How do we explain Neanderthals?

[jckstraw72]

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.

Satan is an angel -- immaterial -- he can't introduce death into material creation. We see this in the episode in the Garden. Even before Adam and Eve sinned, Satan had already lied and deceived -- but yet his sin did not cause the Fall, but rather it was the sin of man.

 

[jckstraw72]

also, an obvious point. humans vs. neanderthals is a question of our modern taxonomy - nothing says that God's definition of human nature fits whatever distinctions we choose to make at the time.

 

[JackRT]

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?

Could you please explain the term "noetic evidence" for me?

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

Thanks for the reply. And since you asked not to continue, and Jackstraw began his response the same as I would have begun mine, I'll leave off a reply. Just didn't want to seem to be ignoring you.

God be with you.

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]

Could you please explain the term "noetic evidence" for me?

i mean that which the saints have learned from God. God speaks directly to the spiritual heart, unmediated by our senses.

 

[JackRT]

i mean that which the saints have learned from God. God speaks directly to the spiritual heart, unmediated by our senses.

Thank you for the reply. You do realize, don't you, that this concept opens things wide to all sorts of claims.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for the reply. You do realize, don't you, that this concept opens things wide to all sorts of claims.

Not just anyone's imaginings though. And we still look for consensus.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You do realize, don't you, that this concept opens things wide to all sorts of claims.

indeed we do, that is why we check this stuff against the consensus of the Church.

 

[jckstraw72]

Thank you for the reply. You do realize, don't you, that this concept opens things wide to all sorts of claims.

maybe so, but without it we wouldn't even have the Scriptures. the prophets, for example, were writing what God showed them and what He spoke to them. without this communication with God Christianity would be mere philosophy. this is what makes theology higher/truer/more reliable.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why is someone from the United Church of Canada in an Orthodox forum debating a bunch of Orthodox Christians in their subforum about the nonsense of evolution?

As the Millennial youngster say "just sayin'..."

 

[gzt]

He's asking good questions and not arguing, and I would note that evolution is a perfectly Orthodox viewpoint as many eminent bishops, priests and theologians teach it, synods have declined to rule on the matter, and so on.

 

[prodromos]

He's asking good questions and not arguing, and I would note that evolution is a perfectly Orthodox viewpoint as many eminent bishops, priests and theologians teach it, synods have declined to rule on the matter, and so on.

Ah, they are back to being eminent again. Who exactly are they and what makes them eminent?
This is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like an answer. Are you also certain no synods have ruled on the matter?
I would also like to see exactly how many, "many" is.

 

[jckstraw72]

We have seen that Ecumenical Councils HAVE touched upon the same issues that are at the heart of the creation/evolution debate.

The 6th and 7th Councils ratified a canon from Carthage that says:

//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.//

it's rather obvious how this contradicts evolution. we've seen in this thread already people who deny that man was created NOT mortal.

further, Trullo also teaches us how to proceed when there is a controversy, as there is now:

//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.//

note that we follow the tradition of the fathers because they are GOD-BEARING. the Church does not doubt, belittle, or downplay their experiences of God.

so we see, the continual claim that the Church has not spoken on the matter is quite flimsy when you consider that for 2,000 years the Church HAS indeed spoken on what Genesis means. Now we need only apply what has already been said.

Following on this, St. Theophan the Recluse says that Darwin and his followers rightly deserve to be added to the anathemas in the Rite of Orthodoxy, but there is no need to do so since such teachings have been anathematized already long ago!

so, when a little study is done, we see that grasping at this straw just doesn't work.

 

[ArmyMatt]

He's asking good questions and not arguing, and I would note that evolution is a perfectly Orthodox viewpoint as many eminent bishops, priests and theologians teach it, synods have declined to rule on the matter, and so on.

and no Saints, the real authority of the Church. And simply because a Council has not specifically ruled on evolution, that does not mean the issue is up in the air. Councils simply formally articulate what has always been taught. They don't add rules or barriers, but simply point out the barriers that have been there since Pentecost.

Most eminent bishops, priests, and theologians were iconoclasts in the 8th century. So just pointing out numbers of those who do believe in evolution is not a strong argument for your case

 

[gzt]

We seem to be going in circles - we're all saying the same things we've said before. Perhaps that is an indication that there is no more left to say. Unless there's something new (and novelty is of course abhorred), I've said my bit.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Indeed we are.

 

[prodromos]

We seem to be going in circles - we're all saying the same things we've said before. Perhaps that is an indication that there is no more left to say. Unless there's something new (and novelty is of course abhorred), I've said my bit.

You haven't answered my question.

 

[YCGP]

We don't believe in evolution because it goes against our tradition.

 

[gzt]

You can look on the orthowiki which has been referred to several times. Jckstraw, by the way, is a prolific contributor to the page.

I suspect if some Synod had addressed the question, it might end up as something along the lines of the conclusion of the ROCOR synod's statement on tollhouses, quoted below for context:

Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve: In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it is not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions on questions of importance to our salvation.

Of course, who knows? I eagerly await the bishops of my own church to speak on this issue. I will in fact be seeing my bishop this weekend and I may ask for his thoughts if I get the chance, but I don't intend to waste his time to settle an internet argument.

 

[gzt]

We don't believe in evolution because it goes against our tradition.

That isn't the right answer.