The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

ephesians4:2 · Mar 22, 2011

A reply to Michael the Iconographers post about
" he made it crystal clear to me there is nothing in Orthodox teaching that requires me to believe the world was created in 6 twenty-four hour time periods. He suggested I leave it to faith and worry about things that are much more important to my life. "

I perfectly agree there are just some things man isn't suppose to know and cannot comprehend. As far as the earth and everything being created in six days I believe and know God can and did. Time as Eistein showed us with his Theories on Relativity is just a fabric which man cannot escape. Time doesn't apply to God only man.

This verse sums up my view
2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."

God created time itself, so if he says as Genesis does that he created everything in six days and rested on the seventh, well then he did. The nature of time is a tool that God uses to teach through circumstance as we live out our days.

Michael G · Mar 23, 2011

jckstraw72 said:
ok, so then a practical question we need to ask is: how do we know when the "opinions" stop and something is an actual teaching of the Church?

i just asked Bp. Michael today if God does not desire the death of humans only, or of all creation, and he said of all creation - that nothing is created to die. Dr. Harry Boosalis and Dr. Christopher Veniamin have taught the same thing, and Fr. Sergius, the abbot of St. Tikhon's Monastery has told me the same thing. Are they all clinging to opinions, or has, perhaps, the Church actually expressed her mind on this issue?

Nice name drop. You are completely convinced of your opinion and nothing any one says will convince you othewise. I will stick with what my spiritual father tells me.

When St. Tikhon's is completely Orthodox in everything they say and do, then I will listen to the "St. Tikhon's teaches this" argument.

jckstraw72 · Mar 23, 2011

Michael the Iconographer said:
Nice name drop. You are completely convinced of your opinion and nothing any one says will convince you othewise. I will stick with what my spiritual father tells me.

When St. Tikhon's is completely Orthodox in everything they say and do, then I will listen to the "St. Tikhon's teaches this" argument.

1. thats right, i name dropped. thats Orthodox. i have no need or desire to come up with my own interpretation, i simply look to respected authorities within the Church, which certainly Bp. Michael is when it comes to Scripture, and Dr. Veniamin is for Patristics. How well known Dr. Harry and Fr. Sergius are I don't know. but then again, you also tried to appeal to your spiritual father to make your point. MKJ appealed to St. Athanasius to make her point, which was completely valid for her to do. Thats what we all do - we quote or reference Church authorities.
2. you are simply brushing aside everything i say, and questions i ask, because they dont fit with your opinion either, and thus this is obviously getting nowhere.

but i will ask again: how do we know when the "opinions" end and something is actually the teaching of the Church (especially if we're not supposed to look to those in authority over us to teach us ....)?

jckstraw72 · Mar 23, 2011

Michael the Iconographer said:
Nice name drop. You are completely convinced of your opinion and nothing any one says will convince you othewise. I will stick with what my spiritual father tells me.

When St. Tikhon's is completely Orthodox in everything they say and do, then I will listen to the "St. Tikhon's teaches this" argument.

well of course St. Tikhon's is not the crux of my argument though, but rather the Church Fathers. i was simply pointing out that plenty of other people are able to look at the Patristic record and see an obvious consensus. on topics concerning Genesis i'm typically treated as if im simply making up a teaching.

and if our seminaries carry no weight, how about St. Nikolai Velimirovich:

Selected Writings:
"Death is not natural; rather it is unnatural. And death is not from nature; rather it is against nature. All of nature in horror cries out: "I do not know death! I do not wish death! I am afraid of death! I strive against death!" Death is an uninvited stranger in nature . . . Even when one hundred philosophers declare that "death is natural!" all of nature trembles in indignation and shouts: "No! I have no use for death! It is an uninvited stranger!" And the voice of nature is not sophistry. The protest of nature against death outweighs all excuses thought up to justify death. And if there is something that nature struggles to express in its untouched harmony, doing so without exception in a unison of voices, then it is a protest against death. It is its unanimous, frantic, and heaven-shaking elegy of death.

and Vladimir Lossky:

Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Pg. 133
By way of the human will, evil has become a power infecting the whole creation’ ‘cursed is the ground for thy sake’ (Gen. iii, 17). The universe which still reflects the majesty of God, has at the same time acquired a sinister character . . . Sin has been introduced where grace should reign, and instead of the divine plenitude, a gaping abyss has opened in God’s creation, the gates of hell opened by the free will of man.

or Fr. Schmemann:

The Eucharist, pg. 61
Any consecration in the Church is not a creation of “sacred objects,” by their sanctity contraposed to the “profane,” i.e. the unconsecrated, but their referral to their original and at the same time ultimate meaning – God’s conception of them. For the entire world was created as an “altar of God,” as a temple, as a symbol of the kingdom. According to its conception, it is all sacred, and not “profane,” for its essence lies in the divine “very good” of Genesis. The sin of man consists in the fact that he has darkened the “very good” in his very being and as such has torn the world away from God, made it an “end in itself,” and therefore a fall and death.

or Fr. Dumitru Staniloae:

The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: Vol. 2: The World: Creation and Deification, pg. 1
The economy of God, that is, his plan with regard to the world, consists in the deification of the created world, something which, as a consequence of sin, implies also its salvation. The salvation and the deification of the world presuppose, as primal divine act, its creation. Salvation and deification undoubtedly have humanity directly as their aim but not a humanity separated from nature, rather one that is ontologically united with it. For nature depends on man or makes him whole, and man cannot reach perfection if he does not reflect nature and is not at work upon it. Thus by ‘world” both nature and humanity are understood; or when the word “world” is used to indicate one of these realities, the other is always implied as well.

note that this work is called Dogmatic Theology ....

or Fr. John Romanides:

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Original Sin According to St. Paul (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx)
It is he [Satan] who led man and all of creation into the path of death and corruption. The power of death and corruption, according to Paul, is not negative, but on the contrary, positively active. "The sting of death is sin," which in turn reigns in death. Not only man, but all creation has been yoked under its tyrannizing power and is now awaiting redemption. Creation itself shall also be delivered from the slavery of corruption. Along with the final destruction of all the enemies of God, death—the last and probably the greatest enemy—will be destroyed. Then death will be swallowed up in victory. For St. Paul, the destruction of death is parallel to the destruction of the devil and his forces. Salvation from the one is salvation from the other.

or Fr. Thomas Hopko:
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

The Lenten Spring, pg. 20

We have wasted what our good God has given us. We have ruined our lives and our world. We have polluted the air, the water and the earth. The birds and the fish, the plants andthe animals grieve because of our wickedness . . . we have lost our divine legacy as children of God. And the whole cosmos suffers with us in our affliction.

or Fr. Zacharias of Essex:

Hidden Man of the Heart, Pg. 75
At the same time, this grace creates his personal communion with God and with all men, for they are like unto himself. He is also united with the whole of creation, which groans under the same condemnation to death.

aaaaanyhoo, i think ive sufficiently demonstrated my point

choirfiend · Mar 23, 2011

ArmyMatt said:
a monk I know at St Nektarios Monastery named Fr Epiphanios said that people in heaven will be so enveloped by God's love, that they won't even think of the damned at all.

That's a horrific statement.

jckstraw72 · Mar 23, 2011

choirfiend said:
That's a horrific statement.

why?

Chief_Sinner · Mar 23, 2011

Michael the Iconographer said:
My spiritual father is one of the most respected priests in the Diocese of the Midwest. He has been a priest for close to 50 years and is loved by every priest who knows him. When I talked to him today about this thread he made it crystal clear to me there is nothing in Orthodox teaching that requires me to believe the world was created in 6 twenty-four hour time periods. He suggested I leave it to faith and worry about things that are much more important to my life.

However, I would like to add that a literal Genesis is theologically much more sound. And, theology comes before science and opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a non-literal Genesis is wrong or is completely crucial to the Faith so much that if you don't believe it you are damned. However, I am saying that it makes more sense looking at it from a theological point of view.

What I mean is that if evolution or theistic evolution is true, the world would have been created fallen from the beginning. (Theistic) Evolution takes millions of years of death, disease, suffering, and adaptation for a species to evolve (mutate) into another. Also, when would the ape that evolved into humans gain the very essence of God as part of his soul? All animals have the energies of God, that is why their souls are mortal, but when would the first human be granted an immortal soul? Would God have just chosen a random ape and grant him free will, rationality, and an immortal soul?

Also, sex would have existed at this point as well. St. John Chrysostom says that marriage (and sex) only came into existence when death did. Since death is already in existence, sex would as well.

However according to our theology, none of this came into existence until AFTER the Fall. That is until after humans were already made and had an immortal soul. Thus, (theistic) evolution which bases its whole argument on death and suffering before man came into being is completely contradictory to our theology.

If death did exist in the beginning, what would be the point of Christ? The point was to return us to what we were (and in a better state) before. If we were already in a fallen world when we came into being, what was the point?

I did find this quote on orthodoxinfo about Genesis by St. Ephraim the Syrian.

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names. (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)

Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each. (Ibid.)

Megaloskhemos · Mar 23, 2011

jckstraw72 said:
why?

To my limited understanding, the following would be the case:

The sentiment that one would so love God and be Loved that one would not think of his neighbor implies that God doesn't think of the neighbor-- in this case the damned.

God has abandoned them-- which is a horrific thing. If the Saints undergoing theosis-- becoming more and more with God by Grace-- are made to not concern themselves with the lost, wouldn't that imply that in the eyes of God it would be proper to completely abandon the lost?

(Love your enemies?)

Dorothea · Mar 23, 2011

Why do comments have to be so sharp to our fellow Orthodox brethren? Come on. This is not a set dogma. We are here to share thoughts and our interest on this subject, and yes, we share thoughts from the Fathers, is all good. I just don't understand why jabs have to be put out there just because one disagrees with their brother or sister Orthodox.

PS - I'm not getting on everyone here...

Michael G · Mar 23, 2011

jckstraw72 said:
aaaaanyhoo, i think ive sufficiently demonstrated my point

Like, I have said. I will stick with what my spiritual father advises me. I am fine with that. Your long discourse afterwards seems to tell me you are not fine with that. I am fine with the fact that you are not fine with that.

Michael G · Mar 23, 2011

Chief_Sinner said:
However, I would like to add that a literal Genesis is theologically much more sound. And, theology comes before science and opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that a non-literal Genesis is wrong or is completely crucial to the Faith so much that if you don't believe it you are damned. However, I am saying that it makes more sense looking at it from a theological point of view.

What I mean is that if evolution or theistic evolution is true, the world would have been created fallen from the beginning. (Theistic) Evolution takes millions of years of death, disease, suffering, and adaptation for a species to evolve (mutate) into another. Also, when would the ape that evolved into humans gain the very essence of God as part of his soul? All animals have the energies of God, that is why their souls are mortal, but when would the first human be granted an immortal soul? Would God have just chosen a random ape and grant him free will, rationality, and an immortal soul?

Also, sex would have existed at this point as well. St. John Chrysostom says that marriage (and sex) only came into existence when death did. Since death is already in existence, sex would as well.

However according to our theology, none of this came into existence until AFTER the Fall. That is until after humans were already made and had an immortal soul. Thus, (theistic) evolution which bases its whole argument on death and suffering before man came into being is completely contradictory to our theology.

If death did exist in the beginning, what would be the point of Christ? The point was to return us to what we were (and in a better state) before. If we were already in a fallen world when we came into being, what was the point?

I did find this quote on orthodoxinfo about Genesis by St. Ephraim the Syrian.

Since you have not been around TAW very long, you might not know the standard answer for a lot of sticky questions is: ask your priest. There is 1 priest who I turn to for almost every situation I run into in life, and this is the priest who brought me in to Orthodox Christianity 12 years ago. I go by what he says.

Michael G · Mar 23, 2011

jckstraw72 said:
1. thats right, i name dropped. thats Orthodox. i have no need or desire to come up with my own interpretation, i simply look to respected authorities within the Church, which certainly Bp. Michael is when it comes to Scripture, and Dr. Veniamin is for Patristics. How well known Dr. Harry and Fr. Sergius are I don't know. but then again, you also tried to appeal to your spiritual father to make your point. MKJ appealed to St. Athanasius to make her point, which was completely valid for her to do. Thats what we all do - we quote or reference Church authorities.
2. you are simply brushing aside everything i say, and questions i ask, because they dont fit with your opinion either, and thus this is obviously getting nowhere.

but i will ask again: how do we know when the "opinions" end and something is actually the teaching of the Church (especially if we're not supposed to look to those in authority over us to teach us ....)?

I would ask my bishop, but when he and I talk we have far more important things to discuss.

Chief_Sinner · Mar 23, 2011

Michael the Iconographer said:
Since you have not been around TAW very long, you might not know the standard answer for a lot of sticky questions is: ask your priest. There is 1 priest who I turn to for almost every situation I run into in life, and this is the priest who brought me in to Orthodox Christianity 12 years ago. I go by what he says.

In no way was I bashing your priest or bashing the practice. I always ask my SF when I have a question. If it seemed so, I apologize and ask your forgiveness.

HOWEVER, I did say "I am not saying that a non-literal Genesis is wrong or is completely crucial to the Faith so much that if you don't believe it you are damned." It is a matter of Theological Opinion. I said that it was theologically more sound to believe in a literal Genesis.

I would also like that add that priests, while venerable and much more holy and higher than I could ever be, are NOT infallible in all matters. I do take what my priest says to heart, especially on life and spiritual matters because he has SO much more experience than me, BUT if what he says, mostly about theology, seems to go against what I read. I'll bring it up, and we have discussions on what he told and what I've read. Sometimes, he is wrong. He is only human, but much higher than me.
<staff edit>

jckstraw72 · Mar 23, 2011

Michael, you can go with whoever you want. i just dont see how it contributes to a discussion to tell us all that you arent concerned with this issue. ppl here are at least interested in it, so let us discuss it.

Michael G · Mar 23, 2011

jckstraw72 said:
Michael, you can go with whoever you want. i just dont see how it contributes to a discussion to tell us all that you arent concerned with this issue. ppl here are at least interested in it, so let us discuss it.

My point is it makes you no less Orthodox if you do not agree with the point of view which you and many others espouse.

inconsequential · Mar 23, 2011

That's why I rarely post here anymore chief. I lack the charity that many others have to not respond in like manner so I just don't engage in any controversial discussions anymore.

Michael G · Mar 23, 2011

inconsequential said:
That's why I rarely post here anymore chief. I lack the charity that many others have to not respond in like manner so I just don't engage in any controversial discussions anymore.

Are unicorns that toot rainbows a controversial topic? Sorry, that might be a bit of an inside joke.

inconsequential · Mar 23, 2011

Michael the Iconographer said:
Are unicorns that toot rainbows a controversial topic? Sorry, that might be a bit of an inside joke.

Only if you are referring to Charlie the unicorn but I can assure you that I will never be convinced that the rainbows were not the result of all the candy he ate upon entering the Candy Mountain (tm) Cave.

jckstraw72 · Mar 23, 2011

and my position is that an Orthodox stance is one that comes from within the Church. so we should look to see what the Fathers say, and try to discern if there is a consensus or if the Fathers really were just shooting off opinions. as i see it, people telling me that there is no consensus on an issue is not adequate proof that there is no consensus, especially when everything i have read and been taught tells me the exact opposite. perhaps there is no consensus, but if there isn't, that should be demonstrable. so for instance, MKJ stepped up to the plate and provided evidence for what she believes, from St. Athanasius, she didnt just insist that her belief is valid.

ArmyMatt · Mar 23, 2011

The sentiment that one would so love God and be Loved that one would not think of his neighbor implies that God doesn't think of the neighbor-- in this case the damned.

God has abandoned them-- which is a horrific thing. If the Saints undergoing theosis-- becoming more and more with God by Grace-- are made to not concern themselves with the lost, wouldn't that imply that in the eyes of God it would be proper to completely abandon the lost?

(Love your enemies?)

no it's not that, he explained it as the faithful will be so enveloped by God's love and undergoing theosis, that will be their all consuming thought, of life in His Love. sorta like when someone is infatuated with someone, and time and all other worries and cares are sorta tossed out the window. but I mean that in a much greater, eternal, and passionless sorta way (so, don't think I am saying that we look at God like a steady.)

and I don't see how it is horrific. somehow God will remove all tears from us, and sadness and sorrow will not enter into the Kingdom. so somehow the saved are not gonna be eternally mourning the damned.

The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

Regular Member

Abe Frohmann

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Senior Veteran

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Newbie

Nope.

One of God's handmaidens

Abe Frohmann

Abe Frohmann

Abe Frohmann

Newbie

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Abe Frohmann

goat who dreamed he was a sheep

Abe Frohmann

goat who dreamed he was a sheep

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency