How do we explain Neanderthals?

[prodromos]

Well, time will tell on that.

It is certainly taking a lot of it for you to answer my questions.

 

[gzt]

it's just what we hear from evolutionists quite often, from both the science and religious point of view.

the scientists say we've never observed evolution cause we just need more time. they promise it'll happen.

the Christians say eventually saints will be on our side and the Church will rule in our favor, we just need more time.

I supose you might see it that way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, time will tell on that.

when it does, there might be something to the discussion. of course, I can name more than a few modern Elders and Eldresses who are not yet on the calendar who also reject it.

of course the more of them that get added, the harder it is to make the case for evolution

 

[gzt]

Well, again, let me know when a council rules it out.

 

[ArmyMatt]

will do if I am around for it, but that's not how councils work.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Here is orthodox that accepts the ToE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallistos_Ware

But on another matter im curious about. For those that oppose evolution, if you were hypothetically convinced it was true, how would that effect your Christianity?

 

[jckstraw72]

I supose you might see it that way.

it's not about what i "see." it's about what people actually say. i have read/heard these exact arguments many times over.

not everything can be dismissed with the wave of a hand as someone's "interesting ideas" or just how they "see" something, although, of course, i realize that's your game.

 

[jckstraw72]

Here is orthodox that accepts the ToE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallistos_Ware

But on another matter im curious about. For those that oppose evolution, if you were hypothetically convinced it was true, how would that effect your Christianity?

unfortunately, His Eminence gives the typical non-overlapping magisteria answer -- "they need not contradict because they are answering different questions." as Fr. Seraphim Rose says, it's far too simplistic, and not a serious way of looking at Genesis.

one obvious and very important example is death - belongs very much both to science and to religion.

 

[jckstraw72]

Here is orthodox that accepts the ToE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallistos_Ware

But on another matter im curious about. For those that oppose evolution, if you were hypothetically convinced it was true, how would that effect your Christianity?

i don't know that i would have any Christianity left to speak of.

if God created death and declared it good then that whole thing about destroying death via the Cross-Resurrection, and our ascetical struggle against death become stupidity. God fights against Himself and we join in the battle against Him.

it would also reveal that God does not truly reveal Himself or speak through His saints, or, at least, they have no clue when it happened and thus we can have no clue when it happened and everything becomes baseless. our guiding principle would have to become "science," as the saints will have been shown to be wholly unreliable, and of course "science" has no room for the Resurrection or the Sacraments.

 

[ArmyMatt]

For those that oppose evolution, if you were hypothetically convinced it was true, how would that effect your Christianity?

it would make the True God not the God of the Bible or the saints. the Scripture says God created nothing to die, and calls death the last enemy. if death was from even before humans were on earth, then death is something created by God since God only creates that which is good.

it messes with our anthropology, eschatology, soteriology, and most importantly, our Christology.

 

[gzt]

it's not about what i "see." it's about what people actually say. i have read/heard these exact arguments many times over.

not everything can be dismissed with the wave of a hand as someone's "interesting ideas" or just how they "see" something, although, of course, i realize that's your game.

I'm not so much dismissing them (I am a little, to be honest) but rather I'm not particularly interested in debate, as I am not a theology student and if I were this particular clash would not be my field of interest. However I would note that what you are setting forth here is contrary to every instruction I have received in the Orthodox Church, and when you present your arguments, well, I have read/heard your arguments many times over and do not find them convincing. I'm not playing a game, but if I am, this is what it is: there are many eminent bishops, priests, and theologians who disagree with your view and believe in the compatibility of at least the history behind the evolutionary narrative and Orthodox theology - it is a reasonable and Orthodox way of looking at things.

As for myself, I readily admit I could be wrong, but my knowledge and experience of God is such that I have faith in God whatever happens.

 

[prodromos]

I'm not playing a game, but if I am, this is what it is: there are many eminent bishops, priests, and theologians who disagree with your view and believe in the compatibility of at least the history behind the evolutionary narrative and Orthodox theology - it is a reasonable and Orthodox way of looking at things.

This us the third time I'm asking since you keep throwing this claim out there, and I don't believe it is an unreasonable request.
Who are these many bishops, priests and theologians who hold to the compatibility of Orthodoxy and evolution.
If you can't answer then say so, but also stop making a claim you can't support. If you can support it then please do so. Again, I don't believe it is unreasonable to expect you to support your claims.

 

[gzt]

You can see a bunch of people who have written on the subject on the orthowiki page. Many, of course, don't write.

 

[prodromos]

You can see a bunch of people who have written on the subject on the orthowiki page. Many, of course, don't write.

I looked and found very little. If that is all you've got then you have very little indeed.

 

[jckstraw72]

You can see a bunch of people who have written on the subject on the orthowiki page. Many, of course, don't write.

if they don't write, then how do you know their position?

 

[gzt]

Believe what you will, I am not particularly interested in proving anything. I have said my bit already, you may find it in the first few pages of the thread. If you would like, you may start asking the bishops, priests, and theologians you encounter whether an Orthodox Christian can believe both Orthodox theology and the broad evolutionary narrative.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and, I would point out, looking at Church history, that there were times when many "bishops, priests, and theologians" were on the side of something theological, and the Church has shown them to be wrong. not necessarily heretics, but definitely in theological error. so looking at Church history, simply saying that many believe that X is compatible with the faith is not a solid argument.

and that is not theology, that is simply Church history.

 

[gzt]

It certainly isn't a "solid argument", I'm not debating here. However, it remains to be seen whether we are in such a situation. The answer has not yet been revealed, there is certainly evidence for both sides, but it is as yet inconclusive.

 

[rusmeister]

It certainly isn't a "solid argument", I'm not debating here. However, it remains to be seen whether we are in such a situation. The answer has not yet been revealed, there is certainly evidence for both sides, but it is as yet inconclusive.

The answer is not inconclusive; you just refuse to be conclusive about it. You have completely failed to explain how it is that death both entered the world through Adam's sin AND happened before there was any Adam to sin. The ideas are mutually exclusive.

Believe what you will, I am not particularly interested in proving anything. I have said my bit already, you may find it in the first few pages of the thread. If you would like, you may start asking the bishops, priests, and theologians you encounter whether an Orthodox Christian can believe both Orthodox theology and the broad evolutionary narrative.

Yes, we know they can. We can see it. Some people who try to be good Orthodox Christians hardly ever fast. Others vote for politicians that promote abortion. Others glut themselves or get drunk regularly, and partake of the Eucharist at Liturgy. We know that people can have ideas and even practices that aren't really compatible with our faith, and yet try to practice the Orthodox Faith. We hope, by the grace of God, that we will be forgiven our own foibles. But when we begin to defend the bad ideas and practices as perfectly good, there is a problem. You wind up having to dismiss the long list of fathers and saints pointed out by jck and Matt in order to hold on to your idea, and can only offer us a vague reference to "eminent" Orthodox of the very last century, excluding all others.

 

[jckstraw72]

Just bc there are people on both sides doesn't mean there is evidence on both sides. Those are quite different matters.