EO & evolution

[rusmeister]

They make the same claim and it is no less valid a claim than ours with regards to supporting evidence.

Dude, what do YOU believe is true? You are sporting the blue three-bar Orthodox Cross. Are you in fact an Orthodox Christian? Do you acknowledge that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the truth or not? We KNOW everybody else has SOME truth, but NOT the fullness of the truth. Do you?

That does not mean that I am not among the saints.

No person actually trying to be Orthodox could say this. We should KNOW that we are not among the saints, and the only sense we are talking about saints in is "canonically recognized by the Church". Each of us ought to see ourselves as the chief of sinners and very far from sainthood. No one can BEGIN to imagine at they are a saint until they are dead and God tells them they are. Yes, there are no doubt saints not recognized by the Church. But we may not affirm that they ARE saints. You are tryi to say "Anybody could be a saint; therefore, we may not appeal to the (canonized) saints to guide us."

Who's to judge who's a saint and who's not?

The holy catholic apostolic Orthodox Church.

Is Seraphim of Sarov more valuable to us than and ER doctor who routinely saves lives and relieves peoples pain?

As far as we are concerned, yes. Lives and pain pass. The teachings and example of St Seraphim do not.

Is such a person any less a saint than say, Father Herman of Alaska?

As far as we are concerned, yes. We do not know their hearts, which could be full of hate for all we know. We can only know what the Church assures us of.

Most saints are canonized because of what they did for the Church, but the others are not because what they did was for everyone else: for "the life of the world, and its salvation". But they are saints, and they do believe in the theory of evolution.

You have a strange and non-Orthodox idea of what a saint is. I highly recommend you talk to a canonical priest in communion with the Church. Or we can provide you with formal statements approved by the various dioceses of how we understand saints. But better talk to a priest.

You don't accept the authority of the Church, TF, so I have to discount everything you say. It is 90% heterodox with no Church authority behind it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They make the same claim and it is no less valid a claim than ours with regards to supporting evidence

no, if you look at history you can see that the RC Church is not the True Church. yeah, they make the claim, but only we can actually back it up.

There is far more evidence that evolution is the reality and that the Genesis narrative is strictly "literary". A lack of awareness regarding that evidence on the part of some does not mean that the evidence does not exist. It merely means that some people are unaware of it. I am thoroughly aware of it. That does not mean that I am not among the saints. For all you know, that evolution believing doctor who removed your child's infected appendix just in the nic-of-time, prior to it bursting and killing the child, is among the saints. Who's to judge who's a saint and who's not? Is Seraphim of Sarov more valuable to us than and ER doctor who routinely saves lives and relieves peoples pain? And what about the poor slug who spent his life working in the hellish environment of a steel mill or foundry in order to support his family, his commnity, his Church, and to make available the product used in the construction of roads, bridges, health care facilities, schools, etc... only to die in the agonizing grip of cancer of some other horrendous ailment prior to retirement? Is such a person any less a saint than say, Father Herman of Alaska? Not likely, in reality. Most saints are canonized because of what they did for the Church, but the others are not because what they did was for everyone else: for "the life of the world, and its salvation". But they are saints, and they do believe in the theory of evolution.

there is only far more evidence of you accept certain presuppositions, which you do and I do not. the problem is that you have zero evidence from the Fathers or the dogmatic teaching of the Church, or else you would have posted it already. so all you can do, except show any hard evidence from our theology, is post either something that a modern priest posted, or you come up with some general nice feeling platitude like you just did about the saintliness of the evolution believing doctor who saved a child's life, or you say that you think that down the line you think that some saint could believe in it. the problem is that is pure speculation, with nothing to back it up. I would personally rather follow the St Nektarioses of the world, and I tend to think they know more than us concerning these things.

and St Seraphim of Sarov I would argue is more holy than the 9 to 5 steel worker who only provides for his family. that is why we know him as a Saint. there is a reason some saints are known, and others not.

 

[truefiction1]

no, if you look at history you can see that the RC Church is not the True Church. yeah, they make the claim, but only we can actually back it up.



there is only far more evidence of you accept certain presuppositions, which you do and I do not. the problem is that you have zero evidence from the Fathers or the dogmatic teaching of the Church, or else you would have posted it already. so all you can do, except show any hard evidence from our theology, is post either something that a modern priest posted, or you come up with some general nice feeling platitude like you just did about the saintliness of the evolution believing doctor who saved a child's life, or you say that you think that down the line you think that some saint could believe in it. the problem is that is pure speculation, with nothing to back it up. I would personally rather follow the St Nektarioses of the world, and I tend to think they know more than us concerning these things.

and St Seraphim of Sarov I would argue is more holy than the 9 to 5 steel worker who only provides for his family. that is why we know him as a Saint. there is a reason some saints are known, and others not.

No, you can't really back it up. It's a matter of faith, whatever we believe. It always comes down to faith.

 

[truefiction1]

Dude, what do YOU believe is true? You are sporting the blue three-bar Orthodox Cross. Are you in fact an Orthodox Christian? Do you acknowledge that the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the truth or not? We KNOW everybody else has SOME truth, but NOT the fullness of the truth. Do you?



No person actually trying to be Orthodox could say this. We should KNOW that we are not among the saints, and the only sense we are talking about saints in is "canonically recognized by the Church". Each of us ought to see ourselves as the chief of sinners and very far from sainthood. No one can BEGIN to imagine at they are a saint until they are dead and God tells them they are. Yes, there are no doubt saints not recognized by the Church. But we may not affirm that they ARE saints. You are tryi to say "Anybody could be a saint; therefore, we may not appeal to the (canonized) saints to guide us."

The holy catholic apostolic Orthodox Church.


As far as we are concerned, yes. Lives and pain pass. The teachings and example of St Seraphim do not.


As far as we are concerned, yes. We do not know their hearts, which could be full of hate for all we know. We can only know what the Church assures us of.


You have a strange and non-Orthodox idea of what a saint is. I highly recommend you talk to a canonical priest in communion with the Church. Or we can provide you with formal statements approved by the various dioceses of how we understand saints. But better talk to a priest.

You don't accept the authority of the Church, TF, so I have to discount everything you say. It is 90% heterodox with no Church authority behind it.

I did not say that I don't see myself as chief among the sinners. But even if I do, that does not mean that I am not among the saints. Just because a person knows they are not righteous does not mean that they will refrain from speaking truthfully about the things which they know they are most knowledgeable. Did not the sainted Patriarch Photius refuse to accept the Roman Claims regarding the papacy? Was he lacking in humility for resisting the "authority" of the Church, represented by the Pope? Would I not speak in the defense of the scientific theory of evolution and all my Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters who also understand its importance to science and to the world, then I would not be true to myself or to God, and the talents given to me. So, discount my position if you must. It makes little difference to me.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, you can't really back it up. It's a matter of faith, whatever we believe. It always comes down to faith.

even Popes have admitted that only the EO has actually maintained the original Faith. they say it all the time on EWTN as well. but since we are not Roman Catholics, it makes no sense to bring up something outside of ou traditions legitimacy.

so yes, we can back it up

 

[ArmyMatt]

Would I not speak in the defense of the scientific theory of evolution and all my Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters who also understand its importance to science and to the world, then I would not be true to myself or to God, and the talents given to me.

the difference is that St Photius was speaking against the Pope because he went against the Church's proper order. you are also speaking against what the Church has taught concerning our origins. you are actually taking the side of the Pope in this issue.

 

[rusmeister]

I did not say that I don't see myself as chief among the sinners. But even if I do, that does not mean that I am not among the saints. Just because a person knows they are not righteous does not mean that they will refrain from speaking truthfully about the things which they know they are most knowledgeable. Did not the sainted Patriarch Photius refuse to accept the Roman Claims regarding the papacy? Was he lacking in humility for resisting the "authority" of the Church, represented by the Pope? Would I not speak in the defense of the scientific theory of evolution and all my Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters who also understand its importance to science and to the world, then I would not be true to myself or to God, and the talents given to me. So, discount my position if you must. It makes little difference to me.

I asked if you believe the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the truth, and you don't answer.
You take the understanding we laid out, that the consensus of the canonized saints over the history of the Church DOES represent truth that has been questioned and answered and no longer need - or ought to be - challenged, and recast it as the error of a single hierarch or a single age, which we don't defend at all.

Everything you say points to a refusal to accept the authority of that Holy Tradition, and I'm not talking about evolution per se, but about a general refusal to submit to and accept Church teaching if you don't happen to agree with it.

There is a basic principle you don't seem to be familiar with, let alone accept, that a fat jolly man once expressed clearly: "We need, not a Church that is right where we are right, but one that is right where we are wrong."

That is what I see to be out of sync with the Orthodox Church as an entity over space and time.

So is the Orthodox Church right? Or the RCC? Or only you?

My answer to that is that I am right only insofar as I agree with the Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Where did you hear them say this, Matt? Gotta say, I've NEVER heard such an admission. Dude, PLEASE point me to some links! You got me excited here, bro!

even Popes have admitted that only the EO has actually maintained the original Faith. they say it all the time on EWTN as well. so yes, we can back it up

 

[~Anastasia~]

Where did you hear them say this, Matt? Gotta say, I've NEVER heard such an admission. Dude, PLEASE point me to some links! You got me excited here, bro!

I'm glad you asked. It got my attention too. I don't often know what Popes have said, but it would be interesting.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Where did you hear them say this, Matt? Gotta say, I've NEVER heard such an admission. Dude, PLEASE point me to some links! You got me excited here, bro!

I know Pope Francis has admitted it, and I heard it a few times on some of EWTN's talk shows.

 

[Dorothea]

As we've been over before, I'm quite comfortable saying these various modern post-Darwin saints are dead wrong when they make claims that the earth is only thousands of years old and similar other claims. Their attacks on Darwinism and scientism have some value. I also don't really doubt that there will later be saints who affirm the age of the Earth and assent to the broad outline of evolutionary theory. We'll just have to wait a bit, though.

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You GOTTA give me the links, dude! Give! Give!

I know Pope Francis has admitted it, and I heard it a few times on some of EWTN's talk shows.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You GOTTA give me the links, dude! Give! Give!

I don't have them dude, it was just what I remember from watching EWTN and what I saw online. on Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, Fr Damick points out that they affirm our Church as True, so it makes sense looking at how only we have preserved the history that Pope Francis would say that. but aside from the AFR podcast, I got nuthin.

 

[truefiction1]

I asked if you believe the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the truth, and you don't answer.
You take the understanding we laid out, that the consensus of the canonized saints over the history of the Church DOES represent truth that has been questioned and answered and no longer need - or ought to be - challenged, and recast it as the error of a single hierarch or a single age, which we don't defend at all.

Everything you say points to a refusal to accept the authority of that Holy Tradition, and I'm not talking about evolution per se, but about a general refusal to submit to and accept Church teaching if you don't happen to agree with it.

There is a basic principle you don't seem to be familiar with, let alone accept, that a fat jolly man once expressed clearly: "We need, not a Church that is right where we are right, but one that is right where we are wrong."

That is what I see to be out of sync with the Orthodox Church as an entity over space and time.

So is the Orthodox Church right? Or the RCC? Or only you?

My answer to that is that I am right only insofar as I agree with the Church.

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.

 

[truefiction1]

even Popes have admitted that only the EO has actually maintained the original Faith. they say it all the time on EWTN as well. but since we are not Roman Catholics, it makes no sense to bring up something outside of ou traditions legitimacy.

so yes, we can back it up

We don't see them converting though, do we?

 

[truefiction1]

the difference is that St Photius was speaking against the Pope because he went against the Church's proper order. you are also speaking against what the Church has taught concerning our origins. you are actually taking the side of the Pope in this issue.

I'm not taking the side of the Pope in this issue. I'm taking the side of truth and reality. Sometimes a person must go against authority when doing this, and often times such people who do are thought badly of, as when Jesus Christ sought to redefine what it means to "keep the Sabbath holy", and was held to be a blasphemer and heretic because He resisted those in authority.

Human behavior tends to repeat itself... repeatedly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We don't see them converting though, do we?

some are, but even then a lack of conversion on their part has nothing to do with us having the Truth

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not taking the side of the Pope in this issue.

yeah you are, you are the one going against the Church teaching, just like the Pope did in the Photian Schism

I'm taking the side of truth and reality.

only if you accept your unprovable presuppositions.

Sometimes a person must go against authority when doing this, and often times such people who do are thought badly of, as when Jesus Christ sought to redefine what it means to "keep the Sabbath holy", and was held to be a blasphemer and heretic because He resisted those in authority.

actually Christ did not redefine anything. it was the Pharisees and Sadducees who did. if you actually read how the Sabbath was treated in the OT, you would actually see that Christ was the one following it. the only reason He was dubbed a blasphemer, was because He did not accept their (at the time) modernist take on "truth and reality."

Human behavior tends to repeat itself... repeatedly.

I know it does

 

[truefiction1]

yeah you are, you are the one going against the Church teaching, just like the Pope did in the Photian Schism



only if you accept your unprovable presuppositions.



actually Christ did not redefine anything. it was the Pharisees and Sadducees who did. if you actually read how the Sabbath was treated in the OT, you would actually see that Christ was the one following it. the only reason He was dubbed a blasphemer, was because He did not accept their (at the time) modernist take on "truth and reality."



I know it does

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

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.

 

[truefiction1]

some are, but even then a lack of conversion on their part has nothing to do with us having the Truth

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.