How do we explain Neanderthals?

ArmyMatt · Oct 7, 2016

Cappadocious said:
What makes you think they do not meet the patristic definition of human?

no, I rethought that when jckstraw posted. but what makes us human is that we are noetic and physical at the same time (tis why we are the microcasm of the universe), and initially I did not think they necessarily were human for that reason. but again, they might have been.

Cappadocious said:
Humans are not "beasts" and humans are animals. You'd struggle to find a pre-modern Father arguing different, not to mention the Scriptures.

yes, poor wording on my part. what I meant was humans having a nous. yes, technically we are animals according to the Latin, so my bad. tis what happens at times when I post when tired.

gzt · Oct 7, 2016

All I can say is that there are a number of theologians and bishops who think the earth is old, life has been around for a very long time, etc. Further, the Church has declined to make a doctrine of your opinions and those private revelations. There isn't much to argue about in that statement.

ArmyMatt · Oct 7, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
Councils alone is just as fallacious as Scriptures alone.

indeed, Arius is just as much a heretic in 125 as he was in 325. just because something has not been clarified by a Council does not mean it is not what Orthodoxy teaches.

ArmyMatt · Oct 7, 2016

gzt said:
All I can say is that there are a number of theologians and bishops who think the earth is old, life has been around for a very long time, etc.

but what makes someone a theologian is an "St" in front of their name, not a "Dr," "Prof," or even "EP." I cannot even count the number of post-Darwin saints who reject what you are saying about the earth and even how Orthodoxy states her dogmas.

gzt said:
Further, the Church has declined to make a doctrine of your opinions and those private revelations. There isn't much to argue about in that statement.

depends on how you define how a Church determines dogma.

Cappadocious · Oct 7, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
that makes God the author of death.

Someone must be taking the OT seriously as opposed to the hellenes.

gzt · Oct 7, 2016

Well, those are certainly interesting thoughts, but, again, there are a lot of modern theologians and bishops who disagree. Ultimately it is the bishops (especially when they work together in council) who tell us, as I'm sure you well know as a seminarian, where the boundaries of the faith are, not Holy Mountains or private visions.

ArmyMatt · Oct 7, 2016

actually, it's the consensus of the Church as a whole that does that. there have been robber synods where all of the bishops were wrong, or heresies that are thwarted by the laity and it is the bishops who catch up to them (St Basil the Great says it was the monastics and laity that thwarted the Eunomians). it is that consensus that the bishops look to when in Council.

jckstraw72 · Oct 8, 2016

the Councils themselves tell us to follow the Holy Fathers.

and again, the only way to not accept the revelation given to a saint is to deny that it's true - thus saying the saint was actually in delusion (not knowing what is of God, and what not), and thus not a saint. or you can just be knowingly protesting against God-given revelation.

Cappadocious · Oct 8, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
the Councils themselves tell us to follow the Holy Fathers.

and again, the only way to not accept the revelation given to a saint is to deny that it's true - thus saying the saint was actually in delusion (not knowing what is of God, and what not), and thus not a saint.

1. If you deny a revelation attributed to a supposed saint, you are denying that it is true.
2. If the revelation isn't true, the supposed saint is in delusion.
3. If the supposed saint is in delusion, the supposed saint is not a saint.

Clarification on 1: One might affirm the teaching of the revelation as true while denying the saint had a revelation, so disambiguate.
Objection on 2: One can be mistaken without being in delusion; delusion usually implies recalcitrance to correction, a refusal of common sense, and in the Orthodox world, even a spiritual vice (prelest/plani). St. Basil was mistaken in adamantly claiming that eels spontaneously generated from mud, having no egg, and that this was an instance of "let the earth bring forth living creatures." But he was not deluded any more than one is deluded when one is simply mistaken.
Objection on 3: Delusion does not negate sainthood. We have saints who were tyrants, fools, murderers, liars, etc. not to mention deluded, spiritually or otherwise. Unlike in Methodism, our sainthood is not equivalent with what philosophers call "moral saints" or what the boyscouts call "morally straight." Wasn't there a desert father who, at a time, was tricked into worshipping the devil?

jckstraw72 · Oct 8, 2016

Cappadocious said:
1. If you deny a revelation attributed to a supposed saint, you are denying that it is true.
2. If the revelation isn't true, the supposed saint is in delusion.
3. If the supposed saint is in delusion, the supposed saint is not a saint.

Clarification on 1: One might affirm the teaching of the revelation as true while denying the saint had a revelation, so disambiguate.
Objection on 2: One can be mistaken without being in delusion; delusion usually implies recalcitrance to correction, a refusal of common sense, and in the Orthodox world, even a spiritual vice (prelest/plani). St. Basil was mistaken in adamantly claiming that eels spontaneously generated from mud, having no egg, and that this was an instance of "let the earth bring forth living creatures." But he was not deluded any more than one is deluded when one is simply mistaken.
Objection on 3: Delusion does not negate sainthood. We have saints who were tyrants, fools, murderers, liars, etc. not to mention deluded, spiritually or otherwise. Unlike in Methodism, our sainthood is not equivalent with what philosophers call "moral saints" or what the boyscouts call "morally straight." Wasn't there a desert father who, at a time, was tricked into worshipping the devil?

1. it's the content of the revelation that is being disputed here, thus denying that it's a revelation from God -- so both the fact of the revelation happening and it's content are being denied.
2. to be simply mistaken is one thing. to claim that God bestowed a revelatory vision upon you, when in fact He had not, is quite another thing. in that case the saint is incapable of discerning between God, and whatever else the source of the vision may have been - the devil, demons, his own passions, drunkenness, etc. thus, we are saying the saint is unacquainted with God and His ways.
3. indeed, saints can have major errors and later repent. we would have to show then that they ever repented of these false visions. if they never repented or came to their senses then they simply remained in a state of not knowing God and His ways.

truefiction1 · Oct 8, 2016

Much, if not all, of the confusion here comes from not understanding the nature of a vision:

Visions are revelations of heavenly mysteries presented in metaphorical imagery and language. Again, such visions are Theological in essence; the images and other sensory experiences only point to what lies beyond the realm of rational thought but they don't define or depict natural processes which can be observed and studied only by the physical senses and with the agency of left-hemispheric brain processes. In short, visions metaphorically depict almost strictly supernatural realities. Thus, visions cannot be used to determine the exact processes and chronological orders of earthly events, because visions are spiritual, not natural phenomena.

When visions are taken and put into the format of a story, the stories are told with a structured chronology (i.e. a beginning, middle, end). Why so, we may ask? Because the visionary must transpose the metaphorically rich imagery and language of the vision into a form that can be accessed by the rational mind. In other words, the writer is constructing the story to serve as a bridge between the rational mind and things that lie beyond rational thought, in order to lead the readers toward the heavenly mysteries. That is why these are not ordinary stories about natural physical events, but Theological stories about God and how we can be one with God.

Again, there are no contradictions. Only omissions of details not pertinent in Theological stories.

jckstraw72 · Oct 8, 2016

truefiction1 said:
Again, there are no contradictions. Only omissions of details not pertinent in Theological stories.

the problem is that in order to accept evolution we can't just say non-theological information was missing, but rather, that information which we ARE given is actually in contradiction to the truth.

truefiction1 · Oct 8, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
the problem is that in order to accept evolution we can't just say non-theological information was missing, but rather, that information which we ARE given is actually in contradiction to the truth.

The information we are given in the stories of the Bible is given by God. God is so great that we cannot ever hope to contain all of God's Truth within our small minds and hearts in our present condition, so that we are only ever seeing a part of God's Truth to the extent that we are capable. Again, there are no contradictions, only limits in our knowledge of all of God's truth. These limits take the form of omissions not pertinent to the stories that God the Word tells to us. Even when the Word dwelt amongst us in human form, He spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven by telling stories. His storytelling spoke of relationships between God and people and between people and other people. It is He (Christ) Who is narrating the parables in the New Testament, as well as in the Old, and all of the stories are of Theological concern (as in a proper Life in communion with God and fellow creatures). The Word of God does not contradict the natural laws that He Himself creates and sustains, He just doesn't speak about them because these are earthly matters that God has gifted some of us with the ability to figure out for ourselves. For He has endowed us, genetically, with a natural emotional inclination to seek understanding about earthly things just as He has with heavenly things. The Word of God (Scripture) instructs us in what is most important -- the Kingdom of Heaven -- and leaves temporal concerns for us to worry about and live with.

Our scientific study and understanding of earthly things is only of very temporal importance. This is God's gift to Adam and Eve (or all humankind) of "skins", referenced in Genesis, but only very briefly because the Word of God is primarily concerned with Eternity. In the coming Age there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and we won't be dependent upon earthly commodities and their biological life sustaining characteristics (food, environment, clothing, education, medicine, defense, transportation, or whatever else we get out of earthly things). Thus, on these things the Word of God does not dwell.

jckstraw72 · Oct 8, 2016

there aren't only gaps, but contradictions. that's the problem here. the modern saints and elders recognize this, as do many of the faithful throughout the Orthodox world.

for instance, the saints both ancient and modern consistently teach that each creative act of God of each day was instantaneous. so when God said let there be plants, immediately, in less than the blink of an eye, fully-formed trees were there on earth. in evolution nothing is instantaneous, of course, and nothing appears fully-formed from the get-go. this is not a matter of filling in gaps with missing information, but contradiction. if evolution is true, then instantaneous acts of creation are not true. contradiction.

gzt · Oct 8, 2016

Well, certainly, that's the way you've seen fit to understand it, but that's hardly an obligatory reading in the Church, as numerous bishops and theologians in the Church disagree with your interpretation and the Church hasn't seen fit to make your opinion binding.

truefiction1 · Oct 8, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
there aren't only gaps, but contradictions. that's the problem here. the modern saints and elders recognize this, as do many of the faithful throughout the Orthodox world.

for instance, the saints both ancient and modern consistently teach that each creative act of God of each day was instantaneous. so when God said let there be plants, immediately, in less than the blink of an eye, fully-formed trees were there on earth. in evolution nothing is instantaneous, of course, and nothing appears fully-formed from the get-go. this is not a matter of filling in gaps with missing information, but contradiction. if evolution is true, then instantaneous acts of creation are not true. contradiction.

God did not say "Let there be plants", but rather, God caused the earth to bring forth plants in their kind. It is a reader's underlying and unconscious assumptions that endow that reader with a sense that creation happened instantaneously. A reader's own psyche is lending itself (most often entirely unconsciously) in the interpretation of the passages. Since human psyches have great limitations and variation, there remains some room for change and for disagreement on our end.

Also, what is instantaneous to God (and this is His story, told as God sees it) could easily take billions of years on our end.

Cappadocious · Oct 8, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
2. to be simply mistaken is one thing. to claim that God bestowed a revelatory vision upon you, when in fact He had not, is quite another thing.

Christ said in a parable: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. And in another place: Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

In the first place a revelation, a vision. In the second place, a revelation, a vision. But the responsibility and the blessing is greater concerning the handed down commandments and the Gospel, respectively. So if the saints have erred in the commandments and the Gospel (and they have, from time to time, who would deny it?) this error is the greater error. And yet we would not call such errors saint-breaking delusion.

jckstraw72 said:
in that case the saint is incapable of discerning between God, and whatever else the source of the vision may have been - the devil, demons, his own passions, drunkenness, etc. thus, we are saying the saint is unacquainted with God and His ways.

Knowing someone need not be made or broken upon a single instance, but upon the whole movment of a life or a communion. This is the difference between a mitzvah and a virtue, between a sin and a vice. So one sin or error or lack of knowledge need not break communion or prove its absence.

jckstraw72 said:
3. indeed, saints can have major errors and later repent. we would have to show then that they ever repented of these false visions. if they never repented or came to their senses then they simply remained in a state of not knowing God and His ways.

Surely the saints are not guilty until proven innocent! Do we have evidence of the repentance of Justinian for his crimes and supposed aphthartodocetism, for St. Isaac's Nestorianism, for St. Joseph Volotsky's teaching of violence against heretics, for what some see St. Maria of Paris's improper iconographic theology, for St. Cyril's words of hatred against St. John Chrysostom, for Czar Nicholas II's "what a pity so few" etc.? (surely one of these holds for you).

If we're in the business of saying: "Show me evidence of repentance or else no sainthood" we're going to lose some saints.

jckstraw72 · Oct 8, 2016

gzt said:
Well, certainly, that's the way you've seen fit to understand it, but that's hardly an obligatory reading in the Church, as numerous bishops and theologians in the Church disagree with your interpretation and the Church hasn't seen fit to make your opinion binding.

again, very minimalistic understanding of how the Church teaches

jckstraw72 · Oct 8, 2016

truefiction1 said:
It is a reader's underlying and unconscious assumptions that endow that reader with a sense that creation happened instantaneously.

no, it's the teaching of the saints. anyone with any assumptions can read their words. it's just a question of believing them or not.

YCGP · Oct 8, 2016

jckstraw72 said:
no, it's the teaching of the saints. anyone with any assumptions can read their words. it's just a question of believing them or not.

What do you believe?

How do we explain Neanderthals?

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Regular Member

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Well-Known Member

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Fool

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Fool

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Fool

Well-Known Member

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency