EO & evolution

[Gxg (G²)]

God is the author of all things. It would be better for us to come to terms with this and to reflect upon why death is so important to life, rather than to shy away from the idea that God allows death for some important reason. [/QUOTE

There are many ways in which Death comes from the Hand of God. Death itself is not something that seems to be totally absent from the text of scripture before the Fall.

Living creatures such as plants were given as food - that is a form of death, no matter how much one wishes to go past it. It is mixing categories ignoring where spiritual death/the curses of the Fall (i.e. diseases, etc.) are the same as being physically perfect and still having limitations. This is something that has been noted for ages within Old Earth Creationism - that Adam's sin (Romans 5:12) did subject humanity to death, but it did not introduce physical death to the world. Romans 8 tells us when the “bondage to decay” will end (when the children of God are glorified), but it does not tell us when it began or what the nature of that bondage is. And so it cannot be proven that Romans 8 refers to a changed creation and the introduction of all forms of death. Moreover, the Bible gives no indication the physical laws governing the pre-Fall world were different than today. Rather, the Bible tells us the creation was earthly and not heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:47) and that it was transitory from the beginning (Psalm 102:25-26).

Many in the Church have noted that the “bondage to decay” is the earth’s present service as a graveyard of the dead. They suggest Paul’s metaphor of the creation’s groaning is drawn from Isaiah 24-26–an apocalyptic picture of the earth as a graveyard awaiting the resurrection of the dead. Isaiah states “the earth mourns” because it has been made to “cover her slain."

Additionally, Romans 5:12 states death came to “all men” as a result of sin, and both Romans 6:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-26 speak of spiritual redemption which limits the meaning to human death. Logically, If these passages are interpreted more widely, Christ’s redemptive purpose would need to extend to the animal kingdom, which is implausible. Consequently, while these passages support the view that human death is the result of sin, they do not support the view that all death is the result of sin.

As Deacon Andrew Kouraev of the Russian Orthodox Church noted best:

It is quite possible that outside of the Garden of Eden all laws for survival already existed, God warned man " do not eat... or you shall die" (Gen. 2, 17). So, if God said this to them then it means that people were familiar with the experience of death earlier (better to say they saw somebody's death before). This tells us that death existed in non-human world, in the world of animals....The man was protected up to a certain period of time. Once man had broken the fence of the Garden of Eden by his sin and the laws of the outer world, the laws of Darwin's biology poured into the world of humans.

The connection between sin and death dogmatically is established by the words of the apostle Paul"Therefore as sin came into the world through a man and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind because all men sinned". (Rom. 512).​

So what did animals eat, and how did they do so without killing any plants?

I thought animals and man were eating plants in the Garden. Doesn't it say that in Genesis? What about the trees bearing fruit? Like the fruit Adam and Eve ate that they weren't supposed to?

As it concerns other forms of death present prior to the Fall, there's nothing saying other animals were not able to eat meat - as that'd be no more logical than saying that God, when making all aquatic animals like sharks and barracudas, gave them predatory teeth in order to eat vegetables. Certain animals were made with predatory designs on purpose - from spiders (with venom made for defensive purposes) to birds of prey (i.e. eagles, hawks, etc.) and many others.

As said before, As a supporter of Old Earth Creationism (Progressive Creationism) and the thought that not all things within creation were originally peaceful as in the Garden of Eden, it seems reasonable to say that even those things deemed to be destructive in nature were made by the Lord as a reflection of how all of creation should always be in awe/fear of Him--and knowing what exactly they must face should they go outside of Him. Be it with sea monsters, deadly sea creatures or monsters of the land (i.e. giant snakes, giant lizards, giant birds, poisonious animals, etc), the Lord made ALL in creation. More was discussed here and here--and an article entitled Why Were Dangerous Animals Created?.

God didn't make volcanos or hurricanes or tornados and a host of other natural actions that are VERY deadly for mankind - they are a reflection of His might and power in the world. The same can also be said of animals he created dangerous...


Seeing the sheer beauty found in animals with deadly skills, it seems odd for that to simply have come after the Fall. IMHO, in the Scriptures, predation is portrayed as something that glorifies God (Job and Psalms (e.g. Ps 104:21)). There is no indication in these passages that something is wrong with the creation. The claim that God’s “very good” creation had no animal death seems contradicted by Job 38:39, wherein God glories in his ability to provide prey for the lion:

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in their lair?... The eagle mounts up and makes a nest on high... Spies out food; His eyes see from afar. His young ones also suck up blood; And where the slain are, there is he.(Job 38:39-14, 39:27-30)
​

Psalm 104:21 also expresses the same idea:

The beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God... In wisdom you have created them all...(Psalm 104:20-24)
​

Regarding the issue of animal predation St. Augustine writes: “One might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment... The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable.” ( Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1 (1983), 92. ). Seen in this light, animal predation and death are simply God’s loving provision for the animal kingdom. Keep in mind that only Adam and Eve were granted eternal life through the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9). Since the animals did not have access to the “tree,” they had no way to avoid death....and it would not be a negative.

And of course, assuming death existed, we have to deal with Genesis 1:30 which says "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”

In creation (pre-fall), God gave to every beast and bird and creepy thing: every green herb for food. There is No mention of meat. No mention of predation. Nonetheless, Genesis 1:29-30 does not explicitly say that meat was forbidden...for it only says the positive: God gave man and beast "every green plant for food." One individual suggested that this passage has a special literary purpose....not given to define man's diet comprehensively, but to set the stage for the prohibition of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the following chapter (Gen. 2:16-17). As it is, the statement given by the Lord to beasts eating plants, if saying it was a commandment forbidding animals from killing, CANNOT apply to all creation....for the creatures of the SEAS/great deep are not included in the command.

Gen. 1:21 says that on the fifth day of creation week God created ‘great sea creatures’ (‘great whales’ (KJV) / ‘great sea monsters’ (NASB)) along with all the other moving living things in the oceans. (Scholars inform us that in the original Hebrew this would have been their word used to describe specifically a monster, particularly a ‘huge marine animal’ or a ‘hideous land animal’.)


The Levitithan/great monstets of the waters and other creatures.....the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan ....all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). Some creatures were made to eat vegetarian, including others that were considered predatory in our times..while others were not and always remained as such due to the way the Lord wanted certain creature to represent what it meant to fear the Lord

Many sea animals eat diatoms and microscopic plants - ingesting and killing entire organisms. Thus, unless God changed the way these herbivores eat, plants surely died during the fifth and sixth days of creation.

As scripture notes:

Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
​

The verse says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. However, the verse does not say that all animals ate only plants. It merely says that the plants were given as food. Ultimately, all animals rely upon plants for food - even the carnivores. God specified to three distinct groups what they could or couldn't eat--and the groups were in the class of air and ground/earth. If going from a strictly literal interpretation at all points, then one would logically have to conclude that he was not speaking to other animals in other areas.....

A partial list is given, including the beasts of the field, the birds, and the creatures that creep around. Notably missing from the list are the large creatures of the sea, created on the fifth day. With few exceptions, these animals are all carnivores. Did God make them starve until after the Fall? No..

One must look at animal death from God’s perspective. Just as God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8), so His definition of “good” is different as well. For it is already the case that numerous verses of Scripture tell us God provides food for the carnivores of the Earth thereby condoning the death of some animals for the survival of others.

That said, it really matters not whether or not others disagree. There will always be debate on the matter within Orthodoxy and it is far from being an issue of heresy or whatever else people want to make it into.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It (Genesis) is stories: stories which relate to the existential concerns of death, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness. God may not be the direct author of death, yet God knew that the beings that he would create would be mortal, so in a way, God is the author of all things. It would be better for us to come to terms with this and to reflect upon why death is so important to life, rather than to shy away from the idea that God allows death for some important reason. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (John 12:24) You who know what this passage implies in its utmost depths will understand the importance of death in finding the fullness of human life.

What is sin, but a failure to fully live? And what is the only cure for this failure on the part of creatures other than death? The existence of death, it is known and understood, is the only thing that can teach creatures to truly live. Death is the path to Godhood, and the vehicle for theosis. Of course it must exist -- for now. It is only through learning how to die that one learns how to live. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke 9:24).

Death exists for a perfectly good reason. Human kind was born, and was sent to school.

Sister Dorothea actually did an excellent job on addressing the issue via a series of teaching she took time to place up when it came to seeing how the Lord saw death and how we should see it. It was in the thread entitled Homily by Fr. John Behr on Fasting, Love, and the Last Judgment - if you recall it:

I'm listening to this right now. Wanted to share it here for you all.

Fasting, Love, and the Last Judgement - YouTube

Now, listening to this one about Death: The Final Frontier:

Fr. John Behr - Death - The Final Frontier - YouTube

Here's the second and final part of his lecture.....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One suggestion is due to CS Lewis in The Problem of Pain.

“For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me,’ which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.”

The authors in the Orthodox Wiki article have other suggestions when the question comes up.

I do appreciate what C.S Lewis suggested on the issue of how God created man over time. It's not as if God was making a ginger-bread man - nor is a matter of God making the man without the need to adapt to new environments since he was to spread out and "take dominion" over the rest of the world outside of Eden. Unless we assume that man was created knowing how to make electricity, do acts of science we've developed today since (i.e. engineering with nuclear energy, making airplanes, biological treatment, etc.) - or think that Adam/Eve did not have their children change skin tones over time so that people from Africa would have darker skin than those living in Europe - it doesn't make sense to not think that man changed over time.

It is always interesting seeing C.S Lewis in his stance when seeing the times he grew up in. For he did the following things in his era:

• Lewis refused to join or endorse the Evolution Protest Movement, even though it was led by a personal friend.
• His writings state acceptance of biological evolution [and, I should add, an ancient Earth (and Mars)].
• Lewis believed that evolution posed little threat to Christianity.
• Lewis didn’t even believe in a literal Adam and Eve
  

No one who actually reads C.S. Lewis in an honest way could possibly think that he was an anti-evolutionist. There was a very excellent series on the issue that was very spot-on, as seen in C.S. Lewis on Evolution and Intelligent Design | The BioLogos Forum.

As it is, we see Adam and Eve in they growing in knowledge over time. One cannot logically advocate that no forms of evolving were meant to occur with man in a perfected state without also saying Adam and Eve were already born without the need to learn, develop or have ability to adapt to new problems. Moreover, BIOLOGICALLY, without forms of evolving, one must assume that others would not be able to adapt to differing environments around the world - the argument would be that a PERFECT man like Adam would never have gotten DARKER if going to certain parts of Africa due to how the body reacts to the sun....or that Adam's children in a Pre-Fall state (if going North) would not be able to change skin tones to much lighter compositions because of the cold temperatures. But the body was designed to do so - it has potential for reacting to new developments and that was not a CONSEQUENCE of the Fall. That's human biology as God designed it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here is one attempt to deal with the issue of death coming into the world via sin that I came across. Seems like it's worth taking into consideration:

Does Death Predate Adam?

The first argument, evolution presupposes the change of generations. The change of generations presupposes death. The essence of the problem is that if there were generations of developing animal forms before the appearance and fall of man then in this case we have to say that death was in the world before the appearance of sin! We know that death is the consequence of sin, and the sin of man. Hence, there was no sin in the world, before man than theologically it is impossible to presuppose the existence of death in it.

If death was in the world before the fall of man, then the universe became corrupted, not through man. This statement is against the biblical belief. Here, we have to stop and think hard about the meanings of the words “death” and “sin”.

The word “death” is too human; the word “death” is very rich with human tragedy. Can we apply the word “death,” that is so full, up to the brim with human meaning, to a non-human world? Death for a person is a tragedy, it is something outrageously wrong. It is not by chance that in Russian Philosophy the terrifying fear of death was taken as an experiential witness of its non-human origin. Suppose that man was a legitimate outcome of natural evolution and a struggle for survival; then he would not experience disgust towards that (death) which is so “natural.”

Undoubtedly the death of man entered into this world through sin. Death is evil and it was not created by God. This is also an axiom of Biblical Theology.

Hence, it seems to me, that only one conclusion should be drawn from this: the departure of animals is not death, and it is not the same as the departure of a man. When we say “The death of Socrates” we do not have a right to apply the same word to the phrase “The death of a dog”. The death of a star is a metaphor. We can use the same metaphor to say the “death” of an atom or a chair. Animals were disappearing from existence, they were going out of the world before the time of man. This was not death. Hence, it is impossible to talk about the phenomenon of death in a theological or philosophical meaning of the word, while applying this to a non-human world. The death of a lifeless star or atom, the splitting of a living cell or bacteria, and the discontinuance of a physiological process in monkeys: this is not the same is the death of man.

Yes, death is a consequence of sin! Sin is a violation of the will of the Creator. Can we be sure that the death of animals is also a violation of the Creative will? Did God create animals for eternal life? Did he want to create them as participants in eternity? Did he intend them to partake in the Bread of Life, and Eucharist?

If not — it means those temporary limitations of animals and their accessibility to decay is not a violation of the Plan of the Creator.

It is not a sin or distortion of the creative will. If the Eucharist is the only Bread of Life, and in our Cathedrals we do not administer communion to puppies, it means that this Bread is not for them and Eternity is not for them either. The death of animals is not a violation of the Plan of God. The Bible does not promise eternal life for our world. Only the human soul is prepared for Eternity. The Savior appeals to people, not to kittens, when he says: “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Mathew 25:34). The rest will be burned up.​

Good review, IMHO. Thanks for sharing it

 

[rusmeister]

I love Lewis, and think his views 95% Orthodox.
But though I grant that he generally accepted modern science, I honestly think he did not think about - certainly he did not address - the philosophical problem of the idea of evolving man and the Fall.

Chesterton, on the other hand, began with an accepting attitude - and became more opposed to it over time as he matured and thought about it.

When I ask which view lines up with what Christians throughout history thought - above all the saints and fathers - it's hands-down general opposition to the idea of evolving/changing man. Long times of Creation are fine. But the Fall doesn't fit into the evolution narrative. Period. If I try to construct a simple narrative of man evolving (and if time did not rule Creation, then all talk of long times are irrelevant - making the idea of evolution in time non-sequitur and illogical) to a certain point at which he was perfected enough to be "good" in God's eyes, and then Fell - while continuing to "evolve" - I get complete self-contradiction. So he was "good enough" to Fall - but continued changing - and getting "better" in the general evolutionary view, when our teaching maintains that he became infinitely worse.

That's why we asked for a narrative and didn't get it (and one is not forthcoming). Not because theological considerations make it unnecessary - but merely because to try to express it in terms of any kind of story reveals the self-contradictions.

And if one great heterodox thinker - Lewis - falls on the side of modernity and acceptance of evolution (whether you call it "pro-evolution" or something else), another fell on the side of the fathers and Tradition.

Most of us, I believe, have no problem with God taking a long time about doing things, from Augustine to our time, and so I for one do not insist on a particularly "young" Earth. But we DO have a problems with unresolvable self-contradictions that have real meaning and effect on theology and doctrine.

 

[rusmeister]

As it is, you already give out long postings. In fact, you just gave one not too long ago in #23 - there are several others just like it which you usually do (as noted before). Passion comes out in it, so the long essays are not a surprise...

Hi, G.
What you linked to is the longest I write as a rule here - and it's essentially three paragraphs with no lengthy quotes or mass of YouTube videos. If you're including Gurney's lengthy quoted post in mine, I can see why it looks long - but it's mostly not me. Comparing that kind of length to what you post shows a lack of awareness of how long your own posts are - which generally dwarf mine.

All haven't been seeing the main thing as man evolving with death before the Fall. That's something others have made evolution into. When one makes a false point and then tries to assert that others hold to it, then one is already in error - and several have pointed that out when making plain what they are speaking about when it comes to evolution as well as the many ways scripture was interpreted within the Early Church. IF YOU or others want to focus on the issue of death happening before the Fall (as if that's the only sense others speak in when they think in support of evolution), that is your own choice. Nonetheless, it is not dealing with the issue as others have been noting it. It wasn't even dealing with what I was speaking to Kristos about (or what others have said when I was speaking on "either/or" - and I don't intend on going into depth here on the matter since here and #277 (as well as shared here and here ) already had that occur.

Thus, just ask next time before jumping in assuming you know what others were speaking on. For evolution does not exclusively pertain to DEATH - nor do others speak only in that context. The focus is also on development and things occurring over time.

Pause, LOL - at no point was anyone concerned for one making demands what they want before asking..
As said before, if what you said was actually of consequence (and you actually were consistent), then what you say would be taken seriously. Nonetheless, with the pontificating and sophistry in addition to multiple times of extensive writing (and arguments given that no one was even asking on), it's a bit humorous with the demands. I do not care for the demands and what you ask for is not really considered anymore than what I and others have asked of you multiple times. No one is concerned with appeasing you - or acting as if others haven't already had to tolerate you on the same things you speak on. There are many times I and others have had to ask "Why in the world should I even want to read the 8 page essays R is doing?" - but of course it can be slow for you to see that since you always believe the best about yourself

You can say all you want about what you and others are saying in defense of evolution. Speaking only for myself, as long as the concerns I have expressed (and not only I) are not addressed adequately, we're going to object to what you DO want to say. I'm not in the least interested in lengthy expositions of ANYTHING that don't deal with my concerns. Your efforts here OUGHT to be aimed at convincing people like me, not belittling me. I'm determined not to similarly belittle you, but I'm not going to read the long pages or watch the videos until you begin - in short and simple terms (at first, to convince me you have something worth listening to) - to address the problem we see of death as a constant in evolution, and which ANY evolutionary scientist would insist is an integral part of the process of life and evolution. It cannot be separated from the idea of natural selection (which Chesterton tears apart effortlessly). You may have some view peculiar to yourselves and alien to what is generally accepted in the general idea of evolution, but I don't see it laid out and explained, and on what basis it is consistent with both science and theology and eliminates our objections.

Until that time, should you decide that it is worthwhile to actually engage our concerns...

 

[Dorothea]

So true - and with the issue of death/dying, it's not something that in all ways was ever seen to be a curse.

I honestly do believe that death/dying is something Adam/Eve were not free from in all aspects.For when the Bible speaks of sin entering the earth and with sin, death, it is speaking of spiritual death as far as I can see.

Hi, G. I am reading over your comments, but I need to take little parts at a time to try and digest what you're saying and responding. I felt the need to respond to this part about the spiritual death. Yes, I agree that it was about spiritual death, which I understood why God, in His mercy, banished Adam and Eve from the Garden after their disobedience/sin to protect them from spiritual death through partaking of the Tree of Knowledge before they were spiritually mature. At least, that's what I've read in an Orthodox commentary on the ancestoral sin and all.

[/INDENT]In regards to the "dustness" of our beings, I think it's noteworthy to see how there is a difference between us and God. Our bodies were are not designed to be eternal since we were built from the dust of the ground BEFORE THE FALL.

What do you mean our bodies weren't meant designed to be eternal before the Fall? I would have to disagree. The way I see it is God made Adam and Eve body and soul that were inseparable, and the separation of body and soul did not come about until the sin and death. At that point in time, the body went into the ground and the soul was separated from it.

Our bodies, in their natural states, were designed to return to the dust and we were made to ultimately be united with God in Heaven...in spirit (w/ new glorified bodies).

I don't think the natural bodies before the Fall were meant to return to the dust but live forever. There was no death in the Garden (at least if we narrow this down to humans)...meaning death came about through sinning, and death was what caused the separation of soul from body. If Adam and Eve stayed in the Garden (didn't sin), I don't believe that separation would have taken place. As far as when you say "new glorified ones," do you actually mean new as in transformed/transfigured? Not an actual different body that wasn't theirs after they died on earth?

For some other scriptures to consider, I'm reminded of what would have happened if Adam ate of the fruit AFTER he had sinned against the Lord. For he would have lived forever in that spiritually dead state.

I would think it would be the same thing. If Adam sinned, death entered. I didn't realize it mattered what sin he did, just that he did it against God.

His action - disobeying God by eating the fruit - was what killed him and all man. In many ways, it was the concept of Death/Dying that saved Adam and gave mankind the chance for redeemption. For God's action - excluding all man from the Tree of Life was not as punishment for sin, but to save Adam and all mankind from living forever in that state - without any hope of salvation.

Sure, I agree God saved Adam from eternal spiritual death by banishing him and Eve from the Garden and showing them a way through living out their lives on earth to mature spiritually to then be redeemed...ultimately through His Son.

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 2:7
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
​

[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]IMHO, It'd be logical to say that man was given food because he was NOT immortal...and could not have survived without some form of life-giving material----which is what the Tree of Life was.

Yes, Adam and Eve were alive because of God's breathing Life into them. Without Him, they had no life. But I am not sure they were given food to survive...unless you're meaning something other than sustenance for the body.

And from a scientific perspective, if interested (as it pertains to how Old Earth Creationists see it), see Was Adam Created as an Immortal Being?


For an excerpt:

Two lines of evidence suggest that Adam was not created as an immortal being. First, immortality is not possible in this universe, since the universe itself will eventually die without God's intervention. The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) guarantees that physical beings cannot live eternally. This is why those who go to heaven will eat of the tree of life, and be given spiritual bodies in the place of physical bodies. Second, the Bible indicates that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned. If he would have eaten from the tree of life, he would have lived eternally, though spiritually dead. This is why God went to such great lengths to keep Adam from the tree of life after he had sinned.
​

__________________​

I'm a little uncomfortable in the description of "spiritual bodies in place of physical bodies." That sounds gnostic, doesn't it? I mean, aren't the Gnostics the ones that believe the body is just a shell and all that matters is the spirit? The replacing the body one is born with with a whole new spiritual body is not true. Christ showed us that when He resurrected. It was still his body, hence the wounds in his flesh, but it was a glorified Body, but it was still His! Am I misunderstanding all of this?

​

Concerning that specific note, I don't think its coincidence since man was still very much genetically pure after the fall/the environment on earth wasn't radically different. Therefore, it's more than possible that man had the potential to live up to that rate/beyond.....and when things are restored via Christ, it's also interesting to see that children/people will be present living in that exact timeframe in New Jerusalem when it comes to them later being tested in The Thousand Years reign of Christ in Revelation 20. People will not perish on the earth and then float off into the heavens...but we'll be BACK ON THE EARTH, with jobs/roles and physical dynamics taking place. Heaven will be on earth, though this time with no death or aging as it was in Genesis.

Wow. Ok, I've never looked at the Kingdom of God as just like we've lived here on earth before His Second Coming. I don't see it being like our lives here much at all. And what do you mean being tested in the "Thousand Years reign of Christ..." Our Church teaches the Thousand Years is not a literal number and that it just means a long time that Christ and his saints will reign on earth...and that time is now - the time between His Ascension and Second Coming.

But regardless of the stage of life, if aging was present during Creation, God and His Perfection would still have been JUST as beautiful before the Fall--as there would have been PURPOSE behind it.

How do we know if aging was taking place in the Garden? How do we know Adam and Eve would have grown old and wrinkly and who knows what else? We don't, do we?

Reminds me of people trying to make a significant issue over which season of the year people should rejoice in more---Fall, Spring, Summer or Winter. Trying to discuss which one is more beneficial would be silly since ALL ARE NECESSARY and apart of the Seasons of Life God has set up

Genesis 8:22
"As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease."

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time.​

Not understanding any of this part. I hope you can explain further, G, and on all of what I've responded because maybe I've misunderstood you on the other things I responded to as well. Thanks.

Personally, it seems odd to say that all forms of death occurred after the Fall---as if the season of Fall was like a "consolation prize" for man in light of death since suddenly, the leaves dying and being extremely colorful/beautiful was something that wasn't present prior to the Fall.

​

​

 

[Dorothea]

As it concerns other forms of death present prior to the Fall, there's nothing saying other animals were not able to eat meat - as that'd be no more logical than saying that God, when making all aquatic animals like sharks and barracudas, gave them predatory teeth in order to eat vegetables. Certain animals were made with predatory designs on purpose - from spiders (with venom made for defensive purposes) to birds of prey (i.e. eagles, hawks, etc.) and many others.

Didn't you just post in the post after this one this from Genesis about what man and animal ate? :

Genesis 1:29
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

It doesn't say the animals were eating each other. Wasn't it somewhere in Isaiah that said the lamb and lion could lay together. There wasn't any predatory ways with lions and such when they were in Eden. That's my understanding.

As said before, As a supporter of Old Earth Creationism (Progressive Creationism) and the thought that not all things within creation were originally peaceful as in the Garden of Eden, it seems reasonable to say that even those things deemed to be destructive in nature were made by the Lord as a reflection of how all of creation should always be in awe/fear of Him--and knowing what exactly they must face should they go outside of Him. Be it with sea monsters, deadly sea creatures or monsters of the land (i.e. giant snakes, giant lizards, giant birds, poisonious animals, etc), the Lord made ALL in creation. More was discussed here and here--and an article entitled Why Were Dangerous Animals Created?.

God didn't make volcanos or hurricanes or tornados and a host of other natural actions that are VERY deadly for mankind - they are a reflection of His might and power in the world. The same can also be said of animals he created dangerous...

Eh...I'm not really feeling convinced about that. In the Animals and Man book, it doesn't talk about dangerous animals created or eating each other, either.

Seeing the sheer beauty found in animals with deadly skills, it seems odd for that to simply have come after the Fall. IMHO, in the Scriptures, predation is portrayed as something that glorifies God (Job and Psalms (e.g. Ps 104:21)). There is no indication in these passages that something is wrong with the creation. The claim that God’s “very good” creation had no animal death seems contradicted by Job 38:39, wherein God glories in his ability to provide prey for the lion:

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in their lair?... The eagle mounts up and makes a nest on high... Spies out food; His eyes see from afar. His young ones also suck up blood; And where the slain are, there is he.(Job 38:39-14, 39:27-30)
​

Psalm 104:21 also expresses the same idea:

The beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God... In wisdom you have created them all...(Psalm 104:20-24)
​

Regarding the issue of animal predation St. Augustine writes: “One might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment... The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable.” ( Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1 (1983), 92. ). Seen in this light, animal predation and death are simply God’s loving provision for the animal kingdom. Keep in mind that only Adam and Eve were granted eternal life through the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9). Since the animals did not have access to the “tree,” they had no way to avoid death....and it would not be a negative.

And of course, assuming death existed, we have to deal with Genesis 1:30 which says "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”

In creation (pre-fall), God gave to every beast and bird and creepy thing: every green herb for food. There is No mention of meat. No mention of predation. Nonetheless, Genesis 1:29-30 does not explicitly say that meat was forbidden...for it only says the positive: God gave man and beast "every green plant for food."

Yeah, and that was good enough for me. I didn't think anymore needed to be read into that. I need to get out my Animals and Man book and post some stuff from it if I get the chance...

Gotta stop there. Too much more to read and don't really have concentration and attention span to focus more right now.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is just a small thing (my apologies if I'm repeating anyone btw) but I can't believe I never thought of it before.

Plants don't HAVE TO DIE in order to be food.

It depends on the plant. Most fruit, berries, etc. produce the fruits without harm to the plant itself. Likewise many leafy plants - herbs, greens, vines, and so forth can be harvested without killing the plant.

Grain plants and legumes mostly die after harvest, but that is because they are single-season plants, not because removing the grain kills them (if done gently).

Just about the only thing that must kill the plant by harvesting are root crops, and there are actually a number of those that can be partially harvested, leaving the plant alive, if desired. (Normally we don't because these are usually single-season plants too). The only exception are single-root vegetables like radishes, turnips, and carrots (and carrots at least can grow new roots from the same top - never tried it with the others).

But by and large, plants die because they die. They would also die if not harvested. Eating plants does not have to kill them, if they are harvested carefully.

Just surprised I hadn't thought of that before and always accepted "plants must've died" - because I guess that actually can't be assumed either.

That is all. Carry on, lol.

 

[jckstraw72]

This is just a small thing (my apologies if I'm repeating anyone btw) but I can't believe I never thought of it before.

Plants don't HAVE TO DIE in order to be food.

It depends on the plant. Most fruit, berries, etc. produce the fruits without harm to the plant itself. Likewise many leafy plants - herbs, greens, vines, and so forth can be harvested without killing the plant.

Grain plants and legumes mostly die after harvest, but that is because they are single-season plants, not because removing the grain kills them (if done gently).

Just about the only thing that must kill the plant by harvesting are root crops, and there are actually a number of those that can be partially harvested, leaving the plant alive, if desired. (Normally we don't because these are usually single-season plants too). The only exception are single-root vegetables like radishes, turnips, and carrots (and carrots at least can grow new roots from the same top - never tried it with the others).

But by and large, plants die because they die. They would also die if not harvested. Eating plants does not have to kill them, if they are harvested carefully.

Just surprised I hadn't thought of that before and always accepted "plants must've died" - because I guess that actually can't be assumed either.

That is all. Carry on, lol.

yes, you are quite right.

and. this is Paradise we're talking about - the evolutionists are assuming that everything worked the same as it in the fallen world. the Fathers also say that man voided no waste. how did he eat but produce no waste? i dunno, it's Paradise.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is just a small thing (my apologies if I'm repeating anyone btw) but I can't believe I never thought of it before.

Plants don't HAVE TO DIE in order to be food.

It depends on the plant. Most fruit, berries, etc. produce the fruits without harm to the plant itself. Likewise many leafy plants - herbs, greens, vines, and so forth can be harvested without killing the plant.

Grain plants and legumes mostly die after harvest, but that is because they are single-season plants, not because removing the grain kills them (if done gently).

Just about the only thing that must kill the plant by harvesting are root crops, and there are actually a number of those that can be partially harvested, leaving the plant alive, if desired. (Normally we don't because these are usually single-season plants too). The only exception are single-root vegetables like radishes, turnips, and carrots (and carrots at least can grow new roots from the same top - never tried it with the others).

But by and large, plants die because they die. They would also die if not harvested. Eating plants does not have to kill them, if they are harvested carefully.

Just surprised I hadn't thought of that before and always accepted "plants must've died" - because I guess that actually can't be assumed either.

That is all. Carry on, lol.

indeed, but even the fruits and nuts that were eaten were not consumed in the same way that they are now. every Sunday we eat the Holy Eucharist, but the "part" that is the Body and Blood of Christ does not get flushed a few hours later. St John Chrysostom says that the Body and Blood form a mystical vapor in the communicant that permeates his being. so just because they are eaten does not mean that they go through the human body the way that food does now.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So are you saying that you, Dot, and Thekla have gossiped about me in PM's? Is that what I am to understand here? :o

Most people really don't see the point with the coarse joking as a tendency - nor are they concerned (when they have noted to read things) whether you wish to proclaim that you don't read as if it's significant. Thekla, Dorothea and I have talked on it before as well (and you can ask her on it, of course) - as have many others in PM when it comes to the matter....

 

[~Anastasia~]

indeed, but even the fruits and nuts that were eaten were not consumed in the same way that they are now. every Sunday we eat the Holy Eucharist, but the "part" that is the Body and Blood of Christ does not get flushed a few hours later. St John Chrysostom says that the Body and Blood form a mystical vapor in the communicant that permeates his being. so just because they are eaten does not mean that they go through the human body the way that food does now.

If things in the Garden - in that manner at least - are any reflection of what happens in Heaven ... Well, it us my private belief that such functions as that won't be necessary when in Heaven anyway.

Hopefully the soil is good on it's own - no more composting necessary!

 

[RobNJ]

So are you saying that you, Dot, and Thekla have gossiped about me in PM's? Is that what I am to understand here? :o

Hey, don't complain! It's the closest thing to a short, concise post, he's done, since he's been posting here!!

 

[~Anastasia~]

So are you saying that you, Dot, and Thekla have gossiped about me in PM's? Is that what I am to understand here? :o

Oh dear, I did not catch this earlier. There was a bit more than I had time to read today. But to discuss pm's about people - especially when "many others" are mentioned - seems to raises suspicions between brothers and sisters that are not necessary.


I recall an incident when I first came to CF and sent a pm to someone I was afraid might have taken a post of mine wrong, making sure there was no misunderstanding. It was then mentioned in public, and the other person assumed they were being discussed in pm "behind their backs" and I lost all credibility, IMO.

It's not a healthy scenario, IMO.

Lord have mercy.

 

[Protoevangel]

Hey, don't complain! It's the closest thing to a short, concise post, he's done, since he's been posting here!!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hey, don't complain! It's the closest thing to a short, concise post, he's done, since he's been posting here!!

Ha. Good roast - Actually, for technicality sake, there've been a thousand of others far shorter for years - consistently.

One of them being recent:

It was fantastic (of course)! He was just like I have heard him several times on AFR, but in person! Great lecture, great stories inserted sporadically through it.

Awesome to hear

.

Another was here (http://www.christianforums.com/t7741176/#post62920123 ) and there are several other places besides that. It really doesn't take much for a basic Search Engine use to note the matter - but being"concise" isn't new, nor is it rare (lest one goes over the top in exaggerating) or that terribly difficult to do when one wants to. Moreover, NO ONE here has come close to being spotless or flawless on it for years. Lot's of people tend to avoid dealing with the history of facts as they are - happens in online forums a lot.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Notice when he makes fun of you, you call it a "roast," but when I joke about your War and Peace posts, I get the full persecution bullying reaction! Interesting....And by the way, did you notice that in this thread when I was originally joking about your inability to write short posts, it was NOT me who brought it up, but rusmeister! He also got a free pass....

Search your feelings, Luke, you know it to be true!

Ha. Good roast - Actually, for technicality sake, there've been a thousand of others far shorter for years - consistently.

One of them being recent:

​

.

Another was here (http://www.christianforums.com/t7741176/#post62920123 ) and there are several other places besides that. It really doesn't take much for a basic Search Engine use to note the matter - but being"concise" isn't new, nor is it rare (lest one goes over the top in exaggerating) or that terribly difficult to do when one wants to. Moreover, NO ONE here has come close to being spotless or flawless on it for years. Lot's of people tend to avoid dealing with the history of facts as they are - happens in online forums a lot.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, if it were actually true. Thekla and Dot aren't the gossipy types.....

Oh dear, I did not catch this earlier. There was a bit more than I had time to read today. But to discuss pm's about people - especially when "many others" are mentioned - seems to raises suspicions between brothers and sisters that are not necessary.


I recall an incident when I first came to CF and sent a pm to someone I was afraid might have taken a post of mine wrong, making sure there was no misunderstanding. It was then mentioned in public, and the other person assumed they were being discussed in pm "behind their backs" and I lost all credibility, IMO.

It's not a healthy scenario, IMO.

Lord have mercy.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

. There was a bit more than I had time to read today. But to discuss pm's about people - especially when "many others" are mentioned - seems to raises suspicions between brothers and sisters that are not necessary.


I recall an incident when I first came to CF and sent a pm to someone I was afraid might have taken a post of mine wrong, making sure there was no misunderstanding. It was then mentioned in public, and the other person assumed they were being discussed in pm "behind their backs" and I lost all credibility, IMO. .

Hey Kylissa.

To be clear (seeing that some things seem to be missing in regards to context), what has been stated is in regards to what said openly on the forums - posting style, preferences, bad argumentation with baseless accusations and knowing how to deal with them while also keeping in mind where others don't care to waste time being bothered by things they do not see maturity in complaining on.

No one spends time focusing entirely on others - as the focus is on the topics and seeing their validity or how legitimate they are - and seeing how we relate to one another. They have spoken on this openly before on the forums (as well as public on profiles alongside others - and there's nothing said in secret in any type of what that has not already been said here. It is very much a public issue. If you want reference, then by all means let me know and I will point you to where things have been discussed rather casually as we discuss other topics.

As it is, if actually wanting to know/verify what was said, one can simply ask them rather directly - openly here - from Sister Thekla or Sister Dorothea as quick examples. We talk on FB (as I just did not too long ago). There are others - but people can always PM them and inquire. People can always ask point blank - just as I have when I went to them/others and asked on the issue of posting and they shared their thoughts of why it is not an issue to worry on, as well as pointing out where others have noted the same. People do rep notes as well on the same postings that people take the time to proudly proclaim "No one reads that!!" - despite where reps say otherwise and people do the same on one's profile page.

They have already made clear that they have no issue reading - some things take more time than others but it is not something problematic in any way - 1 to 2 (or 3) videos given isn't the same as saying one has to check out everything at once, nor does speaking in-depth the equivalent of the ridicule in proclaiming "It's excessive" when others have noted it's rather simple/understandable and see it no different than giving reference. They know the difference between differing styles and being grown enough to not focus on others because of disagreement when the Church and Her Saints are made up of many - and they have noted where there's a lack of maturity in response in knowing where people often complaining have a history of doing the same....and then keeping in mind the saints and just enjoying the company of each other and mutual encouragement.

The same people speaking on "gossip", unfortunately,already have it where PMs were shared by them to other posters that focused on discussing others - if being real on the matter. It'd be rather easy to do so, which would be unfortunate. Thus, it'd always be beneficial to not protest too much when not dealing with the whole scenarios.