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.
...Which is not really all that many saints.
Yes ,it is the basis for all those who can ,without qualm, say that God does not exist ,that we are our own creators ,so we can do as we please .That the 'enlightenment ' was the high point of our self 'evolution ' ,and that since then God is dead and we will advance towards total personal power.At some point evolutionists have to realize that evolution is a mindset with an agenda that has a conscience formed by atheism. It is not an observed phenomenon that is objectively analyzed. It has social, political, religious implications that are all part of an agenda. It boggles my mind how one can be Orthodox and NOT see these factors? And the idea of the faith being subordinate to atheist agendas should be spooky....
Which question?The consensus of the Saints and Holy Fathers, all rooted in the Holy Spirit, is what Tradition is. The Saints and Holy Fathers argue against evolution.
I would also like to point out that you avoided my question and evaded addressing it directly as you have done continually through this discussion.
Which question?
I would more or less agree with your first sentence, but quibble with the second and question its relation to the first. Some of them argue against it, some of them predated it and said a lot of things, some of which conflict and some of which don't. We're in the midst of a conversation or even an argument about it as a Church - which has not really defined its doctrine on this matter. "The saints and holy fathers" are not a monolith and are not timeless.
How many do you need?...Which is not really all that many saints.
The foundation? The Church, of course.The question is “what is the foundation of your position?”
The Holy Spirit is timeless and the Saints and Holy Fathers were/are purified in that they were in accordance with the Mind of the Church/The Holy Spirit.
The foundation? The Church, of course.
Yes, t he Holy Spirit is timeless, but this doesn't mean you're right. Again, you beg the question.
We've been going in circles for like 200 posts, dude. The vast majority predate the notion. Many modern Orthodox theologians speak in favor of it, though, sure, the few modern people who have been canonized that spoke about evolution have not been fans.
Real consensus in the Church or definition of the doctrine by one of the various methods the Church defines doctrines would suffice.
How many is "many"?Many modern Orthodox theologians speak in favor of it
It doesn't matter whether or not it clearly has origins from an Anglo-supremacist and naturalistic worldview, or whether such a worldview has such a malicious agenda what you described, or even if such a worldview has created international peer pressure to hold fast on to this view otherwise be socially ridiculed by the scientific community - when it doesn't help to explain the data of the multiple radiocarbon dating systems which are consistent with each other, geological strata, the fossils of primates that slowly look more and more like men over time
and if we are going by the 6000 year old worldview, and the massive lack of evidence that something like Noah's flood occurred on a global scale (i.e., the lack of a gap or cultural divide in cultures, languages, art, calendars, etc., in cultures that are older than this).
A lot of the attempts to do so are by uneducated individuals who spend their time misrepresenting the other person's position rather than actually interpreting the data that's found in a logical, classical philosophical manner - like Dr. Dino for example.
Exactly - if you believe God created the universe to look like that, you would have to come to the conclusion that God is being purposely malicious and deceptive, something that can't be True if God is omnibenevolent.
Yes ,it is the basis for all those who can ,without qualm, say that God does not exist ,that we are our own creators ,so we can do as we please .That the 'enlightenment ' was the high point of our self 'evolution ' ,and that since then God is dead and we will advance towards total personal power.
This I believe is the repetition of Lucifers rebellion , exactly the same being repeated .
Without it, people would fear judgement ,would be more likely to look for God .
As it is ,the young ,many of them , have no counterpoint to the darkness this brings ,as it compulsory to accept it if you are 'intelligent ' and universally taught .
The problem for me is that the earth is not 6000 -7000 years old ,and that the GAP theory is most to be true . So for neither evolution , or young earth
correspond to the evidence .
Why would that make God deceptive? If a process takes millions of years and God makes the process happen in His time any way in which He chooses, how is that deceptive?
Jesus healed people right and left in the Gospels. Perhaps with medication and surgery, it would take the patient 3 months to recover, but Jesus cures the patient and advances a 3-month process into seconds. Is that deceptive? God exists outside of time in a mysterious way that is unknowable. What Prodromos, Rus, Father Matt, and myself are arguing is that time and God interact in a wholly different way than you or I interact with it. Our interactions with time are linear, obvious, measurable, and predictable. God is outside of linear time's restrictions and our understandings of it. God could create a universe that is billions of years old in the blink of His eye. And if he were to populate it, He could do so how He chooses. Having a tedious life-and-death evolutionary system with ammonia and primates, death and birth, more death and birth, reacting to the environment, coping, reacting, dying, being born, dying some more, adapting, coping, dying.....it's just not at all what the Scriptures and Fathers tell us how sin and man entered the world.
I agree with most of what you say, and none of us in here who are traditionalists say that the Earth is 6,000 years old? I don't recall that being said, though the pro-evolutionists in here repeatedly seem to think we are saying that? I think the age of the Earth and Man's ascension are two different issues honestly. You can believe in an ancient Earth without buying the idea that we're descendants of monkey folk.
While I don't dispute you likely know far more on this topic than myself, my understanding is that radiocarbon dating goes back as far as 50,000 years. Beyond that, it's super unreliable and spotty at best. I know there are other methods.
No, you're absolutely right.
And I'm an idiot. I meant to say Radiometric dating, whose methodology is similar in measuring the decay of radiometric isotopes. It is far more accurate.
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?