gurneyhalleck1
Reader
- Oct 15, 2008
- 19,476
- 7,488
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
El cheapo vacation tour package.
Totally on a shoestring budget. But if you just want sun and surf, you don't need to spend more money. The hotels provide all meals, local beer and wine in the tour package.
At the moment, my insomnia has me up and about.
Rus escaped from a Turkish prison after smuggling hashish duct-taped to his undershirt arrested in the airport. Frightening ordeal. Rus' real name: Billy Hayes.
Well, "Billy" is just a nickname...
forgive me, i dont understand how you don't see the contradiction - in the Patristic scenario there was a time of Paradise reigning over the earth, free of all corruption and morality -- in the evolutionary scenario corruption and death have always existed, regardless of the sin of man.
...Unlike many Christians in our day, for example, the Fathers generally did not doubt Adam and Eve's historic existence; Adam was, after all, the root of the key scriptural genealogies. Unlike us, they had no scientific reason to doubt them as the first physical parents of humanity. Thinkers such as Origen, especially; took the literary cues of the biblical narratives as indicating an interweaving of fictive and historical material and pointed out that the “historical“ tends to be completely beyond our means either to access or to prove. Yet even he, like the other fathers, when speaking genealogically, looked back to Adam. Taking this for granted, the fathers approached the narratives on the allegorical, typological, and moral levels, milking each for truth and meaning. Whatever their different conclusions ahout the details and historicity, they saw the narratives as telling the truth ahout God and created reality, about human sinfulness and the need for redemption, and ultimately about the person and work of Christ, the Son of the Father, anointed by and proclaimed in the Holy Spirit.
The point is not, then, whether the fathers took the seven “days” or Adam
to be historical. For the fathers, as for us, the historicity question has much
more to do with how narrative, and scriptural narrative specifically, works to
convey its message—something that both the fathers and we understand in
a variety of ways. As to the end result, however, none of the fathers‘ strictly
theological or moral conclusions—about creation, or about humanity and its
redemption, and the coherence of everything in Christ—has anything to tlo
with the datable chronology of the creation of the universe or with the physical
existence of Adam and Eve. They read the creation narratives as Holy Scrip-
ture, and therefore as “true.” But they did not see them as lessons in history
or science as such, even as they reveled in the overlaps they observed between
the scriptural narrative and the observable world. Generally speaking, the
fathers were free from a slavish deference to science. Rather their theological
and paraenetic approach to the creation narratives left them free to enjoy an
unprejudiced scientific inquisitiveness.
That being the case, those of us who seek fidelity to the fathers should
likewise refrain from overly conflating Scripture with science, in order to bring
realistic expectations to each. This means that we would have no reason to
manipulate or ignore scientific finding that do not appear to accord with the
Genesis accounts, since they operate on a different register. This separation
is important for us because, unlike the fathers, we do have data that would
make a sheerly scientific and historical interpretation of Genesis well nigh
impossible, despite some modern authors’ best efforts. Yet the ever-unfolding
data ahout the size, layout, and probable age of the created world- which
goes so far beyond what the fathers knew about it—can give us the same exu-
berance as it did the early Christian writers: a joyous wonder in mystery and
divine providence, and even, at times, a recognition of overlaps with aspects
of the scriptural narratives.
If we follow the fathers, we will see the Genesis creation accounts as God’s
uniquely chosen vehicle to express his truth about cosmic and human origins and
the dynamics of sin and death, all recapitulated and cohering in the person of
Christ. However we might reckon the narratives' relationship to the unfolding of
events in historical time, our gaze will he fixed decidedly on the New Adam.
Do you normally get insomnia, Rus?
It's all fair game as far as I'm concerned. The more offensive one party is, the greater the sympathy elicited by the opposition, to paraphrase Gorky.
In my experience, a large majority of people using today's technology do not fundamentally understand how it works. Basic physics, chemistry, and biology and the practical application of those fields are lost on many people, including often on myself. This goes for the young and old, college educated and uneducated, secular and religious, etc. And it should concern everyone including atheists, but perhaps Christians most of all, since as you say we should be agnostic to a degree concerning certain things. But how can we be agnostic without possessing the information with which to be so? Like spiritual knowledge, there is no limit to the acquisition of scientific knowledge and most of us in reality have little of either. And scientists actually often are surprisingly humble in acknowledging the limitations of our knowledge of the physical universe, admitting there remain many unknowns. Unphilosophical? Maybe... but I don't think we should give ourselves too much credit, or the scientific community too little.
It depends... there are many methods of exegesis, especially when it comes to details outside of official Church doctrine. I do trust modern Church authorities in relation to exegesis, my priest in particular.
i've read Bouteneff. he does a good job of demonstrating what the Fathers taught - he provides many sources. unfortunately, his comments and conclusions don't follow from the evidence he provides.
Yes.
El cheapo vacation tour package.
Totally on a shoestring budget. But if you just want sun and surf, you don't need to spend more money. The hotels provide all meals, local beer and wine in the tour package.
At the moment, my insomnia has me up and about.
Well, as much as I would love to accept the vague opinions of a stranger on an Internet forum, as it is I side with him, Kuraev, Kallistos Ware, Fr. Thomas Hopko, and others e.g. my own priest in their well-informed conclusions (in addition to my own) that evolutionary theory is hardly incompatible with Orthodox belief and teachings.
Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.
Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.
Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.
We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.
The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.
So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.
A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:
The Revival of Philosophy Why?
Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.
Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.
Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.
Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.
We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.
The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.
So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.
A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:
Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.
Philosophy is EVERYTHING. Without it, no credit can possibly be given.
Absolutely any discipline you could possibly named is governed by a philosophy - a worldview, with particular assumptions and dogmas. To fail to consider what that is is to fail to think clearly altogether.
Again, a view can be wildly popular and still wrong. Almost everyone can agree and yet be wrong. Look at Maximus the Confessor.
We all agree that the natural sciences are good and useful. But you seem to be calling on us to have special faith in a particular scientific view. We accept that some people may believe in the idea of evolution and also be Orthodox, just as young Earth Creationists may also be Orthodox (although I think the idea of HUMAN evolution does create serious theological problems.) I would reject any statement that an Orthodox believer MUST believe in a young Earth. My priest believes in evolution, and it does not make him less Orthodox for doing so.
The natural sciences, as a branch of knowledge, are a passing thing. The certain knowledge of yesterday becomes tomorrow's hopelessly primitive understanding - and that is when the primitive understandings are NOT completely wrong. Popular science was agreed two thousand years ago on the theory of the four elements. A mere 125 years ago Newtonian physics was unquestionable dogma.
The particular issue you have raised is one whose beginnings are in the so-called "Enlightenment" (more appropriately characterized as an endarkenment), and the gradual enthroning of scientific rationalism and dethroning of theology, once "the queen of sciences". I wonder if you would as strongly urge theology on the scientists you admire. And theology does NOT deal with passing things. The undertandings BEGIN in truth, and when confirmed in the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in error, though any one of us as individuals may be. But science ALWAYS, at any point, may be found some day to be in error. And the question of what we know vs what we believe and on what basis are philosophical, not scientific.
So it's no good telling us that we don't know how cell phones work or that we need a better knowledge of science (though more knowledge, in itself, IS a good thing). Without philosophy, there is nothing anyone can say. There is no thought about that central question which determines anything objective to be known.
A short essay that I hope will be interesting and helpful:
The Revival of Philosophy Why?
Again, for all of me, they could be mostly right (if only we could define who exactly this "community" consists of and what they want us to believe). But I'll reserve my faith for the things that warrant it.
is it because they affirm what you want to believe?
i side with Elder Paisios because there is a consistent and clear teaching concerning Genesis, as people like Fr. Seraphim and Bouteneff demonstrate, and the Elder, together with all the other illumined Saints who have spoken about evolution, are all in agreement. either the Spirit is speaking, or we've got 2000 years of fools we call Saints.
BTW I advise you reread Bouteneff if you think that is his conclusion. In the paragraphs before the one I pasted here he talks specifically about the changing methods of exegesis of Genesis by the fathers.
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?