"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[jckstraw72]

or
4. Elder Joseph the HESYCHAST lied.

seems to me only option 3 makes any sense

its the only choice that doesn't seriously call into question his spiritual state

 

[truefiction1]

Why couldn't it be option 5?

 

[Cappadocious]

This reminds me of that Chapter in the Brothers Karamazov, where Zozima's sanctity is called into question because his corpse emits an odor of corruption.

 

[rusmeister]

A word from the jolly fat man:

"DEMOCRACY swept Europe with the sabre when it was founded upon the Rights of Man. It has done literally nothing at all since it has been founded only upon the wrongs of man. Or, more strictly speaking, its recent failure has been due to its not admitting the existence of any rights, or wrongs, or indeed of any humanity.

Evolution (the sinister enemy of revolution) does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man. And all the despair about the poor, and the cold and repugnant pity for them, has been largely due to the vague sense that they have literally relapsed into the state of the lower animals."

I would translate this, the fact that evolution denies the existence of man, as basically insisting that there IS no such thing as a permanent species; there IS no point at which the evolutionist admits a finished product; it says that all things developed from we hardly-know-what and are continuing to develop into we-know-not-what. Ergo, there is no such thing as a static creature called man; in x million years we would, under this theory, "evolve" into something completely different and unrecognizable to us.

This is entirely at odds with Christian thought, and is not limited to "Darwinism" as such but clearly applies to the general idea of what universal evolution would have to be. To Chesterton this was obvious and axiomatic. It is we who have ceased to be able to see this. ( I guess that would be an example of "evolving" in the wrong direction.)

 

[jckstraw72]

Why couldn't it be option 5?

whats option 5?

 

[truefiction1]

A word from the jolly fat man:





I would translate this, the fact that evolution denies the existence of man, as basically insisting that there IS no such thing as a permanent species; there IS no point at which the evolutionist admits a finished product; it says that all things developed from we hardly-know-what and are continuing to develop into we-know-not-what. Ergo, there is no such thing as a static creature called man; in x million years we would, under this theory, "evolve" into something completely different and unrecognizable to us.

This is entirely at odds with Christian thought, and is not limited to "Darwinism" as such but clearly applies to the general idea of what universal evolution would have to be. To Chesterton this was obvious and axiomatic. It is we who have ceased to be able to see this. ( I guess that would be an example of "evolving" in the wrong direction.)

Hmmm... and yet I wonder... if God became man in order that man might become God, and God is infinite and inexhaustible wonder, then perhaps their really is no "static" creature called man, after all. And perhaps it is only proper that we "evolve into something completely different and unrecognizable to us", since that which we have been, for all of recorded history, seems to fall way short of what we might be.

 

[rusmeister]

Hmmm... and yet I wonder... if God became man in order that man might become God, and God is infinite and inexhaustible wonder, then perhaps their really is no "static" creature called man, after all. And perhaps it is only proper that we "evolve into something completely different and unrecognizable to us", since that which we have been, for all of recorded history, seems to fall way short of what we might be.

And this is where the most effective lies are closest to the truth. Fallen Man can NOT "evolve" in any sense of theosis on his own; he can only devolve, degrade. We CAN evolve... into monsters in our own private hells.

But for all practical purposes, that is irrelevant. If Adam, the first man, is not like us for all practical purposes, then we cannot relate to him. If he is not human in the same sense that we are, then all discussion is meaningless. If there is any meaning to the idea of a Fall, then he must have at least Fallen from a state of perfection; he had been created by God as good and it would make nonsense of the Fall to suggest that he somehow became "less good" prior to the Fall. Therefore, there can be no evolution, let alone the sort that involves death, in that unFallen state. We can only talk about man at all if man is of one kind, if, as Scripture tells us, creatures were created to produce, not what would become something else, but after their own kind.

Unless there is a definite creature called Man, as all Scripture and Tradition assure us, and other distinct species as well, then all of our theology, all of our Tradition becomes nonsense, for it does make distinctions. The very idea of evolution seeks to erase those lines of distinction, to say that Man is NOT exceptional, that he is only an animal at a "higher stage of development". Impressionism in art is the same idea expressed artistically (and this is what I think is wrong with impressionism and the later, and ever more insane tendencies of art) - it blurs all distinctions, until we are left with no solid things, only "impressions". And an impression is an admission that the thing itself is not (no longer exists, if it ever did), just as fossils are only impressions of things that once were. So the very idea of evolution plays into the abolition of man (See Lewis, and Hopko's commentary on that book).

I see the defense of "theistic evolution" as a form of shyness, a fear of contradicting the popular view and trying to fit our Faith into the box they offer us for it. It boils down to scientism, the worship of science that in our time is dominated by the complete ignorance of genuine philosophy and theology.

 

[jckstraw72]

Hmmm... and yet I wonder... if God became man in order that man might become God, and God is infinite and inexhaustible wonder, then perhaps their really is no "static" creature called man, after all. And perhaps it is only proper that we "evolve into something completely different and unrecognizable to us", since that which we have been, for all of recorded history, seems to fall way short of what we might be.

but it is our mode of existence that changes - not our nature, in theosis. Even Christ, Whose human nature is fully united to His divine nature in one hypostasis, remains human. the Theotokos, who is above the angels, remains human. the Church teaches that man is the king and crown of all creation. man is a microcosm of the universe. besides God Himself, it doesn't get higher than man. that is what is at stake here - the Church has a glorious vision of man that NO other religion, philosophy, science, etc can even dream of, but evolution makes us just another animal. St. Nikolai Velimirovich refers to this as "the drowning of anthropology in zoology."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hmmm... and yet I wonder... if God became man in order that man might become God, and God is infinite and inexhaustible wonder, then perhaps their really is no "static" creature called man, after all. And perhaps it is only proper that we "evolve into something completely different and unrecognizable to us", since that which we have been, for all of recorded history, seems to fall way short of what we might be.

well we are not static. the perfect state of man is to be eternally perfected. but that is the perfect state of man, not some new thing that is totally alien to us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

its the only choice that doesn't seriously call into question his spiritual state

I'd say his intellect too. although he didn't have much as a formal education, his letters show that he was pretty sharp.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Very lucid points, rus. I agree. We can't relate either to a man who just woke up out of simian evolution nor can we relate to one who is changing into another life form. And I agree with you that there is a subtle attempt to sound hip and current, modern and sensible, when marrying evolution to Holy Orthodoxy. It makes one appear barbaric, passé, and just plain unreasonable to go with the Genesis narrative. And it also seems like some want to make Orthodoxy more 'marketable' if we're more 'with the times' rather than appearing like old-school pie-in-the-sky myth junkies....

What I really find disconcerting about evolution and secular humanism is the blatant elephant in the room reality that the idea of humanity evolving into a better being, a more sensible being, a being who craves justice and truth and wisdom and universal peace a la Gene Roddenberry is kind of tough to wrap one's mind around when we have more genocides, murders and mayhem, inhumanity toward one another, stupidity, lack of intellectual honesty, and more crime coupled with unstable relationships than we've ever had before? I see no signs of a 'better mankind' out there. I see a secular culture dead set on making everyone be into same-sex 'marriage' and abortion, contraception, no-fault divorce, no-questions-asked morality, but at the same time this secular culture is spying on everyone going through their emails, records, GPS, taxes, bank statements, and keeping tabs on us all the while drone-striking, torturing people, taking advantage of people financially, pitting people against one another, and making a meaner, nastier world. It's a world that claims to be opposed to bullying and yet huge international power plays and privacy infringements are going on as the world turns a blind eye to Coptic Christians and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Syria and Iraq are being bled-out. The media spends time blasting Vladimir Putin and the Russian government for fighting the gay agenda, but no one cares if Christians are being butchered in Syria and Egypt. No one cares about Orthodox Christians being kidnapped, clergy kidnapped and held ransom. Is the secular humanist media just seeing an 'evolved' humanity one that accepts sodomy, abortion, no-fault divorce, and I'm ok-You're ok?

Watching Star Trek as a kid I always thought the Gene Roddenberry vision of the future was so awesome! No war, everyone at peace and nobody cares about money or power, just improvement of the human condition. Behind that vision is a big lie. The big lie is that stuff can happen through man WITHOUT CHRIST. And though the goal of humanity loving one another is a laudable one, anyone knows that Scripture tells us it will never happen and that God is the only path to peace and justice at all.

So in the end I just see evolution these days as the secular humanist's hope that we ARE a bunch of ever-changing animals. This vision covers a multitude of sins. If we're just fancy simians with better control of our digits and brains, but still essentially animals on a path, we can justify pre-marital sex, 'swinging,' homosexuality, and everything else, including murder, because in the end, we're just animals, and animals will be animals!

And this is where the most effective lies are closest to the truth. Fallen Man can NOT "evolve" in any sense of theosis on his own; he can only devolve, degrade. We CAN evolve... into monsters in our own private hells.

But for all practical purposes, that is irrelevant. If Adam, the first man, is not like us for all practical purposes, then we cannot relate to him. If he is not human in the same sense that we are, then all discussion is meaningless. If there is any meaning to the idea of a Fall, then he must have at least Fallen from a state of perfection; he had been created by God as good and it would make nonsense of the Fall to suggest that he somehow became "less good" prior to the Fall. Therefore, there can be no evolution, let alone the sort that involves death, in that unFallen state. We can only talk about man at all if man is of one kind, if, as Scripture tells us, creatures were created to produce, not what would become something else, but after their own kind.

Unless there is a definite creature called Man, as all Scripture and Tradition assure us, and other distinct species as well, then all of our theology, all of our Tradition becomes nonsense, for it does make distinctions. The very idea of evolution seeks to erase those lines of distinction, to say that Man is NOT exceptional, that he is only an animal at a "higher stage of development". Impressionism in art is the same idea expressed artistically (and this is what I think is wrong with impressionism and the later, and ever more insane tendencies of art) - it blurs all distinctions, until we are left with no solid things, only "impressions". And an impression is an admission that the thing itself is not (no longer exists, if it ever did), just as fossils are only impressions of things that once were. So the very idea of evolution plays into the abolition of man (See Lewis, and Hopko's commentary on that book).

I see the defense of "theistic evolution" as a form of shyness, a fear of contradicting the popular view and trying to fit our Faith into the box they offer us for it. It boils down to scientism, the worship of science that in our time is dominated by the complete ignorance of genuine philosophy and theology.

 

[jckstraw72]

"The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction and the conquerors are triumphant. This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn’t think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend — and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." -- St. Barsanuphius of Optina

 

[rusmeister]

I'm just noting that the defenses of evolution by Orthodox people here have stopped suddenly and completely, without so much as eithter a "Gee, that's right." or a "I disagree, but I guess more cannot be said." That's why I said what I said above - so that disagreement does not leave one side feeling the other side is just stupid (and with the hope we should all have, that all ultimately be on the same side).

 

[inconsequential]

This may not fit in here but what has become pretty frightening to me lately is how, if evolution is true (particularly, materialistic evolution), then love is an anomaly that needs to be dealt with somehow if humanity is to continue evolving. I can understand how animals that feel a particular devotion to their "family" would survive better because they will go to greater lengths to ensure the survival of not only themselves but those they "love".

If the ultimate goal of man is to become better, more worthy of survival via evolutionary standards and means, then love has become almost antithetical to that process. Those individuals who carry genetic mistakes that SHOULD select them for removal from the gene pool are cared for and treated, allowing those bad genes to propagate through the species. Eugenics SHOULD be aggressively pursued if man is to continue evolving.

It makes me wonder about the effects of such behavior on groups of humans. If the strongest, the most "worthy" survive while the weak are allowed to die, would this not, over time, select those who feel less love and compassion? ACK, it ties my mind in knots thinking about it.

 

[truefiction1]

I'm just noting that the defenses of evolution by Orthodox people here have stopped suddenly and completely, without so much as eithter a "Gee, that's right." or a "I disagree, but I guess more cannot be said." That's why I said what I said above - so that disagreement does not leave one side feeling the other side is just stupid (and with the hope we should all have, that all ultimately be on the same side).

Honestly, I didn't comment on any of you guy's posts because I don't really have time to address all of your points adequately at present. Also, I was very moved by compassion toward you all because of the many things that you currently aren't seemingly able to comprehend. I don't wish to cause any you any undue grief any more than I would wish it upon one of my own children, and so if I were to proceed with this discussion at all, I would proceed only with the greatest of care and sensitivity.

I do believe in evolution, and I've managed, by the grace of God, to reconcile this with the Orthodox Christian spiritual Tradition that I'd become so well acquainted with as a young ascetic and mystic in the monastery of St. John the Theologian. But I've learned that it's wrong to be destructively dogmatic about any of my beliefs, which always must remain somewhat flexible in order to accommodate new experience and information. Beliefs don't make for peace. Peace exists apart from them, in the holiness of silence, forgiveness, and the Love of God.

I guess I don't need to feel personally validated by the agreement of others with my belief-sets. For this reason I've no need to comment further, but am certainly capable and willing if anyone wishes for me to answer questions regarding my view points.

 

[truthseeker32]

Honestly, I didn't comment on any of you guy's posts because I don't really have time to address all of your points adequately at present. Also, I was very moved by compassion toward you all because of the many things that you currently aren't seemingly able to comprehend. I don't wish to cause any you any undue grief any more than I would wish it upon one of my own children, and so if I were to proceed with this discussion at all, I would proceed only with the greatest of care and sensitivity.

I do believe in evolution, and I've managed, by the grace of God, to reconcile this with the Orthodox Christian spiritual Tradition that I'd become so well acquainted with as a young ascetic and mystic in the monastery of St. John the Theologian. But I've learned that it's wrong to be destructively dogmatic about any of my beliefs, which always must remain somewhat flexible in order to accommodate new experience and information. Beliefs don't make for peace. Peace exists apart from them, in the holiness of silence, forgiveness, and the Love of God.

I guess I don't need to feel personally validated by the agreement of others with my belief-sets. For this reason I've no need to comment further, but am certainly capable and willing if anyone wishes for me to answer questions regarding my view points.

I'll add my name to what Truefiction1 has said so eloquently, if he doesn't mind. I have come to see these debates as futile because we are often so set in our ways that we might as well be speaking different languages. I will continue to believe I am right and that the other side just doesn't get it, and those of you who reject biological evolution will do the same. I would rather us dedicate our time to living and promoting the faith than bicker over things that will contribute little or nothing to our salvation.

Edit: It would be cool if we had a member on here who was a evolutionary scientist so he could guide the conversation and correct any misconceptions encountered along the way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I dunno, I actually like these discussions. sometimes they help me think, sometimes they galvanize my faith, etc. just so long as we don't think we are somehow more Orthodox than others I think we should be alright.

I do totally agree truth that if someone on here were an evolutionary biologist, that would make stuff interesting.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree. And I don't think anyone thinks themselves more Orthodox than anyone else in here. I know I sure don't! I think of anyone in here I have the furthest to go on my road! Most of you are miles ahead of me. And I don't think Rus feels that way either nor Jckstraw.

I dunno, I actually like these discussions. sometimes they help me think, sometimes they galvanize my faith, etc. just so long as we don't think we are somehow more Orthodox than others I think we should be alright.

I do totally agree truth that if someone on here were an evolutionary biologist, that would make stuff interesting.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I must disagree, TS. I am not set in my ways at all. Just a year and a half ago or so, I was sold on evolution. Ask anyone in here. It caused quite the debate and stir and I felt pretty hurt by the reaction. If you had told me a year ago that I would be leaning away from evolution much less pretty much totally opposed to it, I'd say you're crazy. I know my mind isn't that closed, or I wouldn't have changed my feelings on it. And I think Orthodox tend to be very thoughtful people not easily brainwashed. But I do think evolution has a lot of bad theological implications and that the real Orthodox consensus overall is opposed to evolution camp.

I'll add my name to what Truefiction1 has said so eloquently, if he doesn't mind. I have come to see these debates as futile because we are often so set in our ways that we might as well be speaking different languages. I will continue to believe I am right and that the other side just doesn't get it, and those of you who reject biological evolution will do the same. I would rather us dedicate our time to living and promoting the faith than bicker over things that will contribute little or nothing to our salvation.

Edit: It would be cool if we had a member on here who was a evolutionary scientist so he could guide the conversation and correct any misconceptions encountered along the way.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm totally ok with this post except for the "moved to compassion" part which seems to look down on the traditionalists as dumb bunnies still living in a dim backwardness that you seem to pity, TF. It's as if we're so misinformed that you just want to say "awwwww" and that's a little off-putting. Disagree with the facts, and if you think we're wrong on something, correct our poor comprehension, but do it in a way that doesn't make us sound like boobs!

Can you at least understand what Rus was saying and why evolution has negative theological implications?

Honestly, I didn't comment on any of you guy's posts because I don't really have time to address all of your points adequately at present. Also, I was very moved by compassion toward you all because of the many things that you currently aren't seemingly able to comprehend. I don't wish to cause any you any undue grief any more than I would wish it upon one of my own children, and so if I were to proceed with this discussion at all, I would proceed only with the greatest of care and sensitivity.

I do believe in evolution, and I've managed, by the grace of God, to reconcile this with the Orthodox Christian spiritual Tradition that I'd become so well acquainted with as a young ascetic and mystic in the monastery of St. John the Theologian. But I've learned that it's wrong to be destructively dogmatic about any of my beliefs, which always must remain somewhat flexible in order to accommodate new experience and information. Beliefs don't make for peace. Peace exists apart from them, in the holiness of silence, forgiveness, and the Love of God.

I guess I don't need to feel personally validated by the agreement of others with my belief-sets. For this reason I've no need to comment further, but am certainly capable and willing if anyone wishes for me to answer questions regarding my view points.