EO & evolution

[Christos Anesti]

Here is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVPZykCRyQ

 

[truefiction1]

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Science would have no answer, but it would not even ask the question. There are many thing to which science has no answer - being, consciousness, bliss - for example. As Christians we have the oracles to help answer metaphysically, but not in any terms that could be considered "scientific".

if that is the case, science should stop trying to insist on knowing our origins, and leave the question where it belongs, which is in the hands of faith.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Does anyone else here share this belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted on earth? Just wondering...

I do

 

[jckstraw72]

Christos Anesti -- is that passage from Dcn. Kuraev or Kalomiros? Off the top of my head I don't recall which one.

But anyways, the problem is that neither the Scriptures nor the Fathers limit the consequences of sin to human death. This is an example of the tinkering I spoke about. For this theory to work you can't fully accept what the Fathers have taught, nor the scientific picture -- unless there are scientists who will support, on scientific grounds, the notion that man was once, and is meant to be, free from death.

 

[jckstraw72]

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.

of course God allows death, and it is even a mercy -- but in response to sin.

 

[Dorothea]

Does anyone else here share this belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted on earth? Just wondering...

Initially, my thoughts on this whole thing before I ever heard or saw anything in detail about what some of us believe in the creationist side and the evolution side, was that I thought God created the dinosaurs along with some other animals before He created Adam and Eve because it said He created animals first. I thought the dinosaurs were on earth before the creation of man, and that nearly all died out from some planetary, cosmic thing, but not sure what it was. Then, God created Adam and Eve and they lived in the Garden. No animals were eating each other in there, and Adam and Eve weren't eating meat, just plants/fruit. Same with the animals. After the Fall, man began to eat meat, and same with the animals, etc.

Since that time years ago, and reading much of all of these interesting views, I began to wonder about when the dinos came about. My son believes the dinos were on earth the same time as Adam and Eve, but in different places on the planet. He thinks they were destroyed in the Flood. I thought that was an interesting POV. I had thought before that when I'd heard the dinos could have died in the Flood...I'd then thought, "But didn't Noah take two of each animal on earth in the Ark with him?" But then I thought, if the dinos were living thousands of miles away, then maybe Noah didn't put them on the ark, but then I would wonder why not? He called all the other animals to the ark that were I'm sure not all right in the vicinity. Don't know. It's an interesting thing to think of though.

 

[truefiction1]

of course God allows death, and it is even a mercy -- but in response to sin.

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

but there is no need for that school had we not fallen first. what teaches us to fully live is to be in communion with God. so death is the path to Him, but only as a consequence of our fallen state.

 

[jckstraw72]

truefiction, your interpretation sounds nice, but can you back it up? that is the important question here.

St. John Chrysostom says this:

[FONT=&quot]Homilies on Romans [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What armed death against the cosmos? The fact that one man tasted of the tree only. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Homilies on Romans [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Commenting on Romans 8:20: What is the meaning of "the creation was made subject to futility"? That it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you took a body mortal and subject to suffering, so also the earth received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles … Just as the creation became corruptible when your body became corruptible, so also when your body will be incorrupt, the creation also will follow after it and become corresponding to it. [/FONT]

 

[truefiction1]

truefiction, your interpretation sounds nice, but can you back it up? that is the important question here.

St. John Chrysostom says this:

[FONT=&quot]Homilies on Romans [/FONT][FONT=&quot]10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What armed death against the cosmos? The fact that one man tasted of the tree only. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Homilies on Romans [/FONT][FONT=&quot]14[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Commenting on Romans 8:20: What is the meaning of "the creation was made subject to futility"? That it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you took a body mortal and subject to suffering, so also the earth received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles … Just as the creation became corruptible when your body became corruptible, so also when your body will be incorrupt, the creation also will follow after it and become corresponding to it. [/FONT]

No matter how we look at it -- my way or the traditional way -- the outcome for us (and what it means for us mortal beings) remains the same: death is, freedom (personal responsibility) is, personal isolation exists, and meaning for one's existence must be found. The only answer to these concerns that gives any real hope is Faith. Faith can be had regardless of what one believes regarding the nature of the sacred writings, or human origins. Science neither disproves nor proves faith, but it may serve to alter the way we understand things, and not always for the worse. This is the key reason why the Church has not rejected the theory of evolution. She knows that She doesn't need to.

 

[jckstraw72]

Faith can be had regardless of what one believes regarding the nature of the sacred writings, or human origins. Science neither disproves nor proves faith, but it may serve to alter the way we understand things, and not always for the worse. This is the key reason why the Church has not rejected the theory of evolution. She knows that She doesn't need to.

the Church has never had such a low standard as to not care how we interpret the Scriptures. and i disagree with your idea of what it means for the Church to speak -- it's not only through Ecumenical Council. and St. Theophan the Recluse says quite the opposite - that we don't need to add Darwin and his followers to the anathemas because the same ideas were already anathematized long ago. but, if you're looking for something "official," then the Church has indeed spoken about the question of whether man was created mortal or immortal, by Ecumenically ratifying this canon:


[FONT=&quot]Canon 109 of African Code[/FONT][FONT=&quot], (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That Adam was not created by God subject to death.[/FONT]


That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.


Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.


Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.


--------


the Church finds this error egregious enough as to warrant anathema.

 

[gzt]

But anyways, the problem is that neither the Scriptures nor the Fathers limit the consequences of sin to human death. This is an example of the tinkering I spoke about.

But if that's what you say the Fathers believe and don't truck with any "tinkering", then you have, essentially, defined your position as the only acceptable one. Because anybody else is "tinkering".

 

[jckstraw72]

But if that's what you say the Fathers believe and don't truck with any "tinkering", then you have, essentially, defined your position as the only acceptable one. Because anybody else is "tinkering".

well, of course. as Orthodox we should adhere to the theology of the Fathers. if we want our own theology isn't there plenty of other places we could go?

Canon 19 of the Ecumenical Quinisext Council:

It behooves those who preside over the churches, every day but especially on Lord's days, to teach all the clergy and people words of piety and of right religion, gathering out of holy Scripture meditations and determinations of the truth, and not going beyond the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-bearing fathers. And if any controversy in regard to Scripture shall have been raised, let them not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the church in their writings have expounded it, and in those let them glory rather than in composing things out of their own heads, lest through their lack of skill they may have departed from what was fitting. For through the doctrine of the aforesaid fathers, the people coming to the knowledge of what is good and desirable, as well as what is useless and to be rejected, will remodel their life for the better, and not be led by ignorance, but applying their minds to the doctrine, they will take heed that no evil befall them and work out their salvation in fear of impending punishment.

 

[truefiction1]

the Church has never had such a low standard as to not care how we interpret the Scriptures. and i disagree with your idea of what it means for the Church to speak -- it's not only through Ecumenical Council. and St. Theophan the Recluse says quite the opposite - that we don't need to add Darwin and his followers to the anathemas because the same ideas were already anathematized long ago. but, if you're looking for something "official," then the Church has indeed spoken about the question of whether man was created mortal or immortal, by Ecumenically ratifying this canon:


[FONT=&quot]Canon 109 of African Code[/FONT][FONT=&quot], (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That Adam was not created by God subject to death.[/FONT]


That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.


Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.


Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.


--------


the Church finds this error egregious enough as to warrant anathema.

And what is the crux of blaming mankind rather than God for our condition? One thing and one thing alone: to get us to acknowledge the reality of our freedom and the personally responsibility we inherently have for how we live our lives, and to hold ourselves accountable. It does not mean, however, that I personally need to believe that mortality exists because of the actions of one person, just because that is what was traditionally believed.

Also, regarding the conciliar anathema, it does not here apply. My position does not deny that humankind (represented by a prototype figure called "Adam" in the Biblical narrative) is sinful, and is unworthy of immortality on account of this sinfulness. Although I personally deny the historical and scientific authenticity of the narrative, and hold it to be a sort of truefiction. Such a view does not qualify me or anyone else for excommunication.

 

[gzt]

The operative part was "what you say the Fathers believe".

 

[jckstraw72]

The operative part was "what you say the Fathers believe".

you're more than welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[jckstraw72]

And what is the crux of blaming mankind rather than God for our condition? One thing and one thing alone: to get us to acknowledge the reality of our freedom and the personally responsibility we inherently have for how we live our lives, and to hold ourselves accountable. It does not mean, however, that I personally need to believe that mortality exists because of the actions of one person, just because that is what was traditionally believed.

Also, regarding the conciliar anathema, it does not here apply. My position does not deny that humankind (represented by a prototype figure called "Adam" in the Biblical narrative) is sinful, and is unworthy of immortality on account of this sinfulness. Although I personally deny the historical and scientific authenticity of the narrative, and hold it to be a sort of truefiction. Such a view does not qualify me or anyone else for excommunication.

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.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Many of the fathers appear to have taken for granted the "common sense" science of their time. Take for instance the idea that the earth sits unmoving, supported by waters, at the center of the universe, and that the sun revolves around it . You can even find a few examples of Saints and early Christians supporting the idea that the earth is a flat round disk echoing early Jewish thought. You also might come across ideas physical or biological theories that no one would accept now a days too. I don't think being a Saint implies that a person has any special ability to judge such things. That's not what it's about imo. Most of the Fathers just didn't have access to the mountain of scientific evidence we have verifying evolution.

Here is a very small selection of the geocentric, unmoving earth, sun revolving around earth quotes I've seen to use one example:

St Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)


St Athenagoras: to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center (Why the Christians do not Offer Sacrifices, Ch XIII)

ST Basil: There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth…It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the center of the universe…Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the center of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature should displace it. If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason. (Nine Homilies on the Hexameron, 10)

St Basil: It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. (Homilies, IX).

 

[jckstraw72]

1. can you think of any theological issue that is tied up in that?
2. the science of their day certainly did not resemble a literal reading of Genesis. the Fathers even argued specifically against the Greek idea of an old earth, and proto-theories of evolution. they certainly weren't getting the idea of a worldwide paradise from the Greeks.