EO & evolution

[truefiction1]

you missed the point. you said the Church does not care what we think about origins, and i showed that, in fact, the Church has ecumenically spoken on the issue of man's original condition.

and, the canon is clearly presupposing an historical Adam. just because you reject even this presupposition does not make your position tenable or compatible with this canon.

That is not true. The Church does not care if we integrate a belief in Darwin's explanation of the origin of species. Some, like yourself, choose to reject it. As far as the local synod you are citing, its definitions are based upon a strongly literal understanding of the Biblical narrative, yes, but that does not mean that the narrative is literally true, or that Adam, though he probably existed in history, is anything but a symbol representing mankind collectively (i.e. we are all Adam, so that we all do as he did).

In other words, mankind, collectively, sins throughout the ages of its existence and death reigns because of this, until a perfect prototype comes along -- Jesus Christ -- in whom the errors of the first prototype are to be corrected and ultimately overcome. Same outcome, same ending, so why bother arguing about it. There's no need I guess. So I'm done.

 

[rusmeister]

That is not true. The Church does not care if we integrate a belief in Darwin's explanation of the origin of species. Some, like yourself, choose to reject it. As far as the local synod you are citing, its definitions are based upon a strongly literal understanding of the Biblical narrative, yes, but that does not mean that the narrative is literally true, or that Adam, though he probably existed in history, is anything but a symbol representing mankind collectively (i.e. we are all Adam, so that we all do as he did).

In other words, mankind, collectively, sins throughout the ages of its existence and death reigns because of this, until a perfect prototype comes along -- Jesus Christ -- in whom the errors of the first prototype are to be corrected and ultimately overcome. Same outcome, same ending, so why bother arguing about it. There's no need I guess. So I'm done.

I think even questioning whether Adam existed in history (by supposedly Orthodox Christians) is a sneer at everyone to whom he is a patron saint, notably, those who bear his name and receive the Eucharist by that name. And that includes throwing a "probably existed" in front of his name. Jesus Christ "probably existed", if it comes to that. We can doubt and be skeptical about anything we choose.

That's the danger of trying to interpret EVERYTHING we are uncomfortable with as figuratively/poetically. Before you know it, we are rejecting everything that pretty much everyone in the Church has always believed. The Flood becomes mere allegory, the walls of Jericho mere allegory, the Eucharist and Resurrection mere allegory - all fruits of the so-called "higher criticism" that is willing to criticize anything except its own skepticism.

 

[truefiction1]

I think even questioning whether Adam existed in history (by supposedly Orthodox Christians) is a sneer at everyone to whom he is a patron saint, notably, those who bear his name and receive the Eucharist by that name. And that includes throwing a "probably existed" in front of his name. Jesus Christ "probably existed", if it comes to that. We can doubt and be skeptical about anything we choose.

That's the danger of trying to interpret EVERYTHING we are uncomfortable with as figuratively/poetically. Before you know it, we are rejecting everything that pretty much everyone in the Church has always believed. The Flood becomes mere allegory, the walls of Jericho mere allegory, the Eucharist and Resurrection mere allegory - all fruits of the so-called "higher criticism" that is willing to criticize anything except its own skepticism.

My nephew is Adam, so Adam does exist (no probably about it). Of course Adam in the Genesis narrative is, in addition to being an actual historical person, also an allegorical representation for humankind collectively, otherwise the story of Adam would carry no significance for us. We all fall short and we all die. We all are now in need of salvation from the existential givens of death, bondage, interpersonal isolation, and meaninglessness. Immortality, freedom, communion, and a uniquely personalized (and therefore personally meaningful) life in the service of God is the stuff that our salvation is made of. Of course the Church provides for these things. The Church still provides even where its members have integrated science and higher criticism into their understandings.

Affect matters a great deal more than belief, by the way (why Love -- an affect-- is the greatest gift and mere cognitive understandings (knowledge) will ultimately pass away, as these are revealed to have been imperfect). So there is not so great a danger in rejecting everything that pretty much everyone always believed in the Church as you are afraid that there is. The real danger is in choosing to cultivate evil affects (vices/negative, harmful emotions) over good affects (virtues/positive, life enhancing emotions), in yourself and in the people around you. As for the Resurrection of Christ and the Eucharist, these cannot be mere allegory for Orthodox Christians, for reasons that should be obvious to us all.

 

[Kristos]

I think even questioning whether Adam existed in history (by supposedly Orthodox Christians) is a sneer at everyone to whom he is a patron saint, notably, those who bear his name and receive the Eucharist by that name. And that includes throwing a "probably existed" in front of his name. Jesus Christ "probably existed", if it comes to that. We can doubt and be skeptical about anything we choose.

That's the danger of trying to interpret EVERYTHING we are uncomfortable with as figuratively/poetically. Before you know it, we are rejecting everything that pretty much everyone in the Church has always believed. The Flood becomes mere allegory, the walls of Jericho mere allegory, the Eucharist and Resurrection mere allegory - all fruits of the so-called "higher criticism" that is willing to criticize anything except its own skepticism.

Perhaps you should consider that this is a uniquely modern view that is born from a modern mindset that is utterly committed to metaphysical materialism - that in order for something to be true it must be historically accurate and harmonized within a historical timeline of events. As I've said multiple times now, without comment, this line of thinking inevitably reduces God to a demiurge. This is not the way of the Fathers, without a doubt. The Fathers did not take this type historically literal approach to Genesis. This is a product of modernism, pure and simple. Origin said that anyone who thinks that there was a day before the Sun was created is crazy (paraphrase of course). For Gregory Nyssa and Basil the Great - In the beginning was NOT some arbitrary point in time that should be designated as time zero on the timeline of creation, but rather a metaphysical causation statement that God is the cause of all being, then, now and forever. Do we not believe that God is the Creator of all? - yet we can also accept that conception occurs when an ovum is penetrated by a spermatozoon without impinging on God's transcendence. I have found similar thinking the writings of John Chrysostom and Augustine. The Patristic side of it seems pretty solid to me, and it's honestly bewildering and bit alarming to me that they could or would be used to try and debunk the theory of evolution by insisting on a modern historically literal reading of Genesis. And let's be clear here - I am not opposed to the historical part per se, but rather the resulting metaphysical implications of choosing this exegetical method over the traditional one. Was there a first Man? Obviously there was or else there would be a second. Was his name Adam? Doesn't matter. Was he created by God? Absolutely, as were you and I. When you lift the veil of modern thinking and remove the material metaphysics being applied to God and scripture, then things suddenly become more clear, less contradictory and ultimately true. You should think about what I'm saying because I thought you before anyone on this forum would see my point.

 

[jckstraw72]

. This is not the way of the Fathers, without a doubt. The Fathers did not take this type historically literal approach to Genesis.

but they did always believe in the history of Genesis. in fact, they warned us of the dangers of denying it's literal historical value. can you show us any Father who DENIES that Genesis is history?

St. Nilus of Sinai, Letter 2.223, PG 79.316BC If something has been recorded in the Old or New Testament to have happened historically, and this or that deed was manifestly accomplished, and we interpret it for our own purposes, using ideas and thoughts for our own spiritual edification, do not suppose that we have disregarded the letter, or rejected the history. By no means! We neither condemn nor reject the perceptible event that has been committed to history. Since, however, we are [in] the world, we benefit today by interpreting everything that happened yesterday for our own purposes.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah 1.4, PG 70.192AB
Those who reject the historical meaning in the God-inspired Scriptures as something obsolete are avoiding the ability to apprehend rightly, according to the proper manner, the things written in them. For indeed spiritual contemplation is both good and profitable; and, in enlightening the eye of reason especially well, it reveals the wisest things. But whenever some historical events are presented to us by the Holy Scriptures, then in that instance, a useful search into the historical meaning is appropriate, in order that the God-inspired Scripture be revealed as salvific and beneficial to us in every way.



St. Methodios of Olympus, [FONT=&quot]Concerning Chastity [/FONT][FONT=&quot]3.2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined-and, so to speak, half-lame-come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passes over the literal meaning, and shows that the words extend to Christ and the Church.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]St. Augustine, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]City of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Book 13.21[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On this account some allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself, where the first men, the parents of the human race, are, according to the truth of holy Scripture, recorded to have been; and they understand all its trees and fruit-bearing plants as virtues and habits of life, ...as if they had no existence in the external world, but were only so spoken of or related for the sake of spiritual meanings. As if there could not be a real terrestrial Paradise! As if there never existed these two women, Sarah and Hagar, nor the two sons who were born to Abraham, the one of the bond woman, the other of the free, because the apostle says that in them the two covenants were prefigured; or as if water never flowed from the rock when Moses struck it, because therein Christ can be seen in a figure, as the same apostle says, "Now that rock was Christ!"No one, then, denies that Paradise may signify the life of the blessed; its four rivers, the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees, all useful knowledge; its fruits, the customs of the godly; its tree of life, wisdom herself, the mother of all good; and the tree of the knowledge of good ...and evil, the experience of a broken commandment. The punishment which God appointed was in itself, a just, and therefore a good thing; but man's experience of it is not good.. . .These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offence to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts.[/FONT]

 

[Kristos]

the Divine power and skill was
implanted in the growth of things, guiding all things with the reins of a double operation (for it was
by rest and motion that it devised the genesis of the things that were not, and the continuance of
the things that are), driving around, about the heavy and changeless element contributed by the
creation that does not move, as about some fixed path, the exceedingly rapid motion of the sphere,
like a wheel, and preserving the indissolubility of both by their mutual action

- Gregory Nyssa - On the Making of Man.

 

[jckstraw72]

- Gregory Nyssa - On the Making of Man.

i don't understand what you are trying to tell us by this?

 

[GregConstantine]

some posters here are rightly concerned about the philosophies and ideologies behind the theory of evolution, but they cannot or are not willing to keep the two separate and as I've said a million times, if you are a scientist and if you are doing research and if you are an Orthodox Christian then you may apply principles of the theory of evolution if your reserach calls on you to do so. Otherwise, it is not something to be believed in or to be "pro" or "anti" about.

We lose so much credibility if we keep harping on miniscule details and keep demanding a very specific and quite frankly Western approach to the creation narrative.

Why this escapes them is beyond me.

 

[Kristos]

can you show us any Father who DENIES that Genesis is history?

This is such a ridiculous strawman that I wonder if you even read what I wrote or understand the issues. I even described how the historical facet is preserved in the correct understanding, but you seemed to have jumped right passed that and tried to pretend that I have somehow "DENIED" the history so that you can proof text the fathers in your defense. This is silly and leads no where, because I obviously made no such claim.

 

[jckstraw72]

you said: "Perhaps you should consider that this is a uniquely modern view that is born from a modern mindset that is utterly committed to metaphysical materialism - that in order for something to be true it must be historically accurate and harmonized within a historical timeline of events. As I've said multiple times now, without comment, this line of thinking inevitably reduces God to a demiurge. This is not the way of the Fathers, without a doubt. The Fathers did not take this type historically literal approach to Genesis."


and i gave you examples of the Fathers doing precisely what you said they do not do. but, forgive me if i misunderstood.

 

[Kristos]

i don't understand what you are trying to tell us by this?

that the creation narrative is not a linear timeline nor simply a historical event that can viewed in hindsight. I'm almost tempted to say Gregory is describing a kind of evolution here, but not in the modern sense.

 

[Kristos]

you said: "Perhaps you should consider that this is a uniquely modern view that is born from a modern mindset that is utterly committed to metaphysical materialism - that in order for something to be true it must be historically accurate and harmonized within a historical timeline of events. As I've said multiple times now, without comment, this line of thinking inevitably reduces God to a demiurge. This is not the way of the Fathers, without a doubt. The Fathers did not take this type historically literal approach to Genesis."


and i gave you examples of the Fathers doing precisely what you said they do not do. but, forgive me if i misunderstood.

I read your quotes and none of them contradict what I have said, so you must misunderstand or are simply projecting your metaphsycial materialism onto the fathers the same way you have done to Genesis. I can't guess as to what you are thinking.

 

[GregConstantine]

"are simply projecting your metaphsycial materialism onto the fathers the same way you have done to Genesis."

you also can't proof text the fathers just like some protestants cannot proof text the scriptures to support what they believe.

 

[rusmeister]

Perhaps you should consider that this is a uniquely modern view that is born from a modern mindset that is utterly committed to metaphysical materialism - that in order for something to be true it must be historically accurate and harmonized within a historical timeline of events. As I've said multiple times now, without comment, this line of thinking inevitably reduces God to a demiurge. This is not the way of the Fathers, without a doubt. The Fathers did not take this type historically literal approach to Genesis. This is a product of modernism, pure and simple. Origin said that anyone who thinks that there was a day before the Sun was created is crazy (paraphrase of course). For Gregory Nyssa and Basil the Great - In the beginning was NOT some arbitrary point in time that should be designated as time zero on the timeline of creation, but rather a metaphysical causation statement that God is the cause of all being, then, now and forever. Do we not believe that God is the Creator of all? - yet we can also accept that conception occurs when an ovum is penetrated by a spermatozoon without impinging on God's transcendence. I have found similar thinking the writings of John Chrysostom and Augustine. The Patristic side of it seems pretty solid to me, and it's honestly bewildering and bit alarming to me that they could or would be used to try and debunk the theory of evolution by insisting on a modern historically literal reading of Genesis. And let's be clear here - I am not opposed to the historical part per se, but rather the resulting metaphysical implications of choosing this exegetical method over the traditional one. Was there a first Man? Obviously there was or else there would be a second. Was his name Adam? Doesn't matter. Was he created by God? Absolutely, as were you and I. When you lift the veil of modern thinking and remove the material metaphysics being applied to God and scripture, then things suddenly become more clear, less contradictory and ultimately true. You should think about what I'm saying because I thought you before anyone on this forum would see my point.

I find it interesting that I warn against reading anything and everything as figurative, and am then admonished for taking some things literally as if I were taking everything literally.

If you say "a day might be a thousand years", I'm with you. But if you start saying or strongly implying that Adam, or Sodom, or Lot, or Abraham are figures of speech, you lose me completely.

I am not among those who insist that the Earth must be 7,000 years old - though I can imagine it as a possibility. But I certainly object to a broad-based rejection of stories that show not the faintest hint of being mere allegory as "metaphysical materialism". Honestly, I think it possible to become so clever that you can outfox yourself.

Kristos, it sure looks to me that YOUR view is the one that reduces fairly clear things to gobbledygook, with the ruling principle being that whatever we believe has to square with modern fashions in science. We have asked for a clear narrative that unites the evolutionary view with Orthodox theology and shows how the Fall took place in an evolutionary context. I don't demand a "Western" approach except insofar as it is intelligible to English speakers. But I see a constant refusal or inability to do so. This is an essential problem, as some of us certainly see a need for an intelligible narrative - a comprehensible unification of the ideas of evolution and the Fall and a response to our concerns and objections.

Given what feels like downright hostility, I am withdrawing from this discussion unless I see what I have not seen - recognition of our concern of theological self-contradiction in the name of synthesizing modern science and appealing its adherents with "credibility". They don't believe that our Lord is risen. Why should we place such a premium on what others think that we are willing to doubt - consign to mere allegory what has always been understood to be stories of actual events and real people - in order to be credible when they find the parts of our Faith that matter most incredible?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Is he really proof-texting though? Protestants cherry-pick quotes from the bible out of context to prove an anachronistic salvation narrative, while jckstraw is showing a long list of quotes that back up what he is saying they taught. Is it proof-texting for me to make a statement that Ronald Reagan was in favor of low taxes and a strong defense and then go back through all his speeches for 8 years and show you 200 quotes that support that statement?

Protestants take a statement like "for we are not saved by works" from Romans and they stop right there. They go with this faith alone approach adding the word "alone" to things like "for we are saved through faith." They take something way later like "believe in the name of Christ Jesus and you will be saved" and they ignore the holistic reality that just mere belief isn't enough. The Bible is a multi-dimensional salvation narrative and is complex, and you can't just cherry-pick quotes. That is proof-texting.

But what jckstraw seems to be doing is just giving you evidence of what he claims the Fathers said and taught. And since there ARE no quotes showing they're pro-evolution, I think you might consider he's correct on the subject?

"are simply projecting your metaphsycial materialism onto the fathers the same way you have done to Genesis."

you also can't proof text the fathers just like some protestants cannot proof text the scriptures to support what they believe.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Given what feels like downright hostility"

I can't speak for others, but I think I can safely assume that it's not hostility you are perceiving, but frustration because we are not being listened to, what we are writing is not being read carefully, and we are being labeled as being things we are not. For example, we are being called "pro-evolution". We are not pro-evolution, we do not feel the need to outright reject a biological theory of development because of what the Scriptures or the fathers may or may not have said about the creation narrative. That does not make one automatically "pro" evolution. I personally do not appriciate being labeled as such, especially by people who only know what I write on this board, not because they know me personally.

I believe also that Kristos and others are making good points and are asking good questions, but you, jackstraw76, et al are completely ignoring those good points and questions and are instead repeating the same 2-3 things over and over again.

I've been refraining from saying this, but I feel that it needs to be said, I have a strong suspicion that part of what is motivating some of the comments here is due to things a certain priest said in some books he has written.

But that's really beside the point.

I'm done with this as you guys are really not listening to what I or Kristos or atv are trying to say.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Amen. They not only don't believe our Lord is risen, they don't believe there was or is a Lord to begin with! They believe we are simply a higher form of animal, and all that occurs in the universe is accidental happenstance or there is a clock-winding demiurge Deism type god who is wholly absent, cold, morally grey, and that there is no grace or Christian Hope. Everything is utilitarian, random, mutation, and adaptation.

You make good points about allegory and the dangers of making so much Biblical narrative into symbolism and such. People don't realize the THEOLOGY in the Garden. They don't realize the THEOLOGY in Noah's Ark, the THEOLOGY in Jonah and the Whale, on and on. The New Testament is a mirror image perfected of the Old Testament. And when we dip our feet too deeply into the allegorical waters of interpretation, we risk turning into Thomas Jeffersons with his "Jefferson Bible" in which he kept all the great moral "stuff" while completely jettisoning all the miraculous, supernatural, mysterious awesomeness of God. I think the modernist "Hey, I believe in God AND I believe in evolution, and I think a lot of Genesis and Exodus were symbolic, and I'm ok with Darwin and Evolution and science, too" approach usually leads to a watering-down effect and a cheapening of the rich theological depths of these accounts. They're in Scripture, which is God-breathed, for a reason.

I think your posts point, healthily, to a bit of sound advice: Embrace the Church first. Grab onto the Fathers, the Councils, the wisdom of the saints, the teachings of the Orthodox faith of 2,000 years. Take it 100% into your heart, adore it, love it, fiercely soak it into your theological pores and make it your guiding principle of living and hope. Then, after having done that thoroughly, look at what the seculars have to say and base their claims against the Truths of the Church. If we enter into Holy Orthodoxy saying, "I'll join up with y'all if you are pro-evolution," you're putting the cart before the horse. And like I've said in this thread before, I get the constant vibe that the pro-evolution crowd is concerned about our image, our recruitment factor, that we won't appear hip and up-to-date enough to attract young hipsters to the Faith. "Oooh, we don't want to appear backwards!"

And like you, I'm frustrated that not ONE poster in favor of evolution has given a coherent explanation as to what he believes is the way things played out. Back when I was pro-evolution as a Catholic, I bought into the "ensoulment" angle that somehow all the evolution that led up to our First Parents was just God's way of making future fossil fuels and natural resources and laying foundations preparing the Earth the way He wanted it for Man. He uses science to make miracles, and allowed these hominids to steadily advance until he "actually" made two of them have souls and "actually" become Man and Woman. Of course I was blurry in my feebly concocted timeline, vague as heck, and I completely ignored the theological implications and notions of death and sin and salvation. It all harmonized with the modern views, and I felt tickled pink that I could believe in both. I just wish these folks in here, in this very thread, would lay out a coherent, detailed, plausible timeline narrative of what they believe happened historically...with clarity.

I find it interesting that I warn against reading anything and everything as figurative, and am then admonished for taking some things literally as if I were taking everything literally.

If you say "a day might be a thousand years", I'm with you. But if you start saying or strongly implying that Adam, or Sodom, or Lot, or Abraham are figures of speech, you lose me completely.

I am not among those who insist that the Earth must be 7,000 years old - though I can imagine it as a possibility. But I certainly object to a broad-based rejection of stories that show not the faintest hint of being mere allegory as "metaphysical materialism". Honestly, I think it possible to become so clever that you can outfox yourself.

Kristos, it sure looks to me that YOUR view is the one that reduces fairly clear things to gobbledygook, with the ruling principle being that whatever we believe has to square with modern fashions in science. We have asked for a clear narrative that unites the evolutionary view with Orthodox theology and shows how the Fall took place in an evolutionary context. I don't demand a "Western" approach except insofar as it is intelligible to English speakers. But I see a constant refusal or inability to do so. This is an essential problem, as some of us certainly see a need for an intelligible narrative - a comprehensible unification of the ideas of evolution and the Fall and a response to our concerns and objections.

Given what feels like downright hostility, I am withdrawing from this discussion unless I see what I have not seen - recognition of our concern of theological self-contradiction in the name of synthesizing modern science and appealing its adherents with "credibility". They don't believe that our Lord is risen. Why should we place such a premium on what others think that we are willing to doubt - consign to mere allegory what has always been understood to be stories of actual events and real people - in order to be credible when they find the parts of our Faith that matter most incredible?

 

[ArmyMatt]

some posters here are rightly concerned about the philosophies and ideologies behind the theory of evolution, but they cannot or are not willing to keep the two separate and as I've said a million times, if you are a scientist and if you are doing research and if you are an Orthodox Christian then you may apply principles of the theory of evolution if your reserach calls on you to do so. Otherwise, it is not something to be believed in or to be "pro" or "anti" about.

We lose so much credibility if we keep harping on miniscule details and keep demanding a very specific and quite frankly Western approach to the creation narrative.

Why this escapes them is beyond me.

so, if you are a politician, and if you are voting on a law that sanctions homosexual marriage, and if you are an Orthodox Christian, you may apply the post modern view of marriage if your voters call on you to do so?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm assuming you're referencing Father Seraphim Rose at the end there, correct? Why not say his name? And secondly, Rus is NOT being guided by Father Seraphim if that is your speculation. We've talked about Father Seraphim in the past on here, and Rus admits that he is not super knowledgeable or "into" Father Seraphim, though he is respectful of the holy priest's accomplishments. I have never known Rus to be heavily-influenced by Father Seraphim. Jckstraw is a big "fan" of Father Seraphim, yes. I am not really influenced by his teachings in any way though I respect the man a great deal.

Your characterization of Kristos, yourself, and others giving awesome explanations and the other side repeating things over and over, is a poor one. In fact, I believe it is our side of the discussion begging you folks to lay out a coherent history for us, over and over, and it is NOT being taken up or laid out. I think that speaks volumes. And this post here again is vague. You're not in favor of evolution, but just cool with the speculation about it and possibility of it being a factor and it in no way affects salvation history or your view of Orthodoxy, etc. and you get angry at the 'charge' of being pro-evolution. I'm not sure why, if the theory is sound and respectable, that you'd be offended, and secondly, what IS your view?

"Given what feels like downright hostility"

I can't speak for others, but I think I can safely assume that it's not hostility you are perceiving, but frustration because we are not being listened to, what we are writing is not being read carefully, and we are being labeled as being things we are not. For example, we are being called "pro-evolution". We are not pro-evolution, we do not feel the need to outright reject a biological theory of development because of what the Scriptures or the fathers may or may not have said about the creation narrative. That does not make one automatically "pro" evolution. I personally do not appriciate being labeled as such, especially by people who only know what I write on this board, not because they know me personally.

I believe also that Kristos and others are making good points and are asking good questions, but you, jackstraw76, et al are completely ignoring those good points and questions and are instead repeating the same 2-3 things over and over again.

I've been refraining from saying this, but I feel that it needs to be said, I have a strong suspicion that part of what is motivating some of the comments here is due to things a certain priest said in some books he has written.

But that's really beside the point.

I'm done with this as you guys are really not listening to what I or Kristos or atv are trying to say.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have a strong suspicion that part of what is motivating some of the comments here is due to things a certain priest said in some books he has written.

funny how that "certain priest" has yet to be quoted directly (or if he has, certainly not as much as the saints that are glorified). and that comment is about as effective as if I would say that those who are for evolution fitting into the Genesis narrative is due to things a "certain Canadian bishop" said in some books he has written.