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.
are you contending that St. Pasios is not qualified to discern what is and isn't blasphemy?
Please, be blunt.The way I see it, there are really only three ways to approach this challenging situation. The first is to be naturally in a position of ignorance. I hate to be so blunt but many church fathers and even saints were, and perhaps even now to a lesser degree, are ignorant of what science and the plentifully available evidence have to show us about human origins. To them there never was a challenge as they were raised in and their views fostered by a Christian culture that simply had no insight into evolution and therefore suffered no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. This is a 'luxury' many modern Christians do not have anymore.
The second way to deal with these things is through a kind of wilfull ignorance, often involving a dismissal of scientific discovery in this domain of knowledge altogether. This way is untenable or undesirable for many modern Christians. This is perhaps the most dangerous position to take regarding one's faith because, well, one can't deny or hide from the facts forever.
The third way, I would suggest, is one that takes into account the best (and worst) of both science and religion, holds tentatively to both to make room for future discovery, and pursues a Christian life that is experiential, practical, and ultimately and hopefully transformative. The inner subjective world IS different than the outer world best examined through science and natural history. NOMA as outlined by biologist Stephen J. Gould offers a kind of solution here. But if one's entire faith is based on the second way, that of denial or wilful ignorance employed in order to protect an ancient worldview, I fear that if something gives, they may be prone to outright atheism when their faith collapses under the weight of scientific evidence.
Many Christians, Orthodox and otherwise, hold to the third way (or something akin to it) and manage (in my case, this has admittedly been with some difficulty) to acknowledge the findings of science while still trying to discover and manifest in one's life those things that are perhaps most essential to being a Christian.
This is my view, for what it's worth. I see that other thoughtful people have their own ways of doing and seeing things.
The idea that evolution comes from atheists is patently false. Why, Charles Darwin himself was a Christian!
Believing that evolution happens does not immediately imply that we should apply the law of the jungle to our societies. Even biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins admits this would be a terrible idea.
I do not know what St. Pasios is qualified to discern. Blasphemy is a most nebulous term and depends very much on one's preconceptions.
Also as to your question 'why have monogomy'? Human cultures throughout history have not always practiced monogomy. Many cultures still do not. In many cases it made more sense for survival of the species to conform to... other arrangements.
Also, evolution does not not automatically imply that humans are selfish or soulless. It merely demonstrates how life has diversified over time. It says nothing of souls whatsoever.
The way I see it, there are really only three ways to approach this challenging situation. The first is to be naturally in a position of ignorance. I hate to be so blunt but many church fathers and even saints were, and perhaps even now to a lesser degree, are ignorant of what science and the plentifully available evidence have to show us about human origins. To them there never was a challenge as they were raised in and their views fostered by a Christian culture that simply had no insight into evolution and therefore suffered no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. This is a 'luxury' many modern Christians do not have anymore.
The second way to deal with these things is through a kind of wilfull ignorance, often involving a dismissal of scientific discovery in this domain of knowledge altogether. This way is untenable or undesirable for many modern Christians. This is perhaps the most dangerous position to take regarding one's faith because, well, one can't deny or hide from the facts forever.
The third way, I would suggest, is one that takes into account the best (and worst) of both science and religion, holds tentatively to both to make room for future discovery, and pursues a Christian life that is experiential, practical, and ultimately and hopefully transformative. The inner subjective world IS different than the outer world best examined through science and natural history. NOMA as outlined by biologist Stephen J. Gould offers a kind of solution here. But if one's entire faith is based on the second way, that of denial or wilful ignorance employed in order to protect an ancient worldview, I fear that if something gives, they may be prone to outright atheism when their faith collapses under the weight of scientific evidence.
Many Christians, Orthodox and otherwise, hold to the third way (or something akin to it) and manage (in my case, this has admittedly been with some difficulty) to acknowledge the findings of science while still trying to discover and manifest in one's life those things that are perhaps most essential to being a Christian.
This is my view, for what it's worth. I see that other thoughtful people have their own ways of doing and seeing things.
The problem is, that it assumes one knows with perfect certainty how things came to be.That was both eloquent and powerful. Thank you.
Thank you for the kind words!That was both eloquent and powerful. Thank you.
With respect, it isn't for you to determine if our beloved saint is "qualified." You're not Orthodox, but a visitor to our forum. Remember this is an Orthodox subforum. Blasphemy to you, a more liberal Protestant, means little to us.
Come on. Several scientists approach science and evolution as Christians. Darwin made a discovery that greatly challenged his faith at the time. Many people grow atheistic from an understanding of evolution by natural selection, alas, and many are taken in by the atheistic philosophy that often uses evolution as ammo against theism. But many theists also maintain a position of theistic evolution or go about being Christians without giving a whole lot of thought to how Christianity and evolution can coexist."I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age....it was "not supported by the evidence"--Darwin
When he married Emma Wedgwood in 1839 he confessed to her that he was an agnostic. It broke her heart.
"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian."--Darwin
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
"This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."---Charles Darwin
So, your argument that he was a Christian is thin. If you want to address his earlier days as a younger man, he was Anglican, yes. But he grew into atheism and agnosticism fluctuating. He was at the very best, an agnostic, not a Christian.
I'm not saying evolutionary faith MUST imply a jungle mindset to societies, but we must admit it can. Hitler is a great example.
Who knows? When somebody is acknowledged as a saint, it doesn't mean we think they were right about everything. This would of course be a logical impossibility, because the saints of the Church say a lot of things and there is quite a lot of disagreement.
I
Come on. Several scientists approach science and evolution as Christians. Darwin made a discovery that greatly challenged his faith at the time. Many people grow atheistic from an understanding of evolution by natural selection, alas, and many are taken in by the atheistic philosophy that often uses evolution as ammo against theism. But many theists also maintain a position of theistic evolution or go about being Christians without giving a whole lot of thought to how Christianity and evolution can coexist.
Hmm, it seems we've gotten to that part of the conversation where people start coming out and calling people heretics. We managed to go for so long without that happening.
Well, in the Orthodox Church we have a specific set of criteria. But, yeah, I think it's a major problem when people leave rational discourse and start calling other Orthodox Christians in the thread Manicheans and what-have-you.That is easy because every single Christian in this world is a heretic to some other Christian in this world. Seems to be a tradition.
So we should pay no mind to evolution, and to a history that is different than the one that is traditionally taught to us?While I agree with you, we Orthodox are a holistic lot. It's the nature of the Church. When we have several Orthodox saints condemning evolution, shouldn't that weigh heavily with us? If it were just one, meh, you might be right. But if you speak with most bishops, priests, patriarchs, and deacons nowdays, they are more incompatibalists. And if you read the saints, they overwhelmingly are opposed to evolution. You get a priest here and there that is into evolution, but not many. Consensus and holistic approaches....
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?