EO & evolution

[ArmyMatt]

Yes there is a tendency to literal interpretation if we look at consensus but we have no idea what the consensus would be if the above mentioned fathers lived in our times.

but we do know what the Fathers since Darwin have said. so while we might not know exactly what the earlier Fathers would have said, we do know what Sts John Maximovotch, John of Kronstadt, Nektarios of Aegina, Theophan the Recluse, etc have said.

 

[inconsequential]

What would be the creationist view on the fossil record and how it got the way it is? The flood? Is it just being misinterpreted by the scientific community or has it been "meddled with" by demons or what?

 

[jckstraw72]

but we do know what the Fathers since Darwin have said. so while we might not know exactly what the earlier Fathers would have said, we do know what Sts John Maximovotch, John of Kronstadt, Nektarios of Aegina, Theophan the Recluse, etc have said.

and again, we need to distinguish between science and theology. if the Fathers are teaching theology from revelation, then it will not change, no matter what the secular world teaches. the Fathers themselves explicitly state that they are teaching FROM the Church, and NOT from the world.

St. Basil states: "[FONT=&quot]Let us leave the accounts of outsiders to those outside, and turn back to the explanation of the Church." Hexameron 3.3


so, if St. Basil is wrong, not only is he wrong, but he mistakes secular science for the unchanging teaching of the Church! Does this sound like the mark of "the Great?"

and here is what other Fathers had to say about St. Basil's Hexameron:

[/FONT]

St. Anastasius of Sinai, Hexaemeron 1.4.3, p. 15
Basil had divine thoughts and spoke sublimely. He solved the present argument about the beginning by saying that there was something before the perceptible cosmos: the establishment of the spiritual forces.

and it's important to note that St. Anastasius' own Hexameron is HIGHLY allegorical and yet he still praises St. Basil's HIGHLY literal work, and he himself continually pauses to remind the reader that allegory does not negate literal history

St. Gregory of Nyssa, Hexameron
Furthermore, we have access to that divinely inspired study by our father [Basil the Great] whose exposition everyone treasures as not being inferior to what Moses had taught. I am quite certain that these people are correct because he who has this faculty resembles a grain from an ear of corn; although [Basil] was not this ear, he had the power to change into something great and beautiful and be endowed with a form with many facets. Should anyone maintain that the great Moses' voice can be explained through the distinguished Basil by having a clearer understanding--for the teacher's few words effect an increase--such appropriate utterances derive from a lofty philosophy; it is not the ear but the tree according to which the kingdom of heaven was compared, that is, a mustard seed. . . Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament.

St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, Chapter 67,

I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.

and whereas so many today tell us that the Fathers were simply following the theories of their day, Fr. Michael Pomazansky says this:

Talks on the 6 Days by St. Basil the Great and Talks on the Days of Creation by St. John of Kronstadt, in Pravoslavny Put’ (The Orthodox Way) annual, 1958, pp. 39, 41
St. Basil acknowledges all the scientific facts of natural science. But he does not accept the philosophical conceptions, or the interpretations of the facts, which were contemporary to him: the mechanistic theory of the origin of the world, the teaching of the eternity and unbeginningness of the natural world [and the like] … St. Basil the Great knew how to raise himself above the theories contemporary to him concerning the basic principles of the world, and his Hexameron stands out as a bright and exalted system which reveals the meaning of Genesis, and reigns above the former [theories] as a bird soars above the creatures which are able to move only along the earth.

and likewise, Met. Hierotheos Vlachos states:

The Person in the Orthodox Tradition, p. 46

Fourthly, Basil the Great does not entirely accept the science of his time, but he judges it by theological criteria, as can be seen in his homilies about the six days of creation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What would be the creationist view on the fossil record and how it got the way it is? The flood? Is it just being misinterpreted by the scientific community or has it been "meddled with" by demons or what?

I would say the Flood, the Fall itself, and us looking at it wrongly.

 

[jckstraw72]

I would say the Flood, the Fall itself, and us looking at it wrongly.

yeah, i see no reason to blame it on demons - we just misinterpret by ignoring revelation, and by trusting too much in our fallen intellects.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What would be the creationist view on the fossil record and how it got the way it is? The flood? Is it just being misinterpreted by the scientific community or has it been "meddled with" by demons or what?

A very interesting exercise ... try removing ALL interpretations from one's mind, and consider the raw data that one is able to actually verify.

And I will repeat: Remove ALL interpretations (this is the difficult part - we cannot "erase" our minds and we accept certain "facts" without even realizing we are accepting them).

Then see what kind of explanations one can come up with to explain the fossil record.


(ETA: I do not suggest using this to arrive at the "Truth" by any means .... but it is a good exercise to compare ideas and how they can develop)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So for the evolutionary crowd, perhaps I missed an answer to my question that I've asked over and over, but when did ensoulment take place? Did God just jettison the other hominids and only give a soul to our First Parents, or...?

 

[jckstraw72]

there's a dude named Vladimir De Beer - he actually says that Adam and Eve were just the first lower beings to attain a God consciousness - but he lumps them, and the beasts who they are anatomically the same as but who lack a God consciousness, into the same species! doesn't sound very scientific to me ...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No, it doesn't! But his last name "de Beer" is a good TAW name! LOL

there's a dude named Vladimir De Beer - he actually says that Adam and Eve were just the first lower beings to attain a God consciousness - but he lumps them, and the beasts who they are anatomically the same as but who lack a God consciousness, into the same species! doesn't sound very scientific to me ...

 

[truefiction1]

So for the evolutionary crowd, perhaps I missed an answer to my question that I've asked over and over, but when did ensoulment take place? Did God just jettison the other hominids and only give a soul to our First Parents, or...?

The soul, or "core self" or "mind" evolved into existence. It receives its existence from the body, and what it becomes is the product of distinct physiological characteristics (nature) and existential experience (nurture).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Gotta say, TF, that doesn't sound Orthodox...:o

The soul, or "core self" or "mind" evolved into existence. It receives its existence from the body, and what it becomes is the product of distinct physiological characteristics (nature) and existential experience (nurture).

 

[rusmeister]

Gotta say, TF, that doesn't sound Orthodox...:o

I would like to see TF approach his priest or bishop with the stuff he's said here. But given that he denies Church authority in general, it's obvious that he can't.

You can't pick and choose what you'll accept from Church teaching, TF. It's whole hog or nothing. You can't have "the best of both worlds", you can't serve both God and mammon. You have to decide who you believe. The truth CAN have external evidence stacked against it. That's what leaps of faith are about.

 

[rusmeister]

What would be the creationist view on the fossil record and how it got the way it is? The flood? Is it just being misinterpreted by the scientific community or has it been "meddled with" by demons or what?

A very interesting exercise ... try removing ALL interpretations from one's mind, and consider the raw data that one is able to actually verify.

And I will repeat: Remove ALL interpretations (this is the difficult part - we cannot "erase" our minds and we accept certain "facts" without even realizing we are accepting them).

Then see what kind of explanations one can come up with to explain the fossil record.


(ETA: I do not suggest using this to arrive at the "Truth" by any means .... but it is a good exercise to compare ideas and how they can develop)

"...But I doubt whether they have really thought profoundly and delicately about what a fossil is, or there would be no danger of their resenting so innocent and inoffensive a comparison. For a fossil is really a very curious thing. A fossil is not a dead animal, or a decayed organism, or in essence even an antiquated object. The whole point of a fossil is that it is the form of an animal or organism, from which all its own animal or organic substance has entirely disappeared; but which has kept its shape, because it has been filled up by some totally different substance by some process of distillation or secretion, so that we might almost say, as in the medieval metaphysics, that its substance has vanished and only its accidents remain. And that is perhaps the very nearest figure of speech we can find for the truth about the New Religions....They are Fossils."
GKC, "The Well and the Shallows"

Also:
G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is 'An attack upon thought itself' - creation.com

 

[ArmyMatt]

The soul, or "core self" or "mind" evolved into existence. It receives its existence from the body, and what it becomes is the product of distinct physiological characteristics (nature) and existential experience (nurture).

wow, I have no idea what to say. that is beyond wrong.

 

[truefiction1]

I would like to see TF approach his priest or bishop with the stuff he's said here. But given that he denies Church authority in general, it's obvious that he can't.

You can't pick and choose what you'll accept from Church teaching, TF. It's whole hog or nothing. You can't have "the best of both worlds", you can't serve both God and mammon. You have to decide who you believe. The truth CAN have external evidence stacked against it. That's what leaps of faith are about.

I don't deny Church authority, only your presuppositions about the nature of that authority. The statement I made about the human soul is true if understood as I intended it to be and as long as further implications are not read into it that would convict me of denying soul immortality, and I would not, have not, refrained from expressing such beliefs to priests or bishops. I can't seem to conceive any reason to withhold these evidenced truths from them. I blatantly informed the Bishop who oversees the diocese of my membership that I believe in evolution. He did not speak to me about this, but blessed me to pursue the path leading to Holy Orders. So it would seem that I can believe in evolution and still live and worship as an Orthodox Christian, even as one with the authority of the presbyteriate.

Faith is what one has when one knows evolution to be real, Biblical narratives to have a mythological character to them, and still puts his or her trust in God. Now that is a real leap of Faith.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't deny Church authority, only your presuppositions about the nature of that authority. The statement I made about the human soul is true if understood as I intended it to be and as long as further implications are not read into it that would convict me of denying soul immortality, and I would not, have not, refrained from expressing such beliefs to priests or bishops. I can't seem to conceive any reason to withhold these evidenced truths from them. I blatantly informed the Bishop who oversees the diocese of my membership that I believe in evolution. He did not speak to me about this, but blessed me to pursue the path leading to Holy Orders. So it would seem that I can believe in evolution and still live and worship as an Orthodox Christian, even as one with the authority of the presbyteriate.

Faith is what one has when one knows evolution to be real, Biblical narratives to have a mythological character to them, and still puts his or her trust in God. Now that is a real leap of Faith.

Man, we KNOW Orthodox people believe in evolution - that's NOT the issue here. It's YOUR conception of Church authority, expressed in YOUR words. THAT's what you should openly say to your bishop, and it's what will almost certainly bar you not only from holy orders, but from Communion.

 

[truefiction1]

Man, we KNOW Orthodox people believe in evolution - that's NOT the issue here. It's YOUR conception of Church authority, expressed in YOUR words. THAT's what you should openly say to your bishop, and it's what will almost certainly bar you not only from holy orders, but from Communion.

No, because my understanding of Church authority is not the one that is lacking and built upon false presuppositions, which is why I am not excommunicated, but rather pointed in the direction of leadership by those who know that I understand the true nature and meaning of authority.

 

[truefiction1]

wow, I have no idea what to say. that is beyond wrong.

so your saying that the human soul comes into existence without the human body?

 

[truefiction1]

Gotta say, TF, that doesn't sound Orthodox...:o

Doesn't sound Orthodox because the statement uses language that is not the conventional language of Christian Orthodoxy. That doesn't mean it's a false statement.

 

[ArmyMatt]

so your saying that the human soul comes into existence without the human body?

no, or else we would not be human. your statements that the soul evolved into existence and that it receives it's existence from the body are both gross errors. the soul did not evolve into existence (it is breathed into man), and the body is not where it receives its existence, God is. seriously, this is in the Philokalia.