Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

When did some animals become carnivorous ? After the fall or after the flood ?

fall flood animals

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#1 hailton

hailton

    New Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 11 March 2015 - 07:26 PM

Is there any patristic commentary on this ???
 
Is there any commentary from the Elders ??
 
Many thanks to all of you !  ;)


#2 Brian Patrick Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 March 2015 - 05:56 PM

This article, by Deacon Andrei Kuraev, provides some interesting citations and analysis:

 

http://silouanthomps...cept-evolution/

 

The author distinguishes death for man (separating soul from body) from death for beasts (destroying the body). He also distinguishes creation from the garden, arguing that the garden was a protected place keeping out man-eating beasts.  Then he writes:

 


The holy fathers tell us directly that sin came to the world through man and only man can sin in this world (we do not touch any of the events in the area of angels). “What is another evil act, besides the events happening between people you can point at?” St. Methodious [sic, of Petara] rhetorically asked; “All the rest of the creatures are obedient to God by necessity, and none of them can do anything except what it was created for.” So there is no evil among animals, and the death of animals is not evil if it is not caused by a human. Killing among animals is not evil because they do not have moral freedom.

 


The “struggle for survival” in God’s plan makes good pedagogical sense, St. Augustine supposes that the fight between animals is edifying for man so by seeing how animals fight for their bodily life he could understand how tensely and passionately he has to fight for his spiritual salvation.

 

 


One limitation of the article is that the author does not deal with the difficulties in the materialistic explanation of evolution. Nevertheless, he does show that evolution poses problems for Protestants that are not problems for the Orthodox.

 

In Christ,

Pdn Patrick


Edited by Brian Patrick Mitchell, 17 March 2015 - 09:15 PM.


#3 silouanthompson

silouanthompson

    New Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 16 March 2015 - 04:06 AM

This article, by Deacon Andrei Kuraev, provides some interesting citations and analysis:

 

http://silouanthomps...cept-evolution/

 

I should note that I posted this article because I think it's a conversation worth having, not as an endorsement of Father Deacon Andrei's assertions.

I am not a subtle person; when I want to promote something, it'll be obvious to all.

 

In Christ,

Priest Silouan



#4 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 March 2015 - 04:27 PM

Wild animals, flesh eaters, refuse to eat the flesh of saints http://www.impantokr...Animals.en.aspx

 

It is the sanctification of man that elevates animals to the status of "glorification".

 

We somehow fail to realise that it is our salvation that promotes all nature into the uncreated realm of God. We now understand life as consumption, but real life is production.



#5 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,036 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 16 March 2015 - 08:10 PM

There must have been  a fall when Lucifer revolted against God. Was not Eden a place set apart from an already fallen world. How to explain Genesis 4:15?



#6 Father David Moser

Father David Moser

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,581 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Cleric

Posted 17 March 2015 - 02:49 PM

I always considered the rebellion of Lucifer to be prior to the creation of the material world (remember angels are spiritual beings) and therefore his "fall" could not have affected the new creation since it was already done.  The fathers describe Eden as a garden in the midst of creation - a place especially set aside for the special creation who was to rule over the rest of creation (kind of like a "palace" for the king?).  It was a physical place but when our first parents sinned and were cast out of the garden/palace (being no longer fit to rule) they could not re-enter its borders.  Adam and Eve continued however to dwell near the gates of Eden and the fathers tell us that Adam would spend many hours before the closed gates on his knees, mourning his sin with tears of repentance (which is the image portrayed by the priest at Vespers, standing before the closed gates of paradise (the altar) praying during the singing of the sunset Psalm).  Thus Cain, after his own sin, not being able to remain with the rest of his family due to his shame at having killed his brother, relocated to another area.

 

Fr David



#7 Ilaria

Ilaria

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 18 March 2015 - 05:30 PM

I have found some commentaries, based on the books of St.Basil ‘De origine hominis’, “Hexaimeron”.
Starting from Genesis 1: 29-30 "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life,
I have given every green plant for food"; continuing with Genesis 9: 3 ‘Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things’.

 

From these two texts cited above, the conclusion would be that, in the same way both man and animals were herbivore before the Flood, man and some animals became carnivorous after the Flood.



#8 Brian Patrick Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 06:48 PM

But in Gen. 4:4, Abel is already offering "the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof, and the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering," whereas the Lord did not respect Cain's offering of grain. We therefore have good reason to assume man was eating meat before the Flood, and God approved.


Edited by Brian Patrick Mitchell, 18 March 2015 - 06:49 PM.


#9 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 07:13 PM

There is nothing wrong to measure historical biblical sequential events, though little gains are received by such analysis.

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

#10 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,036 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 07:17 PM

Ilaria is correct: Abel's offering was to God, not flesh meat food for himself.



#11 Brian Patrick Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 07:21 PM

Ilaria is correct: Abel's offering was to God, not flesh meat food for himself.

 

So God approved the slaughter of sheep for Himself but not for man?


Edited by Brian Patrick Mitchell, 18 March 2015 - 07:30 PM.


#12 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,036 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 08:14 PM

Seems so.



#13 Brian Patrick Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:47 PM

Seems so to some but not to others, so why insist on it? I wonder what Cain and Abel wore. Did God make them "coats of skin" too?

 

There's no way we can know, and it's not really important, since God did approve the eating of meat more than once, and since the subject of this thread is not when man began to eat meat, but when "some animals" did. 


Edited by Brian Patrick Mitchell, 18 March 2015 - 09:48 PM.


#14 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,036 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:59 PM

The consensus is clear that God permitted the eating of meat from the time of Noah: the scriptures are clear to most people.



#15 Ilaria

Ilaria

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 07:07 AM

From a practical point of view, I really doubt that some animals would have restrained themselves from eating one another in Noah’s Ark :)

Bringing discussion to this point, I would suggest another issue, linked to this one, which may be the subject for another topic:

Why the animals did not receive the command about not eating from the tree of knowledge? 



#16 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,036 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:16 AM

My guess is that they did not need the command because they did not have the reasoning faculties, free will and spiritual qualities human beings have from God, so that even if they did eat from it, they would not have been affected since they did not have the 'eyes' that would have been 'opened'.



#17 Brian Patrick Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:35 AM

The consensus is clear that God permitted the eating of meat from the time of Noah: the scriptures are clear to most people.

We don't need a consensus to tell us that God permitted the eating of meat from the time of Noah (after the Flood): We have Scripture to tell us that. 

 

The issue is, did fallen men eat meat before the Flood? On that, no consensus has been established, and none need be.

 

None need be because the relevance of that issue to either the question posed by this thread or any other question has not been established. It just doesn't matter.   



#18 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,036 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:42 PM

Indeed, but the matter did crop up, and it is as Ilaria described: animals were not eaten before the flood - they have been since.



#19 Ilaria

Ilaria

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 01:34 PM

yes, Andreas, and I liked the way my spiritual father emphasized this: animals do not have how to manifest this extraordinary gift: to refrain themselves from something that they would need. 



#20 Brian Patrick Mitchell

Brian Patrick Mitchell

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 19 March 2015 - 02:08 PM

No one has proved here that animals were not eaten before the Flood. No one has even cited a verse of Holy Scripture or a saying of the Fathers to that effect.

 

Gen. 9:3 could be read that way, but it could also be read as God merely re-authorizing or expressly permitting the eating of animals after animals were again in abundance following the Flood. Before the Flood, God's concern was to preserve both man and beast; after the Flood, His concern was to see man survive, so He made sure Noah knew that animals were (possibly again) fair game.

 

Mention has been made of St. Basil's Hexaemeron, but where in the Hexaemeron does St. Basil say when man began to eat meat? I can't find any mention of it. The Hexaemeron covers only the six days of creation in Gen. 1. It does not mention Noah or the Flood.  

 

The Hexaemeron does, however, say quite a lot about the natural carnivorousness of many animals --- fishes, birds, and beasts. It does not relate this carnivorousness to the Flood or even the Fall. It supports the conclusion of Dn. Andrei Kuarev that animals were eating animals from the very beginning, as God intended. 


Edited by Brian Patrick Mitchell, 19 March 2015 - 02:11 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users