How do we explain Neanderthals?

[~Anastasia~]

The Biblical evidence shows that God an impute the effects of Christ's Sacrifice (salvation) upon even those who lived and died before it, who are saved just as those coming after it.

Hence, God can impute the effects of Adam's sin upon life forms that were before it, if God so chooses. If this is what God chooses to do then so be it, it is still "good", because God chooses it. It is not my personal opinion that decides how God chooses to apply the effects of Adam's sin, but God's design. Therefore, let the physical evidence provided by examining God's creation inform us as to what God's choice is in this matter.

True, may I address and question this point?

God did indeed allow salvation to the OT saints who were born and died before Christ's sacrifice. But He did so by rescuing them from their waiting place in Hades, didn't He? Christ Himself descended into Hades AFTER His crucifixion, and God did not just instantly work backwards to change their situation after it was accomplished. They had lived their lives according to the Word and Law given them, making sacrifices that prefigured the death of Christ, and so on.

I don't think this is an argument to support a fundamental change that God effected upon the entire cosmos, reaching back to the moment it began, based on the event of Adam's sin.

Besides, the change you are proposing is a much deeper and more fundamental one to the nature of life itself than the one you compare it to, and it is effected by a failure of mankind, rather than a victory of God, as you also compare it to. It doesn't seem fitting - which in itself is not an argument, but to my mind certainly would decrease the majesty of God's work in history.

What do you think?

 

[Zoii]

Do you really believe that a man rose from the dead?

Huh? I was asking about whether we think truly every species would have fitted on that boat

 

[~Anastasia~]

Huh? I was asking about whether we think truly every species would have fitted on that boat

Hi Zoli, and welcome to CF, and to TT.

You've stepped into a rather unique situation/discussion here, and I want to give you a heads-up (as well as welcome you) so that replies that might come aren't misunderstood.

This thread is in the Eastern Orthodox forum which on CF, such forums are regarded as "safe houses". We are actually very welcoming of visitors, and folks are fee to fellowship and ask questions. The one thing that can't be done is to teach against the EO Church, which we have to maintain for the sake of other visitors, and sometimes for our own peace during intense fasting seasons, etc.

Not that we don't allow debate - we actually have a separate forum set up for it - St. Justin Martyr's - where folks can make any argument they wish and we will respond. Just for the health of this forum it wouldn't be allowed here.

And this PARTICULAR thread is the one topic that causes this sort of discussion among EO, with our current makeup of membership.

So I just want you to know that it's a unique forum, and a unique topic.

About the animals in the ark - Noah would not have had to have every species on board, btw - we do recognize that one species of squirrel can give rise to other species of squirrels, for example.

If you want to know more, it would be best to start a new thread (maybe in St. Justin's - linked above, if you want to ask about creation or the flood), just so you don't get caught up in this one. I'm just letting you know because you're brand new to the forums, and I especially wouldn't like to see that happen with no explanation.

But again, welcome! If you ever have any questions about TAW, or about how things work in CF, or need help navigating, please feel free to let me or another ambassador know. And I pray that you are blessed by being here!

 

[rusmeister]

Huh? I was asking about whether we think truly every species would have fitted on that boat

Sorry, what I meant was that if we accept an enormous miracle like the resurrection of the dead, or as a more direct analogy, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, I don't see why we should be so skeptical about what God can do with even a small boat that a man makes under His orders.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sorry, what I meant was that if we accept an enormous miracle like the resurrection of the dead, or as a more direct analogy, the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, I don't see why we should be so skeptical about what God can do with even a small boat that a man makes under His orders.

especially since the only thing He cannot do is deny Himself

 

[Doveaman]

Another who believes God is the author of death and decay rather than being the outcome of man's sin.

Sin and death came into this present world through Adam.
But sin and death came into the prehistoric world through Satan.

Satan is the author of sin, death and decay, including the death and extinction of prehistoric life, which would include Neanderthals.

 

[rusmeister]

Sin and death came into this present world through Adam.
But sin and death came into the prehistoric world through Satan.

Satan is the author of sin, death and decay, including the death and extinction of prehistoric life.

Hi, Doveaman,
Please see Anastasia's post three posts back. It concerns you and all visitors. If you're cool with those conditions, welcome!
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-do-we-explain-neanderthals.7969279/page-25#post-70306351

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks!

LOL, I think these threads about creation and evolution are REALLY about sources of authority and Orthodox phronema, and when visitors come in they tend to focus on actual arguments for/against - and that's not really what we are talking about.

But I don't expect someone who isn't Orthodox to understand that.

 

[gzt]

Yes, the actual arguments for and against are dispensed with in the first couple pages, and then people start copying and pasting patristic quotes for the next 24 pages. I should prefer that we just point at the orthowiki page which ably points out the two options rather than having a copy-and-paste war for 24 pages!

 

[gzt]

There are, of course, three notable books in that section, they will probably suffice for anybody really wanting a thorough Orthodox look at it. I decline to really argue (and simply point out the two options) because, well, one guy here wrote his master's thesis on this and I'm not about to go back to school to win an internet argument.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There is something I've wanted to ask you, gzt. And it's just a matter of curiosity - perhaps because I like to understand folks. Of course you have no obligation to answer, particularly as it's a somewhat personal question.

But if I can manage to make my question clear, it's this:

It seems to me that you are especially motivated in your defense of your position on this topic? It keeps coming up in TAW since I've been here, at any rate. I think surely you must have reasons why you care so much about this, and I'm curious what they might be? I think I can see Matt's and Jackstraw's reasons, but if you've mentioned yours, I've missed it.

Would I be out of line for asking? I'm not looking to argue with you or attack you over your reasons, whatever they are. I'd just like to understand?

Forgive me if my curiosity is an intrusion. God be with you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I should prefer that we just point at the orthowiki page which ably points out the two options rather than having a copy-and-paste war for 24 pages!

while true, when there generally two options that folks subscribe to, we should be seeking which one (if any) falls in line with our Tradition (the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church according to Lossky), since it is the Tradition that is the authority of the Church's teachings.

and I would say the Truth is definitely worth 24 pages.

as much as I don't agree with you on this issue, I will say I do like that you care enough about it to keep the discussion going.

 

[truefiction1]

True, may I address and question this point?

God did indeed allow salvation to the OT saints who were born and died before Christ's sacrifice. But He did so by rescuing them from their waiting place in Hades, didn't He? Christ Himself descended into Hades AFTER His crucifixion, and God did not just instantly work backwards to change their situation after it was accomplished. They had lived their lives according to the Word and Law given them, making sacrifices that prefigured the death of Christ, and so on.

I don't think this is an argument to support a fundamental change that God effected upon the entire cosmos, reaching back to the moment it began, based on the event of Adam's sin.

Besides, the change you are proposing is a much deeper and more fundamental one to the nature of life itself than the one you compare it to, and it is effected by a failure of mankind, rather than a victory of God, as you also compare it to. It doesn't seem fitting - which in itself is not an argument, but to my mind certainly would decrease the majesty of God's work in history.

What do you think?

I think you've raised a good point. But God can still do whatever God wills because He's God. I don't think that anything that God does in His providence can decrease the majesty of God's work in history. Thus, I repeat: let the physical evidence gathered and compiled from within God's creation have a voice in informing us as to how God chooses in this matter.

 

[jckstraw72]

it's not a question of what God CAN do, but of what He actually did.

of course science is useful, but when the popular interpretation of the physical evidence contradicts the noetic evidence, why should the physical take the front seat?

 

[truefiction1]

It's no good calling yourself a fool, of striving for humility, if you see your intellect as above that of the fathers. The only way to escape the temptation to intellectual pride is to set aside what we think we know and ask what the fathers taught, and accept it as wiser than our own thoughts. Yes, the Councils, the Liturgy, etc all reinforce it, and it all points to the Incarnation and the Gospel, but dismissing the mass of the fathers that Jackstraw and Matt have pointed out makes your understanding a private one, not shared, and actually contradicted, by the great mass of the faithful in Church history.

If I am wrong I will need to admit it, which I am always willing to do when that is shown to be the case, even if it hurts me to do it. The real problem here is not intellectual pride. I am well aware that the powers of my own intellect cannot hold a candle to the likes of a St. Basil.

The problem is not my intellectual pride. the problem is that that God created the whole universe like a gigantic puzzle and instilled within man a natural and "good" desire to work on collecting pieces of it and putting them together in order to learn more and more about the marvelous things that God does in His creative genius. As time has gone on, man has collected and put together many more of the pieces, so that the picture in the puzzle that now exists, shows a far more extensive picture of the marvelous things that God does in Creation. It is better and more complete than when early Christian writers possessed it. The other problem is that the arguments presented by modern Christians who insist that many of the claims of modern science must be rejected are not strong enough arguments, even if those arguing have the status of father hood and sainthood. Why? Because the arguments offered do not show that modern scientific conclusions are scientifically wrong. It is simply said that the rejection must be upheld because they are "the fathers". Unfortunately, this argument cannot be given as much weight as some would like, because of the verbally shared Wisdom of Christ (see Matthew 23:9).

There is a naive idea floating about that the saints know better about how God creates than sinners do, because they are given direct visions of God's creative acts by the Holy Spirit. Actually reading the fathers will reveal rather quickly that many things they wrote about nature are definitely incorrect. They, as is everyone, are informed by the knowledge of things that they possess from within their own worldly knowledge and experience, even if they have supernatural experience.

 

[truefiction1]

it's not a question of what God CAN do, but of what He actually did.

of course science is useful, but when the popular interpretation of the physical evidence contradicts the noetic evidence, why should the physical take the front seat?

Why shouldn't it? Did God create man incapable of increasing in understanding with regards to the inner workings of His hidden marvelous works? Does God show his saints everything? Or does God give men some good work to do within Creation?

 

[truefiction1]

As I have indicated, I truly don't wish it continue in this discussion further, as nice as it is to do so. It is too much of a distraction for me and I've too much to do this week. Again, I appreciate the discussions we have here. Thank you sincerely for your contributions. Hope to see you all around later.

 

[truefiction1]

As I have indicated, I truly don't wish it continue in this discussion further, as nice as it is to do so. It is too much of a distraction for me and I've too much to do this week. Again, I appreciate the discussions we have here. Thank you sincerely for your contributions. Hope to see you all around later.

 

[jckstraw72]

Why shouldn't it? Did God create man incapable of increasing in understanding with regards to the inner workings of His hidden marvelous works? Does God show his saints everything? Or does God give men some good work to do within Creation?

we're not talking about merely finding out new information, we're talking information that contradicts that which God has previously revealed to the saints in Scripture, hymnography, canons, and Patristic writings.

Let's see how St. Gregory Palamas views the levels of knowledge:

In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts (the Triads) 1.1.11, p. 34
If one of the Fathers says the same thing as do those from without, the concordance is only verbal, the thought being quite different. The former, in fact, have, according to Paul, “the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16), while the latter expresses at best a human reasoning. “As the heaven is distant from the earth, so is My thought distant from your thought” (Is. 55:9), saith the Lord. Besides, even if the thinking of these men were at times the same as that of Moses, Solomon, or their imitators, what would it benefit them? What man of sound spirit and belonging to the Church could from this draw the conclusion that their teaching comes from God?


In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts (the Triads) 1.1.12, p. 36
From secular knowledge, St. Gregory writes: “we absolutely forbid to expect any precision whatever in the knowledge of Divine things; for it is not possible to draw from it any certain teaching on the subject of God. For “God hath made it foolish” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:20)

St. Theophan the Recluse gives us principles coming from the same Tradition:


Nastavleniya v duhovnoi zhisni. - Pskov-Pechery Monastery of Holy Dormition: Mosc. Patriarchate Publ., 1994, http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html
Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power nor the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things (Creator)"


Sozertsanie I razmyshlenie. Moscow, Pravilo very, 1998, http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html
Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them.

We see the same in St. John of Kronstadt:

My Life in Christ pp. 41-42 (2000):
The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God.

 

[jckstraw72]

There is a naive idea floating about that the saints know better about how God creates than sinners do

The saints themselves speak of these visions. So you're saying the saints are naive.

I'm sorry, but as we've seen from several in this thread, evolution forces disrespect for saints. Saints become reduced to just normal ol' guys. This implicitly reduces the perfection of Christ. Denying that the saints could possibly have purified minds and see something greater is the same as denying that Christ accomplished this for us.