Genesis: truth and metaphor [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Janine

21-01-2005, 10:19 PM

Just a quick note to jump in here -- even in a cursory look on-line at the Hexaemeron -- you will find a wide discussion of theological language in Genesis. Just taking a look at the very way the scriptures are discussed will tell you this is a not mind that believes literalism is the way to think theologically. I don't even see how it is possible that a mind trained in all the philosophy and education of the Hellenic inheritance could think in such limited terms, especially one trained in the finest educational background of his day and who would have through such education been in dialogue with philosophers of every stripe in his society.

Here is just one quick example:

But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called "one day" rather than "the first day," it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others. If Scripturespeaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, "age of age, and ages of ages," we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action. "The day of the Lord," Scripture says, "is great and very terrible,"42 and elsewhere "Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord: to what end is it for you? The day of the Lord is darkness and not light."43 A day of darkness for those who are worthy of darkness. No; this day without evening, without succession and without end is not unknown to Scripture, and it is the day that the Psalmist calls the eighth day, because it is outside this time of weeks.44 Thus whether you call it day, or whether you call it eternity, you express the same idea. Give this state the name of day; there are not several, but only one. If you call it eternity still it is unique and not manifold. Thus it is in order that you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future life, that Scripture marks by the word "one" the day which is the type of eternity, the first fruits of days, the contemporary of light, the holy Lord's day honoured by the Resurrection of our Lord. And the evening and the morning were one day."
from Homily II.-"The Earth Was Invisible and Unfinished." (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-08/Npnf2-08-10.htm#TopOfPage)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-01-2005, 11:53 PM

Within the Church we see iconographically: nothing refers only to itself but rather all comes from & leads to Christ. This is grounded in the fact that Christ is the recapitulation of all things & He is the Logos of all logoi. This is also what grounded the vision of the Holy Fathers.

When it comes to Holy Scripture the Fathers knew they were reading what was also a sacred & inspired vision of things. So their reverance for what is recounted in Holy Scripture was not based purely on honouring a sacred text. Rather it was a recognition that Scripture is an inspired, churchly vision of things. Scripture as they say is a verbal icon of the Divine & of God's providence.

Did the Holy Fathers accept that what was stated in Scripture was 'literally true'? For the most part they did as for example in the Six Days of Creation of St Basil the Great. But this 'literally true' had a different meaning from a modern day worldly 'fact' that by definition defines itself only in reference to itself.

We can see this for example in how the above quote from St Basil is preceeded by his saying, "It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day." We see here how St Basil defines a day as being the time it takes the heavens to make one revolution around the earth rather than the earth to make one revolution which is scientifically correct. At first reading we might be inclined to say, "well St Basil's intent was not a science lesson." But he does after all begin with what he takes to be the scientific fact of creation for his time even if we now know it is mistaken. From here however he moves on to ask, "But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this?"

As we continue reading we see that indeed there is a 'mysterious reason' for the day since it represents eternity. (Actually the wider implication is that God created time to always assume a circular character- & it is this which most clearly shows how time is an image of eternity).

So for the Fathers what is contained in Scripture is the truth of how creation is an icon of God's providence. It is not that this 'mysterious truth' is opposed to scientific fact. It is rather that the 'fact' is always an image of the Divine if we can only see this. In this sense then Scripture & how the Holy Fathers read it is a calling for us to deepen our insight within Christ & our Church. It does not ask us in any way to throw out scientific insight but rather to ground this insight in the sacred & to see with new eyes.

In Christ - Fr Raphael

Marie-Duquette

22-01-2005, 01:38 AM

"How did the Early Church understand Scripture in general?

As Matt stated in a previous post: This begs discussion!?

I would suppose that one would identify the "Early Church" as a post Pentecost Church, a Church of the Apostles of Jesus the Risen Christ in the earliest of the Church's existence, that is, after 70 A.D. into the Diaspora, into the times of the persecutions, up to the time of Constantine in the 4th Centure. So, it would be safe, in my estimation to say the the "Early Church" would be this period of time. And, that would be before the time of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Church Fathers as most of us understand this.

So, in answer to the question: "How would the Early Church understand the Scriptures in general?" That would means the OT as well as the "letters or Epistles" written by the Apostles, wouldn't it? }}

Mark Kern

22-01-2005, 05:46 AM

It seems like almost everyone is reluctant to come out and admit that they might believe that the Genesis account is a literal one for fear of ridicule from the "scientific community" that claims to have "proof" of evolution. I'm from the "scientific community" and I believe that Genesis can be taken literally, but the real question asked in this thread was what the Church Fathers taught. I believe that I can provide a little help.

A few years ago, I did an exhaustive word search on my CD of the Ante and Post Nicene Fathers for the word "creat". Thus I picked up the words "create", "created", "creation", etc. I then copied and pasted what each of the Fathers had to say about Creation into a Word document, and then I edited it into the most significant and succinct comments. I boiled about 200 pages down into about 50 pages of quotes, and separated them into sections as follows:

1. Did God Create in an Evolutionary Manner or Instantaneously? p. 1
2. The Confusion of Science with Philosophical Theories including some of the theories addressed by the Church Fathers. p. 8
3. Did People Exist Outside the Garden of Eden before Adam? p. 16
4. Uncreated Matter Spawns Christology Errors p. 22
5. Creation Testifies of Its Creator p. 30
6. The End Must Be Like the Beginning p. 39
7. The Father Created Through the Son p. 42
If anyone would like to see a copy of my search, send me an email at "markkern2@netzero.net", and I'll forward you a copy.

Two things surprised me in this search:

A. I was specifically looking for references to the Fathers supporting either evolution -- which some people were claiming when I started the search -- or a literal 6-day creation. Nowhere did I find any support for evolution. But I didn't find a strong emphasis on a literal 6-day creation either. There was a bigger issue they were addressing.
B. The issue of whether uncreated matter existed prior to Creation was a huge issue. St. Athanasius even stated that the Nicene Creed was drafted to make it clear that the True Faith is in opposition to the notions held by the Greek philosophers in these matters. They were careful to distinguish the material creation from the essence of God.

In our day, we, in science, confuse creation and God by holding to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that one can't create or destroy energy or matter. We can convert one to the other according to E=Mc^2, but we basically hold that matter is eternal. By holding to this, we have nothing to say to idolators who want to worship matter. If God and matter are both eternal, it's anyone's choice about which one he should worship.

I would encourage everyone not to be intimidated by the wisdom of this world when it makes grand claims of "proof" that the wisdom of God is foolishness. Stick to your Faith! And BTW there are answers to these claims of "proof".

Janine

22-01-2005, 06:35 AM

Actually, I couldn't care less about what the scientific community says in terms of what's in the bible, OT or gospels. (Since you're a scientist, you know full well how many assumptions -- that is, that require faith of a sorts -- scientific "proof" is based on, especially when it comes to theoretical science, like theoretical physics for example.) However, I have a big problem with fundamentalist literalism. Those who fail to understand icon fail to understand what religion is all about, if you ask me. Particularly for Orthodoxy, literalism of the type we're talking about seems to me to be incompatible with, & contradictory to the apophatic approach to God.

And by the way, thank you Father Raphael for your beautifully stated expression of "icon" and eucharistic perspective.

Matt Keyes

22-01-2005, 09:48 PM

Mark and Janine,

Great points! It is easy for one to be as harsh on the literalists as the non-literalists on this issue. As Janine and Mark have both hinted at, the technical details are not the focus of the issue. It's not simply about creation - it's primarily about the Creator.

Great discussion BTW!

Thanks,
Matt

Daniel Jeandet

23-01-2005, 05:08 PM

It spins me out how some people say that myths were created in order to explain the unknown origins of things, but in saying that, they are creating an explaination for the unknown origins of the myths.

Byron Jack Gaist

24-01-2005, 07:41 AM

Thanks to everyone for their interesting posts.

Daniel, thanks for the critical comment on those who advocate the primacy of myth above everything else. Of course, one may agree that explanation by invoking the power of myth may itself be a myth, and nevertheless remain a mythologist in one's approach to the gospel, if that makes any sense. Your statement of the obvious, however
is a powerful reminder of the mystery that cannot be named at the heart of our existence. It reminds me also of a short, sharp refutation of relativism I once read: to those who claim that truth is relative, one need only ask, "is that true"?

Concerning truth and the Bible, however, I have a further question: by what criterion can we take some biblical narratives to be metaphorical (symbolic, allegorical, mythical etc.), and others literal? Why is it, for example, permissible for a Christian to accept that the Genesis account is not literal fact, but not that f.e. the Virgin Birth is not literal?

I ask the above in a hopefully healthy spirit of inquiry, for my own and others´growth, not to undermine the eternal verity of our faith. The way I tend to deal with dogmatic truths I cannot rationally understand, is to remind myself that (a) reason is not the summit of human being, and (b) I do not yet possess (and most likely never will) the spiritual discernment.

ICXC
Byron

Fr Raphael Vereshack

24-01-2005, 06:21 PM

Previously I had referred to the preface of J. Farrell's translation of The Disputation with Pyrrus of our Father among the Saints Maximus the Confessor. Here are some few passages from the preface about allegory.

"Christ's Incarnate Economy affects all invisible & visible things both in the sense of accomplishing and even causing them to be, as well as in the sense of influencing them. The Recapitulation consequently effects the very design of time & history itself, since it pertains to 'the mystery which hath been hid from generation' of the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'...

This constitutes the allegorical or typological basis on which Irenaeus & other Fathers read the Old Testament...

in order for there to be a fulfillment of the Old Testament, there must be a repetition & recontextualisation of its themes in the Life of Christ, and where necessary, a reversal of them...Types are like leitmotifs in music; they are repeated, and with each repetition, recontextualised, reaching their fulfillment in Christ."

As already noted there is much else in the preface that is worth reading & considering on this topic of allegory and its deeper basis. Certainly the Holy Fathers did accept in simplicity that what they read in the Old Testament really did occur. But on a deeper level the main preoccupation of the Fathers was not that 'something occured'. For the Holy Fathers the literal truth & allegory were not opposed. Rather the significance of what really occured was only found in how it referred to Christ or the life in Christ. So in this sense all of Christian life & history is allegorical or iconic.

In our day & age we are often historical materialists who believe that the value of some event or person is found only in itself. So themeaning of history is simply that one thing leads to another ie there is cause & effect. For the Fathers however all that is finds its significance only insofar as it refers to Christ. And on the contrary whatever tries to stand outside of Christ has only the meaning of nihilism. So in this sense whatever or whoever is not being 'allegorical' is dying the deepest death possible- seperation from Christ.

This is like the modern person who looks at an icon and complains that it is not realistic whereas from within the Church we see precisely that the icon does represent what is most real & fulfilled. So the Church sees in terms of what is being fulfilled in Christ while for the world 'reality' is what stands on its own on its own terms- which the Church recognises is pure fantasy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Janine

24-01-2005, 09:52 PM

Father Raphael - that is so profound. I'm going to keep thinking about it. Thank you.

Odd that the "realist" who complains about the lack of realism in an icon is really seeking a strange sort of idolatry, it seems. The post-modern type of iconoclast who only in the end is seeking nihilism, nothingness as a required goal or end in itself also misses the mark, and this sort of nihilism becomes just an idol too.

Janine

24-01-2005, 10:03 PM

PS I'll say again that I think it's important to recognize the early Fathers -- especially the Three Hierarchs, Chrysostom, Basil, & Gregory, who were so schooled in education, did not reject any truth at all. They worshipped the Person who was Truth itself - so therefore where truth was found it had to be honored as part of that worship. This occurs on many levels in many ways, from recognizing the icon of Christ in all people whether or not they have heard of Christ, to debates like this one. They thought education of any kind would only contribute to Christian Theology. I think it's very important as Orthodox that we recognize that. They did not reject any of the Hellenic education but embraced it all. Just as an aside, I'd like to note that a fairly recent archeaological discovery indicates that the ancient Greek world had knowledge of, for example, the way the planets rotated -- there was a device discovered on a shipwreck several years ago that predicted eclipses. You can't do that without understanding the revolution of the planets. So much for the rejection of Galileo centuries later in the West. I think that that's something important to understand; that the Fathers did not reject knowledge but embraced it and said it must be embraced. And it does not diminish the truth in Genesis. This is an important subject to discuss.

As for Christ, his life occurred in a time and place where history was already an important subject in the Greek world -- not in a pre-literate, pre-human, pre-historical period of time where no one was around to witness! Obviously there is going to be a difference, even in ontological terms, if you will, in literature from witnesses and literature about God's work before humans existed, don't you think?

Daniel Jeandet

24-01-2005, 11:04 PM

Anyone who is interested in science, genesis, ancient myths etc. really must learn about the Electric Universe theory as soon as possible.

www.thunderbolts.info (http://www.thunderbolts.info)

I urge you all to go to this site and download the first two chapters of the book, "thunderbolts of the gods" from this website. This theory will completely change the way we look at myth, science, the cosmos and pretty much everything. It really is a blessing.

Im sorry I didnt format the link. I dont really understand how to do it.

M.C. Steenberg

25-01-2005, 10:44 AM

Dear all,

For those interested in tracing out some of the history of the 'literal' 'versus' 'allegorical' debate over reading scripture (I have put all three terms -- literal, versus, and allegorical -- in inverted commas intentionally), it is worth recognising that discussions on the theme go back very early. Origen, whose name I bring up not to re-spark the debate over his person that has proved interesting discussion here before, made heavy use of an 'allegorical' reading, as indeed did many of his venue: Athanasius, Alexander, Cyril, etc., as well as Arius, Apollinarius, etc. Others adopted a much more 'literal' reading -- one thinks of Theodore of Mopsuestia or Nestorius, but also of John of Antioch, much of John Chrysostom, and much of Basil of Caesarea, among many others. And one cannot leave off Augustine of Hippo, who went through several editions of his 'Literal Commentary on Genesis' over the course of his life (but who defines 'literal' very carefully, and not the way most today would define it!). Indeed, in the fourth and fifth century, the question over how to read scripture was part of the dispute between various 'camps' in the great theological arguments of the day - an aspect of that debate summarised in the 'Two Schools' reading (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/two_schools.shtml) of the period.

'Literal' and 'allegorical' are in some sense modern terms, at least in the manner that most today understand them. With regard to approaches to the bible, the former tends to be inspired by an overly-zealous and usually misguided vision of 'scientific fact' and history, and the latter by a desire to locate moral messages, inner meaning, and so on. But the fathers read scripture to find Christ -- a manner of exegesis that fits neither in the category of literalism nor allegory.

INXC, Matthew

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

25-01-2005, 05:25 PM

Dear Janine

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the importance place of truth enquiry in the natural sciences and all spheres of human knowledge. Such was not only the teaching and pedagogic practice of such Fathers as St. Basil the Great but also such early witnesses as St. Justin Martyr. All truth is from God and no aspect of truth can fight against any other in his Wisdom.

Isaac has begun another thread on causality which has some relevance here. My favourite quote on these matters is from St. Augustine, who, on one of his better days said:-

"Even non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
- Saint Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapter 19

Janine

25-01-2005, 05:34 PM

Thank you Father Gregory. I saw the thread, but since I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, have been following with interest. I will continue to do so!

Norman

27-01-2005, 02:32 PM

If I attempted to articulate my own dim and unformed views, I'm afraid it would be a combination of science fiction (assorted Star Trek episodes) and cribbings from a recent NOVA episode [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html].
However, Sebastian Brock in his introduction to <u>St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise</u> articulates a vision of Paradise that I can happily claim to kinda, sorta grasp with a measure of faith.

A literal reading of the Biblical text would leave one with the impression that Paradise is a concept which belongs only to the beginnings of creation. In the religious climate of the centuries at the turn of the Christian era, however, a much richer understanding of Paradise had grown up within Judaism, finding expression in apocalyptic works such as the First Book of Enoch (perhaps of the second century BC); in these writings Paradise is understood as representing both the primordial and the eschatological state at the end of time, for it has now also become the abode of the righteous...

By locating Paradise outside of time and space as we know them, Ephrem was deliberately going against the more literalist views of Paradise that were current in the early Christian period...St. Ephrem's understanding (which he shares above all with St. Gregory of Nyssa) would seem to be far more profound and much richer in meaning; furthermore precisely because he locates Paradise outside of geographical space, his views are left unaffected by modern advances in scientific knowledge.

Since primordial Paradise belongs outside of time and space it also serves as the eschatological Paradise, the home of the righteous and glorious after the final Resurrection.

Janine

27-01-2005, 04:37 PM

Thank you Norman -- that's very interesting, and I think, important.

matt

27-01-2005, 05:55 PM

Maybe others can comment, but I seem to recall that J. Farrell himself rejected evolution on Christological grounds, in that it somehow screwed up the recapitulation. I may be off here, and if so just ignore it, but I recall one of his students telling me this a while back.

Janine

27-01-2005, 06:01 PM

There are reasons to reject aspects of Darwin's theories of evolution even on scientific grounds. But that doesn't really say anything about whether or not we need to read the bible as science, or in a literalistic fashion. Especially this particular part of the bible.

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

27-01-2005, 06:39 PM

The theodicy articulated by the Greek fathers more nearly configures with evolution in my opinion in the sense that they see the primal sin of Eden as arrested development rather than as a catastrophic irreversible loss in an essentially static view of human nature. This is a postscript on Evolution that I added to an article on Ancestral Sin.

*********************************************** *

It is so commonplace now in the west to think of death as "natural" ... an integral part of a "good" creation that the Orthodox understanding of death as a necessary but temporary adjustment in God's plan ... his real goal for his creatures being immortality by grace seems completely irreconcilable with insights from the natural sciences. According to these insights death has ALWAYS existed from the dawn of life. Notice, however, how immortality in Orthodox Christianity is something to be acquired by grace, humans being created neither mortal nor immortal. The Paradise account of Genesis reveals a certain latency toward immortality in humankind which has been spoiled by disobedience to God. Genesis is silent on death as a more widespread phenomenon amongst all life forms but Romans is not so reticent. With the coming of Christ we have new revelation from the mouth of St. Paul. Corruption and death have indeed spread from humans to all life forms yet such bondage to decay is being reversed by the new birth of the resurrection.

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Romans 8:20-22).

We should not, therefore, become too pre-occupied with the chronology of Genesis. It is a perfectly Orthodox position to take divine teaching from Genesis without expecting it to deliver a scientific account of the creation of life and its problematic development. This, incidentally is why many Orthodox do indeed accept evolution as a credible scientific theory accounting for the development of life without feeling that somehow they have thereby sacrificed Christian insights into humankind's spiritual and moral development. Indeed evolution itself might provide some clues as to the possibilities of an emergent human species redeemed by grace. So, in the natural way of understanding things life is inconceivable without death. In the perspective of God's saving providence, however, there will be in the Last Day life without end and a renewed creation. Evolution might just be the natural process God's uses, hitching a ride as it were from the resurrection potential of repentance and union with God.

Janine

27-01-2005, 06:48 PM

Hi again, Father Gregory, and thanks again for your thoughts.

Following on what you've said, you remind me that often I've thought to myself that I see in evolution a great intelligence: as if the fashioners and upholders of life on earth in their ministry have made such great and beautiful variety! I actually think it fits, philosophically anyway, completely with the understanding of the intelligence behind all life on our planet and its constant care and ministry. I just look around and am constantly struck by the beauty, variety and creativity in all of life all the time and see it as a reflection of the intelligence and creativity that is there ministering and building - and its hand evolving - it all. Does that make sense to others out there? Also, I think Darwin's theories don't really explain well all of evolution and various 'appearances' in history of different species, adaptations, etc. on completely pragmatic scientific grounds. And there too is room, at least for me, for the hand, intelligence, and fashioning of God and His ministers.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-01-2005, 07:43 PM

Concerning Joseph Farrell: Although I was a student of his I cannot remember if he spoke about evolution at the time or not. I can ask one of his former students about this that I have contact with.

A lot of his presentation at the time was presented within the framework of what he referred to as, "the fall of man into dialectic." A lot of this had come from a synthesis of St Maximos the Confessor & other Fathers. He would present not only the theological vision of the Fathers but also provide an indication of the cultural implications of this vision (or the results of losing this Patristic vision). I was struck by how brilliant & insightful much of this presentation was & at times prophetic in spirit- both personal & rigorously at one with the spirit of the Fathers at the same time.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

30-01-2005, 05:44 PM

Dear Fr Gregory and others,

As a follow-up to your post above (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=11691#POST11691), it is worth remembering that to most of the early Greek Fathers especially, it was understood that the human creature is, and always was, naturally mortal. All material things are corruptible, finite and mortal. There is nothing 'naturally eternal' about the corporeal human creature. What is eternal and immortal is the divine transfiguring of this mortal and temporal life by God -- a gift given to the creature at its first formation, hers always by receipt and never by natural possession. Thus it is possible to 'lose' something which was never 'possessed' as a natural property, but which was gifted into receipt 'from the beginning'.

An interesting and involved (100+ posts) discussion was had on this and related themes not long ago, in the Souls, Immortality and Eternity (http://www.monachos.net/mb/messages/4225/12416.html?1095096789) thread. If you're interested to read some of the posts most directly related to this theme, there are a few by me (1 (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=9887#POST9887), 2 (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=9906#POST9906), 3 (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=9928#POST9928), 4 (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=9936#POST9936)); an important one by Owen (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=9954#POST9954) (with my response here (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=9964#POST9964)); and another from Fr Raphael (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4225&post=10083#POST10083).

INXC, Matthew

Fr. Gregory (Hallam)

30-01-2005, 06:30 PM

Is that really the case Matthew? I took Sts. Theophilus of Antioch, Ephraim the Syrian, Hilary of Poitiers and Maximus the Confessor to mean that our first parents were created neither mortal nor immortal. Until the point of his disobedience Adam was sinless but not perfect and, therefore able to sin. He was not immortal but capable of achieving immortality through obedience.

Mark Whitman

01-02-2005, 10:13 AM

I just read through some of the old posts linked to here, and saw the name of Irenaeus a few times. Then I saw the name of Steenberg a few times... does anyone know if this is the same Matthew Steeenberg who's leading the retreat weekend on Irenaeus in February?
--Mark W.

Brian B.

01-07-2006, 04:40 AM

Fathers, Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Greetings

I am beginning my journey from Augsburg to Constantinople, full of questions, excitement, and more than a bit of trepidation. Along the way I found this wonderful website filled with gifts of understanding and wisdom. Truly I feel blessed to have stumbled upon a place full of reasoned and gifted teachers, so obviously interested in truth. Thank you for all the wonderful discussions which I am even now perusing, and which I find bring one epiphany after another.

In my recent explorations I recall an interesting reading of Genesis by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros posted to a different site. The article is titled, "The Six Dawns." As it seems pertinent to this discussion I thought to post the link.

http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/frread-a.htm

I am interested in knowing whether his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is considered an acceptable one in Orthodoxy, or if there is anything in it controversial. From discussion here I suspect more the former than the latter, but thought it best to check with those with more experience and knowledge than I. Personally, I have always been very scientifically and empirically oriented, so I naturally found a lot in his explanation that resonates.

In appreciation and humility in Christ,

Brian

Ken McRae

01-07-2006, 05:28 PM

... I recall an interesting reading of Genesis by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros posted to a different site. The article is titled, "The Six Dawns." As it seems pertinent to this discussion I thought to post the link. I am interested in knowing whether his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is considered an acceptable one in Orthodoxy, or if there is anything in it controversial.

"The writings of our Holy Fathers, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John the Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great and their Cosmology are presented in the context of Creation. Their spirit is revealed to be far from the fundamentalist understanding of contemporary scholastics. According to the patristic teaching, unknown to many Orthodox Christians ... etc.".

Hello Brian! While I am not Orthodox, I have read some Orthodox writings, and have found Dr. Kalomiros not to my personal liking; due in part to his controversial manner or style of writing, which is reflected in the above quote from the website description you've linked for us. The reviewer (translator?), quoted above, appears to quote Dr. Kalomiros as describing much of contemporary Orthodox thought on creation, (and on the Book of Genesis in particular,) as being deeply influenced by "the fundamentalist understanding of contemporary scholastics;" to the extent that the Patristic teaching, as he interprets and explains it, has been completely eclipsed, and is now "unknown to many Orthodox Christians." In other words, he is predicting an "Orthodox" resistance to his published research, from the outset, on the basis of its (findings) being apparently lost to contemporary Orthodox Christians.

To be honest, though, such accusations against contemporary Church fathers never sat well with me and still don't. In my narrow view of Tradition, all such claims smack of standing in judgment of not just contemporary Orthodox fathers, but of the One, unbroken, living and holy Tradtion of the Church. If one's predecessor(s) achieved theosis believing certain things, then perhaps it is unsafe to begin to pick and choose things to reject from their fatherly or paternal transmission(s) to their sons. This is how I think Fr. Seraphim Rose would probably address the problem, and it strikes my heart with some power or force. (May the Lord deliver me from the deceptions of my own heart!) Imo, then, you're likely to find some Orthodox Christians who like what he teaches, others who are not so taken with it, or are unsure of it, and still others, perhaps, outright rejecting it.

A big congratulations, btw, on your decision to start the journey, one that may take you around the world a few times, (figuratively speaking,) before you arrive at your desired destination; but such a journey must start with the first step, which you have already taken. Remember the words of Christ, though, that "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." (Lk. 9:62) What is the Lord talking about here? And why a plough, of all things? In another text, He says that the kingdom of heaven is within you, thus clearly implying that it must be sought within the territory of the heart, as opposed to stacks of books. The Jews marvelled over the wisdom of Christ saying, "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15) And thus he replied that "If any man will do his (Father's) will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17) It is a matter of the heart, as opposed to the head, and thus requiring much heart-work as opposed to brain-work. This is the Orthodox way and the path of salvation leading into the heavenly kingdom.

The Lord reveals spiritual truth and knowledge to the pure heart, and the humble mind grounded in the heart; not the proud mind divorced from the heart, and exalted with its own earthly learning and wisdom. It is hard to humble a proud head and to lay it low before the Lord; and it is this hardness of heart, overgrown with many harmful weeds sown by the adversary, that requires ploughing before the seed of the Orthodox Word will bear its fruit in due season. Hence the plough is for preparing the ground of our stoney hearts for the seed of the Orthodox Word, and the revelation of God. Jesus said that "no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him (Mt. 11:27)." Remember, though, that the Lord says that he who puts hand to the plough but later turns back, will be unfit for the kingdom of heaven. We must all learn to discern between our heart and our head. Follow your heart, and Christ will guide you, in His Name and for His sake, as it is His own precious Blood that purchased our freedom!

unworthy Theophilus ~

Brian B.

03-07-2006, 01:38 AM

Thank you for your thoughts Theophilus.

Brian

Father David Moser

05-07-2006, 07:05 PM

In my recent explorations I recall an interesting reading of Genesis by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros posted to a different site. The article is titled, "The Six Dawns." ...
I am interested in knowing whether his interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is considered an acceptable one in Orthodoxy, or if there is anything in it controversial.

Brian,

There is certainly some controversy surrounding Kalomiros' views. At the time that he originally published them, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose published a response which is much more "creationist" in its approach. The hoped for correspondence and discussion between the two never materialized and so we do not have the benefit of that discussion to draw upon.

Kalomiros' approach is certainly not "anti Orthodox" and yet it is not "the whole story" either. I am personally not a strict creationist, however, neither can I accept Kalimiros wholesale acceptance of evolutionary science. Both views, that espoused by Kalomiros and that espoused by Rose, have their place in Orthodoxy and there has not, as yet, been a learned and reasoned discussion of the issue from an objective pov, taking into account the full range of scientific opinion as well as a learned and well informed perspective of the Church Fathers. It is often easy to dismiss the contributions of earlier fathers such as Basil the Great or John of Damascus as having a "primitive" or "outdated" grasp of science and yet I believe that what they have to say on the topic must "inform" our own understanding of the scientific evidence.

Evolution, as we know it today, is much more of a scientific philosophy than even a scientific theory. It is philosophy about how to understand and interpret the observations of the various fields of science as they relate to the origins of the universe, the earth, life, and man. The conflict arises less as a scientific debate than as philosophical debate.

What is really needed, imo, is to garner first a clear and comprehensive awareness of the writings of the Fathers and the mind of the Church on this matter and then to bring that philosophy to the scientific data (without trying to ignore or disprove established fact). But what we don't need to do is what Dr Kalomiros seems to have done and that is to somehow embrace the already existing evolutionary theory/philosophy and somehow inject God into it.

There are some significant issues that both "sides" of the discussion have left out to this point - one of the most important being the effect of the fall on the physical nature of man and on the overall nature of the universe. When did "corruption" enter the picture (before or after the fall). Was there consistency between the physical "laws" of the universe between the pre and post fall periods. I think these questions and others, which arise from reading the writings of the fathers, are important, but they are not even addressed let alone resolved and in fact they are often not even asked.

Fr David Moser

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-07-2006, 12:35 AM

Fr David wrote:

What is really needed, imo, is to garner first a clear and comprehensive awareness of the writings of the Fathers and the mind of the Church on this matter and then to bring that philosophy to the scientific data (without trying to ignore or disprove established fact).

I think so many in Orthodoxy would deeply appreciate this type of effort. Many or most of us (myself very much included) have a minimal understanding of science. We strongly suspect that much of the scientific evidence presented as certain is really only one among many possible ways of reading the evidence. And yet at times in our effort to defend the Patristic perspective we act as if scientific evidence because of its uncertainty carries no weight, which surely is wrong.

Somehow we need to go a step further in all of this and as you say bring the Patristic perspective to the scientific evidence without being afraid of it. I have to admit that although I am on the side of full-nature creation by God I have noticed some weaknesses in the Orthodox 'creationist' argument. Basically this argument identifies scientific evidence with the autonomous 'natural law' interpretation of it. This is a logical let alone a theological flaw in the strictly creationist argument as it is like saying something cannot exist due to the false way in which someone interprets its existence. Thus we need to get to where we can freely bring the evidence forward & shine the light of the Patristic vision on it.

There are some significant issues that both "sides" of the discussion have left out to this point - one of the most important being the effect of the fall on the physical nature of man and on the overall nature of the universe. When did "corruption" enter the picture (before or after the fall). Was there consistency between the physical "laws" of the universe between the pre and post fall periods. I think these questions and others, which arise from reading the writings of the fathers, are important, but they are not even addressed let alone resolved and in fact they are often not even asked.

Fr David Moser

As I say I have very little understanding of science. My secular training is in history and from this I can say that the philosophy of evolution reflects a movement that really has been occurring, most intensely in western society, since the Christianization of society from the time of Constantine.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Byron Jack Gaist

06-07-2006, 07:47 AM

Dear Fr Raphael,

You wrote:
the philosophy of evolution reflects a movement that really has been occurring, most intensely in western society, since the Christianization of society from the time of Constantine. Can you say a bit more about this? What do you have in mind when you refer to the "philosophy of evolution"?

I wonder what others think about the obvious issue that science relies on the evidence of the senses and scientific instruments (an extension, if you like, of our pereceptive abilities) in order to formulate its hypotheses about the mechanisms, laws and even the nature of the world around us? What do the fathers say about relying on the evidence of the senses alone?

Also, I have a question about creation ex nihilo. What is the relationship of matter to spirit in Orthodox teaching? In what way is God as spirit related to His creation as matter? I have the impression a Gnostic might say that God's substance is simply of a subtler and lighter kind and quality than the darkness and heaviness of matter, but that the two ultimately fade into and out of one another on a continuum. Whereas, the Orthodox may believe instead that God is 'wholly other' than matter in creation. If so, how?

In Christ
Byron

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-07-2006, 04:25 PM

Dear Fr Raphael,

You wrote: Can you say a bit more about this? What do you have in mind when you refer to the "philosophy of evolution"?

What I am referring to is the sense of progress which drives our western society. This may or may not be quite the progress which society takes it to be. But yet real movement from one point to another is really taking place so that the sense of progress is not at all imaginary even if again it is not progress of a positive kind.

What is the real nature of this movement & what is behind it? In a way the answers to these questions are the answers to the mystery of our distinct but yet very powerful western society that for better or worse does seem to draw- or drag- the rest of the world physically and spiritually along with it. So this is an extremely important question for us especially as Orthodox Christians. Few however seem to take it up directly except for some few like Philip Sherrard & in a way the Slavophiles of Russia.

One thing I can say is that this social dynamic and the fact of a distinct western society driven by it begins with the same forces that result in the Great Schism. I have been researching this now for at least 15 years and feel I am beginning to get a grasp on how this ties in with the social/cultural side of the question. But what really is behind the crucial issue of a different theology in the west? Except for the obvious fact that the west begins doing theology differently which results in the Schism I really don't yet clearly see what the real connection is behind the changes in western society and this theological change.

As for your other questions below I'm really hoping others take a stab at it. In so much of this we rightly rely on others. What do most of us really know about the scientific method? Not so much so we rely on others to work from the understanding they already have. That's how it should also be for all these questions like ethics, etc so that each of us isn't having to come up with our own formulas in areas where we have little expertise. Someone coming up with a decent and clear explanation for a given issue, in book form for example, is a tremendous help for us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I wonder what others think about the obvious issue that science relies on the evidence of the senses and scientific instruments (an extension, if you like, of our pereceptive abilities) in order to formulate its hypotheses about the mechanisms, laws and even the nature of the world around us? What do the fathers say about relying on the evidence of the senses alone?

Also, I have a question about creation ex nihilo. What is the relationship of matter to spirit in Orthodox teaching? In what way is God as spirit related to His creation as matter? I have the impression a Gnostic might say that God's substance is simply of a subtler and lighter kind and quality than the darkness and heaviness of matter, but that the two ultimately fade into and out of one another on a continuum. Whereas, the Orthodox may believe instead that God is 'wholly other' than matter in creation. If so, how?

In Christ
Byron

Olga

07-07-2006, 06:09 AM

What do most of us really know about the scientific method?

Having trained in a scientific field, I can offer this:

The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis (an idea) based on either observed phenomena or an original idea, devising an experiment which tests this hypothesis, running the experiment, observing the results of that experiment, and then analysing these results. If the results of the experiment are contrary to predicted results according to the hypothesis, then the hypothesis can be discarded. If the results support the hypothesis, then further, more refined experiments can be performed to test the hypothesis further.

Another plank in the scientific method is the "repeatability" of results, If there is consistency in the strength of the hypothesis, then, with continued experimentation, enough knowledge is accumulated which is consistent enough for the hypothesis to "grow" into a theory. The checks and balances are twofold: Repeatability of results i.e. can the same or similar observations be made if others run the same experiment? (Anyone remember the "cold fusion" fiasco of 1989?), and publication in a properly refereed scientific journal. This not only allows the free dissemination of knowledge, but, by the process of peer review, work which is of an inadequate standard is not published.

Theories are not immutable, if more information comes to light, then a theory (not just a hypothesis) can be discarded or superseded. A good example of this is the cause of stomach ulcers. For many decades, the medical world had observed that gastric ulcers were the result of increased acidity of the contents of the stomach due to physiological reasons and/or psychological stress, and prescribed medication and other therapies designed to reduce this. More serious cases were treated surgically. However, while many people were helped, this was not always a true cure, and many found little benefit from this approach. Some 20 years ago, a group of Australian researchers hit on a truly novel idea, which seemed so preposterous at the time, that they struggled to attract funding and support to evaluate this hypothesis. Yet they persisted. In short, they were able to show that in many cases, the cause of many gastric ulcers was not stomach acidity, but the infection of a bug called Helicobacter pylori. Ulcers could be treated not with antacid medication, but with antibiotics. For their trouble, Dr Barry Marshall and Dr Robert Warren were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for medicine.

Also, fabrication of results is the worst "crime" a scientist can commit. Dr William McBride (another Australian) shot to fame in the early 1960s through his work in finding the link between thalidomide (commonly prescribed at the time for morning sickness during pregnancy), and the development of horrific birth defects (stunted and missing limbs, etc). He founded a research body dedicated to studying birth defects, and his work was, quite rightly, highly respected. Yet he fell from grace in 1987, having been exposed as falsifying results in some of his experiments conducted in the early 1980s.

As an aside, all too often in the non-scientific world, the word "theory" is used instead of "hypothesis", which understandably leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Precision of language is paramount in science, as it is, of course, in theology! :))

Ken McRae

07-07-2006, 04:10 PM

The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis (an idea) based on either observed phenomena or an original idea, devising an experiment which tests this hypothesis, running the experiment, observing the results of that experiment, and then analysing these results. If the results of the experiment are contrary to predicted results according to the hypothesis, then the hypothesis can be discarded. If the results support the hypothesis, then further, more refined experiments can be performed to test the hypothesis further.

Another plank in the scientific method is the "repeatability" of results ... etc.

Since Darwin's "hypothesis" can never be subjected to scientific lab testing, as you have described, (which would require taking an ape and figuring out how to repeatedly evolve it into a homosapien,) then why was it ever classified as a "theory", or even worse - presented in school textbooks as scientific "fact", rather than the weak "hypothesis" it truly is? In short, why was it not quickly discarded as scientific nonsense? The fact that modern sciene has stood by it for so long does a great disservice to the integrity of the scientific field and community!

alexei

07-07-2006, 04:22 PM

What I am referring to is the sense of progress which drives our western society. This may or may not be quite the progress which society takes it to be. But yet real movement from one point to another is really taking place so that the sense of progress is not at all imaginary even if again it is not progress of a positive kind.

Hello all,

I remember Fr. Schmemann talking about just this in "Between Utopia and Escape."

Basically, his thesis is that Christianity's introduction of the eschaton changed the way people thought about the nature of time and their relation to the world. That this influence never went away in Western society (think Hegel, Marx, etc.) should be obvious.

You can find the article here: http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/betweenutopiaandescape.html

Yours in Christ,
Alesha

alexei

07-07-2006, 04:25 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-07-2006, 08:13 PM

Hello all,

I remember Fr. Schmemann talking about just this in "Between Utopia and Escape."

Basically, his thesis is that Christianity's introduction of the eschaton changed the way people thought about the nature of time and their relation to the world. That this influence never went away in Western society (think Hegel, Marx, etc.) should be obvious.

Yours in Christ,
Alesha

Then we need to ask why such progress in the western sense was not seen in Christian Byzantium. And in eastern Orthodox societies such as Russia westernisation was imposed in an external fashion.

On the other hand from my own research I would say that without Christianity the west would never have taken the social shape it has with one of its chief characteristics being a dynamic which it calls progress.

The Latin west does convert during the early centuries of the Church to such an extent that even the non-Latin peoples became very Orthodox albeit with their own cultural ethos.You can read early Anglo-Saxon Christian literature for a fascinating example of this; Christ & His Apostles are often portrayed as heroic warriors surrounding their Chieftain. The way of expressing this draws on ancient cultural symbols but yet the point is completely Orthodox since the the Apostles are now spiritual warriors with Christ triumphing over the foes Satan, sin & death. It really must have been a tremendous inspiration for the local peoples newly converted and shows the way in which the Church thinks being neither open nor close minded about culture. The evidence clearly shows that the problem was not at all that western Europe didn't convert. The evidence if read particularly in comparison with that of other cultures who also converted such as the Greeks, Latins, etc shows in fact a remarkable similarity.

The first warnings about the culture question however come in the west as the Roman Empire collapses and a new social order gradually assumes its place. Warnings not only about the chaos but about the purposeful individual violence that is ripping society apart as a Christian community can be found in St Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks & also in Wulfstan's Sermo Lupi ad Anglos. Here something beyond the collapse of Roman society or violence has to be looked at since these things- or similar- occurred in other places within Christendom, for example Russia, and did not result in the loss of Orthodoxy. So it is a mistake to just look at negative social forces within the west. Rather I think we should look to the positive social forces in the west. In other words instead of focusing on faceless social forces which in reality can be found eventually at any time or place look to human values which drove that society.

Here I think there is much more to be understood since immediately we see that although the Roman society had basically collapsed by the 7th c to be replaced by a new western one many of the driving forces of this culture were the ancient heroic virtues of the warrior combined with Christian values. As long as the balance scale tilted towards the latter then culture was a servant for Orthodoxy- and successfully so at first. But as we move towards the 11th c the balance clearly moves towards the former to the extent that the Church in a sense becomes socialised. This for example can be clearly seen in the Crusades which are in reality a kind of model for the new Europe.

What is important to recognize is that this is not at all a simple case, as some would have it, of the ancient re-taking the new. Rather it's more a case of the Orthodox balance between the timelessness of the Church and culture being lost to produce something new and unique which had never been seen before.

A lot more should be done to examine this but briefly we can say for now that the new culture definitely relied on the moral/ascetic sense of Christian values. But it also relied on the heroic sense which itself had been modified by the Church. It is from the combination of these two I think that we find the western attraction particularly towards continually transcending oneself through individual effort. That this new value is extremely powerful we can see in the way in which it still defines our modern society 1000 years and more later. But part of its power may also lie in its ability to adapt to the religious or secular with equal ease.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-07-2006, 10:31 PM

Olga wrote:

Having trained in a scientific field, I can offer this:

The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis (an idea) based on either observed phenomena or an original idea, devising an experiment which tests this hypothesis, running the experiment, observing the results of that experiment, and then analysing these results. If the results of the experiment are contrary to predicted results according to the hypothesis, then the hypothesis can be discarded. If the results support the hypothesis, then further, more refined experiments can be performed to test the hypothesis further.

Another plank in the scientific method is the "repeatability" of results, If there is consistency in the strength of the hypothesis, then, with continued experimentation, enough knowledge is accumulated which is consistent enough for the hypothesis to "grow" into a theory. The checks and balances are twofold: Repeatability of results i.e. can the same or similar observations be made if others run the same experiment? (Anyone remember the "cold fusion" fiasco of 1989?), and publication in a properly refereed scientific journal. This not only allows the free dissemination of knowledge, but, by the process of peer review, work which is of an inadequate standard is not published.

Thanks for the explanation. Now here's where my ignorance comes in though!

Historical archeologists go through a field where the Battle of Waterloo took place and find a buried boot. They examine the boot against the historical evidence from the past and determine whether the boot belonged to a French soldier on the day of the battle or a Belgian farmer many years later. But that's just it- they have evidence from the past they try to work with. What if they don't quite have that evidence? Isn't this a bit like the evidence for evolution except that the evidence is other artifacts which are also seen as verifying evolution- in other words the evidence is a theoretical framework rather than solid evidence?

The thing of it though is that a lot of things have no evidence for verifying their origin. This in itself though doesn't prove things one way or the other. It just means the theory is not certain, not that it isn't correct.

At the end of the day then I wonder if we actually do end up putting things with little evidence into the best theoretical framework that we can. Is evolution then like this? Is it good science even as a possibility or not?

Looking at it in the above way I think would get us out of the bind we continually fall into of thinking that if evolution is wrong then we have to find a way to discount the evidence.

We've got the evidence. So what's the framework? How much of the evidence is acceptable or unacceptable for us as Orthodox Christians?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Olga

10-07-2006, 11:22 AM

It just means the theory is not certain, not that it isn't correct.

Well said, Fr Raphael! A theory by definition is an attempt to provide a coherent model for a body of observed phenomena. Should evidence come to light to challenge a theory, then the theory must be modified or, in some cases, discarded, and a new model proposed and tested.

Scott Pierson

11-07-2006, 12:52 AM

I think there is a real difference between legitimate "allegorical" exegesis and radically allegorizing a text in order to make it accord with ones preconceived prejudices. People should be very careful not to throw out a "literal" understanding of the text just because it is inconvenient. The fact that a verse has an allegorical, typological, etc meaning doesn’t mean it cant also be understood literally. If one where to say " the tree of knowledge of good and evil is a reference to contemplation " for example, that could be acceptable... But to say "when the Bible says that Adam was created by God from the dust of the earth that really means that he came from the womb of a monkey like humanoid" or " When the Bible says that Eve came from the side of Adam , from his rib, while he was sleeping it really means eve came from another monkey like animal who maybe happened to by lying on the ground by the side of adam while he was sleeping.. yeah that’s it " lol. I think saying things like that would be taking allegory a little beyond its usefulness! Its enough to make Origen blush really.

I would agree with the other poster who said that everyone should check out Father Seraphims book " Genesis Creation and Early Man" its great! There are also many good books that debunk evolution from a more scientific standpoint.

Scott

Ken McRae

29-07-2006, 11:45 PM

There is certainly some controversy surrounding Kalomiros' views. At the time that he originally published them, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose published a response which is much more "creationist" in its approach. The hoped for correspondence and discussion between the two never materialized and so we do not have the benefit of that discussion to draw upon.

I would agree with the other poster who said that everyone should check out Father Seraphims book " Genesis Creation and Early Man" its great!

Either Fr. Seraphim's book was as good as you say, or even better, or else St. Herman's Press did'nt publish many copies of it, but "new" (previously unowned) copies of it seem a little hard to find; and it's no longer listed on the St. Herman's Press website. We can only hope a new second edition is currently being prepared!

Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian View (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1887904026/sr=1-1/qid=1154186015/ref=sr_1_1/104-5513609-2744700?ie=UTF8&s=books) - by Fr. Seraphim Rose

Orthodoxy and Genesis: What the Fathers Really Taught - A Review of Fr. Seraphim's Genesis, Creation and Early Man (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp)

AN INTERVIEW WITH FR. DAMASCENE (CHRISTENSEN), FROM THE MONASTERY OF ST. HERMAN OF ALASKA IN PLATINA, CALIFORNIA

On Wednesday, the fourth day of the annual Nativity readings began the conference section dedicated to the «Orthodox Understanding of Creation of the World (http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/060222155510)». One of the speakers was an Orthodox hieromonk, Fr. Damascene (Christensen), an American from the Monastery of St. Herman of Alaska in Platina, California, which belongs to the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Western America. This monastery is well known in Russia as the home of Fr. Seraphim Rose, its founder, and Fr. Damascene is a member of the Brotherhood from the time of Fr. Seraphim’s repose. He is the author Fr. Seraphim’s biography (due to appear in a new Russian version this year under the title Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works), and is something of expert on Fr. Seraphim’s Life and writings in general.

Genesis and Early Man: The Orthodox Patristic Understanding (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx)

An article entitled The Eternal Will was printed in The Christian Activist Volume 11, Fall/Winter 1997. It was a lecture given by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism and his interpretation of the traditional teachings by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church about Genesis. This is a response to Dr. Kalomiros by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It has been excerpted for length by Frank Schaeffer.

A Video Interview with an Evangelical Apologist on the Evolution Debate (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=71406211715)

This video is only about 30 min. long, and is not an in-depth look at the secular theory of evolution, but it touches upon some characteristic flaws in that theory, and gives some ideas how to prepare you children for the many intellectual and philosophical attacks upon the Faith they'll encounter at College.

Scott Pierson

31-07-2006, 01:40 PM

Either Fr. Seraphim's book was as good as you say, or even better, or else St. Herman's Press did'nt publish many copies of it, but "new" (previously unowned) copies of it seem a little hard to find; and it's no longer listed on the St. Herman's Press website. We can only hope a new second edition is currently being prepared!

Oh no! I let someone borrow my copy a long time ago and never got it back.. and now he goes to another church and I dont see him any more. I will have to track him down.

D.A. Hill

30-08-2006, 04:12 PM

Since Darwin's "hypothesis" can never be subjected to scientific lab testing, as you have described, (which would require taking an ape and figuring out how to repeatedly evolve it into a homosapien,) then why was it ever classified as a "theory", or even worse - presented in school textbooks as scientific "fact", rather than the weak "hypothesis" it truly is? In short, why was it not quickly discarded as scientific nonsense? The fact that modern sciene has stood by it for so long does a great disservice to the integrity of the scientific field and community!

But Darwin's theory is tested everyday. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that there is an intermediate between fish and the first land creatures. Now paleontologists took this information and identified which geological layer fish are found in (but not land dwellers) and then identified the first layer that land dwellers appear. They then searched the geologic column between those two time periods and discovered http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php. In other words, Darwin's theory is confirmed in this case. Evolutionary theory would also predict you won't find human remains in Jurassic deposits with dinosaurs for example, so if that is found, the theory is falsified.

Of course there are several creation "science" organizations that play loose with scientific facts and use shoddy methodolgy to prop up a literal reading of Genesis.

Father Seraphim Rose's book Genesis, Creation, and Early Man was very interesting for both the first half (Patristics)and in the appendix (he mentions de Chardin and Swedenborg), but I fault him for using the above mentioned shoddy 'research' from the various Protestant creationist organizations (it should also be noted that Fr. Rose was not trained in science, so he should not be faulted too much for falling for the whitewashed tombs of creationist 'science').

Scott Pierson

31-08-2006, 12:56 AM

Giving Darwinian evolution the benefit of the doubt that it can account for the variety of life forms now in existence the question would still remain , did it in fact occur. If using a computer that could investigate the issue, say one is able to prove that through a completely random fall of one million toothpicks they could land in the shape of the sentence “ I put these here to make this sentence". Would that prove that every sentence spelled out in toothpicks arrived there via a random fall? obviously not. Its possible but incredibly improbably (so improbable it would almost be safe to say it was impossible) . it’s the same with evolution in my mind.

Both evolution and creation models are able to deal with the facts on hand and come up with ( on the most part) possible explanations for the evidence. Both evolutionists and creationists have some “zingers” they can use to blow holes in one or another argument in favor of either model. Creationist for example could point to the “living fossils” , creatures thought to be millions of years old based on their location in the fossil record (and thought to be extinct for millions of years) and then found to be very much alive in exactly the same form like the ceolacanth***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth ), or to unfossilized supposedly 65 million year old T-rex bones with red blood cells (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html), polystrate fossils, human artifacts and fossils with creatures that lived supposedly before humans existed, etc.. Evolutionists might use their argument that human fetuses have gill slits or that we have apparently useless “Vestigial organs”..

Anyways when I look at the evidence I think its obvious that science has not yet grown to the level in which in can PROVE beyond any doubt either model. All we can say is one looks more probable then the other based on what we now know. We can however know what the Bible and the fathers teach on the subject… that there was a special creation, that each creature reproduced after its own kind, that death did not enter the world until after the fall (survival of the fittest before death ?), etc.

So if both models can explain for the evidence but only creationism can be reconciled with the Bible and fathers without using very creative “allegorical” interpretation why believe evolution ?

***in other words they have been around for millions of years but for some strange reason never evolved

Here is a good article on the Geological Column:

http://www.nwcreation.net/humansingeocolumn.html

D.A. Hill

31-08-2006, 02:54 AM

Sorry, as a trained geologist, I can assure you that is NOT a good article on the geological column. Furthermore, all the antievolution 'zingers' you mentioned are seriously flawed. That's the sort of misinformation I was saddened to see in the second half of Fr. Rose's book.

Antonios

31-08-2006, 03:45 AM

Zeeker and all,

I found this article and found it extremely interesting. I wonder what thoughts others may have on it...

(it's under the section "The Six Dawns")

http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/frread-a.htm

Scott Pierson

31-08-2006, 11:50 PM

If one believes that God guided the evolutionary process to bring about the diversity of life now in existence they in fact believe in a form of intelligent design. I think a lot of people miss that point. I've heard radio programs in which people call in and attack Intelligent Design as silly and unscientific and then go on to explain how God guided and used the evolutionary process to bring things about.. doh! Way to attack your own position.

The majority of theists are intelligent design adherents even the ones who believe in some form of evolution. Only the deist types would be able to honestly adhere to strict Darwinism (unguided mutation + natural selection as means of evolution (ie no divine design or guidance ) ). Many people adhere to theistic evolution so that they don’t look like "flat earther types" but they don’t understand that strict Darwinists think they are just as whackey because they embrace intelligent design.

Personally I would be happy to embrace any scientific theory that proved probable AND was able to mesh with the prophetic truth of the book of Genesis and the fathers (without using mental gymnastics to make them say things they are obviously not ). the Darwinian model is ruled out. The common creation model put out by the majority of creation scientists may not be perfect but at least its compatible w/ the bible and such. If certain "creation" arguments are proved wrong then I will drop then but I wouldn’t drop the idea of special creation, that death didn’t exist before the fall or other important theological truths just to make my views mesh with the latest scientific theory. The truth of our origens have already been revealed to the God illumined prophets and saints and it doesnt change.. we dont need to wait for science to tell us how we got here or what animal we supposedly came from we have already been given that truth by an authority that is much more trustworthy then the evidence gained through obersvation and the use of rationality. If my own observation and research proved (according to scientific requirments for "proof" ) that something was false and God told me it was true.. I would trust God more then my own eyes and the "facts".

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-09-2006, 05:00 PM

Scott Pierson wrote

If one believes that God guided the evolutionary process to bring about the diversity of life now in existence they in fact believe in a form of intelligent design. I think a lot of people miss that point. I've heard radio programs in which people call in and attack Intelligent Design as silly and unscientific and then go on to explain how God guided and used the evolutionary process to bring things about.. doh! Way to attack your own position.

The majority of theists are intelligent design adherents even the ones who believe in some form of evolution. Only the deist types would be able to honestly adhere to strict Darwinism (unguided mutation + natural selection as means of evolution (ie no divine design or guidance ) ). Many people adhere to theistic evolution so that they don’t look like "flat earther types" but they don’t understand that strict Darwinists think they are just as whackey because they embrace intelligent design.

Good insight. I hadn't thought about that.

Without rambling on forever about things I know little about: it seems one of the most fundamental logical flaws of the evolution theory is basically that it rests on the idea of open-ended nature but which is driven by a distinct purpose.

That is- environment can play such a great role because nature has no absolute definition. But then there is always the assumed idea that nature will develop in a certain direction, regardless of environment; ie survival- ie life.

Put it the other way around. Starting with the idea of environment as the ultimate determinant then there actually is no logical reason why everything shouldn't have evolved to its own extinction. After all this is a far better solution to the trial of life than existence is. Why would the little molecules be driven to survive & to live, rather than to die?

Also why would man or intelligence be considered the peak of creation rather than a rock or a speck of dust for that matter. What does directional development have to do, really, with evolution except as an unexamined assumption?

As soon as you put it this way you come back to the question of a purposeful universe and then a universe which implies a moral order; ie there really is good and bad. And by implication the universe follows what is good for it. Or you're forced to reject this idea of real purpose. Then again we're back to a speck of dust being just as evolved as man. But then this raises the crucial question - why doesn't man evolve into dust? (Well in a way he does already I guess!)

Evolutionists however due to their own philosophical origin at some point need to deny a moral order unless they no longer are talking about evolution anymore.

I don't think we can credibly deny that nature adapts to its environment. But this degree of adaptation isn't open-ended. Instead the degree and type of adaptation possible is defined by its nature.

Also nature is specific and common in a sense since we have specific species and individuals- but all are alive (man, animals) or existent (rocks, etc). All of this is defined by the particular nature of each thing.

This was well recognized and referred to by the Holy Frs. In a real way we can say that nature is given added definition by the Frs in how they recognize its divine purpose in Christ; ie Christ is the sum & recapitulation of all things and all things find their ultimate purpose in Him.

Whatever we call it- adaptation or evolution- has to keep itself anchored in this understanding to be true. Definition of nature is anchored in an understanding of its moral purpose. Without this it couldn't evolve at all- it could only scatter into non-existence.

Put it this way- If we've evolved from goop, ground mice, (ABC's End of the World documentary made this claim a few nights ago) & monkeys, then it needs to be shown not only how this is credible science from hard evidence. It also needs to be shown what purpose there is in any of this. Basically it has to stop claiming purpose when its whole philosophical baggage is underpinned by the idea that ultimately there is no purpose. You can't have it both ways and claim this is science.

Basically science needs to come to grips in a mature way with the question of why life and not death? Why should nature be driven one way instead of the other? Trying to answer this in a purely materialistic way is logically inconsistent with the idea of any purpose at all. Its only honest answer can be that the purpose of life is that life has no purpose and so is irrelevant. So it would make more sense just to get to the point and cease existing, ie die. If those who held to evolution were consistent they would recognize this and begin proclaiming that the actual end point of evolution is annihilation.

Will man unexpectedly begin evolving back into monkeys, ground mice or goop one day for his betterment?

Some say it's beginning to happen already.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

D.A. Hill

01-09-2006, 10:03 PM

If one believes that God guided the evolutionary process to bring about the diversity of life now in existence they in fact believe in a form of intelligent design. I think a lot of people miss that point. I've heard radio programs in which people call in and attack Intelligent Design as silly and unscientific and then go on to explain how God guided and used the evolutionary process to bring things about.. doh! Way to attack your own position.

The majority of theists are intelligent design adherents even the ones who believe in some form of evolution. Only the deist types would be able to honestly adhere to strict Darwinism (unguided mutation + natural selection as means of evolution (ie no divine design or guidance ) ). Many people adhere to theistic evolution so that they don’t look like "flat earther types" but they don’t understand that strict Darwinists think they are just as whackey because they embrace intelligent design.

The difference is, ID proponents claim that ID is scientifically provable, but all they do is use antievolutionary arguments and never make positive predictable assertions for their case. So a 'thiestic evolutionist' may be an Intelligent Design proponent in the philosophical/theological sense, but not necessarily in the scientific sense.

Personally I would be happy to embrace any scientific theory that proved probable AND was able to mesh with the prophetic truth of the book of Genesis and the fathers (without using mental gymnastics to make them say things they are obviously not ). the Darwinian model is ruled out. The common creation model put out by the majority of creation scientists may not be perfect but at least its compatible w/ the bible and such. If certain "creation" arguments are proved wrong then I will drop then but I wouldn’t drop the idea of special creation, that death didn’t exist before the fall or other important theological truths just to make my views mesh with the latest scientific theory. The truth of our origens have already been revealed to the God illumined prophets and saints and it doesnt change.. we dont need to wait for science to tell us how we got here or what animal we supposedly came from we have already been given that truth by an authority that is much more trustworthy then the evidence gained through obersvation and the use of rationality. If my own observation and research proved (according to scientific requirments for "proof" ) that something was false and God told me it was true.. I would trust God more then my own eyes and the "facts".

All creation 'science' arguments are scientifcally invalid when judged by scientific methodology. This doesn't mean they are wrong, as reality may be biblically based as you say it is. I would be more interested in understanding why you as an Orthodox Christian even care about the creation 'science' put out by these protestant fundamentalist apologists which is based in very unOrthodox theology?

D.A. Hill

01-09-2006, 10:04 PM

Antonios, that link is very interesting, I'll definitely look more into next week.

Antonios

01-09-2006, 10:35 PM

Zeeker,

Please do. I would love to have a geologist's view on this article. Thanks!

Scott Pierson

02-09-2006, 03:38 AM

would be more interested in understanding why you as an Orthodox Christian even care about the creation 'science' put out by these protestant fundamentalist apologists which is based in very unOrthodox theology?

Because..not everyone thinks the same way I do. Many people have lost faith in the Bible because of the theory of evolution… They say “You cant trust the book of Genesis why trust any other part of it.”. People have been indoctrinated to trust that the “scientific method” is the best and really only way to determine truth , and that the “truths” expressed by the scientific community are beyond reproach. Because of that scientific arguments against evolution are a useful weapon to use against Darwinism which is a major component of the religion of humanism/post humanism/Trans humanism (and as many believe, the religion of antichrist)***. Eventually one would need to deprogram people from the whole sickness of scientism and materialism all together but if you can at least get a crack in the armor by destroying the credibility of evolution then you have at least made a good start. If the current scientific means of disproving evolution and lending scientific credibility to the Biblical account of creation are inadequate ( personally they don’t appear to be to me but I’m not a scientist) then we need to develop better weapons not give up the fight all together.

By Unorthodox theology do you mean the idea that when for example the Bible says that God created man out of the dust of the ground it might mean man was literally created from the dust of the ground, or when the Bible states that death entered the world after sin that it actually means just that ? I'm sure there are some areas of disagreements between the veiw of Genesis held by protestant creationists and the Patristic view... I dont however think there is any problem with understanding certain parts of Genesis to mean literally what they say (if you understand that they ALSO have allegorical meanings, etc ).. in other words if you dont limit it to ONLY the literal. Christ walking on water for example can be understood to have an allegorical meaning but that doesnt mean that Christ didnt also literaly walk on water. I'm not saying that every verse of the Bible can be understood literaly but I dont see any use in allegorizing the whole book just to fit ones preconcieved "scientific" views.

***Here is a link to an interesting video on Trans humanism and the mark of the beast and such. Its starts a little slow but gets more interesting in the end. Its set to trendy techno music but what can you do ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6739227220487922409

Scott Pierson

02-09-2006, 03:47 AM

Basically science needs to come to grips in a mature way with the question of why life and not death? Why should nature be driven one way instead of the other? Trying to answer this in a purely materialistic way is logically inconsistent with the idea of any purpose at all. Its only honest answer can be that the purpose of life is that life has no purpose and so is irrelevant. So it would make more sense just to get to the point and cease existing, ie die. If those who held to evolution were consistent they would recognize this and begin proclaiming that the actual end point of evolution is annihilation

Father Bless,

Thats a really good point. Is it possible that many scientists are afraid to look into that because it would take them outside of their own field into the domain of religion and philosophy?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

02-09-2006, 04:40 PM

Father Bless,

Thats a really good point. Is it possible that many scientists are afraid to look into that because it would take them outside of their own field into the domain of religion and philosophy?

I don't know. I'm a real half with when it comes to science. Although I love to watch the science documentaries. And we have a relly great radio science show every Saturday at noon on our national CBC network called Quirks & Quarks which is neat to listen to.

Again from my very limited perspective I think there's an awful lot in science that is very knowledgable and respectable. It not only increases knowledge but also allows for a deper understanding of the wonder of God's creation. Somehow this can also increase our respect for God's creation. So I'm certainly not arguing against science.

I'm not sure if I would put it that science is afraid to look outside their own field because that would bring them into the domain of religion or philosophy. I think it's more that modern science is afraid to look at the actual basis of creation which stares them right in the face. This limits their understanding and explanations and even comes off a being a bit crude. It's like the person who investigates art and makes a life out of explaining it- but won't ever refer to beauty and the higher things which motivate it. You can talk about the paint and material the paint is on forever. But still there's always something being missed and something that most important that's not being referred to at all.

I guess it's this last thing which I think limits modern science. Being self-imposed materialists for the most part (a lot of creationists are also materialists of another type) they end up restricting what they investigate and try to explain.

For example whenever you listen to astronomists and explanations of the cosmos, big bangs, black holes, etc it's amazing that infinity- the thing which should be most obvious even to a materialist- is almost never really taken into account. It's the elephant sitting in the room but there seems to be a fear of even talking about it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ryan

05-09-2006, 04:09 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-09-2006, 05:11 PM

This might be a crazy idea, but I wonder if the Fall of Man could have not only introduced death into the world from that point on, but imprinted death and entropy into the world's natural history, corrupting the world throughout time, so that animals died since the beginning of the world. Hence the fossil record, a record of of deaths and extinctions before mankind, and the existence of carnivorism. Is this just too fantastic? It seems to me though that it is better to interpret scientific evidence (without distorting it) in the light of faith than vice-versa.

Yes it absolutely is a basic teaching of the Church as found in the Holy Frs that due to man's sin death came to himself and all of the creation (ie animals, etc) as well.

However we interpret the Fall in terms of when it took place historically, from that point on death affected the whole universe.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ryan

05-09-2006, 06:19 PM

Thank you Father.

Would you say then that my interpretation is definitively ruled out?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-09-2006, 06:42 PM

Ryan wrote

Would you say then that my interpretation is definitively ruled out?

Oh I think I see what you're asking now. I misunderstood and so didn't understand the point of your sentence:

Hence the fossil record, a record of of deaths and extinctions before mankind, and the existence of carnivorism.

I don't see how it could be correct to maintain that death came to creation before man was created. An essential point about salvation is that man's fall caused creation's fall into death. An obvious weakness or at least question then raised by evolution in its present form is putting death before man's appearance and thus from our perspective before man's fall. Maybe there's some other way to account for this reversal of chronological time that someone else could explain but I don't see what it could be.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ryan

05-09-2006, 07:02 PM

Let me attempt to clarify my interpretation: the Fall of Man occurred historically, and before it there was no death in creation. However, after the Fall, the effects of death resonated throughout time and corrupted the world's natural history, as if death had always been there. The creation departed from God's providence of immortality and shifted onto a trajectory of entropy that now extended from its past. Thereby accounting for the fossil record and the apparent existence of death and carnivorous animals before man's existence.

Does this make any sense? I'm not proposing this as a doctrine, simply as one possible way of interpretating contemporary science in the light of Christian tradition.

Brian B.

05-09-2006, 07:10 PM

Dear All,

I've enjoyed the comments and viewpoints expressed on this thread very much - thank you all. Recently I discovered the orthowiki covering various interpretations of Genesis and the relationship between Orthodoxy and science. I highly recommend reading all the linked articles of both compatibilists and incompatibilists to get a fuller perspective on the diversity of views held within present-day Orthodxy.

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution

Sincerely In Christ,

Brian

Scott Pierson

05-09-2006, 11:56 PM

Evolution is the popular name for a set of scientific theories which aim to explain the apparent similarity of different species and the appearance of complex species later in the fossil record. In short, evolution means that all life on earth shares a common ancestry which can traced back to a single species. Orthodox Christians have divergent views on how to react to this development in science.

In general Orthodox responses can be grouped into two large categories, which we might label Compatibilism and Incompatibilism.

Compatibilists hold that science and theology are compatible and view them as complementary revelations of God. As God is the source of both his specific revelation of himself in the Christian faith and the source of the general revelation of himself in nature, the findings of science and theology cannot really contradict; the contradictions must be merely apparent and a resolution possible which is faithful to the truth of God's revelation.

Incompatibilists hold that science can be incompatible with faith. They usually argue either that science is philosophically based on a kind of naturalism or that God's specific revelation is infallible and therefore trumps the findings of human reason in the case of any conflict between them. This is often based on a suspicion of human reason to arrive at reliable conclusions in the first place.

# Priest-monk Seraphim (Rose), Genesis, Creation, and Early Man — Contains a detailed examination of Patristic teaching related to the discussion of evolution and argues along the lines of modern creation science. Incompatibilist

This gives the impression that one either supports Darwinism or they reject science as incompatible with the Churches teachings. Many people consider Darwinism to be bad science. Father Seraphim Rose considered the THEORY of darwinistic evolution to be scientifically and spiritually false. that doesn’t imply that he considers TRUE science to be incompatible with the Churches teachings. I think the authors bias is showing through here.

If the author had replaced the word "science" highlighted above with "Darwinistic evolution" then it would have been more fair imo. He goes from discussing a specific theory to discussing the general legitimacy of science and that implies that Darwinism is a scientific fact which its not.

D.A. Hill

06-09-2006, 12:11 AM

Father Seraphim Rose considered the THEORY of darwinistic evolution to be scientifically and spiritually false

Saying and emphasizing THEORY means nothing, as THEORY means more in scientific terminology than in the layman's term. Gravitity is afterall, just a THEORY. Furthermore, Fr. Rose was incapable of determining the scientific validity of anything as he was trained in ancient chinese philosophy then later patristic theology, not science. And I don't understand how he could determine that evolution is spiritually false when it is completely neutral on all things divine, it's just as spiritually false as electromagnetic THEORY. Finally, there is no such thing as DarwinISM, except in the minds of fundamentalist protestant apologists with a sociopolitical axe to grind. Evolution is just as much science as gravity, physics, chemistry, geology, etc.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-09-2006, 12:34 AM

Scott Pierson

06-09-2006, 12:37 AM

D. A Hill

Granting everything you said is true it still doesn’t void my point The fact that one disagrees with a certain theory does not imply that they are "anti science" just that they are "anti that one specific theory". Father Seraphim (right or wrong) considered Darwinistic evolution to be unscientific. He does not say that REAL science is incompatible with the Churches teachings . He only considerd a specific theory which he considered to be bad science as contridicting Church teaching. Even if he is wrong what I said still stands… and you would expect an encyclopedia to be as unbiased as possible and not take as an assumption that Father Seraphim was wrong and therefore held that science wasn’t compatible with the Churches teachings

Father Seraphim Rose did study science in college it just wasn’t his major. He also studied this specific issue in detail on his own. The fact that one does not have a degree in a subject doesn’t imply that one has no knowledge of it. Father S.R. was a very bright person and he researched the issue. The fact that he was not a scientist doesn’t disqualify what he said and there are many scientists from prestigious schools with lots degrees and such who would agree with him.

Scott Pierson

06-09-2006, 01:34 AM

And I don't understand how he could determine that evolution is spiritually false when it is completely neutral on all things divine, it's just as spiritually false as electromagnetic THEORY.

The idea that man evolved from non rational animals via a naturalistic process arose out of a certain spirituality and it has become the "creation myth" of modern humanism. The supposed scientific proofs are secondary to this religion and in fact were not even fabricated until well after the fact. This religion embraces the idea that the lower comes from the higher, living from non living, soul and consciousness from matter, and its logical conclusion that God comes from man, basically a reversal of Christian truth. This view has naturally lead to nihilism and the idea that we are nothing more then advanced animals.

Evolution is just as much science as gravity, physics, chemistry, geology
I don’t doubt that darwinistic evolution is science I'm just saying its not good science. It was also "science" that cars would never be able to go past 60 miles per hour and that the earth was center of universe. Not all theories stand the test of time and the fact that one finds a specific theory to be questionable does not mean they are against science. If it did most of the worlds great scientists who shattered peoples presuppositions and proved wrong previous theories would have been "opposed to science".

I use the word "darwinistic evolution" as opposed to evolution because I don’t doubt that certain forms of evolution take place... I just doubt that all life has a common ancestor and that the all the diversity of life came about due to evolutionary causes. I reject the idea that naturalistic processes brought about the human race from a non rational humanoid animal.

D.A. Hill

06-09-2006, 01:38 AM

Father Seraphim Rose did study science in college it just wasn’t his major. He also studied this specific issue in detail on his own. The fact that one does not have a degree in a subject doesn’t imply that one has no knowledge of it. Father S.R. was a very bright person and he researched the issue. The fact that he was not a scientist doesn’t disqualify what he said and there are many scientists from prestigious schools with lots degrees and such who would agree with him.

That he fell for creationist pseudoscience shows me enough that he not only did not understand evolution but also geology, physics, chemsitry etc.

D.A. Hill

06-09-2006, 01:41 AM

The idea that man evolved from non rational animals via a naturalistic process arose out of a certain spirituality and it has become the "creation myth" of modern humanism. The supposed scientific proofs are secondary to this religion and in fact were not even fabricated until well after the fact. This religion embraces the idea that the lower comes from the higher, living from non living, soul and consciousness from matter, and its logical conclusion that God comes from man, basically a reversal of Christian truth. This view has naturally lead to nihilism and the idea that we are nothing more then advanced animals.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect to say the 'supposed scientific proofs are secondary' to what you mistakenly call religion. Evolution is continually verified in the journals everyday. You fall for the same false dichotomy of the atheist who assumes that to find a naturalistic explanation for something precludes God from its explanation.

Scott Pierson

06-09-2006, 01:56 AM

I've been trying to edit my last post but it wont work

I meant to say "that the higher comes from the lower" and not "that the lower comes from the higher"

D.A. Hill

06-09-2006, 02:41 AM

Don't sweat it, I understood what you meant to say.

Paul Cowan

03-09-2007, 12:09 AM

Actually I've wondered about something similar to this- ie does our prayer affect the past since it enters the realm of the eternal? Fact is though I don't know.

But asking such questions and waiting to hear how others respond I think is one of the best things about Monachos.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Sorry for taking 16 months to answer Fr. but as you said you like this part.

O think the answer is yes. Since God is outside of time, he can carry our prayer "back through time" to the point in which the prayer is needed.

At least I allow myself to believe this for when people ask me to pray for them and I forget until after their ie. surgery. For some reason, their surgery comes out ok before I pray though. So I gues that means it does work. :)

Paul

RichardWorthington

01-11-2007, 10:48 AM

That's the whole point. Genesis deals with our nature. Because our nature is rooted in mystery, the only way to reveal it is through the myth. By over-literalizing our origins, we over-literalize our nature, which is wrong in principle.

Flat Earth?

I have read that Christopher Columbus, in order to try to show the possibility of sailing westwards towards India (as he thought), quoted from a book of the Bible, “On the third day thou didst command the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts thou didst dry up” (2 Esdras 6:42; also known as 4 Esdras): if only a seventh of the earth is water then it could not be too far to sail. However, that the sea does indeed occupy only a seventh of the surface of the earth can be easily deduced, as follows:

King Solomon in his temple, “made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round … It stood on twelve oxen … It was a handbreadth thick” (1 Kings 7:23,25,26). Now a cubit is about 45cm, and so a handbreadth of about 10cm would then equate to a handbreadth being 1/9th, or about 0.222 cubits. Hence this gives us a radius for the ‘sea’ of 10/2 + 0.222=5.222 cubits. So its surface area is given by 'pi r squared'=85.70 square cubits (using the ancient approximation pi=22/7); so seven times this gives us a total surface area for the earth as being 599.9 square cubits.

However, in the temple the sanctuary in-front of the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits long (see 1 Kings 6:2,3,16,17, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Temple). Therefore the surface area of the sanctuary is 20*30=600 square cubits, which agrees very well with the 599.9 square cubits deduced above.

As such, the seas described on the third day of creation (see Genesis 1:9,10) refer to the bronze ‘sea’ used for washing, and so the floor containing it in King Solomon’s temple was referred to as the ‘earth’. Therefore the ‘earth’ is very flat indeed, being the floor of the temple!

This makes the seven days of creation symbolic of the temple, itself a symbol of the creation.

Leviathan, and Behemoth

Further on Biblical creation, people have come stuck on Leviathan and Behemoth: “this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein” (Psalm 104:25,26), and "Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox. … He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth” (Job 40:15-24; note Job 41 then talks about Leviathan). Where are these huge creatures?

2 Esdras continues (6:47-52), “On the fifth day thou didst command the seventh part, where the water had been gathered together, to bring forth living creatures, birds, and fishes; and so it was done. … Then thou didst keep in existence two living creatures; the name of one thou didst call Behemoth and the name of the other Leviathan. And thou didst separate one from the other … And thou didst give Behemoth one of the parts which had been dried up on the third day, to live in it, where there are a thousand mountains; but to Leviathan thou didst give the seventh part, the watery part.”

Therefore, I suppose the bronze sea had images of ships and fish on it, and also a big sea monster called Leviathan (perhaps the Leviathan was a bronze tube shaped like a monster used for heating the water for the priests - just being practical! Job 41:19-21).

Note also that the name Behemoth means simply ‘Beasts’; it is the normal plural of ‘beast’, but used as a name (I think the Septuagint in Job 40:15 translates it as ‘beasts’, although the passage is referring to a single creature/monster). He is like an ox. So, it would seem likely that the twelve oxen (i.e. ‘beasts’) on which the ‘sea’ stood was referred to as the Behemoth.

What do you think?
(I could go on about the symbolism used, e.g. mountains, fountains, animals, etc., and especially about the Jordan [Jordan, ritual washing, then wild animals in the desert?!] but this post is already very long!)

(The way of thinking used here was inspired by a local theologian, see www.margaretbarker.com (http://www.margaretbarker.com/) . She has spoken at Orthodox Conferences: The Orthodox Fellowship of St John the Baptist, and also The Hopton Institute [well, it’s not really an institute, but some local Derby Orthodox Christians arranging talks every so often!].)

Nicolaj

01-11-2007, 09:11 PM

I just say WOW!

Nicolaj

Father Serafim

01-11-2007, 09:34 PM

A late comment but I do not believe God created death. He created a perfect world that became fallen.

Father David Moser

01-11-2007, 09:46 PM

However, that the sea does indeed occupy only a seventh of the surface of the earth can be easily deduced, as follows:

King Solomon in his temple, “made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; ...
What do you think?
(I could go on about the symbolism used, e.g. mountains, fountains, animals, etc., and especially about the Jordan [Jordan, ritual washing, then wild animals in the desert?!] but this post is already very long!)

(The way of thinking used here was inspired by a local theologian, see www.margaretbarker.com (http://www.margaretbarker.com/) . She has spoken at Orthodox Conferences:

This is a very creative reinterpretation of the Genesis account, however, using Solomon's temple as a way to interpret the Torah seems to have a huge flaw in that the Torah was already centuries old by the time Solomon was even born. Thus the Torah could not be describing the images in Solomon's temple but rather Solomon was attempting to depict the religious images of the Torah in a symbolic manner (since he could not, obviously, have depicted the creation of the world in a literal manner). This kind of thinking just seems a little backwards to me.

Also, this whole approach also seems to discount the prophetic aspect of Genesis. Moses is revered as a prophet - but not a prophet who saw into the future, but rather one to whom God revealed the deep past. To try to link the Genesis account to the style of the temple in the manner described somehow in my mind removes this prophetic aspect.

The explanation of the symbolism and the parallels pointed out are interesting, however, I don't see them as in any way definitive. Perhaps they might be useful in certain limited applications (similarly, St Gregory the Dialogist uses the temple imagery in his pastoral instructions about the life of the clergy), but as a general means of interpretation, I don't see it. Certainly I don't recall the patristic commentaries on the Torah using this approach.

Fr David Moser

Andrew

02-11-2007, 01:37 AM

I don't have much of a say in these matters, but here is what I understand:

Recent Fathers of the Church were opposed to the claims of evolutionism: Saint Justin Popovich, Saint Nikolai of Zhica, holy Greek Elders, Startsi, etc. The only Orthodox that I have seen who write favorably about it are academic theologians and a certain sect of schismatic Greek Old Calendarists, and their spiritual/intellectual bedfellows. Solidly Patristic scholars like Constantine Cavarnos write against it. So, one cannot say that opposition to evolutionary theory is a result of ignorance of science, spiritual delusion, or whatever.

I think there are several problems for Orthodox dogmatics and spiritual practice if evolution is accepted. Humanity is the center of the universe. We were created to be co-creators of the universe, and to be raised to divinity. We were supposed to be a source of unity and order for the entire Cosmos, uniting all that is created together into a holy loving unity so that when the Word would come Incarnate we would offer it to Him, and He would offer Himself and His Divinity to us. Instead we go about sinning and marring our own nature, and the entire Cosmos. But still, Our Lord came and redeemed fallen man and the entire Cosmos in His own Godmanhood, and gave us too the ability to enter into this holy mystery, through His Body, the Church. When man reaches fulfillment as a hypostasis in the Church, he makes the Cosmos more ordered... like Saint Seraphim feeding the bears, or Elder Paisios befriending wild snakes. Or how there are certain pastures in Romania where cattle graze and produce 10x the amount of milk they would usually produce because the grass has been sanctified by martyrs' blood.

What evolutionary theory says is that man came into being as a result of a process of billions of years of biological death. That man is not the center of the Cosmos, but instead a product of the Cosmos. That the story in Genesis of Adam and Eve in the Garden is highly improbable as it is told, and instead just has a "spiritual" mythical value, if it is to be accepted at all. Or the faithful must adapt their theological outlook each time science makes a new revelation.

Also, the actual physical evidence for the evolution of man is highly suspect in my own eyes. You can fit all the fossil remains for "early man," for missing links and whatnot, on a dinner table. Most of what is found are a few bone fragments that experts sketch pictures out to form some sort of chimpanzee-human hybrid to show to children at school. This is total bunk. Models are made of bestial men and women to show off at museums, but the basis for their creation is a few teeth, an incomplete skull, and a femur, if that. I find that rediculous. Also, there have been several hoaxes, like Piltdown man.

There is little evidence. There is data. You see whatever you want to see in data. I see a few bone fragments. An expert sees lots of grant money and book deals in the making. He sees more evidence for the wonderful process of evolution, which by the way, is real and you're an idiot if you don't accept it, m'kay?

What do people who have seen God Himself say about these matters? Shouldn't we trust deified human beings more than secular society?

I've been in science related lectures where professors will presume evolution is true and that those who do not accept it are rural inbred bumpkins. Father Seraphim Rose and Saint Justin Popovich were extremely intelligent men.

Byron Jack Gaist

02-11-2007, 09:07 AM

Dear Scott and all,

I meant to say "that the higher comes from the lower" and not "that the lower comes from the higher" This point seems to me to be central to our discussion. Is matter primary, or is spirit? Christians believe God created matter, and matter is good, but spirit is primary. If therefore matter was born of spirit, what's to prevent a religious person from acknowledging the possibility that evolutionists may be correct in their interpretation (because that's clearly what it is) of how things took place? It seems to me that even if man is a 'sophisticated ape' so to speak, he would still need God to breathe a soul into him to be truly Man.

Just thinking out loud for your feedback.

In Christ
Byron

John King

02-11-2007, 11:16 AM

I have been following this thread with interest, and my own modest contribution would be this:-

Firstly, I have never found anything un-Orthodox about either the 'big bang' or evolution. When you consider that all the matter in the vastness of the cosmos came from one minute speck of dust in infinite nothingness, it is not difficult to see that that is how God made the universe.

Secondly, since the 'big bang' the natural state of the cosmos is entropy i.e. everything cools down, slows down and breaks down eventually returning to a state of random chaos. Everthing except life, that is. Evolution has been swimming against the tide, so to speak, and life has become increasingly ordered, sophisiticated and complex. Again, it is not difficult to see the controlling hand of God pushing things along.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

02-11-2007, 04:01 PM

What evolutionary theory says is that man came into being as a result of a process of billions of years of biological death. That man is not the center of the Cosmos, but instead a product of the Cosmos. That the story in Genesis of Adam and Eve in the Garden is highly improbable as it is told, and instead just has a "spiritual" mythical value, if it is to be accepted at all. Or the faithful must adapt their theological outlook each time science makes a new revelation.

Evolution has a fundamental contradiction within itself that to my knowledge is rarely if ever addressed.

ie: evolution situates the purpose of creation within each thing as material.

From the material alone however could never arise anything approaching coherent purpose. Only chaos or nothing could result from pure materialism.

This shows I think that there is no easy solution for us when it comes to evolution. As far as it represents the materialist ideology of our age it is rightly criticized and rejected as a major foundation for secularism.

But as far as it represents something which believes in purpose for the universe it seems like a residual form of the Christian vision of creation. Thus no matter the mechanical weaknesses of the theory of evolution a believer can still graft this into the Christian understanding of a divine purpose for the creation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nicolaj

02-11-2007, 09:45 PM

Dear Brethren,

What does it matter which theory is true or not. As an orthodox Christ I believe that God created man. Amen. Or does the Creed says something else? Does the church say something else?

Is it really important on our way to heaven to exactly know how God created us? No, it isn't!

But it takes time and energy just to think about something so totally unimportant and this is time we do not pray, nor read the scriptures, etc. It is all a plan of the Opposer to find way that we shall not serve our Lord and do not care about our salvation.

God created us, that is it!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

Paul Cowan

03-11-2007, 03:24 AM

the 'big bang'

A bumper sticker I saw one time said..."God said it and Bang it happened"

Father David Moser

03-11-2007, 04:11 AM

A bumper sticker I saw one time said..."God said it and Bang it happened"

What I told the kids in Church school when we talked about creation went along the lines of: One the first day, God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Now what is light? Well it's energy right? So the first thing that God created was a whole lotta energy. So if you get all the energy in the universe all in one place, you get the hugest explosion that ever could be - you get a "big bang" So when you go to school and learn about the "big bang" you'll know that that is when God said "let there be light"

Fr David Moser

M.C. Steenberg

03-11-2007, 02:39 PM

I often feel that one of the main hindrances Christians have in appreciating the full wonder of creation recounted in Genesis is the failure to receive, and enter into, a good story. The Hebrews were storytellers; Christ is a storyteller. Truth comes in stories: they are amongst the most potent, most wonderful, means of conveying the truth of mysteries. Whenever questions were relatively unimportant, Christ would answer them directly ('Where are you going?': 'Across the lake to Galilee'). But when questions mattered, Christ answered with stories. Who is my neighbour? There once was a Samaritan... What is faith? Imagine a mustard seed... How do I follow? A sower went to sow some seed... What is love? A man had a son...

And yet there seems to be a pervasive idea that the story (it's really a song) of creation at the front of Genesis, must be read as some scientific handbook. The story disappears.

It seems very un-Christlike.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Owen Jones

03-11-2007, 04:01 PM

Regarding evolution, we have to ask, who's theory of evolution? what theory of evolution? And then we have to concede that the model everyone uses is that of Darwin's "Origin of the Species."

It is helpful to actually read it. When one does a few things become apparent. He uses no scientific data. He claims that he has all of the scientific data to support his thesis, but it is not in the book. The book reads more like a 19th Century Romantic novel than a scientific text. And in fact, when we trace the intellectual antecedents, they go back to Isaac Newton and Hegel. Darwin's theory is Hegel's theory of history as it applies to biology, given the state of knowledge of biology at the time (which was sparse). The idea is one of inevitable historical progression, through thesis/antithesis, or in this case, survival of the fittest. Karl Marx wanted to devote the Communist Manifesto to Darwin, but Darwin refused. Because Marx based his theories on Hegel, but Darwin gave him the materialistic basis for his theories (Hegel was a spiritualist -- in Hegelianism, it is the Spirit or Geist in history that is the prime mover -- but Marx did not want to have anything to do with Spirit, and so Darwin gave him the ammo to provide a materialist argument for the inevitable progression in history culminating in the classless society).

Now, there are two issues in Darwin, the philosophical problem, and the scientific data problem. Let's just look briefly at the philosophical problem. It is not a theory of origins. That's because there can be no scientific theory of origins in principle. Aristotle had already disposed of that problem -- it is the problem of infinite regression. Everything has a prior cause. I come from my parents, they come from theirs, etc. etc., and Darwin proposes that humans come from lower animals, and lower animals come from lower forms still, and lower forms of life spring from inanimate matter and so on and so on and you have the problem of inifinite regression which destroys rationality. You cannot infinitely regress. So the origin has to be something Beyond that is not scientifically definable or explanable. Of course, that's what we all call God. You can posit aliens from outerspace coming in and seeding the earth with life in order to try to get away from the God idea, but you still have the problem of infinite regression. Where did the aliens come from? And in fact, the first tome positing aliens seeding life on earth was written in the 16th century, a period in Western European intellectual history in which the traditional Christian god concept was called into question. And yet people knew that you still had to have a first cause or prime mover, so it was alien beings from outerspace.

So you cannot have a scientific theory of origins. It is a philosophical problem.

Then you have the question of historical progress. Darwin reflected the Victorian ideas of his day regarding the progress of humanity in history from primitive to modern enlightened man. But the problem is that there is no progress in history. At the end of history it will be just like it was at the beginning, nothing. So where is the progress? When you begin to grasp that problem, you still may try to resist by adding in apocalyptic scenarios. Mankind progresses in history until there is some kind of great cataclysm, and everything is transformed into some new history, because one realizes the fallacy of an ever upward and onward progression until the end, at which point there is nothing. So all progress heretofore is a meaningless illusion.

Here it might be helpful to point out that progress is a Christian symbolism, but it is the symbol of the progress of the soul from one state of existence to another. It is not a theory of anything, but a symbolization of the experience of being pulled into a heavenly reality, while still in this world. It is certainly not a theory of historical progress. There is no essential theory of history in Christianity, until you get into imperial dogma that requires a theory of Christian history. Without a doctrine of Christian empire, there is no Christian theory of history. It is an in-between time. A time of expectant waiting and preparation.

As to the specific scientific foundations of Darwinism, there have been ample critiques on scientific grounds. But that is a vast subject and frought with polemics. But it is safe to say that the defenders of Darwinian evolution are just as fundamentalist in their claims as, say, the students at Bob Jones University are in their Biblical claims.

Unfortunately, Christianity is not an historical argument about anything, as much as modern Christians would like it to be. It is a symbolic form of existence in partnership with God. Darwinism is an attempt to eclipse the full range of reality by existing as a pure historical being. History, in this case the history of material progress, is the god. That's Hegel...

Anthony

03-11-2007, 05:29 PM

Now, there are two issues in Darwin, the philosophical problem, and the scientific data problem. Let's just look briefly at the philosophical problem. It is not a theory of origins. That's because there can be no scientific theory of origins in principle. Aristotle had already disposed of that problem -- it is the problem of infinite regression. Everything has a prior cause. I come from my parents, they come from theirs, etc. etc., and Darwin proposes that humans come from lower animals, and lower animals come from lower forms still, and lower forms of life spring from inanimate matter and so on and so on and you have the problem of inifinite regression which destroys rationality. You cannot infinitely regress. So the origin has to be something Beyond that is not scientifically definable or explanable. Of course, that's what we all call God. You can posit aliens from outerspace coming in and seeding the earth with life in order to try to get away from the God idea, but you still have the problem of infinite regression. Where did the aliens come from? And in fact, the first tome positing aliens seeding life on earth was written in the 16th century, a period in Western European intellectual history in which the traditional Christian god concept was called into question. And yet people knew that you still had to have a first cause or prime mover, so it was alien beings from outerspace.

Much as I liked most of this post, I have my doubts about this appeal to the "first cause" argument, which runs into well-known logical problems. I don't know whether it would be constructive to discuss them; if so, perhaps that should be another thread.

I hope I have been around here long enough for people not to think I am arguing against the existence of God. But I do not believe in God because I believe in a first cause; I believe in a first cause because I believe in God.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

03-11-2007, 07:36 PM

Owen wrote:

Now, there are two issues in Darwin, the philosophical problem, and the scientific data problem. Let's just look briefly at the philosophical problem. It is not a theory of origins. That's because there can be no scientific theory of origins in principle. Aristotle had already disposed of that problem -- it is the problem of infinite regression. Everything has a prior cause.

Yes, both time and space admit of no real scientific explanation at least from a material perspective. Both only can be understood from within a divine perspective as 'issuing forth' from God. In the past these two were not seen as being mutually exclusive since the material was understood as being a reflection of the Divine. But now of course our explanations try to explain material reality minus their anchoring in the Divine- which as you say ends even by logical & scientific standards in something completely contradictory.

The point is that a material thing in itself cannot explain the existence of another material thing. At some point both in terms of space & time these two must have come from something beyond themselves.

Of course science and so on do not admit or recognize this. The secular vision is just as much based on faith in a philosophical principle as any religion is. Simply put it is a faith in material reality, that this 'reality' can sustain itself in reference to itself.

This secular vision however arose in reference to the Church & in conscious reaction it. It's values always in fact stood in relation to the Church so that even as it became secularist it also retained its attraction to purpose as defined by the fulfillment of each thing. Thus it's belief and hope in progress. It also however retained its sense that the fulfillment of each thing must take place on a larger stage than itself. Thus history becomes the stage on which each finds their place within the larger whole.

It seems though that recently we have gone a step beyond this sense of progress towards an eternal now where only 'me' exists. This 'me' defines literally every aspect of reality. Searching for me and fulfilling me has in effect redefined what history & progress used to mean for us as being part of a larger world. Since the stage has grown smaller- or maybe it's just me that's grown bigger- our older sense of progress and history has diminished & found a sharper focus on ourselves as the defining principle.

The idea of progress while off the mark and incomplete still had some residual wisdom to be found in it. One of these was an idealism which even if ambiguous also helped us rise beyond ourselves and keep some of our more dark monsters (inner & outer) at bay.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nicolaj

03-11-2007, 10:34 PM

Paul Cowan

03-11-2007, 10:46 PM

Following this absurd discussion, let me ask all of you something:

Are you a son(daughter) of the living God and loving Father

or

are you the son(daughter) of an ape?

We can discuss on and on about evolution and intelligent design within it, the fingerprint of God and so on, but this isn't going to save us at all! Because the answers to these questions we can not see and we are not able to find them. And there is no sense in a discussion where there aren't facts enough to solve the opening question!

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj

chill out Nicolaj,

These questions come up in some of our daily lives with potential believers. If we can't work through the answers here amoung friends how will we work through the answers amoung the nonbelievers. Frankly, I can use all the answers I can get. Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer. I need to know how to rebutt the staunch nonbelievers BEFORE I have to talk to them or my silly "because the Bible says so" reply will just get me punched in the nose.

Paul

M.C. Steenberg

03-11-2007, 10:54 PM

Dear Nicolaj, you wrote:

And there is no sense in a discussion where there aren't facts enough to solve the opening question!

I sense a bit of frustration in your last post. But I would ask you, what is this 'opening question' to which you are referring? If it is the opening question of this thread, it might be worth reminding others of that post, which was made back in January 2005 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=18668&postcount=1). The question there was:

Someone recently asked me, if Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who did Cain procreate with to continue the human race?

If this is in fact the question to which you are referring, I do think some of the posts that originally followed it might bring things into perspective.

However, the conversation has rather moved on in nearly three years since that post was made - becoming more broadly a conversation on the wider issues of understanding creation, Genesis, cosmology.

You expressed, in an earlier post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52779&postcount=95), a frustration with attempting to understand the particular 'hows' of creation, existence, etc. This is a frustration which I share. In your most recent post, you boiled your own position down to:

Following this absurd discussion, let me ask all of you something:

Are you a son(daughter) of the living God and loving Father

or

are you the son(daughter) of an ape?

In a sense, I agree with your desire to re-focus the issue on that of purpose: the real focus of much creation dialogue in theology is not really centred on how, but on why - and to what end.

But I'm not convinced that being attentive to this focus means dismissing the conversation, nor claiming that the conversation has nothing to do with salvation. The fathers, for example, spend incredible amounts of time and space addressing creation; and as Paul has posted since I began writing this reply, it is among the main questions that 'the world' asks of Christianity, and Christians often ask within it. Taking their testimony as an example and guide, it is not sufficient simply to ask, 'From man or from ape?', but rather to engage with creation as part of the theological revelation of God himself - into whom the person is drawn in encounter.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Nicolaj

04-11-2007, 12:17 AM

Dear Brethren!

First of all, thanks for given me the frustrated card!

Don't get me wrong, but perhaps I was a bit short in explaining the intention I was following.

what is this 'opening question' to which you are referring?

The opening question is the question that starts each discussion about creation and/or evolution: Is there any evidence, which proofs: Look that is the fingerprint of God!
Here in the newspaper, there have been a lot about this, while the RC bishop of Vienna is one of the defenders of the intelligent design idea, which in his opinion points out that evolution maybe okay but there is a plan behind it and the mastermind of this plan is.... God!

it is not sufficient simply to ask, 'From man or from ape?'

True and that wasn't my question! My question was and is, are we as believing orthodox Christians convinced that we are created as Sons of the Living God or are we convinced that humanity came in another way on earth. Well there are some who actually do believe we came here by spaceships, and others tell me that we were on rocks falling from the universe in the oceans. There are many theories and I do read mags like 'Scientific American', 'National Geographic' and 'Science' and some more in other languages.

I am not an Okie from Muskogee, you know!

The fathers, for example, spend incredible amounts of time and space addressing creation

How right you are, and it is my humble opinion that nowadays there is nobody walking on this earth who can add something to this what they hadn't already told us. I love this old time religion of the Fathers, it was good enough for them, it will be good enough for me!

A frustrated old sinner, who does some reading, Nicolaj

Father David Moser

04-11-2007, 12:27 AM

Following this absurd discussion,

This discussion is far from absurd, it has been, in fact, quite well informed and intelligent as well as pertinent to the world in which we live. Our whole philosophy is wrapped up in the concept of "evolution" which has at its root the idea of biological evolution. In discussion biological evolution, we are setting the stage also for ways to talk about society, religion, politics, science, environmentalism, industrialism, child raising, ethics, and almost any other area of our lives. To stick one's head in the sand and refuse to address the issues -now that is absurd.

We can discuss on and on about evolution and intelligent design within it, the fingerprint of God and so on, but this isn't going to save us at all! Because the answers to these questions we can not see and we are not able to find them. And there is no sense in a discussion where there aren't facts enough to solve the opening question!

You are quite right, this will not save us - but an awareness of the teaching of the Church on these matters may in fact help us to be instrumental in saving the world around us. We are not saved in isolation, but as a part of a community. Not only that, but we are also part of the world and God has put us in this world at this time for His purposes (the first and foremost is of course that we might successfully work out our salvation). One of those purposes is to love our neighbor as ourself and thus to be able to understand and reach out to our neighbor where he is at and raise him up to the heavens (just as we see in the icon of the Harrowing of Hell", or what is commonly called the "Resurrection" icon - our Lord Jesus Christ, having descended from heaven not only to earth, but even lower to the pits of hades reaches out His hands to Adam and Eve who have fallen and raises them up that they might once again follow Him.) Just because we don't know the answers doesn't mean that there aren't answers and just because we can't see "the facts" doesn't mean that they aren't there. God has given us the ability to "discuss" not only the obvious, but the abstract as well. He expects us to use this ability not in service to our passions, but rather to His glory. To apply the teaching of the Church to our modern society so that we can know how to act in the world for the salvation of the world is one of the ways by which we glorify God.

If this discussion does not interest you, there is no harm in that; it would be best then for you not to read it. If you wish to focus your attention on other more spiritually profitable things, then that is good and laudable and you should do so; and if you want those things to be discussed in this forum, then perhaps those are the topics you should read and to which you should contribute. There is no sin in ignoring this discussion because it is not relevant to you and if it is tempting to you then there is great virtue in ignoring it. Please do not allow our "absurd" discussion to disturb your peace.

Fr David Moser

Nicolaj

04-11-2007, 12:32 AM

You are right!

And I am sorry!

I will sleep over this and tomorrow will give a more detailed post on this, Nicolaj

Robert Hegwood

04-11-2007, 07:31 AM

In my childhood I was raised more or less creationist. In high school I came to believe in evolution side by side my belief in creation. As a young charismatic I became a creationist again of the young earth variety. As an older charismatic I began to lean towards old earth creationism, and as Orthodox I'm still there. Evolution is not the boogey man for me it once was. The faith does not stand or fall on a particular hyperliteral reading of Genesis. For the Orthodox Scripture is not handled or engaged like the Koran. Over the years I have thought a lot about this and have and come to the following general mind towards the creation account of Genesis.

1. God is the creator of all things just as the Creed says.

2. God is not a liar. Therefore it makes no sense that God would bring into being a universe whose structure, substance, and laws all point to great antiquity on the order of several billion years. If this is not so then God has made the nature and laws of the universe very deceptive. Geology and astronomy all say this creation is very old indeed. This is the testimony of creation itself. Granted scientists have on occasion misdated this or that rock or miscalculated this or that equation in physics...but that hardly invalidates the whole of the rest of the gathered testimony of the heavens and the earth...which testimony of almost fathomless ancientness seems far more in keeping with the abysmal mystery of God than the posit for a far more recent creation on the order of a few thousand years.

3. The creation of light on the first day...the seperation of light from darkness...as I have been given to understand by anceint rabbinic writers was not that of physical light but of rational light, the principle of order and comprehensibility. As the Apostles say light is that which makes manifest.

4. According to Genesis God did not directly create any initial living thing on the earth, rather it says He spoke to the earth and said bring forth one kind of life and to the seas He said bring forth other kinds of life. God made the earth itself fecund. And this is not at odds with evolutionary theory. I am reminded of a conversation I once had with Fr. Thomas Hopko. He graciously agree to theologically engage some science fiction ideas I had regarding the potential of man to genetically engineer scientient moral beings from lower animal life forms. I like the fictional potential of the idea (which is hardly new) but I had theological problems with it since if sentience could be engineered so to speak then that would mean intellegence and sentience were effectively emergent properties of matter and not some special bestowal of God. When I objected on those grounds he said, "that's just your crypto-manicheism talking". And a light bulb went on....if God created this world, then who are we to say what properties He did or did not impart to the creation as part of its nature. And that was when I noticed the point above about the creation storey where God did not say let there be fish or let there be palm trees but rather spoke to the earth and water and said bring forth life.

Evolution at least within the rest of the life of earth no long seemed like such an unchristian or antibiblical consideration.

5. But what about man? Well there is the obvious fact that physiologically we share a great deal in common with the primates...genetically within 2% of Chimpanzee DNA. That has to mean something...and not just be another bit of deceptiveness built into the universe. Why give all the appearance of being biologically related to the rest of life on this planet if we are in fact an utterly seperate creation? If we are supposed to be priests of creation that doesn't sound like a very good start. Aaron was of the Levites. The Levites were also sons of Israel. Christ could not be our High Priest unless he were one of us...so how can we if we are not also within the same great chain...dare I say communion...of life? The biblical record is one chain of callings out: Noah from Adam, Shem from Noah, Abraham from Shem, Israel from Abraham, Judah from Israel, David from Judah and so on till we come at last to the Theotokos and from her, Christ our God, the incarnate Word. Does not a natural course of evolution terminating in man in its way prefigure this same pattern of callings out?

If I am not mistaken I believe St. Gregory of Nyssa once speculated that man was created en masse like the other creatures and one who was breathed upon became Adam and the father of humanity. This would make sense and would answer the question raised by Cain concerning his fear that others might kill him (who could they possibly be if it was just him, Adam and Eve?). We do notice that Adam did not start in the Garden...God brought him there...how long was that journey? Man gave names to all the animals...it seems hard to imagine that was the work of a single afternoon.

But there are other considerations and one in particular that plays havoc with literalist readings. Is is namely the assumption that man before the fall and after were corporeally identical...just less glowy. We don't know what man was like prior to the fall...indeed more than one saint has mention the animal skins that God gave our first parents as aprons to cover their nakedness were infact our human bodies as they now are. We also don't know how long the expulsion or the preparation of "skins" took...maybe that preparation of skins was the very course of evolution to bring forth human beings for/as Adam and Eve in some sense. Who can actually say given the ultra condensed narrative of the Genesis account. The other thing we can't say is the nature of creation prior to the fall. My first priest told me that the fall was a cosmic event. Its effects did not only stretch forward in time, but backwards as well thus the origin of preditory systems within creation. The fall changed both man and the rest of creation in some profound and fundamental aspect....in ways that are beyond the scrutiny of microscopes and spectrolisis. So the fall itself creates a kind a veil which we cannot peer behind...other than what has been revealed...that our origin and that of all else rests behind it.

6. On the other side I think the secular materialsistic scientific community until very recently...and even then with great reluctance...is giving credance to the witness of the great calamaties witnessed to by Scripture, the flood, the dividing of the earth, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah, etc. For example the Grand Canyon was long pointed to as the work of millions of years of erosion, but more resent evidence points to a hydrologic catastrophe that occured at the end of the last ice age 15 to 20 thousand years ago....the collapse of a glacial ice dam that was restraining a giant inland lake/sea. It scoured out the canyon in a few days. Also we know the whole Black Sea is the end result of another giant hydraulic catastrophy about 7 thousand years ago...Noah's time.

7. As interesting as these things are whether fact or speculation the best they can do is show that the Scriptures are a reliable...if often narrow and condensed witness to God's interaction with man...which brings us at last back to Christ who said, "you search the scriptures for in them you think you have life...but they speak of me." And it is Him with whom we must enter into communion. To know that He is the Creator is not the same as to know Him. The world exists as a vehicle of communion. The secrets it holds, the stories it tells are all to help us better behold and engage with Him from whom we have our being and in whose image we were made.

The idea of evolution does nothing to undercut or dismantle this crowning realty...that He gave Himself for us and we were made for Him. God spoke to the earth in the beginning and said bring forth life...and in the fullness of time Life trod upon this earth as a man, the beginning of the restoration and healing of all things. So what if the journey was longer than once we understood?

Nina

04-11-2007, 07:57 AM

Just my humble opinion, if you have people in daily life asking such questions.

I found out that by trying to explain to my fiance, (a scientist, RC baptized and raised by a Protestant father and a RC mother) the whole issue about evolution etc. did not produce much. However, when I prayed about it, I noticed that God changed my fiance's stance (not because of my prayer, but because of God's love and whatever collaboration my fiance contributed in their relationship).

When I prayed, I also learned to approach the issue like Father David says about explaining the "big bang" theory to children. I like this approach also because in our modern times we speak about things like global warming, pollution, resources being depleted because of our wasteful behavior etc., while we forget that God's energies do not abandon the Creation, as Fathers have taught.

And I learned to concentrate on the fact that we are His children, created by Him, and not so much on the how He did create everything. Surprise! We are the creatures and do not know everything that God, our Creator, does. Maybe if it is His Will, He will reveal more things to us, for those who have questions.

Of course in my heart I believe what the Creed says, as Nicolaj mentions, and I tried to translate that for a scientist. I learned that while I can speak and witness, it is not in my hands to make a change, but in God's Holy Hands and in the hands of the person who has such question.

Nina

04-11-2007, 08:21 AM

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.
Paul

Can't believe this!!! So I am your enemy, that you keep me closer?! :p I will not be your friend anymore. :p

Owen Jones

04-11-2007, 02:15 PM

The problem lies with "in the beginning." There really has to be a beginning, not just to have theology, but to have rationality. There can't be an infinite regression in causality and still have rationality. But the beginning is not an isolated concept. It is conditioned by one's concept of the Beyond. One fashions a beginning in the context of one's concept(vision) of the Beyond. Not just an end which is nothing. Because, again, there would be no rationality. There would be no rational action without a Beyond. I get up in the morning and after performing necessary natural functions, I begin to act purposefully in all that I do during the day, and all of those actions are irrational if there is no Beyond, only an end which is nothing. So our understanding of Creation is not seen as an isolated event, but conditioned by and in context with our vision of the Beyond. Which is why mankind is an eschatalogical index. The problem with modernist ideologies, including Evolution, is not simply that they run counter to the Jewish/Christian understanding of Creation, but that they immanentize the Beyond. The Beyond becomes an historical event just over the horizon in which nature finally comes into perfect harmony, and there is no injustice, no discord, no enmity, no illness, suffering or death. Mankind is immortalized through one of the following means: political activism, scientific knowledge. These are classic symptoms of gnosticism. So when you heard a Darwinist, or a neo-Darwinist as they are apt to call themselves these days, look for their vision of the Beyond. They really truly believe that advances in biology will result in man finally coming to a complete and full understanding of himself, along with the knowledge to take full control of his biological destiny, in order to create a perfect man and a perfect world that is disease free, in which we will all live together in harmony. They all share this mystical vision of an immanentized heavenly paradise. This is what gives them their motivation -- it is a transcendent motivation, but of course if you point this out to them, they will attack you personally and heatedly deny that transcendence has anything to do with it. It is pure science. But why show up for work in the lab in the morning? The scientist acts as if there is a transcendent Beyond which makes all of his immanent actions purposeful, but he will vociferously deny that and avoid the issue, which is that if at the end there is nothing, then none of our actions now are rational. There is simply no point to it. I suppose to be philosophically and scientificially consistent, you would have to argue for an infinite cosmos, and yet all of the scientific minds today insist that the cosmos is finite in time and space, not infinite -- there was a beginning. They all agree on that. So the problem is the Beyond.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-11-2007, 03:36 PM

Owen wrote:

The problem lies with "in the beginning." There really has to be a beginning, not just to have theology, but to have rationality. There can't be an infinite regression in causality and still have rationality.

I tend to think that especially nowadays there is conscious blindness in how the universe we live in is seen. On every level the idea of a material universe that has no beginning from that which is other than itself is absurd. Instead though that truth is brushed aside in order to focus solely on a universe which does not go beyond ourselves.

In other words I think the way we see the universe, creation, etc is directly related to how we see ourselves and one is the direct reflection of the other. Selflessness or selfishness more than anything else guide our sense of what creation is.

The universe which has no beginning is the consequent backdrop on a stage in which I am the absolute reference point for all meaning in life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nicolaj

04-11-2007, 04:32 PM

Dear Brethren,

As in my previous post no.105 here, let me again put something in the right light. As Nina already mentioned in her post today, we can come up with whatever arguments we can find, dig out and so on, but this all will not chance anything in the hearts of our friends, brothers or, while Paul mentioned them, our enemies.
And yes I personally like archaeology, history. Also I did something in the laboratories and helped with excavations on archaeological sites. I like this all very much and something I like more is it to read in the Fathers how they see creation and describe their sense for the beauty of it! They choose the words so well and there is the real poetry of loving and caring for creation in them!

But my Father said today a word which I like to share with those of you who think I am: (here had to be a list with all those words which just fit to describe me, the first among sinners).
And this still after my post no.105 which they perhaps didn't read.

http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/calendar/reading/2/f034.htm

This was the reading from the Gospel we had today and my Father had some very good remarks made. (He always makes such good points, comes up with insights I never expect). Today we celebrated the Icon of Kazan, and Father Vladimir reminded us about the times this all referred to and then made the marks on the gospel which were very good.
Then at the end after telling some deep things about Lazarus and Abraham, from which I saw that he also know the book The soul after death by Father Seraphim Rose, he came up with telling us how faith begins, because it is mentioned in this parable Jesus tells us. (I think it is a fact-story Jesus tells, because he knows it from the insight)

In this Gospel the rich man asks Abraham to send someone of death to his brothers so they at least would have the possibility to turn around and wouldn't end up like him. Abraham says to him that they have the Fathers and Prophets which told them all about this.
Faith isn't created by wonders. Faith is the simplicity of knowing from the Bible and the Fathers and to have it in the heart, to come to church,to share with the orthodox community.
So if we need ammo to shoot at those who don't believe the way we do, just remind them about the things which touched your heart, while reading the Fathers or by receiving a word from your Father.
They all know as good as we, the facts which science has brought up until today about this.

But the story the creation told in Genesis is the first Chapter of the Story of Love from the holy Trinity, and it is a strong story full of the tenderness parents have for their children!

And here it is to touch the heart of others with, by talking about these facts! Because the story God makes with people is a story of love and care and not a story of facts and points.

Christos voskrese! Nicolaj, the sinner

Owen Jones

04-11-2007, 07:02 PM

Nina

04-11-2007, 09:43 PM

And yet, Father, the scientist does not see himself as selfish. He sees himself as selfless. He is not getting rich off his work, and he is doing what he does for the benefit of "mankind." So in his own mind, he is the ultimate in beneficence and it is extremely difficult to crack that, because the average person believes it as well.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. There are scientists who willingly choose a life of research, although they can go on and take a position that will pay very well and provide a more than comfortable life. There are selfish scientists and unselfish ones like in all professions of life. And many of the latter do not approach the issue like "doing things for the benefit of the mankind", they do not even think of that, in this way. They just have a lot of passion for what they do. It is this passion that makes them stay in research, and not go on to accept very lucrative offers.

I have noticed that everything starts from the heart and how opened our hearts are towards God. Because people are raised by our systems which promote complete ignorance about God, (and such ignorance prevails in our times) and often in environments toxic to everything spiritual, it does not mean that we have to classify only scientists according to the model you provide, or to take them as an example. Of course there are such people in all fields, but all depends on the person's heart I think.

Nina

04-11-2007, 09:54 PM

Dear Brethren,
So if we need ammo to shoot at those who don't believe the way we do, just remind them about the things which touched your heart, while reading the Fathers or by receiving a word from your Father.
They all know as good as we, the facts which science has brought up until today about this.
Christos voskrese! Nicolaj, the sinner

Wow, this is so beautiful! Actually now that you reminded me of this approach, I remember that it is very effective because it is by example (like Fathers advise). Not an example in action, but an example in love. These personal examples (of how our hearts were touched) speak louder to people with questions. I know that this is effective, but I never isolated it in my observations. Thank you Nicolaj
and
Truly He is Risen!

Fr Raphael Vereshack

04-11-2007, 11:37 PM

And yet, Father, the scientist does not see himself as selfish. He sees himself as selfless. He is not getting rich off his work, and he is doing what he does for the benefit of "mankind." So in his own mind, he is the ultimate in beneficence and it is extremely difficult to crack that, because the average person believes it as well. The average person, believer or non-believer, places his hopes in the future of mankind and his ability to control his destiny through advancements in knowledge, especially medical and biological knowledge. It is a violation of the First Commandment.

I hadn't quite thought of it in that way but this is along the lines of what I was trying to get at. Also something along the lines perhaps of what Dn Matthew had in a recent post about Genesis as a story.

What we have done to ourselves in recent times is to engage in a larger kind of selfishness which is more one of perspective than that of doing selfish things. After all we've always been selfish; selfishness is the primal sin.

Our change in perspective however, filling up the stage with ourselves, as I put it before, makes even the greatest things we touch small and petty. It's the Midas touch we were created with but turned in on itself from what we have done with this gift given us by God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

05-11-2007, 12:01 AM

So if we need ammo to shoot at those who don't believe the way we do...

I pray with all my heart that this never happens. It would be a betrayal of... everything.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Andreas Moran

05-11-2007, 10:47 AM

I thought Behemoth was the hippopotamus; бигимот is Russian for hippopotamus. (I only know because that's what my wife sometimes calls me!)

RichardWorthington

05-11-2007, 01:03 PM

I would put on my bullet proof vest.
"Friends, 'Monachians', Orthodox, lend me your bullet proof vest" … !! :)

Having rekindled this thread "Genesis: Truth and metaphor" about "Where did Cain get his wife?" with the desire to point to an alternative interpretation of Genesis described to me, I think I had better respond! I was away this weekend at a christening, and -oh my!- how this thread has grown! I started writing this on Friday night, and much has since been added, so bear with me!

there is no easy solution for us when it comes to evolution. As far as it represents the materialist ideology of our age it is rightly criticized and rejected as a major foundation for secularism. ... Thus no matter the mechanical weaknesses of the theory of evolution a believer can still graft this into the Christian understanding of a divine purpose for the creation.
Absolutely correct - but in rejecting evolution due to 'materialist ideology', to what extent are we then rejecting science and opening ourselves up to the stigma of rejecting what can reasonably be verified? And what can be grafted in to Christianity - the idea that God created suffering and death?

The problem with modernist ideologies, including Evolution, is not simply that they run counter to the Jewish/Christian understanding of Creation.
Here is the crux: we look at Evolution as an ideology, but scientists look at it as a simple piece of deductive thinking and not at all as an ideology.
The vital difference about what needs to be rejected and what can be accepted about evolution is surely summed up in this:

Science is based on rational thought, but Rationalism is an ideology (so to speak) that seeks answers to everything within rational thought. The general disillusionment with (Augustian) Christianity in the West produced a desire to find another (infallible) source of authority instead of those presented to them (i.e. Bible, councils, or Pope). This then (by the way, I am no historian!) caused an intensive exploration of the world and cosmos around us, and at that assuming no prior knowledge (e.g. forgetting about Aristole and everything being made up of four elements, and also putting to one side - though not necessarily rejecting - a creator god); hence the great increase in scientific knowledge. Earlier generations could have discovered what we know, but did not have such a great inclination.

Interestingly enough, the (infallible?!) Wikipedia states the following:

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Scientific_method

(about Rationalism) … a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the radical position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Therefore we need to distinguish between Science and Rationalism.

From the viewpoint of science, evolution is just a very good explanation of where we came from based only on what can be reasonably deduced from those things around us. However, Rationalism then hijacks science to make it say that therefore there is no god, or that 'god' does not interact with the world in any meaningful way (etc.). Rationalism wants to replace religion with its own infallible source of authority, rational thought alone. However, science can not actually ever become infallible.

For an example of science not leaning towards such a rationalism, consider Isaac Newton. His work on gravity and optics is well known everywhere, and can be independently verified. However, he practised alchemy, and also devoted a great deal of his time to alchemy in his later life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton#Later_life (If Newton had been born later, would he have continued to have a mystical notion of humanity, or have adopted the literal soulless ideas of atheism? Technically, we can never know, no matter how much we would like the answer to lean towards our current inclinations! By the way, I'm not a scientist either!)

As such, I think that the big disagreement of today is between rationalism and religion. Both science and spirituality are a natural part of humanity, but rationalism seeks to bend science to make the masses believe its agenda, and similarly religion seeks to bend spirituality to have power over the masses. Where science ends and rationalism begins I think will depend on a person's inclination of heart, and similarly where spirituality ends and religion begins also depends on a person's inclination of heart.

It is interesting to note that the word 'science' comes from Latin meaning 'knowledge'. However, the word 'gnosticism' (a form of spirituality) comes from Greek meaning 'knowledge' also. Surely then, to be a true Christian, while being human we must embrace our own nature and listen to science and spirituality, we must also go beyond both science and spirituality, otherwise how can we sing in the Liturgy, "God is the Lord and has revealed Himself unto us"?

More soon … !

Nina

05-11-2007, 03:07 PM

Both science and spirituality are a natural part of humanity,

You make some interesting points and thank you. To this I would like to add that 3 scientists of those times (Magi) were from the first people to worship Christ.

Owen Jones

05-11-2007, 03:56 PM

Regarding Newton, alchemy really is the birth of modern science in that there is an implicit, and quite often explicit assumption that we can indeed transform nature through scientific knowledge. The modern scientific thinker, when confronted with Newton's passion for alchemy, says that it was a scientific dead end, just like a lot of experimentation, and that's that. What they fail to realize is that they are alchemists as well.

As for lumping all scientists together, obviously this is a fallacy. The point I wish to make refers to so-called "public intellectuals" who wrap themselves in the mantle of science. People like Hawking and Dennet and Watson. However, even the typical "lab rat" is not totally oblivious to the claims of modern science being able to save mankind.

As for truth and metaphor: metaphor is a grammatical term meaning an implicit comparison, e.g. this is like that but not literally the same thing. The problem is that when we use the term metaphor to apply to Biblical narrative, the assumption is that the author of the text is consciously employing metaphor in the same way that a modern author would employ metaphor. In modern literature critical method, this is known as a construct. Hence, the reality of metaphor is a construct of the author.

This is quite obviously not what the Fathers have in mind when using such terms as figures and types. The Patristic understanding is that this is the way God reveals Himself to man, through figures and types, and the prophetic vision is able to see in literal/historical events, figures and types of spiritual realities. So even if the narrative of Adam and Eve is literally true historically, it has absolutely no meaning, apart from a prophetic understanding of Adam and Eve as figures and types. And the only way one can have this prophetic understanding is through a transformation process that involves Christian faith and virtue. This is not to say that there is no common sense wisdom in Scripture. That it is all esoteric. But there is a true, hidden meaning to Scripture that is revealed to only those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Which begs the question, what is truth? And I think for Orthodoxy, the truth of the pudding is in the eating of it.

So I recoil when I see the term metaphor used as the alternative to a strictly literal meaning of the text.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-11-2007, 04:28 PM

Richard Worthington wrote:

in rejecting evolution due to 'materialist ideology', to what extent are we then rejecting science and opening ourselves up to the stigma of rejecting what can reasonably be verified? And what can be grafted in to Christianity - the idea that God created suffering and death?

I think the major weakness of science occurs whenever it seeks to remove itself from wonder and mystery. This precisely is the attempt that was made and continues to be made in using science as a prop for the claim that we live in a 'rational universe'.

For the Holy Fathers we do live in a rational universe but in the sense that the Word, the Uncreated and then Incarnate Logos is literally the rationale behind the universe.

So the solution to our question of evolution and science I think is certainly not in the area of including Christ in our understanding of the rational universe. To simply add Him in as a religious piece to the overall rational picture still leaves us with a dry and deadly vision of the universe along with a terribly distorted vision of Christ.

As I've tried to point out here before- left to itself the laws of creation are not life but rather death and self annihilation. This should be obvious. But due to our love of sin which we mistake for life we see things in general upside down from reality. Thus the need for ongoing repentance and fundamental change in our inner perspective- something which surely science of all things is also called to.

The point here is that to restore our sense of the Divine origin and purpose of the creation we must always be aware of its coming not from itself but from that which is beyond itself. Science need not base itself on the contradictory belief that life is self sustaining. Indeed it will be immeasurably enriched in returning to its more ancient understanding of reality. But we do I think need to have clearly in mind some of the more fundamental assumptions of modern science and point to both their weaknesses and possible solutions.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

RichardWorthington

05-11-2007, 05:37 PM

(Continued from my previous post)
So what would an interpretation of scientific evolution be if we took into account our innate Human Nobility, being made in the image and likeness of God?

First, I would like to point out how I realised that clinging madly to 6-day creationism was, relatively speaking, pretty pointless:

St John of Damascus in his 2nd book on the "Orthodox Faith" in chapter 6 "Concerning the Heaven" shows an interesting attitude: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.ii.vi.html

some say that "the heaven encircles the earth in the manner of a sphere, and bears along with it in its most rapid revolutions sun, moon and stars, and that when the sun is over the earth it becomes day there, and when it is under the earth it is night. And, again, when the sun goes under the earth it is night here, but day yonder.
Others have pictured the heaven as a hemisphere. This idea is suggested by these words of David, the singer of God, ‘Who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain’, by which word he clearly means a tent: and by these from the blessed Isaiah, ‘Who hath established the heavens like a vault’ : and also because when the sun, moon, and stars set they make a circuit round the earth from west to north, and so reach once more the east [the translator gives a reference to St John Chrysostom, Hom. 14 and 17, to Hebrews.]"

He then compares these various opinions, "Still, whether it is this way or that, all things have been made and established by the divine command, and have the divine will and counsel for a foundation that cannot be moved." Here he does not put the Bible above ‘science’ for investigating such phenomenon, but places them as equal possibilities. Moreover in chapter 7 he speaks about "the sun being under the earth", therefore seemingly going against the ‘scriptural’ conception of a flat circular earth with the ‘heavens’ being a tent, while still accepting the scripture as God-inspired. (Additionally, in chapter 10 he states that "some hold that the earth is in the form of a sphere, others that it is in that of a cone", and the general opinion was that the earth is a sphere. Interestingly, the passages which he quotes to show the possibility of a flat earth can be seen quite easily to refer to the temple: the curtain, for example, being the veil of the temple on which were probably originally depicted the sun, moon, and stars!)

So St John of Damascus could interpret the 'science' in scripture as expressions of God's glory as described by the author's current knowledge of the working of the world, as opposed to a divinely revealed description of how everything works. As such, based on his approach, firmly clinging to a literal 6-day creation in the face of new evidence did seem somewhat pointless!

However ...

Is it really important on our way to heaven to exactly know how God created us? No, it isn't!

However, consider the following posts:

What evolutionary theory says is that man came into being as a result of a process of billions of years of biological death. That man is not the center of the Cosmos, but instead a product of the Cosmos.
and

A late comment but I do not believe God created death. He created a perfect world that became fallen.

It is not important to know the exact way things were made or work. However when certain ideas tend to imply that God created, or at least is not concerned about, suffering and death then this is vitally important for our understand of our loving heavenly Father.

However, I found a quotation in Fr Seraphim Rose's behemoth of a book "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" (page 414, quoting St Gregory the Sinate, "Chapters on Commandments and Dogmas", Russian Philokalia, p. 181-2):

Eden "is neither completely incorruptible, nor entirely corruptible. … The mature trees and fruits are converted into fragrant earth which does not give off any odour of corruption, as do the trees of this world."

This is my idea: let us say that there was a mature tree which was being recycled in this wonderful way without corruption. Adam and Eve then sinned, and the creation fell with them. Then this tree would appear to be rotting away as we see trees do now, even though before the Fall it was not rotting but being recycled. Could we not then think that life evolved over millions of years before the Fall by an incorruptible, painless, without bad consequences, and naturally designed form of recycling without suffering or death? All the fossils would then have originally been in the life-giving process of being recycled, but now after the Fall appear to have corrupted in our normal fallen way.

I know the (Patristic) interpretation of Genesis 1:29-30 about the animals and humans being given "every green plant for food", that neither human nor animal ate another animal. Surely what it is getting at is that there is no death, no suffering, no pain, no baby animals dying because their mother was eaten, etc. However, surely applying the recycling of trees mentioned above without corruption can apply here? (And what about the fish - what would they eat?!)

Maybe the whole earth had a spiritual kind of ethos or law, which was lost when Adam sinned? If so, then surely the prey would give itself after a kind of playful flight to be recycled inside its eater. Of course, strictly, man would not eat any animal, we being both physical and spiritual. This recycling would then be analogous to a mother animal suckling its young: do not the young eat a part of their mother, a part designed to be eaten, i.e. her milk? (Also, I am not a biologist either! However, I most fervently do not believe in reincarnation, or re-becoming. We are told that, due to our so-called karma, we can re-become at our death an animal. However, how can animals get good or bad karma? A cat kills a mouse by nature: is this bad karma?)

So God told the earth to produce life in accordance with its God-given law of natural variation, and let life on earth run its course. However, what about the dinosaurs? Why did God let them all be 'recycled'? Or how could they have fitted in Noah's ark? Well, this is my idea as to why the dinosaurs became extinct (i.e. set to be recycled in a painless way, rejoicing to fulfil the desire of their loving Creator):

Now when the angels of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Gabriel also came first among them. He didst say unto the Lord:

"Glory to Thee, O our God for all your marvellous creations!
"However, you know how we angels are relatively bodiless to the physical creation, and that when you make this being of yours in your image and likeness we will change our form to be similar to theirs when appearing to them? Well, some of us have been thinking …
"You see, at present the greatest creature on earth is this thing called a Diplodocus. However, the thought of appearing with a big tail, huge legs and thighs, enormous belly, and a long unbloody neck with tiny wings attached to it somehow, …, well, it just lacks a certain … well, it doesn't feel right.
"You couldn't by any chance tell the earth to come up with something a bit more fitting, could You?"

Then the Lord replied, saying, "OK, hop on that asteroid over there (which when looking back will look like an intervention, but from My timeless perspective something which I designed into the laws of creation), and let the fireworks begin!"

And Gabriel and the others with him said, "WWWHHHHhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeee!"

And, lo, it did come to pass that the dinosaurs becameth like unto an extinct thing, without suffering, but joyful that their inner life would naturally be used by the earth's naturally God-given laws to produce something else.

(The reference for the angels' bodies is St John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, ch3, "Concerning Angels")

OK!!!!! It may sound stupid, but it's a lot better than some other theories which have been proposed! :)

Also, it would show that God did not need to nudge the evolution of animals towards our anatomy. Our anatomy is not actually important: we were created as physical angels and angelic earth-beings (not animals), and our form after the fall does not actually influence this.

Well, this is how I have come to see things. It may not be perfect, but at least I do not think that we have to go on the attack every time someone mentions evolution, age of the world or universe. However, I will consider the origin of man in all this soon.

RichardWorthington

05-11-2007, 05:53 PM

Hi all! I've just seen some other replies since my previous post. I wrote this without knowing of them. However, I naturally do want to "restore our sense of the Divine origin" (post #123), and that is why I thought of a deathless recycling in the face of evolutionary facts. (I can not determine which are facts, or which are not based on the debate between evolutionists and ID-ers. For now, I am just trying to accept the scientific facts of evolution as presented, and seeing if a truly Orthodox understanding, with man being divinely and specifically created by a loving God, can be held as being as valid as an atheistic viewpoint.)

The problem is that when we use the term metaphor to apply to Biblical narrative, the assumption is that the author of the text is consciously employing metaphor in the same way that a modern author would employ metaphor. In modern literature critical method, this is known as a construct. Hence, the reality of metaphor is a construct of the author.

I used the word metaphor from the title of the thread: I don't have a clue what a construct is: I am not a 'theologian' neither! :)

What I am is tired now: it is getting dark and I am now going to rest, and then see fireworks!

Owen Jones

05-11-2007, 07:28 PM

But what are the "evolutionary facts?" While it's quite polemical, Ann Coulter covers the issues in her book "Godless."

Father David Moser

05-11-2007, 07:58 PM

When looking at both the Genesis story and the scientific evidence, there is one thing that I don't think evolution - as a complete theory - takes into account and that is the various "disconnects" that are implicit in the Genesis account. The original creation from nothing (as accounted in Genesis) does not allow for any pre-big bang (and yes, I know there are other theories out there, I am using "big bang" in this case as a catch all rather than as a technical description of events) existence, while science presumes that there was "something" - a compressed dimension, another universe bumping into this one, something that cannot be "proven" but which could be inferred by the a priori acceptance of some other unprovable theory (such as the existence of parallel universes). This is one "disconnect" or discontinuity. A second would be the emergence of animal life. The wording of the Genesis account allows for the natural generation of plant life, however, the appearance of animal life is considered another "creation from nothing" a discontinuity which can only be "explained" by an intervention from some outside power (God, according to the Scripture). The evolutionary development of variation in animal life is certainly within the scope of the Genesis account. A third discontinuity is the appearance of man. Again, in Genesis, this is a "creation from nothing" a discontinuous event in the creation of the world involving the intervention of an "outside" "non-natural" (supernatural?) source. In Genesis, this outside source is God. Evolution does not allow for such a discontinuity - giving rise to the whole "missing link" theory. A fourth discontinuity is the fall. Everything changes as a result of the fall in that creation (along with mankind) becomes subject to corruption (physical as well as spiritual) for the first time. So an Orthodox Christian could embrace the data which evolutionary science presents as long as there was the caveat of these "disconnects" or discontinuous events.

I rather think that secular evolutionary philosophy has overtaken science and thus has ruled out the possibility of a discontinuous event by ruling out the existence of God (or even of any "outside" influence.) As a result we get only one choice of how to interpret the data and both proponents of opponents of biological evolution end up playing by the same rules (which are stacked in favor of godless evolution). A scientist who examines the biological data and who dares to propose that there is a God who intervenes is "breaking the rules" and thus summarily excluded from the serious scientific community - otoh if the same scientist were to postulate the existence of a "missing link" or some other "black box" mechanism out there to "fill in the gaps", his work would be allowed as at least worthy of investigation.

Science is not our "foe" here but rather humanistic philosophy that has developed an "evolutionary" tendency in which man is the measure of all things and man's reason and superiority will eventually lead the development of all aspects of the world to some kind of utopic ideal existence - or at the very least to an ever increasing higher level of existence. And now we enter into the realm of Heinlein, Roddenberry and a host of other science fiction writers who speculate about this "higher level of existence" in an endless array of fantasies. If, however, we take the opposite tack and divorce religion from science, we end up with the equally fanciful novels of the likes of Frank Peretti his "left behind" cohorts. ... Ah, but now I'm ranting.

Fr David Moser

Owen Jones

05-11-2007, 10:53 PM

The Genesis account (actually there is more than one) of creation actually starts with the earth already in existence. Creatio ex nihilo is a later Church doctrine. I hesitate to use the term myth, since most believers confuse the term myth with a made up story that isn't factually true, and therefore they assume that if you concede an inch on that subject, than all of Christian belief comes crashing down. At the same time, we should not confuse the term myth in this sense, with the sense in which the so-called higher criticism uses the term, which is that all of the "myth" in Scripture needs to be stripped away to find the true Gospel.

But Genesis 1 is a cosmogonic myth and can only be a myth because that is the only way to formulate orgins -- through the myth, or, if you will, a symbolic narrative in which the first man Adam, stands for all mankind.

What you have to do is account for the basic, universal fact of experience which is that the world is fubar (fouled up beyond repair). Why? We all sense that things are not the way they ought to be. Why? The only answer lies in myth, but that is the way God reveals Himself, not through factual information. There are only two alternatives for why things are fubar. Either God fouled up when He created, or we messed things up... Now, Genesis 1 theoretically could have been written like an Aristotelian extended argument examining each of the possible alternatives in turn, and arriving at the most rational conclusion. Or it could be formulated through the more compact form of the myth, which in fact was the Hebraic manner of conceptualisation. For a good sense from an author who has tried to recapture this sense, read Joseph and His Brothers by Thomas Mann. And besides, if Genesis 1 had been written by Aristotle, who the heck would read it?

I really don't think intelligent, thoughtful Christians should concede anything when it comes to Darwinian evolution. It's just bad science. Darwin himself said that if it could be refuted that a complex organism evolved through minute gradual changes from something far more simple, then his whole theory would collapse. It seems to me that as we know more about genes and DNA, there is an irreducable complexity involved. They expected to find the genetic code constructed much like building blocks, but that's not what they have discovered. It is extremely complex, with complex switching mechanisms and complex interactions, that are not just internal but which also respond to external influences. For any element to function at all, it all has to function in concert. Which leads to the other problem with Darwinism -- competition for survival of the fittest. We know that nature doesn't function that way. It is for more interdependent.

Micro-evolution is a much different story. We know that we can breed animals. We know that humans have different DNA that results in different body types, etc. But that is not what the Darwinists are claiming. They are claiming evolution at the macro level.

Then there is the whole problem with gradualism. There is frankly zero evidence for it. Zero.

Owen Jones

05-11-2007, 10:57 PM

Just as an aside, Plato's cosmogonic myth, The Timeaus, is the most quoted book by the Fathers, apart from Scripture of course.

Theophrastus

06-11-2007, 12:58 AM

I really don't think intelligent, thoughtful Christians should concede anything when it comes to Darwinian evolution. It's just bad science.

But is it possible to develop an evolutionary theory that doesn't rely on "survival of the fittest", or that isn't based on simple gradualism, and yet does not invoke the supernatural? It seems to me that if you want to develop alternatives to Darwinism, while keeping the naturalistic approach that is the characteristic of modern Western science, then most scientists wouldn't object. But if you want to invoke the supernatural to explain current problems and unsolved riddles in Darwinian theory, then that stops the game of science, by blocking the desire to solve those problems and answer those riddles. It's true: science is a "game", with rules. You don't have to play the game, and you can do philosophy, instead, and that's perfectly fine. Playing with your children isn't part of the game of science, either, and, again, that's perfectly fine. My support of playing by the rules of science is quite pragmatic: the tremendous scientific and technological and medical advances made in the last 300 years, was made possible because we played by the rules of the game. Religion is not science, and doesn't play by its rules; and, pragmatically, it doesn't make sense to incorporate the rules of religion into the playbook of science.

Father David Moser

06-11-2007, 01:07 AM

The Genesis account (actually there is more than one) of creation actually starts with the earth already in existence. Creatio ex nihilo is a later Church doctrine.

Actually, I am drawing my conclusion concerning the creation "ex nihilo" from the wording used in the Gen 1. There are two words meaning "to create" in Hebrew as well as in Slavonic (and I assume in Greek, but I don't know). The word used in Gen 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" In the Hebrew (as well as in the Slavonic) the word used here mean "created out of nothing" and it is in contrast to the other word which is translated "to create" which means "to make, to form, to shape out of matter." Given this, I think it is not difficult to draw the meaning that the doctrine of creation "ex nihilo" is in fact in the text of the Genesis 1 account. The verb "to make or to form" is used subsequently until the fifth day when God created-out-of-nothing the living soul - that is the animals. Finally the same verb is used again on the sixth day when God created-out-of-nothing man in his own image. There is a clear distinction between the use of two different words (which are both translated into English as "to create" or "to make") which give us this sense of rhythm and continuity in the origin of the universe punctuated by discontinuous acts of God.

Fr David Moser

Herman Blaydoe

06-11-2007, 02:16 AM

But is it possible to develop an evolutionary theory that doesn't rely on "survival of the fittest", or that isn't based on simple gradualism, and yet does not invoke the supernatural?

Why should we care? We don't "invoke" anything, but simply try to explain what has been revealed.

Religion is not science, and doesn't play by its rules; and, pragmatically, it doesn't make sense to incorporate the rules of religion into the playbook of science.

That's all fine and good. But to be quite frank, we don't have to play by the "rules". Rules are something created, and do not apply to that which is NOT created. Science is limited, God is not.

"There are more things in Heaven and on earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio"

Paul Cowan

06-11-2007, 02:47 AM

I was on a forum yesterday supported by Amazon that I thought was a pro-religious one since I was looking up an Orthodox book. Once I got into reading the posts, I was overwhelmed with the complete hatred and revulsion of the people for the idea of creationism and/ intelligent design theories.

As I read our posts, we are doing exactly what they say in we are still trying to "figure out" what Genesis, the Bible and the origins of the universe are.

Their "camp" (evolutionists) have already decided we are all nut cases and at best uneducated on scientific processes. They know even taking into account falsification that the scientific process of hostorical measure has already debunked and proven ludicrus our notion of God and religion. Their science has all the answers or will have them in a quantifiable rationalisitc form.

I thought I was on a hate site rather than Amazon. Zero tolerance for people of Faith. All I could think was how worthless their lives must be to not believe in an afterlife. I mean, what is life worth if it is to end in 70 or less years? How useless is a lifespan if that is all you have? Why bother? No wonder there is so much suicide and anger and hate in the world.

Why do we have to know everything or anything? Why can life not be a mystery? Yes, I enjoy technology as much as the next guy. But I don't sit up at night thinking of ways to prove or disprove, well, anything. What does it matter? We find a cure for one disease and another pops up. We stop a war over here and another pops up over there. We find a way to make babies in a petri dish and then kill them as the exit the womb.

If this is what God was dealing with when he told Noah to build the ark, perhaps I should start stockpiling wood. We can't change a culture. We can only change a mindset, one person at a time.

Paul

Yuri Zharikov

06-11-2007, 03:35 AM

Theophrastus

06-11-2007, 03:56 AM

M.C. Steenberg

06-11-2007, 02:50 PM

Dear all,

I've found some of the most recent comments here very interesting. Fr David, a few thoughts on something you offered:

Actually, I am drawing my conclusion concerning the creation "ex nihilo" from the wording used in the Gen 1. There are two words meaning "to create" in Hebrew as well as in Slavonic (and I assume in Greek, but I don't know). The word used in Gen 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" In the Hebrew (as well as in the Slavonic) the word used here mean "created out of nothing" and it is in contrast to the other word which is translated "to create" which means "to make, to form, to shape out of matter." Given this, I think it is not difficult to draw the meaning that the doctrine of creation "ex nihilo" is in fact in the text of the Genesis 1 account.

It would probably be safer to say that the distinction in terminology lends itself in this direction, rather than states the idea. The word for 'create' in Hebrew and Greek is, indeed, different from the verb 'fashion'; but 'create' doesn't, in either language, imply creation 'out of nothing'. In fact, the distinction between 'how man creates' and 'how God creates' is one explored by many early fathers: man creates out of things that already exist (e.g. a builder, who builds houses out of stone that already exists in the earth), while God creates out of non-being. That the fathers explored this comparison so extensively, indicates that the term itself doesn't automatically imply 'ex nihilo'; but it also implies that the distinction between creation and formation, which is allowed for in the grammar, might be read in just this way - which is how the fathers read it. So as the fathers exegete this passage, 'create' comes to mean more succinctly that kind of calling-into-being-from-non-being that is unique to God's creation of the cosmos; though even here, 'create' is still used by the fathers in other senses.

I point this out just to recall the nuance of the terms. They are not straight forward in implying creation-ex-nihilo and making-as-formation. Indeed, this is part of the reason the explanation ex nihilo (ex ouk onton) was stressed by the fathers - to clarify just what is meant by 'create'. Once that distinction is clarified, the terms take on new meaning in that light.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Owen Jones

06-11-2007, 03:12 PM

Fr. Moser is correct. I had a bit of a brain cramp on my last post.

Owen Jones

06-11-2007, 03:18 PM

Of course, Dn. Matthew is correct as well!!!!!!!

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-11-2007, 04:08 PM

Andrew, brethren,

I just would like to concur with you. I am not a great scientist but I have studied biology in three universities in Canada and Australia and hold a PhD. Never in my life I saw a "proof" of evolution (understood as progress from simple to complex, organic matter to life, etc) - there exist only (factually baseless) assumptions that it took place. If you look at volumes upon volumes of evolutionary literature, all of it boils down to two (!) statements of faith: if things exist, they must have evolved and if a golfball and apple are round, they must have had a common ancestor. That's it. Everything else is fluff which relies on one's being indoctrinated and shutting his/her ears to any alternative idea.
Has anybody read The Origin of Species? Well, try it, you will see that modern "evolutionary" thought has not evolved much from the time of Darwin:

In North America the black bear was seen… swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. If the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale (The Origin of Species, Darwin).
In the Lord,

Yura

Thanks for the info Yuri. One of the challenges in this discussion and referred to in other posts is that one is criticized for saying the Emperor has no clothes if one is not a 'certified scientist.' Not that one expects to be heard but we can doubt ourselves if we do not think we have enough of the proper knowledge to really offer any thoughts about this topic. But which really comes down to the question of what is real knowledge for us as Christians.

Obviously expertise is not something to be looked down on. In the scientific and biological fields this has given continuing and great results. However I would like to offer a distinction between science as it relates to caring for other things and science as trying to come up with a cosmological framework for the universe. As a way of understanding other things and of showing care for them I think science actually is more responsible than it used to be. When it comes to understanding how the universe works however it is still very weak since it is based so much on the premise that nature is self-sustaining.

It is this latter especially which I think Christians are concerned over. No matter how poorly we put this or how many blind alleys we run into the central point still remains- it is absurd to maintain that material nature in itself is self sustaining & self directing. Material nature seen only materially can have no inherent purpose since matter by the very definition of a materialist has no inherent meaning beyond itself. In itself material nature has no coherent direction at all except for self extinction.

Of course for us it is impossible to see matter completely devoid of meaning or purpose. And there is much in the evolutionary theory which has a residual belief in purpose and meaning for all things. The main question though is how one can possibly harmonize a view of the universe which sees meaning & purpose with a purely materialist viewpoint. I think that it is this which we are most correct in challenging and that indeed it is completely impossible to fit these two conceptions of the universe together.

If indeed in the balance evolution is based on the idea that the universe does have meaning & purpose and if the mechanics of its view have some truth to it then it must completely re-examine its understanding of material nature. Without this it will continue to be a one legged man trying to run the race.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-11-2007, 04:49 PM

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:

So as the fathers exegete this passage, 'create' comes to mean more succinctly that kind of calling-into-being-from-non-being that is unique to God's creation of the cosmos; though even here, 'create' is still used by the fathers in other senses.

St Athanasius continually makes the point that creation as coming to be out of non-being is inherently unstable. This last point I think is very important in this discussion and would effect how we see evolution.

For the Fathers because creation is out of non being it was in need of the pre-eternal unchanging Word in order to make it stable. This is in terms of creation's original purpose (St Irenaeus) and due also to the effects of sin.

Creation is thus in need of the Incarnate Logos both for its spiritual and material stability. Implied in this is not just that rejecting Christ would be a bad choice; rather the implication is that left to itself the creation would fall into non existence on every level; ie the material creation left to itself is not able to find life and purpose.

Just as an added comment. For the Fathers creation from out of nothing could not have meant creation from some state of nothingness as some thing apart from God. Rather since creation is God's work it comes in some sense from Him. So from out of nothing actually refers to that which God creates from Himself and which is distinct from Himself.

This is what gives creation from out of nothing its double quality. At once it is inherently attracted towards its Maker in which it is in Its image & likeness. And it is also able to fall into the nothingness of freely chosen self annihilation if it makes its distinction from God the object of a life separate from God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Yuri Zharikov

06-11-2007, 05:08 PM

Well, Darwin was partly right. The ancestor of whales (http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/) weren't bears, exactly, but they were carnivores of a certain variety :-)

That is exactly what I meant, similarity between teeth or whatever does not prove common origin, common origin is assumed (based on what?) in the first place. This is an perfect example of circular logic on which positively all arguments in support of evoltion are based.

"Evolution" as a mode of creation of biodiversity has no biological mechanism, it is a complete funk; therefore all claims in support of evolution based on comparisons of teeth, pieces of bone, molecules, etc are empty as clouds.
BTW the quote you pooled out is much outdated, now "ancestors" of whales are hyppopotamus. One can only guess what will come next.

In the Lord, Yura

Father David Moser

06-11-2007, 05:54 PM

That is exactly what I meant, similarity between teeth or whatever does not prove common origin, common origin is assumed (based on what?) in the first place. This is an perfect example of circular logic on which positively all arguments in support of evoltion are based.

Yura,

I would agree with your assertion that the link between similarity and common origin is an assumption - however, I do not see how it is an unfounded assumption or that it is evidence that evolutionary assumptions are incorrect. The kind of argument that you put forward here demonstrates what I see as a the basic deficit in the creationist and ID approaches. There is a lot of "debunking" but very little is proposed in the way of an alternate theory. If the commonality in structure of bones, dna, teeth, etc does not indicate a common origin, then what do you propose as an explanation for the data gathered.

Although there has been some decent work, of late, within the non-evolution community to try and advance various theories to explain and interpret the data that we have, it is still "hodge-podge" there is not yet a decent overall "meta-theory" that brings it all together. Many non-evolutionists are simply content with "debunking" and their whole approach to scientific investigation is negative. There is nothing positive to offer.

Now I am not an evolutionist by any stretch of the imagination - but neither am I really a strict creationist (I guess if anything I am a very general "intelligent design" kind of person - but ID doesn't really have a well developed identity yet, other than to say, "God did it", so it's hard to say whether or not I would remain in that camp). I would ask you (and/or those who reject evolution) to please give an alternative theory that actually explains the reason for these commonalities and similarities. God doesn't do things just on a whim - there is a purpose and a reason why these similarities exist - so what is it. That's what I'm waiting to hear from the non-evolutionists, some reasonable counter theory (or meta-theory actually) that not only explains what we know, but is able to accurately predict what we will find. Evolution has a very good track record at this (but the great flaw is assuming that we have found or actually will find those critical "missing links" upon which the theory rests) - I would like to see a non-evolutionary theory as accurate, that can actually compete, not just a bunch of dismissal and debunking.

Not only is the theoretical science of the non-evolutionists deficient, but I think in many cases their theology is deficient as well. The patristic fathers who wrote about the science of their day were not only men of prayer, true theologians - but they were also erudite and educated in the sciences. They approached the whole topic by using science to explain scripture. Today the opposite seems to be true, scripture is used to dictate (not even to explain) to science what it can and cannot find. This comes, I think, from a lack of deep ascetic spirituality among those who are trying to develop a biblical/scientific theory. But this is only my opinion (and one that is pretty fresh and hasn't had time to ferment much to boot). I'd be glad to hear that I am mistaken (as I was glad to hear from Fr Matthew that I was a bit off-base, but not off the track in my linguistics)

Fr David Moser

Owen Jones

06-11-2007, 08:21 PM

It surprises me somewhat that the critics of Darwinism must propose a "meta-theory" as an alternative to Darwinism for their critique to have validity. In court, one does not have to propose an alternative theory of who did the crime in order to undermine the prosecution's case, if there is a substantial lack of evidence. So too in scientific inquiry. If a scientist's data base is flawed, I am not compelled to produce an alternative theory to justify the negation of the original false theory.

Intelligent design is based on one concept, as I understand it: the irreducible complexity of biological systems, even the most simple systems. This is a two-fold issue. The first issue is that there is no conceivable evolutionary advantage to a mutation that is gradually adding parts to an eye, which takes millions of years to eventually produce an eye. The second issue is that the eye has no function apart from all of its parts working in harmony. Apparently, fairly recent discoveries regarding gene function demonstrates this same irreducible complexity. They do not function like building blocks. Yet Darwinism is based entirely on the premise that biological evolution functions like building blocks. The neo-Darwinists concede this up to a point, and so they posit something they call punctuated equilibrium, which is basically a symbol for: we don't know what the heck we are talking about.

As for a meta-theory, OK, let's suppose for a moment that the distinction between nature and the supernatural is an entirely false distinction. Let's suppose that matter is not exclusively natural, that some type of divine energy is necessary for matter to exist and function, that it infuses all matter, but especially complex biological systems. That the soul is the sense organ that detects this divine energy and, in a sense, acts as a regulatory valve. It is possible for the soul to block divine energy or to serve as an open valve, depending on the soul's proper functioning. We know, or at least we assume, that the term soul is a symbol for a complex -- perhaps the proper functioning of heart and mind in harmony. And in fact if you parse out some of what the late Fr. John Romanides wrote, salvation equates with spiritual health, which is, by definition, the proper functioning of the heart in relationship to brain and brain stem function.

This is why there is so much emphasis in Orthodoxy on the purification of the body, so that it may be glorified, i.e. infused with divine energy so that it functions properly in the manner that it was created to function. And why there is so much reference to the health of the heart as the connecting link between God and man. It is the seat of the spiritual intellect (noetic function), according to the Fathers, and the mind is the seat of the rational intellect (ratio).

Now, who knows if there will ever be any kind of biochemical experiment that could explore any of these concepts. One of the problems with modern science is that the criterion of science is reduced to a particular method. And so the lab method is used as the sole criteria of science. So a scientific theory cannot be accepted, if there is no experiment that can be designed to prove it false. (Of course evolution has been proven false due to lack of data, but that does not seem to phase most scientists).

RichardWorthington

07-11-2007, 01:50 AM

Owen,

Intelligent design is based on one concept, as I understand it: the irreducible complexity of biological systems, even the most simple systems. This is a two-fold issue. The first issue is that there is no conceivable evolutionary advantage to a mutation that is gradually adding parts to an eye, which takes millions of years to eventually produce an eye. The second issue is that the eye has no function apart from all of its parts working in harmony. Apparently, fairly recent discoveries regarding gene function demonstrates this same irreducible complexity.

I subscribe to the magazine "New Scientist", and it is obviously heavily skewed against creationism and ID. Yet they had an article (I forget where but I could find it) where they gave examples of such claims of 'irreducible complexity', and also how these had later been shown to be partly reducible. So the ID-ers then claimed that these newer parts were irreducible. The problem with this approach is that scientists (even those who believe in a Creator) get the feeling that the ID approach is merely a reaction rather than a cohesive combination of ideas. Also, I saw a TV programme which showed a simple marine animal which did have two eyes, but these could only detect shades of light; they had no retinas. So an eye that is a 'pre-eye' does exist even today.

That the soul is the sense organ that detects this divine energy and, in a sense, acts as a regulatory valve. … And in fact if you parse out some of what the late Fr. John Romanides wrote, salvation equates with spiritual health, which is, by definition, the proper functioning of the heart in relationship to brain and brain stem function.

This is why there is so much emphasis in Orthodoxy on the purification of the body, so that it may be glorified, i.e. infused with divine energy so that it functions properly in the manner that it was created to function.

Divine 'energy' (operation/function/functionality/manifestation) does not come to the body via the soul/spirit, as if the soul is a valve. The Divine Light unites with the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, equally and identically. The spirit does not mediate for the body, nor the body for the spirit or soul. However, the extent of our purification by our efforts with the help of grace ('energy') does determine how the Uncreated Vision is granted to us, or realised in us. In the hymns for the Transfiguration, we sing that the disciples beheld Christ's glory as far as they were able to endure.

From this we see that our salvation is not the proper functioning of the mind in the heart (as in the prayer of the heart), but this proper functioning (itself attained by God's uncreated grace) is the return to our normal state in paradise. With this state the human person is able to watch the mind and so guard the heart for full purification. Then, worthily being received into the Divine and Deifying Light, this Light appears as Light-beyond-Light, as opposed to this Light appearing as both Light and Darkness simultaneously due to unworthiness.

However, our salvation is expressed at the end of the Liturgy: "We have seen the True Light … We worship the Undivided Trinity, This is our salvation/He has saved us". Our salvation is to become uncreated by grace. St Gregory Palamas applies the words about Melchizedek to the deified soul (i.e. deified person, the whole body, soul, and spirit equally and together; the little toe receiving the same Vision as the whole spirit): "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God" (Hebrews 7:3; this is referred to in "Gregory Palamas" by Fr John Meyendorff, page 178. Note that Fr John Romanides did have strong reservations about Meyendorff's grasp of Palamas). This is what I have been taught, however to go into this in more detail I think would require a different thread.

As such in becoming uncreated by grace (i.e. not merely union with the Uncreated-created Christ God, but an identicalness with Him) we become as it we were our own creator, living outside of time in God. In the church, the ultimate experience of this real deification happens in the partaking of the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ. The hymn quoted above on seeing the "true Light" (i.e. becoming the true Light Itself) is the "worship of the Undivided Trinity"; taking communion worthily properly implies also seeing the Risen and Glorified Christ. (Isn't Christ good in that He gives us communion despite our unworthiness, working within us to make us worthy.)

This is why realising that the six days of creation only made sense via the Temple/tabernacle, itself an image of the creation (post #87 above, p. 5), has caused me to venerate and adhere to the Genesis creation story more than ever before. Abstract knowledge of the existence of God (James 2:19), and an acknowledgement that the world was created in six days (etc.) means nothing. We only attain to true knowledge about ourselves by becoming uncreated by grace, in the worship of God, fully in the Eucharist, of which the Temple was an image, of which Genesis 1 speaks. Genesis speaks partly about the creation and partly about the temple. The description of the vision of the creation in either the Temple forms or scripture is like describing a rainbow using only shades of grey.

Richard

PS Sorry my posts are so long; I get carried away.

Yuri Zharikov

07-11-2007, 02:57 AM

Yura,

I would agree with your assertion that the link between similarity and common origin is an assumption - however, I do not see how it is an unfounded assumption or that it is evidence that evolutionary assumptions are incorrect. The kind of argument that you put forward here demonstrates what I see as a the basic deficit in the creationist and ID approaches. There is a lot of "debunking" but very little is proposed in the way of an alternate theory. If the commonality in structure of bones, dna, teeth, etc does not indicate a common origin, then what do you propose as an explanation for the data gathered.

Although there has been some decent work, of late, within the non-evolution community to try and advance various theories to explain and interpret the data that we have, it is still "hodge-podge" there is not yet a decent overall "meta-theory" that brings it all together. Many non-evolutionists are simply content with "debunking" and their whole approach to scientific investigation is negative. There is nothing positive to offer.

Now I am not an evolutionist by any stretch of the imagination - but neither am I really a strict creationist (I guess if anything I am a very general "intelligent design" kind of person - but ID doesn't really have a well developed identity yet, other than to say, "God did it", so it's hard to say whether or not I would remain in that camp). I would ask you (and/or those who reject evolution) to please give an alternative theory that actually explains the reason for these commonalities and similarities. God doesn't do things just on a whim - there is a purpose and a reason why these similarities exist - so what is it. That's what I'm waiting to hear from the non-evolutionists, some reasonable counter theory (or meta-theory actually) that not only explains what we know, but is able to accurately predict what we will find. Evolution has a very good track record at this (but the great flaw is assuming that we have found or actually will find those critical "missing links" upon which the theory rests) - I would like to see a non-evolutionary theory as accurate, that can actually compete, not just a bunch of dismissal and debunking.

Not only is the theoretical science of the non-evolutionists deficient, but I think in many cases their theology is deficient as well. The patristic fathers who wrote about the science of their day were not only men of prayer, true theologians - but they were also erudite and educated in the sciences. They approached the whole topic by using science to explain scripture. Today the opposite seems to be true, scripture is used to dictate (not even to explain) to science what it can and cannot find. This comes, I think, from a lack of deep ascetic spirituality among those who are trying to develop a biblical/scientific theory. But this is only my opinion (and one that is pretty fresh and hasn't had time to ferment much to boot). I'd be glad to hear that I am mistaken (as I was glad to hear from Fr Matthew that I was a bit off-base, but not off the track in my linguistics)

Fr David Moser

Fr. David,

To fully answer your questions would require a book :-). I will try to be concise.

1. Ultimate origins lie outside the reach of scientific enquiry. Our origins do not yield themselves to science - full stop (I will expand on this below. When we talk (speculate) about origins we necessarily enter the realm of philosophy or religion. Evolutionism exists from 1 c BC it is not a new and ultimtimately pagan worldview; also Darwin when he worked on his theory was explicitly trying to "prove" that "God is not". These are just a few points to keep in mind.

2. When we speak of a scientific theory we imply not a speculation or a fanciful idea but a logical system thoroughly grounded in empirical data. Such a system is expected to have the capacity to identify and describe relationships among phenomena. A scientific theory should also be able to generate predictions, which can be tested through controlled experiments. In fact, to quote R. Feynman, “Experiment is the sole judge of scientific ‘truth’”. Phenomena generally consist of processes and patterns linked by mechanisms. For example, in a mountain stream the process of water flow will form a pattern of sediment on the stream-bed such that, all else equal, the size of sediment particles will be positively related to current velocity. Thus, having observed that different streams have different sediment patterns and knowing something about the law of gravity, we can formulate a simple theory describing this phenomenon, whereby water flow forms a sediment pattern via the mechanism of current velocity. An experiment designed to test this relationship would start with a homogenous mixture of sediment particles of different sizes. Equal amounts of the sediment would be subjected to standing water, slow current and fast current. Showing that the average size of particles remaining in sediment after each of the three treatments increases with the increased water velocity, will support our theory about the relationship between the process of water flow and the sediment pattern via the mechanism of current velocity. In the words of Karl Popper

Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

In the above example with a stream the theory forbids small sediment particles to be unaffected by increased current velocity. Such prohibition is a cornerstone of scientific methodology as it allows for falsification of alternative hypotheses (plausible theories). One can sum up all this by saying that the main criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. It is precisely for this reason that empirical science has long prided itself with objectivity and immunity from subjective influences, although as will be shown below this pride have not been fully warranted because individual scientists are always subjective in the way they design their experiments and in the way they interprete them.

Now, evolutionary theory is an altogether different story as it is trying to explain a pattern (biodiversity) for which there is neither a clear mechanism nor an observable process that we can subject to direct experimentation. Furthermore it predicts nothing (I am puzzled by what you meant when you claimed the opposite) and by being twisted and tweaked it has been made non-falsifable. It is simply a religion. We cannot observe two populations of dinosaurs for 5 million years, one jumping from trees and the other not, to test if one of them will spontaneously grow wings, nor can we observe how one prokaryotic cell engulfed by another turns into a mitochondrion, or how sexes came to be or how vascular plants or any animal phylum came about. And again I repeat there is not even a remotissimately plausible hypothetical natural mechanism that could bring these things about. What is writen in textbooks are "just-so-stories" by admission of their very writers. We can either blindly believe that these events took place or we can attempt to infer them from natural processes taking place today if these processes could in principle generate such transitions but they don't!.

3. The answer to the question as to why things are similar I think is quite simple. We are created by the same God, we breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat the same food, are made of the same molecules and to a degree inhabit similar environments. How can we possibly not be similar to a greater or lesser degree? Is this not a pattern you will find in your toolbox or in the kitchen where you arrange things by kind and purpose?

4. Since scientific theories are not designed to deal with the origins I see no reason to search for any meta-theory, other than one - cretion (Gen 1-2) - that already fully and adequately addresses all possible questions about world and man. Unlike the "theory" of evoltion Revelation explains all of the following: why things exist, why things are harmonious and beautiful and why they decay, rot and die (as individuals and species). Accepting or not accepting it is simply a matter or accepting or not accepting the Truth of the Holy Tradition and God's Revelation to the Church.

5. If you look around, will you say that the world is becoming better, evolving or it is decaying and dying both ecologically and morally? Second law of thermodynamics trumps everything, right? Actually if you look at our DNA or that of any other species, you will see that we are accumuling irreversible mutation load, which in individuals leads to aging, decease and death. The same happens in species and if we look at biological shelf-life of us or any non-human creature it is not very long.

6. To sum up, the main thrust of your post - a meta-theory explaining the world - misses the point. Scientifically it is not possible to develop such a theory. Philosophically, any such theory, other than what we are taught by the Church, is necessarily false.

In the Lord,
Yura

Owen Jones

07-11-2007, 04:21 PM

I do not believe it is Orthodox to say that we become "uncreated."

Regarding the eye, animal eyes, insect eyes, fish eyes, perform certain functions that human eyes cannot. Does that mean we ought to believe in devolution? No, the various functions lead Darwinists to believe in gradual adaptation to the environment. But the problem of complexity still remains, it seems to me, as a preponderant problem that evolutionists do not and cannot adequately address. The fact that more primitive creatures lack eye functions that we have does not imply evolution to our more advanced eye, precisely because they perform complex functions that our eyes cannot. Night vision for example.

Then there is the problem that Darwinists have that they never address. If everything is instinct, based on bio-chemistry, why do people still believe in God, and what, if any, was the survival of the fittest component that favored belief in God? Is belief in God now an evolutionary artifact? Like the appendix? And, why would a Darwinist bother lobbying for his beliefs? Why would a Darwinist care what other people believe? Money? If he gets more people to believe in Darwinism, does that mean that there will be more jobs and grants for Darwinists? That formerly religious people will now give their charitable donations to Darwinists rather than the Church? You see, the Darwinists act as if there is a transcendent reality, even though they deny it vociferously. They act is if actions are purposeful, quite apart from any survival instinct. And yet they deny purposeful action apart from purely bio-chemical processes.

If a Darwinist says to his wife: I love you, is he holding his fingers crossed behind his back? Because he knows that there is no such thing as love, only a bio-chemical reaction to stimulus? If his wife or lover says to a Darwinist, I love you, does he contradict her and chastise her for not understanding that all of her feelings for him are simply the result of certain pre-programmed bio-chemical processes? How long would that marriage last?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-11-2007, 04:42 PM

It should be asked about creation: why live? Indeed these things which we take for granted are only inherent to creation because of a dynamic towards life which is given as the logic central to their nature.

But this need not have been: it could just as easily have been that nature's inherent impulse is towards absolutely nothing; that it is mute.

Theories of creation need to take into account the inherent meaning of creation, of its inherent dynamic towards life. In turn by studying this dynamic what this life means which creation strives for.

In any case it seems that precisely on this score evolution is either completely self contradictory or else is so ambiguous that it must clarify its position far more than it presently does.

If what is the driving force of creation is exclusively the outer environment then there is no more reason in fact why it should adapt than that it should disappear. The only reason for creation to adapt is an inherent dynamic towards life. This means however that creation is not defined by change but rather by its own nature. This nature of course can include adaptability but only in terms of its already given and inherent nature.

It is in this last area where evolution is the weakest. By focusing on change as the driving force of reality it erodes any coherent understanding of purpose to creation: which of course contradicts its own idea of adaptation since this very much implies an inherent purpose to creation.

Secondly evolution also begs the idea of meaning and purpose to creation in its sense of origin. As we see for evolution creation comes with an inbuilt meaning- its drive towards life through adaptation. However at the same time for evolution this inbuilt purpose is self given. No matter how far back we trace the process whether it begins with a glob of protein or a big bang the question is never coherently dealt with of how these things can suddenly appear with the logic of life within themselves. Preferring agnosticism or purposeful blindness on this crucial point evolution has a very difficult time coming to terms with the fact of how the nothing which precedes it can have led to the universe of purpose which we now see.

By keeping the balance towards change as the ultimate meaning of life evolution ends up eroding the basis of meaning and purpose. Which brings us back to the point that if pure evolution is the operative principle at work in the creation we are part of then there is really no rational explanation for any law of adaptation. Rather what would follow from evolution is the fundamental instability or self annihilation of all things.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Yuri Zharikov

08-11-2007, 12:05 AM

RichardWorthington

10-11-2007, 12:26 AM

As for a meta-theory, OK, let's suppose for a moment that the distinction between nature and the supernatural is an entirely false distinction. ... That the soul is the sense organ that detects this divine energy and, in a sense, acts as a regulatory valve. It is possible for the soul to block divine energy or to serve as an open valve, depending on the soul's proper functioning. …

Now, who knows if there will ever be any kind of biochemical experiment that could explore any of these concepts.

Dear Owen,

I am sorry for my over-reaction; the subject of our salvation being full deification is close to my heart. This is not the proper thread for it. Apologies. And I think therefore that I failed to grasp your real point.

However, speaking generally, I think I do know how your meta-theory could be tested. When the tsunami of about 3 years ago hit the coasts surrounding the Indian ocean, the only reasoning I could come to as to why such an event should occur if God exists, and at that to some of the poorest people on the planet, is that we as humans do not obey the "Manufacturer's Operating Instructions": those instructions that are written on everyone's heart.

So using the general Orthodox belief that man was indeed specially created by God as ruler of the world, it would seem that in the Fall we disobeyed the "Manufacturer's Operating Instructions" and passed lordship to the devil, who seeks to destroy us and our beautiful world. (Indeed that fact that such horrific non-human involved events can happen is surely an indication of this, when spiritually discerned.)

As such, the meta-theory "the distinction between nature and the supernatural is an entirely false distinction" can be tested as follows: let every person on the planet sincerely cry out to God for help (it would be better for us all to attain to purity of heart and "the proper functioning of heart and mind in harmony", but what I am asking is probably a little too much already). Then if nothing changed then the meta-theory could be rejected. However, methinks that such an experiment can never be conducted! (It would need to be every person, or else in this meta-theory those still blind in rebellion against God would act as a doorway for the demons into our world.)

What I have been thinking about for some time (fuelled by the "New Scientist" magazine's almost religious preaching about rational thought or something similar) is this: is there a way that the Evolutionists' evidence need not be challenged if they come to the Faith, but only their main interpretations? After all, if we are indeed descended from animals without any divine intervention then did God become incarnate as an ape as well?!

I will collect my thoughts, and as I have given some examples of how the "New Scientist" tries to refute ID, I will give examples of how some of their articles caused me to think that a certain amount of 'spin' (making things appear better than they really are) had been applied.

I am Orthodox; I do indeed believe we have a unique God-ordered place in our universe. However, surely by trying to refute one type of evidence (evolution) with another (ID) is perhaps trying to beat the Evolutionists or Rationalists at their own game?

Richard

M.C. Steenberg

10-11-2007, 11:49 AM

Dear all,

I wanted to say how much I've enjoyed the tenor and focus of this thread. It is managing to address issues in a very interesting manner.

In reading one of your recent posts, Richard, it struck me that some clarifications might be helpful - particularly in drawing connections between the themes of deification and creation.

Firstly, regarding the relationship of the human creature to the grace and life of God, you wrote:

Divine 'energy' (operation/function/functionality/manifestation) does not come to the body via the soul/spirit, as if the soul is a valve. The Divine Light unites with the whole man, body, soul, and spirit, equally and identically. The spirit does not mediate for the body, nor the body for the spirit or soul.

It is true that the communion of God and man takes place in the whole of the human creature, body and soul. However, the fathers are fairly strong in asserting that, in this communion, there is a precedence of place given to the soul as the means by which God's presence (usually understood, more concretely, as the Holy Spirit himself) is made manifest in the bodily creature. So while the end result (and I think this was what you were trying to convey) is that the whole man, body and soul, is deified in this communion, it is not, in fact, the common testimony of the fathers that the other part of your statement is true (the 'does not come to the body via the soul/spirit, as if the soul is a valve'). While the 'valve' language may be a touch modern, the notion that the soul is the means of communicating to the body the life of God is fairly standard patristic teaching.

A few examples to show this. There is a famous passage in St Irenaeus of Lyons:
As the body animated by the soul is certainly not itself the soul, but has fellowship with the soul as long as God desires, so also the soul herself is not life, but partakes in the life bestowed on her by God. Wherefore also the prophetic word declares of the first-formed, ‘He became a living soul’, teaching us that by participation in life the soul became alive. Thus the soul and the life which it possesses must be understood as separate existences. (On the refutation and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called, 2.34.4)
Something similar is found in Tertullian of Carthage:
It is true that the ruling mind [synonymous in Tertullian here with the soul] easily communicates the gifts of the Spirit with its bodily habitation. (On patience, 13)
The idea is found in all manner of other early patristic writers. While the body and soul together form the human person, and the person is never truly human except in the reality of both, nonetheless each has different function. While not its only function / purpose, the soul nonetheless has as a 'distinguishing mark' this function as the means through which divine communion is wrought, bringing the Holy Spirit into the life of the whole man - through the soul to the body.

Most of the fathers identify this distinction in the biblical story of genesis, with the dust and breath of Genesis 2. God fashions the bodily element in man from the dust, and breathes into this dust the 'breath of life' (2.7) - which most early fathers identify as 'spiritual, but not the Spirit'; i.e. the soul, which is that which conveys into 'the dust' God's own life - the Person of the Spirit himself. And it is not the breath that is the man or is divine in image: it is the whole creation - dust and breath - that images God's being and communion.

This relates to a point you made later in the same post:

our salvation is expressed at the end of the Liturgy: "We have seen the True Light … We worship the Undivided Trinity, This is our salvation/He has saved us". Our salvation is to become uncreated by grace.In fact, the understanding of deification is precisely that it is not the becoming uncreated of the creature, but the perfection of the creature's creatureliness in communion with the divine uncreatedness. Creature never becomes uncreated, by grace or by any other means. This is basically a 'gnostic' concept of deification: that it amounts, in the end, to a form of liberation from created nature and reality. But the Christian understanding of deification is, at its heart, the ultimate vindication and sanctification of creation as creation, and particularly of the human as creature. Communion and union are effected with the uncreated God; but the famous Cappadocian (and later Palamite) distinction between 'energy' and 'essence' was elaborated to maintain properly that the uncreated is always 'other' to the creature, even if the 'other' is wholly identified with the person in union. God deifies the creature. The deified person does not become uncreated through grace, but exhibits the perfect harmony and communion of creator and creature that was intended from the first movements of creation, when God establishes a (created) being to image his (uncreated) life.

This is not actually a tangent from a discussion on Genesis; it is the story of genesis, of coming-into-being, that firmly establishes the doctrine of deification as creation-orientated. When the so-called 'Gnostics' of the early centuries were widely promoting types of salvation that equated to a quasi-divinisation as 'spiritual liberation' from created, material reality, the early fathers responded by a dramatic hearkening to the various creation stories of Christianity - and that of Genesis in particular (bearing in mind that Genesis is only one creation story in the Christian corpus; others are found in Ezekiel, John, the Apocalypse, etc.). It is God's creating from dust (matter, the substance of 'createdness'), that establishes firmly what divinisation is. Moreover, and yet more centrally, it is the testimony of the incarnate Christ through Genesis, that clarifies this understanding. The incarnate Christ is of creaturely flesh, of authentic human nature. And it is in this human, creaturely nature that salvation is wrought - not by its abandonment or spiritualising transformation into the non-created. Christ rises bodily from the tomb; the disciples touch his side and his hands.

That is likely more than enough for now. Again, I've very much enjoyed these postings.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Owen Jones

10-11-2007, 08:55 PM

Dcn Matthew beat me to the punch, as I was going to remark that there were a number of gnostic presuppositions contained in the prior post, not least of which is the idea that we can become uncreated. This is not surprising since a lot of people are attracted to ORthodoxy because of a prior flirtation with gnosticism in its modern, esoteric formats, because of some of the more esoteric elements in some Orthodox theologians, and the emphasis on gnosis in many of the writings (which means something quite different).

Typical of modern gnostics is "what if" propositions, e.g., what if everyone in the world got together? Kind of like the gnostic Coke ads. Or rock concerts for peace and the like. I know very, very bright people who read the Philokalia for all of its esoteric elements, completely avoiding all of the passages that keep us firmly rooted in terra firma, with reminders of sin and punishments for sin, and the necessity to obey the commandments in all things.

Gnosticism is really a theory that if we all got spiritual enough, we wouldn't need commandments any more. It's just one step from there to the position that the commandments are in fact the cause of the problem.

Owen Jones

10-11-2007, 09:15 PM

"But is it possible to develop an evolutionary theory that doesn't rely on "survival of the fittest", or that isn't based on simple gradualism, and yet does not invoke the supernatural? It seems to me that if you want to develop alternatives to Darwinism, while keeping the naturalistic approach that is the characteristic of modern Western science, then most scientists wouldn't object. But if you want to invoke the supernatural to explain current problems and unsolved riddles in Darwinian theory, then that stops the game of science, by blocking the desire to solve those problems and answer those riddles. It's true: science is a "game", with rules. You don't have to play the game, and you can do philosophy, instead, and that's perfectly fine. Playing with your children isn't part of the game of science, either, and, again, that's perfectly fine. My support of playing by the rules of science is quite pragmatic: the tremendous scientific and technological and medical advances made in the last 300 years, was made possible because we played by the rules of the game. Religion is not science, and doesn't play by its rules; and, pragmatically, it doesn't make sense to incorporate the rules of religion into the playbook of science."

I am sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but there are a number of loose threads in this logic.

It is possible to theorize something other than what Darwin and his followers theorize. But the point is that it is Darwin's theories of evolution that are the problem. That's what the scientific community adheres to fundamentally, with minor adjustments. It's not a question of solving unsolved riddles. It is a matter of whether or not Darwinism is scientific. It is not scientific on the evidentiary foundation. But more importantly, it is not scientific on the theoretical basis. Theory is a critical element in science, and the problem with virtually all modern scientists is that they are very poor theorists. They know little or nothing about the fact that all of their theories have been around for thousands of years, and yet they act like they have thought up something new and fresh, that these theories were closely examined and logically explored, and one does not need a lab to do that. Darwinism claims to be a theory of origins, and no matter how good a field biologist he might have been, it is not a theory of origins, because of the irrationality problem. It is irrational to have a theory that requires infinite regression.

Second, to reduce science to method is a fallacy. Theological science, philosophical science, are not hard sciences in the sense that they require machines to measures things in a lab. But they are scientific nonetheless. And classically understood, theology is the queen of the sciences, not because classical theologians were dumb and superstitious, or lacked the mechanical tools of observation that modern scientists had, but because they understood that the most important science was the science that examined what it means to be human. Darwinism and its offshoots and various ideological cousins such as Marxism and Freudianism, make all of that questioning irrelevant. Because it is now the ideologue who simply decides the question once and for all. There is no longer any need for any future exploration or seeking. It is all a mopping up operation after the main battle has been won. So we do not have to ask the question anymore: what does it mean to be human? And when we stop asking that question, we stop being human.

Just as in any scientific endeavor, the way we ask that question is key. There is a structure and a proper order to it, and that structure and order builds on itself, so that I do not presume myself to be the first person to have ever asked that question. The child asks the question out of primary awe and wonder. The adult does so with the added advantage, hopefully, of having consulted the experts. Without having lost the awe and wonder component.

This is the matter which the modern scientist refuses to address. He is a seeker after knowledge and truth, but denies awe and wonder as a transcendent component. He mythologizes his awe and wonder by arguing that he is a superior form of human, who has cast off ancient superstition and is engaged in pure science, but cannot explain why it is he bothers in the first place, unless it is just to get money and power, which are instinctual drives in order to capture the most attractive mates, i.e. evolutionary determinism.

RichardWorthington

16-11-2007, 01:30 AM

This is not actually a tangent from a discussion on Genesis; it is the story of genesis, of coming-into-being, that firmly establishes the doctrine of deification as creation-orientated.

It is not a tangent, but could easily bog this thread down!

Therefore I have chosen to post my replies regarding the deification of man and creation in the thread "Making us what He is"; my post is here: http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=53640#post53640

After all, talking of Genesis, why did the Uncreated Creator create ... ?

Richard

Yuri Zharikov

16-11-2007, 03:56 AM

After all, talking of Genesis, why did the Uncreated Creator create ... ?

Richard

Out of love

RichardWorthington

17-11-2007, 12:09 AM

Out of love
Indeed, and God's love is more-than-love: His love works towards union with the creation in deification (and at that through humanity - how great and wondrous it is to be human!!!)

Nina

17-11-2007, 02:56 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21837499/?gt1=10547

No comment.

Peter S.

17-11-2007, 04:55 PM

Indeed, and God's love is more-than-love: His love works towards union with the creation in deification (and at that through humanity - how great and wondrous it is to be human!!!)

Yes, and what Gods love works: (union, deification and life), is Love. Love is a mystery.

Peter

Owen Jones

17-11-2007, 05:01 PM

That there is a fossil that looks a little like a fish and a little like a land creature proves nothing. It neatly fits the theory but does not prove the theory.

It's important to at least recognize that the fundamental problem lies with origins. The Theory of Evolution a la Darwin is not a theory of origins. It cannot and will never be a theory of origins because there is no rational/scientific theory of origins. Because there is no scientific theory as to why anything can or should exist in the first place. And there is no beginning point in Darwinism. Darwinism never faces up to the issue of infinite regression, which is irrational. You cannot have a theory of origins with no originating point. Darwinists completely avoid this issue. They simply act as if there was always something prior that evolves into something later.

Liebnitz put it this way: why is there something rather than nothing? And why this something rather than something else? There are no scientific answers to these questions and there never will be.

Nina

19-01-2008, 01:02 AM

Science and Religion (http://www.impantokratoros.gr/9AABA673.en.aspx)

Andreas Moran

22-01-2008, 09:50 PM

Yuri Zharikov Quotation:
Originally Posted by RichardWorthington

After all, talking of Genesis, why did the Uncreated Creator create ... ?

Richard

Out of love

This is a problem to me as I suppose it has been to many, and I don't know the answer. Creation suffers. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw', and throughout all of history, most people have lived wretchedly suffering poverty, disease, catastrophe, injustice, war, and all the rest. All because of the Fall, I know. How are we to understand the love that created, knowing what the result would be? And if we are told, but there's Paradise afterwards and every tear will be wiped away, we remember that there's also Hell which may end up being more populated than Paradise.

Owen Jones

22-01-2008, 10:41 PM

Because when we enter paradise our bodily existence will be to us as a twinkling of an eye, and we will now see clearly the why of it all. Life on this earth can only be measured by life beyond. When we try to measure our lives in the here and now with standards deriving only from the here and now, obviously it is a miserable existence.

Andreas Moran

22-01-2008, 11:08 PM

Herman Blaydoe

22-01-2008, 11:49 PM

You, Owen, will be so happy in Paradise that you won't think about me in the Other Place! But I did say many will not attain to Paradise. And if the life beyond is really all that matters, why didn't God just make us like angels to start with? Why this absurd life?

Because He has something better in mind for us. We'll find out after this absurd life. And it is really only absurd because we choose to make it so.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Theophrastus

23-01-2008, 12:40 AM

"Seeker: God speaks and things come into existence, but things move. Plants and animals evolve. Is it God who makes evolution?

Sage: It is the Spirit of God who gives life to the world. Spirit in Greek is pneuma; it is the word used in the New Testament to designate the Holy Spirit. The Bible says: "The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." Another book of the Bible, Deuteronomy, explains: "Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young" (32:11) which she has hatched and helped to grow, so the Spirit of God hatches life and evolves living beings."

....

"Seeker: You tell us that man was created by God in His image. But I am told that we are descended from apes.

Sage: That which God created "in the beginning," as we said earlier, He created from nothing. But God did not create man from nothing; He created him "out of the earth" and everything which it contains. That is to say that in order to create man, God made use of nature as a whole, including its evolution. The ape and the fish are also of the earth, for man is the culmination of all creation, and in him all creation is summed up and recapitulated. But, in addition, He has given mankind life through His own breath, His own Spirit. It is this presence of God Himself illuminating humanity, making the light of His face shine upon us, which distinguishes human beings from apes and all other creatures. This presence of God, this breath of God, projects the image of God upon us and gives us a beauty and "crown of glory." It makes us the ruler of all creation and responsible for it (see Gen 1:28-29; 2:19-20)."

The Living God: A Catechism for the Christian Faith, Volume 1, chapter 1. Translated from the French by Olga Dunlop. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2004.

Nina

23-01-2008, 12:50 AM

And if the life beyond is really all that matters, why didn't God just make us like angels to start with? Why this absurd life?

Because humans fell and we need to have good works to show during the Last Judgment.

If you ask why man was prone to Fall: Because we have freedom, and God respects it. But even if we were angels: as we know Eosphoros was an angel before he fell. And we could have fallen also even if we were angels in Paradise. We should thank God that we fall here and we have the possibility to get up again.

Andreas Moran

23-01-2008, 01:28 AM

Because He has something better in mind for us.

What God has in mind for us and what actually happens aren't the same thing. God doesn't have it in mind that anyone (save Satan and his demons) should go to Hell but we have to accept that very many will.

And it is really only absurd because we choose to make it so.

Not individually, we don't. Most suffering in the world is caused by leaders.

Because humans fell

As I said, God foreknew that and all the consequences that flowed from it.

If you ask why man was prone to Fall

I don't ask that - I ask why the omniscient God Who is Love set out on Creation knowing the consequences for countless innocents whose suffering has been grotesquely out of proportion to whatever the Fall was. What explanation is good enough for them, not for ourselves?

We should thank God that we fall here and we have the possibility to get up again.

This is not an answer to my question but it makes good sense to me as a sinner.

Paul Cowan

23-01-2008, 01:33 AM

Nina

23-01-2008, 02:08 AM

I have not heard of this angel before. How do you know of him?

:D You are not teasing me are you?

Because he is the guy that tempts people daily. He is called Eosphoros in Greek, or Lucifer in Latin.

Eos=light/dawn; phoros=bringer

Luci=lights/dawn; fer comes from phoros (above) in Greek.

He was the brightest and the most beautiful angel - pre-fall that is. See what pride/ego can achieve? And I have plenty of that!

Paul Cowan

23-01-2008, 02:34 AM

:D You are not teasing me are you?

Because he is the guy that tempts people daily. He is called Eosphoros in Greek, or Lucifer in Latin.

Eos=light/dawn; phoros=bringer

Luci=lights/dawn; fer comes from phoros (above) in Greek.

He was the brightest and the most beautiful angel - pre-fall that is. See what pride/ego can achieve? And I have plenty of that!

I still can't say "where is the bathroom" in Greek, even though that is the FIRST thing you are supposed to learn when you go traveling. ;), But yes, Now the name does ring a bell or two.

Nina

23-01-2008, 02:47 AM

Ok. I thought you really were joking with me. But it is true that here he is known by his Latin name pre-fall.

Byron Jack Gaist

23-01-2008, 09:36 AM

Quotation:
If you ask why man was prone to Fall

I don't ask that - I ask why the omniscient God Who is Love set out on Creation knowing the consequences for countless innocents whose suffering has been grotesquely out of proportion to whatever the Fall was. What explanation is good enough for them, not for ourselves?

Dear Andreas,

Well put. I think this is a big philosophical problem. Why did God, the sum of all perfection Himself, create a being that He foreknew would fall from His grace? In other words, why did a Perfect Being create an imperfect being? If our freedom is part of His Image in us, then why didn't God also give us the wisdom to know how to resist temptation, and the emotional strength to do so on every occasion? Indeed, Lucifer was also His most splendid angel - why did God create him in such a way, that Lucifer would abuse his freedom through a susceptibility to pride? Why didn't God create a cosmos that was perfect and never went wrong in any way?

C.S. Lewis suggests that God didn't want to create beings which run like robots or clockwork. Elsewhere I have heard that, God's nature being Love, it was therefore impossible for Him not to permit us the option of falling. If freedom is free, then the option of sin is necessary (though not recommended, obviously).

Nevertheless, I feel there is something almost casuistic about the above arguments; they don't satisfy the (proud?) need to understand completely, and personally they send me into spiralling cycles of ambivalence and doubt. Another way of accepting the sorry state of affairs we seem to have been placed in, seems to me to be the 'argument from authority' as it were: God is the big Parent and CEO, and he doesn't have to share all his business secrets with us, his children and employees! This doesn't satisfy our need for explanations either of course, and it seems to encourage a certain attitude of dependence on our behalf - is that what God wants, or does he want us to stand on our own two feet, while loving Him in an adult way? However old we get, of course, we are still His children and therefore in a sense never 'equal' with Him: so a 'mature dependence' - to use a psychoanalytical term - would seem an appropriate response to the Almighty. But does this mean 'ask no questions'?

Could God possibly be 'working on it'? Did he create an imperfect creation ('very good', but not perfect), because it was His first time round? Does He need our assistance in order to now perfect the work He started? (this is a genuine question to the theologians out there) Also, did God give us trials, so that we can love Him back truly, not automatically? But is He then so insecure, that He needed to make sure we wouldn't just worship Him because He had created us that way? Or is it only 'for our own good', so that we freely love Him in return for His love, rather than being compelled by 'nature' to do so? I must say, I often feel I would gladly have been spared this particular lesson in love!

In Christ
Byron

Andreas Moran

23-01-2008, 02:23 PM

Thank you, Byron, for this thoughtful post. You seem to appreciate my difficulty.

C.S. Lewis suggests that God didn't want to create beings which run like robots or clockwork. Elsewhere I have heard that, God's nature being Love, it was therefore impossible for Him not to permit us the option of falling. If freedom is free, then the option of sin is necessary (though not recommended, obviously).

The freedom argument must be central to this and my own reaction to that is, what an appalling price to pay for this freedom, especially when we cannot be sure that having paid the price we get the goods. Was there no other way? (I think Einstein once said, 'what interests me is whether God had any choices about how to craft Creation'.) Did God take a risk? No, because He foreknew the outcome. The Orthodox view of the Fall is said to be more sympathetic to Adam and Eve because they were spiritually immature: made in the image of God but not having developed into His likeness. But that, to my mind, makes my point the more acute. How were Adam and Eve to react to Satan? They were confused; they hadn't been lied to before, and didn't know what a lie was, I suppose.

If our freedom is part of His Image in us, then why didn't God also give us the wisdom to know how to resist temptation, and the emotional strength to do so on every occasion?

As was the case with Christ, the Second Adam. It is not said that Christ was in any sense less human than us because He did not sin.

the (proud?) need to understand completely

I don't ask that - only enough understanding to be able to accept.

'mature dependence'

I'm sure we do need this.

But does this mean 'ask no questions'?

I'm sure it doesn't.

His first time round?

I don't suppose the omnipotent and omniscient Almighty needed a dry run.

But is He then so insecure, that He needed to make sure we wouldn't just worship Him because He had created us that way?

He doesn't need anything.

so that we freely love Him in return for His love, rather than being compelled by 'nature'

This is getting closer.

did God give us trials, so that we can love Him back truly, not automatically?

What makes the sort of questions I pose matter is that they are, in my experience, the most common reasons given by good and kind folk for being agnostic. Take Sir David Attenborough, the acclaimed naturalist. He's an agnostic because despite a lifetime of observing the incredible beauty, complexity and diversity of Creation, he can't reconcile the suffering that exists in it (he gives an example of some small worm which only exists by gnawing away at childrens' brains and causing the vicitms great agony) with the Almighty God Who is Love. I don't suppose explaining it by way of the Fall would convince him otherwise. So, the trials (not a good word - of what are we accused?) do not result in people (on the whole) loving God - rather the opposite. Is it not vital for us (not all of us!) or the Church to be able to furnish convincing answers to these questions if they are the reason so many do not believe? To say, 'you must have faith' is not an answer to one lacking it because faith is a gift and you can't compel its being bestowed. I have faith but it was given to me - you can't wake up one morning and say, 'right, I'll start believing from today'.

Owen Jones

23-01-2008, 03:54 PM

two things:

The agnostic and many who are immature in their faith view all suffering as evil and therefore something that must be eliminated by human action.

This leads to the view that God somehow failed in the manner in which He created and therefore it is up to us to fix things.

Both things are obviously untrue.

Life cannot be measured by this world. It can only be measured by the next. Our perspective on this world will change dramatically from our new perspective in the next world. In the meantime, there are two many examples of people who, through suffering, are deified.

The best book on this recently is An Interrupted Life: The Diaries of Etty Hillesum. See also the chapter in Gulag II on Solzhenitsyn's conversion.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-01-2008, 04:37 PM

Could God possibly be 'working on it'? Did he create an imperfect creation ('very good', but not perfect), because it was His first time round? Does He need our assistance in order to now perfect the work He started? (this is a genuine question to the theologians out there) Also, did God give us trials, so that we can love Him back truly, not automatically? But is He then so insecure, that He needed to make sure we wouldn't just worship Him because He had created us that way? Or is it only 'for our own good', so that we freely love Him in return for His love, rather than being compelled by 'nature' to do so? I must say, I often feel I would gladly have been spared this particular lesson in love!

Although not conveyed from within a Patristic context I would still say this has something in it which points in the right direction.

As has often been pointed out on the Forum, God's creation must be seen in terms of how it has been created for completion and fulfillment. It is true that the Fall affects this but still it does not alter the manner in which this completion is achieved; ie through free will and a desire for the good. To say it another way: the Fall has not essentially changed God's providential purpose for mankind except (yes - a big except but still something which does not change the essence of the purpose) that now it must be worked out through sin and death. If anything sin & death actually increase our responsibility for participation in this Divine purpose.

This latter I think is what most often causes the stumbling block for us in how we think of God's purpose in terms of death and sin. Seeing this sin and death only in terms of itself we lose track precisely of how these things are overcome through our engagement in God's overall providential purpose for creation.

In other words the problem is caused mainly by our tendency to disengage ourselves from God's purpose. This perspective however is a symptom of the very problem which must be engaged with in order for us to see how the healing of creation is achieved.

What chiefly is needed is humility- not stupid or mindless resignation to death which is not at all humility- but rather active engagement in the healing of creation through a recognition of our own role in its distortion. In a word, humility is the calling of all. For in its face no sin or death or suffering is of ultimate destructive consequence no matter what we go through. Indeed through Christ all such humility becomes ultimately constructive, creative and restorative. But this must be lived through to be understood.

Until then we all face a struggle within ourselves between life & death which tugs on us one way and the other. This too certainly has its purpose in the greater story. But the only way in which such suffering becomes redemptive- the only way in which it becomes a sympathetic & Christ-like sharing in the suffering of creation- is through humility; ie personal engagement in creation's suffering the effects of death, throwing in your stake with this.

Turning away from this is exactly I would say where agnostic accusation of God's plan comes from. Really, it is an engagement in death for its own sake, the result of turning away from personal responsibility in the deeper ascetic sense. The only end point here if the holders of such views held to the courage of their convictions would be complete annihilation. Only moral fear allows them some sort of 'agnostic morality' while not letting them to see the actual end point to their view of the universe and mankind.

The only way out of the impasse of death is to resolve it through life. But life for us has the revealed meaning of Christ. We know that only through Him and the way of life He seeks to give us can the frustrating absurdity of death be overcome.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nina

23-01-2008, 08:07 PM

I ask why the omniscient God Who is Love set out on Creation knowing the consequences for countless innocents whose suffering has been grotesquely out of proportion to whatever the Fall was. What explanation is good enough for them, not for ourselves?

Because as you say He is Love. We were nothing, St. Tikhon says, and behold we are and move. He created us in His image and likeness. This gift was bestowed only on man. And we fell (and continue to fall) and perished. We cannot mourn sufficiently over this. Because we distort creation and His image with our sin. We turn away from God. Without God, blessings are curses, life is death, and joy is bitterness.

Peter S.

23-01-2008, 11:08 PM

Because humans fell and we need to have good works to show during the Last Judgment.

If you ask why man was prone to Fall: Because we have freedom, and God respects it. But even if we were angels: as we know Eosphoros was an angel before he fell. And we could have fallen also even if we were angels in Paradise. We should thank God that we fall here and we have the possibility to get up again.

Yes we should thank God that he created angels as angels, and humans as humans, and that He wants to drag us up from death...

God's Allmightyness is showed for us in that He in His love gave us free will. This is real power... The power of love. And Jesus solved the problem that death and evil gave us, by His ressurection. He wanted to bring us back to Him. We should ask the question: Who is Jesus? And hopefully a part of the answear of that question is that he is (still) Alive. He is a living person. And we should work on our lives that we will be like Jesus. (We are created in Gods likeness. But it is God that make us into gods.)

I dont agree that it is only the leaders of this world that make this world absurd. It is the sin, and we are all sinners. But Satan is the father of sin... Satan is the explanation to the "countless innocents who suffers..." But Satan is defeated. Jesus waits for us so that the children that still will be born in this world, will be saved. This is His will, I suppose.

Peter

Nina

23-01-2008, 11:33 PM

I dont agree that it is only the leaders of this world that make this world absurd. It is the sin, and we are all sinners. But Satan is the father of sin... Satan is the explanation to the "countless innocents who suffers..." But Satan is defeated. Jesus waits for us so that the children that still will be born in this world, will be saved. This is His will, I suppose.

Peter

Dear Peter,

I did not say anything about the leaders of this world. Well... if you did not mean Eosphoros (the Luci guy).

Peter S.

23-01-2008, 11:47 PM

Dear Peter,

I did not say anything about the leaders of this world. Well... if you did not mean Eosphoros (the Luci guy).

Dear Nina

I am very sorry. I should have quoted Andreas Morans sentence about it when he asked about what we should answear to the innocents who suffer and about the leaders of this world who is the explanation to the absurdity of the world, but were not able to...

Peter

Byron Jack Gaist

24-01-2008, 09:27 AM

Dear all,

Fr Raphael writes:
God's creation must be seen in terms of how it has been created for completion and fulfillment. It is true that the Fall affects this but still it does not alter the manner in which this completion is achieved; ie through free will and a desire for the good. and also
In other words the problem is caused mainly by our tendency to disengage ourselves from God's purpose. Fr Raphael clearly suggests that God has a providential plan both for creation and for mankind; perhaps even each of us specifically, as well as all of us collectively. Yet the successful operation of this plan relies on our willing cooperation with God. I feel I agree with the comment regarding agnostic thinking that
The only end point here if the holders of such views held to the courage of their convictions would be complete annihilation. This has been my personal experience with the frustration brought about by secular ideologies - they point to a dead end, and pretend they have the solution. It's the easiest thing to point the finger at the apparent misery in creation (I know because I do it a lot), but it's so hard to make a single slight improvement among the ruins. Personally, I understand those who despair, especially if they are honest and congruent enough to acknowledge it; nevertheless, our faith is a religion of hope and light - not Polyanna optimism, but mature hope, the really difficult variety. Again, to me personally, this hope is more true when it is a mild, living flame like the modest beeswax candles in Church, rather than any great, flashing lighthouse on a pier. It really is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness!

In Christ
Byron

RichardWorthington

24-01-2008, 05:47 PM

It's the easiest thing to point the finger at the apparent misery in creation (I know because I do it a lot), but it's so hard to make a single slight improvement among the ruins. Personally, I understand those who despair, especially if they are honest and congruent enough to acknowledge it; nevertheless, our faith is a religion of hope and light - not Polyanna optimism, but mature hope, the really difficult variety. Again, to me personally, this hope is more true when it is a mild, living flame like the modest beeswax candles in Church, rather than any great, flashing lighthouse on a pier. It really is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness!

I agree with Byron (if I can address you by your first name) here - "who by worrying can add one cubit to his height?", so who by despairing and adding further emotional and mental suffering by agonising over such questions actually helps anyone - either themselves or those in the world who do live in poverty? ("Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?" James 2:5)

However, God’s creation is not like us putting a person in a beautiful house near a cliff, and then saying that when they fall off the edge then it’s only their own fault! God is good and kind and more in touch with common human feelings than we are! If we see the unjustness in this, God does more so! God did not take a risk with creation, nor did He place either humanity or the devil in a risky situation. For example, if Adam and Eve had not been deceived (properly they were deceived rather than tempted) then they would have naturally waited for the correct time to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When we "cut off our own will", we are only trying to get it in line with how it was supposed to work in paradise! (I.e. always choosing the good, and if we do not know then asking God instinctively and instantly, with God replying instantly to their pure souls.)

And about the devil? Why and how did he fall by free will? I do not know. Suppose we were living a few centuries BC. We see the world as flat, then the Greeks perform an experiment by measuring the length of a shadow in Athens and in Alexandria at noon on the same longest day. They correctly deduce that the world is curved. How would you reconcile these? We too have imperfect knowledge: we know God is good and created nothing bad - including free will - but that this creation now indeed knows bad suffering. Let us not then, imagining a curved earth, think that things will fall off from the top of the earth downwards along the sides of the sphere. Similarly, let us not see the badness in creation now and think God should be blamed.

It is well to know about watchfulness (see Nina's thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4156) also). I think the relationship between mind and heart is this: the mind feeds thoughts and ideas to the heart, which then erupts like a volcano and multiplying the thoughts many times and producing appropriate feelings to direct us further. In this way I think we would have been able to grow in virtue and blessedness in a way which the angels just can’t, to the glory of God the Father. (To link this in with the thread in general, I recall reading in the Philokalia somewhere - amongst all the other passages I should not be reading as they cause their own doubts to rise up in me! - that our mind is like Adam and our hearts like Eve, sort of as I can’t quite remember. Therefore the creation of Adam and significantly giving him an Eve is the best thing in creation - the angels are left standing as we grow towards our Creator. Except, er, that we started going off course …)

However, instead of guarding our mind to only let good thoughts in, we let bad thoughts in. These then get sent down to the heart where they multiply on end and chaos would be a polite way to describe the end result! Sometimes our heart can tell our minds that to think on a particular thought would be unwise (to put it mildly) and also if a feeling arises within (from an external source, naturally from our mixed environment or from the devil) then the mind can send thoughts down to try to produce feelings so our heart steers us away. Well, this is how things seem to me.

As such, even if we are suffering greatly (and I have been there, as I am sure almost everyone has), blaming God or looking at others’ suffering and asking ‘why?’ is just adding fuel to the fire. I think it is a delusion of the devil that when we enter a spiritual battle in which we are making good progress to our own improved well-being and purity, that when he realises that we are more than half-way there he changes tactic. Instead of us mightily swinging our spiritual sword and keeping our shield firm against his weapons, he whispers despairing thoughts to us. We then muse on these and slump down, sword limp, shield face down. On having achieved this the demons then have an orgy knowing that they don’t really have to do much to keep us down. If they happen to see us stiring they just shout the same despairing thoughts again and continue partying!

Been there, still am in certain areas of life, overcome in others, and in others deluded into thinking I have overcome, and then the despairing thoughts attack double: the thoughts themselves harm, and also my courage is struck because I thought I was making progress when all I was doing is dreaming about fighting. Downer, really!

But glory to God who watches over us, fights alongside us and from within us, is jealous of his temple (i.e. us), and can’t wait to hand us victory only then to disappear so that we take all the credit! (And we then ascribe all the credit to Him, and then He to us, and so on …)

Let us take courage and not listen to such thoughts. How we answer good natured agnostics I do not know, but the fact that they are good natured could well mean that God is not bothered about them passing a "belief-in-God test" and is merely active within their lives, nudging them as far as they they can cope with towards greater virtue and learning the benefit of watchfulness. (I.e. treating them like His children, as He treats us). God cares about people, not ‘certificates of belief’.

And Jesus solved the problem that death and evil gave us, by His resurrection. He wanted to bring us back to Him. We should ask the question: Who is Jesus? And hopefully a part of the answer of that question is that he is (still) Alive. He is a living person. And we should work on our lives that we will be like Jesus. (We are created in Gods likeness. But it is God that make us into gods.)

I have recently been reading about Islam: they believe in the final resurrection, so why have Christ? However, these particular Muslims call Muhammad the ‘resurrector’ (true!), but we have a greater: Christ is Himself the Resurrection and the Life. What they have merely heard about and logically accepted, we have within us now. In Christ, we already have the Resurrection unto eternal life deep within us - and the demons tremble!

This is a problem to me as I suppose it has been to many, and I don't know the answer. Creation suffers. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw', and throughout all of history, most people have lived wretchedly suffering poverty, disease, catastrophe, injustice, war, and all the rest. All because of the Fall, I know. How are we to understand the love that created, knowing what the result would be? And if we are told, but there's Paradise afterwards and every tear will be wiped away, we remember that there's also Hell which may end up being more populated than Paradise.

Eternal suffering will exist. In this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54325/lpost54325) I tried to explain that all will be united with God, but some in a worthy way and others in an unworthy way: it being that it is better to be united with God even in an unworthy way than to continue in this life without God. Andreas, you then posted to say that I had not written clearly - quite possibly! However, please now give me the opportunity to simplify things:

We are like babies who have managed to roll away from our heavenly Mother, and we became very hungry with starvation. Some, looking for food, remembered their Creator and cried out; others looked around and try to grab various things instead. However, on the last Day when Christ will be "all in all" He will breastfeed all with His Eucharist. Those who were looking to Him will both delight in Him and have their starvation taken away. The others He also will breastfeed and will totally cast out their starvation with filling good things, and make them healthy. However, they are so concerned with looking around and thrashing about that they neither look at the beauty of Him who is feeding them, nor realise that their hunger is no more. However, their state with Christ is far better than without Him.

Would they repent? I remember reading in a life of a female saint how a demon appeared to her. She said that God is so compassionate that He would accept his repentance if he sincerely turned to God. Now we are told that neither the demons nor those after death repent. However, alongside this is her statement: it would be empty if God refused to enlighten them. I do not know.

Until then we all face a struggle within ourselves between life & death which tugs on us one way and the other. This too certainly has its purpose in the greater story. But the only way in which such suffering becomes redemptive- the only way in which it becomes a sympathetic & Christ-like sharing in the suffering of creation- is through humility; ie personal engagement in creation's suffering the effects of death, throwing in your stake with this.

"Christ-like sharing in the suffering of creation" - I like this, and perhaps there is no answer in word to the ‘question of suffering’, but only the answer in actions. The martyrs suffered, even though a simple renunciation of Christ would stop it. They feared neither suffering nor death. Why did St Symeon Stylites stand on his feet continuously with all the suffering it produced? Why did some suffer the heat of the desert, or the cold of the north? Why suffer the rejection of friends and family? They did it, and we honour them precisely for it!!

However, if writing so much makes me a scribe, then you had better "Beware of the scribes"! Sorry it is so long and off thread sort of - it does not really help answer where Cain got his wife!

Richard
PS. St John Chrysostom writes quite beautifully about Jesus saying that it would be better for Judas not to have been born - he makes Jesus very compassionate (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXXVII.html look for the word ‘born’.) St John of Damascus also briefly discusses the question of the creation of those who refuse to repent, but today’s world I think would find it lacking http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xxi.html

Peter S.

24-01-2008, 09:26 PM

I have recently been reading about Islam: they believe in the final resurrection, so why have Christ? However, these particular Muslims call Muhammad the ‘resurrector’ (true!), but we have a greater: Christ is Himself the Resurrection and the Life. What they have merely heard about and logically accepted, we have within us now. In Christ, we already have the Resurrection unto eternal life deep within us - and the demons tremble!

Dear Richard,

That Jesus Christ is the Ressurection and the Life does not imply that Ressurection here means the message of ressurection, but it is a living reality. Christ did conquer death by his death, he didnt conquer death before he died. Any logic cant explain that fact. Muhammad didnt do that. Jesus is a living person. (He is still alive.) We will live in eternity through the life of Jesus. That is the meaning of " I am... the Life" in John 10,25.

Peter

Robert Hegwood

24-01-2008, 11:09 PM

Is suffering so necessarily evil? Granted it is not comfortable. Doesn't Scripture say that "the Lamb" was crucified from before the foundations of the world? This woundedness seems to lie at the very heart of life. Love is kenotic, self-emptying...wounded as part of its very nature. Are not then our sufferings great or small then points (at least potentially) of union with and expressers of the marks of slaughter that are eternally borne by the Son...a point of grafting and engrafting. Suffering then would seem to have liturgical and transfigurative value in Christ. It is only apart from Christ that suffering becomes absurd. Our failure too often is to bewail suffering desacralized rather than as priests of creation respond to suffering kenotically and liturgically...offering it back again in and through ourselves, fulfilling our communion with Christ, each other...indeed the whole Adam and the whole Cosmos that was made subject to him.

In the fall suffering was made empty and cruel, but in Christ each kind of suffering we bear finds its answer and its transformation in the great woundedness of Love. It is easy to look at man's cruelty to man, to sorrows attendant to birth defects, accidents, and natural calamities and ask where is God in this. Why did God permit it if He is all good. And sometimes the sorrows we witness are so great and so profound that they stop our mouths of every facile explanation of "God's plan". What we do not comprehend is the refusal of our willingness bear our part in the common wound. We say "why did God allow this" rather than keep silent and take our wounded neighbor to a place where he may be tended and healed. His wound echos in us. It hurts us, makes us uncomfortable and we say "O God why". But is that just the reflection of our heart unwilling to own the wounding of others as our wound? Sure we may act compassionately while blaming God for the mess we find ourselves having to clean up.

It seems to me though that if we can forebear demanding answers of God...as if some rationale would set everything aright...and give ourselves to receive suffering both in ourselves and in others as kind of great and terrible gift then it would be better. We would understand the end of suffering is meant to be salvic...a place for union with and transformation by Christ...not that ours or anyones suffering hurts less because we take the long view...but rather that by taking the long view we are better able to labor with Christ in the midst of suffering to transform the life that is revealed in and through that suffering, both ours and another's. Therefore the wounds of our brother are Christ's wounds and to flee them and to despise them is effectively to deny Christ, to deny that we too are called to be His and to be like Him, to be fountains of life, to live in the wound of love triumphant.

Peter S.

25-01-2008, 09:31 PM

In the fall suffering was made empty and cruel, but in Christ each kind of suffering we bear finds its answer and its transformation in the great woundedness of Love. It is easy to look at man's cruelty to man, to sorrows attendant to birth defects, accidents, and natural calamities and ask where is God in this. Why did God permit it if He is all good. And sometimes the sorrows we witness are so great and so profound that they stop our mouths of every facile explanation of "God's plan". What we do not comprehend is the refusal of our willingness bear our part in the common wound. We say "why did God allow this" rather than keep silent and take our wounded neighbor to a place where he may be tended and healed. His wound echos in us. It hurts us, makes us uncomfortable and we say "O God why". But is that just the reflection of our heart unwilling to own the wounding of others as our wound? Sure we may act compassionately while blaming God for the mess we find ourselves having to clean up.

Dear Robert,

Before the fall Adam and Eve didnt suffer. They were subject to death after the fall when sin came into the world.

When I watch you suffer, suffering is evil, but when I partake in suffering myself, suffering is not nescessarily evil. (It is easy to say that my own suffering is not evil, but when I partake in it, it is not so easy...) But death is evil. St. Paul writes that Christ conquered sin, Satan and Death, in that order. That means: He gave us salvation. That is our hope, that we shall suffer no more. Before death we can turn our own suffering into something good like Christ did on the Cross, but our hope must be that we shall suffer no more, ie. to live eternally. But that reality is empty without Jesus: Humility and Love goes beyond suffering and Death.

Peter

Andreas Moran

25-01-2008, 10:15 PM

When I see pictures on TV of starving and diseased African children, I think that such suffering is necessarily evil.

Peter S.

26-01-2008, 12:47 AM

When I see pictures on TV of starving and diseased African children, I think that such suffering is necessarily evil.

Me too.

But Job didnt blame God for his own suffering. His own... I am not able to do that.

Peter

Nina

26-01-2008, 01:01 AM

There was an Eldress in Russia: 'Beloved Sufferer - Schemanun Macaria'. When Panagia appeared to her one out of many times, Schemanun Macaria, said: "Why do not you take me with you? I suffered enough and now I have to come with you." Panagia said: "I can not find someone else in the entire world to take your place. Therefore it is not your time, yet."

Robert Hegwood

26-01-2008, 01:15 AM

Dear Peter,

You said that Adam and Eve didn't suffer in the garden. But didn't they? What was the whole episode with the tree of knowledge of good and evil if not an initiation of suffering? If they had not yielded to the temptation and subjected their will to God's will then they would have directly experience the kenosis of surrendering their will to live in that of God...which is a suffering of a paedogogical sort perhaps...yet one which leads to joy. They however chose differently and learned too late via an altogether more awful kind of suffering, did they not?

The thing is I can't escape the fact that Christ's woundedness is from before the foundation of the world. That cannot be without consequence with regard to creation in general and with man in particular who is created in His image.

If you see me suffer it may well be an evil in an of itself. The way in which suffering comes because of the fallenness of the world I would venture to say is almost always evil...but the suffering itself has roots in the woundedness of love. My suffering reveals my heart. It is the mirror of my soul in so many ways. It shows me my own weakness and inadequacy, it shows where my faith is yet weak and struggling, which knowledge may point me either to hope or to despair depending on how the eye of the soul is fixed. If on Christ, then to hope, if elsewhere then to despair. And what happens in your heart when you behold my suffering...whether you enter into it to bind it up it according to your gifts and means, or turn away is the mirror of your own heart...your own recognition of Christ in your neighbor or not.

Look at the icons of the martyrs; in many the key instrument of their suffering is represented, and yet it is a sign of triumph in suffering, triumph in death, like the cross of our Lord...the Cross we hymn as "precious and life giving".

You said, "Humility and Love goes beyond suffering and Death."

No doubt it goes beyond death, transforming it into life. But Love and woundedness are not separate things...suffering in the sense we most commonly experience it is not what the wound was meant to be...it is something turned out of its course...but united to Christ it is set aright.

Consider the prayer of St. Nicholai who endured the horrors and suffering of Dachau, yielded to Christ that suffering was restored to salvic purpose and out of it we learn his prayer, "Bless My Enemies, O Lord" In it we see the final end of suffering, the terrible but great gift that comes by it for the heart given wholely to Christ.

Dear Andreas,

With regard to starving children and other such tragedies. Of course it is evil. But I think...and please correct me if I misspeak...that like so many other things we risk erring if we concentrate on suffering as an abstract condition out there rather than as a personal one. Suffering is the wound of a person...not a herd. And in Christ the suffering of the other is ours as well. How a person suffers what befalls them can be salvic. How we own the wound of our neighbor can be salvic.

Most of us are not yet at a place where we can love the "starving children of Africa", but we can love and help the needy person old or young near to us. We are not asked to love abstractly, not asked to turn the hurt of the world into an abstract judgment on theodicy, but rather we are asked to bind up wounds, to feed, to clothe, to visit, to love to one the Lord puts before us.

So...at least as I see it, to say this or that thing that causes suffering and that suffering is evil misses something important. The starving child starves because no one with the power and resources to feed him does so. It is an instance of failed communion, a place where wound has not met wound, where someone has disowned...and perhaps that someone is us, the wound of our neighbor.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm less inclined to judge and quantify suffering in the abstract, but rather to see each encounter with it in myself or in others as an "icon" if you will of the eternal kenotic woundedness of love. The wounds we bear even if they have come by means in themselves evil are all potentially salvic, and therefore must be met with a certain respect and humility, for in the presence of the wound we are in the presence of Christ.

Andreas Moran

26-01-2008, 10:27 AM

The starving child starves because no one with the power and resources to feed him does so. It is an instance of failed communion, a place where wound has not met wound, where someone has disowned

Which is why it is evil. The martyrs knowingly suffer for Christ. The African children unknowingly suffer as victims. The fact that they doubtless are received in Heaven like the Innocents massacred by Herod does not lessen the evil.

Peter S.

26-01-2008, 05:27 PM

Dear Peter,

Look at the icons of the martyrs; in many the key instrument of their suffering is represented, and yet it is a sign of triumph in suffering, triumph in death, like the cross of our Lord...the Cross we hymn as "precious and life giving".

You said, "Humility and Love goes beyond suffering and Death."

No doubt it goes beyond death, transforming it into life.

It seems that you say God created suffering, how can you sa that? Because of the "woundedness of love" as you call it. That reminds me of people who say they are wounded by love... Kenosis is linked to life, and not death.

Do you think St. Peter when he met Christ outside Rome, in a vision according to the legend, and was told indirectly by Him to die for Love/Christ, and become a martyr, went back to Rome only to die and suffer? That had been a suicide, and an awful act. Because that had been a result of self-love and self-glorification. Suffering for sufferings sake, not for Christs.

Put away philosophical speculations of what life is. Jesus is life. Life eternal. Life is Love. Love is more than suffering. That is the reality behind why Christ was crucified and suffered before the foundations of the world. Because God is also outside of time...

You miss the point why the martyrs are saints.

Peter

Robert Hegwood

26-01-2008, 11:56 PM

It seems that you say God created suffering,

I do not think I am saying this...yet I am not certain exactly what I am saying, except that I see in Scripture that Christ was wounded before the foundations of the world, and that must leave its mark on us who are created in His image. Therefore I see all suffering in relation to that woundedness. What that mean's about suffering, better and wiser souls than myself will have to explain.

Nina

27-01-2008, 02:27 AM

except that I see in Scripture that Christ was wounded before the foundations of the world,

Wow! I never knew this! By 'foundations of the world' do you mean, the creation of the world? If yes, please Robert, can you tell me where does it say that in the Scripture?

Robert Hegwood

27-01-2008, 06:56 AM

The reference is found in Revelation 13:8 which reads in the KJV: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

NKJV: All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

NIV: All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

(latter portion in Greek): ho arnion ho sphazO apo katabolE kosmos

There are other versions that put a different cast on this verse but I don't following their reasoning in translation though their rationale is obvious.

Peter S.

27-01-2008, 09:50 PM

I do not think I am saying this...yet I am not certain exactly what I am saying, except that I see in Scripture that Christ was wounded before the foundations of the world, and that must leave its mark on us who are created in His image. Therefore I see all suffering in relation to that woundedness. What that mean's about suffering, better and wiser souls than myself will have to explain.

Dear Robert,

I m not wiser and better than you but i think the verse in Revelation that speaks about the Lamb that was slain, (not crucified as I said) from the foundation of the world, is about God's Logos who is Jesus. All His virtues and endearnments like his humility (and woundedness, if that is a virtue?), was shown to us by Christ in time. But these virtues existed before time I think, so that explains the verse in Revelation 13:8.

Peter

Owen Jones

28-01-2008, 04:41 PM

There is no valid theory or dogma of suffering, just as there is no Christian dogma per se on evil. The church has never met in council in order to define the meaning of suffering. It has never, to my knowledge, had a council to define the meaning of the Atonement. What the Church does is teach us how to suffer differently than others.

Christ takes a sow's ear and turns it into a silk purse. Prior to that, and according to all of the primitivists today, suffering was proof that you did something bad, either in this life or in a prior life, and therefore you were being punished, or you were being punished for something your parents or your ancestors did (i.e. you are being punished for the sin of Adam). This is the natural human way of looking at things, because we all demand justice. Which is why so many people adore the stupid phrase: what goes around comes around. It is a cheap, easy way of explaining things. Except that it flies in the face of everything that we see and know every day. We know that innocent people suffer all the time, and we know that bad people get away with murder all the time. So, in this world there is no justice. It really gets back to the question of justice. And there is no justice in this world. We can only see justice from the perspective of heavenly realities, which is why the Church focuses our attention away from evil, suffering and death toward heavenly realities. But as people generally become more prosperous, more independent and self-sufficient and more educated, it is harder for them to see this. It is easier for a poor person, or someone who is persecuted, to seek justice in the after-life than on this earth, and to long for a better world in the life to come. Which is why so-called sophisticates love to denounce faith because it is only for poor, dumb, weak people. But proud, strong, independent people do not need it. And yet, we look all around us at the suffering of people who are proud, strong and independent. They suffer from anxiety and take pills. They suffer from narcissism and kill their unborn babies. They suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction and divorce and suicide. Where do we hear of people in Somalia in refugee camps committing mass suicide? No, it is the prosperous, proud, independent, well educated who commit suicide.

so, everyone suffers. Not just poor, starving people in Africa. And Christ says, I suffer for you and you suffer for me and with me. When you suffer, I am with you. And your suffering for me will not remain unnoticed. If you can suffer without being bitter, justice will be done in heaven, and even now, you can join me in heaven. You can be a part of heaven, and a part of me, right now. And I will save you from your bitterness, and you will be a light to the world. You will have a kind of radiance not unlike the light that shone on Mt. Tabor.

This makes no sense of course if measured by worldly standards. What we want to do is wring our hands, and ask why all of this terrible suffering. And we want to go out and do something about it. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a good thing to build hospitals, and to help poor people, and to adopt orphans. Christianity is not stoicism. It does not advocate pacifism in the face of suffering. But it does not advocate activism either. It shows a way of transformation, not just through belief, but through suffering. Which means that a Christianity based just on belief and dogma is a dead Christianity. Without giving up something, there is no true faith. And it is not just material things we cling to that we do not want to give up. It is our pride, our anger, our bitterness, our resentments that we do not want to relinquish. Because by holding on to these things we think we have earned some kind of special entitlement to spiritual benefits. We think, I have suffered terribly, therefore I expect and deserve some kind of special treatment. I have been mistreated and therefore I am a martyr. But the martyric virtues are not automatic. We apply the virtues of martyrs to our lives by giving up all of our hatred against those who have done us wrong, and then, and only then can we become like Christ and enjoy the true benefits of heaven.

RichardWorthington

25-09-2008, 09:29 AM

who did Cain procreate with to continue the human race?

I had been wanting to give my thoughts on the original question which started this thread for some time. Given that the thread has come to a halt, I thought I would post this now (it does also relate to something I will write about Lamech and his two wives in another thread; the link for this will follow when I have written it).

Now reading the first chapters of Genesis as a prophetic book 'of the past' like the book of Revelation 'of the future' (i.e. some history, some non-literal symbolism, on various levels), might produce the following answer as to Cain's wife's identity:

Jesus mentioned "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar" (Matthew 23:35), thereby linking "Zechariah, son of Berechiah" with Abel (perhaps this was an ancient legend too?). Now the account of the murder of this Zechariah is described below (for a discussion of the identity of this Zechariah, see at the end):

Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood above the people, and said to them, "… Because you have forsaken the Lord, He also has forsaken you." So they conspired against him, and at the command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house [temple] of the Lord. Thus Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but killed his son; and as he died, he said, "The Lord look on it, and repay!" (2 Chronicles 24:20-22)

However the accounts of the two murders (of Zechariah and Abel) do share some rather interesting coincidences:

1) Both Zechariah and Abel were killed by their brothers, Joash and Cain respectively (Joash was a foster son of Jehoiada, 2 Chronicles 22:11, and hence a foster-brother to Zechariah)

2) "Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground" (Genesis 4:2), and Zechariah was a shepherd of Israel (being a priest and prophet) and Joash "set his heart on repairing the house of the Lord" (2 Chronicles 24:4), i.e. 'tilled the earth' of the temple. (Does this sound plausible?)

3) "The voice of your brother's [Abel's] blood cries out to Me from the ground" (Gen 4:10), and so too did Zechariah's: "The Lord look on it, and repay!" (see above)

Therefore, making Joash like Cain, would give that this 'Cain' procreated with a certain Jehoaddan (2 Chronicles 25:1).

Richard

Identification of Zechariah:

The traditional Orthodox understanding of "Zechariah son of Berechiah" (based on the apocryphal book Protoevangelium of James) makes this the father of John the Baptist. However, Isaiah 8:2 mentions "Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah" and apparently an ancient Jewish belief makes this the same as "Zechariah the son of Jehoiada" mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22 (see the two blog replies here (http://gottesblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/who-is-zacharias.html#c3150644504458863277) and here (http://gottesblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/who-is-zacharias.html#c1547226808958747826); it is interesting to read the whole blog).

Also the Targum (Jewish Aramaic paraphrase/interpretation) of Lamentations 2:20 states (http://targum.info/meg/tglam.htm), "Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the Temple of the Lord, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the High Priest and faithful prophet in the Temple of the Lord on the Day of Atonement because he told you not to do evil before the Lord?". Significantly, there was a prophet Iddo living before "Zechariah the son of Jehoiada", see 2 Chronicles 12:15; 13:22.

Now the original book of Lamentations was written by Jeremiah, making this Zechariah's death one of the causes of the destruction of Jerusalem (the Targum was obviously written much later, as it mentions "Constantinople, city of wicked Edom", thereby showing what the Jewish author thought of the Christians there!). So there must have been a tradition about "Zechariah the son of Jehoiada" being "Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet" (Zechariah 1:1), even though the book of Zechariah was written by another Zechariah. Perhaps the second Zechariah took the first’s identity as a symbolic gesture.