- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,796
- 8,175
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I also would say that the good he has done far outweighs any negatives.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I also would say that the good he has done far outweighs any negatives.FTR to the OP, I think Fr Tom is as Orthodox as they come 95% of the time.
I also would say that the good he has done far outweighs any negatives.
There is a "museum" in the States trying to show the scientific validity of YEC. I personally think it is a worthless museum that does more harm than good. It's great to try to support your beliefs, but making up fake scientific "facts" to support your POV just is silly.
Some things that are claimed by some Young Earthers are completely false - and can be proven false. Would you disagree?I agree with you and Matt that science cannot be used to prove YEC. This is a standard belief of Orthodox YECism, which you can see emphasized by both Frs. Seraphim and Damascene in "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man."
Nevertheless, we shouldn't fall for the evolutionsts' trap of accusing YEC scientists of making up facts. They aren't making anyting up - they have their presuppositions that they begin with, which we disagree with, but they're not just fabricating stuff out of thin air. It's a question of a bad foundation. Same with the evolutionists -- they may be sincere as all get out, but it's a question of a bad foundation.
...which is why don't choose a side on the age of the earth. Either way, OEC or YEC, there is mystery. I do hold to the Creationist part though, either way.the grace of extending the veil of "mystery" must also be extended to the old earth party, of course.
Is that the Noah's Ark museum, if I'm not mistaken...the one Bill Nye ended up critiquing heavily saying they brainwashed people a lot with?There is a "museum" in the States trying to show the scientific validity of YEC. I personally think it is a worthless museum that does more harm than good.
I agree with you and Matt that science cannot be used to prove YEC. This is a standard belief of Orthodox YECism, which you can see emphasized by both Frs. Seraphim and Damascene in "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man."
Nevertheless, we shouldn't fall for the evolutionsts' trap of accusing YEC scientists of making up facts. They aren't making anyting up - they have their presuppositions that they begin with, which we disagree with, but they're not just fabricating stuff out of thin air. It's a question of a bad foundation. Same with the evolutionists -- they may be sincere as all get out, but it's a question of a bad foundation.
Then, (setting aside the red flag of BLM) please explain why you dogmatically assert the age of the earth in your avatar, and why you said you think YEC ought to be anathematized.The evolutionists do not use naturalism to prove the supernatural.
I've got a serious opinion here that says he did:But anyway, we're wandering far fromt he point here, which is that Fr Thomas Hopko didn't say anything wrong in Winter Pascha.
What JS is saying, and I concur, is that the entire theory of evolution as held today was built in the same way and with similar criticisms. It is mainly a difference of scale, not of quality.Some things that are claimed by some Young Earthers are completely false - and can be proven false. Would you disagree?
Perhaps it was hasty to say "make up facts", though I think many of the "scientific" findings are built with an agenda of supporting their beliefs, which invites potential problems.
To be clear here, this is a schismatic bishop, so just be aware of that. However, that does not automatically negate his scholarship here, which is spot on.
Thanks. I don't know all of these things. I just read his article carefully and it seemed good, right and true. I'll stick with personal agnosticism, accepting what the consensus of the Church says in Liturgy, the fathers, etc, and not worry about it beyond that. I'm not smart enough to say that I know better than the Church (as defined above). Hopko was not willing to do that. It's this insistence that everything synthesize with what we experience and think we know in this Fallen world that is the great mistake. That's what theistic evolution is all about, attempts to assert that every aspect of Christ's birth were in the Fallen manner, etc are all about.To be clear here, this is a schismatic bishop, so just be aware of that. However, that does not automatically negate his scholarship here, which is spot on.
The evolutionists do not use naturalism to prove the supernatural.
Like Dostoevsky, I accept evolution. I don't see how there is anything objectionable to man being formed by God over many generations. I also respect those who don't accept evolution.So do you all promote Young Earth Creationism as the only acceptable account in Orthodoxy? Or are you just against Darwinism? (Personally, I don't adhere to Darwinism, but I wouldn't be opposed to Old Earth Creationism. I'm not sure how everything worked exactly, but I know that it is an amazing fact that God created this World and that He created us, so I am happy and thankful knowing that, no matter the details). Most of what I've read outside of TAW in modern Orthodoxy, as well as my priest, says that Orthodoxy insists that God created the world, and that He intelligently designed the world, but they have not insisted on Young Earth Creationism. They even suggested that the Bible is not a science textbook, and that Orthodox Christianity didn't teach the fundamentalist YEC position was necessary. Please note that I am not making a statement of my beliefs here. I am just requesting clarification of your positions.
Evolution or Creation Science?
Evolution, Creation and the Hidden Cause - Glory to God for All Things
What he intended by saying that was unclear, especially given ihs later remark about "painless birth".Indeed, there is no doubt that he is wrong in The Winter Pascha. Matt noted that elsewhere he says she gave birth without pain, which helps to mitigate it somehwat. But in the Winter Pascha he says there is nothing miraculous about the birthing process itself. The Church has ecumenically pronounced that there, in fact, is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?