How do we explain Neanderthals?

[jckstraw72]

indeed, there are those who would complicate a matter that need not be.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and again, there are no saints that have been shown who say this is as open as people would like to believe. you don't see it in our Scripture, or in our hymns or prayers. it is only complicated because of the mental gymnastics folks try to do to combine two things that are mutually exclusive.

 

[gzt]

You're just shoving the mental gymnastics to another part of life.

 

[jckstraw72]

where they belong it's not for us to play with the Tradition, but to accept. in any other realm, gmynastify away.

 

[ArmyMatt]

not in this regard, Genesis says no death. Wisdom of Solomon says no death. New Testament says no death, saints even after Darwin have said no death. no mental gymnastics there.

 

[jckstraw72]

and anyways, it's not enough just to note that there are people who disagree. everyone already knows this. the question is - on what basis do they agree? can their arguments hold water?

 

[gzt]

Many are on record with their arguments. I've linked to a couple and more are readily found.

 

[prodromos]

especially in light of the eminent bishops, priests, and theologians who disagree that this is an open and shut case.

Are they eminent because they agree with you?

 

[Petros2015]

in this sense all things are naturally mortal. but when we broaden our understanding of nature to include mode of existence then we see something different. then we see natural mortality being staved off by grace

...What was that Tree of Life doing there in the garden again? The garden they got kicked out after the Fall so they wouldn't have access to it anymore? Was natural mortality staved off by grace pre-Fall? Or staved off by partaking regularly of the fruit of that Tree provided by grace? It seems kind of strange you have or need a Tree of Life in a garden where there is no Death. And it wasn't like a fire extinguisher, 'break the glass and eat this Tree in case of Death', it was 'you absolutely can't have this now, now that you've fallen'.

I see some parallels between that Tree pre-fall (if they were eating of it, they were never expressly forbidden from that one UNTIL they fell) and the communion we have now post-resurrection. ...Their removal from the Garden almost seems like it might have been an excommunication from the Tree of Life. Our communion now almost seems like it might be a return to it (and more).

 

[Petros2015]

but man's natural job is to possess this life by grace and mediate it to all of creation. this is what was happening in the cosmos before the Fall.

Hmm. I wonder if they were supposed to plant more Trees...

 

[gzt]

Hmm. I wonder if they were supposed to plant more Trees...

Not to derail, but apparently in the Jewish tradition they extrapolated from Deuteronomy 20 that cutting down a fruit tree is a very serious matter and is only permitted in some very specific circumstances. Perhaps we should take them so seriously!

 

[truefiction1]

Had God created them already in a state of corruption, He would be the author of death. St. Basil rejects that. Even if you want to say that He created them thusly because He knew sin would be coming, death would still not be the natural consequence of falling away from God, it would still be God's choice to implant death into creation. As sin hadn't happened there was no reason why death had to be there. It would be only by God's choice.

Why did the sin have to precede, chronologically within a created timeline, the creation of an existential dimension that is already in a state of corruption, when that sin did indeed occur in Paradise "before the foundation of the world", just as the Lamb is Sacrificed "before the foundation of the world"? The sin did place in Paradise, and not in this world, right?

 

[rusmeister]

Why did the sin have to precede, chronologically within a created timeline, the creation of an existential dimension that is already in a state of corruption, when that sin did indeed occur in Paradise "before the foundation of the world", just as the Lamb is Sacrificed "before the foundation of the world"? The sin did place in Paradise, and not in this world, right?

This is certainly not what I understand Church teaching to be.
It did indeed take place in this world, though (open to patristic correction here) I would express my understanding of it by saying that this world was Paradise. Now it's not. Adam and Eve were not driven from some other planet or dimension to a pre-existing corrupted world. The world they were in became corrupt because of their actions. So no, the sin did not occur before the foundation of the world, it occurred in a world already founded, and founded as good. If I'm off, let the fathers correct me.

 

[jckstraw72]

The Garden was planted in this world, in the same timeline as everything else. Nothing about other dimensions, other timelines. After Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden they even continued living near it.

 

[jckstraw72]

why did the sin have to precede chronologically? that's just how things work. God created chronology - He gave us order. St. John of Kronstadt asks why God created over the course of six days rather than in one instant, and he answers it's because God wanted to give us an order, a rhythm to our lives. I really don't know why you're trying this line. Cause precedes effect. We all know this.

If, in your system, where consequence is put into place before its cause, we have to ask ourselves, why did God implement only the BAD consequences? why didn't He already beforehand implement the consequences of the Resurrection and Second Coming? Why only the suffering and death? Not a God i'm too interested in. as long as you ask why God had to wait to for suffering and death (as if that's something He was eagerly waiting to introduce ... again - not a God i'm too interested in), I'll ask you why we have to wait for glorification, and we'll see it's a dead end attempt at amalgamation.

by the way, are you sure science will back you up on your other dimensions and timeline theory? if not, you've sacrificed the whole point of being a theistic evolutionist.

And again, Scripture itself tells us even the OT saints had to wait for their salvation. You can ask why all you want, but the fact is, God created chronology.

 

[truefiction1]

The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, or before the foundation of the world, is done why?

 

[truefiction1]

This is certainly not what I understand Church teaching to be.
It did indeed take place in this world, though (open to patristic correction here) I would express my understanding of it by saying that this world was Paradise. Now it's not. Adam and Eve were not driven from some other planet or dimension to a pre-existing corrupted world. The world they were in became corrupt because of their actions. So no, the sin did not occur before the foundation of the world, it occurred in a world already founded, and founded as good. If I'm off, let the fathers correct me.

Thank you. But I wonder, if the fall indeed took place in this world, then why is the chronological order of creation in Paradise "other" than that outlined in Genesis 1? Also, if Paradise is this world, how is it that man is ejected from it while still existing in it? Additionally, if Paradise is this world, then why does Christ say to the wise thief who prays to be remembered in Christ's Kingdom, "Today you will be with me in Paradise", shortly after telling Pilate "My Kingdom is not of this world"? There does appear to be much room for interpretation. I did also come across a reference once of one of the fathers who believed and taught that the fall happens outside of time, thereby preceding it. I just can not locate that reference anywhere now. I'll be searching for it though.

 

[jckstraw72]

The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, or before the foundation of the world, is done why?

interesting -- so you interpret Revelation literally, but not Genesis ... quite the opposite of the Church Fathers ... to have Him literally slain from the foundation of the world means He was already incarnate from the foundation of the world ... I'm sure you know that's bunk. St. Peter, in his epistle, tells us this means He was foreordained before the foundation of the world - all was foreseen, but not yet actually accomplished.

 

[jckstraw72]

and who told you that Paradise is in some other chronology? surely you're not attempting to interpret Genesis on your own ... the Fathers reject specifically this -- interpreting everything dealing with Paradise as mere allegory.

 

[jckstraw72]

one characteristic Patristic commentary:

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 13.13:
The reason blessed Moses inserted the name of the place in the text was that it would not be possible for those inclined to take things lightly to deceive the ears of the simple and say the garden was not on earth but in heaven, and dream up wild theories of that kind. You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and far-fetched philosophy, even the to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text.