The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
silk, Latin Orthodox, SheilaFK, DominicanByzCath83, GKChesternut
5551 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 59 guests, and 373 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Portable Icon Screen
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,591
Posts410,992
Members5,551
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Logos - Alexis] #277768
02/09/08 09:47 PM
02/09/08 09:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,325
Hollidaysburg, PA
theophan Offline
Moderator
theophan  Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,325
Hollidaysburg, PA
Quote
And from our Faith we know that Original Sin has somehow entered into humanity by the Fall of our First Parents . . .


Alexis:

Glroy be to Jesus Christ!! Glory be to Him forever and ever!!

It might be that the Eastern theological explanation of what Original Sin is about might fit this discussion and bridge the gaps you seem to see. The East does not go with the Augustinian description that is so common in the West: that our First Parents were perfect and then had a great fall. You might want to search some of the discussions held on this forum earlier for a fuller exposition of this different approach.

In Christ,

BOB

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Logos - Alexis] #277776
02/10/08 12:15 AM
02/10/08 12:15 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Florida
E
Epiphanius Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Epiphanius  Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Florida
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
I am not just going to shut off my brain and not ask questions. I vehemently believe that that is definitely not the answer, and that since I believe Christianity to be true I have nothing to worry about. I am just trying to get a few things straight that I've been wondering about.
Alexis,

I have long found it interesting that acceptance of the certainty of the scientific fact of evolution is regarded almost universally as being a kind of touchstone for academic competency.

For my part, I have made a few observations in my lifetime, which I would like to share. Way back when I was in high school (1967-1971), "Neo-Darwinism" was still in it heyday. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, which is seldom used nowadays, Neo-Darwinism was an attempt to square Darwin's theory with the science of Genetics. It posited that all evolution takes place as the result of genetic mutations, and gave rise to hundreds of experiments that sought in various ways to produce genetic mutations in fruit flies, thereby inducing the evolution of some new species from fruit fly parents. (Fruit flies were chosen because of their extremely simple genetic composition.) A lot of excitement accompanied these experiments back then, because *everybody* seemed sure that the big breakthrough was "just around the corner."

That excitement waned during the 1970's, and some time before 1980 the entire project was abandoned. The scientific community quickly shrugged it off and went on exploring in other areas, but they never attempted to answer the question--why was the search abandoned? No one has tried to say that some kind of genetic change isn't necessary in order to have one species evolve into another, nor has any new theory been promoted to explain how this might be able to take place without genetic mutations. (How can I be so sure about this? Simply because if anybody had done so it would have been all over the news, and commentators would continue to talk about it for years.)

Without this simple key to the puzzle--a key that is now generally dismissed as unnecessary--evolution can be nothing more than a theory. The big question of "what makes one species evolve into another species?" cannot be answered.

Certainly, I will allow that with the technology available today, the same experiments could be done much more carefully and the results measured and evaluated much more accurately than they could in the 1970's. Perhaps someone will try this. My suspicion, however, is that no one will for a very simple reason--there is no need to do so, since acceptance of the certainty of evolution as a scientific fact is now virtually universal. There would be little to gain at this point by trying to find this elusive key, and another failure might be harder to sweep under the rug ...

From this perspective, I see little need to square Genesis with evolution. confused


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Elizabeth Maria] #277777
02/10/08 12:28 AM
02/10/08 12:28 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
T
Theologos Offline
Member
Theologos  Offline
Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Maria
The theory of evolution remains a theory.

If the theory of evolution were in fact a law, then we would have to see apes evolving into men, and they are not, and we have no clear evidence of this for thousands of years.

The only "skeletal remains" recently found in Africa are supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old. Yet even these remains are distinctly not ape like, but uniquely human.

Where are those missing links? Yes, we had some apparent missing links found in skulls until the fraud was discovered. And text books on evolution do not mention those frauds but continue the myth. Yes, the wonderful French Jesuit Teillhard de Chardin manufactured at least two skulls which fooled scientists for many years until his crime was uncovered but barely disclosed to the public.



Elizabeth, even if evolution were a "Law", it still may not hold water. There are many theories that became laws in physics only to be proven wrong by quantum mechanics.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Logos - Alexis] #277778
02/10/08 12:29 AM
02/10/08 12:29 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
T
Theologos Offline
Member
Theologos  Offline
Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution is in fact the case. Then what?

Alexis



Well, I suppose that we shall evolve from our meek and sinful humanity to glorious sons of God through the spiritual evolution of deification.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: theophan] #277779
02/10/08 12:30 AM
02/10/08 12:30 AM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
usa
L
lm Offline
Member
lm  Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
usa
Quote

There is nothing in the Genesis story that is incompatible with evolution.


I''m quite sure this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.


HUMANI GENERIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AUGUST 12, 1950

Quote
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]


My emphasis.

Now if we are simply speaking of the "evolution" of the "human body" there is an interesting conundrum here. When "the" body did not have a human soul, it was not in fact a human body. When God infused in Adam a living soul, it was only then that there was a man. What then is the point of evolution? As far as I know, any evolutionist worth his salt is attempting to show that man, as we know him, came not from God but by chance-- a mere accident.

For a good discussion on evolution, see

http://www.kolbecenter.org/home.html

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Lawrence] #277780
02/10/08 12:32 AM
02/10/08 12:32 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
T
Theologos Offline
Member
Theologos  Offline
Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
Originally Posted by Lawrence

One day in the future we may hear that a team of historians with a mountain of academic credentials, has discovered proof positive that Jesus Christ never existed. When we dispute their findings their will be no shortage of people ready to call us idiots, for daring to contradict people with PHD's from Princeton, Harvard and Oxford.



Even if, granted it won't happen, but even if Jesus was proven not to exist, he in fact did. He is the Word made flesh. So God's Word has entered our world whether it be in a person or as the Gospel. The fact is the Word is among us.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Theologos] #277781
02/10/08 12:33 AM
02/10/08 12:33 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Elizabeth Maria Offline
Orthodox Christian
Elizabeth Maria  Offline
Orthodox Christian
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Isn't it interesting how no one wants to touch the fact that the scholarly Fr. Teillhard de Chardin created two frauds that were pivotal in promoting the myth of evolution?

Last edited by Elizabeth Maria; 02/10/08 12:34 AM.
Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Theologos] #277783
02/10/08 12:39 AM
02/10/08 12:39 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Elizabeth Maria Offline
Orthodox Christian
Elizabeth Maria  Offline
Orthodox Christian
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
This is what the Jesuit priest, Teillard de Chardin was advocating, but weren't his teachings bordering on pelagianism? That we would evolve naturally?

Originally Posted by Theologos
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution is in fact the case. Then what?

Alexis


Well, I suppose that we shall evolve from our meek and sinful humanity to glorious sons of God through the spiritual evolution of deification.




p.s. Forgive my constant edits and please pray that my double vision will be healed. Doctors say there is no cure.

Last edited by Elizabeth Maria; 02/10/08 12:40 AM.
Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Elizabeth Maria] #277785
02/10/08 12:44 AM
02/10/08 12:44 AM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
T
Theologos Offline
Member
Theologos  Offline
Member
T
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 100
PA
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Maria
This is what the Jesuit priest, Teillard de Chardin was advocating, but weren't his teachings bordering on pelagianism? That we would evolve naturally?

Originally Posted by Theologos
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution is in fact the case. Then what?

Alexis


Well, I suppose that we shall evolve from our meek and sinful humanity to glorious sons of God through the spiritual evolution of deification.




p.s. Forgive my constant edits and please pray that my double vision will be healed. Doctors say there is no cure.


I am not following you. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint humanity and that we are still capable of chosing good without Divine aid.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: lm] #277786
02/10/08 12:49 AM
02/10/08 12:49 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Elizabeth Maria Offline
Orthodox Christian
Elizabeth Maria  Offline
Orthodox Christian
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Originally Posted by lm
Quote

There is nothing in the Genesis story that is incompatible with evolution.


I''m quite sure this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.


HUMANI GENERIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AUGUST 12, 1950

Quote
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful[11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]


My emphasis.

Now if we are simply speaking of the "evolution" of the "human body" there is an interesting conundrum here. When "the" body did not have a human soul, it was not in fact a human body. When God infused in Adam a living soul, it was only then that there was a man. What then is the point of evolution? As far as I know, any evolutionist worth his salt is attempting to show that man, as we know him, came not from God but by chance-- a mere accident.

For a good discussion on evolution, see

http://www.kolbecenter.org/home.html


Exactly, and that is why I have stated that if we accept the theory of evolution as occurring naturally, then we must somehow deny God's participation in all those "random" mutations. And how would that ape come to have human cognition, the human desire to live forever, the ability to remember the past and to anticipate the future, and more importantly the experience of the divine life within us without God, Who is the author of Life.

Read C.S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Theologos] #277787
02/10/08 12:50 AM
02/10/08 12:50 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Elizabeth Maria Offline
Orthodox Christian
Elizabeth Maria  Offline
Orthodox Christian
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Originally Posted by Theologos
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Maria
This is what the Jesuit priest, Teillard de Chardin was advocating, but weren't his teachings bordering on pelagianism? That we would evolve naturally?

Originally Posted by Theologos
Originally Posted by Logos - Alexis
Let's just say for arguments sake that evolution is in fact the case. Then what?

Alexis


Well, I suppose that we shall evolve from our meek and sinful humanity to glorious sons of God through the spiritual evolution of deification.




p.s. Forgive my constant edits and please pray that my double vision will be healed. Doctors say there is no cure.


I am not following you. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint humanity and that we are still capable of chosing good without Divine aid.


Pelagianism is the belief that we can get into heaven without Divine Grace. We can do it our way.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Elizabeth Maria] #277788
02/10/08 12:52 AM
02/10/08 12:52 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Elizabeth Maria Offline
Orthodox Christian
Elizabeth Maria  Offline
Orthodox Christian
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
California
Teillhard de Chardin taught that we could evolve naturally into divine beings. Just as apes could evolve naturally into humans. God was not needed in this picture.

And then he created those two fake skulls -- those missing links.

Last edited by Elizabeth Maria; 02/10/08 12:52 AM.
Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Elizabeth Maria] #277793
02/10/08 02:04 AM
02/10/08 02:04 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 994
Las Vegas
dochawk Offline
Member
dochawk  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 994
Las Vegas
I used to have to control myself when one of those goofy sidewalk preachers came through Iowas State. I so very much wanted to point out that he was blaspheming--by insisting that God could only create in the literal description of Genesis, he, the creature, was presuming to limit the Creator and prescribe how the Creator must function.

I'm simply satisfied that God created the world and man, and accept that he did it in whatever manner best suited him. I'm not even all that interested in how he did it. Mildly curious, sure, but there are so many interests so far ahead of that that it treally doesn't get any of my time and attention.

Basically, "His Creation, His Rules" smile

hawk

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: Theologos] #277815
02/10/08 08:51 AM
02/10/08 08:51 AM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476
Philadelphia, PA
Byzantophile Offline
Member
Byzantophile  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476
Philadelphia, PA
Quote
Elizabeth, even if evolution were a "Law", it still may not hold water. There are many theories that became laws in physics only to be proven wrong by quantum mechanics.


Good point. Anyone who has studied a field of science knows that science is not infallible. Science is simply Limited Man's attempt to understand Unlimited God's universe. To think that we can provide all the answers through science is the height of human hubris.

Re: Adam and Eve [Re: dochawk] #277817
02/10/08 10:17 AM
02/10/08 10:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Woodbury Minnesota
lanceg Offline
Member
lanceg  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Woodbury Minnesota
Originally Posted by dochawk
I used to have to control myself when one of those goofy sidewalk preachers came through Iowas State. I so very much wanted to point out that he was blaspheming--by insisting that God could only create in the literal description of Genesis, he, the creature, was presuming to limit the Creator and prescribe how the Creator must function.

I'm simply satisfied that God created the world and man, and accept that he did it in whatever manner best suited him. I'm not even all that interested in how he did it. Mildly curious, sure, but there are so many interests so far ahead of that that it treally doesn't get any of my time and attention.

Basically, "His Creation, His Rules" smile

hawk


Amen!

I think a big problem with some Christians making belief in a literal Adam & Eve on the same par with Orthodox beliefs in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Belief in a literal Adam & Eve is not necessary for Salvation. Conservative Protestants are sometimes guilty of this. It waters down genuine orthodoxy in my view.

Having said that, I do not have a problem with it either. I am open to a literal Adam & Eve, or Theistic evolution, or the possibility of both being true (and that we have a single set of parents- "one blood," as Acts puts it).

The Bible is the word of God, infallible. But its infallibility does not depend on the first 11 chapters of Genesis being literal, objective history in time & space.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2018. All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1
(Release build 20180111)
Page Time: 0.019s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 2.0555 MB (Peak: 2.2820 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-10-21 00:14:56 UTC