodox Tradition. as i see it, these conversations are more for the benefit of those who are truly seeking and wanting to know if the Church has theology and if so, what is the content of it, and who are silently reading these threads.

 

[gzt]

I mean, I'm seeing my bishop this weekend, I could certainly ask him whether Orthodox Christians can teach an evolutionary narrative, if that would quiet some of the controversy here. I promise to abide by his teaching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Good thing that's not what anybody is doing.

yeah it is, to say that since some Fathers lean to more allegory or moral teaching of Genesis instead of a literalist view, so that one can maintain a view that none of them ever accepted (ie evolution) is exactly what folks are doing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I mean, I'm seeing my bishop this weekend, I could certainly ask him whether Orthodox Christians can teach an evolutionary narrative, if that would quiet some of the controversy here. I promise to abide by his teaching.

while I that is the right way to go and I think I know your bishop and he is a solid one to say the least. you are still avoiding the real authority for something like this. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople were both bishops. one is a saint, one is a heretic.

 

[gzt]

actually, you're contradicting any saint who has ever spoken on the matter. you're contradicting Scripture, you're contradicting Ecumenical Councils. ok, so you don't contradict a handful of pet theologians. that's called Protestantism.

i realize you are completely closed to considering anything other than your personal amalgamation of current scientific trends and Orthodox Tradition. as i see it, these conversations are more for the benefit of those who are truly seeking and wanting to know if the Church has theology and if so, what is the content of it, and who are silently reading these threads.

These are interesting thoughts and accusations, but the case is hardly so strong as you think, especially the case against me personally. For the people reading, I strongly encourage them to read both sides (on, say, orthowiki) and note taht it is possible and allowable for an Orthodox Christian to believe in evolution and be a pious Orthodox Christian in good standing, and there are many bishops, priests, and theologians who teach that. That is why I keep insisting on this: so that people trying to learn Orthodoxy see that this view is acceptable and represented in the Church.

 

[gzt]

while I that is the right way to go and I think I know your bishop and he is a solid one to say the least. you are still avoiding the real authority for something like this. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople were both bishops. one is a saint, one is a heretic.

So you think my bishop may be a heretic? He is, uh, the real authority where I am.

 

[jckstraw72]

These are interesting thoughts and accusations, but the case is hardly so strong as you think

prove it.

 

[truefiction1]

demonstrate to us that this is anything more than your personal interpretation.

if it stands OUTSIDE of time, then it can't have effects WITHIN time. you're contradicting yourself.

furthermore, positing pet theories about timelessness does nothing to help the evolutionary cause, as evolution requires ... a crapload of time.

It both stands outside of time as an event intersecting eternity, and occurs on a definite point on the horizontal timeline, as does the Incarnation of the Son of God and the His death, and just as these things have consequences effecting all of creation (in time), so does the original sin. And as it is with the case of Salvation, which the death of Christ effects upon all who have sinned prior to Christ's death, the effects of the original sin of Adam, move, not forward in time only, but backwards also, so that the effects are here from the beginning of time. Hence, the earth can be very old indeed, not just 6000 years old as some fathers believed, or 10,000 years old as other fathers believed (for there were divisions of opinion on this even amongst them), but it could be 14.7 billion years old, or more, with living organisms living and dying and evolving, God having subjected His Creation to such natural laws due to Adam's sin committed in Paradise only a few thousand year ago.

but we do believe we must not contradict the reading of the Fathers.

the interpretations dictated by evolution are not simply not exactly as the Fathers, but bear almost no resemblance at all.

We do not believe that we must not contradict the readings of the fathers. We must Live the Faith of our Fathers, not agree with their personal opinions about the age of the Earth or the exact manner in which God creates, even if these theories form the collective personal opinions of all of the early fathers. If we do such a thing as this, then we are ignoring the verbally shared wisdom of our Lord with regard to the healthy limits one should place upon the teaching authority of fathers. (see Matthew 23:9)

For all fathers, as with every living person, are informed by the knowledge of things (nature) available to them in their time. No one has any special charisma that insures infallible knowledge. They neither possess this personally, nor collectively. This fact does indeed leave some room for seeing things in Scripture which many others may have not seen in the past. When I read Genesis 2, and its anthropomorphic displays of God, I see the Incarnate Christ, walking in Paradise with Adam and speaking with him: Christ Who, from before the ages is a Man and the Son of Man. Therefore, the Garden of Eden is a Place existing beyond time, where Christ was, and is, and is yet to be. I can see it in this way because I can see that the world is probably about 14.7 billion years old.

I don't reveal this in order to argue, but I am merely "giving an account of the Hope that is (still), within me" in spite of a personal belief in Theistic evolution. And I will Live the Faith of our fathers even still, because they have the True Faith in Christ the Savior. A fool is a fool. You cannot expect that a fool such as myself will have extensive knowledge of patristical writings. I have Liturgy, and that is where our Faith is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So you think my bishop may be a heretic? He is, uh, the real authority where I am.

um, if you read the first part of what I wrote, I said a loud and resounding no the idea that he is a heretic, especially if he is the one I have in mind. simply pointing out that being ordained to any office does not guarantee being correct. and I also said that there are many theologians who contributed a lot to our Church, died in peace with the Church, but the Church recognized they had some faulty teaching.

those we know to be correct are our holy saints. that is why those of us who are on the side that rejects evolution are quoting everything under the sun that the Church says is the authority of the Church.

and I also said that going to your bishop is the right way to go.

 

[jckstraw72]

the effects of the original sin of Adam, move, not forward in time only, but backwards also

demonstrate that this is anything other than your personal opinion.

We do not believe that we must not contradict the readings of the fathers.

i've already quoted Ecumenical Canons that say otherwise.

Christ Who, from before the ages is a Man and the Son of Man.

absolutely 100% not true. read St. John of Damascus -- OT anthropomorphisms of God are symbolic of His immaterial energies.

Octoechos (Tone 4, Sunday Matins, Canon to the Theotokos, Ode 8, Troparion): “In the tent Abraham saw the mystery that is in you, O Mother of God; for he received your Son fleshless."

if Christ is incarnate from before the ages, that means human nature is timeless. only that which is Uncreated is timeless, and that which is Uncreated is Divine. if Christ is timelessly incarnate then human nature is Divine and incapable of falling and in no need of redemption.