EO & evolution

Dorothea said:

I would think whatever Saints from this era come about would probably echo what the earlier Saints said because that's what they usually do and read from and emulate and of course the Gospel and Christ. I would think if it's truth, it's not going to change with time.

Click to expand...

What the saints teach contains the truth about "affect regulation" (healthy and productive use of emotions), which involves spiritual transformance/transformation (theosis). It is communicated using the commonly understood symbols and language which has been passed down within Orthodox Christian culture. This doesn't disprove the scientific explanations regarding the origin and processes of biological life. When one looks closely enough at what science has discovered about us (our minds and bodies), which I have done and continue to do, one begins to understand that the two traditions (religion and science) are actually in agreement on the things that can really make a difference in our lives and in death, though they obviously use radically different terminologies, and many scientists do lack religious faith, though clearly not all of us.

Actually, Christ was condemned because He did not worship the authority of the Church of His day. Neither do I

Click to expand...

well, yeah. because the Church of His day was liberalized by the Pharisees and Sadducees. plus you live after Pentecost, when the Spirit was promised to lead the Apostles into all Truth, not SOME or MOST as you are asserting, but all.

But that is not the point, because the Church does not preach against science or the theory of evolution, you only imagine that She does because of a consensus of canonized saints that does not disprove the scientific explanation of the origins and processes of biological life.

Click to expand...

for one, I know they don't preach against science. being against evolution does not make one against science. and two, I don't imagine she does because the Saints have spoken against it. I know she does because they have spoken against it.

We have said it many times over: the saints may have been teaching authorities on matters of "affect regulation", which often translates into cognitive insights which enable them to speak authoritatively about some things, but they aren't necessarily anyone you would go to for advice on how to hit a baseball or weld two pieces of metal together or how to safely remove someone's kidney or give them a heart transplant. Saints aren't "know it alls". They don't possess a special "gnosis" about everything there is to know, given them by the Holy Spirit. To believe this is to have adopted a fallacious and purely mythological outlook, devoid of physical evidence and therefore, any objective substance which one could point to and identify, along with others, as truth and reality.

Click to expand...

I know, but the ones who have spoken about our origins have spoken out against evolution. even those that came after Darwin and knew of his theory.

What it means is that they are giving the Orthodox Church "lip service", acknowledging that we are like them but still believing that it is they who have things right because of the "Chair of Peter". They accept us, but they don't deem themselves as holding incorrect beliefs or as lacking in the fullness of the Faith.

Click to expand...

no kidding

What the saints teach contains the truth about "affect regulation" (healthy and productive use of emotions), which involves spiritual transformance/transformation (theosis).

Click to expand...

actually, there is more to theosis than that

This doesn't disprove the scientific explanations regarding the origin and processes of biological life.

Click to expand...

it actually does. since life comes from communion with God, and life in our fallen state came from that rebellion from Him (which includes death), and Christ's work restored man to his original state, it actually does.

ArmyMatt said:

actually, there is more to theosis than that



it actually does. since life comes from communion with God, and life in our fallen state came from that rebellion from Him (which includes death), and Christ's work restored man to his original state, it actually does.

Click to expand...

No, it actually doesn't, and man is the same as he was before Christ's work: a creature who learns and grows, in more ways than one.

No, it actually doesn't, and man is the same as he was before Christ's work: a creature who learns and grows, in more ways than one.

Click to expand...

well, according to those who experienced theosis, there is. call me crazy, but they are the subject matter experts

truefiction1 said:

What the saints teach contains the truth about "affect regulation" (healthy and productive use of emotions), which involves spiritual transformance/transformation (theosis). It is communicated using the commonly understood symbols and language which has been passed down within Orthodox Christian culture. This doesn't disprove the scientific explanations regarding the origin and processes of biological life. When one looks closely enough at what science has discovered about us (our minds and bodies), which I have done and continue to do, one begins to understand that the two traditions (religion and science) are actually in agreement on the things that can really make a difference in our lives and in death, though they obviously use radically different terminologies, and many scientists do lack religious faith, though clearly not all of us.

Click to expand...

I don't think all science contradicts what the Church teaches. I think sometimes it confirms it. Like the Big Bang. That, imo, is God creating the world/universe.

Anyhow, what I mean is the Saints tend to read earlier Saints' views on subjects that have come up, so I would think any future Saints would look to Saints before them on modern issues.

I was wondering if the talk was getting into what man was before and after the Fall. I mean physically. I've always had the belief Adam and Eve were made perfect but could change or alter through their free will as it said in the book Animals and Man. I have never believed at some point humans were not humans but apes. I think that's hogwash.

I have a question. Does anybody believe that man's appearance changed after the Fall? And if so, to what? Where does this idea of "cave man" and cro-magnon man fit into this?

But it makes one seriously wonder if the "Big Bang" even happened at all?! Talk about extreme theory! At least there is 'some' evidence for evolution, but the Big Bang is a touch removed from history and evidence....

Dorothea said:

I don't think all science contradicts what the Church teaches. I think sometimes it confirms it. Like the Big Bang. That, imo, is God creating the world/universe.

Anyhow, what I mean is the Saints tend to read earlier Saints' views on subjects that have come up, so I would think any future Saints would look to Saints before them on modern issues.

Click to expand...

gurneyhalleck1 said:

But it makes one seriously wonder if the "Big Bang" even happened at all?! Talk about extreme theory! At least there is 'some' evidence for evolution, but the Big Bang is a touch removed from history and evidence....

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the Big Bang theory is. I thought it was the idea that the universe came about from some big cosmic explosion, for lack of a better term. That could also mean God's creating of the universe. At least i think it could be, even if the scientists may or may not believe in God.

Does anybody believe that man's appearance changed after the Fall? And if so, to what?

Click to expand...

I have read that our bodies were much more spiritualized than today. so in Eden, when God clothes man in skins, it is the crude flesh we have now.

ArmyMatt said:

I have read that our bodies were much more spiritualized than today. so in Eden, when God clothes man in skins, it is the crude flesh we have now.

Click to expand...

Oh ok. I was reading in The Animals and Man book that said they were clothed in .... Dang. Wish I had the book in front of me. It was like robes of righteousness.

Oh, I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, just that I find it fascinating how the scientific community came up with this SUPER remote theory with zip for evidence, put it out there, and now it is a type of gospel truth about the origin of the universe. I find it fascinating how easily people take the bait and follow the herd. I think since becoming Orthodox I have become EVEN LESS likely to believe or follow any herds except for that of my bishop, Maxim's, Serbian Orthodox herd!

Dorothea said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the Big Bang theory is. I thought it was the idea that the universe came about from some big cosmic explosion, for lack of a better term. That could also mean God's creating of the universe. At least i think it could be, even if the scientists may or may not believe in God.

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

well, according to those who experienced theosis, there is. call me crazy, but they are the subject matter experts

Click to expand...

What I meant was that human beings are clearly the same "affect driven" creatures that they were, and that they are. It's pretty hard to deny that this observation is true, when you really consider things. So your statement that mankind has been restored to an original perfect condition does not find any support within observable reality. We might say that Christ restored human nature in His own person, but even that would be less than accurate, because we tend to believe that He did a great deal more than restore human nature. I do believe, as you most likely do also, that He has greatly exulted it above what it ever had been, as is also the understanding of the Church.

truefiction1 said:

I already answered that question, and the answer was that things don't really work in this manner that you insist they do. I already stated that a consensus of people whose cognitive landscapes lack genuine knowledge and evidence of evolutionary realities, has no authority in these matters. So the consensus of canonized saints is not the authority of the Church. God is the only absolute authority. All others, even if they seem to agree, may be held suspect of being mistaken about certain things that do no fall within the realm of their expertise, which in the case of the saints is spirituality and not the physical sciences.

Click to expand...

I don't recognize any of this as Orthodox, period.
The issue is NOT evolution, but the much bigger one of authority.

And it's NOT about the Church claiming scientific authority but about scientists claiming authority over the Church to divide reality into separate and UNRELATED realms of "physical" and "spiritual" that (in their view) have nothing to do with each other, which is not what the Church teaches.

If the consensus of canonized saints, from Paul and Peter to our day, is NOT authoritative for us (but an ephemeral God who has never spoken printable words to you or me), then our Faith is in vain.

Anyone who disagrees with you can use your very position to reject everything you say. They can say that YOU and YOUR words - or even modern scientists - are not the absolute authority. Only God is. And He established a Church of human beings, which has both hierarchy and authority. Your own position destroys itself in the hands of another. The real authority of the person who says this is not God, but the self.

Forget about evolution, we have a much bigger issue of what exactly Church authority is. It is useless and foolish to talk about evolution if this is not resolved.

gurneyhalleck1 said:

Oh, I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, just that I find it fascinating how the scientific community came up with this SUPER remote theory with zip for evidence, put it out there, and now it is a type of gospel truth about the origin of the universe. I find it fascinating how easily people take the bait and follow the herd. I think since becoming Orthodox I have become EVEN LESS likely to believe or follow any herds except for that of my bishop, Maxim's, Serbian Orthodox herd!

Click to expand...

Ah yes. I see what you mean.

ArmyMatt said:

I have read that our bodies were much more spiritualized than today. so in Eden, when God clothes man in skins, it is the crude flesh we have now.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's Orthodox, Matt. It's Manichaean, an attitude that the flesh is bad and the spirit is good. God MADE flesh. He LIKES matter. He made it good.

Sounds very gnostic as well. They had a carpe diem attitude toward the flesh as it was a crude matter we were encased in to escape from in a higher plane of existence. Seems in the ancient world the flesh was often a vile cocoon to be shed in favor of something higher. Thanks be to God our Orthodox faith teaches the truth of it all!

rusmeister said:

I don't think that's Orthodox, Matt. It's Manichaean, an attitude that the flesh is bad and the spirit is good. God MADE flesh. He LIKES matter. He made it good.

Click to expand...

Dorothea said:

I was wondering if the talk was getting into what man was before and after the Fall. I mean physically. I've always had the belief Adam and Eve were made perfect but could change or alter through their free will as it said in the book Animals and Man. I have never believed at some point humans were not humans but apes. I think that's hogwash.

I have a question. Does anybody believe that man's appearance changed after the Fall? And if so, to what? Where does this idea of "cave man" and cro-magnon man fit into this?

Click to expand...

I do think we need to shift to finding a consensus here on Church authority, and if we can't obtain that, this is all a waste of time.

But just to you I'll say I think they find mutations and effects of disease and disorders, I think they find incomplete evidence (skeletons and so on) which they fill in with projections, I think that everything now taken as gospel truth about "Lucy", "Cro-Magnon Man", etc, will be shown to be wild misunderstanding based on very reasonable - but wrong - assumptions.

rusmeister said:

I don't recognize any of this as Orthodox, period.
The issue is NOT evolution, but the much bigger one of authority.

And it's NOT about the Church claiming scientific authority but about scientists claiming authority over the Church to divide reality into separate and UNRELATED realms of "physical" and "spiritual" that (in their view) have nothing to do with each other, which is not what the Church teaches.

If the consensus of canonized saints, from Paul and Peter to our day, is NOT authoritative for us (but an ephemeral God who has never spoken printable words to you or me), then our Faith is in vain.

Forget about evolution, we have a much bigger issue of what exactly Church authority is. It is useless and foolish to talk about evolution if this is not resolved.

Click to expand...

The Church hasn't had any authority since the separation of Church and state, which is probably a good thing, since when it had the backing of the secular authorities it persecuted, tortured, and killed its detractors on many occasions, thinking that it rendered service to God by destroying human beings for the protection and advancement of its own religious culture and dogmas.
Please refrain from shouting. The Church no longer has the power to shout at those who disagree with some of its ideas. It must now resort to gentle persuasion through the discussion of ideas that actually make sense and provide much sought after answers. Evolution makes very much sense indeed, as do Orthodox Christians who are okay with it.

...