How do we explain Neanderthals?

[ArmyMatt]

I don't know how to reconcile the fossil record with that.

Plus, we need to be careful that we don't make the same mistakes Protestants make with quoting the Bible.

I don't think we are although that is something to avoid. as has been posted on this thread, many saints pre and post Darwin have written against the idea that plants and animals were created to die. even some with very high levels of education (ie St Nikolai of Ziccha and his three earned doctorates).

 

[gzt]

the answer has been revealed, and there is no evidence from anything the Church says is authoritative that supports evolution. a PhD does not make one a Church authority.

There are, of course, bishops, too, who hold to this, not just people with PhDs. There certainly are sources with some authority that support your position, but not, as we might call it, conclusive authority, and the ones that do hold that kind of authority have so far declined to comment.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There are, of course, bishops, too, who hold to this, not just people with PhDs. There certainly are sources with some authority that support your position, but not, as we might call it, conclusive authority, and the ones that do hold that kind of authority have so far declined to comment.

and no saints. you keep defining Church authority in a way that the Church does not define what Church authority is.

 

[gzt]

It would be anachronistic to read this question back in time as-is, which leaves a narrow window to consider.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It would be anachronistic to read this question back in time as-is, which leaves a narrow window to consider.

Hence the insistence on modern saints as well. As long as evolution has been on the scene, the saints have overwhelmingly rejected it

 

[jckstraw72]

it would also be anachronistic, though, to read compatibility back in time

about saying plants and animals died but not man:

as ArmyMatt said, Scripture and the Fathers teach otherwise, so this idea plays around with the Tradition a bit. and of course, the notion of man being incorruptible is completely ridiculous from the scientific point of view, so this idea plays around with the science, but the whole point of being a theistic evolutionist is to claim faithfulness to the teachings of modern science. so this compromise position is neither Orthodox nor evolutionary.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't know how to reconcile the fossil record with that.

The thing you take as an article of faith, stronger than your faith in the fathers, is that modern education is good education that teaches and reveals unquestionable truth, that the scientists also have the truest philosophy, logic, and theology and have had their mindset formed by the Church and not the world. You have such faith in our ability to calculate what we cannot possibly observe, but any unknown variable anywhere throws all calculation off, and can do so radically, completely changing the current narrative of science. You have to be able to say, with dogmatic certainty, that there are no unknown variables - and that just plain ain't scientific. You hardly seem aware that all teaching is imbued with a worldview and philosophical assumptions that are most often not spoken aloud or written in the curriculum, for the very reason that they are assumed. You've never acknowledged that as far as I have seen, anyway.

To answer your other question, I reject the idea that we can be 100% sure the Earth is 7,000 (or whatever) years old, but I don't think it is nearly as old as people think today. I think modern science has gone off its head, and that, combined with the worship of science as an ultimately inerrant source of truth, more authoritative than the fathers, that is, scientism, has people ready to believe that man really came from monkeys, and that death was always in the world from the beginning - which, though the Orthodox person does not intend this, DOES make God the author of death and ultimately denies our theology.

 

[rusmeister]

Hence the insistence on modern saints as well. As long as evolution has been on the scene, the saints have overwhelmingly rejected it

To add to this, the ancient Council declarations that man was not created mortal, etc, all deny what evolution implicitly states.

 

[Doveaman]

Satan is an angel -- immaterial -- he can't introduce death into material creation. We see this in the episode in the Garden. Even before Adam and Eve sinned, Satan had already lied and deceived -- but yet his sin did not cause the Fall, but rather it was the sin of man.

Sin causes death, whether it be the sin of angels or the sin of man.

There are scriptures which suggests that Satan/Lucifer governed a prehistoric world before he fell, and that prehistoric world would have also fallen because of Lucifer's sin.

Man/Adam now governs this present world and this present world is now fallen because of man's sin.

Sin entered into the prehistoric world through Lucifer, but sin entered into this present world through Adam.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Sin causes death, whether it be the sin of angels or the sin of man.

There are scriptures which suggests that Satan/Lucifer governed a prehistoric world before he fell, and that prehistoric world would have also fallen because of Lucifer's sin.

Man/Adam now governs this present world and this present world is now fallen because of man's sin.

Sin entered into the prehistoric world through Lucifer, but sin entered into this present world through Adam.

Now that's a little coincidental, as well as interesting. I have a mind that likes to make up stories sometimes, and essentially what you just said popped into my head as a possible alternative explanation, that did not make God the author of death, let all of our creation be good, as God said, and still accounted for a prehistoric fossil record (which STILL doesn't necessitate evolution, imo, but does provide an alternative explanation).

I wasn't even going to mention it though. Because to my mind, it's all speculation (as it certainly would be on my part) and I don't like mixing speculation with theology.

But as I mentioned before, I don't see a necessity of a young earth in Orthodoxy, and we are indeed aware of the fall of Lucifer prior to much (if not all) of the Genesis account.

It may find other contradictions I'm not aware of though. And I'm not aware of any precedent.

Seeing where Rome has gone, we find it safer to stay with the faith as handed down, and not speculating. I think this idea might fall in that category for us.

 

[Cappadocious]

https://www.academia.edu/6326926/A_...r._Seraphim_Rose_and_the_Doctrine_of_Creation

"The purpose of this thesis is to look especially at one of Fr. Seraphim
’s major works, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision' in which he examines the philosophical and scientific theory of evolution and its theological implications as compared to the Patristic understanding of the creation of the world, the creation of man, and the Fall of man and the world. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that Fr. Seraphim was not inspired by mere intellectual pursuits or a polemical spirit but rather that he was reasonable, pastoral, and willing and able to crucify his mind in submission to the teachings of the Orthodox Church."

So does the body of the work link patristic texts to show he's being patristic, then? Or does it go into the arguments? Both?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sin causes death, whether it be the sin of angels or the sin of man.

There are scriptures which suggests that Satan/Lucifer governed a prehistoric world before he fell, and that prehistoric world would have also fallen because of Lucifer's sin.

Man/Adam now governs this present world and this present world is now fallen because of man's sin.

Sin entered into the prehistoric world through Lucifer, but sin entered into this present world through Adam.

Lucifer is an angel, and therefore not material, so his fall would not have brought down the material world. Plus there are no Scriptures or anything from Church history that supports this position.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ah, hadn't thought of Lucifer being immaterial as mattering. But I thought there might well be reasons not to accept such a thought ...

 

[jckstraw72]

"The purpose of this thesis is to look especially at one of Fr. Seraphim
’s major works, Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision' in which he examines the philosophical and scientific theory of evolution and its theological implications as compared to the Patristic understanding of the creation of the world, the creation of man, and the Fall of man and the world. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that Fr. Seraphim was not inspired by mere intellectual pursuits or a polemical spirit but rather that he was reasonable, pastoral, and willing and able to crucify his mind in submission to the teachings of the Orthodox Church."

So does the body of the work link patristic texts to show he's being patristic, then? Or does it go into the arguments? Both?

some of both

 

[rusmeister]

Ah, hadn't thought of Lucifer being immaterial as mattering. But I thought there might well be reasons not to accept such a thought ...

Another point is that the temptation in the unFallen Garden came from a being that spoke, that communicated evil ideas. Lucifer was already Fallen, but man wasn't. The whole idea of Satan as a serpent tempting unFallen man becomes nonsense if we try to imagine Doveaman's very un-Orthodox idea of a "pre-Fallen world". No compatibility there whatsoever.

I think it best if guests remember that they are guests, to honor our rules and refrain from making assertions outside of and contrary to our theology here.

 

[GregConstantine]

"You hardly seem aware that all teaching is imbued with a worldview and philosophical assumptions that are most often not spoken aloud or written in the curriculum, for the very reason that they are assumed. You've never acknowledged that as far as I have seen, anyway."

You know, you say a lot of good things that I agree with probably 99.9% of the time. Then, you go and make a comment like this.

You don't know me, you don't know me in person, there is no way in the world that you would be able to make such a comment like that. It comes across accusatory and judgmental.

Did you know I used to be a teacher in the public school system? Did you know that one of the reasons why I'm no longer a teacher in the public school system is because I saw them pushing a certain ideology and were forcing me to go along with it? The very same one you are claiming I have no clue about?

No you didn't, because you don't know me.

People will listen to you more Rumeister, if you would try to not assume that everyone that disagrees with you automatically falls into a certain category.

There are plenty of faithful, devout Orthodox Christians who defend the teachings of the Church to the world around us, but may not agree with you on every minute point according to your opinion or take on things.

Please try not to do that. Thank you.

 

[rusmeister]

"You hardly seem aware that all teaching is imbued with a worldview and philosophical assumptions that are most often not spoken aloud or written in the curriculum, for the very reason that they are assumed. You've never acknowledged that as far as I have seen, anyway."

You know, you say a lot of good things that I agree with probably 99.9% of the time. Then, you go and make a comment like this.

You don't know me, you don't know me in person, there is no way in the world that you would be able to make such a comment like that. It comes across accusatory and judgmental.

Did you know I used to be a teacher in the public school system? Did you know that one of the reasons why I'm no longer a teacher in the public school system is because I saw them pushing a certain ideology and were forcing me to go along with it? The very same one you are claiming I have no clue about?

No you didn't, because you don't know me.

People will listen to you more Rumeister, if you would try to not assume that everyone that disagrees with you automatically falls into a certain category.

There are plenty of faithful, devout Orthodox Christians who defend the teachings of the Church to the world around us, but may not agree with you on every minute point according to your opinion or take on things.

Please try not to do that. Thank you.

Understood. I'm sorry if the shoe doesn't fit. I really don't mean to imply that you know nothing and have no experience; I do know that you have it, and definitely have a clue about public schools. My apologies for the misunderstanding!
But there are two understandings to parse that I think have given rise to actual misunderstanding. One is the understanding that I think we are all clear on; that a definite ideology is being pushed in public schools (which you just referred to). I wasn't speaking about that as such. I was talking about the fact that no instruction of any sort can ever occur without being founded in some worldview or other, and not everybody knows this here. Anybody who says "teach them straight science (math/history, etc)" doesn't know that. No one can. Any teacher of any subject is going to do so from a particular hermeneutic and worldview, and they can't separate their teaching from their hermeneutic. Not everybody knows this; a great many experienced teachers don't know it. That's just part of the whole problem of the complete absence of philosophy, let alone theology, from education in general.

 

[gzt]

This is, by the way, one of the reasons I'm not particularly interested in having a more thorough discussion here. That and there are good books out there (eg Bouteneff) and we've been over this several times over the past few years.

 

[jckstraw72]

Bouteneff's book pulls together great sources, but it doesn't really address head-on the specific theological issues involved here, IIRC

 

[~Anastasia~]

Another point is that the temptation in the unFallen Garden came from a being that spoke, that communicated evil ideas. Lucifer was already Fallen, but man wasn't. The whole idea of Satan as a serpent tempting unFallen man becomes nonsense if we try to imagine Doveaman's very un-Orthodox idea of a "pre-Fallen world". No compatibility there whatsoever.

I think it best if guests remember that they are guests, to honor our rules and refrain from making assertions outside of and contrary to our theology here.

Thank you, Rus. And tbh, I PROBABLY should not have mentioned the little story popping into my head.

But I'm afraid I'm not actually following you here? I can see Matt's point about the actions of an non-corporeal being not having effect on a previous corporeal world. While I can't say with 100% certainty that it would not happen in such a way, I can look at the way God acts, and it makes 99% sense. The other 1% is me not wanting to limit God in a way I'm not positive He has limited Himself.

And again, I think it's probably wiser to dismiss the whole idea and NOT speculate such things. Thank God my impulses have actually changed with time! But I see here the opportunity to explore the reasons for objection with folks who have thought more on the subject than I have, and with much more of a history and background in Orthodoxy, so I am taking a chance and asking for more explanation while I have this opportunity.

Can you explain more plainly WHY this would necessarily be a problem? As I said, I'm not arguing against you. Just arming myself to think better, hopefully. Thank you!